From: Recliner on 18 Dec 2009 10:22
"collybs" <peter(a)collybs.co.uk> wrote in message
> Driver says that the accident has ruined his life
Interesting that, contrary to what was previously reported, he was using
"I turned right into the road and checked my satnav. It was at this
point the bridge went into my blind spot, then it was too late.
"I didn't see any signs to say there was a low bridge. It was foggy as
To me , this suggests that he was looking at his stanav when he should
have seen the bridge warning sign.
From: Adrian on 18 Dec 2009 10:39
"Recliner" <recliner2-news(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:
> It was at this point the bridge went into my blind spot
Eh? What? Pardon?
From: Roland Perry on 18 Dec 2009 10:35
In message <ua7ni5dr3cssg10jegr1ru1or96loccevg(a)4ax.com>, at 15:19:52 on
Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>I note that the driver states that (a) he was using a satnav and (b)
>it was foggy.
>So maybe I didn't imagine the original news report of the incident
The bus company said they didn't have satnav fitted, so it's maybe a
personal one. There have been no corroborative reports regarding the
From: Cynic on 18 Dec 2009 14:48
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:35:34 GMT, James Martin(a)hgvu.com wrote:
>The man should get at least 10 years jail God only knows what damage
>he has done to those kids lives.
Perhaps God does know. It is quite evident that *you* don't know.
I'd be very surprised if the damage caused by that accident to the
children fell outside a range of between zero and insignificant.
OTOH that may not be what is argued in court if any parent sues the
From: Denis McMahon on 18 Dec 2009 15:35
> I'd be very surprised if the damage caused by that accident to the
> children fell outside a range of between zero and insignificant.
Lots of flying glass on the top deck I imagine, and I doubt it all went
outside the bus.
Not to mention it was a bus, so no seat belts, so even at 10 mph a
fairly rapid deceleration.
I hope the kids in the front row of seats didn't get thrown through the
> OTOH that may not be what is argued in court if any parent sues the
> bus company.
I see that the bus company was very very quick to announce that their
buses are not satnav equipped. Almost too quick, like maybe they gave
him a portable satnav to use for this trip and told him just follow the
satnav, and now they're trying to distance themselves from that.
I guess the satnav was the distraction after he'd crossed the opposite
carriageway at the turning. I think he's disingenuous to claim fog though?
It does seem that the only height warning was the one on the bridge
itself, rather than on posts beside the road (but I haven't seen any
photos of possible signage along the dual carriageway approaching the turn?
1) He's used to driving on routes where he knows his bus fits.
2) He's having to cope with an unusual route in an area he's not
3) He's following a satnav placing blind faith in technology.
4) The satnav is an additional in-cab distraction.
5) There may be an issue relating to how the satnav came to be in the cab?
6) He's either failed to notice the height warning on the bridge
(looking at distractions in cab and / or on road ahead under / past
bridge), or has noticed it and not made the connection / check with his
vehicle height (but see 1, maybe he normally drives under lots of such
signs on his normal routes).
A solution would be for bridges to have "I am blah high" transmitters,
and vehicles to have a receiver that stops the engine if they approach
too close to a bridge that isn't tall enough. Too nanny state for you?