On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:30:07 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

The articulation and other characteristics result in the tail moving
in much more sharply than is the case for, say, articulated lorries.

Rubbish. The steering is arranged to reduce cut in. In other words,
to make it cut in far less sharply than an articulated lorry.

That's not how it looks to cyclists overtaken by them. Perhaps the
drivers overcompensate by moving in when only the front wheel is past,
I don't know - I'm too busy avoiding being wiped out. This is not a
problem I *ever* have with artics, but then artic drivers tend to wait
until the entire vehicle is past before they even start to pull in.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Tom Barry wrote:

ObLondonFact - the GLC was set up by the Tories including areas which
aren't really London partly because the old LCC basically had an inherent
Labour majority (which is why Labour bitterly opposed the foundation of
the GLC, of course).

In part, but London had significantly expanded since 1888 and the boundaries
had not been adjusted to catch up. Defining what is and isn't "really
London" is always a mess but there were certainly key parts that were not in
the LCC boundaries (e.g. modern day Newham). Calls for an overhaul and
expansion of London local government had been made for ages and from sources
outside the London Conservatives.

The GLC was marginal for most of its existence, as, it seems, is the GLA.

The GLC's basic problem was that it didn't have a great deal of
responsibilities that really justified its existence. Here's the list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...of_functio ns

The GLC controlled:

* Fire
* Ambulance
* Refuse disposal
* Land drainage
* Smallholdings
* Thames flood preventions
* Motor-vehicle and driving licences
* Education in Inner London only

The GLC and borough councils had joint responsibility for:

* Roads
* Planning
* Housing
* Sewage
* Traffic

Whilst boroughs controlled:

* Personal health services
* Welfare services
* Children's services
* Libraries
* Refuse collection
* Swimming baths
* Weights and measures
* Food and drugs
* Public health inspection
* Cemeteries and crematoriums
* Collection of rates
* Education in Outer London only

This is quite a different distribution of powers from the district/county
council model and so the result was that the GLC cost an awful lot and
didn't really give a great deal back to Londoners. As a result London
borough councils (of all parties) resented it and many called for its
abolition almost throughout its history. Horace Cutler, GLC Leader 1977-1981
(another sceptic of the GLC's existence), commissioned the Marshall Enquiry
into the the GLC's future and the enquiry only narrowly failed to recommend
abolition (and Ken Livingstone publicly criticised it for this). It's now
become an entrenched myth that Thatcher abolished the GLC purely because of
Livingstone, but it would have been abolished anyway because of the
opposition of borough councils and the limited services it provided.

Colin McKenzie wrote:

But overall, female cyclists have fewer casualties than male. It's
just with HGVs that they seem to be more at risk.

I'm sure Jeremy Clarkson would have an opinion on that...

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:35:20 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:30:07 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

The articulation and other characteristics result in the tail moving
in much more sharply than is the case for, say, articulated lorries.

Rubbish. The steering is arranged to reduce cut in. In other words,
to make it cut in far less sharply than an articulated lorry.

That's not how it looks to cyclists overtaken by them.


Well, that's how it is. If it looks different to you, you must have a
problem with perception.

At the very least, you should re-educate yourself as to how bendy
buses work, in particular how they negotiate bends in the road,
because your faulty perception may be putting you at greater risk.

I don't ride a bicycle any more, but I do ride a motorbike, and as
with any two wheeled vehicle, defensive riding is the order of the
day. A fundamental part of defensive riding is developing a keen
awareness of the very different dynamics of the other vehicles you
share the road with. Your life depends on it.

A bendy bus is a very different animal to a non-articulated bus and it
is also very different to an articulated lorry. Overall, it is
better to be around than either of those.

That's because there are fewer bendy buses than there would be
conventional buses on the same route, so fewer hazards - but different
hazards, which do require some learning. Bendy buses also cut in far
less than articulated lorries, so much less of a hazard when it comes
to getting trapped.

It's too easy to moan and whine about bendy buses. It takes a little
effort to learn how best to deal with them, as with anything new. But
the statistics are pretty clear - bendy buses are not only extremely
effective at moving large numbers of passengers, but they are also
very safe.

In article ,
Bruce wrote:


It's too easy to moan and whine about bendy buses. It takes a little
effort to learn how best to deal with them, as with anything new. But
the statistics are pretty clear - bendy buses are not only extremely
effective at moving large numbers of passengers, but they are also
very safe.

Well said. I think no cyclist has been killed (and possibly seriously
injured) by a bendy. The three ghost bikes near where I live were all
victims of trucks such as cement mixers.

I wouldn't mind the bendies going so much if the alternatives were quiet
(inside and out), comfortable, smooth and relatively fume free. They
aren't, so the bendy going is a big backwards step.

E.

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:21:13 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

If it looks different to you, you must have a
problem with perception.

Which I seem to share with many other cyclists. So, given that I am a
very experienced cyclist and also a driver with significant experience
of driving goods vehicles, perhaps it's not just me. But that would
involve being open to the possibility that bendy buses may not be
appropriate for some routes in central London, and I do understand
that such heresy is not to be tolerated.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:52:28 +0100
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
The articulation and other characteristics result in the tail moving
in much more sharply than is the case for, say, articulated lorries.

FFS , it has the same ratio of front to back section as van, car or rigid
pulling a trailer. And the tail doesn't "move in sharply". It moves in in
exactly the way anyone with more than a single braincell would expect it to do.
I've ridden on enough of them when I used to work in central london to know.

But hey, I can see that you're not interested in acknowledging any
possible problems with bendy buses. I think that was the problem with

The only problems are the poor drivers. Theres nothing wrong with the
bus itself. Its an articulated vehicle, nothing more.

B2003

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:31:14 +0100, eastender
wrote:
In article ,
Bruce wrote:


It's too easy to moan and whine about bendy buses. It takes a little
effort to learn how best to deal with them, as with anything new. But
the statistics are pretty clear - bendy buses are not only extremely
effective at moving large numbers of passengers, but they are also
very safe.

Well said. I think no cyclist has been killed (and possibly seriously
injured) by a bendy. The three ghost bikes near where I live were all
victims of trucks such as cement mixers.

I wouldn't mind the bendies going so much if the alternatives were quiet
(inside and out), comfortable, smooth and relatively fume free. They
aren't, so the bendy going is a big backwards step.


Agree 100%. They aren't perfect by any means, and such aspects as
driving standards and fare dodging could definitely be improved. But
the alternative of more conventional buses with their greater dwell
times, costing more and clogging up the traffic far worse than the
bendys is just too silly to contemplate, unless your name is Boris.

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:45:10 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:21:13 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

If it looks different to you, you must have a
problem with perception.

Which I seem to share with many other cyclists.


I am sure there are a great many cyclists who have absolutely no
intention of learning how best to share the road with bendy buses.

Ian F. wrote:
"Phil W Lee" phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote in message
news
I suspect the major difference between London bendy buses and their
european counterparts is the standard of driver training.

Our drivers here are trained? Are you sure?

I find the standard of bendibus driving to be fine... I assume that only the
best drivers are allowed to drive them. It's the driving of the other buses
that disappoints.