|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 16, 2018 16:56:56 GMT
As in another post, although BBC London article and not just twitter. As I have said would cost millions and do nothing to increase passengers and I would like to know what these innovative designs to the interiors of buses would be. I personally find the noise on the route 98 buses irritating, would hate to have to drive that all day.
Will added noise make London’s buses safer? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45879206
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 16, 2018 17:07:40 GMT
As in another post, although BBC London article and not just twitter. As I have said would cost millions and do nothing to increase passengers and I would like to know what these innovative designs to the interiors of buses would be. I personally find the noise on the route 98 buses irritating, would hate to have to drive that all day.
Will added noise make London’s buses safer? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45879206 Something elee that requires powering .... !!!!
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Oct 16, 2018 18:02:29 GMT
'The aim is for no-one to be injured on, or by, a London bus by 2030' Surely this 'aim' should not have a date to be reached by?! Injury to pedestrians/passengers is something that should be prioritised over anything and be avoided continuously Perhaps it's a badly phrased sentence, but it sounds pathetic. Regarding the 98's audible alerts along Oxford Street, although it can be clearly heard from a distance it's questionable whether it's effective at preventing pedestrians from avoiding danger. To the regular pedestrian it's hard to discern the alert from any other arbitrary noise within the vicinity given the busy and noisy nature of Oxford Street.
|
|
|
Post by Pilot on Oct 16, 2018 18:27:31 GMT
I mean will it hurt? No...
But the aim they have is not gonna work, but of course the politicians must try to sell it to get funds...not to mention how many passengers there are daily falsely putting claims on companies.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 16, 2018 18:38:26 GMT
'The aim is for no-one to be injured on, or by, a London bus by 2030' Surely this 'aim' should not have a date to be reached by?! Injury to pedestrians/passengers is something that should be prioritised over anything and be avoided continuously Perhaps it's a badly phrased sentence, but it sounds pathetic. Regarding the 98's audible alerts along Oxford Street, although it can be clearly heard from a distance it's questionable whether it's effective at preventing pedestrians from avoiding danger. To the regular pedestrian it's hard to discern the alert from any other arbitrary noise within the vicinity given the busy and noisy nature of Oxford Street. Whether it's by 2030 or tomorrow, the aim is simply not achievable - there will always be an instance where someone will unfortunately be hit or killed by a motor vehicle regardless of what type of vehicle it is. It's just pandering to one moron who wants to be the biggest health & safety jobsworth going. Ironic that you can be killed by bicycles and that it's beginning to become a common theme as more cyclists hit the roads with more incidents involving bicycles yet no one is governing their supposed risks. What about motorbikes & mopeds as well?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 16, 2018 19:01:45 GMT
'The aim is for no-one to be injured on, or by, a London bus by 2030' Surely this 'aim' should not have a date to be reached by?! Injury to pedestrians/passengers is something that should be prioritised over anything and be avoided continuously Perhaps it's a badly phrased sentence, but it sounds pathetic. Regarding the 98's audible alerts along Oxford Street, although it can be clearly heard from a distance it's questionable whether it's effective at preventing pedestrians from avoiding danger. To the regular pedestrian it's hard to discern the alert from any other arbitrary noise within the vicinity given the busy and noisy nature of Oxford Street. Surely that should be the aim now? Whether it's achievable or not is another matter. It does sound a bit ridiculous. I'm rather dubious about the benefits of the audible alarm on some buses on the 98, they just like what you would expect on a roadsweeping vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Oct 16, 2018 19:03:25 GMT
'The aim is for no-one to be injured on, or by, a London bus by 2030' Surely this 'aim' should not have a date to be reached by?! Injury to pedestrians/passengers is something that should be prioritised over anything and be avoided continuously Perhaps it's a badly phrased sentence, but it sounds pathetic. Regarding the 98's audible alerts along Oxford Street, although it can be clearly heard from a distance it's questionable whether it's effective at preventing pedestrians from avoiding danger. To the regular pedestrian it's hard to discern the alert from any other arbitrary noise within the vicinity given the busy and noisy nature of Oxford Street. Whether it's by 2030 or tomorrow, the aim is simply not achievable - there will always be an instance where someone will unfortunately be hit or killed by a motor vehicle regardless of what type of vehicle it is. It's just pandering to one moron who wants to be the biggest health & safety jobsworth going. Ironic that you can be killed by bicycles and that it's beginning to become a common theme as more cyclists hit the roads with more incidents involving bicycles yet no one is governing their supposed risks. What about motorbikes & mopeds as well? Well the way things are going, it is perfectly achievable to have zero injuries causes by buses by 2030 - because with all the cuts there won't be any buses left to cause injuries!!!!! Sorry I jest, just fed up with the cuts and those to come.
More seriously the idea of having noise I suspect isn't just the 98 Oxford Street scenario, but electric buses which are near silent so pedestrians can't hear them. The noise would allow pedestrians to hear the buses.
It's always good to have stretching targets, but not unrealistic ones. I don't think zero injuries by 2030 is realistic, no matter what you do to buses or how you 'assist' drivers. As the old saying goes it takes 'two to tango', and I think one of the greatest things that could be done to reduce injuries is education. Education of pedestrians to help them not to do silly things or take stupid risks, that would help reduce the likelihood of injuries. Very sadly you will always get someone not thinking and walking out in front of bus or some such, that's human life, we are not perfect, so I really don't see how you can have zero injuries whatever you do. Having said that taking reasonable actions and precautions is sensible, but you have to look at those actions and precautions as a whole including any downsides and whether alternative actions / precautions may be better.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 16, 2018 19:07:35 GMT
Let's just have someone with a red flag walking in front of every bus.
Life is full of risk. Buses do not operate on their own segregated paths so a zero accident rate is hard to achieve because the actions of others will always impinge. What happens when the emergency brake comes on and someone is climbing or descending the stairs? Or the person driving behind doesn't react quickly enough and ploughs into the back of it? How long before seat belts are specified?
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Oct 16, 2018 19:19:01 GMT
Let's just have someone with a red flag walking in front of every bus. Life is full of risk. Buses do not operate on their own segregated paths so a zero accident rate is hard to achieve because the actions of others will always impinge. What happens when the emergency brake comes on and someone is climbing or descending the stairs? Or the person driving behind doesn't react quickly enough and ploughs into the back of it? How long before seat belts are specified? Indeed life is full of risk. One of the issues is physics, if someone walks out in front of the bus, can the bus stop in time before hitting them. Obviously distance is key, and the bus can brake. Speed also matters in that the slower the bus is travelling the less space it needs to stop. This is part of the justification for 20 mph, but this also has other downsides and is still way too fast to achieve zero injuries. So in a way yes, you are right we back to having someone walk in front with a red flag if we want zero injuries!
Injuries on buses also matter, but I don't think we will see seatbelts, imagine the driver waiting for everyone to belt up before moving off, and waiting for everyone to un belt when leaving the bus. That will really slow up the buses. You also couldn't have anyone standing, that would be too risky, so more buses would be needed if everyone had to be seated.
|
|
|
Post by Pilot on Oct 16, 2018 19:25:44 GMT
Let's just have someone with a red flag walking in front of every bus. Life is full of risk. Buses do not operate on their own segregated paths so a zero accident rate is hard to achieve because the actions of others will always impinge. What happens when the emergency brake comes on and someone is climbing or descending the stairs? Or the person driving behind doesn't react quickly enough and ploughs into the back of it? How long before seat belts are specified? Indeed life is full of risk. One of the issues is physics, if someone walks out in front of the bus, can the bus stop in time before hitting them. Obviously distance is key, and the bus can brake. Speed also matters in that the slower the bus is travelling the less space it needs to stop. This is part of the justification for 20 mph, but this also has other downsides and is still way too fast to achieve zero injuries. So in a way yes, you are right we back to having someone walk in front with a red flag if we want zero injuries!
Injuries on buses also matter, but I don't think we will see seatbelts, imagine the driver waiting for everyone to belt up before moving off, and waiting for everyone to un belt when leaving the bus. That will really slow up the buses. You also couldn't have anyone standing, that would be too risky, so more buses would be needed if everyone had to be seated.
Need the roller coaster type of bar things that slide up and down ya know, but automated so when doors open all of them lift up.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Oct 16, 2018 19:29:45 GMT
Indeed life is full of risk. One of the issues is physics, if someone walks out in front of the bus, can the bus stop in time before hitting them. Obviously distance is key, and the bus can brake. Speed also matters in that the slower the bus is travelling the less space it needs to stop. This is part of the justification for 20 mph, but this also has other downsides and is still way too fast to achieve zero injuries. So in a way yes, you are right we back to having someone walk in front with a red flag if we want zero injuries!
Injuries on buses also matter, but I don't think we will see seatbelts, imagine the driver waiting for everyone to belt up before moving off, and waiting for everyone to un belt when leaving the bus. That will really slow up the buses. You also couldn't have anyone standing, that would be too risky, so more buses would be needed if everyone had to be seated.
Need the roller coaster type of bar things that slide up and down ya know, but automated so when doors open all of them lift up. I like it We are having a laugh and it has put a smile on my face after a difficult day...thanks
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 16, 2018 20:17:30 GMT
Let's just have someone with a red flag walking in front of every bus. Life is full of risk. Buses do not operate on their own segregated paths so a zero accident rate is hard to achieve because the actions of others will always impinge. What happens when the emergency brake comes on and someone is climbing or descending the stairs? Or the person driving behind doesn't react quickly enough and ploughs into the back of it? How long before seat belts are specified? Well precisely. This whole "buses are unsafe and are murdering countless people" mantra from the Green Party and other campaigners is doing no one any favours. The accusations that I've seen on social media and elsewhere are borderline libelous against certain individuals. I am surprised they've not sued. Once you start down the path of accepting buses are fundamentally unsafe (as some assert) there will be no end to this rubbish until there are no buses running. I actually think that is what some of the more extreme campaigners want - the abolition of buses in vast areas of London. I don't believe any local bus company or its staff ever set out to harm or injure anyone. The Mayor's "zero" target is nonsense as is the timescale. You cannot legislate for the range of human conditions and emotions. Is everyone going to be required to have a full health check before they're allowed on a bus in case they might slip, trip, lose their balance and somehow injure themselves? "Sorry no old, infirm or unwell people on this bus. Young, fit and healthy people only". These latest equipment based moves are pointless. They don't stop incidents. They are just an attempt to load more responsibility on to operators and leave pedestrians lost under their headphones or gawping into their smartphones to take even less responsibility for paying no attention as to where they are or what they are doing. The changes to vehicle specs will cause a cost crisis on the bus network - mark my words! Give it 2-3 years and then "boom" - contract price crisis.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Oct 16, 2018 21:16:41 GMT
'The aim is for no-one to be injured on, or by, a London bus by 2030' Surely this 'aim' should not have a date to be reached by?! Injury to pedestrians/passengers is something that should be prioritised over anything and be avoided continuously Perhaps it's a badly phrased sentence, but it sounds pathetic. Regarding the 98's audible alerts along Oxford Street, although it can be clearly heard from a distance it's questionable whether it's effective at preventing pedestrians from avoiding danger. To the regular pedestrian it's hard to discern the alert from any other arbitrary noise within the vicinity given the busy and noisy nature of Oxford Street. I'm rather dubious about the benefits of the audible alarm on some buses on the 98, they just like what you would expect on a roadsweeping vehicle. Human nature generally makes it very difficult for any form of safety measure to prevent casualties in this situation. However, relatively speaking perhaps what would be more effective than the audible alert used on the 98 is the tram-like bell sound used on buses in Paris, an alert controlled by the driver in justified situations as opposed to a continuous noise. It can be argued that this isn't too dissimilar from a regular horn, however it wouldn't be as irritating as the continuous alert if used sensibly and within reason.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Oct 17, 2018 8:10:22 GMT
I'm rather dubious about the benefits of the audible alarm on some buses on the 98, they just like what you would expect on a roadsweeping vehicle. Human nature generally makes it very difficult for any form of safety measure to prevent casualties in this situation.
However, relatively speaking perhaps what would be more effective than the audible alert used on the 98 is the tram-like bell sound used on buses in Paris, an alert controlled by the driver in justified situations as opposed to a continuous noise. It can be argued that this isn't too dissimilar from a regular horn, however it wouldn't be as irritating as the continuous alert if used sensibly and within reason. I've said this before, any system can be designed to do anything, within reason, but you can't "engineer/design/programme" in the human factor. Maybe we should start teaching EVERYONE the kerb drill/green cross code. People should start looking out for themselves instead of always looking for a technical answer, mobile phone junkies especially(rant over)
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 22, 2018 22:17:57 GMT
Let's just have someone with a red flag walking in front of every bus. Life is full of risk. Buses do not operate on their own segregated paths so a zero accident rate is hard to achieve because the actions of others will always impinge. What happens when the emergency brake comes on and someone is climbing or descending the stairs? Or the person driving behind doesn't react quickly enough and ploughs into the back of it? How long before seat belts are specified? Fully agree, because we would get this adaptive braking slam on if someone runs in front of the bus then end up with injuries on board the bus which is one of the biggest costs to bus operators at the moment. People would be claiming left, right & centre. What next, ban on standing passengers on buses? Before buses in London was the envy of the country, now they are the laughing stock of the country.
|
|