London Bus Crashes Are the Result of an Unsafe Model (ft.com)
- Reference: 0175497939
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/11/19/015228/london-bus-crashes-are-the-result-of-an-unsafe-model
- Source link: https://www.ft.com/content/4ace09be-2b53-4312-be8d-ad7c0accd747
> Earlier this year I had one of those encounters which, afterwards, I just couldn't stop thinking about. Eight months and some digging later, I have decided to write about it. My meeting was with an American businessman called Tom Kearney, who was on a pavement in central London one Christmas when he was whacked on the head so hard that he fell to the ground, spent weeks in a coma, and only just survived. Had he been mugged? Not quite. He'd been hit by the giant wing mirror of a London bus.
>
> [...] The most recent data show that 86 people died or were badly injured in bus collisions in London between 10 December 2023 and 31 March 2024. Kearney's analysis of TfL data suggests that around three people a day are hospitalised after bus safety incidents. That doesn't feel good, even though it's tiny in comparison to the 1.8bn annual passenger journeys. Compared with other world cities like New York and Paris the capital's buses rank in the top quartile for financial efficiency but the bottom quartile for collisions per kilometre. And the number of collisions in London has increased in the past couple of years, despite buses travelling fewer miles.
>
> Could this have anything to do with the way that bus contracts prioritise speed? Last week, hundreds of bus drivers marched to TfL headquarters to demand better working conditions and the right to report safety concerns "without fear of retribution from TfL or employers." Drivers described the pressure of long shifts, few breaks and having to drive in sometimes blistering heat, all while being shouted at over a monitor by controllers who want them to make up the time to the next stop, and keep the right amount of distance between their bus and next. It's not surprising that a third of bus drivers, before the pandemic, reported having had a "close call" from fatigue.
>
> With the government about to export the London franchise model to other parts of the country, someone in Whitehall needs to take a look. Michael Liebreich, a former McKinsey consultant who sat on the TfL board for six years, believes that TfL's contracting out model is "institutionally unsafe." Bus drivers are under such pressure, he thinks, that some may break the speed limit and overtake cyclists dangerously.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/4ace09be-2b53-4312-be8d-ad7c0accd747
Well, yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what happens when conservative f-tards demand "efficiency efficiency efficiency" rather than building a safe, sane system for a public service.
The buses shouldn't have to keep such a tight timetable that they're rushing to make the next stop. They should have enough padding in the schedule to accommodate holding at each stop for a few minutes - whether that means they can drive at safe speeds and account for any issues of traffic, or issues with people who have mobility challenges needing extra time to get on or off the bus, or anything else.
I'm surprised the bus drivers aren't also being [1]forced to pee in bottles. [forbes.com]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/05/24/delivery-drivers-sue-amazon-for-being-forced-to-pee-in-bottles/
Topsy-turvy quartiles (Score:2)
> [...] Compared with other world cities like New York and Paris the capital's buses rank in the top quartile for financial efficiency but the bottom quartile for collisions per kilometre.
Where apparently "bottom quartile" means "top quartile", but something in a top quartile doesn't mean a frowny-enough face for the author. Thanks for the careful writing and editing, Financial Times.
Look both ways before crossing? (Score:2)
And don't walk in a road facing away from traffic. You'll never see it coming.
But no, this is all the fault of a 'Bus Model'. No not the model of bus, but the dispatch software set up with ridiculous schedules. Oh wait that's not the model's fault either, it is the dispatch 'engineer' or whatever they call it.
CLickbait trying to sucker us in with 'models' like Al or something...
Re: (Score:2)
> And don't walk in a road facing away from traffic. You'll never see it coming.
> But no, this is all the fault of a 'Bus Model'. No not the model of bus, but the dispatch software set up with ridiculous schedules. Oh wait that's not the model's fault either, it is the dispatch 'engineer' or whatever they call it.
> CLickbait trying to sucker us in with 'models' like Al or something...
It's an opinion piece, not a news article. You can read the full text with additional information (summary link is paywalled) via [1]https://archive.is/hehDF [archive.is]
[1] https://archive.is/hehDF
Bicycles (Score:1)
Bicycles are very very dangerous. Better be inside the bus.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer horses because they're generally nice animals. Unfortunately, they shit all over the street and have the capacity to buck you off and kill you if they get scared. But I guess that isn't much different than riding on a bus you can't control when the drunken bus driver decides that a shop door is actually an entrance to a tunnel. (/s for the stupid)
Re: (Score:1)
> hit by the giant wing mirror of a London bus.
Buses need those oversized wing (side) mirrors. To clear the space between themselves and the curb of cyclists who try to squeeze by. Shame that a few innocent pedestrians get clobbered. But it's the price we have to pay to eliminate the two-wheeled vermin.
Re: (Score:3)
Replace the mirrors with cameras.
Cameras can be positioned with fewer constraints, so provide a better view.
Cameras have less drag, so fuel efficiency goes up.
Re: (Score:2)
> Replace the mirrors with cameras.
They might not hurt as much.