Bridge 1:0 Bus
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Accident update
Next: Motorists above the law.
From: Conor on 22 Dec 2009 14:18 In article <dr12j5h3g9bb0loho6e0khu40u979ul7nf(a)4ax.com>, Cynic says... > I would only want to see practical ideas implemented that have an > acceptable cost/reward ratio. Such as putting signs on bridges and signs in the vehicle cab... -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Ian Dalziel on 22 Dec 2009 14:26 On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:23:48 +0000, johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote: >Ian Dalziel wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:16:06 +0000, johnwright <""john\"@no spam >> here.com"> wrote: >> >>> S wrote: >>>> On Dec 13, 1:58 pm, Ray Keattch <r.keattch5...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>> mike scott wrote: >>>>>> alexander.keys1 wrote: >>>>>>> On 11 Dec, 20:09, Chris Tolley <cj.tol...(a)bogus.co.uk (ukonline >>>>>>> really)> wrote: >>>>>>> "A double-decker bus carrying children on a school trip has had >>>>>>>> its roof torn off after crashing into a bridge in Leicester. >>>>>> .... >>>>>>> height marked in the cab? Those that I've seen do. What happened? >>>>>> Satnav in use? >>>>> Why satnav? >>>> Satnav has the effect of turning the driver's brain off, so lorries go >>>> down narrow country lanes clearly marked as unsuitable for them and >>>> get stuck, because that's the shortest route the satnav finds. >>> Very true. The Tom Tom I use when coming from a particular direction >>> tries to send me home via a farm track that is only in use by tractors >>> and people like me walking dogs. No sane person would ever take anything >>> short of a tractor down that track. >> >> Presumably you are posting from your vehicle stuck on a farm track, >> then? > >Not at all. > >> Otherwise it isn't very true at all, is it? > >Its very true. As I well know you don't go that way. What makes you >think I do? But... but... it has the effect of turning your brain off, doesn't it? Switch off your satnav to re-engage your brain, then re-read what you are agreeing with. -- Ian D
From: Cynic on 22 Dec 2009 15:03 On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:18:43 -0000, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >In article <dr12j5h3g9bb0loho6e0khu40u979ul7nf(a)4ax.com>, Cynic says... > >> I would only want to see practical ideas implemented that have an >> acceptable cost/reward ratio. > >Such as putting signs on bridges and signs in the vehicle cab... That's the *primary* system to avoid contact between bus and bridge. Maybe you have heard of the concept of having *backup* systems? Or do you just cross your fingers and hope that the primary system never fails? -- Cynic
From: Adrian on 22 Dec 2009 15:04 Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > In that case are you opposed to the plethora of warning hooters in > passenger aircraft cockpits? After all, the pilot has a map that tells > him how high the mountain is and an altimeter that tells him how high > the aircraft is, so it is just as easy for him to work out if he will > get over it as it is for the lorry driver to know whether he will get > under the bridge. Yet you will find a terrain clearance system that > operates as a last resort warning if the pilot screws up. Same applies > to undercarriage warnings, stall warnings, engine overspeed warnings, > door unlatch warnings etc. etc. There's a rather big difference between installing a warning device in the plane and installing a warning device on every single mountain...
From: Adrian on 22 Dec 2009 15:05
Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> I would only want to see practical ideas implemented that have an >>> acceptable cost/reward ratio. >>Such as putting signs on bridges and signs in the vehicle cab... > That's the *primary* system to avoid contact between bus and bridge. > Maybe you have heard of the concept of having *backup* systems? Or do > you just cross your fingers and hope that the primary system never > fails? No, the primary system is the driver's eyes. |