On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:45:07 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:08:51 +0100
(Mark Bestley) wrote:
Recliner wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:57:45 +0200, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Offramp
wrote:

I think I use the 655 more often than the school children.

So non-school people can use school buses in London?

From the picture, it's not actually a school bus as such, just an
ordinary double-decker bus deployed to a route aimed mainly at school
kids.

hich is what a school bus is in London (and I think UK) We don't have
the silly waste of separate school buses that the US have. Although that
does mean that some of ours are not very good buses.

Those US school buses look like they were designed in the 1940s to me. Is
there some reason they can't use a modern bus but have to use some archaic
throwbacks?

They also have more modern ones, but

still utilitarian.

I doubt any commuter in the Excited States or Canada would appreciate
having to board a 'school bus' to move from point A to point B.

The first problem is one-door entry/exit, which works fine as you pick
up/drop off the Dear Wee Kiddies and Stroppy Teens to/from their
school but falls flat for variable route coverage.

Second, I've yet to see a 'school bus' which is handicapped
accessible.

Third, their physical 'ride' is hellishly hard/rough; they're
basically trucks with closed-in bodies.

Having said that, a pile of discarded 'school buses' seem to migrate
to Latin America. Pay Bolivia a visit and look around while in La Paz
to observe what passes as public transport.