On Sep 16, 3:05*pm, wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 05:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:
there has never been a consensus view amongst cyclists at large (or
indeed even 'militant cyclists', woteva they are) that bendy buses are
a bad thing. Some cyclists dislike them, some don't. Just because

I never said it was all cyclists, but there seems to be a vocal minority
on usenet and in the press who dislike them. I can't think of any other
group who whinge to much about bendies so I can only assume it was pressure
from these sorts of people that persuaded Boris to ditch them. Either that
or he just threw a dart at a list of potential election issues and Bendies was
where it landed.

More the latter me thinks. The notion that anty-bendy 'militant
cyclists' got the issue onto Boris's agenda is just a bit absurd.

There were however various rumblings of discontent about bendy buses
well before Boris came on the scene - it's more a case of him plugging
into that and stoking it. Boris also used bendies as a kind of symbol
of Livingstone's reign - Ken had after all introduced them (or rather
they were introduced under his watch, with his full backing), and as
you know he started to polarise people towards the end, so Team Bozza
played with associating 'evil bendies' with 'evil Ken'. Quite a lot of
the fuss about bendy buses seems to have taken place with people who
didn't use them though, for example the chittering-chattering classes
sometimes far from London, and encouraged by the likes of the Mail and
Telegraph etc, to the extent that their evilness became a given (at
least amongst some).

I had a few ludicrous conversations with non-Londoners who said things
like 'those bendy buses are detestable aren't they?' and then later 'I
bet you're glad Boris is getting rid of those buses', and then seemed
rather taken aback when I demurred from their comfortable little
consensus, and then a little aggravated when I cited my regular use of
them!

That said, I don't wish to pretend that there aren't Londoners who do
use them and do dislike them, or indeed some bus-travelling Londoners
who actively avoid using them, for there are indeed such folk - MIG is
one such person, but I've got a couple of friends who detest them as
well, though their reasoning has never really seemed totally
satisfactory to me.

Anyhow, whilst I feel their usage on certain select routes is most
appropriate, I suspect their time might be up in London, and arguing
for them is perhaps something of a lost cause now. Just as long as
transport planners of the future realise that there's a whole lot more
to this story than the likely shorthand of 'the failed London bendy
experiment' might suggest - indeed. it's perhaps a useful study in the
interaction of politics and transport.

I suspect I'll use some bus routes rather less once they've been
debendified and journeys take longer.

On Sep 16, 3:23*pm, wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
Can you give an example of a cyclist who does? *I am not aware of

No, but just go to uk.rec.cycling and mention bendy buses and see the
reaction.

I'm not sure I'd take the opinions on that newsgroup to represent much
at all - often seems to be rather more heat than light there. (And an
awful lot of trolling and provoking and general moronicness.)


any. *I don't read cycling forums, but maybe you do. *As a pedestrian,
I continue to object to crossings being blocked.

We're all pedestrians and I can count on 1 hand the number of times I saw a
bendy bus blocking a crossing in all the years I worked in central london..

I've seen it somewhat more than that, though I also see it happening
with conventional buses as well as lorries and other traffic.

On 16 Sep, 15:50, Mizter T wrote:
On Sep 16, 3:05*pm, wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 05:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:
there has never been a consensus view amongst cyclists at large (or
indeed even 'militant cyclists', woteva they are) that bendy buses are
a bad thing. Some cyclists dislike them, some don't. Just because

I never said it was all cyclists, but there seems to be a vocal minority
on usenet and in the press who dislike them. I can't think of any other
group who whinge to much about bendies so I can only assume it was pressure
from these sorts of people that persuaded Boris to ditch them. Either that
or he just threw a dart at a list of potential election issues and Bendies was
where it landed.

More the latter me thinks. The notion that anty-bendy 'militant
cyclists' got the issue onto Boris's agenda is just a bit absurd.

There were however various rumblings of discontent about bendy buses
well before Boris came on the scene - it's more a case of him plugging
into that and stoking it. Boris also used bendies as a kind of symbol
of Livingstone's reign - Ken had after all introduced them (or rather
they were introduced under his watch, with his full backing), and as
you know he started to polarise people towards the end, so Team Bozza
played with associating 'evil bendies' with 'evil Ken'. Quite a lot of
the fuss about bendy buses seems to have taken place with people who
didn't use them though, for example the chittering-chattering classes
sometimes far from London, and encouraged by the likes of the Mail and
Telegraph etc, to the extent that their evilness became a given (at
least amongst some).

I had a few ludicrous conversations with non-Londoners who said things
like 'those bendy buses are detestable aren't they?' and then later 'I
bet you're glad Boris is getting rid of those buses', and then seemed
rather taken aback when I demurred from their comfortable little
consensus, and then a little aggravated when I cited my regular use of
them!

That said, I don't wish to pretend that there aren't Londoners who do
use them and do dislike them, *or indeed some bus-travelling Londoners
who actively avoid using them,

Dunno I'd actually go that far. If a 29 and 24 turned up at the same
time I'd get on the 24, but if a 29 turned up alone I'd get the 29.


for there are indeed such folk - MIG is
one such person, but I've got a couple of friends who detest them as
well, though their reasoning has never really seemed totally
satisfactory to me.

Anyhow, whilst I feel their usage on certain select routes is most
appropriate, I suspect their time might be up in London, and arguing
for them is perhaps something of a lost cause now. Just as long as
transport planners of the future realise that there's a whole lot more
to this story than the likely shorthand of 'the failed London bendy
experiment' might suggest - indeed. it's perhaps a useful study in the
interaction of politics and transport.

I suspect I'll use some bus routes rather less once they've been
debendified and journeys take longer.

On Sep 16, 4:58*pm, MIG wrote:

On 16 Sep, 15:50, Mizter T wrote:
[snip]
That said, I don't wish to pretend that there aren't Londoners who do
use them and do dislike them, *or indeed some bus-travelling Londoners
who actively avoid using them,

Dunno I'd actually go that far. *If a 29 and 24 turned up at the same
time I'd get on the 24, but if a 29 turned up alone I'd get the 29.

for there are indeed such folk - MIG is
one such person, but I've got a couple of friends who detest them as
well, though their reasoning has never really seemed totally
satisfactory to me.

Sorry, I didn't intend to suggest actively avoiding them was something
that you specifically would do, I was just trying to say (a) you are
on of those who dislike them, and (b) I think there are people out
there who might actively avoid them.

FWIW, if I'm making a longer journey then I might opt for the double-
decker over a bendy if the routes overlap and they both turn up
together, depends on how I'm feeling and the circumstances etc.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:08:04 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

They were cold in the winter and not very comfortable.

No legroom, impossible to stand in if taller than about 6' unless you
stood on the platform and got in the way / got shouted at by the
conductor, rough-riding, too small (so you often got left behind for
several buses). Bendies have solved most of that, and what they
haven't have been solved by modern 2-door double-deckers.

RMs are fun, agreed, particularly hanging out of the doors. But
passenger-friendly they are not, and the issue of delays at traffic
lights can be dealt with by playing with stop locations and spacings -
this was traditionally bad in London because many people didn't
board/alight at stops anyway so nobody cared. The Germans and Dutch
are good at this; the UK is atrocious at it - nationally.

That said, you *could* have put a modernised-RM-style body on a
standard Wrightbus decker - that might have looked the part without
the bad features.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:05:26 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

Basically, there seems to be an assumption that bendyness and not
having to go past the driver are exactly the same thing.

I've never understood this.

True; in many German cities you can board at any door during the day.
But with Oyster going past the driver doesn't seem to slow things down
- indeed, with a well-laid-out bus, the one-way flow works very well
indeed.

What *is* bad is the provincial single-doored bus. As ever with the
bus industry, paranoia about a small amount of lost revenue overtakes
the benefits to the timetable, PVR and passenger comfort/convenience.
At times the industry really is far too conservative for its own good.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:13:51 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

I think that we have learned something from the experience and that
any new vehicle shouldn't require people to file through a narrow
entry point, but also shouldn't take up as much road space as a bendy
or require the majority of punters to stand.

In central London, most people stand on the Tube. I don't see why a
bus should be any different - indeed, for a short journey I pretty
much always stand on London buses, usually in the wheelchair area if
there is no wheelchair on board.

Longer-distance buses coming in from the suburbs to cope with gaps /
lack of capacity on the Tube are a different matter, of course. But
one type of bus won't solve every problem - these are the sort of
routes on which a double-decker is far better, with standing space
downstairs plus a few priority seats, and seats upstairs for those
making longer journeys. But for Oxford Street, say, there's only one
better type of vehicle, and that's a tram - most probably one that is
also mostly for standees.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:56:49 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

I've seen it somewhat more than that, though I also see it happening
with conventional buses as well as lorries and other traffic.

Builders' lorries are in my experience the real scourge of London
traffic. Badly-driven, noisy, smelly and just plain large. Even
though it might contribute to congestion, a larger number of smaller
vehicles would be preferable in that context.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On 16 Sep, 20:40, Neil Williams
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:13:51 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:
I think that we have learned something from the experience and that
any new vehicle shouldn't require people to file through a narrow
entry point, but also shouldn't take up as much road space as a bendy
or require the majority of punters to stand.

In central London, most people stand on the Tube. *I don't see why a
bus should be any different - indeed, for a short journey I pretty
much always stand on London buses, usually in the wheelchair area if
there is no wheelchair on board.

I am rather wary of that argument, which is a little bit close to
"aeroplanes have tiny windows; I don't see why trains should be any
different" and we end up with the Pendolino. I think that different
modes of transport provide choices eg speed v comfort v view v price
etc etc. There's no reason for them to converge to a lowest common
denominator.




Longer-distance buses coming in from the suburbs to cope with gaps /
lack of capacity on the Tube are a different matter, of course. *But
one type of bus won't solve every problem - these are the sort of
routes on which a double-decker is far better, with standing space
downstairs plus a few priority seats, and seats upstairs for those
making longer journeys. *But for Oxford Street, say, there's only one
better type of vehicle, and that's a tram - most probably one that is
also mostly for standees.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:43:27 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

I am rather wary of that argument, which is a little bit close to
"aeroplanes have tiny windows; I don't see why trains should be any
different" and we end up with the Pendolino. I think that different
modes of transport provide choices eg speed v comfort v view v price
etc etc. There's no reason for them to converge to a lowest common
denominator.

The issue is that the UK doesn't invest in its city rail
infrastructure enough[1]. Buses are best employed to feed a
rapid-transit rail service and to run inter-regional services with
demand too low to run a rail service. This is how they're used in
Germany, and as a result you get the type of layout used on the Citaro
(which is exactly the same layout you get in Germany). The Dutch are
even further along in this - their city buses have very few seats.

Buses are not good for trunk routes as they seem to be used on in the
UK, in which the same bus is used for a high-loading short-journey
cross-city service and a run in from a distant suburb. Thus, there
will always be conflicts unless we change that. There are some routes
in London - the 73 is probably a perfect example - where a bendy copes
best with that compromise in my view. Assuming they fit round, I'd
also call the 205 an ideal bendy route as it *is* a pure city-centre
route (pretty much) - shame it never saw them.

[1] Of course, London has other issues, and providing capacity on the
ageing Tube is hard. But were it a German city, I'm convinced it
would have had several more Thameslinks, Crossrails and possibly even
some trams by now. And a lot of Citaros to feed them - but probably
very few actually in Central London. (Central Hamburg is only
penetrated by a handful of bus routes, a good chunk of which are
premium-fare Schnellbusse).

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.