• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

TTC Drivers and thier cellphones...

Temper Tantrum

TRIBE Member
this evening when i got on the bus my driver was chatting on the self phone as i got on, through a turn on a busy intersection (pretty much steering with one hand) and just kept chatting on and on non stop for a bit. It did make me a little nervous.
 

Klubmasta Will

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AshG
The force of impact is an articate of momentum, which is a linear product of mass and velocity. A bus with passengers weighs 11 tons. That's roughly 20 times the weight of a car - in other words a car would have to be going 20 times as fast as a bus in order to have the same impact force on person or other object. Another way to think of it is that a bus even going only half the speed of a car would still cause 10x the damage a car would. And that's ignoring the fact that buses take longer to brake and are generally have a much larger surface area, increasing the probability of impact several times over.
all of that may be true, but since many cell-phone-using car-drivers drive much FASTER than bus drivers, a glance at the phone (and corresponding glance away from the road) is more dangerous when driving a faster car.

all of that is beside the point, though, because i'm sure we both agree that it's dangerous for ALL drivers to use phones while driving.

the point that we *disagree* on is whether a bus driver should be MORE responsible than other drivers becuase he/she is a bus driver. i think all drivers have the SAME legal and moral responsibility because their actions have similar potential in respect of the people most likely to get hurt (i.e. other drivers and pedestrians).

i do see your point as well, though, so this is my last post on this topic. :)
 

Boo

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AshG
The force of impact is an articate of momentum, which is a linear product of mass and velocity.
Bill Nye, all your science doesn't really mean shit if I told you that even in relation to the number of vehicles on the road, that buses are about 1/10 as likely to get in an accident as cars or trucks. That would mean that there should be 10 times greater enforcement with cars and distractions.

I would say that motorcycles are about 5 times as likely to be involved in a fatal collision than a car even. Therefore if anything, we should hold bike riders to a higher standard than our $14 an hour public servants.
 

Boo

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AshG
[BAnother way to think of it is that a bus even going only half the speed of a car would still cause 10x the damage a car would. And that's ignoring the fact that buses take longer to brake and are generally have a much larger surface area, increasing the probability of impact several times over.[/B]
I think you are (incorrectly) assuming a linear relationship in regard to mass, speed and damage. In fact I would say it would be closer to an exponential relationship.

Example:

A car going 200km/h is not 2x as likely to get into an accident as a car going 100kph. I would (estimate) that every 20kms increases the probability by 'say' 200%. So that 200kms is anywhere from 64-1000+ times as likely to get into the accident.

So for the same relationship a bus going 1/2 the speed of regular traffic is probably about 8-32 times less likely to get into an accident. The mass of the bus would increase probability of fatalities (like Will said it is decreased for actual passengers because of the bus' size) only if secondary vehicles are involved, and if they were occupied, and if fatal speeds were attained (again there is a exponential relationship of speed to fatalites - 10 - 20kmh crashes do not statistically relate to 1 200kmh crash.)

Ergo, buddy should have told the driver to quit texting sure, but is a cranky old bitch for being annoyed at not being able to cause her more pain and possibly her job.
 

Boo

TRIBE Member
(missed the edit)

I think the point that Will is trying to make is why is the bus driver held to a higher standard because she is getting paid to drive. I would say statistically that if a speeder overtakes you on an 80km/h road at 100km/h, they are much more likely to cause an accident. Would we feel the same kind of outrage to report this person, take their licence plates to the police station - all in the name of public safety?
 

AshG

Member
Originally posted by Boo
Bill Nye, all your science doesn't really mean shit if I told you that even in relation to the number of vehicles on the road, that buses are about 1/10 as likely to get in an accident as cars or trucks. That would mean that there should be 10 times greater enforcement with cars and distractions.

I would say that motorcycles are about 5 times as likely to be involved in a fatal collision than a car even. Therefore if anything, we should hold bike riders to a higher standard than our $14 an hour public servants.
You can tell me whatever you like in that regard, but you really ought to back that up with some evidence before throwing out random numbers.

Originally posted by Boo
I think you are (incorrectly) assuming a linear relationship in regard to mass, speed and damage. In fact I would say it would be closer to an exponential relationship.
Well what can i say except you're wrong about that - physics really does say P = MV.
Its a linear product of mass and velocity.

Originally posted by Boo

Example:

A car going 200km/h is not 2x as likely to get into an accident as a car going 100kph. I would (estimate) that every 20kms increases the probability by 'say' 200%. So that 200kms is anywhere from 64-1000+ times as likely to get into the accident.
Ok, now you're making a point about likelihood of getting into an accident, which is something quite different from the damage caused by an accident. And your idea of correlating speed with accident probability comes from where exactly?
You really need to back up your numbers if they're part of your argument.

Originally posted by Boo
The mass of the bus would increase probability of fatalities (like Will said it is decreased for actual passengers because of the bus' size) only if secondary vehicles are involved, and if they were occupied, and if fatal speeds were attained (again there is a exponential relationship of speed to fatalites - 10 - 20kmh crashes do not statistically relate to 1 200kmh crash.)
That's actually not true as buses are quite capable of hitting pedestrians as well as vehicles, not to mention structural damage to objects and the bus itself upon impact. And of course you already know i don't buy the exponential bit either.

You know the point i was arguing with Will is that bus drivers using cell phones while driving are different from other drivers doing the same thing. While i admire your willingness to at least consider the consequences of a bus crashing into something you have to back up the details with verifiable numbers and if necessary, reputable physics and/or statistics.

Lovin the "ergo" though - I should have thought of that!

Originally posted by Boo
(missed the edit)

I think the point that Will is trying to make is why is the bus driver held to a higher standard because she is getting paid to drive. I would say statistically that if a speeder overtakes you on an 80km/h road at 100km/h, they are much more likely to cause an accident. Would we feel the same kind of outrage to report this person, take their licence plates to the police station - all in the name of public safety?
I don't recall mentioning wanting to report the bus driver; the argument Will and I were having was whether its different for a bus driver to be using a cell phone while driving versus a normal driver. And i think that answer to that is yes for reasons of a duty to public safety that is greater than your average driver on the road.

As an aside, i don't think speeding actually causes more accidents, but if you'd care to reference that bit above, i'd be curious to find out more about it.
Speeding is one of those things that really doesn't cause accidents - its making stupid decisions at speed that does it. Ergo ;) lemme know if you have some stats about that.
 

AshG

Member
Originally posted by Klubmasta Will
all of that may be true, but since many cell-phone-using car-drivers drive much FASTER than bus drivers, a glance at the phone (and corresponding glance away from the road) is more dangerous when driving a faster car.

all of that is beside the point, though, because i'm sure we both agree that it's dangerous for ALL drivers to use phones while driving.

the point that we *disagree* on is whether a bus driver should be MORE responsible than other drivers becuase he/she is a bus driver. i think all drivers have the SAME legal and moral responsibility because their actions have similar potential in respect of the people most likely to get hurt (i.e. other drivers and pedestrians).

i do see your point as well, though, so this is my last post on this topic. :)
Well I agree with all of that. Until we meet again..;)
 

Jeffsus

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by echootje
Not a word from her, but she folded it up and didn't use it again.
yeah, until you got off the bus.

I'm a little shocked that a public servant would have the gall to do this while thier(sic) JOB is to ......
I think you'd be shocked about how many things are very safe while texting. At this time I will not elaborate,

PS: Don't take this negatively. I love you.

-jM
A&D
 

Jeffsus

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Boo
I think ... a linear relationship in regard to mass, speed and damage. In fact ... exponential relationship.
This is almost as funny as it is retarded.

I mean "retarded" in the politically incorrect way.

GO TRIBE.

-jM
A&D
 

Jeffsus

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Klubmasta Will
the point that we *disagree* on is whether a bus driver should be MORE responsible than other drivers becuase he/she is a bus driver. i think all drivers have the SAME legal and moral responsibility because ...
Nail, head, exactly. However, "moral" is useless subjectivity.

-jM
A&D
 
Top