" wrote:

So, when "via points" are finally abolished from all London buses, as
the disabled lobby seems to be achieving,

I'm sorry if this was mentioned before, but why on earth would the disabled
lobby want to eliminate the "via" text from a destination sign? I could see a
bus company maybe wanting to simplify signage and having some marginally more
flexibility, but the disabled?

"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote:

I'm sorry if this was mentioned before, but why on earth would the
disabled
lobby want to eliminate the "via" text from a destination sign? I could
see a
bus company maybe wanting to simplify signage and having some marginally
more
flexibility, but the disabled?

As the totally blind can see neither the 'via' points nor the destination,
surely it is discriminatory for anyone to know where the bus is going?

Chris

"Chris Read" wrote:

As the totally blind can see neither the 'via' points nor the destination,
surely it is discriminatory for anyone to know where the bus is going?

Thank you for pulling my leg. It was a little awkward with one shorter than the
other...

"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote in message
...
" wrote:

So, when "via points" are finally abolished from all London buses,
as
the disabled lobby seems to be achieving,

I'm sorry if this was mentioned before, but why on earth would the
disabled
lobby want to eliminate the "via" text from a destination sign? I
could see a
bus company maybe wanting to simplify signage and having some
marginally more
flexibility, but the disabled?


I suspect the argument is that those disabled with poor eyesight will
find it easier to read a destination in a large font rather than
having to try and read a smaller font which is necessitated by having
1 or more via points listed in the same space. Plus, dont forget that
disabled does not necessarily mean wheelchair bound, all wheelchair
bound people can be classified as disabled, but not all disabled are
wheelchair bound.

In article ,
Matt Wheeler wrote:
all wheelchair
bound people can be classified as disabled,

This is not true for many real situations - even when you exclude
"rag week" - and sensible definitions.

--
RIP Morph (1977-2005)

In message , Matt Wheeler
writes
I suspect the argument is that those disabled with poor eyesight will
find it easier to read a destination in a large font rather than
having to try and read a smaller font which is necessitated by having
1 or more via points listed in the same space.
Yes I suspect that as well.

The problem is as another poster has pointed out, the logic is that if a
person with certain type of disability can't do something (in this case
read a small "via" point), then *nobody* is allowed to do it.

The upshot of this is the truly stupid situation where we now have 13s
saying simply "Aldwych" or "Golders Green" [1] with no indication of the
very important places they serve en route.

That said, I've not seen an official statement that the removal of "via"
points is being done for this reason. Can anyone else (Paul C?)
confirm or deny this?

Plus, dont forget that
disabled does not necessarily mean wheelchair bound, all wheelchair
bound people can be classified as disabled, but not all disabled are
wheelchair bound.
I would never have assumed that it did. But I can't see the relevance
of that to this to the argument. Indeed, providing consideration for
wheelchair use can sometimes *disadvantage* other passengers (eg
reducing the number of seats and stanchions and increasing the space
between those stanchions).


[1] Interestingly with the word "Station" beneath in lower type!
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Ian Jelf wrote in
:


That said, I've not seen an official statement that the removal of "via"
points is being done for this reason. Can anyone else (Paul C?)
confirm or deny this?


I understand the argument against via points is that they are confusing as
the bus may already have gone past that point and/or they may be listed in
the wrong order.

It is a valid argument but I don't think it outweighs the usefulness of via
points to those with some elementary geographic knowledge.

In article 34,
(David Jackman) wrote:

Ian Jelf wrote in
:

That said, I've not seen an official statement that the removal of
"via" points is being done for this reason. Can anyone else (Paul
C?) confirm or deny this?

I understand the argument against via points is that they are
confusing as the bus may already have gone past that point and/or
they may be listed in the wrong order.

It is a valid argument but I don't think it outweighs the usefulness
of via points to those with some elementary geographic knowledge.

Doesn't this discussion highlight the need for TfL to get itself into
the 21st century and start using electronic destination information like
the rest of the country? Then via points can be updated en route to
remove ones that have been passed.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Sounds good in theory - but given how often buses already run with
incorrect numbers on the side or back is it really workable? Or would
the information be about as accurate as that in countdown displays at
bus stops?

peter wrote:
Sounds good in theory - but given how often buses already run with
incorrect numbers on the side or back is it really workable? Or would
the information be about as accurate as that in countdown displays at
bus stops?

It's much *more* workable because the driver only needs to enter the
number and destination once, and it automatically displays throughout
the bus either based on ticket machine stages or (preferably) on GPS.
If you allow a facility for a driver to enter anything they like (or
just include every even vague possibility in the software), it also
means the bus need never show a blank destination.

It also allows for internal displays advising of the next stop
(possibly the next 2?) tied into the same functionality. These are
*very* long overdue, especially in London where a lot of tourists use
the bus, and it's scandalous that the only place they were ever used
was the RV1. They should be standard equipment on *all* buses.

Neil