(30 Jan 2016, 10:25 am)BusLoverMum wrote Side destination display on 641 flashing on and off.

(30 Jan 2016, 10:34 am)Dan wrote Thanks - I have reported this to engineering.

Bus may have been jump started this morning. This tends to cause most side destination problems on the Optare Solos.

Forgot to get back to you on this one.

It was fine when checked in the depot yesterday morning, so I'm guessing I was right in suggesting that the bus was jump started in the morning.

Stagecoach Newcastle's 39718 (iirc) side blind isn't working.

(02 Feb 2016, 6:24 pm)Dan wrote Forgot to get back to you on this one.

It was fine when checked in the depot yesterday morning, so I'm guessing I was right in suggesting that the bus was jump started in the morning.

Cheers. It was reflected on the window, so quite distracting once big'un noticed it!

(02 Feb 2016, 3:42 pm)James101 wrote With this definition in mind, I'm hoping someone with knowledge on the area can clarify where this comes in under the new legislation: 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/76257710@N03/24355967740

This is the standard layout of First Potteries' destinations. I have many gripes about the company and this could be one. To the casual user it takes a moment to decipher what the four words mean. They're all given equal footing and it's not entirely obvious 'Hanley' is the final destination. It must be a nightmare for the partially sighted. Is this compliant?

No. It's a lot less compliant than numbers on the wrong side, that's for sure. I just asked big'un if he could tell me where this bus was going, via what route and he couldn't. It would be less of an issue for those who are partially sighted and more of an issue for people with learning difficulties or elderly people who are easily confused and would be just plain confusing for anyone who doesn't know the area and, say, wanted to get to Kidsgrove. Does it go straight to Kidsgrove, or does it go to Kidsgrove via all those other places?

(02 Feb 2016, 9:25 pm)BusLoverMum wrote No. It's a lot less compliant than numbers on the wrong side, that's for sure. I just asked big'un if he could tell me where this bus was going, via what route and he couldn't. It would be less of an issue for those who are partially sighted and more of an issue for people with learning difficulties or elderly people who are easily confused and would be just plain confusing for anyone who doesn't know the area and, say, wanted to get to Kidsgrove. Does it go straight to Kidsgrove, or does it go to Kidsgrove via all those other places?

I'm glad you agree it's a mess, indicative of First Potteries as a whole. I could bore you all day with my gripes, though it's probably not appropriate on a North East buses forum. As a quick aside, the vehicles allocated to this route carry route branding, though due to many revisions the route no longer serves ANY of the places listed on the branding. Should the potential disabled or elderly passenger be baffled by the destination display son they look at the branding to be sure the bus was going to, say, the train station, they would be entirely lost and very stressed! 

The point here is, if regulations apply to destination displays; should they apply to route branding if it applies to geographical locations. It could be equally confusing to the elderly or those with learning difficulties.

well reported dales and district to the council they are not bothered so dvsa , got a reply saying it was going to be looked into !!    as i said if i was driving a truck they would be quick to issue fines if i did not have the correct display showing on a tank, this company is a joke as they can not spell or obey the law

(08 Feb 2016, 7:43 pm)Blobby40 wrote well reported dales and district to the council they are not bothered so dvsa , got a reply saying it was going to be looked into !!    as i said if i was driving a truck they would be quick to issue fines if i did not have the correct display showing on a tank, this company is a joke as they can not spell or obey the law

I'm not sure how I feel about vigilante reporting of PSVAR violations. Yes the law is the law and should be obayed but there needs to be some common sense. Bus operation is an expensive game for slim margins and the industry is only getting tougher for small operators. Buses are expensive assets and many companies may not have the cash flow to purchase new buses on demand.

I know two examples where I live where small operators have withdrew services as purchasing a PSVAR compliant vehicle is too expensive. Is no service better than a non compliant service?  

When it comes to vehicles such as early production Solos which are able to carry wheelchairs but not to the correct dimensions and may not have a side destination display, is there really a crime committed? Should the solution in these cases to work with smaller operators to help finance compliant buses. 

At the end of the day disabled people are the priority in these laws and every effort should be made to make public transport more accessible for everybody. The other side, however, are owners livelihoods, drivers jobs and passengers at risk of isolation if they are bombarded with silly  reports of a broken stop bell or the wrong size font on a destination display

But James, this hasn't just crept up and bitten operators. They've had years and years to prepare for this.

I'm neutral at whether people decide to report issues or not. I personally see no harm in dropping the operator an email and letting them know about it.

The fact remains that they're operating in the public domain, and therefore visible for everyone to see. 1000 people might not think twice, but you'll always get someone who will make a point of reporting it.

I fully agree with James101. Common sense should prevail and I'm not concerned in the slightest if a destination display doesn't conform to the rules. Providing bus services must be the priority. Most of you living in the metropolis won't care about the desperate position of rural bus services, but trivial rules such as these are just another nail in the coffin of transport links as they make it more difficult for small companies to consider operating routes lost because of Tory cuts to local authority funding. Perfectly good low floor buses can't be used because the rules changed after they were built. Most urban buses are run commercially and if one or two supported routes go its isn't the end of the world as there are often alternatives not too far away. And in urban areas the cuts are often to evening and Sunday routes; there's still a daytime one. In rural areas they've long gone and its now ANY service under threat. So everything should be done to ensure that rural lifelines are maintained and many of these regulations are really luxuries; as long as a vehicle has wheelchair access and a lowered step we should be satisfied. If they were really serious about destinations being clear they would have stipulated one large ultimate display, as in London, instead of allowing these unnecessary two line, squashed displays with ten via points which even those with good eyesight won't stand to watch for twenty seconds or so, especially as most bus stops now have timetables with route details - and all should (Durham please note, yours are crap). And why are compressed letters for g, p, q, y allowed when they make it much harder to read. The rules are illogical and obsessive and common sense must prevail.

I can see both sides the argument.

I also predicted there would be reporting to the relevant authorities, whether it would be out of malice or not.

The reference made to freight transport is interesting.
Rules are made and are made to be adhered to.
Whether this is taco's, CPC's or ADR plates.

Just like the rules which have been made for passenger transport.

If a freight transport operator breaks a rule on the carriage of dangerous goods and doesnt display a UN number, they can be punished.

Just like a passenger transport operator can be for not displaying the appropriate detail on their vehicle.
As has been said, the rules haven't just been dropped in from a great height.

However, I do agree with the comments made about vehicles which are low floor and how they're suddenly unsuitable because of a few millimetres.
I wonder if this is a politically motivated initiative, rather than one based on recommendations.
As has been said, the cost to replace or alter a vehicle can be huge.

Legislation in housing has changed over the years. Downstairs toilets need to have a certain width and doors need to be positioned in a fashion that doesn't break rules if built beyond a certain date.
However you don't see perfectly good homes destroyed or adapted to suit this legislation.

(09 Feb 2016, 2:00 pm)Andreos1 wrote However, I do agree with the comments made about vehicles which are low floor and how they're suddenly unsuitable because of a few millimetres.
I wonder if this is a politically motivated initiative, rather than one based on recommendations.
As has been said, the cost to replace or alter a vehicle can be huge.

We both know the answer to that one.

As part of the passage of a bill, it'll go through committee stage. At which point they'll gather evidence from focus groups, lobbying groups, industry experts and others. It'll then go to report stage to agree any amendments, before eventually gaining royal assent.

(09 Feb 2016, 8:38 am)Adrian wrote I'm neutral at whether people decide to report issues or not. I personally see no harm in dropping the operator an email and letting them know about it.

In my opinion, the only people justified to make a complaint to the operator are those genuinely inconvenienced by the PSVAR violation. Other than that its an issue to be left between VOSA/the TC and the operator. Anything else is pointless busy-bodying.   

Further to the point made by Greg in Weardale, if so much responsibility has been placed on operators, local authorities should up their responsibility to make bus stop infrastructure more accessible. I would propose this would to be ensure time information is at every stop, and a universal style to be adopted. I second the point about DCC's timetables being God-awful. Nexus style is much more informative. Raised pavements should be also required; there's many around where I live where a simple flag on a lampost suffices, with a 'both sides' label to indicate buses also pick up passengers on the patch of grass opposite. What is the point on forcing PSVAR buses if the stops are inaccessible? 

Andreos1 brings an interesting comparison to DDA building regs. Would a better solution have been for the PSVAR regulation to only apply to vehicles built after a certain date? Based on an average service life of 15 years, most non accessible buses are naturally being withdrawn around now. I fear having the system of having withdrawal dates for non-complying vehicles hits smaller operators even harder as undoubtably PSVAR compliant buses have been for sale at inflated prices in the run up to Jan 2016 as dealers would be aware operators are being forced to purchase. Equally, non PSVAR buses on the way out would have had their value plummet in comparasion to what could have been if they were allowed to be withdrawn at a more natural rate. 

With regards to the process of lawmaking; particularly the research and industry expert aspect. I wonder just how this panel was made up? The cynic in me wonders if this was more weighted towards 'the big 3' operators and bus manufacturers rather than small operators and community groups. I also wonder if the public was asked 'Should all buses be fully accessible'? (a clear yes vote) OR 'Should all buses be even more accessible to these exact standards even at the risk of some bus services having to be withdrawn as a result?'. requires a bit more thought. 

Finally, a little anecdotal experience regarding PSVAR. I was enjoying a ride out on one of Routemaster Buses' Leyland Olympian's last week on their fully commercial c84 service which links many villages with Chester and Crewe; replacing a service Arriva abandoned. A elderly lady hailed the bus in a remote area and she was had a shopping trolly-come-walking aid. What ever was she going to do when she faced those steps at the entrance?! Well, common sense prevailed and the friendly driver hopped the of the cab, swiftly lifted her walker into the luggage rack and helped the lady to her seat. I heard her say to another passenger 'I do prefer these new buses than the Arriva one'. So goes to show, in some situations common sense and friendliness previals over modern kit. I do worry if the c84 will still be profitable in 2017 when a less reliable, greater fuel consuming PSVAR compliant bus is needed. Our little old lady may have no way at all to get out and about.

(09 Feb 2016, 5:18 pm)James101 wrote In my opinion, the only people justified to make a complaint to the operator are those genuinely inconvenienced by the PSVAR violation. Other than that its an issue to be left between VOSA/the TC and the operator. Anything else is pointless busy-bodying.   

How do you get "make a complaint" from "dropping the operator an email"? If you were an operator running around with faulty equipment, would you not appreciate that someone has pointed it out to you? It may not have been faulty at the time the FUC was carried out, or it may in fact be intermittent. At least if you know about it, you can do something about it, before the authorities see it.

Busy-bodying or not. If you carry out operations in the public domain whilst not law abiding, then you run the risk of being reported for it. Like I say, I'm neutral on the whole issue, but I wouldn't run the risk if it were my business operating outside of the law. The damage to reputation is not worth it, should you be prosecuted.

(09 Feb 2016, 5:18 pm)James101 wrote Further to the point made by Greg in Weardale, if so much responsibility has been placed on operators, local authorities should up their responsibility to make bus stop infrastructure more accessible. I would propose this would to be ensure time information is at every stop, and a universal style to be adopted. I second the point about DCC's timetables being God-awful. Nexus style is much more informative. Raised pavements should be also required; there's many around where I live where a simple flag on a lampost suffices, with a 'both sides' label to indicate buses also pick up passengers on the patch of grass opposite. What is the point on forcing PSVAR buses if the stops are inaccessible? 

You may find this to be an interesting read, although it's only guidance and best practice - https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...e-mobility

PSVAR needs to be enforced because as a business, you can't treat someone with disabilities less favourably than someone without. Providing a step entrance bus for example, to someone with mobility issues is doing just that. I find that there is still a big misconception in the industry, that just because someone isn't in a wheelchair, they're more than capable of climbing steps. The same goes about non-physical disabilities. 

I do think that our infrastructure does need to be largely improved though, and especially in rural areas. The timetable at stops should be a UK standard, and shouldn't differ from area to area in my opinion. 

(09 Feb 2016, 5:18 pm)James101 wrote Andreos1 brings an interesting comparison to DDA building regs. Would a better solution have been for the PSVAR regulation to only apply to vehicles built after a certain date? Based on an average service life of 15 years, most non accessible buses are naturally being withdrawn around now. I fear having the system of having withdrawal dates for non-complying vehicles hits smaller operators even harder as undoubtably PSVAR compliant buses have been for sale at inflated prices in the run up to Jan 2016 as dealers would be aware operators are being forced to purchase. Equally, non PSVAR buses on the way out would have had their value plummet in comparasion to what could have been if they were allowed to be withdrawn at a more natural rate. 

This was actually the case. The PSVAR came in on the 31st December 2000. They have had 14-16 years to ensure compliance. There should never need to be a 'run up' with that much notice. 

(09 Feb 2016, 5:18 pm)James101 wrote With regards to the process of lawmaking; particularly the research and industry expert aspect. I wonder just how this panel was made up? The cynic in me wonders if this was more weighted towards 'the big 3' operators and bus manufacturers rather than small operators and community groups. I also wonder if the public was asked 'Should all buses be fully accessible'? (a clear yes vote) OR 'Should all buses be even more accessible to these exact standards even at the risk of some bus services having to be withdrawn as a result?'. requires a bit more thought. 

It's not a panel. Committees will tend to hear evidence from a wide range of people, such as the groups I've mentioned previously. I've found the following resource that should explain the passage of a Bill a bit better for you, as it's quite a complex process! :

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/

(09 Feb 2016, 7:13 pm)Adrian wrote How do you get "make a complaint" from "dropping the operator an email"? If you were an operator running around with faulty equipment, would you not appreciate that someone has pointed it out to you? It may not have been faulty at the time the FUC was carried out, or it may in fact be intermittent. At least if you know about it, you can do something about it, before the authorities see it.

Firstly, appologies I've trimmed down your quote here for ease of reading. 
The only insight I can offer on the busy-boddying front is that I do run a business; a city-centre restaurant. There's a comparison to be made. We serve homemade beefburgers medium; as in not cooked through. It's very popular across the industry and with customers; however the media and Joe Public have picked up a misconception that this is somehow unsafe. We have worked very closely for some time with the FSA and our local council who are very happy with our processes and that we are serving 100% safe food. 
The amount of 'experts' who feel the need to let me know serving beef medium is unsafe when they have no insight into kitchen processes is staggering. These people are not complaining out of a genuine concern for public safety; they just want to be right and belittle staff. I would suggest the same applies for bus enthusiasts bothering bus operators with their minor complaints when they're more than likely already aware of it. Very few people are experts on the PSVAR regulations and are aware of every detail; I'm not. Even fewer are actually involved in their implementation and fewer still represent authorities enforcing the rules. Rules are rules; but in my own experience enforcement authorities are permitted to make justified exemptions. Who's to say this hasn't happened in the case of the bus industry? You're probably not doing an operator a favour by pointing out things you see as a bus is passing. 

I agree a 14-16 year notice is lengthy. I think my point about bus sales dealers inflating prices and bullying small operators still stands. Why would it be unsuitable to leave the 2000 legislation as applying to new vehicles only meaning non-PSVAR buses could still be operated to the end of their serviceable life? The remaining non-PSVAR buses would be minimal and would generally be low-floor buses which don't meet technical specifications. I do agree, however, no step entrance buses should still be operated. I just think the technical specifications are too harsh. 


Something new for us to debate could be would the Wright Streetlite be as numerous as it is nationwide if it was not for PSVAR? I would suggest the Enviro 200 MMC was a bit late to market for PSVAR replacements in the big companies; are the real winners here Wrightbus?

4897's rear blind could do with some TLC.

Just picking up on the PSVAR discussion and the rights/wrongs.

There was mention of inflated prices for 'compliant' vehicles and how for the sake of a few mm, a bus is no longer compliant - despite being low floor.

I touched on housing regs and mentioned how rules had changed, but homes were not classed as unsuitable and ripe for demolition.

I firmly believe there should have been a period of grace for these non-compliant vehicles, just as has been suggested previously.
Their natural life span would be coming to an end soon.

What is potentially more dangerous, are those drivers who are in charge of D1 class vehicles and who passed their driving test pre 1997.
The law does not stipulate they undergo additional driver training to drive said vehicle.
The Grandfather rights on that licence offered that period of grace.

It is up to an operator to propose any assessment, practical training or MiDAS session.

Why couldn't that period of grace be allowed for the actual vehicles?

(14 Feb 2016, 12:26 pm)Andreos1 wrote Just picking up on the PSVAR discussion and the rights/wrongs.

There was mention of inflated prices for 'compliant' vehicles and how for the sake of a few mm, a bus is no longer compliant - despite being low floor.

I touched on housing regs and mentioned how rules had changed, but homes were not classed as unsuitable and ripe for demolition.

I firmly believe there should have been a period of grace for these non-compliant vehicles, just as has been suggested previously.
Their natural life span would be coming to an end soon.

What is potentially more dangerous, are those drivers who are in charge of D1 class vehicles and who passed their driving test pre 1997.
The law does not stipulate they undergo additional driver training to drive said vehicle.
The Grandfather rights on that licence offered that period of grace.

It is up to an operator to propose any assessment, practical training or MiDAS session.

Why couldn't that period of grace be allowed for the actual vehicles?

There was/is a period of grace. Which is why it's coming in gradually. See here - http://www.route-one.net/wp-content/uplo...ndards.pdf

It obviously doesn't take into account asset sweating, which is a fairly common practice in business.

(14 Feb 2016, 12:33 pm)Adrian wrote There was/is a period of grace. Which is why it's coming in gradually. See here - http://www.route-one.net/wp-content/uplo...ndards.pdf

It obviously doesn't take into account asset sweating, which is a fairly common practice in business.

Sorry, what I meant (but wasn't clear in saying), was the period of grace continuing for the life of the vehicle and there being a point (just like in the case of the driving licence), when any overlap ends in a natural fashion.

Not early, which has been the case in this instance.

(14 Feb 2016, 2:12 pm)Andreos1 wrote Sorry, what I meant (but wasn't clear in saying), was the period of grace continuing for the life of the vehicle and there being a point (just like in the case of the driving licence), when any overlap ends in a natural fashion.

Not early, which has been the case in this instance.

Agreed, there could even be clause whereby a natural overlap as you propose would only apply to companies with a turnover below a certain amount or with less then 250 employees; much like how the 5p bag legislation has been applied. 

This way, Arriva, Stagecoach Go-ahead etc with the means to invest in PSVAR vehicles would have to and smaller operators would be shown some grace.

39730 has no working side blind.

(15 Feb 2016, 5:02 pm)DanPicken wrote 39730 has no working side blind.

22408 rear blind wasn't working either.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/arrivanort...955909301/

Photo shows small independent Routemaster Buses using their Leyland Tiger in service this week as the regular vehicle used had a door fault. Not to worry folks, those responsible have been reported to the authorities and have suitably been sentenced to death by firing squad for their crimes.

(18 Feb 2016, 8:41 pm)James101 wrote https://www.flickr.com/photos/arrivanort...955909301/

Photo shows small independent Routemaster Buses using their Leyland Tiger in service this week as the regular vehicle used had a door fault. Not to worry folks, those responsible have been reported to the authorities and have suitably been sentenced to death by firing squad for their crimes.

Ah well. I guess nobody in a wheelchair needs to use a bus anyway. Damn those do gooders insisting on social inclusion and equality. 

This has been done to death.

Although they've had a while to get DDA buses in the fleet, not all small bus companies can afford new or newer buses.

(18 Feb 2016, 9:50 pm)Adrian wrote Ah well. I guess nobody in a wheelchair needs to use a bus anyway. Damn those do gooders insisting on social inclusion and equality. 

This has been done to death.

My observation isn't against the PSVAR regulations themselves. I wholeheartedly support their intentions to make transport more accessible.

I made a satirical comment regarding the over zealous attitude some people have regarding enforcement. Seems a new branch of our hobby has been born; faulty display equipment spotting.

I have to say these regulations have just gone beyond a joke. Rendering perfectly good buses obsolete just because their wheelchair bays are 2cm too narrow or their poles are in the wrong place is just pathetic. The point has been mentioned that the big companies can absorb the cost of modifications or new vehicles, but it is still a cost that has to come out of a budget which can't be spent on other things. I have been driving a few MAN EcoCitys this week and I've noticed once the front few rows of seats are full, the aisle becomes extremely narrow, probably down to the design of the plush e leather seats. So, add 2 pushchairs or a wheelchair into the mix and where do the elderly/infirm/pregnant passengers go? I think the new regulations are giving the operators and body builders too many loops to jump through in an already over regulated industry. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for accessibility for those that can't normally travel and I get pleasure from helping these customers on and off but there has to be common sense somewhere.

(19 Feb 2016, 8:13 pm)MrPottski wrote I have to say these regulations have just gone beyond a joke. Rendering perfectly good buses obsolete just because their wheelchair bays are 2cm too narrow or their poles are in the wrong place is just pathetic. The point has been mentioned that the big companies can absorb the cost of modifications or new vehicles, but it is still a cost that has to come out of a budget which can't be spent on other things. I have been driving a few MAN EcoCitys this week and I've noticed once the front few rows of seats are full, the aisle becomes extremely narrow, probably down to the design of the plush e leather seats. So, add 2 pushchairs or a wheelchair into the mix and where do the elderly/infirm/pregnant passengers go? I think the new regulations are giving the operators and body builders too many loops to jump through in an already over regulated industry. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for accessibility for those that can't normally travel and I get pleasure from helping these customers on and off but there has to be common sense somewhere.

If you don't set a standard or benchmark, then where do you draw the line for common sense? Genuine question. Thornley is not in the Durham District zone for Arriva's tickets, but Bowburn is. I'd call it common sense that it should be, but like I say, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

If not statutory, then it's always open to interpretation. That goes for anything.

Go North East 4979 has been out on the 5 today with no front destination display.

5256 (?) or whichever branded Omni that was Shields bound and was arriving at the Galleries just after 1630 - it has a rear blind which wasn't displaying anything at all.

(05 Mar 2016, 9:58 pm)Andreos1 wrote 5256 (?) or whichever branded Omni that was Shields bound and was arriving at the Galleries just after 1630 - it has a rear blind which wasn't displaying anything at all.

Thanks - there's an intermittent fault with this one, which engineering are still investigating.