|
Post by george on Sept 19, 2020 11:46:30 GMT
In all seriousness if I was a regular user on the 316 I would much rather have my window blacked out for a few seconds than be forced to travel on a single decker day in day out that gets very overcrowded. I think that the objections on the 316 were more to do with vibrations from heavier buses and/or perceived safety risk from DDs, not privacy. After all they already have DD 295s running past their windows. The campaign against the 316 referenced a collision involving a DD 295 and a pedestrian. I don't think the fact that it was a DD had anything to do with the collision, but some people got it into their minds that DDs are inherently unsafe.
In other areas there are indeed objections against DDs because of privacy concerns - I think the 184 is one example. When I travelled on one of the few DDs that managed to escape onto the offending section of the 184 I did have a look to see if there was anything special about the first floors of Alexandra Park Road. It was just another boring residential street.
I was sure it was complaints from local residents about privacy I think the fact that the 295 is double decker made it more ridiculous. Isn't it true that the 216 can also no longer take double deckers because residents in Sunbury believe they are unsafe after a pedestrian was killed or was that just another rumour that was spread very easily?
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 19, 2020 12:13:42 GMT
I think that the objections on the 316 were more to do with vibrations from heavier buses and/or perceived safety risk from DDs, not privacy. After all they already have DD 295s running past their windows. The campaign against the 316 referenced a collision involving a DD 295 and a pedestrian. I don't think the fact that it was a DD had anything to do with the collision, but some people got it into their minds that DDs are inherently unsafe.
In other areas there are indeed objections against DDs because of privacy concerns - I think the 184 is one example. When I travelled on one of the few DDs that managed to escape onto the offending section of the 184 I did have a look to see if there was anything special about the first floors of Alexandra Park Road. It was just another boring residential street.
I was sure it was complaints from local residents about privacy I think the fact that the 295 is double decker made it more ridiculous. Isn't it true that the 216 can also no longer take double deckers because residents in Sunbury believe they are unsafe after a pedestrian was killed or was that just another rumour that was spread very easily? yes, there was certainly one where following an accident Deckers had to be banned, which I found weird as the accident happened on ground level and wasn't linked to the presence of an upper deck. I'm not sure if it was the 216 though or 391.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 19, 2020 13:26:38 GMT
Can we please have this on the 316 so local residents can no longer complain about people looking into their rooms 😁 I think the 316 is more to do with the weight of double deckers than any privacy issues.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Sept 19, 2020 15:09:21 GMT
I think that the objections on the 316 were more to do with vibrations from heavier buses and/or perceived safety risk from DDs, not privacy. After all they already have DD 295s running past their windows. The campaign against the 316 referenced a collision involving a DD 295 and a pedestrian. I don't think the fact that it was a DD had anything to do with the collision, but some people got it into their minds that DDs are inherently unsafe.
In other areas there are indeed objections against DDs because of privacy concerns - I think the 184 is one example. When I travelled on one of the few DDs that managed to escape onto the offending section of the 184 I did have a look to see if there was anything special about the first floors of Alexandra Park Road. It was just another boring residential street.
I was sure it was complaints from local residents about privacy I think the fact that the 295 is double decker made it more ridiculous. Isn't it true that the 216 can also no longer take double deckers because residents in Sunbury believe they are unsafe after a pedestrian was killed or was that just another rumour that was spread very easily? The campaign against the 316 extension was combined with a campaign against the 228. I think it was a general anti-bus movement which may well have included privacy concerns, but one of the central arguments was that a DD 295 had already been involved in a fatal collision with a pedestrian, and that the DD 295s were causing vibrations etc. The fact that the campaigners actually wanted a Westfield-branded minibus rather than a regular bus service gives an idea of the sort of mentality that was fuelling the campaign.
The bit about the 216 is true - as far as I can tell it's just an unofficial ban that was enacted after the fatal collision to placate local residents.
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Sept 19, 2020 15:22:06 GMT
I think that the objections on the 316 were more to do with vibrations from heavier buses and/or perceived safety risk from DDs, not privacy. After all they already have DD 295s running past their windows. The campaign against the 316 referenced a collision involving a DD 295 and a pedestrian. I don't think the fact that it was a DD had anything to do with the collision, but some people got it into their minds that DDs are inherently unsafe.
In other areas there are indeed objections against DDs because of privacy concerns - I think the 184 is one example. When I travelled on one of the few DDs that managed to escape onto the offending section of the 184 I did have a look to see if there was anything special about the first floors of Alexandra Park Road. It was just another boring residential street.
I was sure it was complaints from local residents about privacy I think the fact that the 295 is double decker made it more ridiculous. Isn't it true that the 216 can also no longer take double deckers because residents in Sunbury believe they are unsafe after a pedestrian was killed or was that just another rumour that was spread very easily? Yes you are correct regarding the 216 double deck ban: From what I can recall an elderly gentleman went in front of a double decker 216 bus and got knocked over. There was already some sort of campaign going on to remove double deckers from the 216 before this event happened and with this event occuring it allowed them to strengthen their campaign and remove DDs entirely from the Sunbury Village area. This is most likely the reason why DDs will not go on the 216 and 235. 635 is allowed since it takes a different routing to the 235 at Sunbury.
|
|
|
Post by rebbelhead on Sept 19, 2020 15:57:07 GMT
The 184 is indeed another example of double deckers being banned because of residents' objections. This happened in about 1991 when the then 84a was converted from Metrobuses to Darts with a new hail & ride section in the Wood Green back streets instead of running "direct" via the North Circular and Green Lanes as previously. The residents twisted Haringey borough arms, who in turn managed to get an undertaking from LT that double deckers would not be used. In the following years demand shot up, addressed by two increases in bus lengths in fairly quick succession and a string of frequency increases. One senior Leaside (as Arriva's predecessor) manager was pretty vocal about the folly of sticking with single deckers at the time.
I hate to think what this action by a handful of residents nearly 30 years ago has cost LT/TfL over the years through the inefficient use of single decks. The impending contract renewal would have been a time to correct this, but sadly not to be.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 22, 2020 7:05:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by northlondonbuses on Sept 22, 2020 14:27:47 GMT
Im in a bit of a pickle I left my phone on a undisclosed route the bus was TE935 and idk if PB have my phone and the bus went into the garage at 11:00 so idk if I should call them today or tommorow.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 22, 2020 14:36:41 GMT
Im in a bit of a pickle I left my phone on a undisclosed route the bus was TE935 and idk if PB have my phone and the bus went into the garage at 11:00 so idk if I should call them today or tommorow. Do it ASAP - I personally wouldn’t leave it until tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Sept 22, 2020 14:37:40 GMT
Im in a bit of a pickle I left my phone on a undisclosed route the bus was TE935 and idk if PB have my phone and the bus went into the garage at 11:00 so idk if I should call them today or tommorow. Definitely call PB as soon as you can, since the bus has returned to garage earlier in the day so chances are the driver would have a done a full bus check which they might possibly have found your phone already.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 22, 2020 14:49:10 GMT
From my observations, I'm not sure the use of signs diplayed in bus front windows has been successful. The 'bus full' signs are often left on display, regardless of how busy the bus is at the time. Non-school services seem to get very busy as school children continue to use them, likely as they may not know when the school extras are timetabled. Meanwhile, the school services are usually almost empty, and often let any passengers on. Although the extra services are needed, I'm not sure it is worth segregating the two passenger types.
|
|
|
Post by bustavane on Sept 22, 2020 15:36:02 GMT
From my observations, I'm not sure the use of signs diplayed in bus front windows has been successful. The 'bus full' signs are often left on display, regardless of how busy the bus is at the time. Non-school services seem to get very busy as school children continue to use them, likely as they may not know when the school extras are timetabled. Meanwhile, the school services are usually almost empty, and often let any passengers on. Although the extra services are needed, I'm not sure it is worth segregating the two passenger types. Another good reason for electronic displays.....
|
|
|
Post by northlondonbuses on Sept 22, 2020 15:47:59 GMT
Im in a bit of a pickle I left my phone on a undisclosed route the bus was TE935 and idk if PB have my phone and the bus went into the garage at 11:00 so idk if I should call them today or tommorow. Do it ASAP - I personally wouldn’t leave it until tomorrow Should I just go to PB since theyre not answering and I dont think its illegal to go there unannounced.
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Sept 22, 2020 15:52:09 GMT
Do it ASAP - I personally wouldn’t leave it until tomorrow Should I just go to PB since theyre not answering and I dont think its illegal to go there unannounced. Think it closes at 5pm, did you try calling 01707 347700?
|
|
|
Post by northlondonbuses on Sept 22, 2020 15:57:32 GMT
Should I just go to PB since theyre not answering and I dont think its illegal to go there unannounced. Think it closes at 5pm, did you try calling 01707 347700? yep I tried and theyre not picking up however THANK GOD!! hallelujah. On find my Iphone it shows that its at PB so tommorow Ill just go there after school Attachment Deleted
|
|