Bridge 1:0 Bus
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Accident update
Next: Motorists above the law.
From: v.meldrew on 22 Dec 2009 04:20 On 22 Dec 2009 08:23:18 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcmahon(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much >like they were saying: > >> The error in this case is not realising from the signage that the >> vehicle doesn't fit under the bridge. >> >> This error is mitigated by delivering more warning to the driver that >> his vehicle won't fit under the bridge. > >No, no, no. The error is complete and utter fuckwittery and inattention. >The error can only be mitigated by making an example of enough >inattentive fuckwits that those with the potential for a modicum of clue >actually take the frigging hint and stop using time behind the wheel as >an opportunity for a snooze. > >The only way in which extra information will make a difference is if >there is insufficient information being provided to the driver currently. >And that's already an offence. By that logic, trains shouldn't have AWS because drivers ought to obey the signals at all times.
From: Conor on 22 Dec 2009 06:48 In article <YYadnUrmKNcmva3WnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Denis McMahon says... > The error in this case is not realising from the signage that the > vehicle doesn't fit under the bridge. > > This error is mitigated by delivering more warning to the driver that > his vehicle won't fit under the bridge. > Anything below 16'6" has to be signposted by law. By law, all HGVs and buses etc have to have a height indicator in the cab visible to the driver. How much more warning do you want? > What is the annual cost of overheight vehicle vs bridge accidents > every > year? I have no idea. Factor in rail network delays, the �1000's to get a crane out... > How much would it cost to install some extra > warning at all bridges below some standard height? You mean like the height signs which are a legal requirement? > Again I have no idea. > Likewise I have no idea how much it would cost to maintain such > equipment or systems annually, and so I am in no position to determine > the cost of implementing such systems, nor the potential benefit they > might bring. > > However, I think it's a sum that may be worth doing. > It already is done. -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Cynic on 22 Dec 2009 07:45 On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:16:07 +0000, Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcmahon(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Cynic wrote: > >> I fully agree that it could have been far worse. The fact is that it >> wasn't. The harm done to the children is the result of what actually >> happened, not what might have happened, and is the only thing that *I* >> have been talking about. > >This comment by yourself: > >"I'd be very surprised if the damage caused by that accident to the >children fell outside a range of between zero and insignificant." > >which is what started things off, looked to me as if it was conjecture >rather than a statement of fact! I responded with my own conjecture, >based on the images I'd seen of the bus. No, what started things off was a poster who inferred that the children had suffered serious harm, to which I replied that I'd be surprised if they did. I have always been talking about that specific accident rather than that type of accident in general. The physical injuries are known. The only conjecture possible is regarding possible psychological trauma, which is what I had in mind (and believe the probability to be low). -- Cynic
From: johnwright ""john" on 22 Dec 2009 07:50 James Martin(a)hgvu.com wrote: > I do not like to have voices in my ears when driving Don't use headphones then. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright
From: Cynic on 22 Dec 2009 07:57
On 22 Dec 2009 08:23:18 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcmahon(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much >like they were saying: > >> The error in this case is not realising from the signage that the >> vehicle doesn't fit under the bridge. >> >> This error is mitigated by delivering more warning to the driver that >> his vehicle won't fit under the bridge. > >No, no, no. The error is complete and utter fuckwittery and inattention. >The error can only be mitigated by making an example of enough >inattentive fuckwits that those with the potential for a modicum of clue >actually take the frigging hint and stop using time behind the wheel as >an opportunity for a snooze. I see. You believe that punishment will prevent human error. I suppose the correct thing to do if a person slips on the ice would be to give them a hefty fine for making a mistake. >The only way in which extra information will make a difference is if >there is insufficient information being provided to the driver currently. >And that's already an offence. Why not do a bit of reading on the science of human factors before spouting such bollocks? The subject has been researched *very* well. I take it that you have never used an alarm clock. After all, IYO the clock face has all the information you need to know, so why would you need the same information to be presented in an audible format? -- Cynic |