On 24 July, 19:05, Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:02:28 +0100, Recliner wrote:
Buses on Route 507, which travels betweenWaterlooand Victoria, will be
replaced by a new, more frequent single-decker bus on Saturday.

Why not double-deckers?

--
jhk

Because double-deckers are too slow to board/alight. The attraction of
the articulated buses is that everyone can pile on and it leaves
virtually immediately - not possible with stairs etc.

Robert

In message
, at
06:52:36 on Sun, 26 Jul 2009, MIG
remarked:
What about a design of bus suitable for modern-day London? Is that so
bluddy difficult to imagine?

The routemaster was perfect. I always feel somewhat "trapped" on a bus
where the driver has the power to stop me getting off (especially when
stuck in traffic and I'd rather continue on foot).
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are
hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to
bendy buses is disingenuous.

Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a
totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing
me to risk my life to get across the road"?


What about it? It's emotive nonsense, no more.

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message
,
at 06:52:36 on Sun, 26 Jul 2009, MIG
remarked:
What about a design of bus suitable for modern-day London? Is that so
bluddy difficult to imagine?

The routemaster was perfect. I always feel somewhat "trapped" on a
bus where the driver has the power to stop me getting off
(especially when stuck in traffic and I'd rather continue on foot).

That is the key point and why Boris' vendetta against bendies has got
traction. However, the new single deckers will be no better in your regard.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 26 July, 17:07, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are
hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to
bendy buses is disingenuous.

Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a
totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing
me to risk my life to get across the road"?

What about it? *It's emotive nonsense, no more.

I was coming up with an alternative statement that might better
characterise genuine objections to bendys, based on something that
happens frequently.

I suggest that it sums up what far more people feel about them than
the statement about objecting to people of a "lower social class" that
I was responding to.

On 26 July, 16:31, Paul Corfield wrote:

not wanting to repeat long and valid points

It's perfectly evident that bendy buses of varying lengths operate all
over the world in hugely varying street designs with all sorts of
constraints. What no one has ever answered is why London is some sort of
special case and has to have then removed. The reverse of this argument
is why is London such a special case that it should either have kept
Routemasters in squadron service until they were 60-70 years old or even
longer or why we need a future special bus design. I've never seen a
cogent, unemotional argument for any of these scenarios.

It seems that emotive arguments have got in the way of any rational
consideration. Even though there may be plenty of rational arguments
on both sides, they are tending to be ignored and characterised in
disingenuous ways by those who disagree, instead of being sensibly
addressed (not saying that's what you were doing).


What about a design of bus suitable for modern-day London? *Is that so
bluddy difficult to imagine?

I like bendy buses and I think they have a role in the London bus
system.

I don't like them, as it happens, but our rational reasons for liking
and not liking need to be weighed up, rather than characterised in
silly ways as has happened in some forums. More important, the
arguments about bendys and Routemasters shouldn't distract from
consideration of other alternatives.

cut

I am sure there are plenty of "off the shelf" products that have been
developed for use across the world that can serve London's bus system. I
don't see the bus companies in Hong Kong running a "new bus for Hong
Kong" competition - they simply work out what they want to offer their
customers and then seek competitive tenders for the supply of the
vehicles. Their bus fleet is pretty top notch and the new single and
double deckers look very stylish and well appointed. I've yet to have a
bad bus journey in Hong Kong.

Yes. I can't remember if I very deliberately said "a design of bus"
rather than "design a bus", but it is what I said and what I meant.
It could perfectly well already exist. Main thing is not to force
everyone to walk past the driver through a narrow gap.


The "new bus for London" project is just a distraction as far as I can
see and I just do not see the need for it. This is bad politics at its
worst.

Yes, totally pointless, except on slow news days. Already forgotten
as far as I can tell.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:17:35 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 26 July, 17:07, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are
hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to
bendy buses is disingenuous.

Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a
totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing
me to risk my life to get across the road"?

What about it? *It's emotive nonsense, no more.

I was coming up with an alternative statement that might better
characterise genuine objections to bendys, based on something that
happens frequently.

I suggest that it sums up what far more people feel about them than
the statement about objecting to people of a "lower social class" that
I was responding to.


I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you actually believed that
rubbish. Thanks for making it clear.

On 26 July, 20:13, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:17:35 -0700 (PDT), MIG





wrote:
On 26 July, 17:07, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are
hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to
bendy buses is disingenuous.

Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a
totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing
me to risk my life to get across the road"?

What about it? *It's emotive nonsense, no more.

I was coming up with an alternative statement that might better
characterise genuine objections to bendys, based on something that
happens frequently.

I suggest that it sums up what far more people feel about them than
the statement about objecting to people of a "lower social class" that
I was responding to.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. *I thought you actually believed that
rubbish. *Thanks for making it clear.

Well, I do frequently find bendys blocking crossings that I want to
use, so that part isn't rubbish.

I guess it's my own choice whether I then risk my life to walk round
or decide to stay on the same side of the road till the bus drivers
finally leave a gap. I tend to be a bit impetuous and walk round in
the middle of the traffic, but sometimes that isn't possible and I
just get delayed.

On one occasion, a bendy was blocking a crossing at Trafalgar Square
during the pedestrian phase, and I did walk round. Another bendy
driver decided that since the first one was preventing pedestrians
from crossing, he would drive straight through the red light. I
wasn't amused at all.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:02:11 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 26 July, 20:13, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:17:35 -0700 (PDT), MIG





wrote:
On 26 July, 17:07, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are
hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to
bendy buses is disingenuous.

Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a
totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing
me to risk my life to get across the road"?

What about it? *It's emotive nonsense, no more.

I was coming up with an alternative statement that might better
characterise genuine objections to bendys, based on something that
happens frequently.

I suggest that it sums up what far more people feel about them than
the statement about objecting to people of a "lower social class" that
I was responding to.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. *I thought you actually believed that
rubbish. *Thanks for making it clear.

Well, I do frequently find bendys blocking crossings that I want to
use, so that part isn't rubbish.

I guess it's my own choice whether I then risk my life to walk round
or decide to stay on the same side of the road till the bus drivers
finally leave a gap. I tend to be a bit impetuous and walk round in
the middle of the traffic, but sometimes that isn't possible and I
just get delayed.

On one occasion, a bendy was blocking a crossing at Trafalgar Square
during the pedestrian phase, and I did walk round. Another bendy
driver decided that since the first one was preventing pedestrians
from crossing, he would drive straight through the red light. I
wasn't amused at all.


Frequently? How frequent is "frequently"?

Or is it an irrationally angry response to something that doesn't
follow the arbitrary rules that you apply to your world, that makes it
appear more of a problem than it realy is?

Foe example, can you give an objective, dispassionate comparison of
the delays caused to pedestrians caused by bendy buses blocking
pedestrian crossings compared to the that from the much greater number
of non-articulated buses (needed to replace the high capacity of the
bendy buses) blocking pedestrian crossings?

The reason I ask is that I think a lot of people's innate anger and
impatience is being directed towards bendy buses, simply because
people are set against them. I mean a lot of people, not just you,
and I also mean such issues as the alleged trapping of cyclists and
the alleged vastly increased delays to other road users, for which
read the anger of drivers of cars and vans who have an inbuilt
pathological hatred of anything that "gets in their way".

I admit to having an inbuilt patholgocial hatred of cyclists who
disobey the rules of the road, so I'm as guilty as anyone. But I do
think that the bendy buses have been vilified for a lot of problems
that they don't cause.

On 26 July, 21:56, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:02:11 -0700 (PDT), MIG





wrote:
On 26 July, 20:13, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:17:35 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:
On 26 July, 17:07, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

I will never applaud the idiot Boris, nor the hardline Tories who are
hiding behind him, but the silly characterisation of the objections to
bendy buses is disingenuous.

Never mind class or party politics; what about "I don't like to have a
totally unsuitable vehicle blocking the pedestrian crossings, forcing
me to risk my life to get across the road"?

What about it? *It's emotive nonsense, no more.

I was coming up with an alternative statement that might better
characterise genuine objections to bendys, based on something that
happens frequently.

I suggest that it sums up what far more people feel about them than
the statement about objecting to people of a "lower social class" that
I was responding to.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. *I thought you actually believed that
rubbish. *Thanks for making it clear.

Well, I do frequently find bendys blocking crossings that I want to
use, so that part isn't rubbish.

I guess it's my own choice whether I then risk my life to walk round
or decide to stay on the same side of the road till the bus drivers
finally leave a gap. *I tend to be a bit impetuous and walk round in
the middle of the traffic, but sometimes that isn't possible and I
just get delayed.

On one occasion, a bendy was blocking a crossing at Trafalgar Square
during the pedestrian phase, and I did walk round. *Another bendy
driver decided that since the first one was preventing pedestrians
from crossing, he would drive straight through the red light. *I
wasn't amused at all.

Frequently? *How frequent is "frequently"?

I don't spend so much time on foot in London lately, but maybe about
once a week on average. Enough to stick in the mind. Probably once
every couple of months with double deckers.

I have no actual figures. I will start counting now. Tonight: none.


Or is it an irrationally angry response to something that doesn't
follow the arbitrary rules that you apply to your world, that makes it
appear more of a problem than it realy is?

Don't know how to answer that one.


Foe example, can you give an objective, dispassionate comparison of
the delays caused to pedestrians caused by bendy buses blocking
pedestrian crossings compared to the that from the much greater number
of non-articulated buses (needed to replace the high capacity of the
bendy buses) blocking pedestrian crossings?

The reason I ask is that I think a lot of people's innate anger and
impatience is being directed towards bendy buses, simply because
people are set against them. *I mean a lot of people, not just you,
and I also mean such issues as the alleged trapping of cyclists and
the alleged vastly increased delays to other road users, for which
read the anger of drivers of cars and vans who have an inbuilt
pathological hatred of anything that "gets in their way".

When I'm on a bike, I find that the biggest danger is the route I have
to take to get past them, so it's similar to the pedestrian crossing
issue really, with the added risk of them pulling away and leaving me
in the middle of the road, during the longer time it takes to get past
them.


I admit to having an inbuilt patholgocial hatred of cyclists who
disobey the rules of the road, so I'm as guilty as anyone. *But I do
think that the bendy buses have been vilified for a lot of problems
that they don't cause.

I don't think there's evidence that they hit cyclists more than
anything else, but I think that the arguments about that were mostly
down to "causing accidents" being interpreted as "hit", which is not
necessarily the case or what was meant.