On 24 July, 23:41, Richard

I feel unusually annoyed about this... They are some of the best buses
ever to be used in London or anywhere else, in my controversial
opinion.

I agree entirely. I think it is odd and very wrong that one man's
fatwa could get rid of them.

"Offramp" wrote in message

On 24 July, 23:41, Richard

I feel unusually annoyed about this... They are some of the best
buses ever to be used in London or anywhere else, in my controversial
opinion.

I agree entirely. I think it is odd and very wrong that one man's
fatwa could get rid of them.

Well, it was one of his clearest manifesto commitments, so it's fair to
assume at least some of his voters also approved of the idea.

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:35:54 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

"Offramp" wrote in message

On 24 July, 23:41, Richard

I feel unusually annoyed about this... They are some of the best
buses ever to be used in London or anywhere else, in my controversial
opinion.

I agree entirely. I think it is odd and very wrong that one man's
fatwa could get rid of them.

Well, it was one of his clearest manifesto commitments, so it's fair to
assume at least some of his voters also approved of the idea.


Perhaps the swing voters who gave Boris victory are not bus users?

To be honest, I cannot imagine that many bus users would have voted
for him, but many car drivers will have been seduced by his promises
to remove Bendy Buses from London's roads and to abandon the western
extension of the Congestion Charge zone.

Paul Corfield wrote:

Well, it was one of his clearest manifesto commitments, so it's fair to
assume at least some of his voters also approved of the idea.

Possibly but how many of them run in Barnet, Bromley, Croydon, Harrow,
Hillingdon, Bexley, Sutton etc? I think the number is a great fat
zero [1].

Well when campaigning for Boris in Tower Hamlets and Newham, we found many
voters who heavily approved of the policy based on their direct experience
of the 25 (and before anyone jumps in, no this wasn't people in the docks
end of the two boroughs but those actually living around the route). Now
some of this may be the general problems the 25 has, but people believe it
was better when it was a double decker, and indeed IMHO on the
Ilford-Stratford section many passengers have shown a clear preference for
the 86. Certainly the idea that the bendy bus is primarily hated by those
who don't have any near them is a myth.

There isn't a universal bendy experience but is the same bus design really
suitable for both Waterloo to Victoria/London Bridge and central London to
outer suburbs?

[1] not entirely certain where Sudbury sits borough wise but the 18
stretches that far so may be more zero.

It's the point where Ealing, Brent and Harrow meet and the name is used in
all three boroughs. Very much the Crystal Palace of north west London.

Offramp wrote in news:603ac8ce-e923-4513-acbe-
:

On 24 July, 23:41, Richard

I feel unusually annoyed about this... They are some of the best buses
ever to be used in London or anywhere else, in my controversial
opinion.

I agree entirely. I think it is odd and very wrong that one man's
fatwa could get rid of them.

He's the Mayor; we elected him.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, James Farrar wrote:

Offramp wrote in news:603ac8ce-e923-4513-acbe-
:

On 24 July, 23:41, Richard

I feel unusually annoyed about this... They are some of the best buses
ever to be used in London or anywhere else, in my controversial
opinion.

I agree entirely. I think it is odd and very wrong that one man's
fatwa could get rid of them.

He's the Mayor; we elected him.

I bloody well didn't.

Axe Greater London, i say. Let's have a mayor of London elected by people
who live in London, not some transcluded home counties buffoons who mostly
still insist that they live in 'Metropolitan Kent' or some such nonsense.

Er, ObTransport: trains! Aren't they great?

tom

--
There's no future.

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.

--
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

On the bright side, if sendmail is tied up routing spam and pointless
uknot posts, it's not waving its arse around saying "root me!"
-- Peter Corlett, in uknot

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.

Boris esssentially had two choices - the brave one of admitting he was
wrong and committing to a case-by-case analysis of bus routes based on
objective criteria (fare evasion, junction blocking, boarding time,
cost) or the cowardly one of pretending he was telling the truth and
scrapping them all without consultation* or debate. We know what kind
of man he is now.

Tom

* That's not entirely true, TfL did consult, and then ignored it despite
even Westminster Council accepting that bendies made sense on the Red
Arrows.

On 27 July, 13:21, 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.

Boris esssentially had two choices - the brave one of admitting he was
wrong and committing to a case-by-case analysis of bus routes based on
objective criteria (fare evasion, junction blocking, boarding time,
cost) or the cowardly one of pretending he was telling the truth and
scrapping them all without consultation* or debate. *We know what kind
of man he is now.

Tom

* That's not entirely true, TfL did consult, and then ignored it despite
even Westminster Council accepting that bendies made sense on the Red
Arrows.

If this group is anything to go by, anyone promising to kill all
cyclists would be a cert to win any election.

Maybe people realise that voting for Boris is, in the long term,
voting for cars to replace public transport (and kill plenty of
cyclists). They realised that his apparent pro-cycling tendencies
were just spin.

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.