|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
Author: Batman55Batman55 Date: Jul 28, 2008 01:04
|
| |
|
| | 52 Comments |
|
|
Author: thagor2008thagor2008 Date: Jul 28, 2008 01:10
Where the hell do they find these idiots to drive them?
B2003
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: RobWiltonRobWilton Date: Jul 28, 2008 02:21
>
> Where the hell do they find these idiots to drive them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poland.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Paul WeaverPaul Weaver Date: Jul 28, 2008 03:46
When are they going to ban these monstrosities?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Richard J.Richard J. Date: Jul 28, 2008 05:08
Paul Weaver wrote:
>
> 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?
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: J. ChisholmJ. Chisholm Date: Jul 28, 2008 08:43
Richard J. wrote:
> Paul Weaver wrote:
>> 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?
Perhaps he's suggestion that if we replaced double deckers with
articulated buses we'd have no such issues?
Jim
|
| |
| 6 Comments |
|
|
Author: NeillNeill Date: Jul 28, 2008 12:10
On Jul 28, 4:43 pm, "J. Chisholm" cam.ac.uk> wrote:> Richard J. wrote:
>> Paul Weaver wrote:
>
>>>> 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?
>
> Perhaps he's suggestion that if we replaced double deckers with
> articulated buses we'd have no such issues?
>
> Jim
|
| Show full article (0.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Neil WilliamsNeil Williams Date: Jul 28, 2008 12:20
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:43:06 +0100, "J. Chisholm" cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
>Perhaps he's suggestion that if we replaced double deckers with
>articulated buses we'd have no such issues?
We probably wouldn't. But more sensible might be to require buses to
be constructed to be reasonably solid so that the top wouldn't be
sliced off quite like that. Of course, those sitting at the front
wouldn't have much fun quite simply because of the energies involved
in such a collision, but there's no reason why the entire top deck
should collapse like that in any properly-designed vehicle.
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Jul 28, 2008 12:33
wensleydale@ pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:
>>Perhaps he's suggestion that if we replaced double deckers with
>>articulated buses we'd have no such issues?
> We probably wouldn't. But more sensible might be to require buses to be
> constructed to be reasonably solid so that the top wouldn't be sliced
> off quite like that. Of course, those sitting at the front wouldn't
> have much fun quite simply because of the energies involved in such a
> collision, but there's no reason why the entire top deck should collapse
> like that in any properly-designed vehicle.
Umm, you'd prefer the bridge took more damage?
Because there's going to be plenty, it's just a question of where. You've
got 10t of vehicle, travelling forwards at c.20mph. That's a LOT of force
on a very small area - something's going to give.
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.
|
| Show full article (2.74Kb) |
| 9 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Neil WilliamsNeil Williams Date: Jul 28, 2008 13:21
On 28 Jul 2008 19:33:58 GMT, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:
>Umm, you'd prefer the bridge took more damage?
I'd prefer less damage was done to any passengers. I think this one
was fortunate because it was a rail replacement service, which people
tend to avoid if there's any other option so it probably had three
passengers and a dog on board.
>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?
>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.
|
| Show full article (3.57Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
