|
Post by londonunited on Apr 18, 2008 21:15:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greeny253 on Apr 18, 2008 21:59:20 GMT
There we go
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Apr 18, 2008 23:19:17 GMT
I read this in the sun today. Can't believe this?! A trainee bus! What will happen to the driver and the instructor?
|
|
|
Post by londonunited on Apr 21, 2008 16:50:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2008 17:04:02 GMT
I read this in the sun today. Can't believe this?! A trainee bus! What will happen to the driver and the instructor? It is just more proove that the current safety measures with regard to Double deckers are totally indaquate. Double deckers taking their roofs of is a a regular occurance. It cannot just be blamed on driver error and even i it is it is an avoidable risk. Additional safety measures have to be put in place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2008 23:07:26 GMT
It cannot just be blamed on driver error and even i it is it is an avoidable risk. Additional safety measures have to be put in place. Sorry, but how do you work that one out? It is purely driver error, or in this case driver and instructor error. The bus height is a known quantity, the bridge height is a known quantity and the application of basic mathematics in conjunction with common sense would have avoided this. Road signage is designed with the lowest common denominator (ie, the most stupid people) in mind, so the blame can only be laid at the feet of those on that bus.
|
|
|
Post by john on Apr 21, 2008 23:14:33 GMT
I agree!! If it was a normal learner driver who had caused an accident, then the blame would fall squarely at the instructor. It should be the same in this instance too
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Apr 22, 2008 0:27:52 GMT
I agree. It should be the instructor who should take the flak for this. When learning to drive a bus I did many things that I wasn't suppose to do. I remember training for TVT and I was told to go down a road in new cross that has a 7.7ft width restriction and a normal double deck bus is wider than that. But bus route 343 already goes through this road so I was allowed down there. I did point out to my instructor about the restriction but he laughed and said that he wouldn't send me down a road I couldn't go through. Thats why I believe the instructor should get the blame. Another bad thing with this incident, is that give us nat express drivers a bad name. I say this as an arriva driver who I spoke to told me that the incident was posted in the garage she was in. I told her it was travel west midlands but our learner buses are exactly the same model as west midlands so most will think that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2008 5:14:39 GMT
It cannot just be blamed on driver error and even i it is it is an avoidable risk. Additional safety measures have to be put in place. Sorry, but how do you work that one out? It is purely driver error, or in this case driver and instructor error. The bus height is a known quantity, the bridge height is a known quantity and the application of basic mathematics in conjunction with common sense would have avoided this. Road signage is designed with the lowest common denominator (ie, the most stupid people) in mind, so the blame can only be laid at the feet of those on that bus. First we do not know if it was driver error. Secondly whether driver error or not existing safety measures simply do not work. If they did we would not be having regular bus deroofings and it is a common occurance. What is more worring is the lack of any action by the bus companies who seem to pay ever scany regard to safety and even driving standards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2008 5:16:57 GMT
I agree. It should be the instructor who should take the flak for this. When learning to drive a bus I did many things that I wasn't suppose to do. I remember training for TVT and I was told to go down a road in new cross that has a 7.7ft width restriction and a normal double deck bus is wider than that. But bus route 343 already goes through this road so I was allowed down there. I did point out to my instructor about the restriction but he laughed and said that he wouldn't send me down a road I couldn't go through. Thats why I believe the instructor should get the blame. Another bad thing with this incident, is that give us nat express drivers a bad name. I say this as an arriva driver who I spoke to told me that the incident was posted in the garage she was in. I told her it was travel west midlands but our learner buses are exactly the same model as west midlands so most will think that Technically the Instructor canot be held to account. Regardless of whether a driver is uder instruction or not the driver has full responsibility for the vehickle and compliance with the law etc. A court if it went to court may regard it as mitigating circumstances but thats all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2008 7:34:35 GMT
First we do not know if it was driver error. Secondly whether driver error or not existing safety measures simply do not work. If they did we would not be having regular bus deroofings and it is a common occurance. What is more worring is the lack of any action by the bus companies who seem to pay ever scany regard to safety and even driving standards. I'm struggling to understand why you think it can be anything other than driver error. The bridge is immovable and has been there for years, the bus was - up until the fateful moment - 14 feet 6 inches high and had been ever since it left the MCW factory. It didn't drive itself down the road and the bridge didn't suddenly jump out from behind a tree. Mechanical failure of any kind wouldn't be a contributing factor as the driver had to consciously steer the bus down the road with a low bridge on it, I'd love to see a steering defect that would guide the bus off a 'safe' route, down the road and under the bridge. In any event even if such a defect existed the simple application of brakes followed by the application of a mobile phone call to the engineers would be the likely cause of action... The only variables in the equation were the instructor and the trainee behind the wheel. I'm having some difficulty on what safety measures you regard are 'totally inadequate', also the nebulous 'additional' safety measures you allude to? There's a low bridge near where I live and even after Railtrack installed a device to warn drivers of over tall vehicles to turn back, one lorry ignored the flashing sign and promptly got itself wedged. The vehicle was owned by Railtrack. Oops. It's a fact of life that drivers will ignore road signs or forget to factor in the dimensions of the vehicle they are driving, with the resulting pictures making their way into the papers. It is very difficult to safeguard against momentary stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by john on Apr 22, 2008 10:08:18 GMT
I agree. Trying to blame anything but the instructor/driver in this instance is like trying to say that leaves on the line is not a serious problem for train drivers. Just doesn't work!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2008 5:33:56 GMT
I agree. Trying to blame anything but the instructor/driver in this instance is like trying to say that leaves on the line is not a serious problem for train drivers. Just doesn't work!! You seem to totally fail to understand the issue and take the same head in the sand approach that TfL do. Firstly unless the bus companies are employing a large number of completely incompetent drives it cannot be down totally to driver error because if it were these events would be a rarity. Secondly it is a know safety issue and what you are saying is its ok for buses to keep taking their roof off and potentially killing or injuring passengers as long as the driver can be blamed. Its a known and avoidable risk which means under the duty of care legal obligations means the bus companies should take step to mitigate the risk and to measure the effectiveness of those steps. At present nothing is being done. It can only be a matter of time before a very serious accident occurs with many lives being lost. The bus companies have been lucky to date with only a few casualties but one of these days a fully loaded Double decker will have a bridge strike and no doubt then the bus companies will be forced to take action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2008 7:08:45 GMT
You seem to totally fail to understand the issue and take the same head in the sand approach that TfL do. Hardly. When a driver takes a bus out of the garage, he or she is personally responsible for the safety of that bus. Any road laws that the driver breaks are their sole responsibility. Hitting a bridge generally means being charged with driving without due care/dangerous driving and a trip to court and possible licence/liberty loss. In addition a driver has a very real chance of losing his job as the bus companies don't particularly like too many ad hoc open toppers. Good for hiring out on Derby day, bit crap for service work. Ermm, they are a rarity. How many buses on tfl work in London on any weekday? 8000? How many rounders does each bus do during the day? Say about 10? So 10x8000= 80,000 bus movements? Sound about right? How many bridge strikes per day? I'll wager there are more incidents involving pedestrians walking into lamposts per day compared to buses hitting bridges. You going to call for action to be taken for the safety of pedestrians? No one is saying it is ok for buses to strike bridges, every pcv holder here is acutely aware of the potential loss of livelihood or worse if they do hit a bridge. In addition, the companies don't get away scot-free if one of their vehicles hits a bridge. Quite apart from the free negative publicity in the media (see the Sun link at the top), the excess they have to pay when they make a claim on their insurance policy would make your eyes water. My companys' excess is set at 1/4 of a million. I'll wager any bridge strike incident won't go unnoticed by the traffic commissioner either. They are taking steps. In training it was drummed into me about the dangers of potential bridge strikes, so much so I get that anxious feeling when I go off route. Funnily enough I look out for height restriction warning signs whenever I come across a bridge off route. Also, when you walk into my garage, you can't help but be confronted to a number of safety posters about the dangers of low bridges, a couple of pictures of de-roofed buses push home the point. It is an avoidable risk, the avoidance is the responsibility of the driver and him/her alone. Ok then, indulge me. You keep saying that the bus companies/tfl/anyone else but the bloke steering the bus is responsible: What steps would you introduce to completely eliminate any further bridge strikes?
|
|
|
Post by john on Apr 23, 2008 10:15:38 GMT
I can't see how it's any else's fault but the drivers??? Bob, what you're saying is that if any bus gets de-roofed then it's the bus companies, TfL, DVLA or any other bodies fault other than the drivers??
What you are basically saying is that the buses should work like the railways where if there is an incident it's never the drivers fault but the companies involved, which isn't always the case.
I'm not a driver, so i can't comment on how it feels to be doing a divertion with bridges, but as a driver i know i have a responsibility for people in my car and to be aware of other road users. I'm sorry, but even the police would look at this kind of thing as driver error unless there was a mechanical fault
|
|