Why do people decide to hold long-distance Friday meetings before a bank holiday weekend? Whether by car or train, getting back on an average Friday ain’t easy. Add bank holiday traffic and I decided to take the public transport option. It’s usually my preference anyway, of course, though by no means always possible, depending upon where I need to be.
Simply by looking at the real time information, nearby roadworks and observing the general traffic around me, I could tell that my bus connection would be late. In the event, it turned up just over 21 minutes adrift. Those just arriving at the bus stop would have thought it was the next bus, or perhaps one arriving early. Others were solemn in their impatient waiting, glancing up at all the buses of the correct colour in the forlorn hope one would be theirs. Few bothered to check the RTI.
On the bus itself, a Standard Pointer Dart, I reflected upon the day before when I was advising a manager about what he should do regarding a driver whose speed regularly seemed to frighten passengers.
I wouldn’t say I was frightened during my own bus trip, more concerned and critical. There were, however, passenger murmurings all around me. The driver was nothing if bullish. The result was a journey punctuated by swift acceleration and sudden braking. The poor Dart body creaked and groaned, as it was starting to show its age. Along with the rattles and clatters, here was pretty much constant brake squeal.
The driver arrived at our destination just six minutes late, having made up exactly 15 minutes, even with a very healthy on-off load. Those waiting at the interchange for the next leg of the service probably therefore noticed nothing unusual for a Friday.
Some few years ago, this sort of corrective action would’ve been commended and encouraged, as a passenger service. These days, though, drivers are asked to be steady rather than speedy. It may be possible to right a few minutes’ delay but if you are late to the tune of 20 minutes and there’s a good reason for it, it’s best to be a little more relaxed about matters for, realistically, there is little you can safely do to make up time. Operators should no longer tolerate this style of driving and neither should passengers. There was one occasion when tolerances at an urban pinch-point were such that the driver nearly locked horns with the mirrors of an oncoming wagon. And, almost throughout the journey, was my bête noir, the now seemingly universal hand on the cash tray and not the steering wheel.
I can only assume there was no tracker or green driving technology on this particular vehicle and nothing to register harsh braking. Mind you, it only needed a sharp stroll from the bus and I caught my onward connection home. Sorry Drive, but I will nevertheless be telephoning someone senior at your company on Tuesday morning to register my disquiet.
Monday, 31 May 2010
Bête Noir
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
To play devil's advocate: if the driver did his best to catch up time should he not be praised for achieving that rather than scolded for the manner in which it was done?
I remember being told by my Instructor "If you can drive swiftly, yet without the passengers noticing, you're a good driver".
It's hard to judge without actually being there, but I'd certainly prefer a driver to attempt to pull back a few minutes rather than drive in the usual lacklustre, yet none-too-smooth, way which seems endemic at one of my local Scottish based multinationals.
By comparison, drivers with the local subsidiary of the other Scottish based multinational have the ability to drive their vehicles very swiftly, and very smoothly.
Slow doesn't equal smooth!
"it only needed a sharp stroll from the bus and I caught my onward connection home."
Is there such a thing as a "sharp stroll"? Contradiction in terms?
My local operator has drivers who can catch up time but still drive as smoothly as when they are on time. They have others who never drive smoothly at any time and they are often the ones who do it with one hand rather than two.
On a recent commute the entire 50 minute journey with the exception of two right-angled turns was done with one hand, mostly the right. There were occasions when the driver felt the need to hang on to the window frame rather than the vertical support of the assault screen. The single handed operation also precluded the use of the hand/parking brake on two hill start traffic lights. The operator had an email fired off to them when I got home.
Busing had the benefit of a Pointer Dart. The ones allocated for my suburban route are by a different manufacturer and not to the same standard. Given the quality of the roads and the number of humps and speed tables it is very difficult for any driver to give a good ride. I am always pleased when one of their Pointer Darts is subbed as a know that journey will be a little more pleasant.
From Busing's description I suspect that had the bus been on time at the point where he got on he would have been 15 munites early when he got off. In other words, did running late make any difference to the way that the driver drove? We are not told the length of the journey so it is difficult to put it into context.
It could be suggested that the performance of modern buses has its part to play in driving standards, making it too easy to acquire bad habits.
[Pedantry mode ON:] the 'slow down' pedal is the brake, not break, and the action it causes is braking not breaking. Normally the breaking happens if your braking is wrong.
[End of pedantry.]
A good point, Anonymous of 1210. Have fixed the broken breaking anomaly.
I don't remember my instructors saying anything about driving without passengers noticing when I trained two years ago with one of the large multinational groups. (In fact, the first one surprised me by telling me to floor the accelerator about 3/4 through the 90° turn out the bus depot to 'clear the junction more quickly' - that said, it was an old Dennis Lance and flooring it didn't do much.)
I regard the bus services I drive as a method of getting people between A and B and C as closely to the published timetable as possible while avoiding injury and damage to property. If I were twenty minutes late I'd certainly be fully utilising the capabilities of the alloted vehicle to minimise discrepancy with the timetable, to put it obtusely...
The quality of the vehicle plays a big role. Some of my depot's midibuses, if they can get beyond 40mph at all, make such a din from all the loosely-attached bodywork fittings thumping into one another you'd think you'd put all your kitchen appliances into the washing machine on a spin cycle. But a Volvo B7 can happily charge around the countryside and up the hills at 50mph, and brake evenly and smoothly to the bus stops, without upsetting the passenger's tins of lager.
I can easily make up time with a change to my driving style , but the bus can also be blamed, as the brakes combined with the retarder can be really sharp on some and really slow on others, also the suspension and the looseness of fittings on the bus. I feel sorry for the driver because your actual complaint could actually put him out of a job, if anything you should of told him as you came off the bus. From experience driving darts doesnt give the best of rides if your running late.
Comfort and safety of the passenger should be the main criteria. I would much rather be a few minutes late than have one of these heavy-footed drivers, especially over speed humps.
In the 21st century, the use of what may be called 'excessive' speed to try and maintain schedules is definitely frowned upon. Rightly so.
But what are the options for the service planners? Passengers dislike slow journeys with drivers having to wait time as much as they complain about fast journeys. Drivers are told to wait for passengers to be seated before pulling away, and it has to be said that the number of very elderly and almost immobile passengers nowadays is far greater than even 5 years ago, no doubt because of the vast increase in the number of low floor buses.
With my driver's hat on, I have to sy that, despite knowing that comfort and safety of passengers should always be my first priority, the temptation to try and catch up a little bit of time when you're late is also part of the driver psyche, and it ain't always easy to tell yourself that you're on a loser so forget the timetable and just do the job right.
The final problem for roadstaff is also that front line supervisors tend not to share managements views on how to drive when running late, so maybe the retraining should start with the attitude of the regulators/inspectors/controllers.
Thank you all for your comments to date. I intend following up these and any others received in the very near future.
I made a series of journeys on TfL services today. Only one of them was noticeably late - a commendable performance for London.
I was reliant on a short connection off one route to another at Uxbridge. Unfortunately the bus to take me to Uxbridge arrived late and then simply crawled at 20 mph all the way despite ample opportunity to regain time lost on the inward journey. The bus in question was a "10" reg Enviro 200 so no issue about shakes or rattles or anything else. From departing 2 minutes late we ended up 9 minutes late for no good reason. I missed my connection. From a passenger viewpoint there was no need for this undue slowness at all.
A later trip on the X26 was well driven with decent pace as befits an express. At no point was anyone thrown off balance depsite a standing load. It is perfectly possible to drive with pace but with due consideration for passengers, safety and other road vehicles. If only all drivers could meet this sensible standard of performance.
I feel sorry for the driver here. He is no doubt under pressure from his employers to keep to time. And now he will have an official complaint against him. How morale boosting.
From a passenger point of view, I would much rather be on time than have a smooth ride. Especially I I am waiting at a bus stop in the pouring rain, I'd rather the bus have caught up time than be twenty minutes late but giving a smooth ride.
Agreed anon 1241. Surely the thing passengers want first and foremost from a bus service is to get them were they need to go, at the time they need to go there - that after all is the only point of a bus service. The blog author has indicated that without this driver's "bullish" driving he would have missed his onward connection. That may have been fine for him on this occasion, but it may not be fine for everyone if travelling with a deadline, connecting with an infrequent onward service, travelling with a restrictive advance-purchase rail ticket, or whatever.
As a passenger, I personally find there is nothing more frustrating than a driver who is late and who clearly couldn't care less about the fact. Obviously a driver must never drive recklessly or take undue risks, but I'm more than happy for a bit of passenger ride quality to be sacrificed in the interests of punctuality when necessary.
Am I alone in thinking that a timetable, that allows 15 minutes delay to be recovered on a busy journey, is excessively generous for normal condiditions? Either that, or it was a very long journey - or perhaps there was a stop with a long layover in the middle?
I cannot see the concept of 'sacrificing ride quality in the interests of punctuality' gaining much official acceptance. No bus operator would put a note on their timetable saying 'if the bus is late, passengers should expect to be thrown around a bit'; nor could they afford to send any such messages to their staff - think of the potential insurance claims.
I have no idea whether the driver involved in this incident would be likely to lose his job as a result of such a complaint - I should have thought that was unlikely - but some remedial training would probably be a more appropriate course of action.
"I cannot see the concept of 'sacrificing ride quality in the interests of punctuality' gaining much official acceptance."
There's a difference between official company policy and a driver trying his best to keep to time. You have used one commenter's opinion and twisted it to appear as what would be an obviously silly company idea. Sacrificing ride quality isn't necessary, and as shown by other comments, isn't directly linked to driving swiftly.
"No bus operator would put a note on their timetable saying 'if the bus is late, passengers should expect to be thrown around a bit'; nor could they afford to send any such messages to their staff - think of the potential insurance claims."
No, they wouldn't put that in a timetable. But then, I've never seen "please expect the times shown to vary by about 20 minutes" appear in a timetable either.
Having read the various posts there does seem to be a divergence of opinion between support for the driver in making up time and support for the passenger in getting to their destination in reasonable safety and comfort. Surely a good driver, properly trained, should be able to strive for both.
A driver should be penalised if he has a poor driving style as this, at its most basic, can be dangerous to both passengers and other road users as well as a cost to the bus company. If he is employing a responsible driving style then there shouldn't be penalisation for being delayed.
Anonymous said...
"Sacrificing ride quality isn't necessary, and as shown by other comments, isn't directly linked to driving swiftly."
I agree entirely - that is the point: the concensus of opinion is that it isn't necessary to sacrifice ride quality. And, therefore, the operator does not need to condone it, officially or unofficially. Of course my comment was 'tongue in cheek', but if you look again at the anonymous comments above mine, there seems to be an implication that the company should not take any action against such driving - turning the proverbial 'blind eye' - which to my mind amounts to unofficially condoning it. They cannot take that risk either - and they don't need to.
Oooh... pedantry but it's a pet hate. In the follow-up post you're using (sic) to suggest the use of "it's" is incorrect in the slogan on the front of the training bus.
Of course, "it's" with an apostrophe really is the abbreviation for "it is" so the punctuation is quite correct.
It is the possessive "its" that has no apostrophe, in line with similar words: his, hers, theirs, its, ours.
Aaaand apologies for bringing it up... :-)
In using "sic" I was referring to the start of the sentence without a capital!
: )
There's two different topics to this. Should the driver drive in an unsafe manner to catch up time? No, of course not.
Should the driver drive, at the expense of ride quality, to catch up time? Maybe he should.
Unsafe driving and poor ride quality are not directly linked (though you will get some cases where both are occurring).
I've had numerous badly-driven bus rides, where passengers noticed. They were still driven safely though.
Equally, I've had some very smooth bus rides that were unsafe. On a Southern Vectis bus for example, gliding around the country roads very smoothly, but way too close to the car in front, to the extent that when it stopped to turn off we had to do an near-emergency stop.
Anonymous @ 1933
I'm confused. In what way is a badly driven bus safe? You mention smooth rides on Southern Vectis, but if the driver had to do a near emergency stop because he was too close behind that is certainly not safe.
Those drivers who mainly use only one hand may drive smoothly but it doesn't make them safe drivers. We should not equate smoothness with safety.
Annon @ 2009
I was just saying that "poor ride" and "safety" aren't necessarily one.
Of course a badly driven bus can be safe. At urban traffic over revving, and speeding up and slowing down too quickly are all symptoms of bad driving. Uncomfortable and poor ride quality, yes. But was the driving unsafe? No.
The Southern Vectis example was the opposite. Was the ride smooth and comfortable? Yes. Was the driving safe? No.
Your last line sums up what I was trying to say. "We should not equate smoothness with safety."
But equally, we should not necessarily equate uncomfortable driving as being unsafe (just more of an annoyance).
Don't forget that safety is, to some extent at least, a matter of perception. A fit, healthy and alert passenger may consider a rough ride to be simply 'exhiliarating'; an infirm or otherwise encumbered passenger on the same journey may feel at risk.
Good customer care does, of course, include understanding the differing needs of individual customers (passengers in this case).
I trust you did raise this with us at the time?
Equally, I've had some very smooth bus rides that were unsafe. On a Southern Vectis bus for example, gliding around the country roads very smoothly, but way too close to the car in front, to the extent that when it stopped to turn off we had to do an near-emergency stop.
"Am I alone in my abhorrence of one-handed driving?"
No, you are not. I whole-heartedly share this view. The driver is not in full control and it looks awful, not presenting a professional image.
Having suffered a computer virus, I have only just read the original post. I am surprised by the differing level of opinion in the responses.
Whilst it is admirable to see a driver trying to make up time in a safe manner, rather than go even slower when running late to try and get 'turned short' or maximise their break, a Professional PCV Driver's priority always has to be Passenger Safety and Comfort. Anything else comes a very definate 3rd or lower.
Yes, people's perceptions do change, but the general standard of driving on today's roads (car drivers) leaves a lot to be desired. They show no patience, lack of foresight and forward planning, poor lane discipline and drive in a manner which does not maximise fuel efficiency.
As a PCV Driver, you are a highly skilled Professional and should be leading by example. The standards of PCV Driving varies far too much from operator to operator; let's hope the driverCPC and the various 'traffic light' dashboard systems improve the standards of the lower quality drivers to match those who take pride in the high professional standards.
Post a Comment