Theres been the usual talking heads and waffle on local radio and in
the papers about getting rid of bendy buses again after another one
caught fire. Flammability aside I rather like them. They hoover up the
passengers , theres usual plenty of room , boarding is easy , they
have a nice ride and at the front are rather quiet.

A better question would be - who the hell thought double deckers were
ever a good idea? Apart from taking up less roadspace do they have a
single redeeming feature? They're difficult to board , cramped
inside , the stairs are a nightmare especially if the driver moves off
before you've finished climbing them and 2 people toppled onto you.
The top deck half the time is full of scowling youths at the back, its
low , hot in the sun and sways around a lot and you're always at risk
from a braindead driver and low bridge/tree combination. I can't stand
them.

B2003

On 3 Oct, 09:56, Boltar wrote:
Theres been the usual talking heads and waffle on local radio and in
the papers about getting rid of bendy buses again after another one
caught fire. Flammability aside I rather like them. They hoover up the
passengers , theres usual plenty of room , boarding is easy , they
have a nice ride and at the front are rather quiet.

A better question would be - who the hell thought double deckers were
ever a good idea? Apart from taking up less roadspace do they have a
single redeeming feature? They're difficult to board , cramped
inside , the stairs are a nightmare especially if the driver moves off
before you've finished climbing them and 2 people toppled onto you.
The top deck half the time is full of scowling youths at the back, its
low , hot in the sun and sways around a lot and you're always at risk
from a braindead driver and low bridge/tree combination. I can't stand
them.

B2003

I think bendy buses are WRONG in every way, but I have actually met
one person who likes them.

On Oct 3, 10:37 am, MIG wrote:

I think bendy buses are WRONG in every way, but I have actually met
one person who likes them

Ok , so what exactly is wrong with them?

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 3, 10:37 am, MIG wrote:

I think bendy buses are WRONG in every way, but I have actually met
one person who likes them

Ok , so what exactly is wrong with them?

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

It can't be just because they are bendy, can it?

tim

On 3 Oct, 12:25, "tim....." wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 3, 10:37 am, MIG wrote:

I think bendy buses are WRONG in every way, but I have actually met
one person who likes them

Ok , so what exactly is wrong with them?

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

It can't be just because they are bendy, can it?

tim


They may be ideal for airport transit in open spaces, but not for the
streets of London.

In general, buses could be a slower but more pleasant alternative to
the Underground, instead of which the slower alternative now has the
ambience of the Underground (standing in a long thing).

But more specifically

1) I almost always have to stand if I use them, because they have less
seats.

2) They add to the many hazards I face when cycling.

3) The constantly block pedestrian crossings.

4) They can't legally move into yellow box junctions that have less
than 18 m of space beyond, thereby holding up a queue of smaller
vehicles that could have done (or more likely just blocking it
anyway).

and any other bleedin obvious reasons why 18 m vehicles might not be
appropriate for the winding narrow streets of an old city.

"MIG" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 3 Oct, 12:25, "tim....." wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 3, 10:37 am, MIG wrote:

I think bendy buses are WRONG in every way, but I have actually met
one person who likes them

Ok , so what exactly is wrong with them?

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

It can't be just because they are bendy, can it?

tim


They may be ideal for airport transit in open spaces, but not for the
streets of London.

In general, buses could be a slower but more pleasant alternative to
the Underground, instead of which the slower alternative now has the
ambience of the Underground (standing in a long thing).

But more specifically

1) I almost always have to stand if I use them, because they have less
seats.

2) They add to the many hazards I face when cycling.

3) The constantly block pedestrian crossings.

4) They can't legally move into yellow box junctions that have less
than 18 m of space beyond, thereby holding up a queue of smaller
vehicles that could have done (or more likely just blocking it
anyway).

and any other bleedin obvious reasons why 18 m vehicles might not be
appropriate for the winding narrow streets of an old city.

Ah, so most of the people that you know who don't like them
are other road users and not passengers.

That is clear now.

tim

At 04:46:41 on Wed, 3 Oct 2007 MIG opined:-

On 3 Oct, 12:25, "tim....." wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 3, 10:37 am, MIG wrote:

I think bendy buses are WRONG in every way, but I have actually met
one person who likes them

Ok , so what exactly is wrong with them?

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

It can't be just because they are bendy, can it?

tim


They may be ideal for airport transit in open spaces, but not for the
streets of London.

In general, buses could be a slower but more pleasant alternative to
the Underground, instead of which the slower alternative now has the
ambience of the Underground (standing in a long thing).

But more specifically

1) I almost always have to stand if I use them, because they have less
seats.

2) They add to the many hazards I face when cycling.

3) The constantly block pedestrian crossings.

4) They can't legally move into yellow box junctions that have less
than 18 m of space beyond, thereby holding up a queue of smaller
vehicles that could have done (or more likely just blocking it
anyway).

and any other bleedin obvious reasons why 18 m vehicles might not be
appropriate for the winding narrow streets of an old city.

One of their advantages is said to be that, with all doors being used
for both entry and exit, they are quicker to load. Couldn't this be
done also with double-deckers?

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:46:41 -0700, MIG
wrote:

1) I almost always have to stand if I use them, because they have less
seats.

I choose to stand on one for a short journey. This is made easier by
there being a bit more space for doing so and no need to traipse up-
and downstairs.

3) The constantly block pedestrian crossings.

Only due to poor driving.

and any other bleedin obvious reasons why 18 m vehicles might not be
appropriate for the winding narrow streets of an old city.

Many other European cities seem not to have an issue. Have you seen
those 16m rigid 6-axle single-deckers? Those must be even more
challenging to drive.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Oct 3, 12:46 pm, MIG wrote:


In general, buses could be a slower but more pleasant alternative to
the Underground, instead of which the slower alternative now has the
ambience of the Underground (standing in a long thing).


And in particular, the lack of any view. On a double-decker, there
are loads of seats with a decent view; on a bendy, only one (on the
left at the front). IMO the view from the top deck of a bus is one of
the three best things about not just London, but England in general.

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:37:16 -0700, MIG
wrote:

I think bendy buses are WRONG in every way, but I have actually met
one person who likes them.

I like them, in the right role. Their role is in a European-style bus
system, whose primary purpose is to move very large numbers of people
to and from the rapid transit rail station nearest to their
destination/origin.

That makes them suitable, IMO, for very busy Central London services
(e.g. Oxford St) and for the Red Arrows, but not really for anything
very long-distance.

As for deckers, there are good ones and bad ones. IMO, the latest
Wright design is good, but most others I've seen are unmitigated crap.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.