Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, September 09, 2018

Driver Ergonomics in City Buses and Coaches 2014-01-2424

Published 09/30/2014

Vignesh T. Shekar and Sreedhar Reddy

Ashok Leyland, Ltd.

CITATION: Shekar, V. and Reddy, S., "Driver Ergonomics in City Buses and Coaches," SAE Technical Paper 2014-01-
2424, 2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-2424.

Copyright © 2014 SAE International

Abstract Introduction
Bus and coach drivers spend considerably more time in the In today's world, there is rapid urbanization in many emerging
vehicle, compared to an average personal car user. However, economies (refer Figure 1) and considerable modernization of
when it comes to comfort levels, the personal cars, even the cities and towns in the developed world. This is aided by
inexpensive hatchbacks score much higher than a standard growth in infrastructure and transportation. There are more
bus. This is because the amount of ergonomic design buses on road than ever before. Ironically, there is an
considerations that go into designing a car's DWS (driver increasing trend of bus and truck drivers quitting jobs for
workspace) is much more than that of buses. alternative professions like driving taxi, light commercial
vehicles etc., that have fixed working time and operate within a
To understand this lacuna, the existing standards and city or town.
recommendations pertaining directly or remotely to bus driver
workspace were studied. It was understood, beyond certain
elementary recommendations, there were very few standards
available exclusively for buses.

This paper ventures to establish a set of guidelines, exclusively

for designing bus and coach driver workspace. The various
systems in the driver's work space and their relevance to
driver's ergonomics are discussed. References are drawn from
different case studies and standards to come up with
recommendations and guidelines. For those aspects that were
not covered in existing literature, physical evaluations were
done on select Ashok Leyland buses.
Figure 1. Rate of urbanization of emerging markets (source: Cushman
Besides physical evaluation, virtual ergonomic checks were & Wakefield report)
also done on vehicle DMUs (Digital Mock Ups). For this
Even though this trend is attributed to various social and
purpose, manikins were modeled using Catia HBR (Human
economic reasons, the most important issue is the physical
Builder 2) module and virtual evaluations were done using
hardship that the bus and truck drivers go through. For
Catia DH2 configurator. Besides studying the driver's
instance, driving a city bus continuously in stop-and-go traffic
reachability of controls and other ergonomic aspects, emphasis
can be really backbreaking. Making things worse, a MoUD
was given to understand the factors influencing driver's field of
(Ministry of Urban Development, India) study revealed that in
vision.
20 years, in urban areas of India, the expected average
journey speeds would decrease from 17-26 km/hour to 6-8 km/
The consolidation of these DMU simulations, physical
hour. Equally difficult is the plight of intercity coach drivers
evaluation and case studies can be used by designers and
driving long hauls.
engineers as a ready reckoner for designing driver's workplace,
that is futuristic, driver friendly and ultimately safe for both the
driver and other road users.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, September 09, 2018

Figure 2. Driver posture in different vehicles [2]

While the external factors like traffic cannot be addressed application, city buses and intercity coaches. All other
overnight, there is ample scope to make bus drivers more applications like staff transport or school buses are just subsets
comfortable, by ergonomic design of their workplace. of coaches, at least in the driver workspace perspective.

A study of existing literature on ergonomic standards was

done. Surprisingly, while there is a huge trove of data for cars Driver Anthropometry
and mini vans that come under M1 category of vehicles [1], In today's automotive world, OEMs make vehicles for global
there is hardly anything exclusive for buses and heavy duty markets, rather than just domestic market. This is to mitigate
trucks which come under M3 category of vehicles [1]. risks of geopolitical instabilities by diversifying the target
market. This philosophy has far reaching ramifications, so
Naturally, bus manufacturers are forced to adopt standards much so that even in concept stage of product development,
pertaining to cars and vans for their buses. For instance, the market requirements of different geographies are considered.
directive - 77/649/EEC that explains driver's field of vision in
M1 category (cars) of vehicles is widely used by many bus In the context of this paper, the driver workspace has to be
manufacturers, because of unavailability of bus specific designed for drivers from different countries, at least those
standards. countries that are there in the OEMs (Original Equipment
Manufacturer) purview in the next 10 years.
While certain standards can be adopted across different
categories, that is, cars and buses, not all can be used In this study a driver population ranging from 5 percentile
interchangeably. This is because the driver's sitting and driving female to 95 percentile male is considered. The 5 percentile
posture in a bus is not the same as in a car. There are certain female is from the Chinese population and the 95 male is from
key differentiators like the platform height, seat height, seat the Canadian population. The logic is to accommodate a wider
inclination and so on. range of drivers from different countries. The manikins are
constructed using CATIA Human builder module.
A schematic showing posture of drivers in different vehicles is
shown in Figure 3. Table 1 lists the key dimensions that
quantify the difference in posture.

It is imperative to establish bus specific guidelines for driver

workspace.

Scope
This paper discusses driver ergonomics in standard buses and
coaches that fall under the category M3, that is, vehicles used
for the carriage of passengers, comprising more than eight
seats in addition to the driver's seat, and having a maximum
mass exceeding 5 tonnes [1]. For the sake of clarity and ease
of understanding, the discussion will be centered on just two

Figure 3. Driver manikins considered for mock up simulations

 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, September 09, 2018

The stature and weight of different manikins considered for this In this paper the seat shown in Figure 1.d is taken as reference
study are shown in Figure 3. as it has all the contemporary features and the functionality of
each of these features can be discussed.
Table 1. Driver posture in different vehicles [2]

Seat Adjustments
Seat adjustments are provided to accommodate drivers of
different build and stature.

The minimum seat back angle found among the existing driver
seats is 12 degrees; whereas, based on ergonomic checks
with the considered manikins, 15 degrees is considered to be
ideal for bus driver seat. Beyond this, the seat back angle can
be adjustable to around 40 degrees in steps of 2 degrees.

The longitudinal adjustment is generally decided based on the

population mix in target markets. The 95 percentile manikin is
used to decide the rearmost position of the longitudinal slide,
Driver Seat with respect to the ABC pedals and steering wheel. Likewise,
The driver seat is the primary element in driver's work place the 5 percentile manikin is used to set the frontmost position.
that has direct influence on the driver's effective functioning. The front most position is also constrained by the minimum gap
requirement, that is, the distance from the steering wheel to the
The simplest of seats are the temporary seats used to drive seat backrest. For this purpose, SAE standard J1522 - ‘Truck
bus chassis around a manufacturing plant over short distances driver stomach position’, is used as reference. Equation (1) and
(refer Figure 4.a). These seats are discarded during body (2) are used to locate the reference point with respect to the H
building and replaced with actual driver seats like the ones point. H30 in the equation refers to the height of H point from
shown in Figure 4. (b), (c) & (d). Based on the application and the bus floor on which the seat is mounted.
the customer's choice it can be a simple web seat (refer Figure
4.b) or a standard cushion seat with mechanical suspension
(refer Figure 4.c) or a sophisticated seat (refer Figure 4.d) with
pneumatic suspension, headrest, integrated microphone, (1)
integrated gear shift mechanism, heating mechanism etc.

(2)

Considering 500mm for H30 the corresponding x and z offsets

were obtained

X= −75.006mm Z= 196.244mm

After locating the reference point an arc with a radius of

157.5mm was drawn as explained in SAE J1522. This arc
establishes the boundary of driver's stomach contour. When
the seat is at the rearmost position, this arc should not be
intruding into the steering wheel or any other controls. In
simple terms, this establishes adequate gap between the
steering wheel and the backrest, to accommodate a population
mix of 95:5 male-female ratio, as shown in Figure 5.

Subsequently, based on DMU checks with these manikins, the

recommended horizontal adjustment is 220 mm (in steps of 10
mm) as shown in the Figure 6, for the population mix that is
considered in this paper.

The height adjustment is usually between 40 to 100 mm, with a

suspension stroke of 40 to 65 mm.
Figure 4. Driver Seats (a) Temporary seat for Chassis transit (b) Web
In addition to seat adjustments, the steering wheel can also be
seat (c) Standard cushion seat (d) Sophisticated driver seat
adjustable, widely referred to as tilt and telescopic adjustments
as shown in the Figure 6. A tilt adjustment of ± 9° and a
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, September 09, 2018

telescopic adjustment of ± 25 mm was found to be suitable for

the population mix. It is to be noted that steering adjustment is
only secondary and provided in premium vehicles.

Figure 7. Driver seat swivel option for ticket distribution and easy
ingress and egress

In addition to the aforementioned essential adjustments, there

are a host of other adjustments, usually found in high end
Figure 5. Driver stomach contour accommodating 95:5 male-female
ratio luxury coaches and a few plush city buses. These include
cushion rake adjustment, cushion pan, lumbar support,
shoulder position adjustment, seat heating or cooling and so
on. Since these are not essential adjustments, they are not
covered in this paper

Ingress Dimension
Most rear engine buses do not have a separate driver door.
They only have access doors from within the saloon. Whereas
in case of front engine buses, the engine hood and gear shift
lever are close to the driver. This necessitates the provision of
separate driver door on the offside (side of the bus closer to
driver). In these cases, the minimum height of the driver door
aperture, i.e., clear opening excluding handles, measured from
the bus floor in the driver's area, shall not be less than 1250
mm high and 650 mm wide [6].

Driver Workspace Packaging Envelope

Apart from the driver seat, the other important elements that
make the driver workspace include the ABC pedal arrangement
and steering cluster. The relative positioning of these three
elements is crucial in designing an ergonomic driver
workspace. This is established by placing different manikins in
Figure 6. Basic seat adjustments the DWS as shown in Figure 8.
City buses and especially those that are run by drivers who
Based on the iterations with different manikins (5 percentile
takes care of ticket distribution also, should have ‘swivel’
female to 95 percentile male as discussed under driver
option, where the seat cushion along with the backrest and
anthropometry earlier) the longitudinal and vertical spacing (in
other controls swivels about the central vertical axis as shown
XZ plane) are determined. The resulting dimensions - H point
in Figure 7. This facilitates the driver to turn towards the
height from the floor, H point to heel point distance, heel point
passenger for dispensing tickets without twisting his torso or
to firewall distance, thigh clearance, overall head room space
neck.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, September 09, 2018

and distance to driver partition are shown in Figure 9. The

driver partition shall be 25 mm from the rearmost point of the
driver seat in its rearmost position with seat back reclined
backwards to an angle of 12 degrees [6]. Besides the
longitudinal and vertical spacing, there needs to be sufficient
lateral clearances for accommodation different drivers. This is
established be the elbow clearance and foot space as shown
in Figure 8 and 9.

Figure 10. Elbow and foot space

Driver Vision
In city buses where the driver himself distributes the tickets, it
is always preferable to have the eye level of the driver even or
above the passenger receiving the ticket. As a result the driver
need not crane his neck while interacting with the passenger.
To bring the driver eye level in line, the driver platform height
has to be raised up or brought down accordingly.

In the context of this paper, the 95 percentile male manikin is

Figure 8. Driver workspace envelope considered in place of the passenger. Ideally, the smallest of
the driver manikins, that is, the 5 percentile female manikin has
to be considered to ensure the driver eye level to be at a higher
all the time. Yet, considering the 5 percentile female manikin
would result in drastic increase in driver platform height just to
meet this criteria and it may result in reduction of headroom.
Hence, a 95 percentile male manikin is considered for driver.
The eye level of this manikin is matched with the 95 percentile
male passenger manikin. With this as reference the H point,
seat position and hence the mounting platform are positioned.
While ensuring this driver-passenger eye level criteria is
important, it is equally or perhaps even more important to
ensure the availability of sufficient headroom, at least 900mm
above seat cushion. Besides headroom, the blind distance in
front of the bumper (discussed later in this paper) gets worse
as the driver platform height increases. These two factors,
headroom and blind distance have to be kept in check while
raising the driver platform height.

Figure 9. Basic packaging dimensions for seat, steering cluster, ABC

pedal and driver partition
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, September 09, 2018

Forward Vision
SAE standards are available to describe the driver's field of
vision for a given vehicle, taking into account the obstructions
caused by ‘A’ pillar, RVM and so on. SAE J1750 [7] can be
used for describing the driver's viewing environment. However
the standard does not specify any recommend range for
uninterrupted vision.

Figure 11. Driver Eye level above the eye level of most of the
passengers in city bus

Blind Zones
Driver's ability to see all around the vehicle right from his work
area is not just an ergonomic requirement but also a critical
safety aspect. The bus's design architecture should be such
that it provides minimum hindrance to driver's forward and
rearward vision.

The forward visibility is influenced by the dashboard, ‘A’ pillars,

ceiling, ORVM (Outside Rear View Mirror) etc. The design
approach has to be to make these components as sleek and
as unobtrusive as possible, within acceptable design
considerations.

The rearward visibility is primarily dependent on RVMs (Rear

View Mirror). Yet there are limitations to the extent to which an
RVM can be useful. In case of large multi-axle coaches that
are 15 meters long or vestibule buses that are even longer, the
rearward visibility has to extend along the entire length of the
vehicle. Rear cameras can be used in these cases. These
cameras are of great help for parking and cornering. Figure 12. Subtle changes in vehicle architecture go a long way in
improving ergonomics and even vehicle performance
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, September 09, 2018

For both city buses and coaches, the blind distance in front of The HBR module in CATIA comes in handy here. The reach
the bumper is very critical and should be kept minimum. This envelope of different manikins in their respective seating
blind spot leads to a lot of accident involving pedestrians, positions are established using this module. This helps to ensure
cyclists and even motorists. To control this blind distance the that the dashboard and other controls are within the envelope.
driver should have a visibility zone of at least 14 degrees below
horizontal. It is to be noted that the 5 percentile female manikin Certain primary controls like ingnition key or button are always
is used as the worst case here. Likewise for a minimum aerial retained to the right hand side of the driver irrespective of
visibility, for the driver to be able to spot a traffic light without vehicle drive, LHD or RHD. Other controls like handbrake can
bending down, the uninterrupted visibility zone above be positioned to suit the vehicle architecture.
horizontal should be 7 degrees. Here the 95 percentile male
manikin is used as the worst-case model.

The aforementioned limiting dimensions hold good for a city

bus where the driver's H point is at a height of 1100-1300 mm.
In case of coaches the driver's H point is at a height of 1320
- 1570 mm and in some front engine coaches it can be as high
as 1650 mm. In such cases it is not enough to just apply the
same guideline of 14 degrees downward angle, because the
blind distance will increase drastically as the H point height
increases. Hence the guideline here is to be able to spot a
1.2m tall kid or manikin at a distance of 1m from the front of the
bumper as shown in Figure 13. Here again the 5 percentile
female manikin is used as worst-case model.

In general, coaches tend to have a large number of steps at

the entry, to reach the high floor area of the saloon. This is
unavoidable, as coaches should have sufficient luggage space
beneath the floor. However, instead of having the steps in a
single stretch, it can be broken, as illustrated in Figure 12. In
the new layout, the driver sits just above 2 steps. The other 2 Figure 14. Reach envelope of the driver for locating dashboard and
steps are provided in the gangway. This greatly improves the other controls
forward vision of driver. Also, the front fascia can be much
more aerodynamic and hence there is scope for bringing the Conclusion
operating cost down.
With the ever-increasing urban population, the importance of
public transport is felt like never before. It is imperative to
improve the ergonomic standard of the driver's workspace,
especially in buses. The existing standards are in piece meal
and a few are outdated as well.

This paper touched upon various aspects of driver ergonomics,

substantiated with virtual DMU studies with carefully chosen
manikins that are contemporary. This virtual study helps a lot in
cutting down time and energy spent on establishing and
evaluating the driver's work area.

In future, drivers work area will be even more complex with

various gadgets and functions. The challenge is to declutter the
work area without compromising on performance. The focus
should be to prioritize the functions or controls that are to be
Figure 13. Visibility in front of the bumper accessed by the driver immediately. The primary functions in
this list, for instance, parking brake can be controlled by
physical buttons or levers as in conventional vehicle. The
Dashboard and Other Controls secondary functions like destination display controls can be
SAE J287 defines driver's hand control reach for vehicles clubbed together into a touch enabled interface. Only when
ranging from cars to medium truck. Whereas there is no there is a requirement of the secondary function it should be
specific standard for bus driver hand control reach. accessed with a few taps on the screen. By adopting new and
cost effective technology like this, it is possible to keep the
ergonomic guidelines like the one compiled in this paper,
relevant and simple.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Sunday, September 09, 2018

References 6. Automotive Research Association of India, “ Code of

Practice for Bus Body Design and Approval”, Code AIS-
1. United Nations Economic Commissions for Europe,
052, Rev. 1, Amd. 1 & 2, 2008.
“Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles”,
ECE/TRANS/WP.29/78/Rev.3, 23 January 2014. 7. SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended
Practice, “Describing and Evaluating the Truck Driver's
2. Stuart M. and Geoff W., “H-Point the Fundamentals of Car
Viewing Environment,” SAE Standard J1750, Iss. Mar.
Design & Packaging”, Design Studio Press, California,
1995.
April 2009.
3. SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Definitions/Abbreviations
Practice, “Truck Driver Stomach Position,” SAE Standard
DMU - Digital Mock Up
J1522, Rev. Mar. 1990.
HBR - Human Builder 2
4. Professional Association for Transport, “Driver's
Workplace in Motor Coaches”, Informal document OEM - Original Equipment Manufacturer
No.GRSG-91-1, Hamburg, Oct. 2006. MoUD - Ministry of Urban Development, India
5. United Nations Economic Commissions for Europe, EEC - European Economic Community
“Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of ORVM - Outside Rear View Mirror
Category M2 or M3 Vehicles with regard to their General
RVM - Rear View Mirror
Construction”, ECE Regulation No. 107 Rev. 2, 2008.

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of the session
organizer. The process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the
paper.

ISSN 0148-7191

http://papers.sae.org/2014-01-2424