TfL's boast that bendy-buses are "better from every angle" overturned
by the Advertising Standards Authority.

Complaint:

Objections to poster, leaflet, regional press and transport
advertisements announcing the introduction of new bendy buses on
London''s 73 route.

a. The poster featured a photograph of the flexible part of a bendy bus
and was headlined "Route 73 is getting better from every angle". Text
under the headline stated "... Faster boarding - three door entry" and
"Extra space and comfort ... From Saturday 4 September 2004 Victoria -
King''s Cross - Stoke Newington/Seven Sisters".

b. The leaflet featured the same photograph on the front cover, beneath
the claim "Route 73 is getting better from every angle". The inside of
the leaflet featured a photo of a bendy bus; text stated "1 Pay before
you board To speed up journey times, cash is not accepted on the new
Bendy Buses. So you must have a ticket before you board. There are two
ways you can pay before you board: Roadside ticket machines ... [and]
Ticket outlets ... 2 Faster boarding - three door entry Passengers with
a Travelcard, Bus Pass, Freedom pass or a single journey ticket can
board through any of the three doors. Oyster Pre Pay users should board
through the front door ... Saver ticket holders must board through the
front door ... Wheelchair users should get on through the low-floor
central door which is fitted with a ramp 3 Extra space and comfort
Bendy Buses are designed to offer you greater comfort, with climate
control and enhanced security with CCTV. The buses are low floor which
means they are accessible for everyone."

c. The regional press advertisement featured the same photograph of the
flexible part of a bendy bus and was headlined "Our new bendy buses are
better from every angle". It featured the claims "Faster boarding -
three door entry", "Pay before you board" and "Extra space and comfort"
and stated "Route 73 will have bendy buses from Saturday 4 September".

d. The transport advertisement was displayed in buses and featured
identical claims to advertisement (a).

The complainants, who believed the 73 route was one of the most
heavily-used in London, objected to the claims:

1. "Faster boarding ...", because they believed most passengers had to
board through the front door and because increased numbers of standing
passengers near the doors of the bus made it difficult for others,
especially those in wheelchairs, to board and alight from the bendy
buses;

2. "Extra space and comfort ...", because they believed the bendy bus
services would run the 73 route less frequently and with fewer seats
than the Routemaster models they replaced, meaning that more passengers
were forced to stand for the duration of their journey and

3. "Route 73 is getting better from every angle", because they believed
some features of the bendy buses were detrimental to passengers.



Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 8.1 (Ed 11)


Adjudication:


The advertisers said the frequency of 73 buses had been reduced but
said the new service with articulated "bendy" buses had significantly
increased the capacity of the route during peak hours. They asserted
that, during the height of the peak period, bendy buses provided about
25% extra capacity compared with the Routemaster buses they had
replaced. The advertisers argued that that was particularly important
along some parts of the route, such as the Essex Road corridor in
Islington; they said more passengers were now able to board the first
bus that arrived at their stop during rush hours, rather than being
forced to wait for another bus because the first was full. The
advertisers said modern buses were more environmentally friendly
because they used greener fuels and were more fuel-efficient. They also
maintained that bendy buses were safer than Routemasters.

1. Complaint upheld
The advertisers maintained that the internal design of the buses and
the fact that there were three doors meant the bendy buses spent less
time at each bus stop than double decker buses with a single crew
member, which would have been the alternative replacement for the
Routemasters. The advertisers also pointed out that bendy buses were
fully accessible to the disabled, the elderly and those with young
children, shopping or luggage. They confirmed that the 73 was one of
the most heavily-used services on London''s bus network and said
accessibility was therefore paramount. The advertisers emphasized there
was a distinction between "dwell time", which they defined as the time
between the wheels stopping and moving again, and "boarding time",
which they defined as the time during which people were passing through
the doors of the bus. They sent extracts from a report on the dwell
time and time taken by passengers to board and alight from Routemasters
and bendy buses, which showed that the time taken for passengers to
pass through the doors of bendy buses was equal or shorter to the time
taken on Routemasters; the report also showed that bendy buses had a
shorter dwell time than Routemasters if 10 or more passengers boarded
but a longer dwell time than Routemasters when fewer than 10 passengers
boarded. The advertisers explained that dwell time for bendy buses was
longer than for Routemasters when few passengers were boarding because
passengers had to wait for the floors of bendy buses to be lowered
before they could begin boarding and, after the last passengers had
boarded or left the bus, the driver had to check that the bus was ready
to depart; those stages were not necessary on Routemaster buses.

Although it acknowledged that the advertisers had justified the claim
on the technical definition of boarding time, the Authority considered
that, from a consumer point of view, "faster boarding" would mean the
bendy buses spent less time waiting at bus stops to allow passengers to
get on and off. The Authority noted that, in certain circumstances, the
bendy buses had a longer dwell time than the Routemasters they
replaced. It concluded that the claim was misleading and told the
advertisers not to repeat it.

2. Complaint not upheld
The advertisers sent information about the seated and standing capacity
for bendy buses and Routemasters.

The Authority noted the bendy buses carried more passengers than the
Routemasters and offered fewer seats on each bus. It also noted the
claim was qualified in leaflet (b), which stated "Bendy Buses are
designed to offer you greater comfort, with climate control and
enhanced security with CCTV. The buses are low floor which means that
they are accessible for everyone". The Authority considered that the
advertisers had shown bendy buses offered more space than the buses
they replaced. It considered that "extra ... comfort" was a subjective
claim and concluded that it was acceptable under the Code as a
statement of the advertisers'' opinion. It did not object to the claim.

3. Complaint upheld
The advertisers responded to complainants'' concerns that the bendy
buses were less customer-friendly because they lacked a conductor. They
said conductors were not a feature of any modern bus and argued, in any
case, that there was no reduction in the levels of customer service
available. The advertisers said questions about the route that might
have been addressed to the conductor on a Routemaster were answered by
diagrams inside the bendy buses; they said relevant information on
fares and boarding was available at all stops on the 73 route, as well
as in leaflets, the press, and via face-to-face contact with bus staff.
The advertisers also said ticket inspectors along the route had been
given customer service training and added that bendy bus drivers were
provided with an on-board public announcement system that they were
encouraged to use to keep passengers informed.

The Authority considered that readers were likely to infer that the
claim "Getting better from every angle" was based on the three
subheading claims accompanying it on advertisements (a), (b), (c) and
(d): "Faster boarding - three door entry", "Pay before you board" and
"Extra space and comfort". Because it considered that the claim "Faster
boarding" was misleading, it considered that the advertisers had not
justified the claim "Getting better from every angle". It told the
advertisers not to repeat the claim.

On 12 May 2005 07:23:30 -0700, wrote:

1. "Faster boarding ...", because they believed most passengers had to
board through the front door and because increased numbers of standing
passengers near the doors of the bus made it difficult for others,
especially those in wheelchairs, to board and alight from the bendy
buses;

Not my experience, except when the bus is full. The difference, of
course, is that it can crush-load while a Routemaster would leave
people standing. If they *are* crush-loading all the time (which
looks to be the case), the simple answer is that there are not enough
of them.

IMX, few people board at the front - most at the centre and rear -
very similar to my experience in Germany. Indeed, the ability to do
so has resulted in people boarding double-deckers at the rear, with
associated delays to those...

The advertisers also said ticket inspectors along the route had been
given customer service training and added that bendy bus drivers were
provided with an on-board public announcement system that they were
encouraged to use to keep passengers informed.

It would be nice if it was used to announce the next stop - I've only
heard this done once. It would also have been better if TfL had moved
on from their archaic insistence on the use of roller blinds, when the
rest of the country has moved onto the vastly superior LED technology,
and installed an integrated passenger information system with internal
LEDs showing next stop and route information.

The technology exists, and has done for *many* years. It's not even
that expensive, and it is well-proven.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

If route masters can't crush load, doesnt that mean they are better,
because the people inside arent crush loaded?

Good. So when do we get to set fire to all the bendy buses and bring
back the routemasters?

On 12 May 2005 15:05:39 -0700, "lonelytraveller"
wrote:

If route masters can't crush load, doesnt that mean they are better,
because the people inside arent crush loaded?

No, because the passengers who aren't crush-loaded during the height
of the peak are instead left behind, assuming the same general
capacity is provided.

(I know one argument is that said capacity is *not* being provided,
but it isn't a pro- or anti-bendy argument, just one that TfL is not
providing enough buses/drivers on a given route).

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 20:59:24 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:
It would be nice if it was used to announce the next stop - I've only
heard this done once. It would also have been better if TfL had moved
on from their archaic insistence on the use of roller blinds, when the
rest of the country has moved onto the vastly superior LED technology,
and installed an integrated passenger information system with internal
LEDs showing next stop and route information.

Next stop announcements, if done sensibly (just the name, not the rest
of the doors opening/closing nonsense, which if required should IMO be
distinct tones common across all transport modes) would be excellent,
I agree. LEDs are vastly easier for the operator... are they better
for the user? TfL probably believes not, and I think they have a
point where main intermediate stops are listed. Of course, displays
inside the bus could be provided whatever the technology on the front.

Richard.

lonelytraveller wrote:
If route masters can't crush load, doesnt that mean they are better,
because the people inside arent crush loaded?

The other (newish) double deckers seem to crush load downstairs whilst
upstairs is empty (people too lazy to walk up the stairs). Based on
this the bendys are better because there is no wasted upstairs

Neil Williams:
It would also have been better if TfL had moved on from their
archaic insistence on the use of roller blinds, when the rest
of the country has moved onto the vastly superior LED technology...

Vastly?

Yes, an LED display is programmable and therefore wins on cost and
flexibility when it has to be changed. And multiple displays on
the same bus or train can all be made to change at once. But the
roller blind still wins hands down in terms of legibility, it seems
to me, and that's worth quite a bit.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Common sense isn't any more common on Usenet
| than it is anywhere else." --Henry Spencer

Neil Williams:
It would also have been better if TfL had moved on from their
archaic insistence on the use of roller blinds, when the rest
of the country has moved onto the vastly superior LED technology...

Vastly?

Yes, an LED display is programmable and therefore wins on cost and
flexibility when it has to be changed. And multiple displays on
the same bus or train can all be made to change at once. But the
roller blind still wins hands down in terms of legibility, it seems
to me, and that's worth quite a bit.

I agree. An LED display would have to be *very* high resolution to
even approach the legibility of a blind.

On Fri, 13 May 2005 00:19:25 -0000, (Mark Brader) wrote:

Yes, an LED display is programmable and therefore wins on cost and
flexibility when it has to be changed. And multiple displays on
the same bus or train can all be made to change at once. But the
roller blind still wins hands down in terms of legibility, it seems
to me, and that's worth quite a bit.

I disagree - I find LEDs (as distinct from flipdot displays) far
easier to read from a distance than blinds due to the very high
contrast. Because they are operationally easier, as well, it is more
likely that they will be set correctly, which given that nobody is
pefect is a significant benefit.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.