|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8165471.stm
Bendy buses taken out of service A group of bendy buses is being taken out of commission in London by mayor Boris Johnson. The nine vehicles, operating on Route 507, will be replaced by new buses after their final day of service. He pledged to scrap the "much-loathed" buses last year, saying they were dangerous and enabled fare evasion. But passenger group London TravelWatch and the London Assembly's Labour group said there was no evidence bendy buses caused more accidents. Removing bendy buses was one of Mr Johnson's key pledges during last year's mayoral election, and he plans to phase them all out by 2011. Buses on Route 507, which travels between Waterloo and Victoria, will be replaced by a new, more frequent single-decker bus on Saturday. Mr Johnson said: "These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time." He said the new buses will emit less CO2 than the bendy buses, which will be sent back "to their spiritual home, an airfield in the Midlands" next week. Transport for London (TfL) said it would cost an extra £12m per year to replace the vehicles. However, a spokeswoman said: "We would expect to see an increase in revenue of about £5m per annum thanks to a reduction in fare evasion on these routes." continues |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:02:28 +0100
"Recliner" wrote: Mr Johnson said: "These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time." Yes, because the obvious enviromental way to go is replace N bendy buses with N*2 normal buses to maintain the same service. Twice as many engines, not to mention twice as many drivers required, less easy to access for pushchairs and disabled people and assuming the single deckers he's mentioned replacing them with are the single door at the front variety it take a shed load longer for people to board. Genius decision Boris. Perhaps we should go back to steam trains on the underground while you're at it? He said the new buses will emit less CO2 than the bendy buses, which Less per bus, but I suspect when you add up the total service it'll be somewhat more. will be sent back "to their spiritual home, an airfield in the Midlands" next week. 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. Transport for London (TfL) said it would cost an extra £12m per year to replace the vehicles. However, a spokeswoman said: "We would expect to see an increase in revenue of about £5m per annum thanks to a reduction in fare evasion on these routes." Yeah , right. At a quid a pop on the buses are they serious suggesting there were 5 million fare evasions on bendy bus routes along every year?? What a load of horse****. B2003 |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On Jul 24, 3:34*pm, wrote:
[accurate and correct things] Bloody hell, that's a Boltar post that I completely, 100% agree with. Must be the end times... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:02:28 +0100, Recliner wrote:
Buses on Route 507, which travels between Waterloo and Victoria, will be replaced by a new, more frequent single-decker bus on Saturday. Why not double-deckers? -- jhk |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
In message , at 18:36:43 on
Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Paul Corfield remarked: {bad form following up on my own post} Why? -- Roland Perry |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:02:28 +0100, Recliner wrote: Buses on Route 507, which travels between Waterloo and Victoria, will be replaced by a new, more frequent single-decker bus on Saturday. Why not double-deckers? Because the roof at Waterloo is too low? -- John Ray |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
John Ray wrote:
Jarle H Knudsen wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:02:28 +0100, Recliner wrote: Buses on Route 507, which travels between Waterloo and Victoria, will be replaced by a new, more frequent single-decker bus on Saturday. Why not double-deckers? Because the roof at Waterloo is too low? Because double deckers are unsuitable for Red Arrow routes, which have always (since being introduced in the 1960s) operated as high-volume standee single decker buses). On the 521, of course, the Aldwych subway forces single deck use anyway, but there are operational reasons too. Tom |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:39:55 -0700 (PDT), John B wrote: On Jul 24, 3:34 pm, wrote: [accurate and correct things] Bloody hell, that's a Boltar post that I completely, 100% agree with. Must be the end times... Ditto. I feel worried. The Red Arrow bendies do get very full but 50 people get a seat. Come Monday they'll be lucky if about 20 people get a seat given most of the area will be standee only like the old GLS / LS types that the bendies replaced. What's the seating/standing ratio on the 12m Citaros ordered for the 507/521? 2:1 on the bendies, of course, so I'm assuming it's about 23 seats/46 standing? I note that the 1960s Red Arrow Merlins had 25 seats/48 standing, so there's progress for you. Tom |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
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. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
"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. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
In article
, John B wrote: Bloody hell, that's a Boltar post that I completely, 100% agree with. Me too - strange times indeed. E, |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, John B wrote:
On Jul 24, 3:34*pm, wrote: [accurate and correct things] Bloody hell, that's a Boltar post that I completely, 100% agree with. Must be the end times... I chafed a bit at 'idiot cyclists', but if you read that as saying that cyclists who complain about bendies are idiots, rather than that all cyclists are idiots and complain about bendies, then it's spot on. Boltar, have they changed your medication recently? tom -- Miscellaneous Terrorists: Ducks | Bird Flu | Avian flu | Jimbo Wales | Backstreet Boys | The Al Queda Network | Tesco -- Uncyclopedia |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, John B wrote: On Jul 24, 3:34 pm, wrote: [accurate and correct things] Bloody hell, that's a Boltar post that I completely, 100% agree with. Must be the end times... I chafed a bit at 'idiot cyclists', but if you read that as saying that cyclists who complain about bendies are idiots, rather than that all cyclists are idiots and complain about bendies, then it's spot on. I read it as being 'zealot cyclists who think the road should be rearranged for their benefit', which Boris definitely is, leavened by old-fashioned Tory car-worship*. Tom (not a cyclist, just a bloke who owns a bike and occasionally chooses it when it's the best option). * Like thinking that the car was the single biggest contributor to women's liberation in the 20th century, a view he's expressed in my hearing. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
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. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Tom Barry wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, John B wrote: On Jul 24, 3:34 pm, wrote: [accurate and correct things] Bloody hell, that's a Boltar post that I completely, 100% agree with. Must be the end times... I chafed a bit at 'idiot cyclists', but if you read that as saying that cyclists who complain about bendies are idiots, rather than that all cyclists are idiots and complain about bendies, then it's spot on. I read it as being 'zealot cyclists who think the road should be rearranged for their benefit', Add 'and have mistaken ideas about what arrangement would be most to their benefit'. which Boris definitely is, Yup. leavened by old-fashioned Tory car-worship*. Are motorismists anti-bendy? Tom (not a cyclist, just a bloke who owns a bike and occasionally chooses it when it's the best option). A, a 'person on a bike', we call people like you! * Like thinking that the car was the single biggest contributor to women's liberation in the 20th century, a view he's expressed in my hearing. Oh what a card he is! tom -- Science Never Sleeps |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Tom Barry wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, John B wrote: On Jul 24, 3:34 pm, wrote: [accurate and correct things] Bloody hell, that's a Boltar post that I completely, 100% agree with. Must be the end times... I chafed a bit at 'idiot cyclists', but if you read that as saying that cyclists who complain about bendies are idiots, rather than that all cyclists are idiots and complain about bendies, then it's spot on. I read it as being 'zealot cyclists who think the road should be rearranged for their benefit', Add 'and have mistaken ideas about what arrangement would be most to their benefit'. The dreaded 'common sense' of the selfish individual, as expressed by a) I don't like waiting at traffic lights b) therefore I should be allowed to ignore them c) therefore I shall arrive at my destination faster d) therefore the world is a better place. This is often allied to a hatred of 'experts', possibly because there's an unconscious fear of being shown up to be a loud-mouthed know-nothing, possibly because that implies intellectualism, which is associated with undesirable foreign things like the French. Boris, famously, got his bottom firmly smacked by London's businessmen over portraying Ken's spending on overseas embassies as waste, and still maintains that adding a bend to a Citaro makes it fit only for 'Scandinavian airports'. As I understand it, Scandinavian airports work rather well, not that I've ever used one, so it's just rhetorical xenophobia and wilful refusal to examine how the modern world works. The candidate for the fearful ignorant who want to be lied to soothingly, is our Boris. leavened by old-fashioned Tory car-worship*. Are motorismists anti-bendy? Yes, certainly the more militant ones - poking a few random people on Twitter who were applauding Boris on the bendy issue, it turned out very quickly that they were basically motorists (or in one case a motorcyclist) for whom a bendy is an impediment to getting about London in their tin cans - obviously there's sa strong Clarkson 'why-should-the-poor-get-about-faster-than-me' element to this. What's notable is that they use the same bendy myths ('not built for London's roads', 'great in Berlin/Amsterdam/wherever, but not British') when what they actually mean is 'I don't like 100+ people of lower social class in a bus getting in my way when I'm driving'. Obviously 72 slow-boarding double deckers on the 38 from November isn't really going to help them, but it requires more faith in their self-awareness than I can currently summon up to suppose they'll actually notice what's holding them up. On the other hand, perhaps spending millions on bendy replacements every year helps selfish motorists by drying up funds for the expansion of the network? Maybe that's the plan? Tom |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:10:02 +0100, John Ray wrote: Jarle H Knudsen wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:02:28 +0100, Recliner wrote: Buses on Route 507, which travels between Waterloo and Victoria, will be replaced by a new, more frequent single-decker bus on Saturday. Why not double-deckers? Because the roof at Waterloo is too low? Hardly given the 211 uses the same terminal point and route into and out of Waterloo Station. They used to use the taxi road (the one with the glass canopy over it), with a bus stop right in front of the station concourse. I haven't been there for some time so maybe this is no longer the case. -- John Ray |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
Paul Corfield wrote:
They both use the taxi road and come round under the station roof and park on the slope by the main entrance just as they always have. http://www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/3749131579/ taken on Thursday last week. I haven't seen a double decker at that point and did not think that there was enough clearance for one. Thanks for the photo. -- John Ray |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On 25 July, 15:47, Tom Barry wrote:
Are motorismists anti-bendy? Yes, certainly the more militant ones - poking a few random people on Twitter who were applauding Boris on the bendy issue, it turned out very quickly that they were basically motorists (or in one case a motorcyclist) for whom a bendy is an impediment to getting about London in their tin cans - obviously there's sa strong Clarkson 'why-should-the-poor-get-about-faster-than-me' element to this. *What's notable is that they use the same bendy myths ('not built for London's roads', 'great in Berlin/Amsterdam/wherever, but not British') when what they actually mean is 'I don't like 100+ people of lower social class in a bus getting in my way when I'm driving'. I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to bendy buses is disingenuous. Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing me to risk my life to get across the road"? Surely we can do better than choose between a seventy-year old design and a design that is only suitable for airports and boulevards? What about a design of bus suitable for modern-day London? Is that so bluddy difficult to imagine? |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On 24 July, 19:05, Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:02:28 +0100, Recliner wrote: Buses on Route 507, which travels betweenWaterlooand Victoria, will be replaced by a new, more frequent single-decker bus on Saturday. Why not double-deckers? -- jhk Because double-deckers are too slow to board/alight. The attraction of the articulated buses is that everyone can pile on and it leaves virtually immediately - not possible with stairs etc. Robert |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
In message
, at 06:52:36 on Sun, 26 Jul 2009, MIG remarked: What about a design of bus suitable for modern-day London? Is that so bluddy difficult to imagine? The routemaster was perfect. I always feel somewhat "trapped" on a bus where the driver has the power to stop me getting off (especially when stuck in traffic and I'd rather continue on foot). -- Roland Perry |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote: I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to bendy buses is disingenuous. Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing me to risk my life to get across the road"? What about it? It's emotive nonsense, no more. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On 26 July, 17:07, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to bendy buses is disingenuous. Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing me to risk my life to get across the road"? What about it? *It's emotive nonsense, no more. I was coming up with an alternative statement that might better characterise genuine objections to bendys, based on something that happens frequently. I suggest that it sums up what far more people feel about them than the statement about objecting to people of a "lower social class" that I was responding to. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On 26 July, 16:31, Paul Corfield wrote:
not wanting to repeat long and valid points It's perfectly evident that bendy buses of varying lengths operate all over the world in hugely varying street designs with all sorts of constraints. What no one has ever answered is why London is some sort of special case and has to have then removed. The reverse of this argument is why is London such a special case that it should either have kept Routemasters in squadron service until they were 60-70 years old or even longer or why we need a future special bus design. I've never seen a cogent, unemotional argument for any of these scenarios. It seems that emotive arguments have got in the way of any rational consideration. Even though there may be plenty of rational arguments on both sides, they are tending to be ignored and characterised in disingenuous ways by those who disagree, instead of being sensibly addressed (not saying that's what you were doing). What about a design of bus suitable for modern-day London? *Is that so bluddy difficult to imagine? I like bendy buses and I think they have a role in the London bus system. I don't like them, as it happens, but our rational reasons for liking and not liking need to be weighed up, rather than characterised in silly ways as has happened in some forums. More important, the arguments about bendys and Routemasters shouldn't distract from consideration of other alternatives. cut 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 - they simply work out what they want to offer their customers and then seek competitive tenders for the supply of the vehicles. Their bus fleet is pretty top notch and the new single and double deckers look very stylish and well appointed. I've yet to have a bad bus journey in Hong Kong. Yes. I can't remember if I very deliberately said "a design of bus" rather than "design a bus", but it is what I said and what I meant. It could perfectly well already exist. Main thing is not to force everyone to walk past the driver through a narrow gap. The "new bus for London" project is just a distraction as far as I can see and I just do not see the need for it. This is bad politics at its worst. Yes, totally pointless, except on slow news days. Already forgotten as far as I can tell. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:17:35 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote: On 26 July, 17:07, Bruce wrote: On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to bendy buses is disingenuous. Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing me to risk my life to get across the road"? What about it? *It's emotive nonsense, no more. I was coming up with an alternative statement that might better characterise genuine objections to bendys, based on something that happens frequently. I suggest that it sums up what far more people feel about them than the statement about objecting to people of a "lower social class" that I was responding to. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you actually believed that rubbish. Thanks for making it clear. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On 26 July, 20:13, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:17:35 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: On 26 July, 17:07, Bruce wrote: On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to bendy buses is disingenuous. Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing me to risk my life to get across the road"? What about it? *It's emotive nonsense, no more. I was coming up with an alternative statement that might better characterise genuine objections to bendys, based on something that happens frequently. I suggest that it sums up what far more people feel about them than the statement about objecting to people of a "lower social class" that I was responding to. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. *I thought you actually believed that rubbish. *Thanks for making it clear. Well, I do frequently find bendys blocking crossings that I want to use, so that part isn't rubbish. I guess it's my own choice whether I then risk my life to walk round or decide to stay on the same side of the road till the bus drivers finally leave a gap. I tend to be a bit impetuous and walk round in the middle of the traffic, but sometimes that isn't possible and I just get delayed. On one occasion, a bendy was blocking a crossing at Trafalgar Square during the pedestrian phase, and I did walk round. Another bendy driver decided that since the first one was preventing pedestrians from crossing, he would drive straight through the red light. I wasn't amused at all. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:02:11 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote: On 26 July, 20:13, Bruce wrote: On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:17:35 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: On 26 July, 17:07, Bruce wrote: On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to bendy buses is disingenuous. Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing me to risk my life to get across the road"? What about it? *It's emotive nonsense, no more. I was coming up with an alternative statement that might better characterise genuine objections to bendys, based on something that happens frequently. I suggest that it sums up what far more people feel about them than the statement about objecting to people of a "lower social class" that I was responding to. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. *I thought you actually believed that rubbish. *Thanks for making it clear. Well, I do frequently find bendys blocking crossings that I want to use, so that part isn't rubbish. I guess it's my own choice whether I then risk my life to walk round or decide to stay on the same side of the road till the bus drivers finally leave a gap. I tend to be a bit impetuous and walk round in the middle of the traffic, but sometimes that isn't possible and I just get delayed. On one occasion, a bendy was blocking a crossing at Trafalgar Square during the pedestrian phase, and I did walk round. Another bendy driver decided that since the first one was preventing pedestrians from crossing, he would drive straight through the red light. I wasn't amused at all. Frequently? How frequent is "frequently"? Or is it an irrationally angry response to something that doesn't follow the arbitrary rules that you apply to your world, that makes it appear more of a problem than it realy is? Foe example, can you give an objective, dispassionate comparison of the delays caused to pedestrians caused by bendy buses blocking pedestrian crossings compared to the that from the much greater number of non-articulated buses (needed to replace the high capacity of the bendy buses) blocking pedestrian crossings? The reason I ask is that I think a lot of people's innate anger and impatience is being directed towards bendy buses, simply because people are set against them. I mean a lot of people, not just you, and I also mean such issues as the alleged trapping of cyclists and the alleged vastly increased delays to other road users, for which read the anger of drivers of cars and vans who have an inbuilt pathological hatred of anything that "gets in their way". 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. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On 26 July, 21:56, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:02:11 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: On 26 July, 20:13, Bruce wrote: On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:17:35 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: On 26 July, 17:07, Bruce wrote: On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to bendy buses is disingenuous. Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing me to risk my life to get across the road"? What about it? *It's emotive nonsense, no more. I was coming up with an alternative statement that might better characterise genuine objections to bendys, based on something that happens frequently. I suggest that it sums up what far more people feel about them than the statement about objecting to people of a "lower social class" that I was responding to. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. *I thought you actually believed that rubbish. *Thanks for making it clear. Well, I do frequently find bendys blocking crossings that I want to use, so that part isn't rubbish. I guess it's my own choice whether I then risk my life to walk round or decide to stay on the same side of the road till the bus drivers finally leave a gap. *I tend to be a bit impetuous and walk round in the middle of the traffic, but sometimes that isn't possible and I just get delayed. On one occasion, a bendy was blocking a crossing at Trafalgar Square during the pedestrian phase, and I did walk round. *Another bendy driver decided that since the first one was preventing pedestrians from crossing, he would drive straight through the red light. *I wasn't amused at all. Frequently? *How frequent is "frequently"? I don't spend so much time on foot in London lately, but maybe about once a week on average. Enough to stick in the mind. Probably once every couple of months with double deckers. I have no actual figures. I will start counting now. Tonight: none. Or is it an irrationally angry response to something that doesn't follow the arbitrary rules that you apply to your world, that makes it appear more of a problem than it realy is? Don't know how to answer that one. Foe example, can you give an objective, dispassionate comparison of the delays caused to pedestrians caused by bendy buses blocking pedestrian crossings compared to the that from the much greater number of non-articulated buses (needed to replace the high capacity of the bendy buses) blocking pedestrian crossings? The reason I ask is that I think a lot of people's innate anger and impatience is being directed towards bendy buses, simply because people are set against them. *I mean a lot of people, not just you, and I also mean such issues as the alleged trapping of cyclists and the alleged vastly increased delays to other road users, for which read the anger of drivers of cars and vans who have an inbuilt pathological hatred of anything that "gets in their way". When I'm on a bike, I find that the biggest danger is the route I have to take to get past them, so it's similar to the pedestrian crossing issue really, with the added risk of them pulling away and leaving me in the middle of the road, during the longer time it takes to get past them. 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 don't think there's evidence that they hit cyclists more than anything else, but I think that the arguments about that were mostly down to "causing accidents" being interpreted as "hit", which is not necessarily the case or what was meant. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
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 |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
"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 |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
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. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
"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 |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
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. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
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). |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
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. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
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 |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
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 |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk