On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Petert wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:20:27 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

But Labour's transport spokesperson on the London Assembly, Val
Shawcross, said: "The design competition may have been fun and the
winning designs are extremely impressive, but this is not a serious way
to make policy and not a worthwhile use of public money.

"I have yet to hear one convincing argument for why London needs a new
double-decker bus and until Boris comes up with some, Londoners will see
this as little more than a vanity project."

Val Shawcross is obviously mentally challenged - the new bus would (I
imagine) replace the unsafe bendy bus,

It isn't unsafe. Cite some solid data or kindly sod off.

and also carry a similar number of passengers.

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

This will therefore help reduce congestion

No it won't.

as it will occupy less space, being shorter.

Almost completely irrelevant.

If the stupid tart had a reasonable number of functioning brain cells
then we could assume that she was capable of feeling embarassed at her
dear leaders decision to scrap the Routemaster and replace it with the
bendy thingy.

I think you might want to carry out a quick neuron census yourself before
letting rubbish like that dribble out of your brain.

tom

--
Someone needs to invent a comedy mirror where you can see how bad you
are before you go out in public. -- p_nochio

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.

Surely any new routemaster will have to have doors which open and
close at every stop.

Whatever next. Maybe door locking should be removed from train doors
so late running commuters can catch their train. That used to kill 20
- 30 people a year before they bought door locks in.

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

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Petert wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:20:27 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

But Labour's transport spokesperson on the London Assembly, Val
Shawcross, said: "The design competition may have been fun and the
winning designs are extremely impressive, but this is not a serious way
to make policy and not a worthwhile use of public money.

"I have yet to hear one convincing argument for why London needs a new
double-decker bus and until Boris comes up with some, Londoners will see
this as little more than a vanity project."

Val Shawcross is obviously mentally challenged - the new bus would (I
imagine) replace the unsafe bendy bus,

It isn't unsafe. Cite some solid data or kindly sod off.

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...s1_route73.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...2_route507.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...3_route521.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...s4_route12.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...5_route436.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...s6_route18.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...6_route453.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...7_route149.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...s8_route25.xls

and also carry a similar number of passengers.

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

As long as other double deckers, or possibly not as long

This will therefore help reduce congestion

No it won't.

Yes it will

as it will occupy less space, being shorter.

Almost completely irrelevant.

No it's not

If the stupid tart had a reasonable number of functioning brain cells
then we could assume that she was capable of feeling embarassed at her
dear leaders decision to scrap the Routemaster and replace it with the
bendy thingy.

I think you might want to carry out a quick neuron census yourself before
letting rubbish like that dribble out of your brain.

I suggest Loperimide will prevent your brain cells from leaking out
--
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Does anybody here seriously think that a new bus will be allowed with
open rear deck.

I sincerely hope so.

On 20 Dec, 20:24, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Does anybody here seriously think that a new bus will be allowed with
open rear deck.

I sincerely hope so.

An open platform may make sense in Oxford Street where the speeds of
traffic are pretty slow but really anywhere else it is simply
dangerous - the only justification of an open platform is so that
people can get on and off at places which aren't bus stops - is there
any other?. Mind you, Oxford Street is the only place I saw a
potential boarder fall backwards off a Routemaster into the gutter
when they missed a bus moving off.

On the Railways, people try to open doors on Mark III carriages when
the central locking has been applied even when they are told to stop
by platform staff. On the Tube, people try to get tube doors open
with the slightest opening jamming themselves in. You can't tell me
that people won't try to board moving buses that they have just missed
and that is dangerous.

No amount of education will change public nature.

Jonathan

In article
,
() 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.

Can you stand that figure up? I have to say I've never seen a report of
such a fatality.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
() wrote:

On 20 Dec, 20:24, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Does anybody here seriously think that a new bus will be allowed
with open rear deck.

I sincerely hope so.

An open platform may make sense in Oxford Street where the speeds of
traffic are pretty slow but really anywhere else it is simply
dangerous - the only justification of an open platform is so that
people can get on and off at places which aren't bus stops - is there
any other?. Mind you, Oxford Street is the only place I saw a
potential boarder fall backwards off a Routemaster into the gutter
when they missed a bus moving off.

On the Railways, people try to open doors on Mark III carriages when
the central locking has been applied even when they are told to stop
by platform staff. On the Tube, people try to get tube doors open
with the slightest opening jamming themselves in. You can't tell me
that people won't try to board moving buses that they have just missed
and that is dangerous.

No amount of education will change public nature.

It's up to individuals to look after themselves to that extent. We have
enough of a nanny state as it is!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Does anybody here seriously think that a new bus will be allowed with
open rear deck.

I sincerely hope so.

An open platform may make sense in Oxford Street where the speeds of
traffic are pretty slow but really anywhere else it is simply dangerous
- the only justification of an open platform is so that people can get
on and off at places which aren't bus stops - is there any other?.

Does there need to be? Isn't that compelling enough already?

Mind you, Oxford Street is the only place I saw a potential boarder fall
backwards off a Routemaster into the gutter when they missed a bus
moving off.

****ed, was he?

On the Railways, people try to open doors on Mark III carriages when the
central locking has been applied even when they are told to stop by
platform staff. On the Tube, people try to get tube doors open with the
slightest opening jamming themselves in. You can't tell me that people
won't try to board moving buses that they have just missed and that is
dangerous.

Trains don't have platforms just outside them when they're stationary at
signals.

No amount of education will change public nature.

Nor should it attempt to.

On 21 Dec, 07:51, Adrian wrote:

gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

(snip)

No amount of education will change public nature.

Nor should it attempt to.

So all those 'no-spitting' campaigns of old - of which notices to that
effect appeared on Routemaster buses amongst other places - shouldn't
have occurred, despite the fact that spitting in public is rather less
common than it once was.(especially in places that aren't actually the
street).

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On 21 Dec, 07:51, Adrian wrote:

gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

(snip)

No amount of education will change public nature.

Nor should it attempt to.

So all those 'no-spitting' campaigns of old - of which notices to that
effect appeared on Routemaster buses amongst other places - shouldn't
have occurred, despite the fact that spitting in public is rather less
common than it once was.(especially in places that aren't actually the
street).

When were these campaigns? I don't remember any when the Routemasters were
newer. I would have done so too because I remember the "Défense de
cracher" signs in Paris transport.

--
Colin Rosenstiel