Theres been the usual talking heads and waffle on local radio and in
the papers about getting rid of bendy buses again after another one
caught fire. Flammability aside I rather like them. They hoover up the
passengers , theres usual plenty of room , boarding is easy , they
have a nice ride and at the front are rather quiet.

A better question would be - who the hell thought double deckers were
ever a good idea? Apart from taking up less roadspace do they have a
single redeeming feature? They're difficult to board , cramped
inside , the stairs are a nightmare especially if the driver moves off
before you've finished climbing them and 2 people toppled onto you.
The top deck half the time is full of scowling youths at the back, its
low , hot in the sun and sways around a lot and you're always at risk
from a braindead driver and low bridge/tree combination. I can't stand
them.

B2003

On 3 Oct, 09:56, Boltar wrote:
Theres been the usual talking heads and waffle on local radio and in
the papers about getting rid of bendy buses again after another one
caught fire. Flammability aside I rather like them. They hoover up the
passengers , theres usual plenty of room , boarding is easy , they
have a nice ride and at the front are rather quiet.

A better question would be - who the hell thought double deckers were
ever a good idea? Apart from taking up less roadspace do they have a
single redeeming feature? They're difficult to board , cramped
inside , the stairs are a nightmare especially if the driver moves off
before you've finished climbing them and 2 people toppled onto you.
The top deck half the time is full of scowling youths at the back, its
low , hot in the sun and sways around a lot and you're always at risk
from a braindead driver and low bridge/tree combination. I can't stand
them.

B2003

I think bendy buses are WRONG in every way, but I have actually met
one person who likes them.

I like them too. For high frequency routes to areas badly served by
the tube - 38, 73, 453 - they're very handy.



On Oct 3, 9:56 am, Boltar wrote:
Theres been the usual talking heads and waffle on local radio and in
the papers about getting rid of bendy buses again after another one
caught fire. Flammability aside I rather like them. They hoover up the
passengers , theres usual plenty of room , boarding is easy , they
have a nice ride and at the front are rather quiet.

A better question would be - who the hell thought double deckers were
ever a good idea? Apart from taking up less roadspace do they have a
single redeeming feature? They're difficult to board , cramped
inside , the stairs are a nightmare especially if the driver moves off
before you've finished climbing them and 2 people toppled onto you.
The top deck half the time is full of scowling youths at the back, its
low , hot in the sun and sways around a lot and you're always at risk
from a braindead driver and low bridge/tree combination. I can't stand
them.

B2003

No, you're not the only person.

A lot of pickpockets, fare-evaders, illegal immigants and other anti-
social scum, from all sections of London's "communities" (including
good 'ole indigenous chav - albeit with a perfected Jamaican accent)
love them too.

Doesn't leave much room for the ordinary decent fare-paying passenger
though...

On Oct 3, 10:37 am, MIG wrote:

I think bendy buses are WRONG in every way, but I have actually met
one person who likes them

Ok , so what exactly is wrong with them?

B2003

On Oct 3, 10:54 am, wrote:
No, you're not the only person.

A lot of pickpockets, fare-evaders, illegal immigants and other anti-
social scum, from all sections of London's "communities" (including
good 'ole indigenous chav - albeit with a perfected Jamaican accent)
love them too.

You mean the ones left over after the rest of their mates have gone to
sit on the top deck of a double decker smoking spliffs and idley
playing with flick knives?

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 3, 10:37 am, MIG wrote:

I think bendy buses are WRONG in every way, but I have actually met
one person who likes them

Ok , so what exactly is wrong with them?

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

It can't be just because they are bendy, can it?

tim

On 3 Oct, 12:25, "tim....." wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 3, 10:37 am, MIG wrote:

I think bendy buses are WRONG in every way, but I have actually met
one person who likes them

Ok , so what exactly is wrong with them?

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

It can't be just because they are bendy, can it?

tim


They may be ideal for airport transit in open spaces, but not for the
streets of London.

In general, buses could be a slower but more pleasant alternative to
the Underground, instead of which the slower alternative now has the
ambience of the Underground (standing in a long thing).

But more specifically

1) I almost always have to stand if I use them, because they have less
seats.

2) They add to the many hazards I face when cycling.

3) The constantly block pedestrian crossings.

4) They can't legally move into yellow box junctions that have less
than 18 m of space beyond, thereby holding up a queue of smaller
vehicles that could have done (or more likely just blocking it
anyway).

and any other bleedin obvious reasons why 18 m vehicles might not be
appropriate for the winding narrow streets of an old city.

Boltar wrote:
Theres been the usual talking heads and waffle on local radio and in
the papers about getting rid of bendy buses again after another one
caught fire. Flammability aside I rather like them. They hoover up the
passengers , theres usual plenty of room , boarding is easy , they
have a nice ride and at the front are rather quiet.

A better question would be - who the hell thought double deckers were
ever a good idea? Apart from taking up less roadspace do they have a
single redeeming feature? They're difficult to board , cramped
inside , the stairs are a nightmare especially if the driver moves off
before you've finished climbing them and 2 people toppled onto you.
The top deck half the time is full of scowling youths at the back, its
low , hot in the sun and sways around a lot and you're always at risk
from a braindead driver and low bridge/tree combination. I can't stand
them.


I think they're ok too, don't see the problem except perhaps their
reputation as 'free buses'.

The modern double deckers are fine, the routemasters on the other hand
were too cramped to be comfortable

"MIG" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 3 Oct, 12:25, "tim....." wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 3, 10:37 am, MIG wrote:

I think bendy buses are WRONG in every way, but I have actually met
one person who likes them

Ok , so what exactly is wrong with them?

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

It can't be just because they are bendy, can it?

tim


They may be ideal for airport transit in open spaces, but not for the
streets of London.

In general, buses could be a slower but more pleasant alternative to
the Underground, instead of which the slower alternative now has the
ambience of the Underground (standing in a long thing).

But more specifically

1) I almost always have to stand if I use them, because they have less
seats.

2) They add to the many hazards I face when cycling.

3) The constantly block pedestrian crossings.

4) They can't legally move into yellow box junctions that have less
than 18 m of space beyond, thereby holding up a queue of smaller
vehicles that could have done (or more likely just blocking it
anyway).

and any other bleedin obvious reasons why 18 m vehicles might not be
appropriate for the winding narrow streets of an old city.

Ah, so most of the people that you know who don't like them
are other road users and not passengers.

That is clear now.

tim