On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:47:02 +0100,
Tom Barry wrote:

The dreaded 'common sense' of the selfish individual, as expressed by a)
I don't like waiting at traffic lights b) therefore I should be allowed
to ignore them c) therefore I shall arrive at my destination faster d)
therefore the world is a better place.

As opposed to the bendy bus drivers, as expressed by a) I don't like
waiting behind a cyclist b) therefore I should be allowed to ignore them
c) therefore I will turn left across them before I've even got the
articulation of the bus level with them d) therefore the world is a
better place.

One is stupid and puts themselves at risk. The other is reckless and
puts other peoples lives at risk.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/journey/20081212/avi_0002.mpg

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:23:39 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:47:02 +0100,
Tom Barry wrote:

The dreaded 'common sense' of the selfish individual, as expressed by a)
I don't like waiting at traffic lights b) therefore I should be allowed
to ignore them c) therefore I shall arrive at my destination faster d)
therefore the world is a better place.

As opposed to the bendy bus drivers, as expressed by a) I don't like
waiting behind a cyclist b) therefore I should be allowed to ignore them
c) therefore I will turn left across them before I've even got the
articulation of the bus level with them d) therefore the world is a
better place.

One is stupid and puts themselves at risk. The other is reckless and
puts other peoples lives at risk.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/journey/20081212/avi_0002.mpg


The bendy bus driver saw you, gave you a wide berth, almost stopped,
and only made the turn when he saw that *you* had stopped. Yes, he
saw you too late, and should have made his turn after allowing you to
clear the side road, but having made a mistake he corrected it and
made the turn safely at no risk to you.

Tim Woodall wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:47:02 +0100,
Tom Barry wrote:
The dreaded 'common sense' of the selfish individual, as expressed by a)
I don't like waiting at traffic lights b) therefore I should be allowed
to ignore them c) therefore I shall arrive at my destination faster d)
therefore the world is a better place.

As opposed to the bendy bus drivers, as expressed by a) I don't like
waiting behind a cyclist b) therefore I should be allowed to ignore them
c) therefore I will turn left across them before I've even got the
articulation of the bus level with them d) therefore the world is a
better place.


A few facts:

1) No cyclists have ever been killed by a London bendy, as Boris now
admits, although he won't admit that he lied during the campaign about this.
2) Cycling has increased in London quite dramatically (north of 100%
now) *over exactly the same period bendy buses have been operating*
(since 2002), suggesting that people aren't generally being put off by
sharing the few London roads that actually have bendies on.
3) The KSI rate for cyclists in London has stayed remarkably constant
despite far more miles being ridden as cycling has taken off.
4) Bendies can kill people in ways double deckers can't. That there
aren't any examples of this concerning cyclists is very welcome, but
nevertheless I accept the point. However...
5) ...double deckers can kill people in ways bendies can't, and there
*are* examples of this, two in the last year*, which unaccountably don't
get reams of fearmongering coverage in the papers. Odd, that.
Obviously DDs operate more miles than bendies, but that brings us to...
6) ...even by the official TfL statistic of 36% more cyclist collisions
for bendies against rigids, once your replacement rigid service goes
over 36% more mileage you're increasing the risk to cyclists *even using
Boris Johnson's own justification*

Actually, on point 6 the off-peak mileage for the rigid 38, for example,
is the same as the existing service since the frequency is unchanged and
therefore the risk to cyclists off-peak is reduced. Unfortunately, by
the Met's statistics most cyclist road collisions happen at peak times,
as you might expect, so the net effect is likely to be a greater risk at
peak times when there are more potential victims and the full bus PVR is
in operation. I'm sufficiently convinced that the risk isn't so high
as to cause piles of dead cyclists all over London since bus/cyclist
fatalities are thankfully rare in London despite the massive increase in
both bus use and cycling in recent years.

Tom

* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7410203.stm and
http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/...l/article.html

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Tom Barry wrote:

A few facts:

It'll never catch on!

http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/...l/article.html

How is this double-decker-specific?

tom

--
In case you don't know what CROWDSOURCING is, it's a stomach-churning
new media term obviously invented by a ******* made of ****. -- Charlie
Brooker

On 29 July, 20:03, Tom Anderson wrote:
How is this double-decker-specific?

"In September 2008, a tram and a bus collided at a complex road
junction (see
Figure 1). The tram was derailed by its front bogie and the bus
suffered extensive
structural damage to its front offside corner and driver’s
compartment. A member
of the public travelling at the front of the upper deck of the bus was
thrown out of
a side window and received fatal injuries."

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources...v2_01-2009.pdf

I don't think it's unreasonable to think the height of the fall may
have been a factor in the person's death.

U

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Mr Thant wrote:

On 29 July, 20:03, Tom Anderson wrote:
How is this double-decker-specific?

"In September 2008, a tram and a bus collided at a complex road junction
(see Figure 1). The tram was derailed by its front bogie and the bus
suffered extensive structural damage to its front offside corner and
driver?s compartment. A member of the public travelling at the front of
the upper deck of the bus was thrown out of a side window and received
fatal injuries."

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources...v2_01-2009.pdf

I don't think it's unreasonable to think the height of the fall may have
been a factor in the person's death.

Quite true - i'd been focused on the the fact that the accident happened,
which i think would have ben neither more nor less likely if it had been a
bendy, and had missed the details of how the chap died.

Must have been a hell of an impact to throw someone *through* a bus
window. Ouch.

tom

--
now you're under control and now you do what we told you

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Mr Thant wrote:

On 29 July, 20:03, Tom Anderson wrote:
How is this double-decker-specific?

"In September 2008, a tram and a bus collided at a complex road
junction (see Figure 1). The tram was derailed by its front bogie and
the bus suffered extensive structural damage to its front offside
corner and driver?s compartment. A member of the public travelling at
the front of the upper deck of the bus was thrown out of a side window
and received fatal injuries."

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources...v2_01-2009.pdf

I don't think it's unreasonable to think the height of the fall may
have been a factor in the person's death.

Quite true - i'd been focused on the the fact that the accident
happened, which i think would have ben neither more nor less likely if
it had been a bendy, and had missed the details of how the chap died.

Must have been a hell of an impact to throw someone *through* a bus
window. Ouch.

tom


Yes - obviously DDs can also get rammed under low bridges, although
obviously not in normal operation. Like I said, there are
design-specific accident modes for bendies and rigids (and Routemasters,
lest we forget), but the propaganda around bendies has deliberately
failed to make this clear, with obvious consequences for common sense.

I did some analysis of death rates over time based on TfL figures going
back to the 1980s, and it rapidly became clear that something happening
in the early 1980s cut the number of deaths in bus accidents quite
sharply. This was either falling bus use or phasing out Routemasters, I
hypothesise.

On the other hand, the dramatic fall in pedestrian road casualties over
recent years started before Livingstone became Mayor, and I'd love to
know what caused it - I think the Major government introduced changes
that led to traffic calming in residential areas, which might have done
it, or possible falling traffic speeds and better brakes might have
helped, or perhaps it's kids not playing in the street as much, although
they certainly do round here. Needs some rigorous research really.

Tom