I have noticed that the standard of driving of bendies is generally
excellent, whereas the standard of driving of double-deckers is often
atrocious. I presume this is because only the best drivers are allowed to
drive bendies. This skews the statistics comparing accident rates for
bendies versus double deckers. If the statistics show that bendies are
equally dangerous to double deckers, that really means that bendies are so
dangerous that they completely remove the advantage caused by having really
good drivers.

On Dec 13, 3:21*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
I have noticed that the standard of driving of bendies is generally
excellent, whereas the standard of driving of double-deckers is often
atrocious. I presume this is because only the best drivers are allowed to
drive bendies. This skews the statistics comparing accident rates for
bendies versus double deckers. If the statistics show that bendies are
equally dangerous to double deckers, that really means that bendies are so
dangerous that they completely remove the advantage caused by having really
good drivers.

I thought they had to have extra training, and would normally have had
substantial experience of driving straight buses before moving on to
bendys, but I don't know if that necessarily makes them the best
drivers rather than trained on the equipment they are using.

(I don't think that the risks created by bendy buses necessarily
relate to the driving of them or people being hit by them.)

Interesting thought that if all (or enough) buses were bendy, there
wouldn't be enough straight buses to get experience on. A bit like
how drivers on LU used to have to be guards first, but can't very well
be any more.

John Rowland wrote:
I have noticed that the standard of driving of bendies is generally
excellent, whereas the standard of driving of double-deckers is often
atrocious. I presume this is because only the best drivers are allowed to
drive bendies. This skews the statistics comparing accident rates for
bendies versus double deckers. If the statistics show that bendies are
equally dangerous to double deckers, that really means that bendies are so
dangerous that they completely remove the advantage caused by having really
good drivers.



So bendies are unsafe because they're safe? I've heard of scraping the
barrel, but this is ridiculous. Surely you're inadvertently arguing for
spending money training DD drivers to bendy standards, rather than
spending the money debendifying? That would have the weird consequence
of a) improving safety and b) showing that bendies were unsafe. Can't
imagine why no one's thought of that before, but the point of being
Mayor is that you can do things without having to prove it's a good idea.

[actually, I disagree with your point that DD drivers are often
atrocious, but if you want to come up with some evidence, feel free]

Tom

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:27:26 -0800 (PST), MIG wrote:

I thought they had to have extra training, and would normally have had
substantial experience of driving straight buses before moving on to
bendys, but I don't know if that necessarily makes them the best
drivers rather than trained on the equipment they are using.

Are they paid more?

--
jhk

On Dec 13, 6:47*pm, Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:27:26 -0800 (PST), MIG wrote:
I thought they had to have extra training, and would normally have had
substantial experience of driving straight buses before moving on to
bendys, but I don't know if that necessarily makes them the best
drivers rather than trained on the equipment they are using.

Are they paid more?

I guess that would depend on the operator.

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On Dec 13, 6:47 pm, Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:27:26 -0800 (PST), MIG wrote:
I thought they had to have extra training, and would normally have had
substantial experience of driving straight buses before moving on to
bendys, but I don't know if that necessarily makes them the best
drivers rather than trained on the equipment they are using.

Are they paid more?

I guess that would depend on the operator.
-------------------------------------------------
Can't they bend the rules a bit.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, John Rowland wrote:

I have noticed that the standard of driving of bendies is generally
excellent, whereas the standard of driving of double-deckers is often
atrocious. I presume this is because only the best drivers are allowed
to drive bendies. This skews the statistics comparing accident rates for
bendies versus double deckers. If the statistics show that bendies are
equally dangerous to double deckers, that really means that bendies are
so dangerous that they completely remove the advantage caused by having
really good drivers.

Interesting point.

In the non-bendy world, is there any kind of allocation of better drivers
to more accident-prone routes - ones that go through busier areas? If so,
that would remove the removal of the advantage (or the advantage of the
removal, IYSWIM). However, i've never heard of such a thing.

However, a counter-argument is that if bendies provide a mechanism for
allocating safer drivers to more hazardous routes, then perhaps that's a
safety advantage!

tom

--
For me, thats just logic. OTOH, Spock went bananas several times using
logic. -- Pete, mfw

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:13:18 +0000, Tom Barry
wrote:

[actually, I disagree with your point that DD drivers are often
atrocious, but if you want to come up with some evidence, feel free]

I think the "binary throttle" is far more of a problem on DDs than on
bendies, though I do wonder if that's because the Citaro, like the MB
O405 before it, seems a far better designed bus than any of the
UK-built ones. In particular (possibly because of weight?) it seems
far more difficult to throw passengers around therein than the
UK-built designs. I suspect this is because it is built up to a high
specification rather than down to a price, and because it is a more
integral design than the others.

Neil

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