(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.
(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.
(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?
(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?
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.