Bus Tyres

Squ

My wife gets a privatly operated bus home from work and told me that on Monday, while going around a roundabout, the back end stepped out. She said the driver wasnt going fast and tried to laugh it off.

This morning i was dropping her off and while passing the bus, noticed the back tyres were bald. There was another of the same company at the next lights going in the other direction, but with traffic, i had time to look and it's tyres were bald also.

Who do i report them to?

Thanks.

January

Ring the company first and report it there.

P. Breathnach

January wrote: »

Ring the company first and report it there.

You think they don't already know?

Squ

P. Breathnach wrote: »

January wrote: »

Ring the company first and report it there.

You think they don't already know?

Tried that, the maintence manager told my they have very stringent safety/preventative maintenance routines and that all 19 busses in their fleet are independantly tested. Presume he meant commercial equivalent of an nct.

foggy_lad

Contact your local garda. Station and also the station local to where the bus company is based. You should ask to make a statement about seeing bald tyres on the buses.

P. Breathnach

There is a testing programme for public service vehicles, and buses are inspected/tested once a year. Between test dates (as with NCT for private motorists) road safety is a matter for the Gardaí.

Squ

Will do, thanks.

dudara

Moved to Commuting & Transport

dudara

Going Forward

Squ wrote: »

My wife gets a privatly operated bus home from work and told me that on Monday, while going around a roundabout, the back end stepped out. She said the driver wasnt going fast and tried to laugh it off.

This morning i was dropping her off and while passing the bus, noticed the back tyres were bald. There was another of the same company at the next lights going in the other direction, but with traffic, i had time to look and it's tyres were bald also.

Who do i report them to?

Thanks.

As a matter of interest, what size was the bus, and what were the weather conditions like?

Do you or your wife have any experience or training in visually estimating tire tread depth?

Am concerned at the driver trying to laugh it off, but even bald tyres wont allow any vehicle to swing out unless its moving at some speed or on a loose surface or subject to other extraneous matter such as oil on the road etc. .

With a coach or other HGV the tread depth is hard to judge by the naked eye unless it is completely smooth.

There is a 1.6mm minimum tread depth requirement (for all vehicles) and a 1.6mm tread depth will look pretty small on a large tyre.

foggy_lad

Going Forward wrote: »

As a matter of interest, what size was the bus, and what were the weather conditions like?

Do you or your wife have any experience or training in visually estimating tire tread depth?

Am concerned at the driver trying to laugh it off, but even bald tyres wont allow any vehicle to swing out unless its moving at some speed or on a loose surface or subject to other extraneous matter such as oil on the road etc. .

With a coach or other HGV the tread depth is hard to judge by the naked eye unless it is completely smooth.

There is a 1.6mm minimum tread depth requirement (for all vehicles) and a 1.6mm tread depth will look pretty small on a large tyre.

Wrong/low tyre pressures would also account for the vehicle "stepping out" as described. It could also have been the wheel riding up on the kerbing of the roundabout which wouldn't be such a major issue.

OP was this in Naas? was the bus a minibus operated by a taxi company?

Cookie_Monster

Going Forward wrote: »

Do you or your wife have any experience or training in visually estimating tire tread depth?

:rolleyes:

Better report it as a concern and be be proved wrong than say nothing and end up in a crash because of it.
As above contact the local Gardai and request they check it as you have concerns the tyres may be below suitable tread depth, rather than stating they are.

Squ

Cheers lads. Tyres were bald on both coaches.

The roundabout was in swords, the negative camber one at the little chef.

The coach is a single deck 53 seater.

bmaxi

Worked for a small haulage company some years back and the owner had a spare set of wheels which he would rotate between his trucks as they came up for D.O.E. It's a rare sight indeed to see commercial vehicles, particularly coaches and light trucks, pulled over for spot checks. In all my years of driving trucks it only happened to me once and then the Garda hadn't a clue how to read the Tacho, so what expertise he had in other areas was questionable.

corktina

Squ wrote: »

Cheers lads. Tyres were bald on both coaches.

The roundabout was in swords, the negative camber one at the little chef.

The coach is a single deck 53 seater.

truyck and bus tyres have different tread patterns to car tyres, they may look bald but I doubt they were completly slick....

AlekSmart

Squ wrote: »

My wife gets a privatly operated bus home from work and told me that on Monday, while going around a roundabout, the back end stepped out. She said the driver wasnt going fast and tried to laugh it off.

This morning i was dropping her off and while passing the bus, noticed the back tyres were bald. There was another of the same company at the next lights going in the other direction, but with traffic, i had time to look and it's tyres were bald also.

Who do i report them to?

Thanks.

In this case I'd drop in or phone Swords Garda Barracks and ask for the Traffic Sergeant remembering to be factual and calm in your approach.

It's also worth remembering that each Bus & Coach Driver now MUST carry out a Daily "First-Use Check" before taking the vehicle out.

This check includes a visual inspection of tyres and wheels,which the Driver concerned in this instance really should be more concerned about.

flyingsnail

Look at it this way, if the guards check it out and every thing is fine then no harm done, if there is a problem then a dangerous vehicle off the road.

bmaxi

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's also worth remembering that each Bus & Coach Driver now MUST carry out a Daily "First-Use Check" before taking the vehicle out.

This check includes a visual inspection of tyres and wheels,which the Driver concerned in this instance really should be more concerned about.

From what I recall, this was always the case, it certainly was in DCS forty years ago.
As a result DCS had the best maintained bus fleet in the world.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
We've all discovered, to our cost, Ireland is big on legislation, small on enforcement.

AlekSmart

bmaxi wrote: »

From what I recall, this was always the case, it certainly was in DCS forty years ago.
As a result DCS had the best maintained bus fleet in the world.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
We've all discovered, to our cost, Ireland is big on legislation, small on enforcement.

Yes indeed bmaxi, and this is often overlooked by fellows bemoaning all the "extra" effort of the WAC.

However,the difference this time round,is a statutory obligation on the First Driver to carry-out the First-Use-Check and record it,and a similar obligation on the subsequent Driver/s to verify that the WAC has been completed on that vehicle.

A sample WAC sheet is here....

http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Vehicles_at_Work/Driving_for_Work/Vehicle_Safety_Pre-checks/Bus_PSV_Driver_Walk-Around_Check_Sheet.pdf

http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/cardailychecksinformationwebclear.fin.20mar2012.ds.pdf

Item 12 would cover the instance relating to this thread.

It is important to note that currently the First-Use-Check is carried out to comply with Health & Safety At Work legislation rather than Road Traffic Act requirements so an entirely different raft of leglislative instruments are in place.

However,it still puts both the Operator AND the Coachdriver in this case in a very undesireable position and one which may cost them both dearly !

bmaxi

flyingsnail wrote: »

Look at it this way, if the guards check it out and every thing is fine then no harm done, if there is a problem then a dangerous vehicle off the road.

Indeed, providing the Gardai doing the checking know what they're looking for. Some things which create a hazard are very obvious but others really need a trained eye.

bmaxi

AlekSmart wrote: »

Yes indeed bmaxi, and this is often overlooked by fellows bemoaning all the "extra" effort of the WAC.

However,the difference this time round,is a statutory obligation on the First Driver to carry-out the First-Use-Check and record it,and a similar obligation on the subsequent Driver/s to verify that the WAC has been completed on that vehicle.

A sample WAC sheet is here....

http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Vehicles_at_Work/Driving_for_Work/Vehicle_Safety_Pre-checks/Bus_PSV_Driver_Walk-Around_Check_Sheet.pdf

http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/cardailychecksinformationwebclear.fin.20mar2012.ds.pdf

Item 12 would cover the instance relating to this thread.

It is important to note that currently the First-Use-Check is carried out to comply with Health & Safety At Work legislation rather than Road Traffic Act requirements so an entirely different raft of leglislative instruments are in place.

However,it still puts both the Operator AND the Coachdriver in this case in a very undesireable position and one which may cost them both dearly !

Very admirable aspiration but I have to say I've seen it all before. The real question when it comes to things like this is; What procedures are in place to see that these are followed through on? Does this end up as just so much toilet paper at the end of the day? Is somebody, horror of horrors, accountable?
It's not unknown for mechanics in garages, even drivers themselves, to disable warning signals, remove fuses etc., and I've been on buses which were sans fire extinguishers, so until such times as the Carriage Office or some such, has viable procedures in place to enforce these regulations, forgive me if I take all this with a pinch of salt. As I've said, regulations are not enough.

Going Forward

bmaxi wrote: »

Very admirable aspiration but I have to say I've seen it all before. The real question when it comes to things like this is; What procedures are in place to see that these are followed through on? Does this end up as just so much toilet paper at the end of the day? Is somebody, horror of horrors, accountable?
It's not unknown for mechanics in garages, even drivers themselves, to disable warning signals, remove fuses etc., and I've been on buses which were sans fire extinguishers, so until such times as the Carriage Office or some such, has viable procedures in place to enforce these regulations, forgive me if I take all this with a pinch of salt. As I've said, regulations are not enough.

Is the vehicle walk around check actual legislation or just "recommendations"?

There is a now a new unfounded emphasis on owners' vehicles, whilst no acknowledgement is made of the fact that vehicle faults account for a negligible amount of fatalities- this of course keeps the RSA and the HSA good and busy and broadens their agenda and red tape requirements. And now it seems that each agency is overlapping on the other's work.

An interesting point to note is that the "public service style" design of the checklist, -you must print individual daily sheets, great if someone else is paying for the ink and paper- why cant one months or weeks at least worth of checks be listed on one A4 sheet of paper using small columns and tick boxes?

Cant see too many old style operators printing off check sheets from computers they dont have!

From experience, conscientious owners and drivers do a walk around check anyway (even unknown to themselves!), eg each time they stop for rests, washing vehicles etc, waiting at school gates etc, which in practice would be more times than the once a day health and safety regulations.

On the other hand, many I'm sure dont bother also.

In relation to the operator concerned, if as the OP says, the vehicle was not moving quickly and skidded out, it MAY be nothing to do with the vehicle, and he would possibly be bringing the wrath of the RSA, HSA, DOT, and AGS on them for no reason!

xtradel

Do Bus Eireann city service drivers need to adhere to tacho rules? Twice i've gotten a city service in Galway and when leaving the bus I noticed the digital tacho showed "driving without card" displayed.

bmaxi

Going Forward wrote: »

Is the vehicle walk around check actual legislation or just "recommendations"?

There is a now a new unfounded emphasis on owners' vehicles, whilst no acknowledgement is made of the fact that vehicle faults account for a negligible amount of fatalities- this of course keeps the RSA and the HSA good and busy and broadens their agenda and red tape requirements. And now it seems that each agency is overlapping on the other's work.

An interesting point to note is that the "public service style" design of the checklist, -you must print individual daily sheets, great if someone else is paying for the ink and paper- why cant one months or weeks at least worth of checks be listed on one A4 sheet of paper using small columns and tick boxes?

Cant see too many old style operators printing off check sheets from computers they dont have!

From experience, conscientious owners and drivers do a walk around check anyway (even unknown to themselves!), eg each time they stop for rests, washing vehicles etc, waiting at school gates etc, which in practice would be more times than the once a day health and safety regulations.

On the other hand, many I'm sure dont bother also.

In relation to the operator concerned, if as the OP says, the vehicle was not moving quickly and skidded out, it MAY be nothing to do with the vehicle, and he would possibly be bringing the wrath of the RSA, HSA, DOT, and AGS on them for no reason!

Really, in Ireland it doesn't matter whether it's legislation or not. There is virtually no policing of HGVs and coaches. Successive Government Ministers in all departments will point to reams and reams of legislation on every subject under the sun and then point you in the direction of AGS, HSE, DPP and various other quagmires of bull**** and red tape when asked for clarification, it's just an exercise in arse covering and being seen to do something.
It's only when something like Aston Quay or the school bus crash outside Navan happens that we see just how lax the the implementation of the rules is. Law enforcement is reactive rather than proactive.
On topic, the OP has stated that the two rear tyres on the coach were bald, I agree that if this was simply a case of his not being able to judge tread depth then it could be an inconvenience for the operator but on the other hand, no legitimate operator should fear a visit from inspectors and no member of the public should be afraid to voice their fears.

bmaxi

xtradel wrote: »

Do Bus Eireann city service drivers need to adhere to tacho rules? Twice i've gotten a city service in Galway and when leaving the bus I noticed the digital tacho showed "driving without card" displayed.

Buses travelling within certain mileage limits are not required to use a Tacho.

Del2005

AlekSmart wrote: »

Yes indeed bmaxi, and this is often overlooked by fellows bemoaning all the "extra" effort of the WAC.

However,the difference this time round,is a statutory obligation on the First Driver to carry-out the First-Use-Check and record it,and a similar obligation on the subsequent Driver/s to verify that the WAC has been completed on that vehicle.

A sample WAC sheet is here....

http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Vehicles_at_Work/Driving_for_Work/Vehicle_Safety_Pre-checks/Bus_PSV_Driver_Walk-Around_Check_Sheet.pdf

http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/cardailychecksinformationwebclear.fin.20mar2012.ds.pdf

Item 12 would cover the instance relating to this thread.

It is important to note that currently the First-Use-Check is carried out to comply with Health & Safety At Work legislation rather than Road Traffic Act requirements so an entirely different raft of leglislative instruments are in place.

However,it still puts both the Operator AND the Coachdriver in this case in a very undesireable position and one which may cost them both dearly !

I remember doing a CPC module, IIRC it was 4, and the drivers where laughing about these checks(luckily I don't have to drive for a living). Some had pulled up at Garda stations after being made to leave the yard with a dangerous vehicle, they where told drive it or someone else will, for the Gardaí to do nothing either.

Lots of drivers are being forced to drive over hours etc and there's not a thing being done about it.

It will end it disaster, as the price fuel goes up so do drivers hours and safety goes out the window as it can't be afforded, even though it'll cost a hell of a ot more when it does go wrong.

xtradel wrote: »

Do Bus Eireann city service drivers need to adhere to tacho rules? Twice i've gotten a city service in Galway and when leaving the bus I noticed the digital tacho showed "driving without card" displayed.

bmaxi wrote: »

Buses travelling within certain mileage limits are not required to use a Tacho.

Is it not that timetabled routes don't need tacho's?

AlekSmart

Del2005 wrote: »

Is it not that timetabled routes don't need tacho's?

The exemptions are detailed here....

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Tachograph_Enf/Tachograph_Declaration_form.pdf

The one specific to Bus operations is ....

Regular passenger service not exceeding 50 kilometres (31 miles)

Vic_08

AlekSmart wrote: »

The exemptions are detailed here....

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Tachograph_Enf/Tachograph_Declaration_form.pdf

The one specific to Bus operations is ....

Regular passenger service not exceeding 50 kilometres (31 miles)

Those are the rules for vehicles not fitted with tachograph equipment but the same exclusion also applis to drivers not using fitted tachographs when operating services within those limits.

Scheduled services 50km or under are outside the EU driving rules and instead come under domestic regulations. As well as not requiring tachos they also allow longer continuous driving and shorter breaks.

In the UK it is now very common for bus operators to "Split" longer routes that would otherwise fall under EU rules. Although these routes are split they will usually still be through routes with the same bus and driver for much more than the 50km limit. As well as saving money by not having tachos and adhering to the more restrictive EU rules drivers operating under the domestic rules in the UK are also allowed to opt out of the EU working time directive.

Going Forward

bmaxi wrote: »

Really, in Ireland it doesn't matter whether it's legislation or not. There is virtually no policing of HGVs and coaches. Successive Government Ministers in all departments will point to reams and reams of legislation on every subject under the sun and then point you in the direction of AGS, HSE, DPP and various other quagmires of bull**** and red tape when asked for clarification, it's just an exercise in arse covering and being seen to do something.
It's only when something like Aston Quay or the school bus crash outside Navan happens that we see just how lax the the implementation of the rules is. Law enforcement is reactive rather than proactive.
On topic, the OP has stated that the two rear tyres on the coach were bald, I agree that if this was simply a case of his not being able to judge tread depth then it could be an inconvenience for the operator but on the other hand, no legitimate operator should fear a visit from inspectors and no member of the public should be afraid to voice their fears.

And there has to be a balance.
If every uninformed member of the public, (including those with an axe to grind) began reporting every concern they have about taxis, buses and HGVs the country would grind to a halt.

I do agree though that vehicles, including private cars are NOT being given at the very least a basic check over at checkpoints.

If the cops started doing this in a professional/respectful/helpful manner, drivers and owners would start to wake up to what is required of them.

But a softly softly approach would have to be taken initially, to get people onside.

To me, this particular case is a bit odd because:

1. The description of the incident is quite vague to say the least: "the back end stepped out".
2. The OP has not elaborated on the accuracy of their ability to judge tread depth from a distance.
3. By coincidence, the OP drew up alongside another one of the company's vehicles, and lo and behold, it also has bald tyres.

Also, in one of the cases mentioned above, IMO there was a lot of "scapegoating" and smoke and mirrors employed to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Its probably not up for discussion here.

bmaxi

Going Forward wrote: »

And there has to be a balance.
If every uninformed member of the public, (including those with an axe to grind) began reporting every concern they have about taxis, buses and HGVs the country would grind to a halt.

I do agree though that vehicles, including private cars are NOT being given at the very least a basic check over at checkpoints.

If the cops started doing this in a professional/respectful/helpful manner, drivers and owners would start to wake up to what is required of them.

But a softly softly approach would have to be taken initially, to get people onside.

To me, this particular case is a bit odd because:

1. The description of the incident is quite vague to say the least: "the back end stepped out".
2. The OP has not elaborated on the accuracy of their ability to judge tread depth from a distance.
3. By coincidence, the OP drew up alongside another one of the company's vehicles, and lo and behold, it also has bald tyres.

Also, in one of the cases mentioned above, IMO there was a lot of "scapegoating" and smoke and mirrors employed to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Its probably not up for discussion here.

The problem is that even when "informed" members of the public make complaints, they too are ignored as testified by Del2005 above. The GardaI have absolutely no interest in enforcing the RTA other than those offences which are targeted from time to time.
I'm sure it's possible the OP has an axe to grind but in the absence of any evidence to that effect, we just have to take him at face value.