Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On May 21, 8:33 pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
Boltar wrote:

On May 21, 11:46 am, David Cantrell wrote:
Yes, it is fair, if the benefit of having the bus lane outweighs that of
not having it.

Says who?

Society as a whole - in a rather roundabout way via the ballot box.

I don't ever remember there being a referendum on bus lanes.

B2003

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

In article ,
Boltar wrote:
On May 21, 8:33 pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
Boltar wrote:
[we should have bus lanes if they are a net benifit]
Says who?

Society as a whole - in a rather roundabout way via the ballot box.

I don't ever remember there being a referendum on bus lanes.

That's why I said "in a rather roundabout way". It's called
representative democracy.

To put it into practice: if you want fewer bus lanes, vote
for a Brian Coleman.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Thu, 22 May 2008 16:54:36 +0100, Mike Bristow wrote:

[we should have bus lanes if they are a net benifit]
Says who?

Society as a whole - in a rather roundabout way via the ballot box.

I don't ever remember there being a referendum on bus lanes.

That's why I said "in a rather roundabout way". It's called
representative democracy.

To put it into practice: if you want fewer bus lanes, vote
for a Brian Coleman.

Please can I move to your fantasy world where I get to vote for one
candidate on issue A, another on issue B, a third on issue C...?

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On May 22, 4:54 pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
To put it into practice: if you want fewer bus lanes, vote
for a Brian Coleman.

I never said their should be fewer , but I think people on live or
have businesses on the road should have grandfather rights to be able
to park vehicles on it temporarily to unload or do deliveries. Just
painting a bus lane then telling the shopkeepers to eff off and unload
their vans elsewhere is just unhelpful and petty minded beaurocracy.

B2003

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 03:53:34AM -0700, Boltar wrote:
On May 21, 11:46 am, David Cantrell wrote:
Do you really think that Fortnum and Mason's desire (they were founded
quite a few decades ago) to have delivery lorries stop whenever they
damned well feel like is more important than having a bus lane outside
the shop?
Frankly yes. If its a street with shops that street only exists
because of those shops.

Wow.

And why pick on a posh shop like Fortnums?

Because few other shops have existed for decades.

Why
not use an example of a small shop owner who's already finding it hard
to make ends meet and now can't have deliveries at any sane time of
day just so a bus can save 30 seconds and get stuck in a queue 200
metres further down the road anyway?

Of course, the queue 200 yards further down the road is *also* caused by
someone parked in a bus lane so if they were properly policed that one
wouldn't be there either.

In any case, taking a typical bus journey (ie, mine, this morning, from
City Thameslink to Holborn station) I estimate it would have been *ten
minutes* quicker if not for ****s parked in bus lanes. Now, there were
maybe thirty people on my bus, so let's assume thirty people on each of
fifty buses held up. Of those 30, assume half were going to work.
Furthermore, assume that their time is worth, on average, 20 quid an
hour to their employers. That's 50 * 15 * 20 / 6 pounds wasted by ****s
parked in bus lanes. Or 2500 quid. Because of three delivery trucks.

The extra costs of having delivery drivers work at night and employing
someone at each of the three shops to take the deliveries would be a lot
less than 2500 quid.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

Are you feeling bored? depressed? slowed down? Evil Scientists may
be manipulating the speed of light in your vicinity. Buy our patented
instructional video to find out how, and maybe YOU can stop THEM