"Ian" wrote in message
...

Probably much more thoroughly than most cyclists are trained.

Well, that's not saying much! Cyclists are, presumably, trained to ride on
the pavement, run headlong into pedestrians, jump traffic lights and scream
abuse at all and sundry. Or am I confusing them with uk.rec.cycling
people-on-bikes /uk.rec.cycling ?

Bleagh to them - and to bus drivers, the rude, ignorant, arrogant *******s!

Ian

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Tom Barry wrote:

A few facts:

It'll never catch on!

http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/...l/article.html

How is this double-decker-specific?

tom

--
In case you don't know what CROWDSOURCING is, it's a stomach-churning
new media term obviously invented by a ******* made of ****. -- Charlie
Brooker

John B wrote in
:

Hmm. Central government has the power to restructure local government.
Had the 1980s Tory government been primarily concerned with
administrative efficiency, it would have removed some powers from the
boroughs and some from itself and given them to the GLC (and also
GMCC). Instead, it wiped out that level of government completely.

...and it's planning to do the same again with the English regions.
And probably the feckin' GLA too. Grr.

Apart from the obvious point that the 1980s Tory government has don alll
it's ever going to do, "the Engligh regions" scarcely exist. The regional
assemblies are expensive undemocratic talking shops, and the voters in the
North-East euro region (thought the one most likely to approve the concept)
resoundingly defeated the concept of an elected regional assembly by more
than 3:1.

Oh, and in any case the regional assemblies as they stand are already in
the process of being abolished.

"Ian F." wrote in message
...
"Ian" wrote in message
...

Probably much more thoroughly than most cyclists are trained.

Well, that's not saying much! Cyclists are, presumably, trained to ride on
the pavement, run headlong into pedestrians, jump traffic lights and
scream abuse at all and sundry. Or am I confusing them with
uk.rec.cycling people-on-bikes /uk.rec.cycling ?

Bleagh to them - and to bus drivers, the rude, ignorant, arrogant
*******s!

Ian
Thankyou for your kind comments.

--
A different Ian, who is (or was until MI) a bus driver; is reasonably well
educated; and whose parents were married. To each other. I presume for
"arrogant", you might wish to substitute "well-founded confidence".

On 29 July, 20:03, Tom Anderson wrote:
How is this double-decker-specific?

"In September 2008, a tram and a bus collided at a complex road
junction (see
Figure 1). The tram was derailed by its front bogie and the bus
suffered extensive
structural damage to its front offside corner and driver’s
compartment. A member
of the public travelling at the front of the upper deck of the bus was
thrown out of
a side window and received fatal injuries."

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources...v2_01-2009.pdf

I don't think it's unreasonable to think the height of the fall may
have been a factor in the person's death.

U

"Ian" wrote in message
...

A different Ian, who is (or was until MI) a bus driver; is reasonably well
educated; and whose parents were married. To each other. I presume for
"arrogant", you might wish to substitute "well-founded confidence".

LOL. Fair enough. I should have said 'present company excepted'.

theotherIan

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 01:21:53PM +0100, Tom Barry wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 02:34:11PM +0000, wrote:
Ie perfectly servicable vehicles are about to be mothballed for no good
reason other than a bunch of whining idiot cyclists and a grandstanding
politician.
Don't forget the people who voted for him.
Don't forget the lies about 'many cyclists killed every year'. People
voted for him based on that kind of crap.

I didn't. I don't particularly care whether more cyclists get killed by
bendy buses. Cyclist deaths caused by the fine points of bus design are
lost in the noise when you look at all deaths on the road.

Boris esssentially had two choices ... we know what kind of man he is now.

He's that rare politician, one who doesn't break all his promises when
he gets elected!

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

If you have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg
and egg whites, whisk, and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:18:19 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
Boris esssentially had two choices ... we know what kind of man he is now.

He's that rare politician, one who doesn't break all his promises when
he gets elected!

OTOH carrying on with a policy regardless of all the evidence for it being a
bad idea and with cost cutting going on already in public transport which
really didn't need the cost of a new fleet of buses imposed on top smacks
of bloody mindedness at best. It seems Boris isn't a big enough man to admit
when he's wrong, so I suppose in that sense he's not at all rare in political
circles.

B2003

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:18:19 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:
Boris esssentially had two choices ... we know what kind of man he is now.

He's that rare politician, one who doesn't break all his promises when
he gets elected!


No, he only breaks the important ones, like allowing the contruction
of skyscrapers that he promised he would prevent.

I have nothing against skyscrapers, by the way. ;-)

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:29:14 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:18:19 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
Boris esssentially had two choices ... we know what kind of man he is now.

He's that rare politician, one who doesn't break all his promises when
he gets elected!

OTOH carrying on with a policy regardless of all the evidence for it being a
bad idea and with cost cutting going on already in public transport which
really didn't need the cost of a new fleet of buses imposed on top smacks
of bloody mindedness at best. It seems Boris isn't a big enough man to admit
when he's wrong, so I suppose in that sense he's not at all rare in political
circles.


Boris is a throwback, a typical Tory in the pre-Thatcher mould. They
set out to gain power, then having gained it, occupied the position
for years without ever actually doing anything. Think of Harold
Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home, add a lot of foppish silliness
and you have Boris.

London needs a radical leader that will drive through change. It
almost doesn't matter whether that leader is from the left or right of
politics - Ken was radical and apparently left wing but drove through
many policies that were not of the Left, for the good of London.

Boris is quite the opposite of radical. He is a "do nothing"
politician, basically a lazy sod who occupies the seat of power
without ever actually making use of it, except to obtain a few TV
appearances and soundbites.

He's still the same Tory toff, the buffoon from "Have I Got News For
You?", a nothing politician who will do nothing positive for London.

He might as well not be there.