Fracas on the number 40 this morning.

[Brendan]

James Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Am amazed David Cameron

> hasn't capitalized more on this. I hate the man

> but if he had two brain cells he would use this

> issue as a stick to beat Labour with.

I have a sneaking suspicion that he doesn?t really want to win anything as he and his ilk are doing just dandy under our current government. The whole ?opposition? thing is just for show.

Sorry a bit off topic there.

I too am starting to hate the bus when it could be a much more desirable form of transport.

[JoeChuff]

spadetownboy Wrote:

best seat was

> top deck left hand side right at the back level

> with the stairs just sit and watch the world go

> by. does anyone remember the little handle that

> wound the windows down.

no no no, best seat was bottom deck left hand side at the front, because you could pretend you were the driver

[Nero]

Recently, a website spawned a well-ish-documented campaign against people playing their music on mobiles or having their music turned up too loud. It's resulted in Mr Ken having stickers put on buses asking people to keep it down. Does anyone think a similar campaign against food-and-other-littering would work? Or feet on seats? (It seems totally acceptable now for people to remove their feet from a seat when it's needed, as if they are being as polite as maiden aunts in doing so.) Nero

[Jah Lush]

Well, the stickers certainly haven't worked and they obviously weren't very visible as I can't ever remember seeing one. I think it would take a lot more than that to get people to stop playing music from their mobile phones and eating/drinking/ littering. Just ban it.

[James]

Yes, feet on seats really annoys me too. I once saw someone spitting on the floor of a bus as if this were perfectly normal. I glared at him but was too scared to do anything else as he looked like a member of the underclass.

Why is it necessary to put your feet on a seat? Why is it necessary to spit in the street, let alone inside a bus? Were these people raised by wild animals?

[Brendan]

I find spitting on the street disgusting too. I don't know why it is somehow seen as normal. Why do people need to spit anyway? I certainly don't. Not even when I'm out running.

[Nero]

It's ok, I think, to grob on grass, out of view, if your lungs are full of tuppenny-tasting phlegm, but in the street, no. On a bus, never. Nero

[Doodles]

All of this feels like an argument for conductors. Sadly, people don?t seem to be willing to act like grown-ups without someone watching over them.

And I hate having people watching over me.

[LuvPeckham]

Simple fact of life is that people feel safer when there is a conductor on the bus, rather then just some poor person sitting behind a security screen more focused on todays busy roads.

Equally (when we had them) the conductors used to help people on and off the bus, ensure that it pulled away when it was safe and also made sure that it was tidy during the route (picking up papers and stuff)

Yeah, it's an argument for conductors to come back and why not - Shoot let's hang the expense - it's better to pay a little more to use the bus and feel safe then not use it out of fear.

I even have heard that they will introduce a form of conductor for the tram when it is running.

[Brendan]

In the current climate in London I wouldn't want to be a bus conductor. You would probably get knifed by some monosyllabic scrote who doesn't want to pay their fare.

[James]

I think conductors help as a deterrent to low-level crime, in the same way that a visible police presence does. Where somewhere seems to be totally unsupervised you get litter, antisocial behaviour etc - the 12 is a prime example. I don't recall there being empty fried chicken boxes and kids playing music aloud on the old Routemasters. And I don't think it's just because that was a few years ago - look at the DLR, which always seems pretty clean and safe. It's not surprising as each one is manned.

[Ultraconsultancy]

Brendan has this one about right - I was told by someone who really would know that conductors attracted more serious crime than they stopped - robberies and assaults were far more common on two-crew buses than one. might be less dangerous occupation now that oyster has stripped the cash from the system, but those guys used to carry a serious load of money at some points. Maybe we should have armed them?

[Frisco]

People seem to be referring to traditional conductors and calling for them to be brought back. However, in my view, buses should be completely cashless, and they can be as a Oyster and bus stop payment machines. The previous role of the conductor is obsolete, and money handling would only distract from more useful roles.

Not having to handle money would allow the drivers to drive without distraction, and a second person on board could be used in a passenger assistance, security and revenue enforcement role. Sadly, I suspect that these people would probably have to wear stab proof jackets, but everyone else working in security these days seems to do so anyway.

[Brendan]

Stuff this. I?m moving back to Johannesburg. It?s safer.

[LostThePlot]

Frisco Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However, in my view, buses should be completely cashless, and they can be as a Oyster

> and bus stop payment machines.

These ticket machines sadly cost more in infrastructure and ongoing maintanace and cash collection than conductors ever did.

Then of course there is the whole issue fo having to have change and lone woned being stranded because they did nto have the right change for a ticket. Riduculous idea they were.

> Not having to handle money would allow the drivers

> to drive without distraction, and a second person

> on board could be used in a passenger assistance,

> security and revenue enforcement role.

If they are protecting revenue, then they surely will have to offer a way of paying, as per ticket inspectors on trains, so surely makes them conductors?

> Sadly, I suspect that these people would probably have to

> wear stab proof jackets, but everyone else working

> in security these days seems to do so anyway.

Sadly you're right.

[mockney piers]

*ahem*

ok, 5 years old, but still.

"In the last year for which statistics are available there were nearly 1,000 murders in Johannesburg - a murder rate some 16 times higher than London.

There were also over 15,000 house burglaries and nearly 8,000 serious assaults."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3096829.stm

[Jah Lush]

That's true Mockney, Joberg is the murder city of the world but Brendan, being South African, was only saying it in jest.

[mockney piers]

I did realise, it was more LTP's "Sadly you're right" that prompted me. But then he has self-confessedly 'lost the plot' ;)

Of course the more fashion conscious dulwichmum type, feeling a little unsafe on public transport, may consider this stylish handbag.

 

[LostThePlot]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Of course the more fashion conscious dulwichmum

> type, feeling a little unsafe on public transport,

> may consider this stylish handbag.

>

Noooooo - As carried by the Fashion Police* I wonder, but then looking at it, the answer must surely be no!

* Who've felt my very wide collars on the odd occasion.

[Jah Lush]

Hmmm..reminds me of an old girlfriend of mine who used to carry a cosh in her handbag.

[Brendan]

'tis true fellows. I was taking the proverbial wee wee.

[Frisco]

LostThePlot wrote: "These ticket machines sadly cost more in infrastructure and ongoing maintanace and cash collection than conductors ever did."

As you've made this claim, do you have the evidence to back it up? I don't believe that this is true, and if it was it would have been exposed far more widely than on EDF.

LostThePlot wrote: "Then of course there is the whole issue fo having to have change and lone woned being stranded because they did nto have the right change for a ticket. Riduculous idea they were."

At the beginning maybe, but people are now mostly used to the machines, and Oyster is now much more widely available and cheaper than paying by cash.

LostThePlot wrote:"If they are protecting revenue, then they surely will have to offer a way of paying, as per ticket inspectors on trains, so surely makes them conductors?"

You're nit-picking. Revenue protection doesn't always require cash collection, and can involve identifying the people involved for further action. However, even if they did take penalty payments from non-payers etc, this would hardly be handling money on the same scale as a conductor. Plus, you appear to be ignoring the deterrent effect, as well as the previous costs of conductor fraud etc.

[LostThePlot]

Frisco Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As you've made this claim, do you have the

> evidence to back it up? I don't believe that this

> is true, and if it was it would have been exposed

> far more widely than on EDF.

Who needs evidence this is the internet...Joking aside I belive the who infrastructure costs on set-up were circa ?10m (Not sure where I got this figure from but it is in my head, may have been when i was researching the story on the routremaster demise. As they were replacing drivers taking fares it was an additional cost over and above costs already being borne. Then of course there is the fact that that quite a lot of the busses that you have to buy a ticket for then travel down the road, and you can pay the driver at that stop. As mentikoned they then need maintaining, and emptying of cash. Of course there is the matter fo fare evasion also. People just waving some random ticket.

> At the beginning maybe, but people are now mostly

> used to the machines, and Oyster is now much more

> widely available and cheaper than paying by cash.

Yes, but these were still serious problems

> You're nit-picking. Revenue protection doesn't

> always require cash collection, and can involve

> identifying the people involved for further

> action.

It is cheaper for the company to take the fare ther and then, than to go through the process of sending out letters to chase payments/fines. Any process such as that has a cost to it, so it's more cost effective to deal with the non payment at source if possible.

> However, even if they did take penalty payments from non-payers etc, this would hardly be

> handling money on the same scale as a conductor.

Agreed, but if the facility is there to handle the paymants why not go the whole hog? It makes the "Value" of the conductor/inspector/security chappie more worthwhile.

> Plus, you appear to be ignoring the deterrent effect, as well as the previous costs of conductor

> fraud etc.

Not ignoring it, I believe we should have conductors, just thought that was obvious from my standpoint, but maybe it wasn't?

[serenity]

Hi Brendan,

I would like to be part of this new society. I have some fire wood, wine and a good selection of teaching texts for the children. What will you call this new country of ours?