Should a separate category be reintroduced for double deck driving?

[philthetube]

I am not sure if numbers of bridge strikes have increased, it certainly feels like it though this could be because of increased reporting.

When I took my test in 1980 in a double deck this entitled me to drive deckers, now you virtually never see a double deck training vehicle. Does this increase risk?

the DD category on licences disappeared sometime around 1990, Google seems to have avoided posts on this!

 

[Flange Squeal]

I'm not sure what it would achieve though? I'd assume most bridge strikes are either drivers forgetting they are in a decker or being in an unfamiliar area and not paying enough attention to signage? If so then a bit of extra training to remind people to double check the roadside signs with their cab signage (which they should be doing anyway) to gain the additional category, I'm not sure would actually stop people falling into those same mindsets after a period of driving?

 

[stevieinselby]

I am not sure if numbers of bridge strikes have increased, it certainly feels like it though this could be because of increased reporting.

When I took my test in 1980 in a double deck this entitled me to drive deckers, now you virtually never see a double deck training vehicle. Does this increase risk?

I don't see any need for additional training/testing. Apart from needing to avoid roads with restricted height, a double-decker bus doesn't drive that differently from a single-decker.
I suspect (no evidence for it, just my guess) is that an increasing number of agency or short-term drivers who move around frequently and so are not as familiar with the routes may be partly to blame.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

I think better route training might help rather than type training. The newspaper reports into two recent accidents in Scotland (one of them today) suggest that the drivers took wrong turnings.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I am not sure if numbers of bridge strikes have increased, it certainly feels like it though this could be because of increased reporting.

When I took my test in 1980 in a double deck this entitled me to drive deckers, now you virtually never see a double deck training vehicle. Does this increase risk?

the DD category on licences disappeared sometime around 1990, Google seems to have avoided posts on this!

Having worked in the logistics industry before, I think that the best idea would be a gradual rebuilding and warning system initiative, based on a small levy placed on the insurance costs of every vehicle (or estimated equivalent for self-insuring organisations) above a certain height in the UK (probably somewhere around £10). I would split the levy into 2 components - £3 for prevention on the highest risk bridges - e.g sacrificial beams, and £7 for the bridge rebuilding programme.

Now, I appreciate that progress wouldn't be particularly fast with the levy being so low, but it is affordable and progress could be made at a lesser cost to the taxpayer, while providing gradual productivity benefits to business that use vehicles above a certain height frequently.

 

[Bornin1980s]

Some electric single deckers are alarmingly tall, often 3300mm or taller. Have any of these been in bridge strikes?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I suspect (no evidence for it, just my guess) is that an increasing number of agency or short-term drivers who move around frequently and so are not as familiar with the routes may be partly to blame.

The common causes seem to be either that drivers make a completely wrong turning or drivers make a turning where a single decker would fit but a double decker wouldn't (i.e. they seemingly forget they're in a double decker). Sometimes that's a driver error (e.g. taking a different route back to depot) and sometimes that's an allocation error (e.g. allocating a double decker to a route with a low bridge).

As you say, agency staff won't help with either situation.

Neither situation would really change much with specific type training.

 

[Fox192]

I know it shouldn’t be needed as drivers should be paying attention but couldn’t they put sensors on, like you get on a car when parking

 

[cool110]

I know it shouldn’t be needed as drivers should be paying attention but couldn’t they put sensors on, like you get on a car when parking

There would be so many false alarms from overhanging branches that drivers would tune it out

 

[Fox192]

There would be so many false alarms from overhanging branches that drivers would tune it out

Oh Yh good point

 

[BanburyBlue]

So, bearing in mind I know nothing as I've never driven a bus in my life. It's something which has always interested me.

So you pass your test to drive a bus, and you can drive any bus or coach - even if you passed driving a single decker?

Does driving a double decker feel different to driving a single decker? I've always wondered if the weight of the deck on top and the shape made double decker drive and handle differently?

Thanks.

 

[Mike99]

So, bearing in mind I know nothing as I've never driven a bus in my life. It's something which has always interested me.

So you pass your test to drive a bus, and you can drive any bus or coach - even if you passed driving a single decker?

Does driving a double decker feel different to driving a single decker? I've always wondered if the weight of the deck on top and the shape made double decker drive and handle differently?

Thanks.

In my experience no difference at all driving single or double deck vehicles.
Each to there own opinion though.

 

[cool110]

So you pass your test to drive a bus, and you can drive any bus or coach - even if you passed driving a single decker?

Yes, to be a full-size bus for test purposes it just needs to be at least 10m long and 2.4m wide. A trailer must be at least 2x2m, carry at least 1.25t and be loaded to 800kg

 

[Bornin1980s]

What about bendybuses?

 

[MCR247]

So, bearing in mind I know nothing as I've never driven a bus in my life. It's something which has always interested me.

So you pass your test to drive a bus, and you can drive any bus or coach - even if you passed driving a single decker?


Thanks.

In terms of legality and your license itself you can drive any bus or coach - however bigger/major operators often go over and above and will train drivers on the different fleet types they use

 

[Whisky Papa]

In my experience no difference at all driving single or double deck vehicles.
Each to there own opinion though.

For most of my driving career (Yorkshire Rider/First Todmorden garage 1988-2003) the single-deck portion of the fleet was sufficiently different for there to be no mistake. Apart from minibuses, there was just a single Leyland Leopard allocated, which was not only a completely different beast to the Olympians that formed the double-deck fleet, it had specific duties and rarely strayed from them. Also, we had a fairly limited route network with no low bridges on service routes, although there were low trees in some places. It would only be in case of an ad-hoc diversion that there was a possibility of encountering a low bridge, the one one the A58 at Littleborough being the obvious example.

Moving then to UK North, they did mix modern single and double-deckers to some extent, and it might have been a slightly higher possibility, but a glance in any of three mirrors should have soon put you right. Even though their schools routes covered quite large patches of Greater Manchester, I can't recall any that used single-deckers due to low bridges.

On a more general point, what always concerns me about these incidents is that they only seem to be investigated as a criminal offence (which indeed they may be) or as an internal company matter. There is not the equivalent of a RAIB investigation to determine the actual cause, be that fatigue, distraction, lack of local knowledge, bad signage or whatever.

 

[GusB]

On a more general point, what always concerns me about these incidents is that they only seem to be investigated as a criminal offence (which indeed they may be) or as an internal company matter. There is not the equivalent of a RAIB investigation to determine the actual cause, be that fatigue, distraction, lack of local knowledge, bad signage or whatever.

I don't know if having a different licence category for 'deckers will make any difference - it certainly won't prevent anyone who is so qualified from having a bridge strike.

I think you make quite an important point; we've seen two similar incidents in a short period of time, and we'll no doubt see more of the same in the years and months to come. It's easy to point the finger at the driver and accuse them of not paying attention; however, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the factors you mention were at play, particularly fatigue and the lack of local knowledge.

Perhaps one of those factors is that bus manufacturers design the cabs to be very similar, regardless of the physical dimensions of the vehicle. I can understand how it would be very easy to momentarily lose concentration, especially with a mixed fleet where single- and double-deck buses are often used interchangeably.

There was a time when we used different coloured steering wheels to highlight specific dimensional differences; it's low-tech, but could it work now?

 

[Titfield]

I have stated this before but it bears repetition.

This problem is far more complicated in its cause than simply ascribing fatigue (in its usual sense), distraction, lack of knowledge, similarity of "cab" design whether single or double decker. etc etc.

It is related in some way to the way in which the brain processes information and why it occasionally doesn't not react as one would expect it to do.

The best example I can give is the security officers who operate the baggage scanners at airports. Staff watching the screen are changed IIRC every 15 minutes because it has been demonstrated that after that time there is a high risk they will simply ignore what is quite visibly an item they are looking for and must check, for example the outline of a hand gun.

 

[ajrm]

I don't know if having a different licence category for 'deckers will make any difference - it certainly won't prevent anyone who is so qualified from having a bridge strike.

I think you make quite an important point; we've seen two similar incidents in a short period of time, and we'll no doubt see more of the same in the years and months to come. It's easy to point the finger at the driver and accuse them of not paying attention; however, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the factors you mention were at play, particularly fatigue and the lack of local knowledge.

Perhaps one of those factors is that bus manufacturers design the cabs to be very similar, regardless of the physical dimensions of the vehicle. I can understand how it would be very easy to momentarily lose concentration, especially with a mixed fleet where single- and double-deck buses are often used interchangeably.

There was a time when we used different coloured steering wheels to highlight specific dimensional differences; it's low-tech, but could it work now?

This is an interesting point, and it's one which is specifically addressed in the training which major bus operators have been delivering in conjunction with Network Rail. In other words, don't make assumptions on the basis of cab layout or anything else, don't assume that a police officer diverting you is aware of the height of your vehicle, don't assume that because another bus has gone under a particular bridge that you can also do it...

The basic message is, check the height of your vehicle and check the height of the bridge, since both are marked very clearly.

You can have all possible safeguards and mitigations—signage, legislation, training, whatever—but the Kilmarnock incident beggars belief if, as appears to be the case, the bus has been driven under a bridge which is not even high enough to give clearance for a single deck bus (and barely wide enough either!).

 

[Titfield]

The basic message is, check the height of your vehicle and check the height of the bridge, since both are marked very clearly.

You can have all possible safeguards and mitigations—signage, legislation, training, whatever—but the Kilmarnock incident beggars belief if, as appears to be the case, the bus has been driven under a bridge which is not even high enough to give clearance for a single deck bus (and barely wide enough either!).

Which is why there is something more complex here. If you see a sign that says low bridge and you are driving a bus then normally you would expect your brain to run a check and say the equivalent of "I am driving a bus, buses can be tall, is the bus I am driving too tall for the bridge? check and then decide what action to take."

There are some striking parallels to aviation incidents where pilots have failed to act in the way one would expect given their training, experience and common sense.

Youtube is awash with videos of accidents which beggar belief.

 

[renegademaster]

Would you be able to have a GPS system that would slam the breaks if it detects you about to drive under a bridge you can't fit ,or are they not precise enough to do so? My phone certainly wouldn't be.
Or even a radio beacon on the Bridge maybe.

 

[Trackman]

The recent railway bridge bash in Bolton was a double-decker on a shortcut to the depot. Apparently single deckers are banned from going under it, although they fit. I assume this is because you might forget you are a single decker. Apparently, not confirmed - it was an out-of-town bus agency worker who hit the bridge.

 

[joieman]

Now you virtually never see a double deck training vehicle.

Maybe they're just scarce in your part of the country. I've seen quite a few double-decker driver training buses.

 

[Spsf3232]

Would you be able to have a GPS system that would slam the breaks if it detects you about to drive under a bridge you can't fit ,or are they not precise enough to do so? My phone certainly wouldn't be.
Or even a radio beacon on the Bridge maybe.

First and Stagecoach currently have a GPS based system that sounds an alarm. When the vehicle enters a geo fenced location, the alarm sounds and driver must stop.

 

[MCR247]

Would you be able to have a GPS system that would slam the breaks if it detects you about to drive under a bridge you can't fit ,or are they not precise enough to do so? My phone certainly wouldn't be.
Or even a radio beacon on the Bridge maybe.

Having GPS linked to brakes is going to cause more accidents than it prevents. In fact I’d say anything which involves braking the vehicle without driver input is a definitely a no-go

 

[stevieinselby]

First and Stagecoach currently have a GPS based system that sounds an alarm. When the vehicle enters a geo fenced location, the alarm sounds and driver must stop.

That's good as far as it goes, although it has its limitations. In the case of the South Norwood crash, the bus only has to go 2 metres off route before it hits the bridge, and at another common culprit nearby in South Croydon it is little better at 36 metres ... not a lot of time for the GPS to trigger the alarm and the driver to react to it.

 

[Simon75]

Maybe they're just scarce in your part of the country. I've seen quite a few double-decker driver training buses.

Apart from London, where else?

 

[GusB]

Would you be able to have a GPS system that would slam the breaks if it detects you about to drive under a bridge you can't fit ,or are they not precise enough to do so? My phone certainly wouldn't be.
Or even a radio beacon on the Bridge maybe.

As others have said, GPS isn't without its faults; you've already acknowledged that your phone wouldn't be accurate enough - mine certainly wouldn't be.

Some kind of short-range radio beacon could possibly work. The beacon would transmit the height and width of the bridge and the vehicle would have a receiver that picks up the signal and alerts the driver accordingly. Where do you put the beacons and would there be enough time for the vehicle or driver to react in time to avoid a collision? Such a system won't be cheap, either - who pays for it?

Having GPS linked to brakes is going to cause more accidents than it prevents. In fact I’d say anything which involves braking the vehicle without driver input is a definitely a no-go

I wouldn't like to link any braking system to GPS!

I recall that Volvo was working on a collision-avoidance system that used cameras and radar, although I don't know how far it has been developed. There's a video here (note - it's from 7 years ago, so not very recent):

While the technology is mainly designed to prevent a vehicle running into the one in front, it could probably be adapted to detect low bridges. It also removes the braking decision from the driver, which may not be desirable.

 

[Statto]

I think better route training might help rather than type training. The newspaper reports into two recent accidents in Scotland (one of them today) suggest that the drivers took wrong turnings.

Agreed, drivers being trained for better route knowledge rather than type training would be idea.

I remember a few years ago a company was having staff shortages so they temporarily transferred a driver from other depots, the driver had a decker allocated to the route which they'd never driven before, all they were given was a print out of the route from google maps (the driver never even had a route monitor on board) the driver then took a wrong turn & bus was deroofed after hitting a low bridge, that would never have happened had the driver had proper route training.

 

[cool110]

I recall that Volvo was working on a collision-avoidance system that used cameras and radar, although I don't know how far it has been developed.

It's been a legal requirement for all EU type-approvals for both cars and larger vehicles since 2022