...Why are buses
Discussion
...allowed to exist?
They pollute, they hold up traffic, and are not safe to travel in, or to be near in case of an accident?
What gets me is these protruding bus stops. Why??? is it really so they can make congestion and hit us with congestion charging?
Why is is that out in the country, buses only seem to have 3 people including the driver on board? is this good value? at 8mpg, it would make more sense for them to have a car each.
Is it fair and legal that on NSL road, this lumbering dangerous bus is allowed to do 30mph and prevent me from using all the legal speed I am entitled to? buses extend my journey times by tens of minutes a day (in the car). How and why did this stupid idea come about that buses are a good thing? Why do we get done for even a 5mph limit excess, but bus companies are allowed to degrade the road system by 30mph and not pay me compensation?
Grrrrrrr!
They pollute, they hold up traffic, and are not safe to travel in, or to be near in case of an accident?
What gets me is these protruding bus stops. Why??? is it really so they can make congestion and hit us with congestion charging?
Why is is that out in the country, buses only seem to have 3 people including the driver on board? is this good value? at 8mpg, it would make more sense for them to have a car each.
Is it fair and legal that on NSL road, this lumbering dangerous bus is allowed to do 30mph and prevent me from using all the legal speed I am entitled to? buses extend my journey times by tens of minutes a day (in the car). How and why did this stupid idea come about that buses are a good thing? Why do we get done for even a 5mph limit excess, but bus companies are allowed to degrade the road system by 30mph and not pay me compensation?
Grrrrrrr!
HertsBiker said:
...allowed to exist?
They pollute, they hold up traffic, and are not safe to travel in, or to be near in case of an accident?
What gets me is these protruding bus stops. Why??? is it really so they can make congestion and hit us with congestion charging?
Why is is that out in the country, buses only seem to have 3 people including the driver on board? is this good value? at 8mpg, it would make more sense for them to have a car each.
Is it fair and legal that on NSL road, this lumbering dangerous bus is allowed to do 30mph and prevent me from using all the legal speed I am entitled to? buses extend my journey times by tens of minutes a day (in the car). How and why did this stupid idea come about that buses are a good thing? Why do we get done for even a 5mph limit excess, but bus companies are allowed to degrade the road system by 30mph and not pay me compensation?
Grrrrrrr!
hi carl long time no...They pollute, they hold up traffic, and are not safe to travel in, or to be near in case of an accident?
What gets me is these protruding bus stops. Why??? is it really so they can make congestion and hit us with congestion charging?
Why is is that out in the country, buses only seem to have 3 people including the driver on board? is this good value? at 8mpg, it would make more sense for them to have a car each.
Is it fair and legal that on NSL road, this lumbering dangerous bus is allowed to do 30mph and prevent me from using all the legal speed I am entitled to? buses extend my journey times by tens of minutes a day (in the car). How and why did this stupid idea come about that buses are a good thing? Why do we get done for even a 5mph limit excess, but bus companies are allowed to degrade the road system by 30mph and not pay me compensation?
Grrrrrrr!
what i want too know is why do buses have mirror`s
as they never
ing use em.most of the mirrors on buses are so damaged by the buswashers you cant see sod all in them anyway. maybe if people followed the highway code & allowed buses to pull out of stops as they are ment to then the driver wouldnt just go? give & take etc?
most older buses cant do 60 & are limited to 50 on a single carriageway anyway, plus the smaller style of 'real bus' (not a big mini bus if that makes sense) can only do about 40 flat out anyway.
just an ex-bus/coach driver putting the other side. till you've tried driving one for a bit you wont get what i mean, just like car-only drivers often dont get trucks etc
most older buses cant do 60 & are limited to 50 on a single carriageway anyway, plus the smaller style of 'real bus' (not a big mini bus if that makes sense) can only do about 40 flat out anyway.
just an ex-bus/coach driver putting the other side. till you've tried driving one for a bit you wont get what i mean, just like car-only drivers often dont get trucks etc
What is most amazing in terms of vehicle safety, is that buses don't have to comply with any requirements in their construction for side-intrusion impacts. So, if an artic jumps a red light ( a bus driver would never do that, would he!) and ploughs into the side of a bus, there is no protection whatsoever designed-in to protect the passengers.
In any journey be air, the most dangerous part of the journey is the bus from the car park to the terminal!
In any journey be air, the most dangerous part of the journey is the bus from the car park to the terminal!
It's like any vehicle with different characteristics to a car. Heavies, busses, even cyclists. If all new drivers had to even be a passenger in them through an average journey - town centre, bit of rural roads, bit of motorway... and maybe have a go of them around a "controlled area"... maybe they'd all gel a bit better.
Understanding how far a bus does have to pull out to negotiate an ATS, or why it's REALLY not a good idea to go up the inside of an artic as it turns - and just how cr*p the rearward visibility is on a lot of vehicles...
For every driver of a "strange" vehicle that you want to take to the side of the road and slap, there's another that'll afford care and courtesy - be it busses flashing you through gaps, or heavy drivers pulling right to the side of wide SCs, so there's enough room to, well, fit a bus past, while he sticks to his legal 40mph...
Understanding how far a bus does have to pull out to negotiate an ATS, or why it's REALLY not a good idea to go up the inside of an artic as it turns - and just how cr*p the rearward visibility is on a lot of vehicles...
For every driver of a "strange" vehicle that you want to take to the side of the road and slap, there's another that'll afford care and courtesy - be it busses flashing you through gaps, or heavy drivers pulling right to the side of wide SCs, so there's enough room to, well, fit a bus past, while he sticks to his legal 40mph...
We get bus jams around here in West London. There streets are so narrow that they cannot accommodate two buses (what TfL are doing allowing the buses to rat run down narrow residential streets is beyond me). As a result jams build up where cars could otherwise slink their way through.
It's what bikers would think about cars if they weren't allowed to lane at 900mph in stationary traffic...
It's what bikers would think about cars if they weren't allowed to lane at 900mph in stationary traffic...
HertsBiker said:
What gets me is these protruding bus stops. Why??? is it really so they can make congestion and hit us with congestion charging?
Someone on here (splodgeS4?) got a reasonably sensible answer from a council a little while ago...Apparently, it's because they need a raised kerb to stop buses at, for easily loading and unloading wheelchairs.
If you build a "normal" bus stop with the raised kerb, people will treat it as general parking, a pickup and dropoff zone, and whatever other reason they can come up with for dumping cars and vans in the bus stop. Also, thanks to our progressive modern society, if the bus is seen pulling up away from the raised kerb, you can guarantee even if no wheelchair users need to board, someone with too much time on their hands will write off complaining to all and sundry, "meh meh meh bus didn't stop by raised kerb wheelchair access unfair human rights blah".
If you have a built-out bus stop, people can't park next to it, so the bus can always get next to the raised kerb.
The real answer would be to stop people from parking in bus stops in the first place, or even for those people to have a sense of responsibility and not treat the bus stop as a handy right-next-to-the-cashpoint stopping zone, but try getting that past the it's my rights/more important than thou brigade.
Cooperman said:
In any journey be air, the most dangerous part of the journey is the bus from the car park to the terminal!
Always a good quote, but what are the statistics for pax KSI in airport shuttle bus crashes and those KSI in 'plane crashes? I bet the bus wins as 'safer' ... until you work in the KSI per pax mile - StreakyHooli said:
most of the mirrors on buses are so damaged by the buswashers you cant see sod all in them anyway.
So when you do your daily inspections you should report it and refuse to take the bus out. If stopped it would attract the PSV equivalentof a GV9 prohibition. (or whatever they are called these days)Not a good enough excuse really. Akin to "sorry I ran into the back of you, the brakes on this have always been a bit crap"
Towie said:
Hooli said:
most of the mirrors on buses are so damaged by the buswashers you cant see sod all in them anyway.
So when you do your daily inspections you should report it and refuse to take the bus out. If stopped it would attract the PSV equivalentof a GV9 prohibition. (or whatever they are called these days)Not a good enough excuse really. Akin to "sorry I ran into the back of you, the brakes on this have always been a bit crap"
i just refused to use about 10% of the fleet as it wasnt safe to drive. caused great problems when everytime i tookover one of those buses i rolled it in the yard & said change it - they never had a working spare.
oddly i didnt stay in that job for too long.
Cooperman said:
What is most amazing in terms of vehicle safety, is that buses don't have to comply with any requirements in their construction for side-intrusion impacts. So, if an artic jumps a red light ( a bus driver would never do that, would he!) and ploughs into the side of a bus, there is no protection whatsoever designed-in to protect the passengers.
In any journey be air, the most dangerous part of the journey is the bus from the car park to the terminal!
Provided you don't drive to the car park.In any journey be air, the most dangerous part of the journey is the bus from the car park to the terminal!
Acc. DoT accident statistics:
"The accident rates per billion passenger kilometres are: 0.2 for air travel; 0.5 for buses and coaches; surprisingly, 1.0 for rail--twice as bad as the rate for buses and coaches; and 4.5 for cars. "
herewego said:
Provided you don't drive to the car park.
Acc. DoT accident statistics:
"The accident rates per billion passenger kilometres are: 0.2 for air travel; 0.5 for buses and coaches; surprisingly, 1.0 for rail--twice as bad as the rate for buses and coaches; and 4.5 for cars. "
Surprising revelation - those working on the railways try to avoid travel by train ---is it the delays or more ?????Acc. DoT accident statistics:
"The accident rates per billion passenger kilometres are: 0.2 for air travel; 0.5 for buses and coaches; surprisingly, 1.0 for rail--twice as bad as the rate for buses and coaches; and 4.5 for cars. "
herewego said:
Provided you don't drive to the car park.
Acc. DoT accident statistics:
"The accident rates per billion passenger kilometres are: 0.2 for air travel; 0.5 for buses and coaches; surprisingly, 1.0 for rail--twice as bad as the rate for buses and coaches; and 4.5 for cars. "
Cars might have a figuere of 4.5 attached to them, but this doesn't really compare like for like. Lets put it this way, I'd rather be in a minor fender bender at Asda car park than in a plane crash, both will count as one accident...Acc. DoT accident statistics:
"The accident rates per billion passenger kilometres are: 0.2 for air travel; 0.5 for buses and coaches; surprisingly, 1.0 for rail--twice as bad as the rate for buses and coaches; and 4.5 for cars. "
Edited by Ravell on Sunday 19th August 09:16
Ravell said:
herewego said:
Provided you don't drive to the car park.
Acc. DoT accident statistics:
"The accident rates per billion passenger kilometres are: 0.2 for air travel; 0.5 for buses and coaches; surprisingly, 1.0 for rail--twice as bad as the rate for buses and coaches; and 4.5 for cars. "
Cars might have a figuere of 4.5 attached to them, but this doesn't really compare like for like. Lets put it this way, I'd rather be in a minor fender bender at Asda car park than in a plane crash, both will count as one accident...Acc. DoT accident statistics:
"The accident rates per billion passenger kilometres are: 0.2 for air travel; 0.5 for buses and coaches; surprisingly, 1.0 for rail--twice as bad as the rate for buses and coaches; and 4.5 for cars. "
Edited by Ravell on Sunday 19th August 09:16
I think you could argue that the figures are skewed by the mileage, I mean the fact that you only get on a plane when you're going a long way. If you looked at deaths per trip it could look a lot different. On the other hand deaths per hour would look a lot worse.
I was deflected from my original point there, which was that the death rate per mile for travelling by car is 9 times the rate for travelling by bus or coach.
Edited by herewego on Sunday 19th August 10:15
Edited by herewego on Sunday 19th August 10:54
We aren't told to get out of our cars and into cattle trucks because they're safer. We're told to do it because it's allegedly more fuel efficient and better for the environment (all the evidence seems to suggest otherwise though on both counts) and because it is morally wrong for rich people to have mobility which is denied to poor people. In fact the underlying theme seems to be that it is morally wrong for rich people to be richer than poor people.
Because if they didn't exist a lot of people wouldn't be able to get to work and would therefore be unemployed and claiming benefits... You would prefer this?
It's just another type of vehicle on the road. If there were no other cars on the road my old journey to work would have take 30 mins rather than an hour. So shoudl all cars be removed fromt eh road as well?...
It's just another type of vehicle on the road. If there were no other cars on the road my old journey to work would have take 30 mins rather than an hour. So shoudl all cars be removed fromt eh road as well?...
We must all have a road each. We get in the car and select a mode, one of two, either the most gas guzzling 4x4 or the most gas guzzling sports design possible. No other modes are available. As the engine gets up to temperature we dial in the destination and style of terrain. Our own personal route appears in the style of a challenging off-road course or a race track. We’re off. Oops, forgot the kids.
GreenV8S said:
We aren't told to get out of our cars and into cattle trucks because they're safer. We're told to do it because it's allegedly more fuel efficient and better for the environment (all the evidence seems to suggest otherwise though on both counts) and because it is morally wrong for rich people to have mobility which is denied to poor people. In fact the underlying theme seems to be that it is morally wrong for rich people to be richer than poor people.
I do think that they have something of a point though... without adequete mobility it's going to be a lot harder for the motivated poor person to become a rich one. Public transport probably does help Britain become slightly more a meritocracy.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff