On 18/05/2010 08:58, Bruce wrote:

It is a strange combination of about 85% modern bus with the remaining
15% at the back being a grafted-on Routemaster-style platform and
stairs.

If it did run around 90% of the time driver-only with the platform
closed, what would be the point of it?


Maybe the conductors will only be used on the Oxford Street section,
getting off at Marble Arch and manning the next bus back...

On Tue, 18 May 2010 12:12:33 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 18/05/2010 08:58, Bruce wrote:

It is a strange combination of about 85% modern bus with the remaining
15% at the back being a grafted-on Routemaster-style platform and
stairs.

If it did run around 90% of the time driver-only with the platform
closed, what would be the point of it?


Maybe the conductors will only be used on the Oxford Street section,
getting off at Marble Arch and manning the next bus back...


That actually sounds quite sensible. If that was the case, I'm not
sure I have total confidence that the system for closing off the
platform would be reliable enough to be opened and closed quite so
frequently.

On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:34:11 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:
wrote in message

On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:52:05 +0100
Bruce wrote:
And thats before you
get onto the topic of the underpowered heaps not being able to
maintain the speed limit going up certain hills such as hampstead,
highgate and mill hill.


The speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum.

Drive a Rover or a Volvo by any chance do you?

He's already told us (in other threads) that he drives an S Class Merc.


Not any more. :-(

Now it's an E Class. :-)

I got fed up trying to find parking spaces that were big enough!

On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:13:41 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

Buses make junctions even worse by either not being able to accelerate
quick enough to allow many vehicles behind to get through.


When I am a bus passenger, and especially when standing, the last
thing I want to endure is rapid acceleration.

You might be more content about the situation if you regard the roads
as being there primarily for commercial vehicles and public transport,
with cars somewhat further down the pecking order.

Your current approach is perhaps rather too reminiscent of Mr Toad,
and it didn't seem to do him much good. ;-)

On Tue, 18 May 2010 13:44:27 +0100
Bruce wrote:
You might be more content about the situation if you regard the roads
as being there primarily for commercial vehicles and public transport,

Except they're not. Everyone who uses the roads (apart from lycra louts)
pays road tax. Ergo we all have equal rights on them. And last time I looked
an HGV or bus wouldn't fit down the road outside my house anyway , so where
does that leave your argument?

B2003

On Tue, 18 May 2010 12:52:47 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2010 13:44:27 +0100
Bruce wrote:
You might be more content about the situation if you regard the roads
as being there primarily for commercial vehicles and public transport,

Except they're not. Everyone who uses the roads (apart from lycra louts)
pays road tax. Ergo we all have equal rights on them.


We all have a responsibility to share them equably with other road
users, as in "live and let live". Life is not all about your rights,
it is also about your responsibility towards others.

On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:07:59 +0100
Bruce wrote:
We all have a responsibility to share them equably with other road
users, as in "live and let live". Life is not all about your rights,
it is also about your responsibility towards others.

I'm not sure what that liberal brainfart has to do with buses causing traffic
jams because they're too slow.

B2003

On Tue, 18 May 2010 13:18:50 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:07:59 +0100
Bruce wrote:
We all have a responsibility to share them equably with other road
users, as in "live and let live". Life is not all about your rights,
it is also about your responsibility towards others.

I'm not sure what that liberal brainfart has to do with buses causing traffic
jams because they're too slow.


I'm disappointed, though not surprised, that such matters of principle
are apparently so far beyond your limited ability to grasp.

In article ,
d wrote:
Except they're not. Everyone who uses the roads (apart from lycra louts)
pays road tax.

Cyclists pay the same VED (not road tax) as all other band A vehicles.

Ergo we all have equal rights on them.

Paying VED is not the source of your rights to use the road.

And last time I looked
an HGV or bus wouldn't fit down the road outside my house anyway , so where
does that leave your argument?

Same place as yours, yours.

--
Please help Imogen May keep talking - www.imogenmay.com

On Tue, 18 May 2010 16:26:37 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
Except they're not. Everyone who uses the roads (apart from lycra louts)
pays road tax.

Cyclists pay the same VED (not road tax) as all other band A vehicles.

What do you think an "Âexcise duty" is? Its a tax.

Band A vehicles still have to have a valid a tax disc. Do bicycles?

No.

Ergo we all have equal rights on them.

Paying VED is not the source of your rights to use the road.

Correct, vehicles also have to be insuranced and have a valid MOT. Do bicycles?

No.

And last time I looked
an HGV or bus wouldn't fit down the road outside my house anyway , so where
does that leave your argument?

Same place as yours, yours.

I'm sure that gibberish would mean something to your mother.

B2003