Mait001 writes
So why bother posting at all if you are completely and utterly ignorant
of the facts?

To elicit informative reples.

Information that had a previously been supplied which you hadn't
bothered to read properly.

Dave, point me to exactly where you quoted chapter and verse as to which buses
would be banned and which would not.



"DDA rules [1] would mean (unless some specific exemption was granted)
that the remaining Routemasters would have to be retired by 2017 at the
very latest."

[1] The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/s...0/20003318.htm

There you are. No mention of all double-deck vehicles there - and a
link to the relevant regulations for you to inspect them yourself.

In any case, for whatever reason, I did not see it: do you really think I would
write what I did if I DID know the precise regulations.

So firstly you say; "I was responding to an earlier posting which did
suggest DDA or whatever would mean the Routemaster would have to end
service by 2017." But now you want to change your story and claim that
you never read it in the first place.

So, again, why not crucify me for asking the question in the way I did?

Firstly, I didn't 'crucify' you. Stop making yourself out to be a some
kind of martyr. I merely advised you that "perhaps you ought to
research some facts before posting in future". Not an unreasonable
thing to say in the circumstances - certainly not anything that can be
construed as crucifying you.

Then let's have a look at what you were saying; that the disabled lobby
"have a lost [sic] to answer for" as you erroneously decided they were
responsible "for making single-deck buses compulsory by 2017".

You made a stupid, inflammatory and downright insulting statement,
simply because you couldn't be arsed to read something correctly or
bother to check your facts. You have exposed your ignorance and
stupidity and now are lashing out in order to try and wriggle out of it
by claiming to be hard done by. That just won't wash. Grow up.

--
Dave

Mait001 writes
"DDA rules [1] would mean (unless some specific exemption was granted)
that the remaining Routemasters would have to be retired by 2017 at the
very latest."

[1] The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/s...0/20003318.htm

There you are. No mention of all double-deck vehicles there - and a
link to the relevant regulations for you to inspect them yourself.

Okay, I confess that I did not read the link to the regulations. Routemasters
are (or were, the last time I saw them) "double-deck vehicles", so what is the
point you are trying to make?

Routemasters are not wheelchair accessible. Many other double-deckers
are. Or hadn't you noticed?

If I had meant *all* double-deck vehicles, I would have said so. As I
said Routemasters, I *meant* Routemasters. It's quite simple really.

because you couldn't be arsed

Nice turn of phrase: are you a diplomat or lawyer, Dave?

Does the truth hurt?

If it walks like a duck, etc...

You made a stupid, inflammatory and downright insulting statement,

Actually, I do remember reading one newspaper article, a year or two ago,
stating that the disabled lobby were suggesting that double-deck vehicles were
discriminatory since the disabled could not access the upper deck. I did not
make up the article or suggestion behind it, so, it was not entirely ridiculous
of me to think (as I did) that someone in government or the E.U. had actually
legislated in that way.

Of course it was ridiculous to think so. Do you not think it would have
become a hot topic here? Two or three minutes of reading the link
posted would have confirmed that not to be the case.

You have exposed your ignorance and stupidity

Mea culpa: but at least I have the grace to admit my error:

Only after bleating on about being crucified and other similar nonsense.

Dave do you ever err and if you do, are you as graceless as you are
when pointing out someone else's error?

If I make a mistake, I try to correct it as soon as possible and admit
it. However, I tend not to make the kind of stupid statement that you
didn't as I take the time to try and check facts wherever I can. You'd
be amazed how useful Google can be.

--
Dave

[1] The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/s...0/20003318.htm

There you are. No mention of all double-deck vehicles there - and a
link to the relevant regulations for you to inspect them yourself.

Dave,

Your link does not go to The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations
2000 in any event, it goes to a piece of amending secondary legislation, making
a few very minor amendments to the 2000 Regulations. But the link you have
provided says nothing whatsoever about double deck buses or otherwise (but,
having then found SI 1970 of 2000, which is what your link should have
specified) I agree that subject to correct certification, double-deckers will
not be banned from 2017.

There is also an interesting clause that allows vehicles which were first used
more than 20 years before the enactment (e.g. Routemasters) to continue in
service, but only if they are used in scheduled service for fewer than 21 days
a year!


because you couldn't be arsed

Nice turn of phrase: are you a diplomat or lawyer, Dave?

Does the truth hurt?

If it walks like a duck, etc...

I really have no idea what you are writing about, Dave.Of course it was
ridiculous to think so. Do you not think it would have
become a hot topic here? Two or three minutes of reading the link
posted would have confirmed that not to be the case.

Not really, since as I have already stated, your link was false.

You have exposed your ignorance and stupidity

Mea culpa: but at least I have the grace to admit my error:

Only after bleating on about being crucified and other similar nonsense.

Wrong: I had ALREADY admitted my error before you continued with your "arsed"
comments etc.


I tend not to make the kind of stupid statement that you
didn't

"didn't" - I think you must mean "did".

If I make a mistake, I try to correct it as soon as possible and admit
it. However, I tend not to make the kind of stupid statement that you
didn't as I take the time to try and check facts wherever I can.

Again, sorry, I didn't realise I was having an audience with God.

Marc.

Mait001 writes
[1] The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/s...0/20003318.htm

There you are. No mention of all double-deck vehicles there - and a
link to the relevant regulations for you to inspect them yourself.

Your link does not go to The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations
2000 in any event, it goes to a piece of amending secondary legislation, making
a few very minor amendments to the 2000 Regulations.

Indeed. But true to my word I apologise for the error and post the
correct link http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/s...0/20001970.htm -
which was also referenced from the page that you first visited.

(There were indeed two sets of regulations on that year, and I read them
both to ensure what I said was correct - and merely saved the wrong
link.)

I agree that subject to correct certification, double-deckers will
not be banned from 2017.

Jolly good.

Nice turn of phrase: are you a diplomat or lawyer, Dave?

Does the truth hurt?

If it walks like a duck, etc...

I really have no idea what you are writing about, Dave.

Is English not your first language? If it isn't then I apologise for
making certain assumptions - if it is then you must be a bit dim. I
can't believe that a native English speaker will be unaware of that
saying.

Not really, since as I have already stated, your link was false.

False? That's *very* strong language which implies that I intended to
deceive. Are you prepared to back-up that statement? Or are you just
feeling hard-done by still and making accusations as some pathetic
half-arsed attempt at 'getting your own back'.

You have exposed your ignorance and stupidity

Mea culpa: but at least I have the grace to admit my error:

Only after bleating on about being crucified and other similar nonsense.

Wrong: I had ALREADY admitted my error before you continued with your "arsed"
comments etc.

No need to shout, there's a good chap. You've been bleating on and on
and on about this for quite a while now. If you hadn't carried on
whinging, then the thread would not have lasted this long. But there
you go, the longer you try to obfuscate the issue by acting like a
spoilt child - the longer this is going to continue. The sooner you
shut-up about it, the sooner people will forget your original foolish
comment.

I tend not to make the kind of stupid statement that you
didn't

"didn't" - I think you must mean "did".

If I make a mistake, I try to correct it as soon as possible and admit
it. However, I tend not to make the kind of stupid statement that you
didn't as I take the time to try and check facts wherever I can.

Again, sorry, I didn't realise I was having an audience with God.

Oh do remove your sanctimonious head from up your self-righteous arse.

--
Dave

Mait001 writes
Maybe I am a bit dim, but I'd rather be called dim than rude.

That's your prerogative. Whether or not you consider me to be rude is
unimportant to me.

Remember my original response was not rude at all - it you hadn't
decided to have a hissy-fit then perhaps there would have been no
rudeness at all.

I normally get paid thousands for doing this during the working day.

For being a fool? That was lucky for you.

--
Dave

Maybe I am a bit dim, but I'd rather be called dim than rude.

That's your prerogative.

Thank you.

Whether or not you consider me to be rude is
unimportant to me.

Likewise.

Remember my original response was not rude at all

If you say so, but that is not my recollection.

I normally get paid thousands for doing this during the working day.

For being a fool? That was lucky for you.

Not quite as lucky, some may say, as "meeting" your delightful self in this
forum, and the highly civilised level of discussion with which you have
rewarded me.

Marc.

Mait001 writes
Remember my original response was not rude at all

If you say so, but that is not my recollection.

So what *is* rude about; "They are not. Perhaps you ought to research
some facts before posting in future."

--
Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mait001 writes
Remember my original response was not rude at all

If you say so, but that is not my recollection.

So what *is* rude about; "They are not. Perhaps you ought to research
some facts before posting in future."

FU set to uk.transport.london.pointless.bitching