On 26 July, 21:56, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:02:11 -0700 (PDT), MIG





wrote:
On 26 July, 20:13, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:17:35 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:
On 26 July, 17:07, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are
hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to
bendy buses is disingenuous.

Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a
totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing
me to risk my life to get across the road"?

What about it? *It's emotive nonsense, no more.

I was coming up with an alternative statement that might better
characterise genuine objections to bendys, based on something that
happens frequently.

I suggest that it sums up what far more people feel about them than
the statement about objecting to people of a "lower social class" that
I was responding to.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. *I thought you actually believed that
rubbish. *Thanks for making it clear.

Well, I do frequently find bendys blocking crossings that I want to
use, so that part isn't rubbish.

I guess it's my own choice whether I then risk my life to walk round
or decide to stay on the same side of the road till the bus drivers
finally leave a gap. *I tend to be a bit impetuous and walk round in
the middle of the traffic, but sometimes that isn't possible and I
just get delayed.

On one occasion, a bendy was blocking a crossing at Trafalgar Square
during the pedestrian phase, and I did walk round. *Another bendy
driver decided that since the first one was preventing pedestrians
from crossing, he would drive straight through the red light. *I
wasn't amused at all.

Frequently? *How frequent is "frequently"?

I don't spend so much time on foot in London lately, but maybe about
once a week on average. Enough to stick in the mind. Probably once
every couple of months with double deckers.

I have no actual figures. I will start counting now. Tonight: none.


Or is it an irrationally angry response to something that doesn't
follow the arbitrary rules that you apply to your world, that makes it
appear more of a problem than it realy is?

Don't know how to answer that one.


Foe example, can you give an objective, dispassionate comparison of
the delays caused to pedestrians caused by bendy buses blocking
pedestrian crossings compared to the that from the much greater number
of non-articulated buses (needed to replace the high capacity of the
bendy buses) blocking pedestrian crossings?

The reason I ask is that I think a lot of people's innate anger and
impatience is being directed towards bendy buses, simply because
people are set against them. *I mean a lot of people, not just you,
and I also mean such issues as the alleged trapping of cyclists and
the alleged vastly increased delays to other road users, for which
read the anger of drivers of cars and vans who have an inbuilt
pathological hatred of anything that "gets in their way".

When I'm on a bike, I find that the biggest danger is the route I have
to take to get past them, so it's similar to the pedestrian crossing
issue really, with the added risk of them pulling away and leaving me
in the middle of the road, during the longer time it takes to get past
them.


I admit to having an inbuilt patholgocial hatred of cyclists who
disobey the rules of the road, so I'm as guilty as anyone. *But I do
think that the bendy buses have been vilified for a lot of problems
that they don't cause.

I don't think there's evidence that they hit cyclists more than
anything else, but I think that the arguments about that were mostly
down to "causing accidents" being interpreted as "hit", which is not
necessarily the case or what was meant.