Thursday, 28 May 2015

a ticketing conundrum: the London Luton airport problem on its way to Church Fenton

Congratulations to Makin Enterprises on their recent acquisition of Church Fenton. Sadly, I must tell a story of incompetence at its best (down south) that we don't want to have replicated here. London airports are: London Heathrow, London Gatwick, London City, London Luton and London Stansted, right? How many of these can you travel to by train using an oystercard, contactless debit card or London travelcard? Ah yes, none of them. What happens if you try? A penalty fare at best, and a criminal prosecution at worst. This issue is partly the fault of the airport authorities and partly the fault of the railway companies. I am anxious that such bureaucracy doesn't manifest itself at Church Fenton. Sustainable travel will be a key facet of any aspiring new airport, and this means making it simple for passengers to get there. The name 'Leeds East Airport' I am in two minds about. On the one hand it is silly, as it isn't in Leeds. On the other, it is so close that the name makes sense, and it is in a much more sensible place than Yeadon. It is also in the LS24 postcode area. The new owners have doubtless considered York Airport, Selby Airport and London Church Fenton Airport and discounted those. They have also bought a URL: We must therefore call upon our rail/bus partners to ensure their systems do not create a 'Luton trap' for people. The transport authority for west yorks is the WY Combined Authority, which includes the city of York. The WYCA is also responsible for the Leeds City Region LEP (local enterprise partnership). The Leeds City Region stretches further, and is WY plus Skipton, Harrogate, York, Selby and Barnsley. On the assumption that the transport responsibility is unlikely to change anytime soon, I would call upon the WYCA to create a zone 8 (for Ulleskelf, Church Fenton and Sherburn stations) thereby assuring that the M-Card (in the pay as you go version that is to launch imminently) is valid to our new airport by train and bus. As and when scheduled and charter flights start, let's also see more trains call at Sherburn: the Bradford-Leeds-Micklefield-York service could easily call hourly instead of two hourly. The service from Selby and Hull could go likewise. The line south to Pontefract, Rotherham and Sheffield could also receive many more trains if the will was there. The time to get additional ticketing principles and enhanced minimum service written into the contracts for the new operators is now. Re ticket zones, various bits of WY are in zones 1 to 5. Harrogate is 6, Skipton is 7. I am assuming that York Poppleton and Haxby will become a new zone. This could leave Church Fenton bereft of ITSO capabilities

Tuesday, 15 October 2013

Low Carbon in Knaresborough

A bit of a surprise this one. Added to the list of places that currently have (or are thinking of) measures to control emissions of vehicles, we can now add the beautiful Yorkshire town of Knaresborough. A recent article in the Knaresborough Post advises that Harrogate Borough Council are considering applying for powers to "require service buses passing through any area that is designated as an Air Quality Management Area to be of a low carbon emission design.” Below photograph of Liberal Councillors Hoult, Jones and Willoughby linked directly from the Knaresborough Post website.
My first comment here is that three politicians have to be pretty blinkered if they seriously believe that a few buses having emissions kit will result in a drastic improvement to air quality on its own. I would be interested to see any actual statistics that the council may commission, but I suspect that it will take a reduction in the number of cars at this location for a noticeable improvement to air quality. For those who don't know, Knaresborough and Harrogate are an affluent part of Yorkshire, where car usage has traditionally been high and council support for public transport has traditionally been low, however both these factors are changing. To illustrate the latter point, neither town has any bus lanes. French government subsidiary Transdev Harrogate Connect operate around eight buses an hour between the two towns (most extending to different suburbs of Knaresborough and local bus company ConneXions Buses operates a further four, which extend to the Knaresborough Retail Park. The services of both of these companies are provided at the commercial risk of each operator (i.e. without public funding). A further local company Eddie Brown Tours operates services under contract to North Yorkshire County Council which also pass through Bond End on their way from Harrogate to Ripon. We welcome anything which creates an improvement and a more positive passenger experience for bus and rail users. We would like to see a range of solutions provided for Knaresborough Bond End, which encompasses all of the following: -creation of a defined area that is to receive enhancements. I would personally suggest that rather than just Bond End, this ought to be the whole of the Knaresborough Road from the west side of the Empress Roundabout in Harrogate to just before Knaresborough Bus Station on the high street. -creation of an emissions specification for all buses and trucks passing through need to comply with. I would suggest Euro II as being suitable initially. There would be exemptions for vintage vehicles and vehicles not being used for hire or reward. -installation of bus lanes on the approaches to the empress roundabout, and after it on both Wetherby Road and Knaresborough Road. -installation of bus lanes leading to the Starbeck railway level crossing (in both directions) allowing buses to bypass queues of traffic -bus priority measures to allow buses to exit all bus lanes without stopping (essentially, a sensor which detects an approaching bus, and turns the traffic lights for cars to red) -North Park Road in Harrogate (the main bus way in and out of Harrogate) to have Bus Gate just before meeting the Knaresborough Road (i.e. a short bus only stretch). -Restrictions on parking and loading on Knaresborough High Street (this is probably the most significant cause of the traffic holdups at Bond End) to have the effect that loading/unloading of lorries was only allowed at certain times (evenings and early morning) and that the only parking on High Street itself would be a small number of disabled spaces. Given that 95% of public transport in the area is wheelchair-accessible, we see no reason why these spaces (and all other parking spaces in Knaresborough) shouldn't be chargeable. -Ownership of Knaresborough Bus Station to be transferred to Harrogate Borough Council, to thereby mirror the situation at other bus stations in North Yorkshire, including Ripon and Selby, where the infrastructure is owned by an independent body, which would result in the stands there being allocated impartially and the ending of use of stands on the highway itself. -at least one large Park and Ride site to be created, where car drivers can park their vehicle in safety, then transfer to a bus to finish their journey into either Harrogate or Knaresborough. -the creation of a Harrogate Bus Quality Partnership, to mirror the successful scheme in place in York, and elsewhere in the country. Among other things, this would result in an end to the ludicrous situation where return tickets are only accepted on buses of the same colour. -installation of the latest generation Kassel kerbs at all bus stops along the route. Whilst an early design of kassel kerb was installed to most stops several years ago, level boarding technologies have moved on apace since then. -consideration to installing overhead catenary to enable all buses to take their power direct from the overhead, and be zero emission instead of just low emission. How might these improvements be paid for? Well, the bus operators are being asked to spend £200,000 each on new buses. It is self-evident that the borough and county councils ought to allocate a sum of money each to the project. I see the balance as coming from a road toll/congestion charge from motorists who enter, exit or move within the defined zone. I would suggest that a daily charge of £2 per vehicle in the case of low emission vehicles and £5 for other vehicles. Purely as a suggestion and to avoid over-burdensome regulation, I would suggest that the lower charge could apply to vehicles upto eight years old that pay roadtax in the VED bands A to D, or between £0 and £105 per year. It is time to make the right decisions for the health future of Knaresborough's children. Below photograph linked from flickr user jep2510.

Sunday, 23 December 2012

worst map for accuracy

How many errors should the typical public transport map have? Ideally none, I'd say. One or two at most? Is forty errors too much?

Pindar Creative and West Yorkshire PTE obviously don't think so.

I did this exercise back in August, and for the past few months I have attempted to engage with both parties, with an aim of getting the map corrected at no cost to the travelling public or the operators. I have however failed in that, so I reluctantly decided to put this online so that hopefully the 2013 map (if indeed there is to be one) can be accurate.

Wharfedale is a part of Yorkshire historically starved of investment, in comparison with Leeds etc. Key towns such as Ilkley, Otley and Wetherby are among the most affluent places in the North of England - which brings its own issues. That said, smaller operators such as Connexions Buses, TLC Travel, Pride of the Dales and Arrive in Style do a fantastic job in penetrating the area with their mix of commercial and tendered services, along with some services operated by First and by Transdev. That the county boundary is the River Wharfe for much of its way does lead to the situation where a number of villages north of the river have no service at all, including Middleton (north Ilkley), Denton and Askwith.

All this however is no excuse for forty errors. Here is the link to the map on the WYPTE site, and here follow two maps (west and east) annotated with numbers:

And the errors that I have found:

previous maps had non-served major roads shown in grey. Suggest this is continued for motorways, A roads, and any road where it is clearer to show part purple, part grey rather than showing blue or green. This should make it clearer for users to get their bearings.

Also lost from older versions of WYPTE's maps is the annotation used for services where 'certain journeys only' go via a diverted route.

001 this stretch of Leeds road has no public service
002 Mayfield Avenue has no public service
003 Clifton Road and Margerison Road have no public service
004 Wheatley Road has no public service
005 this road is served (one direction only, SE bound) by route 903
006 This loop should be marked as route 903 (which runs both ways around the loop)
007 This terminal point should be further east
008 The road here is called Meagill Rise - Weston Drive is the south bit only
009 two roads shown here are not bus served (one doesn't even exist).
010 route 940 does not run along The Crossways
011 in both these places, 940 is one way only (in the opposite direction to the 965)
012 On The Gills, route 940 is one way (westbound)
013 Direction arrows needed: eastbound on Cattle Market Street, westbound on Courthouse Street, northbound on Kirkgate. Also service information: on Kirkgate 965, and on Wesley street 940 (no arrow) and 965 (southbound arrow).
014 purple road needs to be shown to the West of waitrose (the route traversed by service 962 in one direction is waitrose car park, NOT the road Well Hill
015 not clear that the arrow here relates to service 962 and not to X53
016 route 653 does not go along Station Road, nor serve Menston rail station
017 this bit of Bingley Road is not served by bus services
018 location of Guiseley Morrisons (terminal stop) is a little further east than shown
019 route X52 is missing at this location
020 route x99 starts at Wetherby Bus station rather than calls (though I suppose it doesn't terminate, as it runs in one direction only) - UPDATE DEC 2012 ignore this comment as First have introduced a route X99 also and so this bit of the map has become correct
021 missing section of road to be added, Privas Way A168 - for route 412 (black - one journey each way) - however on observing the service on the ground the bus actually goes a different way (the way in the next point) however that is not what the route description says. The operator has so far not responded to email requests, and WYPTE don't seem to be in any rush to clarify it either. Either way, it doesn't go the way the map suggests.
022 missing section of road to be added, Privas Way A168 - for route 780 (red) and X70 (red)
023 it is route 412 NOT route 413 that has one journey each way going to Walton and Thorpe Arch. The previous edition of this map was correct, so not sure how an error has slipped into this version
024 route 413 does NOT run at this location - should be 412 only
025 the missing bit of York Road needs to be filled in, and marked 412 (red) and 413 (black, west arrow)
026 the route here (Main Street) needs to refer to 411 (black, east arrow), 412 (black, east arrow) and 413 (black, east arrow)
027 Rudgate - this routes here are 411 (black, north arrow), 412 (red) and 413 (black, south arrow)
028 Please add a note that the route here is 413 (black, east arrow)
029 route x70 does NOT take this road (no buses do)
030 the correct routes for this point are: 98 (black, clockwise arrow), 99 (black, clockwise arrow), 780 (red), X70 (red), X98 (red, clockwise arrow) UPDATE DEC 2012 delete 98 and 99 and add X99 (black, clockwise arrow)
031 the correct routes for this point are 98 (black, south arrow), 99 (black, south arrow), 411 (black, south arrow), 413 (black), X98 (red, south arrow) UPDATE DEC 2012 delete 98 and 99 and add X99 (black, south arrow)
032 411 should have a southbound arrow, and 413 should be black (only two journeys a day)
033 The continuation here should say (please) "413 to York and Hunsingore" (with 413 in black) there is no need to mention 411 as that is a one-way only service
034 the terminus location of X70 is marked by the blue X, not as shown on the map
035 Crossley Street to be marked as route 77 (red, east arrow) and 923 (red, east arrow) - this particular bit of route 923 qualifies for red, but the majority of the rest of the route doesn't UPDATE DEC 2012 since the map was produced and my corrections written, route 77 has been withdrawn
036 Perhaps the continuation here could be positioned so as to serve both roads, and read "411 to Wetherby and Hunsingore 412 413 to York" (with 411 and 413 in black, and 412 in red)
037 route 923 from Bardsey to Scarcroft Moss Syke could be shown in red
038 route 923 (black, west arrow) needs to be shown here also
039 route X70 doesn't terminate at Wetherby bus station any more (some journeys do, but that is not how the style guide for the map is intended to work)
040 perhaps add that York Road here is served by 743 840 843 844 845

To ensure that any future Wharfedale map (whether online only or printed) is correct, I will offer to both Pindar Creative and West Yorkshire PTE to review the draft free of charge.

Can anyone else see any errors that I have missed?

Sunday, 16 September 2012

impartial public transport maps

I've recently come across an excellent map of South Yorkshire, designed and edited by a group of users. It can be found at and I would urge anyone who ever visits South Yorks to save a copy on their smartphone or PC. There are some other impartial maps of Yorkshire available: A very good map of Hull is on the Hull city council website. York city council produces an okay map, accessible here. It does include services of all operators, but does seem to give undue prominence to the services of First, showing their route colours etc when this is arguably unnecessary. It would also be nice if it could go out a little further, to show the whole area that the City of York (and the 'All York' bus ticket, £5 for a days travel on all operators) covers. For many years, WY Metro have produced a series of good maps, though I must admit that the present ones are less than perfect, containing the odd error, and not giving that much information. At least these are available in printed form, however. Have I missed any other impartial Yorkshire maps? For me though, the unofficial SY map is about as good as it gets. We have both service number and routes colour-coded, where the darker blue (for both route number and road) denotes the frequency, going down to light grey for services with only occasional services. Rail and tram routes are also shown, again very clearly, and interchanges between modes are shown. If anyone from TravelSouthYorkshire is reading this, then please offer the SY-Transport people a royalty and let's get a printed copy of this done. Failing that, if any businesses fancy sponsoring a print-run of say 10,000 maps (to be distributed free of charge at bus/rail stations/tourist information etc) then I'm sure SY-Transport will be receptive to such a discussion. About the only criticism I can think of about their map is that there is some white space in the bottom right-hand corner, and perhaps at a future update Retford could be included. This would hammer home the interchanges available at Retford station, for instance. Indeed, if the guys wanted to expand further, a map of the public transport across the whole Sheffield City Region plus the Hope Valley (which bizarrely is left off the city region) would be amazing.

Tuesday, 24 July 2012

PSV Accessibility Regulations

There are a number of myths around the above, which I shall try to address by explaining the background. There are two main groups of legislation, one of which has applied since 1995 and the other of which applies in part right now.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and its replacement the Equality Act 2010 make it unlawful to discriminate against people in respect of their disabilities in relation to employment, the provision of goods and services, education and transport. This applies right now. Examples of things that the public transport sector is obliged to do could be: providing left-hand accelerator pedals for staff, amending a "no dogs" rule to allow assistance dogs to travel, or stopping in between two bus stops to allow a disabled person to board/exit. These principles have applied for many years, and continue to apply.

We also have the PSV Accessibility Regulations 2000. This legislation encompasses:

Dimensions and requirement of wheelchair space
Ramp, ramp angles and Kneeling
Priority Seats
Route and Destination Displays

Note that this legislation only applies to buses/coaches used on scheduled services or local services (and excludes tours) and does NOT apply to contract hire.

Every vehicle needs to be covered by an accessibility certificate (either an individual one, or a 'type approval' one undertaken by the manufacturer). Vehicles can be submitted for wheelchair accessibility (schedule 1) or general accessibility (schedule 2 for buses or schedule 3 for coaches) or both - both will eventually be required.

After the following dates, it will be an offence for a vehicle to operate without an accessibility certificate or with any of the above items defective:

MIDIBUSES (7.5 tonnes or under) with at least 22 seats (smaller vehicles not covered):
Built sep 2000 or prior (or built in 2000 and in service by 30th Dec 2000) require schedule 1 and 2 from 1st Jan 2015.

Built Jan 2001 to Sep 2004 require schedule 2 from new and schedule 1 from 1st Jan 2015.

Built from Oct 2004 require schedule 1 and 2 from new.

SINGLE DECK BUSES (over 7.5 tonnes):
Built sep 2000 or prior (or built in 2000 and in service by 30th Dec 2000) require schedule 1 and 2 from 1st Jan 2016.

Built from Jan 2001 require schedule 1 and 2 from new.

Built sep 2000 or prior (or built in 2000 and in service by 30th Dec 2000) require schedule 1 and 2 from 1st Jan 2017.

Built from Jan 2001 require schedule 1 and 2 from new.

COACHES (single or double deck):
Built sep 2000 or prior (or built in 2000 and in service by 30th Dec 2000) require schedule 1 and 2 from 1st Jan 2020.

Built Jan 2001 to Sep 2004 require schedule 2 from new and schedule 1 from 1st Jan 2020.

Built from Oct 2004 require schedule 1 and 2 from new.

The above only applies to scheduled service work, not private hire.

So, what happens if someone uses a bus without the relevant certificates (or if the DDA features are inoperative)? Well, both driver and operator could receive a fine of upto £2,500.

Rather than me going through the required features in detail, I will list them in brief, and urge everyone to read the source legislation, which is pretty detailed. We'll do schedules 2 and 3 first, as they apply to more vehicles right now.

GENERAL ACCESSIBILITY (schedules 2 or 3)
Its important to realise that buses/coaches with steps could qualify for sched 2 or 3, and this may help an operator comply (if for example a tender is vague about precisely what he needs to comply with) until the dates when both 1 and 2/3 become mandatory.

There needs to be a 'priority' floor area which is flat (not including entrance steps) and this area must contain at least four priority seats (as close as possible to the entrance, and complying with certain dimensions). At least one priority seat needs to have enough room for a guide-dog to sit under or next to the priority seat.

There are measurements for steps (both those going upstairs, and any entrance steps), and requirements that handrails and handholds are in contrasting colours (and meet certain required measurements).

Communication devices (or if you're old fashioned, bells) within reach of every person sat in a priority seat, and for the non-priority seats, at least at every third row.  They must be operable by the palm of the hand, and in a contrasting colour.  Once pressed, there needs to be a signal to the driver to stop (doesn't specify whether visual or audible), an audible signal in the passenger area, and a visual "bus stopping" indication in each passenger area (which remains illuminated until the door opens).

The bus needs to be able to kneel, and the button to do this needs to be labelled in the cab.

Route and Destination displays need to be at the front and side of the vehicle (at the side, between 1.2 and 2.5 metres from the ground), and a route number display at the rear of the vehicle.  The route number (at the front and rear) requires characters of at least 200mm height (by my calculation, 569 point) and the side route number 70mm (199 pt).  The front destination requires characters of 125mm (356pt) and the side destination 70mm.  There is no requirement to have electronic blinds, no requirement that printed blinds are dayglo, and no requirement for white background/black background, as long as they contrast, are illuminated, and not in capital letters only.

For a vehicle with seatbelts, the wheelchair area needs to face forward, and there be restraints provided.  A bus without seatbelts may have a rear-facing wheelchair space, which doesn't need belts, only a backrest and a horizontal hand rail.

The vehicle must be fitted with at least one boarding lift, boarding ramp, or carry a portable ramp at all times.

Entrances are required to be at least 800mm wide, and gangways as far as the wheelchair space(s) 750mm wide.

A white-on-blue disabled sign is required on the exterior of the vehicle by the entrance door(s) that wheelchairs are to use, inside the vehicle by the exit door (that wheelchairs are to use) and by the wheelchair space(s).  The wheelchair space also needs to have instructions of how to use it, and how to use any restraints.

Communication devices - in addition to the requirements under 'general accessiblity' there also needs to be a bell adjacent to the wheelchair space itself, which gives a different visual and audible signal to the driver than the 'general' bell.

Lighting sufficient to illuminate the interior and exterior to allow a wheelchair user to board and alight in safety is required.


There are some exemptions of little use to our industry (section 19 permits, transport of prisoners, transport of sick people) but the main one I expect operators will avail themselves of is:
"a vehicle in respect of which twenty years have elapsed since the date of its first use on a road and which is not used to provide a local service or a scheduled service for more than 20 days in any calendar year."

Or to put it another way, when we get to 1st January 2016 when a single deck bus needs to comply, a single deck bus that is at least 20 years old (built in 1995 or prior) does not need to have either accessibility certificate as long as it is used to provide a local or scheduled service for 20 days or less.  This could be useful for spare buses.

Remember, on checking passes, drivers/staff are checking only two things:
-that the pass is genuine (and not a forgery/not been tampered with)
-and that it is being used by the person pictured on it.

It is NEVER our place to suggest that someone 'doesn't look disabled' or to ask the passenger why they need the pass. Eligibility verification is done by others. Equally, with the 'companion' passes, the role of the driver is confined to entering whether there is just the holder or whether they also have a companion with them (abuse/misuse of this will be gauged by the issuing authority).  If staff have a genuine concern, then the time of use can be noted and can be passed to your supervisors who can discuss with the body who issued the card.

Finally, a quiz - two pictures, both showing how it shouldn't be done.  But apart from destination blinds, what else is wrong with these two vehicles? Picture of the white Plaxton Primo is provided by "Buses in West Yorkshire" on flickr.with thanks.


Thursday, 21 June 2012

Timetables at Stops

Anyone ever heard of the acronym KISS - keep it simple stupid.  Why can't West Yorkshire PTE and Travel South Yorkshire bear this is mind with their respective at-stop publicity.

We'll do Sheffield first.  I dropped a vehicle off at a garage in Darnall, and beforehand I checked their journey-planner to find out where I needed to go.  I was confronted with a cluster of four bus stops, with no common information at any of them, just the times for the buses that called (and their endpoints).  Do the buses for Fulwood and Millhouses go via the City Centre?  Or maybe via Meadowhall?  We don't know.  I followed my nose in the vague direction of Darnall railway station (an hourly service - totally inadequate) and came to the stop 5 minutes walk away that the frequent route 52 serves.  But one couldn't be expected to know that.

Leeds next, and two screenshots from the main stop on Leeds City Square for buses along Selby Road (Halton, Whitkirk, Colton, Garforth, Kippax).

Too many letters!  The First Leeds 19A timetable has notes A and E on one journey (this is an extra A to the A in 19A) to denote a route variation (to serve the Thorpe Park business park) - quite why two letters are needed to refer to the same service I do not know.  It would seem simpler to me for this journey (and the return in the evening) to be numbered 19B (or 18 or 20, which are vacant), and then to avoid the silly letters completely.  Then again, now that Transdev York serve Thorpe Park half-hourly during the daytime (seven days a week) perhaps First Leeds will either compete or give up?

The Arriva timetable is the biggest mess though.  We have a note (D on one route, E on the other) to advise that customers can board at four preceeding stops on certain services - I would suggest that this is of precious little relevance to people who have walked to this stop and are reading the information.

We then have the last service of the day given notes B and E (in addition to the D as above) of which B denotes terminating at Kippax War Memorial (which is fair enough) and E denotes runs via Kippax Cross Hills (all 163 and 166 buses do this, so no need to highlight it on the last service of the day).  Why does the last service of the day terminate at Kippax when the bus then runs dead to Castleford depot?  Surely it could run in service to the bridge over the River Aire just outside Castleford (Lock Lane) instead?

Anyway.... we have codes G H and sch for a journey that runs via Colton, via Garforth Academy, and schooldays only - this again would be simpler if this route could have another number.

The evening and Sunday route 166 journeys omit East Garforth station (heaven forbid that anyone from Kippax might want to connect with a train to York) as code F tells us - again, if these must observe a different route then surely a different number would be simplest?  Perhaps someone from Arriva could tell us why the residents of the Fairburn Drive estate (which is or was Europe's largest private housing estate so I understand) do not deserve an hourly evening and sunday service?

Numbers 164 and 165 are again vacant - and bizarrely 165 used to be used for one of the evening routes - so perhaps someone will see sense.

The real complaint over this timetable though is the lack of the Saturday evening service on routes 163 and 166, which does in fact run along the same lines of the other evenings.  WY Metro please get this corrected.  I still prefer the 'information' given in the West Yorkshire timetable to the mediocre effort made by SYPTE.

Sunday, 17 June 2012

Not the Wright Way to Reverse

How many people have looked at one of the recent (past 5-ish years) products of WrightBus of Ballymena and thought that they have a defective reversing light.  I did, until I realised with horror what was actually going on.

Yes, this vehicle has only one reversing light (lower nearside, fairly standard I'd say).  The white lens at the lower offside contains a red-coated bulb, and is the rear foglight.

So why is this a problem?  Cars have had red or orange bulbs shining through clear lenses for many years.  The problem is that in many bus stations and bus garages across the country, you will see signs "reversing buses have priority" which is completely at odds with Highway Code Rule 202 which essentially obliges the reversing vehicle to give priority to any other vehicle or pedestrian.

Yet in these bus stations and bus garages across the country, bus drivers (following the instructions and policy they are obliged to) put a vehicle into reverse, release the handbrake and move backwards - all other buses being expected to be aware of this and give way to the reversing bus.

How does one know whether a bus is moving backwards?  Any reversing light being lit.  Conversely, a reverse light that isn't illuminated implies a vehicle that isn't reversing.  In some layouts and some light conditions, it may not even be possible to see the nearside reversing light anyway.  Also note that many drivers in a particular bus station may not be aware of this bizarre white lens foglight arrangement, as they may be on a different rota (or even from a different company) to the drivers that have been inducted on these Wright vehicles.

I call upon WrightBus to acknowledge with hindsight that these stylish white light covers are dangerous when used within the bus industry, and for them to prepare red lens covers and send to every vehicle with these rear clusters.  The alternative is to put a reversing light bulb and the red fog light bulb inside the same lens (which I am sure is possible) then every angle is covered.

I am of course aware that UK law doesn't infact require any working reversing lights at all - however when Health & Safety is paramount, I think that others need as much information as possible that 12 tonnes of bus is about to reverse into their path.

There is nothing at all wrong with making a mistake (car manufacturers do recalls all the time) - what matters is how this is dealt with.

The photograph I have linked to is from flickr user AndrewHA.