|
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
"I am informed that, thankfully, there have been no fatal accidents
arising from collisions between cyclists and articulated buses in London since the introduction of articulated vehicles." "Serious incidents are defined by TfL as those where a cyclist may have required treatment, including in hospital. There was one serious incident involving a cyclist in each of the years 2005/06 and 2006/07, and two in 2007/08." http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/as...en_answers.pdf In other words, the data collated by TfL and accepted by the mayor clearly shows that bendy buses are not dangerous for cyclists. However, in another demonstration that "being right-wing" and "paying any attention, ever, to any evidence about anything" are mutually exclusive, the mayor is continuing to describe bendy buses as "the scourge of the cyclist" and to press on with his half-witted abolition plans. Thanks again, 4x4-wielding suburbanites and people who think that 'being funny on a game show' is a qualification for public office. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 21, 12:25*pm, John B wrote:
"I am informed that, thankfully, there have been no fatal accidents arising from collisions between cyclists and articulated buses in London since the introduction of articulated vehicles." "Serious incidents are defined by TfL as those where a cyclist may have required treatment, including in hospital. There was one serious incident involving a cyclist in each of the years 2005/06 and 2006/07, and two in 2007/08." http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/as...15/minutes/wri... ....etc. Sorry, forgot to hat-tip Adam Bienkov (http:// torytroll.blogspot.com/2008/10/boriss-bendy-bus-jihad- doublethink.html) -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 21, 12:25*pm, John B wrote:
"I am informed that, thankfully, there have been no fatal accidents arising from collisions between cyclists and articulated buses in London since the introduction of articulated vehicles." "Serious incidents are defined by TfL as those where a cyclist may have required treatment, including in hospital. There was one serious incident involving a cyclist in each of the years 2005/06 and 2006/07, and two in 2007/08." http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/as...15/minutes/wri... In other words, the data collated by TfL and accepted by the mayor clearly shows that bendy buses are not dangerous for cyclists. However, in another demonstration that "being right-wing" and "paying any attention, ever, to any evidence about anything" are mutually exclusive, the mayor is continuing to describe bendy buses as "the scourge of the cyclist" and to press on with his half-witted abolition plans. Thanks again, 4x4-wielding suburbanites and people who think that 'being funny on a game show' is a qualification for public office. I am sure that Boris is not qualified to pronounce on whether any kind of vehicle is safe. Are you sure that collisions between cyclists and bendy buses are the relevant issue? It would be interesting (if such things are recorded) to know how many more collisions with other vehicles there are when trying to get past bendy buses, how many people were injured trying to cross the road when a crossing was blocked by a bendy bus etc etc. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
John B wrote:
Thanks again, 4x4-wielding suburbanites Ah the myth that bendies are only hated by car drivers. When campaigning for Boris in areas served by bendies I found this policy to be very popular amongst people who have to use them. and people who think that 'being funny on a game show' is a qualification for public office. It's called democracy. If the people of London didn't want Boris as their Mayor he wouldn't have been voted into office. And if all Boris had ever done was "be funny on a game show" he would never have got anywhere, let alone into Parliament then the nomination and finally the office. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
MIG wrote:
I am sure that Boris is not qualified to pronounce on whether any kind of vehicle is safe. I'm not sure he's qualified to tell us what day it is, on this evidence. Are you sure that collisions between cyclists and bendy buses are the relevant issue? Well, Boris claimed last year that 'they wipe out cyclists, there are many cyclists killed every year by them.', so it's relevant to the question 'is Boris Johnson a competent man to chair TfL and direct London's transport policy?'. Either he lied or someone lied to him and he didn't check. Since there are previous examples of him doing both those things I'm not sure which applies here, but it's one of them. It would be interesting (if such things are recorded) to know how many more collisions with other vehicles there are when trying to get past bendy buses, how many people were injured trying to cross the road when a crossing was blocked by a bendy bus etc etc. The figures released in February showed that *when compared to non-artic buses on similar routes* (a distinction lost on the Boris campaign who claimed they had 'twice as many collisions' but compared them to London buses in general, which is invalid since bendies operate only on high density routes on busy roads) they were about the same in terms of accidents per million miles operated. Of course, cycling has increased massively over the last few years in London, bendy bus mileage has increased from zero to whatever it is now and road accident fatalities are sharply down, from which you can concluded that whatever contribution bendies make to accident rates is dwarfed by other factors. Therefore spending massive sums of money (£60m annually) to replace them is actually dangerous, considering that it's then money that couldn't be spent on, say, schemes to improve safety. Not that Boris has shown any interest in spending money to improve road safety, quite the reverse, which is a separate but related issue. There isn't really a way to spin this in Boris's favour from here, a lot of people have clearly been taken for a ride by a cynical propaganda campaign led by the 'thinktank' Policy Exchange, which has connections to Cold War-era US propagandists. Bit beneath them to drum up a campaign merely on buses, but you've got to keep your hand in, I suppose. Tom |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 21, 9:26*pm, Tom Barry wrote:
MIG wrote: I am sure that Boris is not qualified to pronounce on whether any kind of vehicle is safe. I'm not sure he's qualified to tell us what day it is, on this evidence. Are you sure that collisions between cyclists and bendy buses are the relevant issue? Well, Boris claimed last year that 'they wipe out cyclists, there are many cyclists killed every year by them.', so it's relevant to the question 'is Boris Johnson a competent man to chair TfL and direct London's transport policy?'. *Either he lied or someone lied to him and he didn't check. *Since there are previous examples of him doing both those things I'm not sure which applies here, but it's one of them. It would be interesting (if such things are recorded) to know how many more collisions with other vehicles there are when trying to get past bendy buses, how many people were injured trying to cross the road when a crossing was blocked by a bendy bus etc etc. The figures released in February showed that *when compared to non-artic buses on similar routes* (a distinction lost on the Boris campaign who claimed they had 'twice as many collisions' but compared them to London buses in general, which is invalid since bendies operate only on high density routes on busy roads) they were about the same in terms of accidents per million miles operated. *Of course, cycling has increased massively over the last few years in London, bendy bus mileage has increased from zero to whatever it is now and road accident fatalities are sharply down, from which you can concluded that whatever contribution bendies make to accident rates is dwarfed by other factors. * Therefore spending massive sums of money (£60m annually) to replace them is actually dangerous, considering that it's then money that couldn't be spent on, say, schemes to improve safety. *Not that Boris has shown any interest in spending money to improve road safety, quite the reverse, which is a separate but related issue. There isn't really a way to spin this in Boris's favour from here, a lot of people have clearly been taken for a ride by a cynical propaganda campaign led by the 'thinktank' Policy Exchange, which has connections to Cold War-era US propagandists. *Bit beneath them to drum up a campaign merely on buses, but you've got to keep your hand in, I suppose. I think you'll find that those of us who hate bendy buses hated them long before Boris or any Tories ever mentioned them. However, I hate Tory transport non-policy a lot more, and I wouldn't suggest scrapping existing buses before their normal life expectancy. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, John B wrote:
However, in another demonstration that "being right-wing" and "paying any attention, ever, to any evidence about anything" are mutually exclusive, the mayor is continuing to describe bendy buses as "the scourge of the cyclist" Funny you should point out that correlation - i was amused by the comment of one Mr Stephen Green in this entirely separate story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm Thanks again, 4x4-wielding suburbanites and people who think that 'being funny on a game show' is a qualification for public office. Democracy! tom -- No Hype Just Science |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Tom Barry wrote:
MIG wrote: It would be interesting (if such things are recorded) to know how many more collisions with other vehicles there are when trying to get past bendy buses, how many people were injured trying to cross the road when a crossing was blocked by a bendy bus etc etc. The figures released in February showed that *when compared to non-artic buses on similar routes* (a distinction lost on the Boris campaign who claimed they had 'twice as many collisions' but compared them to London buses in general, which is invalid since bendies operate only on high density routes on busy roads) they were about the same in terms of accidents per million miles operated. I seem to recall that they were about a third lower than the non-bendies, actually. This could easily be within the margin of error, however. tom -- No Hype Just Science |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 21, 7:10*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote: Thanks again, 4x4-wielding suburbanites Ah the myth that bendies are only hated by car drivers. When campaigning for Boris in areas served by bendies I found this policy to be very popular amongst people who have to use them. I'm deeply sceptical, although it's possible that the people you spoke to were idiots. In real life, bendies provide a much better service than other buses on a given route. and people who think that 'being funny on a game show' is a qualification for public office. It's called democracy. If the people of London didn't want Boris as their Mayor he wouldn't have been voted into office. The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted for Ken. And if all Boris had ever done was "be funny on a game show" he would never have got anywhere, let alone into Parliament then the nomination and finally the office. You have a bizarrely misplaced faith in the processes governing the acquisition of political office by the sons of extremely wealthy and successful people. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 12:23*am, wrote:
"Serious incidents are defined by TfL as those where a cyclist may have required treatment, including in hospital. There was one serious incident involving a cyclist in each of the years 2005/06 and 2006/07, and two in 2007/08." http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/as...t15/minutes/wr itten_answers.pdf In other words, the data collated by TfL and accepted by the mayor clearly shows that bendy buses are not dangerous for cyclists. Those figures read dangerous to me. How many bendies are there and how many accidents involving other buses are there, and how many of them are there? Hmm. There were 819 serious cyclist accidents in 07/08, so bendies are responsible for a whopping 0.25% of the total. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...les/article.do Breaking accident rates down into bendies versus regular buses doesn't really make sense, as a) the figures are so low they'll be massively skewed by noise and b) bendies are used on the busiest routes in the centre of town. I hate bendies because they are just too long to mix with other traffic. Based on what evidence? -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 22 Oct, 00:08, John B wrote:
I'm deeply sceptical, although it's possible that the people you spoke to were idiots. In real life, bendies provide a much better service than other buses on a given route. He did say they "weren't very popular". What he didn't say was whether those same people thought replacing them with normal double deckers would fix anything. U |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 12:38*am, Mr Thant
wrote: I'm deeply sceptical, although it's possible that the people you spoke to were idiots. In real life, bendies provide a much better service than other buses on a given route. He did say they "weren't very popular". What he didn't say was whether those same people thought replacing them with normal double deckers would fix anything. Fair point, although 'popular' only has any relevance at all when compared to plausible alternatives (so if bendies weren't very popular compared to, say, gold-plated Rolls-Royces, or double deckers that weren't rammed so full you'd need to wait for three to pass before you could get on one, then that's entirely irrelevant). I lived in Finsbury Park when the 29 got bendified. It went from being a route where you'd have two or more double deckers go past you in the morning too full to stop, to a bus which - although always well- loaded, and relatively rarely endowed with many seats - you could still always get on. Compared to that fact, none of the other criteria matter in the slightest. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 22 Oct, 00:47, John B wrote:
Fair point, although 'popular' only has any relevance at all when compared to plausible alternatives Well the comparison point is the non-bendy routes that people use, which generally are more pleasant. The mistake is to think that the bendy routes would suddenly be more pleasant if only they were converted to double decker, which as you say, is not the case. U |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
|
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 1:13*am, wrote:
In article , (John B) wrote: I hate bendies because they are just too long to mix with other traffic. Based on what evidence? Trying to get along Euston Road from King's Cross station to turn left into Judd Street before and after the 73 became a bendy route. Observation of the Cambridge Circus junction. And experience of a whole load of other blocked junctions, blocked crossings and uncomfortable journeys. I don't understand why people's dislike, based on personal experience, requires statistical evidence (any more than my dislike of brussels sprouts requires statistical evidence) or should be bizarrely dismissed as the product some kind of dodgy campaign. (No doubt if Boris ever mentions Pendolinos, it will retrospectively explain my hatred of them from the first time I travelled in one.) |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 8:20*am, MIG wrote:
On Oct 22, 1:13*am, wrote: In article , (John B) wrote: I hate bendies because they are just too long to mix with other traffic. Based on what evidence? Trying to get along Euston Road from King's Cross station to turn left into Judd Street before and after the 73 became a bendy route. Observation of the Cambridge Circus junction. And experience of a whole load of other blocked junctions, blocked crossings and uncomfortable journeys. Its a fair point, but how is that going to improve when they have to run 40% more buses to get even vaguely the same capacity on the routes? Well the comparison point is the non-bendy routes that people use, which generally are more pleasant. The mistake is to think that the bendy routes would suddenly be more pleasant if only they were converted to double decker, which as you say, is not the case. This to me is the pertinent point that always seems to get lost in the noise of the London Rags. The majority of REGULAR commuters who use the bendy routes (a group that includes my Missus who uses the 38) are, in my experience, more than happy with them and dreading the inevitable change. They may not be perfect but they are decidedly better than the full double deckers that used to thunder past the bus stops. Obviously the plural of "anecdote" is not "data" but, as the last Travelwatch piece on the matter pointed out, actually speaking to those who use the services regularly wouldn't be a bad place to start if you're trying to get a fair assessment of their success (or failure). Quite frankly I tend to find (not here, but in general) that a lot of the criticism the bendies get comes from people who've never even been on one (let alone used them regularly), and whose vision of how London buses should be involves Butler driving a Routemaster with Blakey hanging off the back. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
wrote:
In article Those figures read dangerous to me. How many bendies are there and how many accidents involving other buses are there, and how many of them are there? 339 in intensive daily service, many 24 hours a day, so as John points out, given the tiny number of serious incidents there's a large margin for error - one cyclist killed by a bendy tomorrow would skew the figures enormously, which in itself suggest they aren't dangerous. The death toll of cyclists rose last year to 19, incidentally. Lorries seem to be the big killers. According to TfL: "Every year, more than half of all cyclist deaths on London's roads follow a collision with a goods vehicle." "In 2006, nine of the 19 cyclists who died on London's roads were involved in a collision with a goods vehicle. Provisional data from the Metropolitan Police Service for 2007 indicates that nine out of the 16 cyclists who died on London's roads last year were involved in a collision with a goods vehicle." http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...hive/7695.aspx Which is more dangerous, a type of vehicle that kills nearly ten cyclists a year or one that hasn't killed anyone in six years? The bendy replacement plans currently available*, apart from being expensive, result in far more buses on the street. I don't think the figures of accidents per million miles are adjusted for bus capacity, in which case the replacements are actually likely to have more accidents purely because of the increased mileage (along with using more fuel and employing more drivers and generally costing more to operate). The main point is still 'who told Boris they squished cyclists, or did he just make it up?'. Tom * 3 for 2 replacement with 12m single deckers on the 507/521 Red Arrows, 7 for 5 replacement with double deckers on the 38. One of the Red Arrow routes would have something insane like a bus timetabled every 120 seconds to keep capacity up. I'm half-convinced they're drawing up the plans to show Boris his ideas are wrong, in a Serpell Report kind of way. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 22 Oct, 10:56, Tom Barry wrote:
wrote: In article Those figures read dangerous to me. How many bendies are there and how many accidents involving other buses are there, and how many of them are there? 339 in intensive daily service, many 24 hours a day, so as John points out, given the tiny number of serious incidents there's a large margin for error - one cyclist killed by a bendy tomorrow would skew the figures enormously, which in itself suggest they aren't dangerous. The death toll of cyclists rose last year to 19, incidentally. *Lorries seem to be the big killers. *According to TfL: "Every year, more than half of all cyclist deaths on London's roads follow a collision with a goods vehicle." "In 2006, nine of the 19 cyclists who died on London's roads were involved in a collision with a goods vehicle. Provisional data from the Metropolitan Police Service for 2007 indicates that nine out of the 16 cyclists who died on London's roads last year were involved in a collision with a goods vehicle." http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...hive/7695.aspx Which is more dangerous, a type of vehicle that kills nearly ten cyclists a year or one that hasn't killed anyone in six years? The bendy replacement plans currently available*, apart from being expensive, result in far more buses on the street. *I don't think the figures of accidents per million miles are adjusted for bus capacity, in which case the replacements are actually likely to have more accidents purely because of the increased mileage (along with using more fuel and employing more drivers and generally costing more to operate). The main point is still 'who told Boris they squished cyclists, or did he just make it up?'. The vehicle that collides isn't necessarily the one that caused the collision. Maybe overtaking bendys puts cyclists in the path of lorries. Maybe people who have to walk in the middle of the road when the crossing is blocked by a bendy get hit by a motorbike. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 22 Oct, 10:54, wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:20*am, MIG wrote: On Oct 22, 1:13*am, wrote: In article , (John B) wrote: I hate bendies because they are just too long to mix with other traffic. Based on what evidence? Trying to get along Euston Road from King's Cross station to turn left into Judd Street before and after the 73 became a bendy route. Observation of the Cambridge Circus junction. And experience of a whole load of other blocked junctions, blocked crossings and uncomfortable journeys. Its a fair point, but how is that going to improve when they have to run 40% more buses to get even vaguely the same capacity on the routes? Well the comparison point is the non-bendy routes that people use, which generally are more pleasant. The mistake is to think that the bendy routes would suddenly be more pleasant if only they were converted to double decker, which as you say, is not the case. This to me is the pertinent point that always seems to get lost in the noise of the London Rags. The majority of REGULAR commuters who use the bendy routes (a group that includes my Missus who uses the 38) are, in my experience, more than happy with them and dreading the inevitable change. They may not be perfect but they are decidedly better than the full double deckers that used to thunder past the bus stops. Obviously the plural of "anecdote" is not "data" but, as the last Travelwatch piece on the matter pointed out, actually speaking to those who use the services regularly wouldn't be a bad place to start if you're trying to get a fair assessment of their success (or failure). Quite frankly I tend to find (not here, but in general) that a lot of the criticism the bendies get comes from people who've never even been on one (let alone used them regularly), and whose vision of how London buses should be involves Butler driving a Routemaster with Blakey hanging off the back.- Hide quoted text - Travelling between Trafalgar Square and Camden Town is better on a 24 than on a 29. I know people who let the 29 go in the hope that a 24 will turn up, and I've done so myself at times. Similarly where there is a choice of 36/436 or 53/453 etc. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 12:08 am, John B wrote:
The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted for Ken. Speak for yourself. I live in a london borough and I voted for Boris. I want someone who represents me - a white middle class male - not some borderline corrupt closet commie who's only interested in right- on minority causes. B2003 |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 11:47 am, MIG wrote:
The vehicle that collides isn't necessarily the one that caused the collision. Maybe overtaking bendys puts cyclists in the path of lorries. Maybe people who have to walk in the middle of the road when the crossing is blocked by a bendy get hit by a motorbike. If a cyclist is dumb enough to get wiped out by a bendy bus they'd probably have been squished by an HGV sooner or later anyway. The golden rule of cycling is you do not pass any sort of vehicle on the inside near a left turn. B2003 |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 22 Oct, 12:10, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 22, 11:47 am, MIG wrote: The vehicle that collides isn't necessarily the one that caused the collision. *Maybe overtaking bendys puts cyclists in the path of lorries. *Maybe people who have to walk in the middle of the road when the crossing is blocked by a bendy get hit by a motorbike. If a cyclist is dumb enough to get wiped out by a bendy bus they'd probably have been squished by an HGV sooner or later anyway. The golden rule of cycling is you do not pass any sort of vehicle on the inside near a left turn. B2003 I didn't mention the inside or left turns. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 12:13 pm, MIG wrote:
I didn't mention the inside or left turns. Thats generally where it happens though. If its any sort of other accident then I don't see how the bus being bendy or not would make any difference. B2003 |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 12:07*pm, Boltar wrote:
The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted for Ken. Speak for yourself. I live in a london borough and I voted for Boris. I want someone who represents me - a white middle class male - not some borderline corrupt closet commie who's only interested in right- on minority causes. But (assuming you mean an Inner London, ex-county-of-London borough) you're in a minority - Ken won the majority of votes in Inner London and lost because of the strong Tory contingent in places like Bromley. Did you somehow fail to notice that - like the vast majority of politicians - Ken is, err, a white middle-class male? And I wouldn't personally class the massive focus on transport improvement that was the primary characteristic Ken's time in power (both in the 1980s and the 2000s) as a right-on minority cause. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:08:16PM -0700, John B wrote:
I'm deeply sceptical, although it's possible that the people you spoke to were idiots. In real life, bendies provide a much better service than other buses on a given route. That is, I'm afraid, not true. Route 38 had a better service before it went all bendy. By which I mean there were more seats (which were more comfortable) and a more frequent service, with journey times being about the same. There was also less fare-dodging. The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted for Ken. If what you say was true, then Livingstone wouldn't have got in in the first place. Nor would Labour have won the GLC elections in 1964, 1973, and 1981. He lost because he stood as a Labour party candidate at a time when Labour are deeply unpopular. If he'd stayed as an independent right from the start, he would, I am sure, have done better, maybe even well enough to win. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:36:11PM -0700, John B wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:23=A0am, wrote: I hate bendies because they are just too long to mix with other traffic. Based on what evidence? My evidence would be taking a look at traffic flows at Piccadilly Circus, along the western half of Shaftesbury Avenue, and at the junction of Bloomsbury Street and New Oxford Street. In particular, note the difficulty that bendy buses have actually getting into the junction at Picadilly Circus from Picadilly itself, how much road space they need to turn left from Regent Street onto Picadilly, and how New Oxford Street snarls up because bendy buses turning onto it from Bloomsbury Street so often have the unpalatable choice of either just sitting there and not making the turn, or stopping so as to block the entire junction. Hope that helps. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice Irregular English: ladies glow; gentlemen perspire; brutes, oafs and athletes sweat |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
|
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 12:27*pm, David Cantrell wrote:
I'm deeply sceptical, although it's possible that the people you spoke to were idiots. In real life, bendies provide a much better service than other buses on a given route. That is, I'm afraid, not true. Route 38 had a better service before it went all bendy. *By which I mean there were more seats (which were more comfortable) and a more frequent service, with journey times being about the same. *There was also less fare-dodging. But more standing capacity with bendies, right? Which is the important thing when the issue is bus-you-can-get-on vs bus-you-can't. The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted for Ken. If what you say was true, then Livingstone wouldn't have got in in the first place. *Nor would Labour have won the GLC elections in 1964, 1973, and 1981. Aye, fair; while it's true that Inner London voted for Ken this time round, and that Outer London reliably swings Tory, I do accept it makes more sense for the outer boroughs to be included in the administrative unit. It's kind-of annoying that their vote dictates what happens on issues like bendies and pedestrianisation in the centre, which is of peripheral interest to them at best - but that's democracy, and while democracy is crap we know pretty much every other way of doing things is worse. He lost because he stood as a Labour party candidate at a time when Labour are deeply unpopular. *If he'd stayed as an independent right from the start, he would, I am sure, have done better, maybe even well enough to win. I suspect you're right (although having rejoined for the second election, I don't think he could realistically have left again for the third). By this year, the small-c-conservative-suburban-middle-class had finally returned to their natural Tory habitat... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 12:26 pm, John B wrote:
But (assuming you mean an Inner London, ex-county-of-London borough) you're in a minority - Ken won the majority of votes in Inner London and lost because of the strong Tory contingent in places like Bromley. London is where its currently defined municiple borders end , not at a convenient point for left wingers. If you want just the historical london then you should go back to roman times which would give you the City itself, ironically a truer blue tory area you'll not be likely to find anywhere in the country. Did you somehow fail to notice that - like the vast majority of politicians - Ken is, err, a white middle-class male? And I wouldn't He may well be , but he's of the standard self hating liberal type you find dotted all around the left wing pseudo intellectual arena. personally class the massive focus on transport improvement that was the primary characteristic Ken's time in power (both in the 1980s and the 2000s) as a right-on minority cause. Can't say I noticed. The tube was just as crap as ever and even more expensive when I thankfully could give up using it to commute earlier this year. B2003 |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
John B gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying: Aye, fair; while it's true that Inner London voted for Ken this time round, and that Outer London reliably swings Tory, I do accept it makes more sense for the outer boroughs to be included in the administrative unit. It's kind-of annoying that their vote dictates what happens on issues like bendies and pedestrianisation in the centre, which is of peripheral interest to them at best That presupposes, of course, that those who live in outer London always stay there and never head inside the Circulars, or the Ring Road, or whatever your arbitrary boundary may be... They don't. The vast majority are just as heavily affected - perhaps even more so, when it comes to transport decisions - than those who live more centrally. Many of those who live centrally could easily walk or cycle to work (or for leisure/shopping/etc) should buses & tubes not be available or viable. Those who live further out can't. There's also those of us who live outside the boroughs whilst still being heavily affected by TfL and the GLA, yet get no representation. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 22 Oct, 12:45, John B wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:27*pm, David Cantrell wrote: I'm deeply sceptical, although it's possible that the people you spoke to were idiots. In real life, bendies provide a much better service than other buses on a given route. That is, I'm afraid, not true. Route 38 had a better service before it went all bendy. *By which I mean there were more seats (which were more comfortable) and a more frequent service, with journey times being about the same. *There was also less fare-dodging. But more standing capacity with bendies, right? Which is the important thing when the issue is bus-you-can-get-on vs bus-you-can't. The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted for Ken. If what you say was true, then Livingstone wouldn't have got in in the first place. *Nor would Labour have won the GLC elections in 1964, 1973, and 1981. Aye, fair; while it's true that Inner London voted for Ken this time round, and that Outer London reliably swings Tory, I do accept it makes more sense for the outer boroughs to be included in the administrative unit. It's kind-of annoying that their vote dictates what happens on issues like bendies and pedestrianisation in the centre, which is of peripheral interest to them at best - but that's democracy, and while democracy is crap we know pretty much every other way of doing things is worse. He lost because he stood as a Labour party candidate at a time when Labour are deeply unpopular. *If he'd stayed as an independent right from the start, he would, I am sure, have done better, maybe even well enough to win. I suspect you're right (although having rejoined for the second election, I don't think he could realistically have left again for the third). By this year, the small-c-conservative-suburban-middle-class had finally returned to their natural Tory habitat... Not just conservatives; don't forget that a lot of the Left would no sooner vote New Labour than Tory, lest their hands wither and fall off. But one can't be sure if he had the resources to run and win as an independent in 2004 without the New Labour machinery. And he wouldn't just have to leave the party again, he would also have to have yet another dramatic change of politics (as he did when he rejoined) to convince people. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
In message
of Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:08:16 in uk.transport.london, John B writes [snip] The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted for Ken. Your memory of history differs from mine. ISTR Mrs Thatcher's government eliminated the GLC and ILEA. At the time, I thought that adding another ring of buroughs to London could have served her purpose, permanently gerrymandered London and be justified from a transport perspective. ISTR the mayoralty was created by a Labour government and the 3 elections have resulted in Independent Labour, Labour and Conservative. Hubris is an occupational hazard for politicians. I changed my vote in response to the westward extension of congestion charging and the Chelsea tractor proposals. Personally, I abominate them but saw no reason to charge them more than heavy goods vehicles. The congestion charge was extended in directions which had little to do with congestion. As a motorist and cyclist, I hate bendy-buses; as a pedestrian, I love them because fares are voluntary. ;) -- Walter Briscoe |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 12:52*pm, Adrian wrote:
Aye, fair; while it's true that Inner London voted for Ken this time round, and that Outer London reliably swings Tory, I do accept it makes more sense for the outer boroughs to be included in the administrative unit. It's kind-of annoying that their vote dictates what happens on issues like bendies and pedestrianisation in the centre, which is of peripheral interest to them at best That presupposes, of course, that those who live in outer London always stay there and never head inside the Circulars, or the Ring Road, or whatever your arbitrary boundary may be... There's a legal definition of Inner London; I was going with that... They don't. The vast majority are just as heavily affected - perhaps even more so, when it comes to transport decisions - than those who live more centrally. Many of those who live centrally could easily walk or cycle to work (or for leisure/shopping/etc) should buses & tubes not be available or viable. Those who live further out can't. For rail and tube transport, you're right. For bus transport, I disagree - there are very few people who live in outer London boroughs and commute into the centre via bus; buses are a way of getting people between parts of outer London, of getting people between parts of inner London, and of getting poor people from inner London into the centre (and walking from Thamesmead, Stamford Hill or Hampstead Heath to the centre isn't really commutable). There's definitely some logic in having local control of bus services, with the people of Hillingdon voting to keep genteel single deckers, whilst the people of Tower Hamlets vote for bendies to funnel them into the centre - but realistically I think it's be too administratively complex and having it all done by TfL is more sensible. There's also those of us who live outside the boroughs whilst still being heavily affected by TfL and the GLA, yet get no representation. ....or taxation. I reckon George Washington would be happy with that. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
John B wrote:
Ah the myth that bendies are only hated by car drivers. When campaigning for Boris in areas served by bendies I found this policy to be very popular amongst people who have to use them. I'm deeply sceptical, although it's possible that the people you spoke to were idiots. In real life, bendies provide a much better service than other buses on a given route. So why do I so frequently see people opting for the 86 over the 25 for journeys to Stratford or Ilford? (And it's for going there, not onwards.) It's called democracy. If the people of London didn't want Boris as their Mayor he wouldn't have been voted into office. The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted for Ken. The most common definition of "London", including in the title "Mayor of London" etc..., is the full extent of Greater London. Other than the City, which really lost the claim centuries ago, there has never been a formal "London proper". The Conservatives did not "gerrymander" the boundaries, they were responding to the long recognised problem that the boundaries of the County of London were too small for effective democratic governance of the London conurbation. This was recognised well beyond the Conservatives, as can be seen in the various different boundaries for London such as the London Transport area, the Metropolitan Police area (now realigned) and so forth. The Star newspaper was calling for wider boundaries for London local government in the 1930s. And I see once again the dismissive attitude to the outer suburbs of London by Boris critics and/or Ken fans. And people wonder why the outer suburbs were not enamoured with Ken and those around him. (It predates Ken - the real reason the GLC was abolished was because the outer London boroughs had realised they got very little out of it and didn't need it. Calls for abolition to be considered were being made well before Ken took power, including by Ken himself.) And if all Boris had ever done was "be funny on a game show" he would never have got anywhere, let alone into Parliament then the nomination and finally the office. You have a bizarrely misplaced faith in the processes governing the acquisition of political office by the sons of extremely wealthy and successful people. You have a low opinion of the democratic centralist tendency in the Conservative Party that has a strong filtration barrier to who can seek nomination to elected office. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
Boltar wrote:
London is where its currently defined municiple borders end , not at a convenient point for left wingers. If you want just the historical london then you should go back to roman times which would give you the City itself, ironically a truer blue tory area you'll not be likely to find anywhere in the country. I may be mistaken but I think the actual residential voters in the City have gone Labour several times. (Although didn't Boris carry the City this time?) There are only about 7000 voters, from recollection mainly key workers and nursing students. Very little of the City's "truer blue" tendency is residential. I'm reminded of the 1940 US Presidential election which was billed as "Roosevelt vs. Wall Street." Roosevelt carried the Wall Street precinct by 3:1. (Literally, the voters were a businessman, an engineer, a caretaker and his wife.) |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
MIG wrote:
Not just conservatives; don't forget that a lot of the Left would no sooner vote New Labour than Tory, lest their hands wither and fall off. But one can't be sure if he had the resources to run and win as an independent in 2004 without the New Labour machinery. And he wouldn't just have to leave the party again, he would also have to have yet another dramatic change of politics (as he did when he rejoined) to convince people. I think Labour would have certainly lost in 2004. They did actually select a candidate before Ken returned. But hardly anyone had heard of Nicky Gavron and she was routinely polling in fourth place and would have found it hard to present herself as the credible anti-Livingstone alternative, even amongst voters who didn't want the Conservatives as Simon Hughes had a bigger profile. Labour were also still suffering a backlash over the war. So I doubt Labour would have won without Ken. One thing often forgotten is that the 2004 election was the *only* time the London-wide local government (on whichever boundaries) was won by the same party in power at Westminster since 1949. (And IIRC even in 2004 the Assembly wasn't won by Labour.) And whilst the London County Council didn't have such an exact match it's notable that it began with an 18 year Liberal rule (I think in local government they used the "Progressive" label) from 1889-1907, which broadly corresponded to 20 odd years Conservative/Unionist domination at Westminster (1886-1906), then 26 years under the Conservatives (I think the local label was "Municipal Reform Society") from 1907 to 1933, which was a period in which the Conservatives nationally were generally weak, then Labour (under that label) from 1933 to 1965, again at a time when they were nationally weak. The trend for London voters to want the County/City Hall to be run by a different party from Whitehall is one of the main constant features of London government, along with argument over whether London is one community or several and conflict between boroughs, whether east/west or inner/outer that is often reflected in different party support levels. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
Walter Briscoe wrote:
Your memory of history differs from mine. ISTR Mrs Thatcher's government eliminated the GLC and ILEA. At the time, I thought that adding another ring of buroughs to London could have served her purpose, permanently gerrymandered London and be justified from a transport perspective. Some of the boroughs such as Watford and Epsom & Ewell had fought hard campaigns against being added to the Greater London area in the 1960s and would probably have done so again. But more generally the problem was that the GLC did not deliver that high a proportion of services, especially to the outer boroughs, with the result that politicians in the latter were demanding its abolition regardless of which party was in County Hall. Adding another ring of boroughs would have been very awkward, and also have had knock-one effects on the surrounding county councils (and the division of services in the counties was substantially different from London so this would also have meant the boroughs taking on additional duties that weren't always suitable for borough/district level.) It is ahistorical to see the abolition of the GLC as being all about Thatcher trying to shut Livingstone up. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
John B gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying: That presupposes, of course, that those who live in outer London always stay there and never head inside the Circulars, or the Ring Road, or whatever your arbitrary boundary may be... There's a legal definition of Inner London; I was going with that... Three, actually... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_London For rail and tube transport, you're right. For bus transport, I disagree - there are very few people who live in outer London boroughs and commute into the centre via bus; buses are a way of getting people between parts of outer London, of getting people between parts of inner London, and of getting poor people from inner London into the centre (and walking from Thamesmead, Stamford Hill or Hampstead Heath to the centre isn't really commutable). True. But since Thamesmead isn't part of one definition, whilst the third stretches to areas not even under GLA control at one point... There's definitely some logic in having local control of bus services, with the people of Hillingdon voting to keep genteel single deckers, whilst the people of Tower Hamlets vote for bendies to funnel them into the centre - but realistically I think it's be too administratively complex and having it all done by TfL is more sensible. Indeed. TfAL, not TfIL. There's also those of us who live outside the boroughs whilst still being heavily affected by TfL and the GLA, yet get no representation. ...or taxation. looks at price rises in fares |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
John B wrote:
There's a legal definition of Inner London; I was going with that... So are Newham and Haringey in Inner London (per the ONS and Census) or Outer (per the old County and ILEA)? And the reverse for Greenwich? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk