Bridge 1:0 Bus
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Accident update
Next: Motorists above the law.
From: Cynic on 22 Dec 2009 08:13 On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:48:31 -0000, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> 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? No, he said *extra* warning. There is no way that I would want you or Adrian to design any safty-critical system. You both assume that everything will work exactly as it should, including the human operator, and so there is no need to provide any backup system. -- Cynic
From: Adrian on 22 Dec 2009 09:20 Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> 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? > No, he said *extra* warning. > > There is no way that I would want you or Adrian to design any > safty-critical system. You both assume that everything will work > exactly as it should, including the human operator, and so there is no > need to provide any backup system. What's next? A bus driver hits a pedestrian, so you require every pedestrian to carry a big flashing sign saying "I'm a pedestrian" - after all, the poor bus driver can't possibly be expected to look where they're going, can they? They're only human, after all.
From: Denis McMahon on 22 Dec 2009 10:50 Adrian 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 means accepting future collisions between buses full of children and bridges as part of the solution (that being the only way to identify drivers of buses full of children that are predisposed into driving into bridges). I think it's better to try and prevent those collisions occurring, rather than to accept them as a part of the solution. Rgds Denis McMahon
From: Adrian on 22 Dec 2009 11:00 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 means accepting future collisions between buses full of children > and bridges as part of the solution (that being the only way to identify > drivers of buses full of children that are predisposed into driving into > bridges). No, not at all. I'd far rather weed the thoroughly inept out before they drive buses into bridges - or, indeed, into anything else that didn't carry a mandatory neon flashing "Don't drive your bus into me" sign. > I think it's better to try and prevent those collisions occurring, > rather than to accept them as a part of the solution. Sadly but inevitably, that means that the kind of fuckwitted bus driver who would drive a bus into a bridge without said big neon sign is perfectly free to drive the bus into other, un-signposted, stationary objects. After all, if driving a bus into those objects was a bad idea, they'd have big neon signs on them, right?
From: johnwright ""john" on 22 Dec 2009 11:02
Neil Williams wrote: > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:50:41 -0800 (PST), Stephen Furley > <furles(a)mail.croydon.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Speaking as somebody who has never even seen one of these things; what >> information do they present to the driver, and how do they present it? > > Normally they present it in a few ways. Mine (a TomTom One) has:- > > 1. A view of the upcoming road marked with any turnings that are > coming up. Sometimes this is "flat" like a map, and sometimes it is > in 3D so mimics what you're seeing out of the windscreen. It is often > also marked with names of roads. > > 2. In the top right corner, an example of the next "sign" you should > be looking to follow (not the actual sign, but something about the > general direction - e.g. "M6 South".) > > 3. In the bottom left, arrows showing the next turn(s). > > 4. At the bottom, the current time and expected time of arrival. > (This is surprisingly accurate). > > 5. The name and designator (e.g. "A123") of the road you're currently > on. > > There is also (possibly most importantly) a set of voice directions, > such as... > > "Turn right" > "Take the exit" > "Take the motorway" > "Go around the roundabout, second exit" > > These get prefixed with... > > "Ahead" = coming up fairly soon > "...Then" = next direction e.g. "Turn left, then turn right". > "In 100 yards" = pretty obvious :) > (no prefix) = immediately > > The more expensive devices (not mine) will suffix with "onto the A123" > or similar. On most of the Tom Toms you can also display the Northerly direction if that's of any use to you. You can also turn the voice off as well if its a familiar route. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright |