wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 13:26:55 -0000
"Portsmouth Rider" wrote:
Passenger being permitted to leave at unauthorised stop trips (even may be
own fault.)
Leads to:
Passenger sees "COMPO!!!" and claims from bus co
Leads to:
Bus co want to know from driver what was he doing allowing unscheduled
dropping points
Leads to:
Driver out of job

In theory, in practice there has to be some leaway.

Indeed. The driver can do almost anything reasonable, provided he has good
reason to do so. He can - and quite possibly WILL - be called to justify
his actions subsequently (especially in these days when bus co managers are
not busmen, but mere mouthpieces for "Head Office Policy"). Mr Perry's tea
and crumpets being cold because he is half an hour late getting home does
not count as good reason. A tree falling down 50 yards from the station,
which can be walked around safely, but which the bus cannot negotiate, does,
for example, count as "good reason" - for the bus to drop the passengers off
just before the tree. What is mo the situation will have been noted, and
later reported to the bus co, by the bus co supervisor on site (even if not
at the actual station, if it is a small one) and it is likely that
instructions would be given to the driver to do just that; AND how to get
the bus turned around safely before picking up the passengers going the
other way.

If for example the road
is blocked ahead and the bus can't move then the driver will have to let
the passengers off else they could sue the bus company for false
imprisonment!
And while we hear of stupid payouts in courts like that one in the last
few
days for the idiot who hurt her finger, I'm pretty sure most judges and
juries
are fairly sensible and would see the drivers point of view.

B2003

In message , at 09:46:25 on Sun, 25 Nov
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:

This is something I feel quite strongly about, but in the face of a
stone wall of "we are happy to screw the passengers, and cause them even
more inconvenience" we have at least established what the industry's
stance is.

No, we have. exaustively, established that is the tantrum you are
throwing because they won't accede to your whims.

Characterising my reasonable request as a "whim" is consistent with the
attitude I describe above.

But haven't we beaten this to death now?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
09:10:18 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Portsmouth Rider
remarked:
Head - desk The only vehicle that is allowed to stop at a bus stop is a
bus on a service licenced to use that stop.

Cars and vans are allowed to stop there as well. Only if there's a "No
Stopping" plate is a bus stop exclusively for the use of buses.

See Highway Code Rule 243.

That's a "Do Not", rather than a "MUST NOT".
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
10:15:46 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Portsmouth Rider
remarked:

Mr Perry's tea and crumpets being cold because he is half an hour late
getting home does not count as good reason.

If it was only half an hour it wouldn't matter so much. The problem is
that once a bustitution has been put in place you are probably already
an hour later than you expected, and giving someone an unnecessary walk
on top of that is just rubbing the salt in.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:47:29 on Sun, 25
Nov 2012, Graeme Wall remarked:

An intelligent Rail Replacement system would have, defined in the
contract, a limited number of additional non-railway-station stops, at
existing major transport interchanges, where such existed on the best
route from station to station or another route almost as good. The
stops would be chosen to maximise the expected overall customer
satisfaction.

But wouldn't necessarily include the corner of Roland's road.

In the first case I was thinking about, it probably would, because the
obvious place for an additional stop would be the one in the middle of
the village served by the station.

In the second case (East Midlands Parkway to Nottingham bustitution) I
don't see why it would be unreasonable to have the bus stop at the same
limited number of places as the old "Skylink" bus to the airport. Those
were presumably chosen for a reason. As it happens, one of those was
near my house.
--
Roland Perry

On 25/11/2012 10:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:46:25 on Sun, 25 Nov
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:

This is something I feel quite strongly about, but in the face of a
stone wall of "we are happy to screw the passengers, and cause them even
more inconvenience" we have at least established what the industry's
stance is.

No, we have. exaustively, established that is the tantrum you are
throwing because they won't accede to your whims.

Characterising my reasonable request as a "whim" is consistent with the
attitude I describe above.

As has been pointed out to you by several people, your request isn't
reasonable.


But haven't we beaten this to death now?


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 25/11/2012 10:54, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:47:29 on Sun, 25
Nov 2012, Graeme Wall remarked:

An intelligent Rail Replacement system would have, defined in the
contract, a limited number of additional non-railway-station stops, at
existing major transport interchanges, where such existed on the best
route from station to station or another route almost as good. The
stops would be chosen to maximise the expected overall customer
satisfaction.

But wouldn't necessarily include the corner of Roland's road.

In the first case I was thinking about, it probably would, because the
obvious place for an additional stop would be the one in the middle of
the village served by the station.

In the second case (East Midlands Parkway to Nottingham bustitution) I
don't see why it would be unreasonable to have the bus stop at the same
limited number of places as the old "Skylink" bus to the airport. Those
were presumably chosen for a reason. As it happens, one of those was
near my house.

As I recall your comments on the Skylink service it was no use at all so
hardly makes a good precedent.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message , at 11:28:13 on Sun, 25
Nov 2012, Graeme Wall remarked:
In the second case (East Midlands Parkway to Nottingham bustitution) I
don't see why it would be unreasonable to have the bus stop at the same
limited number of places as the old "Skylink" bus to the airport. Those
were presumably chosen for a reason. As it happens, one of those was
near my house.

As I recall your comments on the Skylink service it was no use at all
so hardly makes a good precedent.

The problem with the Skylink service was that it didn't have a stop at
East Midlands Parkway station. Apart from that, it was a useful route
that I used several times. It ran almost round the clock, which is more
than one can say for the railways.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:10:18
on Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Portsmouth Rider
remarked:
Head - desk The only vehicle that is allowed to stop at a bus stop is
a
bus on a service licenced to use that stop.

Cars and vans are allowed to stop there as well. Only if there's a "No
Stopping" plate is a bus stop exclusively for the use of buses.

See Highway Code Rule 243.

That's a "Do Not", rather than a "MUST NOT".
--
Roland Perry

I just KNEW you were going to come out with that. Now... why do you think it
says "Do Not" and not "MUST NOT"?

(I know the answer to that, I just want to see if YOU do.)
--
PR

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:15:46
on Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Portsmouth Rider
remarked:

Mr Perry's tea and crumpets being cold because he is half an hour late
getting home does not count as good reason.

If it was only half an hour it wouldn't matter so much. The problem is
that once a bustitution has been put in place you are probably already an
hour later than you expected, and giving someone an unnecessary walk on
top of that is just rubbing the salt in.
--
Roland Perry

OK, salty crumpets. Still not a good raeson.

--
PR