Dublin Bus - The No. 4 Bendy Bus

De Bhál

I get this out to work every morning.

Why is it that when letting people off the driver doesn't open the back doors rather than making people travel the length of the bus to disembark.

Is it a safety thing or are the doors there for just an emergency.

Joey the lips

Why dont you ask the driver? Maybe its to stop people hoppin on.

KC61

Well given that none of the bus stop bays are extended to fit the articulated buses, safety is generally the reason.

There was no planning for these buses - the DTO decided that Dublin Bus should buy them but without ever organising a proper infrastructure in which to operate them.

De Bhál

Thanks for that.

I might ask the driver tomorrow.

Cookie_Monster

the middle doors fit into most stops though.

OP its the same reason all new buses only have one door. Short sighted stupidity. :pac:
I think the real reason is to stop fare evasion.

Max Power1

probably to stop people getting on without paying. As mentioned above

Run_to_da_hills

I guess its all down to health and safety.

"Pensioner dragged 90ft trapped in doors of bendy bus after 'driver didn't see her".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1271855/Pensioner-dragged-90ft-trapped-doors-bendy-bus-driver-didnt-her.html

stop

It's fare evasion over H&S reasons. Same reason why centre doors are not opened on the remaining double deckers that have them.
Now if only someone would step up to the plate and police the buses which could combat fare evasion/scumbaggery..

AlekSmart

OP its the same reason all new buses only have one door. Short sighted stupidity.
I think the real reason is to stop fare evasion.

Indeed Cookie-Monster,but "short-sighted stupidity" is only part of the reasoning and fare evasion does`nt enter the equation at all as "Officially" it hardly exists...less than 3% according to the last BAC figures I came across...( :rolleyes: )

In spite of what many might think Dublin Bus did put quite some degree of consideration into speccing it`s first Low Floor Double Deck vehicles back in the 1990`s.

At that time the Irish Low Floor Double Deck market was (and remains) dominated by UK thinking.

Experience in the UK,particularly in London demonstrated that there was serious negative customer reaction to the lack of seating in the lower-saloon of the LFDD vehicles.

Some of the London LFDD`s had as few as 15 seats available for the able-bodied customer which resulted in many problems with Dpuble-Deck vehicles operating at well below capacity as folks simply clustered around the Wheelchair Space and bottom of the stairwell.

Not alone did this result in those who DID wish to travel upstairs being unable to get up there but it also prevented those upstairs from getting down and off the bus.

The lack of a definite policy on Wheelchair/Baby Carriage use also causes serious problems on the London Bus network,a situation entirely of their own making as they never devised or implimented a clear policy on the use of this space.
Interestingly this lack of policy has serious Health & Safety implications given the TfL insistence on the Disablity Ramp being located at the Centre-Door which causes all-sorts of dangerous situations with Wheelchair users being unable to get through the doorway due to abandoned Baby Carriages or shopping trollies etc.

By far the greatest level of negative feedback to both Bodywork designers and Bus Operators related to "ordinary" passengers being unable to get a seat downstairs.

Even more pertinent was the fact that this complaint carried through across the Commute,with short-hop passengers being just as vocal about their desire for a seat as the full-route passenger.

Armed with this knowledge,Bus Atha Cliath decided to go for a specification which would maximize the seating capacity of its fleet whilst meeting it`s legal requirements vis Disabled Access.

I would contend that this has been a positive policy BUT it has been overshadowed by a serious lack of progress on modernising and improving the entire Fare collection regieme.

Currently Dublin Bus has approx a 50/50 Cash/Prepaid split,which is abysmal if full efficient use is to be gained from it`s vehicular resources.

With the introduction of "Smart" technology there was an immediate possibility of fitting multiple Card Readers,say one at front of bus,one at mid-point lower and one at top of upper saloon stairwell.

This policy,of course has to be reinforces with a much increased level of ticket-checking to ensure compliance,and it is this which the company appear reluctant to embrace.

That said,the vast majority of Bus Passengers are fully compliant and totally honest in their transactions.

The problem,however lies in the Company being seen to support those Customers who DO observe the rules as against being seen to willingly facilitate and even encourage those who desire only to take and abuse the service and it`s equipment.

This managerial attitude defecit is perhaps best illustrated by the ongoing and worsening situation on the Luas system.

Here,we are seeing a Public Relations nightmare being allowed to develop in slow-motion before our eyes on a virtually new Public Transport system.

Veolia/RPA are in danger of throwing away the hard won Public Perception of Luas as a "Clean,Safe and Rapid" commuting tool and instead allowing the concept of a dangerous and unpredictable service to replace it.

Dublin Bus could be said to have lost that particular battle long-ago and so therefore may have lost the focus on what it`s "compliant" customers require as it installs more and more automated security features to deal with anti-social behaviour AFTER it occurs rather than being pro-active about preventing it BEFORE the kettle boils over.

Anyway,I`m rambling a bit..but the essence of the Multi Door arguement boils down to passengers preferring seat availability to standing or strap-hanging.

(Its perhaps also important to underline that there are NO Trade Union issues with the use of multi-door vehicles,all of that was long ago sorted back in the Leyland Atlantean days...almost Black & White ! )

devnull

Some drivers on the 4 do use the back doors, but the impression I have got is they are not really supposed to.

stop

Good post AlekSmart.

I supposed if it weren't for the fare evasion factor then, they could have double-doored the VTs?

I remember being shocked the first time I used a smartcard that the reader on the driver's machine is for checking only, they could easily have had that in use. Though I suspect the current system is based upon the driver getting one message (by the beep or on his screen) from one ticket machine at a time to cut down on fare evasion.

Victor

KC61 wrote: »

There was no planning for these buses - the DTO decided that Dublin Bus should buy them but without ever organising a proper infrastructure in which to operate them.

They barely have proper bus stops for smaller buses, never mind long ones.

The vast majority of stops with Kassel Kerbs are treated for 5-10, which isn't enough for two buses to load/unload at the same time.

There there is the matter of buses having to pull in at an angle because of poorly designed lay-bys and ill-considered parking, while the front door may be at the kerb (driver diligence dependent), the rear one isn't.

devnull

The fact they have bought some big long high capacity VT's with one small door at the front is what irritates me, neither those or the AW's will reach their potential with that configuration as any benefit from carrying more people is outweighed by the longer dwell times.

Off topic I know but relating to this particular bus.

When they were relatively new, my boss was almost knocked off her bike as the back end of the bus bent. She rang Dublin Bus to complain and was told "ah sure they're only learning how to drive them, they're not used to them yet" :eek:

Cookie_Monster

Deleted User wrote: »

Off topic I know but relating to this particular bus.

When they were relatively new, my boss was almost knocked off her bike as the back end of the bus bent. She rang Dublin Bus to complain and was told "ah sure they're only learning how to drive them, they're not used to them yet" :eek:

under what circumstances, I'd reckon 99% of the time that'd be the cyclist fault, if they overtake you you let them do it as quick as possible, you don't ever undertake them; thats just silly.

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

under what circumstances, I'd reckon 99% of the time that'd be the cyclist fault, if they overtake you you let them do it as quick as possible, you don't ever undertake them; thats just silly.

I agree 99% of the time, but the way she explained it to me definitely sounded like it was the bus's fault. She was overtaking him as he was stopping at a bus stop and the tail end bent outwards or something like that.

Still though, regardless of whos fault it was, that response wouldn't instil confidence :pac:

Vic_08

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree 99% of the time, but the way she explained it to me definitely sounded like it was the bus's fault. She was overtaking him as he was stopping at a bus stop and the tail end bent outwards or something like that.

That would make it the fault of the cyclist who overtook the bus without giving it enough room.

The amount of cyclists and motorists who try to squeeze past large vehicles turning is astounding. All large buses and trucks have a tail swing, some will sweep out significantly, ignorance of this fact does not mean other road users are absolved of responsibility for their bad driving/cycling.

Deleted User wrote: »

Still though, regardless of whos fault it was, that response wouldn't instil confidence :pac:

No it wouldn't. It gives me no confidence at all in some of the office-bound people that have no PSV training or experience who answer random phonecalls from the public. Apparently some of them will throw out off the cuff comments about situations they have no direct knowledge of suggesting that drivers who ARE properly trained have been in the wrong.

patrickbrophy18

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the middle doors fit into most stops though.

OP its the same reason all new buses only have one door. Short sighted stupidity. :pac:
I think the real reason is to stop fare evasion.

Interesting point Cookie_Monster. I use these buses on a regular basis to get out to DCU. However, what I reckon they do to make better use of the back doors is have a prepaid ticket validater installed on the side of them and of course being valide for all prepaid tickets. It would be an excellent idea because I regularly see a huge queue of people trying to board them on O'Connell Street. At least this would divide the queue two ways.

patrickbrophy18

Oh and of course, the doors would open and close every time a person validated their card. It would have to be swift enough to prevent tail-gating (pardon the pun).:D

AlekSmart

When they were relatively new, my boss was almost knocked off her bike as the back end of the bus bent. She rang Dublin Bus to complain and was told "ah sure they're only learning how to drive them, they're not used to them yet"

Vic 08 makes a very valid point here:

No it wouldn't. It gives me no confidence at all in some of the office-bound people that have no PSV training or experience who answer random phonecalls from the public. Apparently some of them will throw out off the cuff comments about situations they have no direct knowledge of suggesting that drivers who ARE properly trained have been in the wrong.

No offence to Whoopsadaisydoodles Boss (I wonder what Her name is ) but one of the greatest difficulties in City Centre bus driving is being aware of the large numbers of cyclists who are almost on (or off) their machines.

Dublins City Centre has had more than enough Bicycle related fatalities by now to have at least resulted in some form of properly administered Bicycle/Vehicle segregation policy.

As a Busdriver,95% of my business is with or about the Footpath.
It is both where my intending customers are and where my current ones want to be.
As a result I must safely negotiate my way into and away from every Bus-Stop without compromising any other Road Users safety.

In the current Capital City environment this remains far from guaranteed and is in essence an aspiration which few of the City`s administrative agencies are prepared to offer much to assist in achieving.

The very notion that painting a Cycle Lane along a Contra-Flow QBC which is utilized by a constant flow of 11 to 14 Metre high capacity heavyweight buses and coaches and then expecting both cyclists and large vehicles to safely co-exist is totally off-the-wall.

Any close meeting between a full size Bus or Truck and a bicycle has to be seen as terror inspiring from the cyclists perception,whilst the same event might not even have been noticed by the Bus/Coach driver.

The level of monitoring which will allow a Busdriver 100% observation of the Bus has not yet been installed and in reality cannot be interfaced with the actual business of operating a vehicle which must move into and away from footpaths whilst fast-moving,unpredictable pedestrians and cyclists continue to approach and pass.

AlekSmart

AlekSmart wrote: »

No offence to Whoopsadaisydoodles Boss (I wonder what Her name is ) but one of the greatest difficulties in City Centre bus driving is being aware of the large numbers of cyclists who are almost on (or off) their machines.
.

no offence intended followed by implied sexism :rolleyes:

I don't cycle as I would be terrified. The point of my post was nothing to do with the bus nearly hitting her anyway. It was the response of the guy on the end of the phone at the bus depot which I found comical.

AlekSmart

no offence intended followed by implied sexism

Certainly no sexist implication intended,as it`s a gender neutral area :rolleyes:

Mind you,I do like the Mr Men characters

The point of my post was nothing to do with the bus nearly hitting her anyway. It was the response of the guy on the end of the phone at the bus depot which I found comical.

And a good point it is too.

As Vic_08 posts,that type of response appears designed to defuse the callers ire and ensure a peaceful day.

By far and away the most professional response would be to seek further details from the complainant and then have the matter investigated without offering ANY form of comment,good,bad or indifferent.

In this instance it`s quite possibly the deskbound person who might have benefitted more from a bit of oul trainin ?