On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:12:31PM -0800, wrote:

Does anybody here seriously think that a new bus will be allowed with
open rear deck. With the old routemaster about 10 people used to die
every year falling from the bus.

Serves 'em right for trying to get on and off a moving vehicle. I know
that when I had the opportunity to do that, I would have blamed no-one
but myself if I screwed up. Likewise if I was standing on the open
platform while the bus was moving - something which you weren't supposed
to do.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

PLEASE NOTE: This message was meant to offend everyone equally,
regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, politics, choice
of beer, operating system, mode of transport, or their editor.

David Cantrell wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:12:31PM -0800,
wrote:

Does anybody here seriously think that a new bus will be allowed with
open rear deck. With the old routemaster about 10 people used to die
every year falling from the bus.

Serves 'em right for trying to get on and off a moving vehicle. I
know that when I had the opportunity to do that, I would have blamed
no-one but myself if I screwed up.

That's fine, for adults. I fell off a moving routemaster when I was a child,
and landed between two bollards. If I'd landed on the bollard, I might not
be here now.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, David Cantrell wrote:

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 07:19:22PM +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:

While having fewer doors and more stairs. Which means it will have to wait
for longer at each stop, and so ...

The quicker boarding claim was demolished by the ASA in 2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4531057.stm

Firstly, please have the good grace not to trim posts so hard that i have
to wade through google groups to find out what was actually written.

Secondly, i hardly call it 'demolished' - for those interested in reading
sources rather than halfwit BBC reporters' praeses:

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudicati...ation_id=39734

While there are a few stops where lots of people get on and off -
bendies are quite clearly faster here - most stops aren't used anything
like that heavily so the number of doors makes no difference.

A bendy has a shorter dwell time if 10 more more passengers are boarding,
and longer if it's less than that. But that's compared to a routemaster,
not a blunderbus. The reason a bendy can take longer is because of the
kneeling suspension - the bus takes time to lower and raise itself at
stops, so that there's level boarding. The routemaster didn't do that. If
the new buses don't, then they may be able to retain that advantage.
However, if they have an engine at the front and a rear-wheel drive, as
we've been promised, then they'll have an axle, and won't be low-floor (no
matter what the concept sketches say), which means they probably will have
to kneel, in which case the advantage evaporates.

tom

--
resistance is fertile

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, David Cantrell wrote:

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 07:19:22PM +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:

While having fewer doors and more stairs. Which means it will have to wait
for longer at each stop, and so ...

The quicker boarding claim was demolished by the ASA in 2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4531057.stm

Firstly, please have the good grace not to trim posts so hard that i have to
wade through google groups to find out what was actually written.

On re-reading this, that comes across as far nastier than i had intended -
my apologies.

tom

--
It's a surprising finding, but that's science all over: the results
are often counterintuitive. And that's exactly why you do scientific
research, to check your assumptions. Otherwise it wouldn't be called
"science", it would be called "assuming", or "guessing", or "making it
up as you go along". -- Ben Goldacre

On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 12:04:55PM -0000, John Rowland wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
Serves 'em right for trying to get on and off a moving vehicle. I
know that when I had the opportunity to do that, I would have blamed
no-one but myself if I screwed up.
That's fine, for adults. I fell off a moving routemaster when I was a child,
and landed between two bollards. If I'd landed on the bollard, I might not
be here now.

That would be your parents' fault.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

THIS IS THE LANGUAGE POLICE
PUT DOWN YOUR THESAURUS
STEP AWAY FROM THE CLICHE

On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 06:45:44PM +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, David Cantrell wrote:
The quicker boarding claim was demolished by the ASA in 2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4531057.stm
Firstly, please have the good grace not to trim posts so hard that i have
to wade through google groups to find out what was actually written.

That's what threading is for. If your chosen news client doesn't
support it very well, I suggest using something else.

A bendy has a shorter dwell time if 10 more more passengers are boarding,
and longer if it's less than that. But that's compared to a routemaster,
not a blunderbus. The reason a bendy can take longer is because of the
kneeling suspension - the bus takes time to lower and raise itself at
stops, so that there's level boarding.

I wish they took longer to lower and raise themselves! The sudden
vertical jerks can be quite un-nerving! Especially the ones that happen
nowhere near bus stops.

However, if they have an engine at the front and a rear-wheel drive, as
we've been promised

I wonder why they'd want rear wheel drive. I don't see why FWD would be
any kind of disadvantage.

then they'll have an axle, and won't be low-floor (no
matter what the concept sketches say), which means they probably will have
to kneel, in which case the advantage evaporates.

Not necessarily. The engine could be an electrical generator, driving
electric motors on the wheels. It works on trains, and I believe there
are some concept road vehicles doing similar.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity
-- Hanlon's Razor

Stupidity maintained long enough is a form of malice
-- Richard Bos's corollary

David Cantrell wrote:


Not necessarily. The engine could be an electrical generator, driving
electric motors on the wheels. It works on trains, and I believe there
are some concept road vehicles doing similar.


It's pretty much got to be series-hybrid operation, with the engine
driving a generator driving motors. Or 'diesel-electric' as you might
say. There are batteries, too.

London is currently experimenting with both series and parallel hybrid
designs from a variety of manufacturers, where the engine and motors are
linked to the wheels via a gearbox and conventional mechanical
transmission. It's not clear yet which one's best, but Boris is
pre-empting it by the choice of layout.

By the way, he's come out today and said that they won't have conductors
but PCSOs on them. Total farce.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...emasters-boris

Tom