Broken-down First Great Western rail replacement bus hit by lorry

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

ooh, I'm not sure I'd be tempting fate.... :-(

[John R]

Expect more of the same with the coming "smart" motorways planned by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), where the hard shoulder is used for traffic.

It's only a matter of time. Up until now managed motorways have only had the hard shoulder open when the speed limit is reduced, and during periods of congestion. And the hard shoulder is still marked as such.  The new ones, which started to come on stream at the same time as the rebrand to smart motorways, have done away with the hard shoulder altogether, and all lane running is 24 x 7, with no need for a speed restriction. The police have been vehemently opposed to them on safety grounds.

It will also be much more difficult to get emergency vehicles to the scene of an accident as all lanes will be full. Under the original scheme, most of the day the hard shoulder would still be clear, and the frequency of overhead gantry signs meant that the hard shoulder could be closed quickly in the event of an accident to permit emergency vehicles unimpeded access.

[thetrout]

My biggest concern from the article is this - and I was going to raise this as a question until I saw the eyewitness quote.

^Most of us were not wearing a seatbelt and everyone got thrown around. Some people were on the phone and they went flying.

Am I right in saying that this is a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt whilst travelling on a coach?

I always wear my seatbelt on a coach or bus if they are available and I have done since as long as I can remember.

In secondary school I used to get bullied for it as I was the only student on the coach that would wear one. Eventually things got so bad over the seatbelt "issue" that senior trouts complained to the coach operator who's owner (who was also a driver) said the following:

"I know your son, he's the only one who puts his seatbelt on"

So is it fair of me to comment that could some of these issues COULD been alleviated by wearing a seatbelt? Of course that is heading for speculation so I will stop there.

But anyone who complains to me about getting  injured on a coach when they were NOT wear a seatbelt and there WAS one available will have limited sympathy from me.

[LiskeardRich]

Wearing a seat belt on a minibus, bus or coach
If you are travelling in a minibus you must wear a seat belt if one is fitted (or a child restraint if available).

On a bus or coach you should always wear a seat belt if one is fitted. If you are aged 14 or over, the law states that you must wear a seat belt if fitted.

The responsibility for making sure that the regulations which require children aged three to 13 years to use seat belts (or child restraints if available) are applied on buses and coaches is currently being considered.

So those admitting not wearing a seat belt are effectively publically announcing they were breaking the law, not the wisest move.

[didcotdean]

As the coach was stationary, there was no legal requirement to wear a seatbelt at that time, sensible precaution though that might have been. Also possibly some people were in the process of getting off.

[ChrisB]

indeed, if the coach had been rear-ended while still moving, very little compensation would be claimable by those not wearing, but as soon as the coach had stopped, especially known breakdown, all bets & belts were off for comp claims, as pax would remove them for comfort/in order to get possessions from overhead/get air off the bus etc etc