"Paul Weaver" wrote...
Constant, loud, intrusive and unnecessary recorded announcements
blasted
out every 15-20 seconds and no escape from it, even with earphones in
to
attempt to drown out the background hell...
Do what the regulars do - ignore it.
After the first few trips, you won't even notice, and they are useful for
tourists and others.
I don't know which route you take, but on the many routes I travel, they
are
not as frequent as you state.
Or get an iPod?
Did you even read the text you quoted?

Yes, thanks - but when I respond to the ramblings of an idiot, I try to take
events in the real world into consideration.

I repeat:
Do what the regulars do - ignore it.
After the first few trips, you won't even notice.
[added: unless you choose to make a mission out of it]
They are not as frequent as you state.
--

Andrew

On 11 Nov, 18:43, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
"Paul Weaver" wrote...
Constant, loud, intrusive and unnecessary recorded announcements
blasted
out every 15-20 seconds and no escape from it, even with earphones in
to
attempt to drown out the background hell...
Do what the regulars do - ignore it.
After the first few trips, you won't even notice, and they are useful for
tourists and others.
I don't know which route you take, but on the many routes I travel, they
are
not as frequent as you state.
Or get an iPod?
Did you even read the text you quoted?

Yes, thanks - but when I respond to the ramblings of an idiot, I try to take
events in the real world into consideration.

I repeat:
Do what the regulars do - ignore it.
After the first few trips, you won't even notice.
[added: unless you choose to make a mission out of it]
They are not as frequent as you state.

I dont state any frequencies, buses are a distress purchase, however
the OP has already stated that earphones don't work. The problem is
with your suggestion that spending £200 on a fashion accessory will
somehow make them work.

On 11 Nov, 21:39, Paul Weaver wrote:
[...] buses are a distress purchase [...]

Disagree most strongly in the case of London, although absolutely
acknowledge that fellow fellow passengers are capable of making
journeys distressing.

On 11 Nov, 21:46, Mizter T wrote:

Disagree most strongly in the case of London, although absolutely
acknowledge that fellow fellow passengers are capable of making
journeys distressing.

IMO, the Tube, especially the deep Tube, is a distress purchase in
central London. The bus is by far the most civilised way to get
around, offering a seat, a view and (if not on a Travelcard) a cheaper
fare as well. The only real downside is the lower speed.

Neil

In article
,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 11 Nov, 21:46, Mizter T wrote:

Disagree most strongly in the case of London, although absolutely
acknowledge that fellow fellow passengers are capable of making
journeys distressing.

IMO, the Tube, especially the deep Tube, is a distress purchase in
central London. The bus is by far the most civilised way to get
around, offering a seat, a view and (if not on a Travelcard) a cheaper
fare as well. The only real downside is the lower speed.

I don't agree at all. I much prefer tube and other trains if the option is
available.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 05:34:26 -0600,
wrote:

I don't agree at all. I much prefer tube and other trains if the option is
available.

I prefer trains if they're not overcrowded (i.e. I can get a seat).
In London, they usually are, whereas most bus routes aren't. This
being the case, the bus is vastly more attractive to me.

Neil

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

In message ,
writes
In article
,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 11 Nov, 21:46, Mizter T wrote:

Disagree most strongly in the case of London, although absolutely
acknowledge that fellow fellow passengers are capable of making
journeys distressing.

IMO, the Tube, especially the deep Tube, is a distress purchase in
central London. The bus is by far the most civilised way to get
around, offering a seat, a view and (if not on a Travelcard) a cheaper
fare as well. The only real downside is the lower speed.

I don't agree at all. I much prefer tube and other trains if the option is
available.

I have a bad back and I prefer Tube & Train every time. A Bus is only
ever as good as it's driver, and sadly many seem poorly trained these
days and seem to get their ideas on driving from Top Gear :-)

Plus of course so many councils seem to have put speed bumps on bus
routes. Now that really does help my back !!

--
Edward Cowling "It's a thief in the night to come and grab you
It can creep up inside you and consume you"

In message , at 11:56:23 on Sun,
16 Nov 2008, Edward Cowling London UK
remarked:
Plus of course so many councils seem to have put speed bumps on bus
routes. Now that really does help my back !!

Tell me about it! At the stop I get off most often, the council has put
one of those "pedestrian platforms" across the road just before the
stop. If I'm downstairs at the back of the bus and I'm standing (well,
slouching even though I'm quite short) it always seems to make me hit my
head on the ceiling.
--
Roland Perry

"Edward Cowling London UK" wrote in message
...

I have a bad back and I prefer Tube & Train every time. A Bus is only ever
as good as it's driver, and sadly many seem poorly trained these days and
seem to get their ideas on driving from Top Gear :-)

I have noticed on several occasions that drivers seem to slam the brakes way
too hard, particularly on double deckers as people are coming down the
stairs.

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:

Plus of course so many councils seem to have put speed bumps on bus
routes. Now that really does help my back !!

The emergency-vehicles-only slip from Westbourne Terrace Rd to Westbourne
Terrace has a speed bump on it... I presume it's only used by ambulances
without patients, but still...