Paul Corfield wrote:


Ken cancelled such schemes when it suited him, TfL seem to have cold
feet about electric traction on the streets for some reason

Having witnessed the local tactics that led to the West London Tram
cancellation, Ken was mugged by borough Tories on that one. Mainly
whipping up 'the tram will increase traffic down your street and make it
difficult to use your car' fear, as well as worries over worksites etc.
Ironically, of course, it meant more bendies and more pollution, but
there you go. Remember that Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham councils
changed from mildly supportive Labour to violently opposed (and very
car-friendly) Tory ones in 2006 and there's a limit to how long you can
push on a locked door, particularly when the great and unpleasant bulk
of Stephen Greenhalgh is on the other side.

I am sure there are plenty of "off the shelf" products that have been
developed for use across the world that can serve London's bus
system. I don't see the bus companies in Hong Kong running a "new bus
for Hong Kong" competition

Hmm. Presumably the TfL market being so large in UK terms the
manufacturers have to consider the suitability for London use in any new
bus design anyway, so every New Bus is more or less For London, at least
in a UK design (which IIRC have the bulk of the market). It's
noticeable that the UK's bus manufacturers are keen to have Peter Hendy
visit from time to time, which rather betrays where their priorities
are. Didn't TfL put a ban on Volvo products a while back for some
reason related to noise?

It follows from that that Boris's competition is not so much for a New
Bus For London as a New Bus Unsuitable For Anywhere Else. I'm not sure
I see the point.

BTW, from LOTS:

"At the eleventh hour, just half-a-dozen Citaros (MEC class) arrived in
time for the conversion from bendy-bus of route 507 - in conjunction
with the addition of a 12-minute frequency on Sats and Suns requiring
just four buses on each day. It remains to be seen how soon the rest
of the route's weekday pvr requirement of 14 buses can be replaced."

Bodes well for the next 500+ buses, doesn't it? It's the waste of time
for the people at the bus companies and TfL that riles me most.

Tom

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

I admit to having an inbuilt patholgocial hatred of cyclists who
disobey the rules of the road, so I'm as guilty as anyone. But I do
think that the bendy buses have been vilified for a lot of problems
that they don't cause.

I hate them for the one major problem they *do* cause - fare-dodging!

Ian

On Jul 26, 11:06*pm, "Ian F." wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

...

I admit to having an inbuilt patholgocial hatred of cyclists who
disobey the rules of the road, so I'm as guilty as anyone. *But I do
think that the bendy buses have been vilified for a lot of problems
that they don't cause.

I hate them for the one major problem they *do* cause - fare-dodging!


Well, they don't cause the fare-dodging. Facilitate it maybe, but the
it is the fare-dodgers that cause the fare-dodging.

"Andy" wrote in message
...

Well, they don't cause the fare-dodging. Facilitate it maybe, but the
it is the fare-dodgers that cause the fare-dodging.

And pedantry - that's another thing they cause! ;-)))

Ian

On Jul 26, 11:47*pm, "Ian F." wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message

...

Well, they don't cause the fare-dodging. Facilitate it maybe, but the
it is the fare-dodgers that cause the fare-dodging.

And pedantry - that's another thing they cause! ;-)))


I don't think so :P

I would say that the Boris Bus (and the Routemaster before it) will
be / were amenable to fare-dodging as well. Even a 'normal' bus is,
when it is busy and the driver doesn't check every person carefully.

Paul Corfield wrote:

I would not have an objection to your comment
about pedestrian crossing but your argument would seem to be
predicated on the premise that only bendy buses ever leave part of
their "bulk" on a crossing. That is not my experience as all sorts of
buses can end up blocking a crossing as can other vehicles too.
There may be more instances of bendy buses doing it but it is not
necessarily just their size which is the cause. There may be a whole
load of other issues too.

The problem for long vehicles is that the law doesn't help them. If you have
two crawling lanes and a long vehicle trying to cross a zebra crossing (or
box junction), every time a car-length gap opens on the far side of the
crossing the driver has a choice - either pull forward and trail over the
crossing, or wait, in which case the car alongside him will cut diagonally
over the crossing and steal the gap. If he allows the latter to happen, it
can happen repeatedly, in which case he will be there all day waiting for a
big enough gap on the far side. Zebra crossings and box junctions should be
redesigned so that the lanes are clearly marked through them, and it should
be made an offence to change lane on a box junction or zebra crossing (with
public information films to explain why the change).

On 27 July, 00:04, Andy wrote:
On Jul 26, 11:47*pm, "Ian F." wrote:

"Andy" wrote in message

....

Well, they don't cause the fare-dodging. Facilitate it maybe, but the
it is the fare-dodgers that cause the fare-dodging.

And pedantry - that's another thing they cause! ;-)))

I don't think so :P

I would say that the Boris Bus (and the Routemaster before it) will
be / were amenable to fare-dodging as well. Even a 'normal' bus is,
when it is busy and the driver doesn't check every person carefully.

Or how about fear of fare-dodging being the motivation for generations
of poorly designed buses, forcing everyone through the same narrow
gap?

There is a party political dimension here, because I am sure that the
current administration doesn't have a long-term aim of providing free
public transport.

In message , at 00:52:56 on Mon, 27
Jul 2009, Basil Jet remarked:
The problem for long vehicles is that the law doesn't help them. If you have
two crawling lanes and a long vehicle trying to cross a zebra crossing (or
box junction), every time a car-length gap opens on the far side of the
crossing the driver has a choice - either pull forward and trail over the
crossing, or wait, in which case the car alongside him will cut diagonally
over the crossing and steal the gap. If he allows the latter to happen, it
can happen repeatedly, in which case he will be there all day waiting for a
big enough gap on the far side.

Isn't that a very good reason why these buses aren't suitable?

Zebra crossings and box junctions should be redesigned so that the
lanes are clearly marked through them, and it should be made an offence
to change lane on a box junction or zebra crossing (with public
information films to explain why the change).

Costly and time consuming. Why not just use a more suitable bus?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:


Zebra crossings and box junctions should be redesigned so that the
lanes are clearly marked through them, and it should be made an
offence to change lane on a box junction or zebra crossing (with
public information films to explain why the change).

Costly and time consuming. Why not just use a more suitable bus?

Show us your working out - you need to do the roadwork *once*, you need
to pay the extra cost of less cost-effective buses *every year forever*.
By your logic you shouldn't put in bus lanes, either, since you're
discounting the upside of providing a better bus service in any
cost/benefit calculation.

The degree of mental contortion needed to join the bendy jihad never
ceases to amaze.

Tom

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