| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Another squashed bus
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7528024.stm for info and picture. In Old Oak Common Lane. MaxB |
Another squashed bus
On 28 Jul, 09:04, "Batman55" wrote:
Seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7528024.stmfor info and picture. In Old Oak Common Lane. MaxB Where the hell do they find these idiots to drive them? B2003 |
Another squashed bus
wrote in message ... On 28 Jul, 09:04, "Batman55" wrote: Seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7528024.stmfor info and picture. In Old Oak Common Lane. MaxB Where the hell do they find these idiots to drive them? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Poland. |
Another squashed bus
On 28 Jul, 09:04, "Batman55" wrote:
Seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7528024.stmfor info and picture. In Old Oak Common Lane. MaxB When are they going to ban these monstrosities? |
Another squashed bus
Paul Weaver wrote:
On 28 Jul, 09:04, "Batman55" wrote: Seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7528024.stmfor info and picture. In Old Oak Common Lane. MaxB When are they going to ban these monstrosities? What do you regard as monstrous? A double-decker bus? A low railway bridge? A careless driver? -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Another squashed bus
Richard J. wrote:
Paul Weaver wrote: On 28 Jul, 09:04, "Batman55" wrote: Seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7528024.stmfor info and picture. In Old Oak Common Lane. MaxB When are they going to ban these monstrosities? What do you regard as monstrous? A double-decker bus? A low railway bridge? A careless driver? Perhaps he's suggestion that if we replaced double deckers with articulated buses we'd have no such issues? Jim |
Another squashed bus
On Jul 28, 4:43*pm, "J. Chisholm" wrote:
Richard J. wrote: Paul Weaver wrote: On 28 Jul, 09:04, "Batman55" wrote: Seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7528024.stmforinfo and picture. In Old Oak Common Lane. MaxB When are they going to ban these monstrosities? What do you regard as monstrous? *A double-decker bus? A low railway bridge? A careless driver? Perhaps he's suggestion that if we replaced double deckers with articulated buses we'd have no such issues? Jim If Boris gets his way, this'll become more common. Were there more or less accidents of this type years ago? Or is it some secret government policy to rid us of the top deck-dwelling chavs? Neill |
Another squashed bus
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:43:06 +0100, "J. Chisholm"
wrote: Perhaps he's suggestion that if we replaced double deckers with articulated buses we'd have no such issues? We probably wouldn't. But more sensible might be to require buses to be constructed to be reasonably solid so that the top wouldn't be sliced off quite like that. Of course, those sitting at the front wouldn't have much fun quite simply because of the energies involved in such a collision, but there's no reason why the entire top deck should collapse like that in any properly-designed vehicle. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Another squashed bus
|
Another squashed bus
On 28 Jul 2008 19:33:58 GMT, Adrian wrote:
Umm, you'd prefer the bridge took more damage? I'd prefer less damage was done to any passengers. I think this one was fortunate because it was a rail replacement service, which people tend to avoid if there's any other option so it probably had three passengers and a dog on board. Whatever happens, the front few rows of passengers aren't going to be laughing and joking about it. If the top of the roof collapses progressively, instead of just sliding back, then it's going to come down as well as up. Oh, and they're chewing bridge, of course. As opposed to that bus, where (if there were any) passengers throughout the top deck would have had their heads knocked off? So the only real question is what happens further back on the top deck. Look at the photo - there's no risk (other than by flying glass) to anybody else on that deck from the roof sliding backwards - because it's remained at fundamentally the same level. Yes, it's dropped down slightly, as it's cantilevered backwards on the pillars, but that's not going to do TOO much harm. It's dropped down by the whole height of the main pane of the windows. If I was in a bus involved in such a collision and hadn't seen what was coming and ducked, it'd certainly have taken my head off. A more rigidly constructed bus might have flattened the front quarter of the top deck, but decelerated more quickly (more resistance from a stronger body) and not flattened the back bit at all. So - you reinforce the window pillars upstairs. A LOT. They're going to have to transmit the forces backwards, else they'll just bend again, so they'll have to be angled. That's going to put a LOT of force into the rest of the bus structure, and almost certainly do significantly more damage to the rest of the bus. I'd imagine it's fairly straightforward to re-roof something such as that - but an impact of that force through a structure designed to spread the forces and hold the roof on would very probably write the entire body off. It is conventional that road vehicles should themselves be damaged in preference to their passengers. Think crumple-zones. The cost of the damage is hardly relevant to the issue - that's what you have insurance for. (If the bus companies are self-insuring, that's their own choice). That bus appears to be an older, turn-of-the-century design, with ribbon glazing and almost no pillars. Would a more modern rounded-window design with gasket windows and wider pillars (where the windows don't contribute as much to the structural strength) have perhaps done better? Alternatively, perhaps the drivers could consider looking where the **** they were going? I mean, it's not as if there isn't already a legislated requirement for the vehicle height to be clearly marked in the driver's view, and for low bridges to carry height warnings... This is true, but it's not a reason not to make vehicles more crashworthy. On the railway, the Pendolino that got smashed at 110 at Greyrigg showed just how good modern railway body design is - it survived pretty much intact and was only written off (as I recall) because of damage to equipment, not because of deformed bodyshells. Some of that could be applied to the bus and coach industry, surely? It doesn't need to be *as* good because, in Central London or any other city, the maximum closing speed is going to be 60mph or so, not 250mph, but it could be a lot better. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Another squashed bus
|
Another squashed bus
On 28 Jul, 20:33, Adrian wrote:
So - you reinforce the window pillars upstairs. A LOT. They're going to have to transmit the forces backwards, else they'll just bend again, so Probably a better idea would be reinforce the pillars so they bend but don't snap but make the place where they join the roof fairly weak so the roof effectively slides off over the top of them. The roof being shoved back dissappates the energy but the reinforced pillars stop it squashing the passengers. B2003 |
Another squashed bus
|
Another squashed bus
"Adrian" wrote in message ... gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: So - you reinforce the window pillars upstairs. A LOT. They're going to have to transmit the forces backwards, else they'll just bend again, so Probably a better idea would be reinforce the pillars so they bend but don't snap but make the place where they join the roof fairly weak so the roof effectively slides off over the top of them. The roof being shoved back dissappates the energy but the reinforced pillars stop it squashing the passengers. No, it'd just be uncontrolled then. Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline pilots "Pull up, Pull up"! MaxB |
Another squashed bus
"Batman55" gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline pilots "Pull up, Pull up"! P'raps. A good low-tech alternative would be to put the height visible on both bridge and bus. It'd be utterly reliable, too. D'you think it'd catch on? |
Another squashed bus
On 29 Jul 2008 19:44:55 GMT, Adrian wrote:
Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline pilots "Pull up, Pull up"! P'raps. A good low-tech alternative would be to put the height visible on both bridge and bus. It'd be utterly reliable, too. D'you think it'd catch on? Evidently it's not utterly reliable. |
Another squashed bus
asdf gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline pilots "Pull up, Pull up"! P'raps. A good low-tech alternative would be to put the height visible on both bridge and bus. It'd be utterly reliable, too. D'you think it'd catch on? Evidently it's not utterly reliable. By "utterly reliable", I mean "it won't break". The technology didn't, it seems, break. It worked. The failure lay in the one part of the system that can't easily be upgraded, redesigned or replaced - the wetware. |
Another squashed bus
On 28 Jul, 13:08, "Richard J." wrote:
Paul Weaver wrote: On 28 Jul, 09:04, "Batman55" wrote: Seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7528024.stmforinfo and picture. In Old Oak Common Lane. MaxB When are they going to ban these monstrosities? What do you regard as monstrous? *A double-decker bus? A low railway bridge? A careless driver? Careless? Dangerous more like. A PSV driver that doesn't know the height of his own vehicle, (ignoring the face she doesn't know the correct route?) At the very least he'll be fired , but should be ending up in court. |
Another squashed bus
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:04:59 +0100, "Batman55"
wrote this gibberish: See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7528024.stm for info and picture. In Old Oak Common Lane. MaxB The last time I was on a very crowded bus and ended up traveling right by the driver there was some kind of audible device that gave repeated warnings about low bridges in nearby roads, damn good idea I thought (but also probably irritating), are these not a standard thing on London Busses? Also was the bus lost? It was on a rail replacement service and wasn't the first of the day (having hit the bridge late in the day), what measures are in place to indicate the route to drivers in such situations? is it just the temporary plastic signs strapped to sign posts? -- Mark Varley www.MarkVarleyPhoto.co.uk www.TwistedPhotography.co.uk London, England. |
Another squashed bus
|
Another squashed bus
On Jul 29, 10:05 pm, Paul Weaver wrote:
Careless? Dangerous more like. A PSV driver that doesn't know the height of his own vehicle, (ignoring the face she doesn't know the correct route?) She? Was it a woman? Would explain a lot ;) B2003 |
Another squashed bus
On Jul 29, 8:20 pm, "Batman55" wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message ... gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: So - you reinforce the window pillars upstairs. A LOT. They're going to have to transmit the forces backwards, else they'll just bend again, so Probably a better idea would be reinforce the pillars so they bend but don't snap but make the place where they join the roof fairly weak so the roof effectively slides off over the top of them. The roof being shoved back dissappates the energy but the reinforced pillars stop it squashing the passengers. No, it'd just be uncontrolled then. Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline pilots "Pull up, Pull up"! That seems like a good idea to me. Just have some bleeper which gets more and more urgent and if the computer thinks the bus is going to strike the bridge then it slams on the breaks. The technology exists to do it. B2003 |
Another squashed bus
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 01:36:45 on Wed, 30 Jul 2008, remarked: Just have some bleeper which gets more and more urgent and if the computer thinks the bus is going to strike the bridge then it slams on the breaks. The technology exists to do it. "just" Hmm... Given that many bridges have very little clearance under them, how will this device tell from sufficiently far away whether the bridge is six inches too low, or six inches higher than required? Because it has a GPS and a gazetteer of low bridges? |
Another squashed bus
In message , at 11:05:15 on Wed,
30 Jul 2008, John Rowland remarked: Just have some bleeper which gets more and more urgent and if the computer thinks the bus is going to strike the bridge then it slams on the breaks. The technology exists to do it. "just" Hmm... Given that many bridges have very little clearance under them, how will this device tell from sufficiently far away whether the bridge is six inches too low, or six inches higher than required? Because it has a GPS and a gazetteer of low bridges? Why over-complicate it? Just have a GPS that shows routes *without* low bridges, that are recommended for use by buses. Then you can avoid other nasties as well. And otherwise it's not failsafe (maybe there's a low bridge somewhere that didn't make it into the gazetteer). -- Roland Perry |
Another squashed bus
On Jul 30, 11:27�am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:05:15 on Wed, 30 Jul 2008, John Rowland remarked: Just have some bleeper which gets more and more urgent and if the computer thinks the bus is going to strike the bridge then it slams on the breaks. The technology exists to do it. "just" Hmm... Given that many bridges have very little clearance under them, how will this device tell from sufficiently far away whether the bridge is six inches too low, or six inches higher than required? Because it has a GPS and a gazetteer of low bridges? Why over-complicate it? Just have a GPS that shows routes *without* low bridges, that are recommended for use by buses. Then you can avoid other nasties as well. And otherwise it's not failsafe (maybe there's a low bridge somewhere that didn't make it into the gazetteer). -- Roland Perry I know this sentiment has been expressed more eloquently before, but why is it so impossible for these drivers just to do what they are paid to do, i.e. drive a bus on the correct route without either damaging it or injuring its passengers? All these electronic devices - even the intrusive ones "announcing" each and every stop. Why are they necessary? On the rare occasion a passenger need to be told of a particular alighting point, why can't they tell the driver and he then announces it over the NEVER-USED P.A. system? I have even travelled on a bus several minutes off route, when a bus was terminated short of his destination - even then he failed to use the P.A. system, and did not even check to see whether anyone (me) was still on the top deck! I travelled on a route 28 earlier this week, where the volume of the automatic announcement was so loud it gave me earache. Yesterday, I travelled on one where the system had either been vandalised or broken down - the L.C.D. screen showed the same stop for the entire journey - pure silent bliss! Marc. |
Another squashed bus
Adrian wrote in
: Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline pilots "Pull up, Pull up"! Many years ago, there was a low bridge outside my father's office. Near it was a roundabout served by single and double decker buses, which came from the same garage and shared a pool of drivers. Regularly, a daydreaming driver would set off along the wrong road and either hit the bridge or have to do a 3-point turn in the busy road. After a while, the council installed a device with a light beam and sensor, so that when an overheight vehicle passed, it flashed a large sign saying something like TOO HIGH - STOP, and sounded a siren. The staff in Dad's office would hear the siren, rush to the window, usually in time to see the bus hit the bridge. In those days the council owned the buses and the road, but not the (railway) bridge. As the accidents were still happening, they decided to lower the road, which would also allow them to run double-deckers on that route. This turned out to be difficult job, as there was a sewer just under the road surface and other services that had to be moved, and they had to close the road and send the traffic round a long diversion for many months. Eventually they reopened the road and at last double deckers could proceed along it unhindered. Three months later, BR closed the line and removed the bridge. Peter -- Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com |
Another squashed bus
On Jul 30, 3:32�pm, Peter Campbell Smith wrote:
Adrian wrote : Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline pilots "Pull up, Pull up"! Many years ago, there was a low bridge outside my father's office. �Near it was a roundabout served by single and double decker buses, which came from the same garage and shared a pool of drivers. �Regularly, a daydreaming driver would set off along the wrong road and either hit the bridge or have to do a 3-point turn in the busy road. After a while, the council installed a device with a light beam and sensor, so that when an overheight vehicle passed, it flashed a large sign saying something like TOO HIGH - STOP, and sounded a siren. �The staff in Dad's office would hear the siren, rush to the window, usually in time to see the bus hit the bridge. In those days the council owned the buses and the road, but not the (railway) bridge. �As the accidents were still happening, they decided to lower the road, which would also allow them to run double-deckers on that route. �This turned out to be difficult job, as there was a sewer just under the road surface and other services that had to be moved, and they had to close the road and send the traffic round a long diversion for many months. Eventually they reopened the road and at last double deckers could proceed along it unhindered. �Three months later, BR closed the line and removed the bridge. Peter -- Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com Nice tale, Peter - made my day! Marc. |
Another squashed bus
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:05:15 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 01:36:45 on Wed, 30 Jul 2008, remarked: Just have some bleeper which gets more and more urgent and if the computer thinks the bus is going to strike the bridge then it slams on the breaks. The technology exists to do it. "just" Hmm... Given that many bridges have very little clearance under them, how will this device tell from sufficiently far away whether the bridge is six inches too low, or six inches higher than required? Because it has a GPS and a gazetteer of low bridges? iBus does *exactly* that.... So we should see an end to this sort of thing in London. Richard. |
Another squashed bus
In uk.transport.london message , Wed, 30
Jul 2008 10:51:34, Roland Perry posted: In message ps.com, at 01:36:45 on Wed, 30 Jul 2008, remarked: Just have some bleeper which gets more and more urgent and if the computer thinks the bus is going to strike the bridge then it slams on the breaks. The technology exists to do it. "just" Hmm... Given that many bridges have very little clearance under them, how will this device tell from sufficiently far away whether the bridge is six inches too low, or six inches higher than required? A large bar code on each bridge, and a scanner on each bus. With a constant angular rate of scan, the bus could also tell its distance and speed. One could use, for safety, a non-visible wavelength of light; and the bar code might be all-gray in the visible. Or use a dot-matrix font of cat's-eyes on the bridge; modern OCR should be able to read that reliably, even in the presence of some white dielectric substance. Or sit the driver on the top deck. -- (c) John Stockton, near London. Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036) |
Another squashed bus
Dr J R Stockton gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying: Or sit the driver on the top deck. I think we have a winner! |
Another squashed bus
On 29 Jul 2008 20:45:08 GMT, Adrian wrote:
asdf gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline pilots "Pull up, Pull up"! P'raps. A good low-tech alternative would be to put the height visible on both bridge and bus. It'd be utterly reliable, too. D'you think it'd catch on? Evidently it's not utterly reliable. By "utterly reliable", I mean "it won't break". The technology didn't, it seems, break. It worked. The failure lay in the one part of the system that can't easily be upgraded, redesigned or replaced - the wetware. PEBSWADS, I think. |
Another squashed bus
In message , Batman55
writes See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7528024.stm for info and picture. In Old Oak Common Lane. We should introduce the Darwin principle to bus drivers and get them to drive the bus from the front of the top deck. I'm guessing the number of these incidence would drop dramatically :-) -- Edward Cowling "Must Go - Keyser Soze has just arrived" |
Another squashed bus
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:27:38AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Why over-complicate it? Just have a GPS that shows routes *without* low bridges, that are recommended for use by buses. Then you can avoid other nasties as well. And you think bus companies would buy that instead of buying the cheaper consumer version? After all, that's what haulage companies do, and that's why lorries and tourist coaches are always getting stuck in small villages. Incidentally, when that happens, walls get demolished, gardens churned up, hedges destroyed etc, just to remove the lorry. Why not just cut the lorry into little pieces? And otherwise it's not failsafe (maybe there's a low bridge somewhere that didn't make it into the gazetteer). That's not failsafe anyway. What if a low bridge is built over one of your routes? -- David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness Us Germans take our humour very seriously -- German cultural attache talking to the Today Programme, about the German supposed lack of a sense of humour, 29 Aug 2001 |
Another squashed bus
|
Another squashed bus
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:45:30 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote this gibberish: On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 04:58:22AM -0700, wrote: All these electronic devices - even the intrusive ones "announcing" each and every stop. Why are they necessary? On the rare occasion a passenger need to be told of a particular alighting point, why can't they tell the driver and he then announces it over the NEVER-USED P.A. system? Hear hear! And why, as happens far too frequently on route 38, does the announcement say "the destination of this bus has changed" without continuing "it will now terminate at ..."? That winds me up often, I live at one end of the 38 route and often use it to get to victoria at the other end, around 50% of the time my bus won't make-it! -- Mark Varley www.MarkVarleyPhoto.co.uk www.TwistedPhotography.co.uk London, England. |
Another squashed bus
In message , at 15:43:26
on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, David Cantrell remarked: Why over-complicate it? Just have a GPS that shows routes *without* low bridges, that are recommended for use by buses. Then you can avoid other nasties as well. And you think bus companies would buy that instead of buying the cheaper consumer version? This was a choice between two different specialist GPS designs, to fix a specific hazard; not a choice between a specialist and a consumer edition. And otherwise it's not failsafe (maybe there's a low bridge somewhere that didn't make it into the gazetteer). That's not failsafe anyway. What if a low bridge is built over one of your routes? I'd be a bit surprised if you could get planning permission to build a new bridge that's too low for a bus, over an existing street. -- Roland Perry |
Another squashed bus
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:43:26 on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, David Cantrell remarked: Why over-complicate it? Just have a GPS that shows routes *without* low bridges, that are recommended for use by buses. Then you can avoid other nasties as well. And you think bus companies would buy that instead of buying the cheaper consumer version? This was a choice between two different specialist GPS designs, to fix a specific hazard; not a choice between a specialist and a consumer edition. And otherwise it's not failsafe (maybe there's a low bridge somewhere that didn't make it into the gazetteer). That's not failsafe anyway. What if a low bridge is built over one of your routes? I'd be a bit surprised if you could get planning permission to build a new bridge that's too low for a bus, over an existing street. I think you could, for a railway. |
Another squashed bus
In message , at 16:51:21 on Thu,
31 Jul 2008, John Rowland remarked: I'd be a bit surprised if you could get planning permission to build a new bridge that's too low for a bus, over an existing street. I think you could, for a railway. Rebuild a bridge to the same height as before - but a brand new low bridge?? What kind of railway would that be, anyway? -- Roland Perry |
Another squashed bus
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:08:50 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: Rebuild a bridge to the same height as before - but a brand new low bridge?? What kind of railway would that be, anyway? I'm wondering if he might be referring to the reinstatement of a railway with historic rights, e.g. the WHR. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:16 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk