|
Post by snoggle on Jan 31, 2017 0:04:41 GMT
Looks like the media and Assembly members have now caught up with this issue. Tweets and press releases flying around. It's ludicrous really. A look at the DVSA website shows that recalls are common on all sorts of buses and other vehicles. All sense of proportion - from both sides - goes out of the (non-opening) window where NRMs are involved. Well yes. I fear that the Transport Cttee this week, which is discussing "bus safety", will descend into utter farce. It's clear the recall issue is going to be raised and will no doubt turn into a grandstanding effort by the AM concerned. The expectations from politicians are not far removed from la la land. The Mayor has set himself up for an almighty fall by aligning himself with a zero incident policy which simply cannot be met unless you stop running buses in London. The "logic" being employed is that bus drivers, bus companies and TfL are all equally culpable for every death and injury on a bus regardless of the actual cause. Yes there are some serious accidents where the bus is genuinely at fault but I believe this is a minority of all incidents. There is no public recognition that sometimes road users pay no attention or take risks or make mistakes which then cause accidents involving buses. The ridiculous cultivation of Mr Kearney's concerns into policy and legislative demands [1] risks making buses inoperable and burdening operators with reporting and investigative burdens that are disproportionate. That translates into extra cost which is then reflected in tender prices which then reduces TfL's ability to run an affordable network. There is no apparent recognition that there are costs involved here for the operators and that if you make buses less attractive you shove people onto modes with worse safety records. I don't see how that helps anyone when you look at "safety" for road users in the round. [1] he's been lobbying Baronness Jones to amend the Buses Bill to force all bus operators in England to be lumbered with TfL-esque reporting requirements.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 31, 2017 12:11:23 GMT
How about the affected LTs are recalled and permanently replaced by other conventional bus types, that sounds like an attractive proposition
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Jan 31, 2017 12:54:27 GMT
How about the affected LTs are recalled and permanently replaced by other conventional bus types, that sounds like an attractive proposition Or partially replaced by the ones coming to the ELT so that can keep its conventional buses 🙄 (I know I'm clutching at straws now)
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Jan 31, 2017 14:18:16 GMT
How about the affected LTs are recalled and permanently replaced by other conventional bus types, that sounds like an attractive proposition Or partially replaced by the ones coming to the ELT so that can keep its conventional buses 🙄 (I know I'm clutching at straws now) Clutch harder then!
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Jan 31, 2017 22:33:40 GMT
I haven't really thought about this properly but it says 423 with the issue. If it was only the plug door versions that would include our 8xx @ SF & the 21s batch and even then that wouldn't make 423 of them, so the swing door versions must have this problem aswell as I experienced last week with LT499.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Feb 1, 2017 1:01:53 GMT
It's ludicrous really. A look at the DVSA website shows that recalls are common on all sorts of buses and other vehicles. All sense of proportion - from both sides - goes out of the (non-opening) window where NRMs are involved. Well yes. I fear that the Transport Cttee this week, which is discussing "bus safety", will descend into utter farce. It's clear the recall issue is going to be raised and will no doubt turn into a grandstanding effort by the AM concerned. The expectations from politicians are not far removed from la la land. The Mayor has set himself up for an almighty fall by aligning himself with a zero incident policy which simply cannot be met unless you stop running buses in London. The "logic" being employed is that bus drivers, bus companies and TfL are all equally culpable for every death and injury on a bus regardless of the actual cause. Yes there are some serious accidents where the bus is genuinely at fault but I believe this is a minority of all incidents. There is no public recognition that sometimes road users pay no attention or take risks or make mistakes which then cause accidents involving buses. The ridiculous cultivation of Mr Kearney's concerns into policy and legislative demands [1] risks making buses inoperable and burdening operators with reporting and investigative burdens that are disproportionate. That translates into extra cost which is then reflected in tender prices which then reduces TfL's ability to run an affordable network. There is no apparent recognition that there are costs involved here for the operators and that if you make buses less attractive you shove people onto modes with worse safety records. I don't see how that helps anyone when you look at "safety" for road users in the round. [1] he's been lobbying Baronness Jones to amend the Buses Bill to force all bus operators in England to be lumbered with TfL-esque reporting requirements. That guy is such an annoying bell head. I understand what happened to him, but he is taking things too far. I could understand if the bus mounted the kerb, but it didn't. When I was growing up I was always told to stay well away from the kerb for obvious reasons. Best to be safe than sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Feb 1, 2017 4:30:34 GMT
Seen this fault with another bus type over the years and there has never been any modifications. But due to being the LT it gets witch-hunted. I've been on a couple of Gemini 1 WVLs where the rear doors reopened after the driver moved off when the doors hadn't finished closing fully (although it was only a very tiny bit left at that point and the brakes had released). When the doors reopened, the loud alarm went off in the cab, but the brakes didn't appear to apply automatically. The old Nimbuses at TF could move off when the rear doors were still open, and I believe it did cause a death in May 2012 (can't seem to find anything online about it now).
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Feb 1, 2017 11:25:10 GMT
The Caetanos bodied Darts* that were at QB back from the late 90s/early 00s could be driven with the rear doors open but where they would automatically shut once the bus goes over 3 miles an hour. The early WVL's centre doors I found a nuisance where if you start closing those plug-in doors and need to reopen them they couldnt do so until they have fully closed first. The only way to prevent that is too physically block it by the sensors. Not sure nowadays whether the driver can stop it from closing from the dash.
* - T and V reg examples ordered for the 42, 156 and 344
|
|
|
Post by Danny on Feb 3, 2017 12:15:39 GMT
Seen this fault with another bus type over the years and there has never been any modifications. But due to being the LT it gets witch-hunted. I've been on a couple of Gemini 1 WVLs where the rear doors reopened after the driver moved off when the doors hadn't finished closing fully (although it was only a very tiny bit left at that point and the brakes had released). When the doors reopened, the loud alarm went off in the cab, but the brakes didn't appear to apply automatically. The old Nimbuses at TF could move off when the rear doors were still open, and I believe it did cause a death in May 2012 (can't seem to find anything online about it now). I nearly tripped over few years ago on a Nimbus on the 407 when the bus started moving when I was getting off.
|
|
|
Post by ohdear on Feb 4, 2017 0:25:27 GMT
Things are not getting better for Wrightbus - more recalls
25/01/2017 R/2017/023 WRIGHTBUS Streetvibe, Streetlite & Streetdeck parking brake can be released before full air pressure is achieved A9NSRVXX17360018 SA9NSRVXX17360029 01/10/2010 31/01/2017
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 4, 2017 0:59:44 GMT
Things are not getting better for Wrightbus - more recalls 25/01/2017 R/2017/023 WRIGHTBUS Streetvibe, Streetlite & Streetdeck parking brake can be released before full air pressure is achieved A9NSRVXX17360018 SA9NSRVXX17360029 01/10/2010 31/01/2017 Didn't someone say that recalls are quite common with vehicles?
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Feb 4, 2017 15:54:23 GMT
Things are not getting better for Wrightbus - more recalls 25/01/2017 R/2017/023 WRIGHTBUS Streetvibe, Streetlite & Streetdeck parking brake can be released before full air pressure is achieved A9NSRVXX17360018 SA9NSRVXX17360029 01/10/2010 31/01/2017 Didn't someone say that recalls are quite common with vehicles? Yes but this isn't going to make the news as it isn't an LT.
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Feb 4, 2017 19:06:19 GMT
The saying 'One door closes, another opens' used to apply to seeking employment, until this debacle started
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Feb 14, 2017 13:21:53 GMT
Just sitting in the canteen now and it turns out that @ SF it was the swing door buses that had this issue not the sliding door ones.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 8, 2017 16:28:27 GMT
A Mayor's Answer explaining the recent door related recall.
|
|