Presumably the research didn't include those I see on almost every bus
journey who signal the bus too late (either with a V sign or an angry
fist) as it sails straight pass compulsory bus stops where people
obviously *were* waiting to board.

In such situations the driver is not conforming to the policy.

It is common for the 410 not to stop at East Croydon northbound in the
evening peak (and to a lesser extent at other locations at other times of
day) despite there being waiting passengers, presumably because the driver
believes the bus is full (although the waiting passengers can often see that
actually it isn't, it is just crowded at the front). Once wonders what the
policy is in that instance.

I always hail buses and ring the bell if no one else has. However this is
because I've long since lost confidence that drivers would actually stop at
compulsory stops otherwise. I know I am by no means alone in doing this.
It seems to me that to some extent TfL have changed the regulations to match
the behaviour of passengers who were responding to the failure to adhere to
the old regulations.

I think it is actually perfectly reasonable to have just one type of bus
stop and to request passengers indicate to the driver that they wish to
board or alight. It would be a courtesy to their passengers to advise them
what they policy now is, especially as those who are most familiar with the
concept of compulsory and request stops are likely to have been using the
bus services for the longest time.

On Mar 9, 10:53*pm, "Graham J" wrote:
Presumably the research didn't include those I see on almost every bus
journey who signal the bus too late (either with a V sign or an angry
fist) as it sails straight pass compulsory bus stops where people
obviously *were* waiting to board.
In such situations the driver is not conforming to the policy.

It is common for the 410 not to stop at East Croydon northbound in the
evening peak (and to a lesser extent at other locations at other times of
day) despite there being waiting passengers, presumably because the driver
believes the bus is full (although the waiting passengers can often see that
actually it isn't, it is just crowded at the front). *Once wonders what the
policy is in that instance.

I always hail buses and ring the bell if no one else has. *However this is
because I've long since lost confidence that drivers would actually stop at
compulsory stops otherwise. *I know I am by no means alone in doing this.
It seems to me that to some extent TfL have changed the regulations to match
the behaviour of passengers who were responding to the failure to adhere to
the old regulations.

I think it is actually perfectly reasonable to have just one type of bus
stop and to request passengers indicate to the driver that they wish to
board or alight. *It would be a courtesy to their passengers to advise them
what they policy now is, especially as those who are most familiar with the
concept of compulsory and request stops are likely to have been using the
bus services for the longest time.

There seems to be a common misconception here that all bus drivers
regard passengers as something other than a mere inconvenience in
their plight to get from starting point to destination as quickly as
possible, and with as few interruptions (i.e. passengers) as they
possibly can. Inspectors are frequently of the same mindset: how else
would they explain turning short two packed Northbound 295 buses at
Fulham Brodway (Jerdan Place) on Tuesday morning at 8.30a.m., churning
the passengers out onto a dangerously small pavement that was being
dug up (the bus stop itself was actually fenced off for pavement works
around it).

The new T.F.L. regime quoted at the beginning of this threat is truly
incredible, and shows that they regard passengers as mere cattle, like
so many drivers.

Why not just have a SIMPLE system: one design of bus stop, with
"REQUEST" written on it, and make the SIMPLE rule that anyone wishing
to board or alight the must hail the bus as it approaches or ring the
bell, respectively? The "new" regime of "COMPULSORY" bus stops that
are not compulsory is a recipe for confusion to all concerned! Only
idiotically muddled thinking would suggest otherwise! And as for not
actually publicising the change in regulations - that truly beggars
belief, even for an organisation with such poor concept of "service"
as T.F.L.!

M.M.

In article ,
Graham J wrote:

I think it is actually perfectly reasonable to have just one type of bus
stop and to request passengers indicate to the driver that they wish to
board or alight.

That's how it's always worked outside London AFAIK (although the
indication was often subtle in the case of boarding).

As of a couple of years ago I do now usually put my arm out to hail a
bus rather than just subtly looking like I want to board -- formerly
(where I grew up in Greater Manchester and more recently in Cambridge)
I perhaps took a half-step towards the curb and maybe made eye contact
with the driver, and that was a normal way of indicating you wanted to
board. (I'd also take a step *back* to indicate I didn't want to
board, if it was the wrong bus).

But as a result of being told off for signalling late in Cambridge a
few years ago by an Eastern European bus driver who'd clearly failed
to spot that I wanted to board until I stuck my arm out as a last
resort, I reevaluated this. I know the latter is the normal way of
hailing a bus in at least some parts of continental Europe so I can
understand why some drivers from elsewhere in the EU may expect it,
and it just seems simpler to go along with it since it's pretty
unambiguous.

In case I needed one, I got a reminder that you need to explicitly
signal here in London, too, only a couple of weeks ago when a bus
sailed past despite the fact that I thought I was looking like I
wanted to board. I'm new to London, though - what was the traditional
practice at request stops? Hold your arm out, or a more subtle
indication?

-roy

On 11/03/2011 00:00, Roy Badami wrote:

But as a result of being told off for signalling late in Cambridge a
few years ago by an Eastern European bus driver who'd clearly failed
to spot that I wanted to board until I stuck my arm out as a last
resort, I reevaluated this. I know the latter is the normal way of
hailing a bus in at least some parts of continental Europe so I can
understand why some drivers from elsewhere in the EU may expect it,
and it just seems simpler to go along with it since it's pretty
unambiguous.

Last year I had a bus driver in Germany get very rude in two languages
because I had put my arm out. But with a bus every 30 min, at night in
the rain, I didn't fancy the risk of it not stopping. admittedly she
then had a go at another passsenger for something else, so it might have
been just her!

When I was little in Hull, ringing the bell to get off was considered
what would now be called anti-social behaviour. You were supposed to go
and stand by the door waiting to get off (no middle exit).

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis wrote on 11 March 2011
07:00:58 ...
On 11/03/2011 00:00, Roy Badami wrote:

But as a result of being told off for signalling late in Cambridge a
few years ago by an Eastern European bus driver who'd clearly failed
to spot that I wanted to board until I stuck my arm out as a last
resort, I reevaluated this. I know the latter is the normal way of
hailing a bus in at least some parts of continental Europe so I can
understand why some drivers from elsewhere in the EU may expect it,
and it just seems simpler to go along with it since it's pretty
unambiguous.

Last year I had a bus driver in Germany get very rude in two languages
because I had put my arm out. But with a bus every 30 min, at night in
the rain, I didn't fancy the risk of it not stopping. admittedly she
then had a go at another passsenger for something else, so it might have
been just her!

When I was little in Hull, ringing the bell to get off was considered
what would now be called anti-social behaviour. You were supposed to go
and stand by the door waiting to get off (no middle exit).

So, what was the bell for?
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On 11/03/2011 09:23, Richard J. wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote on 11 March 2011

When I was little in Hull, ringing the bell to get off was considered
what would now be called anti-social behaviour. You were supposed to go
and stand by the door waiting to get off (no middle exit).

So, what was the bell for?

Perhaps it was just cheaper to buy a bus with one than have it taken
out/disabled?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 11/03/2011 09:23, Richard J. wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote on 11 March 2011

When I was little in Hull, ringing the bell to get off was considered
what would now be called anti-social behaviour. You were supposed to go
and stand by the door waiting to get off (no middle exit).

So, what was the bell for?

Perhaps it was just cheaper to buy a bus with one than have it taken
out/disabled?

I was on a bus in Poland and having looked everywhere for it I couldn't find
a bell (push).

I just had to hope that it stopped at the stop that I wanted (it did)

tim

In message , at
18:56:27 on Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
When I was little in Hull, ringing the bell to get off was considered
what would now be called anti-social behaviour. You were supposed to go
and stand by the door waiting to get off (no middle exit).

So, what was the bell for?

Perhaps it was just cheaper to buy a bus with one than have it taken
out/disabled?

But you couldn't call it a "disabled bell", because then people in
wheelchairs would be pressing it all the time.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Arthur Figgis wrote:

Last year I had a bus driver in Germany get very rude in two languages
because I had put my arm out.

Interesting - I'd somehow thought Germany was a put-arm-out country.
Maybe I'm wrong about the whole continental Europe thing then, I dunno
now.

When I was little in Hull, ringing the bell to get off was considered
what would now be called anti-social behaviour. You were supposed to go
and stand by the door waiting to get off (no middle exit).

When I grew up in Greater Manchester that was normal practice.
Ringing the bell was reserved for elderly people who didn't want to
get up until the bus had stopped.

-roy

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:49:12 -0600, (Roy Badami)
wrote:

In article ,
Arthur Figgis wrote:

Last year I had a bus driver in Germany get very rude in two languages
because I had put my arm out.

I had the same thing, in Berlin. I wouldn't have, if he'd stopped at
the right bus stop!

Interesting - I'd somehow thought Germany was a put-arm-out country.
Maybe I'm wrong about the whole continental Europe thing then, I dunno
now.

I wouldn't say that -- I think the "no arms" is particularly a
German-speaking thing. It's normal everywhere in France, and I've had
no complaints elsewhere.

When I was little in Hull, ringing the bell to get off was considered
what would now be called anti-social behaviour. You were supposed to go
and stand by the door waiting to get off (no middle exit).

On East Kent you'd stand at the front if possible, a chat with the
driver if you were really lucky, but I don't remember a problem with
dinging the bell. I think into the 80's they still had compulsory and
request stops there as well, or at least the older stops still showed
a difference.

Richard.