On 03/08/2017 20:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
19:15:47 on Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Robin remarked:

Will the final report include their cost-benefit assessments to
support the recommendations or will they - like most coroners - take
the view that it's not their job to consider resources, and so
encourage the "no price is too high to save the life of ..." approach
common after any "disaster" on rails?

Having something to ensure nothing bad happens if your drivers fall
asleep [sorry - lose awareness] at the wheel seems pretty fundamental.

Why "pretty fundamental" for trams but not for buses or coaches - often
travelling at the same or greater speeds?

Such devices may offer value for money on trams but not on the road (eg
because the current technology means they are easier to make work on
rail than on road). But it'd be nice to have evidence that are
recommended because they offer value money and not just because they
would have avoided one incident. And, as Recliner intimated, there are
rather a lot of trams operating elsewhere so the evidence might be
expected to include the use - or absence of use - of such devices
elsewhere.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid