"Turk182" wrote in message
...
On 9 Oct, 16:01, Simon Dean wrote:
On 03/10/2010 19:51, Steve Firth wrote:

wrote:

On about one third of the London buses I travel on, I sense the driver
shows very poor appreciation of either passenger comfort or of the
passenger's sense of safety. There is real aggression shown to other
motorists. 'My big vehicle can intimidate you in that small car'.

Well, there's been an element of that for a long time. Bus drivers will
pull out without bothering to check mirrors in most instances and will
use the size of their vehicle to intimidate others.

I've got into this argument on YouTube... People remind about the "two
second rule" before overtaking anything?

And you shouldn't overtake a bus.

And you shouldn't overtake in broken cross hatchings.

And Bus Drivers are entitled to do what they want, they're professional
drivers...

It's also apparently perfectly acceptable according to the general
population for a bus driver to overtake a parked car on the wrong side
of the road against opposing traffic, cos you're "supposed to give way
to buses" in all circumstances.

It really is just shockingly bad education. Coupled with a lack of
traffic police wanting to do anything about bad driving.



Stagecoach drivers seem to be hitting some new low. I've noticed over
the last six months that they regularly break speed limits by a
considerable margin. It's not at all rare to find double decker buses
exceeding 50mph in 30 limits. The service through the village where I
live is frequently seen driving at a steady 50 through a succession of
30 and 40 mph limits. It's also not unusual to see the same bus being
driven at stupidly high speeds on narrow country lanes the drivers
never
slow to pass other vehicles and seem to have an attitude of "get out of
my way!"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Friday I was in a bus driven by a female driver. She had a
collision with another vehicle which caught the back of the bus. She
simply drove on and about half a mile later, she eventually pulled
over near an inspector standing by a wall, and told him about the
accident, and he said, ok, took her staff number (i think), and told
her to drive on. If what I saw is normal practice, then it appears to
be an unwritten rule that a bus doesn't stop at an accident, unlike
other road users! Sure she would have blocked the road, but so what!

So, you would have complained about the delay as would all the drivers stuck
behind the obstruction.

On 9 Oct, 22:26, "Brimstone" wrote:
"Turk182" wrote in message

...



On 9 Oct, 16:01, Simon Dean wrote:
On 03/10/2010 19:51, Steve Firth wrote:

*wrote:

On about one third of the London buses I travel on, I sense the driver
shows very poor appreciation of either passenger comfort or of the
passenger's sense of safety. *There is real aggression shown to other
motorists. *'My big vehicle can intimidate you in that small car'..

Well, there's been an element of that for a long time. Bus drivers will
pull out without bothering to check mirrors in most instances and will
use the size of their vehicle to intimidate others.

I've got into this argument on YouTube... People remind about the "two
second rule" before overtaking anything?

And you shouldn't overtake a bus.

And you shouldn't overtake in broken cross hatchings.

And Bus Drivers are entitled to do what they want, they're professional
drivers...

It's also apparently perfectly acceptable according to the general
population for a bus driver to overtake a parked car on the wrong side
of the road against opposing traffic, cos you're "supposed to give way
to buses" in all circumstances.

It really is just shockingly bad education. Coupled with a lack of
traffic police wanting to do anything about bad driving.

Stagecoach drivers seem to be hitting some new low. I've noticed over
the last six months that they regularly break speed limits by a
considerable margin. It's not at all rare to find double decker buses
exceeding 50mph in 30 limits. The service through the village where I
live is frequently seen driving at a steady 50 through a succession of
30 and 40 mph limits. It's also not unusual to see the same bus being
driven at stupidly high speeds on narrow country lanes the drivers
never
slow to pass other vehicles and seem to have an attitude of "get out of
my way!"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Friday I was in a bus driven by a female driver. *She had a
collision with another vehicle which caught the back of the bus. *She
simply drove on and about half a mile later, she eventually pulled
over near an inspector standing by a wall, and told him about the
accident, and he said, ok, took her staff number (i think), and told
her to drive on. *If what I saw is normal practice, then it appears to
be an unwritten rule that a bus doesn't stop at an accident, unlike
other road users! *Sure she would have blocked the road, but so what!

So, you would have complained about the delay as would all the drivers stuck
behind the obstruction.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh that's interesting. But I would surely have felt miffed as I did
once at Hyde Park Corner many years ago, when a bus changed lane and
the back of it swung round and swiped my cars front wing doing £300
worth of damage and he/she drove off - all I could see ahead was a sea
of buses! I knew it was red though!

Turk182

"Turk182" wrote in message
...
On 9 Oct, 22:26, "Brimstone" wrote:
"Turk182" wrote in message

...



On 9 Oct, 16:01, Simon Dean wrote:
On 03/10/2010 19:51, Steve Firth wrote:

wrote:

On about one third of the London buses I travel on, I sense the
driver
shows very poor appreciation of either passenger comfort or of the
passenger's sense of safety. There is real aggression shown to
other
motorists. 'My big vehicle can intimidate you in that small car'.

Well, there's been an element of that for a long time. Bus drivers
will
pull out without bothering to check mirrors in most instances and
will
use the size of their vehicle to intimidate others.

I've got into this argument on YouTube... People remind about the "two
second rule" before overtaking anything?

And you shouldn't overtake a bus.

And you shouldn't overtake in broken cross hatchings.

And Bus Drivers are entitled to do what they want, they're
professional
drivers...

It's also apparently perfectly acceptable according to the general
population for a bus driver to overtake a parked car on the wrong side
of the road against opposing traffic, cos you're "supposed to give way
to buses" in all circumstances.

It really is just shockingly bad education. Coupled with a lack of
traffic police wanting to do anything about bad driving.

Stagecoach drivers seem to be hitting some new low. I've noticed
over
the last six months that they regularly break speed limits by a
considerable margin. It's not at all rare to find double decker
buses
exceeding 50mph in 30 limits. The service through the village where
I
live is frequently seen driving at a steady 50 through a succession
of
30 and 40 mph limits. It's also not unusual to see the same bus
being
driven at stupidly high speeds on narrow country lanes the drivers
never
slow to pass other vehicles and seem to have an attitude of "get out
of
my way!"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Friday I was in a bus driven by a female driver. She had a
collision with another vehicle which caught the back of the bus. She
simply drove on and about half a mile later, she eventually pulled
over near an inspector standing by a wall, and told him about the
accident, and he said, ok, took her staff number (i think), and told
her to drive on. If what I saw is normal practice, then it appears to
be an unwritten rule that a bus doesn't stop at an accident, unlike
other road users! Sure she would have blocked the road, but so what!

So, you would have complained about the delay as would all the drivers
stuck
behind the obstruction.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh that's interesting. But I would surely have felt miffed as I did
once at Hyde Park Corner many years ago, when a bus changed lane and
the back of it swung round and swiped my cars front wing doing £300
worth of damage and he/she drove off - all I could see ahead was a sea
of buses! I knew it was red though!

Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves
sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who
should be let out of the house on his/her own.

I doubt the bus driver was aware of the alleged collision.

"Brimstone" wrote:

Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves
sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who
should be let out of the house on his/her own.


What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the
opposite of what they intended to say?

Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own?


* Or should that be "numbskull's"?

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Brimstone" wrote:

Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves
sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who
should be let out of the house on his/her own.


What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the
opposite of what they intended to say?

Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own?


* Or should that be "numbskull's"?

What about those people who have got nothing better to do than pick up on
people's typographical, grammatical and spelling errors, aren't they
numbskulls as well? Should they be allowed to use a computer?

On 10/10/2010 09:53, Brimstone wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Brimstone" wrote:

Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves
sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a
numbskull who
should be let out of the house on his/her own.


What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the
opposite of what they intended to say?

Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own?


* Or should that be "numbskull's"?

What about those people who have got nothing better to do than pick up
on people's typographical, grammatical and spelling errors, aren't they
numbskulls as well? Should they be allowed to use a computer?



Hmm, touchy, touchy.

We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is
pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written
utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was
forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A*
GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something
completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual
terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their
schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored,
perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates.

Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be
illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I
suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social
equality in dumbing everybody down.

--
Moving things in still pictures

On 10 Oct, 10:23, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 10/10/2010 09:53, Brimstone wrote:







"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
"Brimstone" wrote:

Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves
sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a
numbskull who
should be let out of the house on his/her own.

What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the
opposite of what they intended to say?

Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own?

* Or should that be "numbskull's"?

What about those people who have got nothing better to do than pick up
on people's typographical, grammatical and spelling errors, aren't they
numbskulls as well? Should they be allowed to use a computer?

Hmm, touchy, touchy.

We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is
pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written
utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was
forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A*
GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something
completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual
terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their
schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored,
perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates.

Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be
illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I
suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social
equality in dumbing everybody down.

Teachers tried to teach me various things. Some I had a knack for and
took in; others I never really understood and didn't bother with.
There's no reason for punctuation to be any different from anything
else that one can be taught.

As for numeracy, I seem to remember my grandparents thinking that use
of calculators was "cheating", because basic arithmetic was the most
advanced mathematical concept that they'd ever been tested on. I
tried to explain that we were learning concepts way beyond arithmetic
and were using calcutors to save time, and that no marks were given
for the correctness of the arithmetic. So I'd say that things had
certainly advanced a lot between their generation and mine. It seems
likely that they have continued to do so.

There may be less memorising and chanting, more more understanding.

(The people who most annoyed me over the years where examiners who
said the opposite of what they meant through use of "may" instead of
"might", eg "extra tuition may have helped them" when they meant
"extra tuition might have helped them".)

®i©ardo wrote:

We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is
pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written
utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was
forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A*
GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something
completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual
terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their
schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored,
perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates.

Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be
illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I
suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social
equality in dumbing everybody down.


My thoughts, exactly.

I don't know which is worse - people who do not care how wrong they
are, or people who do not know. In either case, the teaching
"profession"* has an awful lot to answer for.


[* Never was the word 'profession' so inappropriately applied.]