Manchester bus crash: Woman dies after being hit near shelter

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma...119528.amp

(05 Aug 2022, 5:37 pm)Malarkey wrote Couriers would be the best example to use, I used to work for DPD a few years back and they had a system built into a drivers sat nav that set the route the driver would take in order to deliver parcels in the most efficient/eco friendly manner, can't see why something like this could not be implemented technology wise on a Bus in order to aid a driver particularly in there first weeks on the road whilst still in the learning phase.

Also got to take into account risk assessments. Imagine if Consett's allocator didn't have enough coffee and by mistake allocated a B5LH or B9TL on the X30/X31.........and a driver covering the route took it under Ellison Road bridge.

Now let's say it was a Percy Main driver who's used of the bridgeclear system giving a false positive over the Cradlewell and assumed it was a nearby bridge.........

(07 Aug 2022, 7:13 am)L469 YVK wrote Also got to take into account risk assessments. Imagine if Consett's allocator didn't have enough coffee and by mistake allocated a B5LH or B9TL on the X30/X31.........and a driver covering the route took it under Ellison Road bridge.

Now let's say it was a Percy Main driver who's used of the bridgeclear system giving a false positive over the Cradlewell and assumed it was a nearby bridge.........

Bridgeclear....thats going back a few years there like, not had them for a while.

GNE use Timespace Bridge Alert

(07 Aug 2022, 7:39 am)citaro5284 wrote Bridgeclear....thats going back a few years there like, not had them for a while.

GNE use Timespace Bridge Alert  

Just got me thinking there about all the subscriptions/purchases operators have and make, with various different retrofit suppliers. 

Whether it be Bridge Alert, engine bay fire retardant systems, fuel and driver behaviour monitoring... The list must be huge and I'd genuinely love to know whether there was much ROI on the systems when each cost is added up.

As an example of that, a basic analysis of the total number of de-roofings now with the system in place vs the number of de-roofings prior to them being introduced and if the system is actively and exclusively reducing those numbers.

(07 Aug 2022, 9:28 am)Andreos1 wrote Just got me thinking there about all the subscriptions/purchases operators have and make, with various different retrofit suppliers. 

Whether it be Bridge Alert, engine bay fire retardant systems, fuel and driver behaviour monitoring... The list must be huge and I'd genuinely love to know whether there was much ROI on the systems when each cost is added up.

As an example of that, a basic analysis of the total number of de-roofings now with the system in place vs the number of de-roofings prior to them being introduced and if the system is actively and exclusively reducing those numbers.

Maybe it's just me, but if a driver is needing to rely on a system to alert them about a low bridge, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to drive a double decker?

Out of curiosity, what would happen if a driver were to hit a low bridge after ignoring the warnings? Is it one strike and they're out? (pun very much intended)
I would think, especially if they cause any damage to the bridge, they would be prosecuted for careless driving?

(07 Aug 2022, 11:29 am)streetdeckfan wrote Maybe it's just me, but if a driver is needing to rely on a system to alert them about a low bridge, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to drive a double decker?

Out of curiosity, what would happen if a driver were to hit a low bridge after ignoring the warnings? Is it one strike and they're out? (pun very much intended)
I would think, especially if they cause any damage to the bridge, they would be prosecuted for careless driving?

A driver could be driving a single decker before meal and a double afterwards and you just forget you have an extra layer above you, happened in the past and will happen again somewhere thats for sure. Best to have a driver aid fitted to the vehicle.

(07 Aug 2022, 11:31 am)citaro5284 wrote A driver could be driving a single decker before meal and a double afterwards and you just forget you have an extra layer above you, happened in the past and will happen again somewhere thats for sure.  Best to have a driver aid fitted to the vehicle.

It says on the schedule card what routes have a low bridge and where it is its in bold.

Just heard the following. Washington driver are going to be learning the routes of the 58 and 57 in next few weeks

(07 Aug 2022, 11:35 am)Unber43 wrote It says on the schedule card what routes have a low bridge and where it is its in bold.

It does, but what about a double decker covering for a single decker route - The Duty Sheet will not tell them that will it....

(07 Aug 2022, 9:28 am)Andreos1 wrote Just got me thinking there about all the subscriptions/purchases operators have and make, with various different retrofit suppliers. 

Whether it be Bridge Alert, engine bay fire retardant systems, fuel and driver behaviour monitoring... The list must be huge and I'd genuinely love to know whether there was much ROI on the systems when each cost is added up.

As an example of that, a basic analysis of the total number of de-roofings now with the system in place vs the number of de-roofings prior to them being introduced and if the system is actively and exclusively reducing those numbers.

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

(07 Aug 2022, 11:29 am)streetdeckfan wrote Out of curiosity, what would happen if a driver were to hit a low bridge after ignoring the warnings? Is it one strike and they're out? (pun very much intended)

Correct, interview with manager and no tea or biscuits

(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?

(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....

That doesn't matter it did for the old 88 & 60 when I saw a drivers on the 20.

(07 Aug 2022, 1:20 pm)Andreos1 wrote Not really. 
Cloud backup and malware protection will ultimately reduce or mitigate any damage. Potentially eliminating some. 

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?

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).

---

But presumably it tells them the route to take?

How many instances have there been, and out of those instances, how many have had bridge alert systems fitted? I'm not sure how you can suggest that an alert system doesn't reduce/mitigate/eliminate, without having the data the compare? 

It's not just the driver you're protecting with such system. You're also protecting the customers, if heaven forbid there were some on the upper deck at a time of collision. A safety investigation into any previous de-roofing incidents would expect you to put processes and systems into place to prevent them in the future, and when there's a potential unlimited fine if found guilty of corporate manslaughter, I'd suggest systems like these are an absolute must.

(07 Aug 2022, 2:02 pm)Unber43 wrote That doesn't matter it did for the old 88 & 60 when I saw a drivers on the 20.

I'm confused. You're saying it tells the driver on the duty sheet, then when you're told it won't if there's a decker on a single deck route, you're saying it doesn't matter?

When I worked at Arriva, I'm pretty sure the deckers there had no bridge warning system. GNE deckers do. Where the system falls down is something like a coach (an air conditioned Levante is 12'9) however there is no bridge warning system but there are some bridges you can get a single decked bus under but the coach would hit the bridge. What there should be is a system similar to that in some cars (Levantes have it, amongst other safety features) where if a sensor detects an obsticle, the brakes are applied.

As for other bits of kit fitted, GNE have RIBAS which monitors drivers driving skills and gives them a weekly score (most drivers don't care about this) but according to managers (when it was rolled out...again) "the insurance company requires it to be fitted as a condition of the policy."

Arriva have (or had) Econospeed fitted. I believe they have (or had) shares in the company that developed it.

What about costs of maintenance for radio systems. Arriva don't (or didnt) have radios and you could claim expenses for phone calls when you inevitably broke down. GNE has two radio systems- Tait and Motorola. You can also send and receive messages on the ticket machines when the radio doesn't work or isn't fitted to a vehicle (very frequently).

(07 Aug 2022, 2:32 pm)Adrian wrote How many instances have there been, and out of those instances, how many have had bridge alert systems fitted? I'm not sure how you can suggest that an alert system doesn't reduce/mitigate/eliminate, without having the data the compare?  

It's not just the driver you're protecting with such system. You're also protecting the customers, if heaven forbid there were some on the upper deck at a time of collision. A safety investigation into any previous de-roofing incidents would expect you to put processes and systems into place to prevent them in the future, and when there's a potential unlimited fine if found guilty of corporate manslaughter, I'd suggest systems like these are an absolute must.

That's what I was asking. I'm not suggesting one thing or another. Merely asking an open ended question about cost benefits and whether these systems have reduced instances exclusively and have proven their worth financially or otherwise.

They're just one of the many independent, retro fitted systems that are costing a financially challenged operator money and may or may not have an ROI.

But as for operators having bridge strikes: https://www.google.com/search?q=bus+hitting+bridge&client=ms-android-huawei-rev1&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjy2NWE_LT5AhW2hv0HHYgFD00Q_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=360&bih=641&dpr=3

The majority of these are all big players and I'd assume would have invested in this technology.
The technology hasn't eliminated the risk. It can only reduce it. Just as traditional methods can.

---

(07 Aug 2022, 2:46 pm)morritt89 wrote When I worked at Arriva, I'm pretty sure the deckers there had no bridge warning system. GNE deckers do. Where the system falls down is something like a coach (an air conditioned Levante is 12'9) however there is no bridge warning system but there are some bridges you can get a single decked bus under but the coach would hit the bridge. What there should be is a system similar to that in some cars (Levantes have it, amongst other safety features) where if a sensor detects an obsticle, the brakes are applied.

As for other bits of kit fitted, GNE have RIBAS which monitors drivers driving skills and gives them a weekly score (most drivers don't care about this) but according to managers (when it was rolled out...again) "the insurance company requires it to be fitted as a condition of the policy."

Arriva have (or had) Econospeed fitted. I believe they have (or had) shares in the company that developed it.

What about costs of maintenance for radio systems. Arriva don't (or didnt) have radios and you could claim expenses for phone calls when you inevitably broke down. GNE has two radio systems- Tait and Motorola. You can also send and receive messages on the ticket machines when the radio doesn't work or isn't fitted to a vehicle (very frequently). 

There was an ambulance blocking the road outside Saltburn Station the other evening.
Two ANE buses came down (drivers didn't use logic or common sense, didn't look for alternative routes) and blocked the road.
They talked to each other for a while, one rang someone (the depot to get instructions presumably) and they continued to wait.

I'm not saying having a radio would have fixed this issue or the delays, but in an area that may not have had a decent mobile signal...

(07 Aug 2022, 1:20 pm)Andreos1 wrote Not really. 
Cloud backup and malware protection will ultimately reduce or mitigate any damage. Potentially eliminating some. 

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?

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).

---

But presumably it tells them the route to take?

I get why operstors have the technology, but it seems to me a "we must do something" thing

If you think how often a 21 or X1 driver goes over the High Level Bridge in a day, the audio warnings happen so often it effectively becomes background noise, so that time the driver really needs heed the advice, they may ignore it.

(07 Aug 2022, 2:52 pm)DeltaMan wrote I get why operstors have the technology, but it seems to me a "we must do something" thing

If you think how often a 21 or X1 driver goes over the High Level Bridge in a day, the audio warnings happen so often it effectively becomes background noise, so that time the driver really needs heed the advice, they may ignore it. 

I did wonder if drivers became mute to it like NSA's. 
Mind, if they do become mute to an overly sensitive system, it's an easy get out for the operator when the driver is called in for the meeting without the tea and biscuits!

(07 Aug 2022, 2:46 pm)morritt89 wrote What about costs of maintenance for radio systems. Arriva don't (or didnt) have radios and you could claim expenses for phone calls when you inevitably broke down. GNE has two radio systems- Tait and Motorola. You can also send and receive messages on the ticket machines when the radio doesn't work or isn't fitted to a vehicle (very frequently).

Radio systems and a control room would be very handy on Arriva.

(07 Aug 2022, 2:46 pm)morritt89 wrote Arriva have (or had) Econospeed fitted. I believe they have (or had) shares in the company that developed it.

Think it's all stripped out now. As far as I'm aware, at the end of it's time, turning that off was one of the first things engineering did when a bus had been reported for lacking power. 

I believe they're now rolling out GreenRoad which scores drivers on various different metrics.

(07 Aug 2022, 2:33 pm)Adrian wrote I'm confused. You're saying it tells the driver on the duty sheet, then when you're told it won't if there's a decker on a single deck route, you're saying it doesn't matter?

If there is a low bridge on a route I assume under 15 feet it will say on the Duty Sheet low bridge route and highlight where the low bridge it, it happened for the old 88, it happens for the 60, and I'd imagine it happens for the 49. It doesn't matter if there is a double decker or single decker allocated to the route, im not sure if it says the size of the bridge on the duty sheet but the warning is there, which is why most dead runs get bridge hits.

X30/X31 not sure what there duty sheet says about the mid-sized bridge that only E400, Omnidekkas can go under.

3874 kicked the bucket in November 2015 when it hit Pelton Bridge while travelling light from Stanley.

Surely it doesn't matter what a sheet says. A capable bus driver should be able to read a sign with a height restriction then look at the big sticker above him that tells him he's taller than that.

If he can't do that, he shouldn't be driving a bus. If a bus is allocated to a route where there's a low bridge then the controller should be punished aswell.

It might sound harsh but I wouldn't trust someone who makes a mistake like that and he should be let go. Your asking for big trouble if it happens a second time and someone is seriously hurt.

Personally I think tech shouldn't be fitted for it or you could end up with, well the beepy thing didn't work so I thought I could get under, not my problem argument.

(07 Aug 2022, 2:59 pm)Andreos1 wrote I did wonder if drivers became mute to it like NSA's. 
Mind, if they do become mute to an overly sensitive system, it's an easy get out for the operator when the driver is called in for the meeting without the tea and biscuits!

If i heard, "Caution, low bridge in x number of meters" 6 times a day crossing the Redhuegh Bridge on a 10 when there is NO low bridge, I think I'd tune out of it

(07 Aug 2022, 4:30 pm)Storx wrote Surely it doesn't matter what a sheet says. A capable bus driver should be able to read a sign with a height restriction then look at the big sticker above him that tells him he's taller than that.

If he can't do that, he shouldn't be driving a bus. If a bus is allocated to a route where there's a low bridge then the controller should be punished aswell.

It might sound harsh but I wouldn't trust someone who makes a mistake like that and he should be let go. Your asking for big trouble if it happens a second time and someone is seriously hurt.

Personally I think tech shouldn't be fitted for it or you could end up with, well the beepy thing didn't work so I thought I could get under, not my problem argument.

Definitely agree with this, and I wouldn't say it's harsh at all.

If anything, I think the punishment should be much harsher than just losing their job! If they're incapable of that, then are they capable of reading speed limit signs, no entry signs etc? IMO they should at minimum lose their license and have to resit a test. 
What if upstairs wasn't empty, what if little Timmy ended up a foot (or a head in this case) shorter!

---

(07 Aug 2022, 4:42 pm)DeltaMan wrote If i heard, "Caution, low bridge in x number of meters" 6 times a day crossing the Redhuegh Bridge on a 10 when there is NO low bridge, I think I'd tune out of it

Even as a passenger I don't even hear the warning anymore. 
Doesn't any decker that goes past Riverside depot get that warning because of the low bridge at the Metrocentre (which someone managed to get 6304 wedged under)

(07 Aug 2022, 5:06 pm)streetdeckfan wrote Even as a passenger I don't even hear the warning anymore. 
Doesn't any decker that goes past Riverside depot get that warning because of the low bridge at the Metrocentre (which someone managed to get 6304 wedged under)

When I've been on the 93 there is a low bridge between Gateshead & Heworth however sometimes the sensory goes off but sometimes it doesn't.

Why was 6304 there, do you have a photo? Didn't the X22 used to go through there.

(07 Aug 2022, 5:25 pm)Unber43 wrote When I've been on the 93 there is a low bridge between Gateshead & Heworth however sometimes the sensory goes off but sometimes it doesn't.

Why was 6304 there, do you have a photo? Didn't the X22 used to go through there.

There's a photo floating about somewhere of it wedged underneath, I'll see if I can find it.
I think it was before Crook depot closed so I don't know why it would even be in the area, maintenance perhaps? 

Not sure if I'm remembering this correctly, but isn't that the reason it was the first to be put into X-Lines as it had to be repainted anyway from the damage? I'm sure it was a similar time

Found it


https://twitter.com/LovelyIrishAlan/stat...24/photo/1

(07 Aug 2022, 5:37 pm)streetdeckfan wrote There's a photo floating about somewhere of it wedged underneath, I'll see if I can find it.
I think it was before Crook depot closed so I don't know why it would even be in the area, maintenance perhaps? 

Not sure if I'm remembering this correctly, but isn't that the reason it was the first to be put into X-Lines as it had to be repainted anyway from the damage? I'm sure it was a similar time

Found it


https://twitter.com/LovelyIrishAlan/stat...24/photo/1

I might be wrong on this one.

Pretty sure this was one of the North Korea moments where we were told not to talk about it.
There were a couple of incidents around that sort of time - bus/cyclist in Washington, the incident at New Kyo with the school bus and one or two others.

(08 Aug 2022, 8:58 am)Andreos1 wrote I might be wrong on this one.

Pretty sure this was one of the North Korea moments where we were told not to talk about it.
There were a couple of incidents around that sort of time - bus/cyclist in Washington, the incident at New Kyo with the school bus and one or two others.

We've never (from what I recall) asked people not to talk about bus incidents on here, unlike most other enthusiast groups.  

The bus/cyclist incident in Washington was a rare exception, because there was a criminal case at the time, and therefore a need to protect the site and posters from finding themselves potentially in contempt of court. We'd reluctantly do the same if a similar situation occurred in the future.