In message , at 11:25:20 on Fri, 20
Mar 2009, Barry Salter remarked:
There was a proposal floated that ALL bus stops would be treated as a
hybrid of the two types, based on observation of "normal" practice.
Namely:

1) All buses SHOULD stop at a bus stop if it looks like someone wishes
to board.

2) If a passenger wishes to alight, they SHOULD ring the bell.

I agree strongly with #2, but #1 is a bit of a problem if a route has
several buses that someone might be wanting to catch, and there's the
risk of five "wrong" buses being forced to stop needlessly for every
"right" bus.
--
Roland Perry

On Mar 20, 11:57*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:25:20 on Fri, 20
Mar 2009, Barry Salter remarked:

There was a proposal floated that ALL bus stops would be treated as a
hybrid of the two types, based on observation of "normal" practice.
Namely:

1) All buses SHOULD stop at a bus stop if it looks like someone wishes
to board.

2) If a passenger wishes to alight, they SHOULD ring the bell.

I agree strongly with #2, but #1 is a bit of a problem if a route has
several buses that someone might be wanting to catch, and there's the
risk of five "wrong" buses being forced to stop needlessly for every
"right" bus.
--
Roland Perry

I think that's why the idea was abandoned; many of the responses to
the consultation must have been similar to what you just said

The trouble is that someone in an ivory tower may assume that, having
not implemented the proposal, we still have a compulsory/request
distinction.

But in practice, for years now, you have to signal or ring at every
stop or the bus is likely not to stop.

The mystery is why the still make stops in two colours.

On Mar 20, 8:27*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:52:05 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:57*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:25:20 on Fri, 20
Mar 2009, Barry Salter remarked:

There was a proposal floated that ALL bus stops would be treated as a
hybrid of the two types, based on observation of "normal" practice.
Namely:

1) All buses SHOULD stop at a bus stop if it looks like someone wishes
to board.

2) If a passenger wishes to alight, they SHOULD ring the bell.

Yes this was the basis of a consultation exercise last year together
with a separate one related to hail and ride services.

I think that's why the idea was abandoned; many of the responses to
the consultation must have been similar to what you just said

Has the idea been abandoned? *I've seen nothing to say that it had been
- in fact I'd read on another group that the new policy had actually
been implemented. *Not saying you have it wrong btw - do have something
from TfL to say the proposal has been scrapped?

Well, perhaps not, but I certainly haven't noticed one saying it's
being implemented, which would be more likely to be newsworthy.


The trouble is that someone in an ivory tower may assume that, having
not implemented the proposal, we still have a compulsory/request
distinction.

Seemingly we do given the response quoted from another poster in this
thread.

But in practice, for years now, you have to signal or ring at every
stop or the bus is likely not to stop.

I agree with this and that's why the consultation proposal to make this
mandatory for every stop makes a great deal of sense.

Yes, because at least everyone would know what the rule was. It's
unlikely that punters in general understand what the situation is
meant to be, although they may have cottoned on to what is required.

Most of us grew up with the distinction and assumed that the
continuing use of different colours represented "compulsory" and
"request" even if those words aren't printed on the stops.

Thus one ends up miffed if one is standing by the door in Cockspur
Street, passing a white-coloured stop in the rush hour, and gets
whisked off down Whitehall for not actually dinging the dinger.


The mystery is why the still make stops in two colours.

They don't - the stop at Bream Close (just before Tottenham Hale
station) was a red request stop fixed to a lamp post. However it was
recently replaced with a proper bus stop pole topped with a brand new
white bus stop flag. * The other place to check would be the unique
sections of new route 228.

I hadn't noticed that ... but really it should be down to punters to
notice an unannounced change. I am genuinely confused. Has there
been a change and, if so, is it a change of the rules to reflect
reality, or is it a change to a third way between old rule and current
practice, in which case is it likely to change current practice ...?

I'll keep on sticking me arm out and dinging.

Paul Corfield wrote in
:

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:52:05 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

But in practice, for years now, you have to signal or ring at every
stop or the bus is likely not to stop.

I agree with this and that's why the consultation proposal to make
this mandatory for every stop makes a great deal of sense.

Absolutely.

I'm intrigued how the OP could fall foul of the practice "again" - surely
after the first time you would learn to always signal?

On 21 Mar, 10:34, Paul Corfield wrote:

On 21 Mar 2009 09:24:57 GMT, James Farrar
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:52:05 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

But in practice, for years now, you have to signal or ring at every
stop or the bus is likely not to stop.

I agree with this and that's why the consultation proposal to make
this mandatory for every stop makes a great deal of sense.

Absolutely.

I'm intrigued how the OP could fall foul of the practice "again" - surely
after the first time you would learn to always signal?

Actually re-reading what MIG said I agree with the "always ring the
bell" part in order to get the bus to stop. The new policy was supposed
to ensure that if a passenger was at any stop that a bus would pull up
on the assumption they wished to board - no need to stick your arm out.
I'd agree it's safer to do so given the uncertainty as to what policy
applies. *I shall ask a question elsewhere and see if someone else knows
the answer.


I stupidly never responded to the consultation but I absolutely hate
that idea, i.e. that any passing bus would have to stop if there were
passengers at the bus stop, and I hope it never happens.

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 04:25:07 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

I stupidly never responded to the consultation but I absolutely hate
that idea, i.e. that any passing bus would have to stop if there were
passengers at the bus stop, and I hope it never happens.

It works extremely well in Germany, though this is because stops with
more than one or two routes are not common. It's far more friendly
than the typical UK situation with 4 buses head to tail and another
one overtaking, which is usually the one you want.

It's usual to wave a bus through and visibly step back from the kerb
if you do *not* want it.

Neil

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

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:25:20 on Fri, 20 Mar
2009, Barry Salter remarked:
There was a proposal floated that ALL bus stops would be treated as a
hybrid of the two types, based on observation of "normal" practice.
Namely:

1) All buses SHOULD stop at a bus stop if it looks like someone wishes to
board.

2) If a passenger wishes to alight, they SHOULD ring the bell.

I agree strongly with #2, but #1 is a bit of a problem if a route has
several buses that someone might be wanting to catch, and there's the risk
of five "wrong" buses being forced to stop needlessly for every "right"
bus.
--
Roland Perry

Yes, and the bus you actually want sneaks round the outside and departs in a
cloud of dust, or spray!

MaxB

In message of Fri, 20 Mar 2009
13:00:23 in uk.transport.london, Batman55 writes
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:25:20 on Fri, 20 Mar
2009, Barry Salter remarked:
There was a proposal floated that ALL bus stops would be treated as a
hybrid of the two types, based on observation of "normal" practice.
Namely:

1) All buses SHOULD stop at a bus stop if it looks like someone wishes to
board.

[snip]


Yes, and the bus you actually want sneaks round the outside and departs in a
cloud of dust, or spray!

I was on a 76 which did this in February 2007 at Aldwych.
I was advised it should not happen.
I can't quote the details as Arriva responded to my email by snail mail.
It is curious that TfL's contractors don't seem able to reply by email.
--
Walter Briscoe

In message of Fri, 20 Mar 2009
15:14:05 in uk.transport.london, Walter Briscoe
writes
In message of Fri, 20 Mar
2009 13:00:23 in uk.transport.london, Batman55
writes
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:25:20 on Fri, 20 Mar
2009, Barry Salter remarked:
There was a proposal floated that ALL bus stops would be treated as a
hybrid of the two types, based on observation of "normal" practice.
Namely:

1) All buses SHOULD stop at a bus stop if it looks like someone wishes to
board.

[snip]

I've just sent the following email to
with the subject "Bus and
Request stops":

I've just spoken to a helpful lady at TfL Surface Transport on the
difference between Bus Stops and Request Stops.
My understanding from this conversation is:
a) Bus stop flags at Bus Stops consist of a red roundel on a white
background with "Bus Stop" underneath; bus stop flags at Request Stops
consist of a white roundel on a red background with "Request Stop"
underneath.
b) Buses will stop without a signal for pedestrians waiting at Bus
Stops; buses will not stop without a signal for pedestrians waiting at
request stops.
c) A signal is needed from passengers wishing to alight from buses at
both Bus Stops and Request Stops.

This was not covered in the conversation, but I believe: buses will not
pass buses stopped at stops unless the drivers can see no pedestrians
are waiting, the bus is full or for other good reasons I can't think of.
Please confirm this.

I was told that documentation on this is not yet publicly published.
Please do so on the web and inform me of the URL.

In the meantime, please take this as a Freedom of Information Act
request to make such documentation available to me.

You have my mailto; my PSTN number is (020) xxxx xxxx; my snail mail
address is: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx, London xxxx xxx.

I forgot to ask a question about buses running early on publicly
timetabled services. About a month ago, I took a U1 - which operates a
15 minute interval service - from West Ruislip to Ruislip. The bus was 2
minutes early and I noted this to the driver who waited half a minute
before continuing. I did not pursue the matter; I rarely go so far.

When I get a response, I will summarise it here. Don't hold your breath.
I believe 20 working days are allowed for a response.
--
Walter Briscoe

b) Buses will stop without a signal for pedestrians waiting at Bus
Stops;

Those whose offices are 55 Broadway or Windsor House or wherever these
naive twits now inhabit really are detached from reality!

but I believe: buses will not
pass buses stopped at stops unless the drivers can see no pedestrians
are waiting, the bus is full or for other good reasons I can't think of.

Yes, and I believe in the tooth fairy too!

At Clapham Junction, the first stop leaving the terminating point is a
Compulsory stop in Falcon Lane, where there are often numerous buses
jamming up the area around the stop itself. Sometimes, I have to
pyhsically stand in the middle of the road, at the risk of being run
over, to prevent a 295 from NOT stopping there, even though the driver
cannot, obviously, know that some of the crowd of people at the bus
stop want to get on! The same is true at the Southbound stop at
Notting Hill Gate, where often a number of buses are congregated, and
unless physically stopped, a 28, for example, will happily sail past
without even checking if anyone wants to board.

Marc.