Bridge 1:0 Bus
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Accident update
Next: Motorists above the law.
From: Cynic on 22 Dec 2009 15:15 On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:18:02 -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. >You assume people will take notice of some fancy system with >illustrative graphic displays... The system under discussion was a gantry with a hanging board or chain. Nothing fancy or complex, just a simple, cheap, low maintainance backup in case the primary system fails. Over the last weekend I drove past several information, warning and regulatory signs that had failed completely. I'm sure you must have driven your lorry on many occasions past signs that were completely obscured by foliage, graffitti, damage or (as I came across frequently last weekend), snow or ice. -- Cynic
From: Mr X on 22 Dec 2009 15:35 "Cynic" <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:9m82j5tebgrksl6qss6qnaops06d9niqtl(a)4ax.com... > On 22 Dec 2009 18:09:32 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>No, I believe that people should be intelligent enough to look at the >>>>pavement and think "Ooh, it's icy - I'd better be careful" - rather than >>>>considering spending large amounts of money spent on electrically >>>>heating the pavements to prevent them ever getting icy. > >>> I see. So presumably you are completely opposed to the huge amount of >>> money we spend on gritting the roads every year. We should instead >>> simply laugh at all the smashed up vehicles whose drivers were obviously >>> too stupid to realise that the roads were slippery. > >>Where did I say that sensible precautions weren't required? I'd have said >>a compulsory sign in front of every low bridge and a compulsory notice in >>the cab of every tall vehicle were such sensible precautions. > > As are hanging chains on the approach. > Which could shatter the windows of the bus.
From: Ivor Jones on 22 Dec 2009 16:50 On 21/12/09 17:37, Conor wrote: > In article<7p96b1Fr2dU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Peter Beale says... >> >> Conor wrote: >>> In article<7p73pkF9lvU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Ivor Jones says... >>> >>>> Those well publicised cases where satnavs have taken lorry drivers along >>>> narrow country lanes etc. are due entirely to the failure of the driver >>>> to program them correctly. >>>> >>> Is the wrong answer.... >>> >> >>> You cannot "set them properly" for a lorry or a bus. Even the supposed >>> dedicated HGV ones aren't much cop. For example, there's far more than >>> 1500 low bridges but only Network Rail has a database the mappers can >>> accesss. Local authorities seem to not know. >>> >> But every low bridge is clearly marked with the height, both at the >> bridge itself and on approaching roads, in time for an alternative route >> to be taken. Is it not the responsibility of the driver to note those >> and take action, whatever his satnav may tell him? >> > The poster who I replied to said that there were ones which calculated > HGV routes if you put in that it was a lorry. That is nonsense. I said nothing of the sort. I said my unit has different settings for cars & buses/HGV's. I never said it was guaranteed to avoid all low bridges, but I have tested it and it does avoid some. But as said above it is of course the driver's responsibility. However if they program their units correctly it would make a difference. Ivor
From: Cynic on 23 Dec 2009 10:13 On 23 Dec 2009 13:18:38 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>There's a rather big difference between installing a warning device in >>>the plane and installing a warning device on every single mountain... > >> Next time you see a tall aerial mast, look at the top of it. You will >> note that it has a flashing red beacon. Guess why that's there. >> >> And those are fitted to *every* tall mast. > >Aerials are difficult to see. >Mountains are easy to see. > >Can you guess which end of that spectrum bridges fall under? The height of a bridge is just as easy to see as the minimum sector safe altitude on an aeronautical chart. -- Cynic
From: Cynic on 23 Dec 2009 10:18
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:18:28 -0000, "Mr X" <invalid(a)invalid.com> wrote: >>>> As are hanging chains on the approach. >>>Which could shatter the windows of the bus. >> Which is preferable to shearing off the whole roof. >Is it? >No one was hurt in this accident but they could well be hurt by shards of >glass and a huge great big chain breaking through the windows! Come off it! Do you really think that the bridge didn't break more windows than a chain would have done? But in any case, it would be trivial to fabricate a very similar system that would *not* be likely to break the window. I should also think that bus windows are not made from a type of glass that shatters into dangerous shards, but is more likely to be the type that shatters into blunt granuals. -- Cynic |