1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Document Title Proposal for minimum number of bus and coach exits
Reference Number SDWEE-05-03
Date
24 Feb 2011
Source(s) Hungary
Rulemaking Area(s) UN R107 Coach and Bus Construction
Meeting(s)
Downloads
UNECE server .pdf format
Excerpts from session reports related to this document
SDWEE | Session 5 | 2-3 Mar 2011

SDWEE-05-04:
Mr. Jongenelen (NL) presented the document and stressed that the current wording of paragraphs 7.6.7.2. and 7.6.5.1 is such that the emergency exit could be used only by operating the device dedicated to the service door.

IRU confirmed that this item touches a big problem for the operators because some passengers use the emergency exit devices for getting out of the vehicle at traffic lights. Paragraph 7.6.5.1.1. is the main source of problems for IRU, with no proposal for improvement yet. The informal group had an exchange of view on the most efficient way to address this problem and re-visited the paragraph 7.6.7.2. in order to accurately include all the possibilities.

Conclusion: Revision of document SDWEE-05-04 adopted, to be included in 02-07-Rev.3.

SDWEE-05-02:
Mr. Rickaby (Plaxton) pointed out that the sequence of movements for operating the emergency exit control could be long, and that some extensive space could be needed for indicating the actions to perform for opening the exits.

Mr. McKenzie (OICA, CLCCR), as author of the proposal, recalled that it is up to the manufacturer to achieve the goal as the requirement is not prescriptive. The informal group agreed to respect the decision of the last meeting to favour pictograms in all case, with supplementary explanatory wording when necessary. It was agreed to introduce the relevant provisions in a new paragraph 7.19 rather than in paragraph 7.6. which addresses exits only.

Mr. McKenzie kindly produced document SDWEE-05-02-Rev.1 which was reviewed in depth by the experts. In particular the experts acknowledged that the requirement for “photoluminescent” signs could preclude other systems. Concerning the pictograms, it was considered reasonable that the regulation defines a pictogram for each type of emergency exit, i.e. door, window, roof hatch, floor hatch. Mr. McKenzie volunteered to prepare a proposal in that sense for the next meeting.

Conclusion:
► Relevant provisions to be added in a new paragraph 7.19.
► Current 7.6.11. to be amended accordingly.
► Mr. McKenzie to produce a proposal defining a pictogram for each of the four types of emergency, in addition to some provisions for minimal dimensions of the emergency exit windows and some indication of the exits which are addressed by the provisions.

SDWEE-05-05:
Some experts had the concern that the proposed value of 2 Nm seemed quite a low value in particular in the case of mechanical operation. Plaxton Ltd. committed to internally investigate the feasibility of the value. It was however pointed out that only the unlocking action was regulated, rather than the operation of the exit itself. This implies that, probably, a second movement would have to be indicated for opening the exit.

Some debate in addition took place on whether the regulation should mandate a direction of movement (clockwise vs. counter clockwise). While there was no consensus about the proper direction to mandate, it was agreed that the direction would have to be indicated by appropriate signage.

The experts in addition agreed that the required angular displacement of 90° would cover the total possible control opening movement, i.e. a movement of 45° each direction for opening would be compliant.

The group in addition agreed to regulate the dimensions of the control, based on some information to be provided by the manufacturers.

Conclusion:
► Principle of a mandatory rotary control adopted.
► Maximum dimensions requirements to be added.

SDWEE-05-03:
The informal group decided not to review this document because it was not relating to the latest version of the informal group working document, i.e. SDWEE-02-07-Rev.2.

SDWEE-02-07-Rev2:
The informal group started a revision of the document paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph 7.6.1.5.: proposed amendments deleted, the text will remain as currently in the Regulation.

Paragraph 7.6.1.7.:
The Chair informed that the Editorial Task Force was expecting some help from English native speakers for the text between [ ]. The informal group, after some lengthy debate, supported to amend the paragraph as in the updated working document.

The other changes agreed by the experts can be found as well in the document SDWEE-02-07- Rev.3.