(07 Aug 2022, 11:51 am)Adrian wrote The same goes for anything, doesn't it? Companies are often reluctant to invest in IT, because they believe it to be an unnecessary cost, but then want a miracle performed when something goes wrong.

Bus operators investing in bridge warning, telematics and whatever other systems, is no different to a business investing in cloud backup, malware protection or whatever else. Both come at a cost, but both reduce risk (and disaster cost) for the respective industries.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Not really. 
Cloud backup and malware protection will ultimately reduce or mitigate any damage. Potentially eliminating some risk too. 

Is an alert telling the driver there's a low bridge going to eliminate, reduce or mitigate the chances of taking the roof off?
Not sure it does. Because it still happens.

The question is more around the cost benefit of having that software on a bus and seeing the exclusive benefits of that software vs traditional methods.
Do the traditional methods complement the newer technologies?
Can more cost effective methods be put in to place and will they be as effective?
Has there been a reduction in bridge smashes because of this technology? If so, what is the cost benefit?

We are talking about one operator who is clearly struggling, but is paying out quite a bit of money on various bits of kit, which may be giving them an ROI (they may not) - but aren't really spending money on the ground (such as drivers wages - who clearly do give the operator an ROI).

---

(07 Aug 2022, 11:43 am)citaro5284 wrote It does, but what about a double decker covering for a single decker route - The Duty Sheet will not tell them that will it....

But presumably it tells them the route to take?