AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Single-decker Exit Problems

8th February 1963
Page 57
Page 57, 8th February 1963 — Single-decker Exit Problems
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

THE Ministry of Transport's proposal to require that new single-decker buses capable of carrying more than 45 seated passengers must, after a year from the corning into force of the intended Regulations (see The Commercial Motor, February 1, page 58), have three exits so placed so that two of them are at least 15 ft. apart seems liable to cause some confusion by the way it is drafted.

It appears that what is intended is that every single-decker seating 46 passengers or more shall either have a single service doorway and two emergency exits or two service doorways and one emergency exit, and that two of the three must be not less than 15 ft. apart. Similar rules would apply to a double-decker if it had 46 seats or more on the lower deck.

The proposed amendment to Regulation 26 of the Public Service Vehicle (Conditions of Fitness) Regulation, 1958, which adds a condition (bb) to paragraph (1) calls for "an additional exit" to the two (one of which may be an emergency exit) already specified in condition (a) of paragraph (1), for the vehicles in question. The amendment to Regulation 27 indicates that this additional exit, described as "an additional emergency exit . . . provided in accordance with condition . . (bb) of paragraph (1) of Regulation 26" (our italics), shall be not less than 3 ft. by 1 ft. 9 in. and need not therefore be a normal service doorway.

The motive behind the proposal is not explained beyond the link with largecapacity vehicles, but must presumably concern ease of exit in an emergency rather than adequate passenger flow in normal boarding and alighting. Usual practice on 36-ft. single-deckers is to arrange the normal entrance at the front and the emergency exit diametrically Opposite, on the offside near the rear of the vehicle. This would seem adequate for most contingencies, but if extra means of emergency egress are deemed desirable an additional emergency exit (which can apparently be in the form of a horizontally hinged window) should meet the new requirements. A.A.T.

Tags

Organisations: HE Ministry of Transport

comments powered by Disqus