This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] On: 01 December 2013, At: 19:01 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Ergonomics Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20
An Investigation Into Aspects of Bus Design and Passenger Requirements B.M. BROOKS
a
a
Leyland Vehicles Ltd., Engineering Services Division, Research Engineering , Leyland, Preston, Lancashire Published online: 26 Apr 2007.
To cite this article: B.M. BROOKS (1979) An Investigation Into Aspects of Bus Design and Passenger Requirements, Ergonomics, 22:2, 175-188, DOI: 10.1080/00140137908924602 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140137908924602
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
ERGONOMICS,
1979,
VOL. 22, No.2,
175-188
An Investigation Into Aspects of Bus Design and Passenger Requirements By B. M. BROOKS Leyland Vehicles Ltd., Engineering Services Division, Research Engineering, Leyland, Preston, Lancashire. A two part investigation was undertaken by Leyland Vehicles Human Factors Group
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
under contract to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. Phase I of the project covered the physical capabilities of passengers and their design preferences. using a static wooden mock up of a bus floor layout and 200 elderly and disabled subjects. From a questionnaire on problems with bus usage, the height of the first step was identified as the major inhibiting aspect in physically using buses and subsequent
tests quantified the capabilities of elderly and disabled subjects for step climbing and handrail use. Other tests within Phase I included the measurement of nine major body dimensions, various capability tests for reach, strength and step climbing, seat height, spacing, comfort and position preference, handrail diameter, shape and spacing and entrance configurations of
steps and handrails. Phase 2 of the investigation covered five aspects:
I. Doorway handholds: Various designs based on the Phase I work were developed and built into a mock up bus entrance. A group of sixty elderly subjects assisted in evaluating these to select the most suitable shape, clearance and surface finish.
2. In the seat: The definition of good or bad journeys, as described by a Journey Quality Index, is related to the distribution of Jerk levels. Analysis of specific vehicle events reveals the area where improvements in vehicle control and driver training would produce better bus journeys.
3. Going to and from the seat: Using a modified Leyland National bus, equipped with an adjustable floor, instrumented stanchions and acceleration measuring equipment, the comfort and ability of standing passengers to remain upright was studied.
4. Step height and retractable step: A retractable step provided a first step height of 185 mm and improved the ease of use by elderly passengers, but did not increase the stationary vehicle time in these trials.
5. Accidents: A study was made of accident data over a period of 12 months by 30 bus operators, covering about 30,000 vehicles in the UK. 56% of the passenger injuries were sustained in non-collision accidents and 43% of these occurred to passengers who were estimated to be over 60 yrs of age.
1.
rn what areas can
Introduction and Background
ergonomics assist bus design? First consider some of the typical problems. The entrance step height (A) is determined by the vehicle configuration and the necessity for an approach angle which clears kerbs and dips in the road. Handrails are attached to the doors and must not compromise the doorway width (B). Internally, the headroom for passengers (C) is a compromise between floor height and overall height for double-deck buses. The general layout within the bus is aimed at accommodating as many seated or standing passengers as possible (D). These areas are shown by Figure I. Ergonomics can assist the designer in many areas, provided that the studies come early in the design procedure. These studies help relate design proposals to the capabilities of the users and, with the aid of mock ups, evaluate and develop solutions matching their needs. This applies both for drivers and passengers. Leyland Vehicles built mock ups of alternative floor layout proposals for a new generation of doubledeck bus and evaluated them using 27 elderly subjects, who represented the limiting
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
176
B. M. Brooks
Figure I
Areas in which ergonomics can assist bus design. (Indicated alphabetically, A to F).
case in terms of user capabilities: i.e. the section of the general bus-passenger population that experiences the greatest problems in using buses. The aim of these studies was to establish basic information at the concept stage of the vehicle design. The experimental methods employed and data generated then led on to a much larger and more detailed study sponsored by the Government through the T.R.R.L. and undertaken by Leyland Vehicles in two Phases. The first phase (see Brooks et al. 1974, for details) covered static aspects of bus travel and related these to the capabilities of the total user population; also the problems experienced and the preferences for particular design features. Tests were undertaken on a mock bus body with 201 elderly and disabled subjects and the report details the data obtained on: Disabilities of subjects Bus usage problems Anthropometry - body size data Capabilities - reach, pull, twist and step climbing Seat height preference Handrail diameter preference Footstool use Seats - comfort, spacing, position Recommendations from this Phase I report emphasised the importance of the first step height and the problems of entry and exit. The ability of the subjects to move about and maintain an upright posture within the bus, under realistic dynamic conditions, was highlighted as an area requiring study. Phase II covered the dynamic aspects of bus travel and relates to the recommendations from Phase I. The work was divided into five separate areas, each the subject of separate research, but with all topics being inter-related and following on from Phase I. (See Brooks et al. 1978, for details).
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
An Investigation into Bus Design and Passenger Requirements
177
The five research areas were: I. Handrail requirements for entering and leaving service buses: A continuation of the work undertaken on the two handrail designs evaluated in Phase I, looking at six further handrail designs. 2. Current acceleration levels in service buses: To define the range and levels of acceleration and jerk experienced on buses in service and to relate these levels to specific events and passenger reactions. 3. Bus passenger accident study: To determine the age and sex of passengers involved in accidents and relate to the time of day, location in the vehicle, the cause, and vehicle design features. 4. Dynamic aspects of passenger travel in buses: To investigate the ability of subjects to negotiate steps and ramps within a vehicle experiencing acceleration levels characteristic of those in service operations. 5. Retractable first step: To design, build and evaluate a retractable step system for easing entry and exit, which could be stowed completely within the existing structure of a vehicle.
2. Phase I: Static Mock-up Study 2./ Method Two hundred and eight subjects took part. Half belonged to senior citizens organisations, or occupied special supervised accommodation for the elderly. The other half were selected by Consultants at Preston Royal Infirmary, from out-patients attending the Hospital with disabling complaints who were ambulant and thus likely to make use of public transport. A small number of able adults also acted as subjects. The subjects undertook two stages of tests, during the first of which they were questioned about their age, bus usage and any associated problems. Anthropometric measurements were also made, in a form similar to that used in the British Standard Institution Publication, Anthropometric and Ergonomic Recommendations for Dimensionsfor Desiqninqfor the Elderly. (BS4467 1969). Special rigs were provided, so that subjects could demonstrate their overhead reach while seated or standing and their standing pull and twist strength with either arm. Another simple rig was used to determine the step height from ground level that they could negotiate with and without handrails. (Figure 2). The subjects' preferences for seat height and seat-back rail diameter were also obtained. The second stage of tests was undertaken in a wooden mock up of a bus that permitted step height and handrail configuration to be varied under entry and exit conditions. The ease and convenience of various combinations of step height, number of steps and hand-rail configurations, both for entry and exit, were assessed subjectively on a five point scale. Observers rated the difficulty experienced by the subjects in the various conditions and cine shots were also made of each subject whilst negotiating all the step and handrail conditions, to produce a permanent record for further assessment. Whilst in the mock-up of the bus, the subjects' preference for vertical handrail diameter was recorded and their double arm span was also measured using a special rig. Within the mock-up, subjects sampled different seating conditions involving various combinations of foot-stool height, seat spacing, and front, rear or inward facing seat positions. They expressed their preference as it affected ease of access and
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
the ride
An Investigation into Bus Design and Passenger Requirements
179
All subjects
..-. \
100
,\ \ \' \\ \ \ \ \ 1\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\
Step. Heights Negotiated
\
80
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
1\
\
90
I
1\
70
60
\
\
40
\
\
30
~~
20
1\
10
o
Just possible with handrails
HEIGHT (eMS) 9 (INCHES) 3'1>
Figure 3.
18
7
27 10'12
12
36 14
43 17
With ease with handrails Just possible without handrails
With ease without handrails
STEPHEIGHTS
Percentage of subjects able to negotiate various step heights, with and without handrails.
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
180
B. M. Brooks
2.2.4 Subject capabilities: The double arm span between stanchions indicated a difference of 500 mm between 95th and 5th percentile subjects, with the 5th percentile female span being only 850 mm. Similarly, overhead reach was restricted due to joint mobility, with the 5th percentile female overhead standing reach being only 1470 mm. Few subjects could exert a standing pull force in excess of25% of their body weight at waist or shoulder height. This, and the limited arm reach figures, have implications for standing passengers on moving buses, which were explored further in Phase II. The problem of step heights was illustrated by the results from the step climbing capability rig (Figure 3). Only 22% ofall subjects could climb, with ease, the maximum permitted bus step height of 430 mm (17") using handrails. Without access to handrails, this proportion was reduced to only 9% of the subjects. The disabled group experienced the greatest problems with step heights, 64% finding a 270 mm step just possible when using handrails. Without handrails this is reduced to only 16%. The greatest decrease in the proportion of subjects able to negotiate steps with ease using handrails occured between step heights of 360 mm and 270 mm. By interpolation, 84% of all subjects should be able to negotiate a 305 mm high step using handrails. 2.2.5 Seats: A seat height of between 432 and 457 mm with a seat spacing of 680 mm was preferred. The larger seat spacing of the two tested was preferred for seat access and the disabled subjects had the most problems with the smaller 610 mm seat spacing. Forward-facing seats were the first-choice seat position for 91% of all subjects. Second choice were the front inward-facing and third and fourth choice was split between rear-facing and rear inward-facing seats. Assessements of comfort appeared more related to location, rather than to slight differences in the seat shapes. The forward- and rearward-facing seats were considered the most comfortable. This could be due to the greater amount of leg room available in these locations and to the restrictions imposed on seated posture by the footstools in the other locations.
2.2.6 Entrance and exit desiqn Steps and handrails: Two step configurations were assessed both as an entrance and an exit and with two handrail layouts. The use of the three 178 mm high step layout was considered easy by 83% of all subjects. The sloping handrails were considered to be better than the vertical handrails tested, but both were influenced by the direction of use and the step arrangement. Generally, the sloping handrails were preferred for entering but, from the film record, the benefits of a vertical section to rotate around when exiting were evident. It was concluded that a preferable condition may exist and could be a combination of the two types tested and would be investigated further in Phase II.
3. Phase II: Handrails, Steps and Passenger Problems on Moving Buses 3.1 Handrail Requirements/or Entering and Leaving Public Service Vehicles: 3.1.1 Method: Six alternative handrail designs were evaluated on a mock-up by sixty elderly subjects. Each handrail design was considered with a two step arrangement (heights 311 mm and 216 mm), used both for entry and for exit. A cine camera mounted above the door and filming through a convex mirror allowed the complete doorway area to be surveyed. For each handrail, an assessment
An Investigation into Bus Design and Passenger Requirements
181
of use was made by the subjects, by experienced observers (both directly and from the film) and by retracing the areas of each handrail used from the film record. The clearance required around a handrail was measured by photographing the subjects' hands through a graduated disc for both circular and oval section handrails, statically and dynamically. The effects of various handrail surface finishes were assessed for consideration of grip and force that could be applied. 3.1.2 Handrail Design: The design shown in Figure 4 is recommended. This combines the features required for good entrance and exit use from the designs tested.
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
450
I
II
I
0
~
~
95R
-,
I
g I ~.
~
~
~
w
A- I-A I
,
"'C,
~
".., ::>
:;'
.sr '",,'~ "0"..,
~
::r"' V> c: '" ~ 0
(i'@
::rV>
l': !:I
~(JQ
"' ::>
V> "
::>
~
V>
"'::> ~
::r
o
0.:
0' .., Pl "0
8"
~
3"0 -'f:o:l t'tl - , 0 ~ =' ~
(JQ
rr ,,~ .., "0 "' eo o a.. o'~ ::s0=' E; (") :::: '" 0 ::> .., "' "' 0 - 3 '"o (;l.., ::>0.. g."O
cr-'"
'" ~ 0.. S(3"l g S'r;'
O'~ ..,
3
~
a" t'tl t:::l oo :r .., c;;- '< ;;1 -
'J)-
t'tl o'~ t'">:l 3(JQ,,::>::>Vl - . ~ ~ __ nt'tl __ t...v
"
00 -.l
s ;;;
s'"
:'":;-
..,'"::0:,
..,'"
~'"
~
;:p
§" "'-
Ergonomics Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20
An Investigation Into Aspects of Bus Design and Passenger Requirements B.M. BROOKS
a
a
Leyland Vehicles Ltd., Engineering Services Division, Research Engineering , Leyland, Preston, Lancashire Published online: 26 Apr 2007.
To cite this article: B.M. BROOKS (1979) An Investigation Into Aspects of Bus Design and Passenger Requirements, Ergonomics, 22:2, 175-188, DOI: 10.1080/00140137908924602 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140137908924602
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
ERGONOMICS,
1979,
VOL. 22, No.2,
175-188
An Investigation Into Aspects of Bus Design and Passenger Requirements By B. M. BROOKS Leyland Vehicles Ltd., Engineering Services Division, Research Engineering, Leyland, Preston, Lancashire. A two part investigation was undertaken by Leyland Vehicles Human Factors Group
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
under contract to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. Phase I of the project covered the physical capabilities of passengers and their design preferences. using a static wooden mock up of a bus floor layout and 200 elderly and disabled subjects. From a questionnaire on problems with bus usage, the height of the first step was identified as the major inhibiting aspect in physically using buses and subsequent
tests quantified the capabilities of elderly and disabled subjects for step climbing and handrail use. Other tests within Phase I included the measurement of nine major body dimensions, various capability tests for reach, strength and step climbing, seat height, spacing, comfort and position preference, handrail diameter, shape and spacing and entrance configurations of
steps and handrails. Phase 2 of the investigation covered five aspects:
I. Doorway handholds: Various designs based on the Phase I work were developed and built into a mock up bus entrance. A group of sixty elderly subjects assisted in evaluating these to select the most suitable shape, clearance and surface finish.
2. In the seat: The definition of good or bad journeys, as described by a Journey Quality Index, is related to the distribution of Jerk levels. Analysis of specific vehicle events reveals the area where improvements in vehicle control and driver training would produce better bus journeys.
3. Going to and from the seat: Using a modified Leyland National bus, equipped with an adjustable floor, instrumented stanchions and acceleration measuring equipment, the comfort and ability of standing passengers to remain upright was studied.
4. Step height and retractable step: A retractable step provided a first step height of 185 mm and improved the ease of use by elderly passengers, but did not increase the stationary vehicle time in these trials.
5. Accidents: A study was made of accident data over a period of 12 months by 30 bus operators, covering about 30,000 vehicles in the UK. 56% of the passenger injuries were sustained in non-collision accidents and 43% of these occurred to passengers who were estimated to be over 60 yrs of age.
1.
rn what areas can
Introduction and Background
ergonomics assist bus design? First consider some of the typical problems. The entrance step height (A) is determined by the vehicle configuration and the necessity for an approach angle which clears kerbs and dips in the road. Handrails are attached to the doors and must not compromise the doorway width (B). Internally, the headroom for passengers (C) is a compromise between floor height and overall height for double-deck buses. The general layout within the bus is aimed at accommodating as many seated or standing passengers as possible (D). These areas are shown by Figure I. Ergonomics can assist the designer in many areas, provided that the studies come early in the design procedure. These studies help relate design proposals to the capabilities of the users and, with the aid of mock ups, evaluate and develop solutions matching their needs. This applies both for drivers and passengers. Leyland Vehicles built mock ups of alternative floor layout proposals for a new generation of doubledeck bus and evaluated them using 27 elderly subjects, who represented the limiting
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
176
B. M. Brooks
Figure I
Areas in which ergonomics can assist bus design. (Indicated alphabetically, A to F).
case in terms of user capabilities: i.e. the section of the general bus-passenger population that experiences the greatest problems in using buses. The aim of these studies was to establish basic information at the concept stage of the vehicle design. The experimental methods employed and data generated then led on to a much larger and more detailed study sponsored by the Government through the T.R.R.L. and undertaken by Leyland Vehicles in two Phases. The first phase (see Brooks et al. 1974, for details) covered static aspects of bus travel and related these to the capabilities of the total user population; also the problems experienced and the preferences for particular design features. Tests were undertaken on a mock bus body with 201 elderly and disabled subjects and the report details the data obtained on: Disabilities of subjects Bus usage problems Anthropometry - body size data Capabilities - reach, pull, twist and step climbing Seat height preference Handrail diameter preference Footstool use Seats - comfort, spacing, position Recommendations from this Phase I report emphasised the importance of the first step height and the problems of entry and exit. The ability of the subjects to move about and maintain an upright posture within the bus, under realistic dynamic conditions, was highlighted as an area requiring study. Phase II covered the dynamic aspects of bus travel and relates to the recommendations from Phase I. The work was divided into five separate areas, each the subject of separate research, but with all topics being inter-related and following on from Phase I. (See Brooks et al. 1978, for details).
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
An Investigation into Bus Design and Passenger Requirements
177
The five research areas were: I. Handrail requirements for entering and leaving service buses: A continuation of the work undertaken on the two handrail designs evaluated in Phase I, looking at six further handrail designs. 2. Current acceleration levels in service buses: To define the range and levels of acceleration and jerk experienced on buses in service and to relate these levels to specific events and passenger reactions. 3. Bus passenger accident study: To determine the age and sex of passengers involved in accidents and relate to the time of day, location in the vehicle, the cause, and vehicle design features. 4. Dynamic aspects of passenger travel in buses: To investigate the ability of subjects to negotiate steps and ramps within a vehicle experiencing acceleration levels characteristic of those in service operations. 5. Retractable first step: To design, build and evaluate a retractable step system for easing entry and exit, which could be stowed completely within the existing structure of a vehicle.
2. Phase I: Static Mock-up Study 2./ Method Two hundred and eight subjects took part. Half belonged to senior citizens organisations, or occupied special supervised accommodation for the elderly. The other half were selected by Consultants at Preston Royal Infirmary, from out-patients attending the Hospital with disabling complaints who were ambulant and thus likely to make use of public transport. A small number of able adults also acted as subjects. The subjects undertook two stages of tests, during the first of which they were questioned about their age, bus usage and any associated problems. Anthropometric measurements were also made, in a form similar to that used in the British Standard Institution Publication, Anthropometric and Ergonomic Recommendations for Dimensionsfor Desiqninqfor the Elderly. (BS4467 1969). Special rigs were provided, so that subjects could demonstrate their overhead reach while seated or standing and their standing pull and twist strength with either arm. Another simple rig was used to determine the step height from ground level that they could negotiate with and without handrails. (Figure 2). The subjects' preferences for seat height and seat-back rail diameter were also obtained. The second stage of tests was undertaken in a wooden mock up of a bus that permitted step height and handrail configuration to be varied under entry and exit conditions. The ease and convenience of various combinations of step height, number of steps and hand-rail configurations, both for entry and exit, were assessed subjectively on a five point scale. Observers rated the difficulty experienced by the subjects in the various conditions and cine shots were also made of each subject whilst negotiating all the step and handrail conditions, to produce a permanent record for further assessment. Whilst in the mock-up of the bus, the subjects' preference for vertical handrail diameter was recorded and their double arm span was also measured using a special rig. Within the mock-up, subjects sampled different seating conditions involving various combinations of foot-stool height, seat spacing, and front, rear or inward facing seat positions. They expressed their preference as it affected ease of access and
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
the ride
An Investigation into Bus Design and Passenger Requirements
179
All subjects
..-. \
100
,\ \ \' \\ \ \ \ \ 1\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\
Step. Heights Negotiated
\
80
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
1\
\
90
I
1\
70
60
\
\
40
\
\
30
~~
20
1\
10
o
Just possible with handrails
HEIGHT (eMS) 9 (INCHES) 3'1>
Figure 3.
18
7
27 10'12
12
36 14
43 17
With ease with handrails Just possible without handrails
With ease without handrails
STEPHEIGHTS
Percentage of subjects able to negotiate various step heights, with and without handrails.
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
180
B. M. Brooks
2.2.4 Subject capabilities: The double arm span between stanchions indicated a difference of 500 mm between 95th and 5th percentile subjects, with the 5th percentile female span being only 850 mm. Similarly, overhead reach was restricted due to joint mobility, with the 5th percentile female overhead standing reach being only 1470 mm. Few subjects could exert a standing pull force in excess of25% of their body weight at waist or shoulder height. This, and the limited arm reach figures, have implications for standing passengers on moving buses, which were explored further in Phase II. The problem of step heights was illustrated by the results from the step climbing capability rig (Figure 3). Only 22% ofall subjects could climb, with ease, the maximum permitted bus step height of 430 mm (17") using handrails. Without access to handrails, this proportion was reduced to only 9% of the subjects. The disabled group experienced the greatest problems with step heights, 64% finding a 270 mm step just possible when using handrails. Without handrails this is reduced to only 16%. The greatest decrease in the proportion of subjects able to negotiate steps with ease using handrails occured between step heights of 360 mm and 270 mm. By interpolation, 84% of all subjects should be able to negotiate a 305 mm high step using handrails. 2.2.5 Seats: A seat height of between 432 and 457 mm with a seat spacing of 680 mm was preferred. The larger seat spacing of the two tested was preferred for seat access and the disabled subjects had the most problems with the smaller 610 mm seat spacing. Forward-facing seats were the first-choice seat position for 91% of all subjects. Second choice were the front inward-facing and third and fourth choice was split between rear-facing and rear inward-facing seats. Assessements of comfort appeared more related to location, rather than to slight differences in the seat shapes. The forward- and rearward-facing seats were considered the most comfortable. This could be due to the greater amount of leg room available in these locations and to the restrictions imposed on seated posture by the footstools in the other locations.
2.2.6 Entrance and exit desiqn Steps and handrails: Two step configurations were assessed both as an entrance and an exit and with two handrail layouts. The use of the three 178 mm high step layout was considered easy by 83% of all subjects. The sloping handrails were considered to be better than the vertical handrails tested, but both were influenced by the direction of use and the step arrangement. Generally, the sloping handrails were preferred for entering but, from the film record, the benefits of a vertical section to rotate around when exiting were evident. It was concluded that a preferable condition may exist and could be a combination of the two types tested and would be investigated further in Phase II.
3. Phase II: Handrails, Steps and Passenger Problems on Moving Buses 3.1 Handrail Requirements/or Entering and Leaving Public Service Vehicles: 3.1.1 Method: Six alternative handrail designs were evaluated on a mock-up by sixty elderly subjects. Each handrail design was considered with a two step arrangement (heights 311 mm and 216 mm), used both for entry and for exit. A cine camera mounted above the door and filming through a convex mirror allowed the complete doorway area to be surveyed. For each handrail, an assessment
An Investigation into Bus Design and Passenger Requirements
181
of use was made by the subjects, by experienced observers (both directly and from the film) and by retracing the areas of each handrail used from the film record. The clearance required around a handrail was measured by photographing the subjects' hands through a graduated disc for both circular and oval section handrails, statically and dynamically. The effects of various handrail surface finishes were assessed for consideration of grip and force that could be applied. 3.1.2 Handrail Design: The design shown in Figure 4 is recommended. This combines the features required for good entrance and exit use from the designs tested.
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 19:01 01 December 2013
450
I
II
I
0
~
~
95R
-,
I
g I ~.
~
~
~
w
A- I-A I
,
"'C,
~
".., ::>
:;'
.sr '",,'~ "0"..,
~
::r"' V> c: '" ~ 0
(i'@
::rV>
l': !:I
~(JQ
"' ::>
V> "
::>
~
V>
"'::> ~
::r
o
0.:
0' .., Pl "0
8"
~
3"0 -'f:o:l t'tl - , 0 ~ =' ~
(JQ
rr ,,~ .., "0 "' eo o a.. o'~ ::s0=' E; (") :::: '" 0 ::> .., "' "' 0 - 3 '"o (;l.., ::>0.. g."O
cr-'"
'" ~ 0.. S(3"l g S'r;'
O'~ ..,
3
~
a" t'tl t:::l oo :r .., c;;- '< ;;1 -
'J)-
t'tl o'~ t'">:l 3(JQ,,::>::>Vl - . ~ ~ __ nt'tl __ t...v
"
00 -.l
s ;;;
s'"
:'":;-
..,'"::0:,
..,'"
~'"
~
;:p
§" "'-
