|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Oct 7, 2013 8:52:16 GMT
I will bet my left testicle that the woman was to blame. I hope she makes a full recovery. The right more important huh? Or maybe the right was lost in a previous bet! There seems to be more drama on the 24 than the TV series. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 10:02:01 GMT
I will bet my left testicle that the woman was to blame. I hope she makes a full recovery. The right more important huh? Well if you think the open platform is dangerous why don't you get on and off via the front and centre doors...........huh? The rest of us can make up our own minds without any input from the 'safety police'! |
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Oct 7, 2013 12:03:14 GMT
The right more important huh? Well if you think the open platform is dangerous why don't you get on and off via the front and centre doors...........huh? The rest of us can make up our own minds without any input from the 'safety police'! I completely agree antman. It never fails to amaze me what tosh Livingstone comes out with either. If he thought the open platform was dangerous, then why did he buy back RM's before deciding to scrap them?? It was nothing to do with that, simply he came under pressure from the disability lobby. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 7, 2013 13:33:29 GMT
Well if you think the open platform is dangerous why don't you get on and off via the front and centre doors...........huh? The rest of us can make up our own minds without any input from the 'safety police'! I completely agree antman. It never fails to amaze me what tosh Livingstone comes out with either. If he thought the open platform was dangerous, then why did he buy back RM's before deciding to scrap them?? It was nothing to do with that, simply he came under pressure from the disability lobby. I believe 'bigbaddom1981' was having a joke at the left testicle reference rather than the open platform situation. Whilst platforms are not dangerous if used correctly, the disabled do need to board the bus - my beloved buses were step entrance too yet I can't imagine how hard it was for a disabled person to board one - the RM's would of had to go sometime. I know what's coming - shove them all into dial a ride except why alienate a section of the community for something they can't help - why not instead shove all the buggy mums to dial a ride seeing as they cause far more problems. |
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Oct 7, 2013 14:59:52 GMT
The right more important huh? Well if you think the open platform is dangerous why don't you get on and off via the front and centre doors...........huh? The rest of us can make up our own minds without any input from the 'safety police'! I'm typing my opinion and asking questions here more than quoting facts, and I don't know the details of this accident, but it was only a matter of time... Wish it was this simplistic! The problem is, if you are risk assessing, that having an open platform creates a greater risk of accident than closed doors. In this legislative climate, this is likely to lead to more claims. The cost of the driver and attendant will be covered in the contract, however I suspect any subsequent injury claim will then be the company's liability. This increased liability may also be reflected in the contract price, but in a competitive market probably not significantly (although it may be interesting to see how this reflects in the first competitive tender result.) People rush in London, we all see that. Since the original open platform routemasters were basically phased out there has been a huge (and encouraged) increase in cyclists in the capital. Cycles race up the inside of buses (I frequently see them wearing headphones, so some of them have no concern for their own safety by removing an important sense). People race off buses without thought to look because momentarily their time seems more important. However well intended, an attendant will not be able, or have time, or be paid attention to in all of these instances. I wonder how much this increased risk was assessed, as in my opinion open platform buses really do not mix well with cyclists. Then there is the known and proven risk that people do get off the buses while they are moving in the middle of road junctions, as per a fatality in Streatham on route 159 nearing the end of the routemasters. Yes, take your own risk... but you'll file a huge claim when it goes wrong and you can blame the company for your actions because the (probably now sacked attendant) was answering a question from someone in the saloon at the time you took your risk (that's not intended as personally aimed, but my answer to anyone (there will be many) making the I'll make up my own mind statement speaking for themselves or others). So, how well did TfL assess these risks against the risks of operating doored buses? Or did it carry the project on as a result of head first political commitment that was not to be reversed. Or, assuming the risk went to the operators, was it left to them to assess when routes were to be started. I bet Metroline has a huge insurance write down against this one... If you take away someone's ability to work, i.e. leave them disabled, or remove the family earner for good, you are likely looking at a claim in at least the million mark... I have seen such figures against disability causing accidents. I actually like the buses, but I think they were a brave mistake operationally. I would not be surprised if those platform doors get closed off somewhere along the line in the next mayoral term. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Oct 7, 2013 15:24:20 GMT
Well if you think the open platform is dangerous why don't you get on and off via the front and centre doors...........huh? The rest of us can make up our own minds without any input from the 'safety police'! I'm typing my opinion and asking questions here more than quoting facts, and I don't know the details of this accident, but it was only a matter of time... Wish it was this simplistic! The problem is, if you are risk assessing, that having an open platform creates a greater risk of accident than closed doors. In this legislative climate, this is likely to lead to more claims. The cost of the driver and attendant will be covered in the contract, however I suspect any subsequent injury claim will then be the company's liability. This increased liability may also be reflected in the contract price, but in a competitive market probably not significantly (although it may be interesting to see how this reflects in the first competitive tender result.) People rush in London, we all see that. Since the original open platform routemasters were basically phased out there has been a huge (and encouraged) increase in cyclists in the capital. Cycles race up the inside of buses (I frequently see them wearing headphones, so some of them have no concern for their own safety by removing an important sense). People race off buses without thought to look because momentarily their time seems more important. However well intended, an attendant will not be able, or have time, or be paid attention to in all of these instances. I wonder how much this increased risk was assessed, as in my opinion open platform buses really do not mix well with cyclists. Then there is the known and proven risk that people do get off the buses while they are moving in the middle of road junctions, as per a fatality in Streatham on route 159 nearing the end of the routemasters. Yes, take your own risk... but you'll file a huge claim when it goes wrong and you can blame the company for your actions because the (probably now sacked attendant) was answering a question from someone in the saloon at the time you took your risk (that's not intended as personally aimed, but my answer to anyone (there will be many) making the I'll make up my own mind statement speaking for themselves or others). So, how well did TfL assess these risks against the risks of operating doored buses? Or did it carry the project on as a result of head first political commitment that was not to be reversed. Or, assuming the risk went to the operators, was it left to them to assess when routes were to be started. I bet Metroline has a huge insurance write down against this one... If you take away someone's ability to work, i.e. leave them disabled, or remove the family earner for good, you are likely looking at a claim in at least the million mark... I have seen such figures against disability causing accidents. I actually like the buses, but I think they were a brave mistake operationally. I would not be surprised if those platform doors get closed off somewhere along the line in the next mayoral term. They would probably be removed altogether like Boris did to the Bendies  I hope not, this was an accident. There are ambulance-chasing law firms ready to 'claim' on anything, but then some people are so stupid, they shouldn't leave their house When was the last time you got paid out because you slipped on a wet floor for instance? I don't know the full circumstances of how this accident happened, but if the bus was full, and the 'conductor' told the lady its not safe to board / leave the bus and she thought, to hell with it, and tried to alight/board and the bus suddenly moved off (which they do, and there's very little engine noise to indicate you're suddenly on the move), it's not the fault of the bus operator or the bus in question, this same accident could have happened with the old RM's too. That junction is not the best place to have an accident, they drive like nutters down Kentish Town (people having their last 'thrash' at 30, before crossing the Islington border, people late for work etc.). I think the buses are a 'brave mistake' too, especially such a HUGE order of them... it looks like we better get used to them as they're soon to take to the 390 as well as the 9. I hope she recovers, but I know that the 24 sometimes is patchy at best and the buses come in clumps... I've had quite a wait in the morning too. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbaddom1981 on Oct 7, 2013 15:24:26 GMT
Without deviating from said topic, my joke about the 'right' one was indeed a reference to the left testicle. I thought the humour was fairly obvious as it was said as a quote in direct reference to the last comment!
I hope this clears things up, although I am very surprised I have to!
|
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Oct 7, 2013 15:26:49 GMT
Without deviating from said topic, my joke about the 'right' one was indeed a reference to the left testicle. I thought the humour was fairly obvious as it was said as a quote in direct reference to the last comment! I hope this clears things up, although I am very surprised I have to! unfortunately some posters here, like testicles can be a little sensitive and tender at times... I'll get my coat |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 15:27:23 GMT
Well if you think the open platform is dangerous why don't you get on and off via the front and centre doors...........huh? The rest of us can make up our own minds without any input from the 'safety police'! I completely agree antman. It never fails to amaze me what tosh Livingstone comes out with either. If he thought the open platform was dangerous, then why did he buy back RM's before deciding to scrap them?? It was nothing to do with that, simply he came under pressure from the disability lobby. Its weird that red Ken used to like the routemasters and conductors, but dropped it in favor of low floor buses. I found out he answered one of the people on a news site over a decade ago which says.... news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/227374.stmI just hate it when politicians change their mind over things. When the Routemaster got taken out of service, issues with the New iconic bus become debatable. Then Boris took over from Ken then waited for few years for a prototype. Then another election comes, (most of the candidates dislike the new bus) then same man got in and then put the new Bus onto production. Plus they got the amount of publicity for the bus which have 3 on world tour and one of the prototypes on a tv show called Top Gear. Why couldn't Ken stick to the original plan, if all that happened, it would end up being a Kenmaster... But they can try get rid of the way it works (as in open platform and conductor), but they can't get rid of the whole thing. Thankfully the modern "Routemaster" got a rear door as it can be used 24/7 like what its doing on the route 24. I know getting rid of things in the past would save money, but it will end up being expensive to bring it back... They got to beware that they have to listen to the people as they like things, When Ken put the axe on the Routemaster from full service, it ends up reducing them to 2 small routes as Heritage Routes. With the NBfL today, TFL admits on the summary document that they have overwhelming positive feelings towards the bus. The NBFL issue will remain very debatable between the public and the politicians. TFL should conduct annual surveys over the NBFL project to see if peoples views change over the years. lastly, TFL need to try and do a very final version design of the NBFL, like one with 3 doors and 2 staircase and another with 2 doors like a conventional bus. They need to take out stuff like metal rims on stairs, interior panels and redesign it to make it more cheap like any other conventional bus. Then various operators around Britain, Ireland and world will start talking about it... It makes me wished that there are more Volvo Alisa V3's in the past, then there will be some difference as of today... When will TFL is going to drop the word New from the New bus for London? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 16:21:22 GMT
Without deviating from said topic, my joke about the 'right' one was indeed a reference to the left testicle. I thought the humour was fairly obvious as it was said as a quote in direct reference to the last comment! I hope this clears things up, although I am very surprised I have to! unfortunately some posters here, like testicles can be a little sensitive and tender at times... I'll get my coat Unfortunately, it seems some posters just won't play ball  |
|
|
|
Post by bigbaddom1981 on Oct 7, 2013 16:54:18 GMT
unfortunately some posters here, like testicles can be a little sensitive and tender at times... I'll get my coat Unfortunately, it seems some posters just won't play ball This takes the pee It's all a load of horlicks The topic is in the wrong ball park I thought long and hard about this, we must be together, side by side, swing together! |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Oct 7, 2013 19:19:20 GMT
Unfortunately, it seems some posters just won't play ball This takes the pee It's all a load of horlicks The topic is in the wrong ball park I thought long and hard about this, we must be together, side by side, swing together! I thought an Innuendo was a Spanish suppository before I read this thread  |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Oct 7, 2013 19:49:57 GMT
@mredd, Ouch On a more serious note, on the Yahoo group, the news is that the lady sadly died as a result of her injuries. Condolences to the family, sadly the first death of a passenger involving an NBFL, though I'm convinced it's not directly the bus' fault. 
MODS MSGI see that Leon Daniels has made a post on Yahoo groups saying that this is not the case - the women has NOT died and is still alive.
Other posts containing this incorrect statement will be edited.
I would remind all members to be careful when posting such items - please try to be accurate, state your source material (if it is 'canteen talk' members know to take with a large pinch of salt) or make it clear you are speculating so that something you are not 100% sure on is not taken/accepted as fact.
RM5chris
TBF Moderation team |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 20:05:38 GMT
@mredd, Ouch This is very bad news on my books I wonder what will happen to TFL and Metroline? |
|
|
|
Post by l1group on Oct 7, 2013 22:05:28 GMT
When will TFL is going to drop the word New from the New bus for London? Hopefully soon, as it's been "New" for about 2 years now! To be honest, it should be the Existing Bus for London now (or EBfL) as it is not new anymore, nor it isn't old. |
|
I hope not, this was an accident. There are ambulance-chasing law firms ready to 'claim' on anything, but then some people are so stupid, they shouldn't leave their house 
