Isobella Ferreria:
carryfast is correct, just look how low down the coach driver sits in relation to the height of the under run bar on the rear of the traylor
They don’t sit that low, the coach in question is a Plaxton Interdeck, the driver sits a good 5ft above the ground so well above the underrun bar, more in line with the actual trailer bed. The driver got away with “serious injuries” which considering he’s hit the back of the truck at at least 50mph (going by the trailer damage) he had a lucky escape
Given that the diameter of a typical 285/85x22.5 tyre is just over one metre, and the very plain height of the steering wheel in this picture of a Megabus Plaxton Interdeck, the driver very obviously is not sitting at least 5 ft above the ground; His head may well be that high but I very much doubt that he can see over the top of the mirror…
When the AEC Swift was first introduced into Central Lndon service in 1968, the complaints about the low driver seating poition were so vociferous and numerous, that over 150 of these buses had to be withdrawn from service and relegated for use as spares, with the rest of production being altered to provide a higher level. countrybus.org/merlswft/MB90fSMS.jpg
cav551:
When the AEC Swift was first introduced into Central Lndon service in 1968, the complaints about the low driver seating poition were so vociferous and numerous, that over 150 of these buses had to be withdrawn from service and relegated for use as spares, with the rest of production being altered to provide a higher level. countrybus.org/merlswft/MB90fSMS.jpg
I guess that was even without taking into account this type of typical motorway type shunt and the resulting vulnerable situation of the poor bleedin driver ?.In addition to closer to car type levels of forward visibility.
There are some photos of RT and RM severe cab impacts out there in which it’s obvious that the driver was actually relatively better protected with mainly the typical truck type of leg vulnerability rather than torso.
Isobella Ferreria:
carryfast is correct, just look how low down the coach driver sits in relation to the height of the under run bar on the rear of the traylor
They don’t sit that low, the coach in question is a Plaxton Interdeck, the driver sits a good 5ft above the ground so well above the underrun bar, more in line with the actual trailer bed. The driver got away with “serious injuries” which considering he’s hit the back of the truck at at least 50mph (going by the trailer damage) he had a lucky escape
Given that the diameter of a typical 285/85x22.5 tyre is just over one metre, and the very plain height of the steering wheel in this picture of a Megabus Plaxton Interdeck, the driver very obviously is not sitting at least 5 ft above the ground; His head may well be that high but I very much doubt that he can see over the top of the mirror…
When the AEC Swift was first introduced into Central Lndon service in 1968, the complaints about the low driver seating poition were so vociferous and numerous, that over 150 of these buses had to be withdrawn from service and relegated for use as spares, with the rest of production being altered to provide a higher level. countrybus.org/merlswft/MB90fSMS.jpg
Either way the coach has held up extremely well considering it’s essentially glass slamming into the back of a solid object, the trailer has crumpled a lot more than the coach has
Isobella Ferreria:
carryfast is correct, just look how low down the coach driver sits in relation to the height of the under run bar on the rear of the traylor
They don’t sit that low, the coach in question is a Plaxton Interdeck, the driver sits a good 5ft above the ground so well above the underrun bar, more in line with the actual trailer bed. The driver got away with “serious injuries” which considering he’s hit the back of the truck at at least 50mph (going by the trailer damage) he had a lucky escape
Given that the diameter of a typical 285/85x22.5 tyre is just over one metre, and the very plain height of the steering wheel in this picture of a Megabus Plaxton Interdeck, the driver very obviously is not sitting at least 5 ft above the ground; His head may well be that high but I very much doubt that he can see over the top of the mirror…
When the AEC Swift was first introduced into Central Lndon service in 1968, the complaints about the low driver seating poition were so vociferous and numerous, that over 150 of these buses had to be withdrawn from service and relegated for use as spares, with the rest of production being altered to provide a higher level. countrybus.org/merlswft/MB90fSMS.jpg
Either way the coach has held up extremely well considering it’s essentially glass slamming into the back of a solid object, the trailer has crumpled a lot more than the coach has
The reality is that the trailer load deck predictably hasn’t crumpled at all and equally predictably cut through the front of the coach at windscreen and more importantly the drivers torso height, like a hot knife through butter.The coach cab floor structure having first predictably demolished the trailer’s underrun protection against that.
nickyboy:
Either way the coach has held up extremely well considering it’s essentially glass slamming into the back of a solid object, the trailer has crumpled a lot more than the coach has
The reality is that the trailer load deck predictably hasn’t crumpled at all and equally predictably cut through the front of the coach at windscreen and more importantly the drivers torso height, like a hot knife through butter.The coach cab floor structure having first predictably demolished the trailer’s underrun protection against that.
To add the bit that held up and crumpled the trailer body structure was predictably the upper deck floor and floor closure structure.
So the cab floor wiped out the underrun protection the upper deck floor structure crumpled the trailer body the trailer load deck just cut through the windscreen between at around driver torso height.The level of penetration then just depends on impact velocity
The thing is a death trap for its driver at least.
nickyboy:
Either way the coach has held up extremely well considering it’s essentially glass slamming into the back of a solid object, the trailer has crumpled a lot more than the coach has
The reality is that the trailer load deck predictably hasn’t crumpled at all and equally predictably cut through the front of the coach at windscreen and more importantly the drivers torso height, like a hot knife through butter.The coach cab floor structure having first predictably demolished the trailer’s underrun protection against that.
To add the bit that held up and crumpled the trailer body structure was predictably the upper deck floor and floor closure structure.
So the cab floor wiped out the underrun protection the upper deck floor structure crumpled the trailer body the trailer load deck just cut through the windscreen between at around driver torso height.The level of penetration then just depends on impact velocity
The thing is a death trap for its driver at least.
Just as well coach crashes and resulting driver deaths are incredibly rare then.
nickyboy:
Either way the coach has held up extremely well considering it’s essentially glass slamming into the back of a solid object, the trailer has crumpled a lot more than the coach has
The reality is that the trailer load deck predictably hasn’t crumpled at all and equally predictably cut through the front of the coach at windscreen and more importantly the drivers torso height, like a hot knife through butter.The coach cab floor structure having first predictably demolished the trailer’s underrun protection against that.
To add the bit that held up and crumpled the trailer body structure was predictably the upper deck floor and floor closure structure.
So the cab floor wiped out the underrun protection the upper deck floor structure crumpled the trailer body the trailer load deck just cut through the windscreen between at around driver torso height.The level of penetration then just depends on impact velocity
The thing is a death trap for its driver at least.
Just as well coach crashes and resulting driver deaths are incredibly rare then.
By number v crashes you could say the same thing about cars and trucks but it does no harm to try to minimise the dangers by striving for the best possible compromise to protect vehicle occupants.
I think that the RM and RT bus designs showed that it’s possible to combine double decks and have a less vulnerable driving position.In terms of driver’s height above the impact zone and frontal protection structures that could substitute having an engine helping, especially with modern computer aided crumple predictions.
With the win win of better forward visibility which is even more important on motorway/trunk road work
It’s not a double decker and passenger doors at rear would have its own dangers on a coach. Dangers much more likely to take place. But I’m sure I know nothing about buses and coaches compared to yourself.
This AFAIK is a similar Volvo chassis to the Megabus involved. The driver has virtually zero protection and in some designs the strongest part of the structure is a sheet of blockboard or ply. The only real strength is at cant rail level.
Having given up in frustration because of the site continually cutting out, finally 9 hours later it allowed me to edit the post with the correct limk.
switchlogic:
It’s not a double decker and passenger doors at rear would have its own dangers on a coach. Dangers much more likely to take place. But I’m sure I know nothing about buses and coaches compared to yourself.
It’s a double decker in so far as the passenger deck is a separate deck above the driver’ cab floor/deck the passengers sit on a deck above the driver’s cab and position ?.Which is the point.
cav551:
This AFAIK is a similar Volvo chassis to the Megabus involved. The driver has virtually zero protection and in some designs the strongest part of the structure is a sheet of blockboard or ply. The only real strength is at cant rail level.
It would be fair to say that running into the back of an artic let alone an even longer overhang rigid, with this type of design doesn’t put the driver in the firing line of the truck chassis/load deck structure smashing through the windscreen into the driver’s torso.
So replace the obviously obsolete RT cab construction structure with a modern type truck cab type of design structure.
Including scope for substituting the redundant engine area with a steel beam and composite steel/ally/carbon fibre honeycombe structure to absorb impact.Most of that impact and resulting damage obviously happening at or even below the driver’s feet/lower leg height.
Actually thinking about it with modern coaches there’s sort of no reason the driver couldn’t be on the top deck. If you look a 4m high double deck coach the top deck passengers are usually about the same position as most flat floor trucks so wouldn’t be beyond the realms of possibility. Wonder why no one has tried. Wonder if anyone has.
switchlogic:
Actually thinking about it with modern coaches there’s sort of no reason the driver couldn’t be on the top deck. If you look a 4m high double deck coach the top deck passengers are usually about the same position as most flat floor trucks so wouldn’t be beyond the realms of possibility. Wonder why no one has tried. Wonder if anyone has.
I would think at that height it would compromise some normal vision but who knows. Best idea for safety is for coaches to travel at a safe distance from the vehicle in front.
They are as bad if not worse than some truck and car drivers.
I understand accidents occur for other reasons however the above is more than often the cause.
Absolutely, I agree, coaches are fine as they are imo, was just thinking out loud about CFs points. Fact is forward visibility is even more important for coaches since they spend their lives with people around them. I think the risk from hurting passengers resulting from a high driving position would far outweigh the risk from running into the back of a lorry. Fact is coach crashes are rare, and ones like that even rarer.
switchlogic:
Absolutely, I agree, coaches are fine as they are imo, was just thinking out loud about CFs points. Fact is forward visibility is even more important for coaches since they spend their lives with people around them. I think the risk from hurting passengers resulting from a high driving position would far outweigh the risk from running into the back of a lorry. Fact is coach crashes are rare, and ones like that even rarer.
How do you improve forward visibility with a driving position that’s closer to the height of a car driver’s than a truck’s.
Don’t remember passenger safety ever being reduced because of the RT and RM driving positions.
