-
bent over a table being fucked up the arse.
-
I bet we'll end up with them all in brum.
Doesn't look like Brum is getting them, looks like they are heading to Bristol
-
A little bit of me is glad as I have actually had a few uncomfortable moments with bendy buses when they have overtaken me then swung into a stop (usually on Holborn, so it is probably just one nobber driver). But it does seem like a huge waste.
Maybe triple deckers? I've not seen that option on the table, and I can think of no possible drawbacks or safety concerns. The stairs might be a bitch, but maybe we could get some lift action going on?
-
Maybe triple deckers? I've not seen that option on the table, and I can think of **loads of **possible drawbacks or safety concerns as they are crap for anyone with old legs, in a wheel chair, with a pram,with bags, sore legs from cycling, sore hips...
The stairs might be a bitch, but maybe we could get some lift action going on... that would be heavy, slow, expensive and breakdown all the time? nah that's a crazy idea
fixed
-
ken was up for fucking the rich.
boris is up for fucking the poor.Ken was up for fucking everyone he could.
The biggest mistake and waste of money is not that Boris is getting rid of the bendies, but that Ken ever bought them.
I for one fucking hate them, whether I am on the inside or the outside. As for safety anything which makes your cycle harder and more risky is de facto more dangerous, and the bendies certainly do that. Maybe they havent actually killed that many people but how many collisions have they contributed to?
-
this is the solution to all London's transport needs, surely?
-
waste o' cash. electioneering
-
I overtook a 507 this morning and the new short bus almost made me have an accident because it was shorter thatn it should be.
therefore, new 507 is more dangerous than the old.
-
what's the LCC position I wonder...?
There is no credible evidence that articulated bus operation puts cyclists at greater risk than operation of rigid buses. Proper research is required to get a broader picture of what is happening. The LCC would certainly wish to form a position on better evidence, but right now the picture is indeterminate.
Some background:
Operationally, as every bus person will tell you, articulated buses are far superior. They have less dwell time at stops, they have greater capacity, are faster, quieter, and (counter-intuitively, except at some junctions), they cause less congestion than smaller PCV units. (Congestion is caused primarily by uneven speeds, e.g., stopping and starting, and queues of shorter units clear more slowly than queues of longer units; also, articulated buses actually take up less road space when moving than two shorter rigid buses owing to the need to keep distance between vehicles. They do on occasion block some tight junctions, which is quite visible, but does not massively change the overall picture.) Apart from trams, they are the most efficient urban people-movers overground.
Somewhat obviously, it must not be forgotten that cyclists have always had problems with buses, and that all kinds of buses have advantages and drawbacks for cyclists, so that of course articulated buses have them, too. The main thing that cyclists tend to find frightening is when an articulated bus slowly closes in on them. However, anecdotally, complaints about buses by cyclists appear to have gone down massively since the introduction of articulated buses, which we attribute largely to much better driver training (work to do still, to be sure, but it has got very much better). Shorter, rigid buses tend to be able to overtake cyclists quickly when pulling into a bus stop, causing greater alarm, and there used to be many, many complaints about that sort of behaviour.
The reason why the urban myth developed that articulated buses cause greater risk to cyclists is because in 2007, under Livingstone, TfL released an incomplete set of raw statistics about collision risk in response to a question at Mayor's Question Time. This proved to be a massive own goal, as the impression was given of a greater risk to cyclists from articulated buses, and that was conveniently distorted in the press.
I don't know if anyone has done a proper analysis (we've certainly asked TfL to do this), but what would be needed would be:
Collision and mileage data would have to be available separately for high frequency bus routes (which tend to be under articulated bus operation now).
Data is needed for the routes that are now articulated before they became articulated. (Not just data on any old high-frequency routes.)
There was no data given on the absolute numbers of collisions with other bus types. Same route or not, that would also be a useful comparator.
A qualitative analysis should be done using more detailed information. Articulated buses tend to cause different problems than rigid buses.
Analysis of whole routes or in terms of distance is crude in the extreme and should be complemented by a look at individual locations and potential collision clusters.
As for 'subjective' versus 'objective' safety, I grew up where there were almost only articulated buses and I don't find them 'scary' at all. I've been used to riding around them for a long time. There is always the threat of the new. The statistically relevant aspect is to what extent their comparative rarity and novelty might influence people's behaviour around them.
There was no comparison between Central, Inner and Outer London. Relatively few articulated bus miles are accumulated in Outer London, but a significantly higher percentage of miles for relatively few non-articulated bus routes are gathered there.
So, while there were some things we already knew, without proper comparisons we can't really put them in context.
Referring to the data released by TfL in 2007: The total number of reported collisions involving bendy buses from April 2006 to March 2007 was 1751, of which 64 involved pedestrians and 30 involved cyclists. For cyclists, that's about 2.5 a month, in all London (not, of course, forgetting that reporting of collisions is generally inadequate, but it's the data we have). It is quite clear that the number of collisions with pedestrians is particularly low so as to be statistically insignificant, and that the number of collisions with cyclists also doesn't amount to much. The real problem is the much higher number of cyclist collisions with cars and the relatively small but highly dangerous number of collisions with HGVs.
Still on the 2006-2007 data: The total number of collisions per million bus miles (itself a very crude measure) was 153.17 on articulated routes, of which 5.6 were for pedestrians and 2.62 were for cyclists. (Non-articulated: 87.04 of which 2.6 for peds and 0.97 for cyclists.) These stats look alarming but in light of the above are not very meaningful at all. It is turning them into percentages that removes the problem with the small sample size and suggests statistical significance.
So, in summary, there is a dearth of research. We would of course very much like collisions to go down even further, and as far as I'm aware they have, but there is in fact no evidence basis for claims that it is critical for cyclist safety to remove articulated bus operation. In fact, it obscures the real problems.
Anyone who's interested in this stuff is more than welcome to join the LCC and its Cycle Planning and Engineering Committee.
Oliver
LCC -
There is no credible evidence that articulated bus operation puts cyclists at greater risk than operation of rigid buses. Proper research is required to get a broader picture of what is happening. The LCC would certainly wish to form a position on better evidence, but right now the picture is indeterminate.
Some background:
Operationally, as every bus person will tell you, articulated buses are far superior. They have less dwell time at stops, they have greater capacity, are faster, quieter, and (counter-intuitively, except at some junctions), they cause less congestion than smaller PCV units. (Congestion is caused primarily by uneven speeds, e.g., stopping and starting, and queues of shorter units clear more slowly than queues of longer units; also, articulated buses actually take up less road space when moving than two shorter rigid buses owing to the need to keep distance between vehicles. They do on occasion block some tight junctions, which is quite visible, but does not massively change the overall picture.) Apart from trams, they are the most efficient urban people-movers overground.
Somewhat obviously, it must not be forgotten that cyclists have always had problems with buses, and that all kinds of buses have advantages and drawbacks for cyclists, so that of course articulated buses have them, too. The main thing that cyclists tend to find frightening is when an articulated bus slowly closes in on them. However, anecdotally, complaints about buses by cyclists appear to have gone down massively since the introduction of articulated buses, which we attribute largely to much better driver training (work to do still, to be sure, but it has got very much better). Shorter, rigid buses tend to be able to overtake cyclists quickly when pulling into a bus stop, causing greater alarm, and there used to be many, many complaints about that sort of behaviour.
The reason why the urban myth developed that articulated buses cause greater risk to cyclists is because in 2007, under Livingstone, TfL released an incomplete set of raw statistics about collision risk in response to a question at Mayor's Question Time. This proved to be a massive own goal, as the impression was given of a greater risk to cyclists from articulated buses, and that was conveniently distorted in the press.
I don't know if anyone has done a proper analysis (we've certainly asked TfL to do this), but what would be needed would be:
Collision and mileage data would have to be available separately for high frequency bus routes (which tend to be under articulated bus operation now).
Data is needed for the routes that are now articulated before they became articulated. (Not just data on any old high-frequency routes.)
There was no data given on the absolute numbers of collisions with other bus types. Same route or not, that would also be a useful comparator.
A qualitative analysis should be done using more detailed information. Articulated buses tend to cause different problems than rigid buses.
Analysis of whole routes or in terms of distance is crude in the extreme and should be complemented by a look at individual locations and potential collision clusters.
As for 'subjective' versus 'objective' safety, I grew up where there were almost only articulated buses and I don't find them 'scary' at all. I've been used to riding around them for a long time. There is always the threat of the new. The statistically relevant aspect is to what extent their comparative rarity and novelty might influence people's behaviour around them.
There was no comparison between Central, Inner and Outer London. Relatively few articulated bus miles are accumulated in Outer London, but a significantly higher percentage of miles for relatively few non-articulated bus routes are gathered there.
So, while there were some things we already knew, without proper comparisons we can't really put them in context.
Referring to the data released by TfL in 2007: The total number of reported collisions involving bendy buses from April 2006 to March 2007 was 1751, of which 64 involved pedestrians and 30 involved cyclists. For cyclists, that's about 2.5 a month, in all London (not, of course, forgetting that reporting of collisions is generally inadequate, but it's the data we have). It is quite clear that the number of collisions with pedestrians is particularly low so as to be statistically insignificant, and that the number of collisions with cyclists also doesn't amount to much. The real problem is the much higher number of cyclist collisions with cars and the relatively small but highly dangerous number of collisions with HGVs.
Still on the 2006-2007 data: The total number of collisions per million bus miles (itself a very crude measure) was 153.17 on articulated routes, of which 5.6 were for pedestrians and 2.62 were for cyclists. (Non-articulated: 87.04 of which 2.6 for peds and 0.97 for cyclists.) These stats look alarming but in light of the above are not very meaningful at all. It is turning them into percentages that removes the problem with the small sample size and suggests statistical significance.
So, in summary, there is a dearth of research. We would of course very much like collisions to go down even further, and as far as I'm aware they have, but there is in fact no evidence basis for claims that it is critical for cyclist safety to remove articulated bus operation. In fact, it obscures the real problems.
Anyone who's interested in this stuff is more than welcome to join the LCC and its Cycle Planning and Engineering Committee.
Oliver
LCCnice one oliver.
TheBrick(Tommy)
Mattster
scoober
Frank_Glass
citygent
bq
howsyourdad?
AlexB
dommyracer
jv
rembrandt
|³|MA3K
Oliver Schick
Tea_Bee
somebody
deleted-
Post a reply
About
First bendy buses meet their Waterloo
Posted by
@Fox
it's costing londoners ~£10 000 000m - 15 000 000 per year to get them
cost of a life = £1 400 000
therefore even if bendies killed 6-10 people per year this still wouldn't make sense.
and all you people saying bendy buses are dangerous are just buying into a bullshit political line as well. they are actually far safer, far faster, and really liked by the people that use then.
now mini cabs - they suck and should be banned.