(Neil Williams) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Umm, you'd prefer the bridge took more damage?

I'd prefer less damage was done to any passengers.

Yes, but it's not quite that simple...

I think this one was fortunate because it was a rail replacement
service,

Which is also the reason it hit the bridge in the first place, almost
certainly.

Three likely scenarios...
- Whoever planned the route cocked up big time
- Whoever signed it cocked up big time and didn't do so clearly
- The driver cocked up big time and didn't follow the signs

Since this was 17.45 on Sunday, there's one of those that's a lot more
likely than the other two...

which people tend to avoid if there's any other option so it probably
had three passengers and a dog on board.

Three passengers injured. Check.
No mention of a dog, though.

Whatever happens, the front few rows of passengers aren't going to be
laughing and joking about it. If the top of the roof collapses
progressively, instead of just sliding back, then it's going to come
down as well as up. Oh, and they're chewing bridge, of course.

As opposed to that bus, where (if there were any) passengers throughout
the top deck would have had their heads knocked off?

Unlikely.

So the only real question is what happens further back on the top deck.
Look at the photo - there's no risk (other than by flying glass) to
anybody else on that deck from the roof sliding backwards - because it's
remained at fundamentally the same level. Yes, it's dropped down
slightly, as it's cantilevered backwards on the pillars, but that's not
going to do TOO much harm.

It's dropped down by the whole height of the main pane of the windows.

Not quite. They're still about half height, mebbe a snidge under.

I dunno whether the three minor injuries were upstairs or downstairs -
Can't imagine what, other than "shock" and maybe falling over, would
injure the downstairs passengers.

If I was in a bus involved in such a collision and hadn't seen what was
coming and ducked, it'd certainly have taken my head off.

I don't think so.

A sore neck, yes, but not "taken off" - remember, it's not JUST gone
back, and it's not JUST gone down - it's pivotted down-and-back.

B'sides, you'd have to be going some NOT to notice. If you were in the
front, you'd have plenty of warning of the bridge coming straight at you,
and further back, you'd have a BLOODY GREAT BIG bang to warn you...

A more rigidly constructed bus might have flattened the front quarter of
the top deck, but decelerated more quickly (more resistance from a
stronger body)

That really would require one HELL of a lot of strength - and would also
push the bus down into the road, probably doing a lot of damage to the
road surface. Remember, 10t+ at 20mph. That's a LOT more force than a
1.5t car faces in the typical crash test - and across a much smaller area.

It is conventional that road vehicles should themselves be damaged in
preference to their passengers. Think crumple-zones.

Quite. Think about the amount of metal that's absorbing those forces.

Alternatively, perhaps the drivers could consider looking where the ****
they were going? I mean, it's not as if there isn't already a legislated
requirement for the vehicle height to be clearly marked in the driver's
view, and for low bridges to carry height warnings...

This is true, but it's not a reason not to make vehicles more
crashworthy. On the railway, the Pendolino that got smashed at 110 at
Greyrigg showed just how good modern railway body design is - it
survived pretty much intact and was only written off (as I recall)
because of damage to equipment, not because of deformed bodyshells.

One small detail... That didn't actually hit anything. It just shed the
speed (fairly) gracefully in a muddy field. No sudden stop. It's like the
old joke about falling off a tall building - it's not the fall that
hurts, it's the landing.

On 28 Jul, 20:33, Adrian wrote:
So - you reinforce the window pillars upstairs. A LOT. They're going to
have to transmit the forces backwards, else they'll just bend again, so

Probably a better idea would be reinforce the pillars so they bend but
don't snap but make the place where they join the roof fairly weak so
the roof effectively slides off over the top of them. The roof being
shoved back dissappates the energy but the reinforced pillars stop it
squashing the passengers.

B2003

gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

So - you reinforce the window pillars upstairs. A LOT. They're going to
have to transmit the forces backwards, else they'll just bend again, so

Probably a better idea would be reinforce the pillars so they bend but
don't snap but make the place where they join the roof fairly weak so
the roof effectively slides off over the top of them. The roof being
shoved back dissappates the energy but the reinforced pillars stop it
squashing the passengers.

No, it'd just be uncontrolled then.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

So - you reinforce the window pillars upstairs. A LOT. They're going to
have to transmit the forces backwards, else they'll just bend again, so

Probably a better idea would be reinforce the pillars so they bend but
don't snap but make the place where they join the roof fairly weak so
the roof effectively slides off over the top of them. The roof being
shoved back dissappates the energy but the reinforced pillars stop it
squashing the passengers.

No, it'd just be uncontrolled then.

Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline pilots
"Pull up, Pull up"!

MaxB

"Batman55" gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline
pilots "Pull up, Pull up"!

P'raps. A good low-tech alternative would be to put the height visible on
both bridge and bus. It'd be utterly reliable, too. D'you think it'd
catch on?

On 29 Jul 2008 19:44:55 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline
pilots "Pull up, Pull up"!

P'raps. A good low-tech alternative would be to put the height visible on
both bridge and bus. It'd be utterly reliable, too. D'you think it'd
catch on?

Evidently it's not utterly reliable.

asdf gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline
pilots "Pull up, Pull up"!

P'raps. A good low-tech alternative would be to put the height visible
on both bridge and bus. It'd be utterly reliable, too. D'you think it'd
catch on?

Evidently it's not utterly reliable.

By "utterly reliable", I mean "it won't break". The technology didn't, it
seems, break. It worked.

The failure lay in the one part of the system that can't easily be
upgraded, redesigned or replaced - the wetware.

On 28 Jul, 13:08, "Richard J." wrote:
Paul Weaver wrote:
On 28 Jul, 09:04, "Batman55" wrote:
Seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7528024.stmforinfo and
picture. In Old Oak Common Lane.

MaxB

When are they going to ban these monstrosities?

What do you regard as monstrous? *A double-decker bus? A low railway bridge?
A careless driver?

Careless? Dangerous more like. A PSV driver that doesn't know the
height of his own vehicle, (ignoring the face she doesn't know the
correct route?) At the very least he'll be fired , but should be
ending up in court.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:04:59 +0100, "Batman55"
wrote this gibberish:


See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7528024.stm for info and
picture. In Old Oak Common Lane.

MaxB


The last time I was on a very crowded bus and ended up traveling right
by the driver there was some kind of audible device that gave repeated
warnings about low bridges in nearby roads, damn good idea I thought
(but also probably irritating), are these not a standard thing on
London Busses?

Also was the bus lost? It was on a rail replacement service and wasn't
the first of the day (having hit the bridge late in the day), what
measures are in place to indicate the route to drivers in such
situations? is it just the temporary plastic signs strapped to sign
posts?
--
Mark Varley
www.MarkVarleyPhoto.co.uk
www.TwistedPhotography.co.uk
London, England.

wrote:
On 28 Jul, 20:33, Adrian wrote:
So - you reinforce the window pillars upstairs. A LOT. They're going
to have to transmit the forces backwards, else they'll just bend
again, so

Probably a better idea would be reinforce the pillars so they bend but
don't snap but make the place where they join the roof fairly weak so
the roof effectively slides off over the top of them. The roof being
shoved back dissappates the energy but the reinforced pillars stop it
squashing the passengers.

.... but the roof then kills anyone in three cars following the bus.

Now that buses have the technology to announce which stop they are coming
to, and to tell the people at the next stop how many minutes away they are,
is it too much to ask that they might tell the driver (preferably in the
Slavonic language of his choice) that he's on the wrong road?