What was it about the Bendys that made them apparently more prone to accidents? I really can't understand how they could be more dangerous. They are long but they bend so they wheelbase can't have been significantly longer.
Now, now.... let's not treat statistics selectively. Channel 4 fact checked the Boris claims (remember - the Standard was the most vociferous pro-Boris organ) and they reveal it's much more nuanced
The actual number of incidents is small in all cases, but there's still a pretty big difference between the two types of bus: pedestrians and cyclists are both more than twice as likely to get into trouble on a bendy bus route.
But this doesn't necessarily prove that the bendy bus is to blame. What about other factors, such as the roads the buses are using? Is it possible there are just more accidents on certain routes, regardless of the type of bus in operation?
Figures released in January to the London Assembly paint a more moderate picture than the overall totals to which Boris refers. This breakdown compared collisions on all 12 bendy bus routes to collisions on 15 selected non-bendy routes.
These selected routes tended to cover busy inner-city areas rather than the quieter suburbs. The number 41, for example, which goes from London Bridge, through Holborn, to Wood Green, or the number 8, which goes from Bow in the East End, along Oxford Street to Victoria.
It's not necessarily a scientific study, but it would seem to be a more accurate representation of the kind of routes bendy buses serve.
According to this breakdown, bendy bus routes threw up 5.6 collisions with pedestrians in 2006/07; non-bendy bus routes 5.17.
Collisions with cyclists were 2.62 on bendy buses; but 2.78 on non-bendy routes.
Damning evidence that bendy buses are, well, not much different from other buses?
"The incidents that take place are both random, to do with the road networks themselves, and to do with weather conditions," David Brown, TFL's head of surface transport, said when presenting the figures to the Assembly. "They are not related to the type of vehicle that is operated on those roads."
Overall, there were more bendy bus collisions - which could be to do with anything from a pedestrian, cyclist or vehicle to a lamppost, building, street sign or tree.
There were 153 per million miles, compared with 117 for non-bendy buses. But cyclists and people made up a small proportion of these. Luckily, it's far more likely to be an inanimate object that gets over friendly with the bus.
How do bendy buses score in contrast to accidents involving the old Routemaster?
Changes in routes mean that data isn't directly comparable, but according to other figures TFL gave FactCheck, between January 1994 and September 2007 there were 0.05 fatalities per million km operated by bendy buses and 0.08 fatalities per million km operated by Routemasters.
So, taken in isolation, Boris is right but when you put the figures in context, bendis were comparable in terms of accident rates with other vehicles.
As for the redeployment question.... at least some bendis were reused by provincial operators. Who knows the likely redeployment of NB4Ls in the provinces if any withdrawals were made?
What was it about the Bendys that made them apparently more prone to accidents? I really can't understand how they could be more dangerous. They are long but they bend so they wheelbase can't have been significantly longer.
What was it about the Bendys that made them apparently more prone to accidents? I really can't understand how they could be more dangerous. They are long but they bend so they wheelbase can't have been significantly longer.
What was it about the Bendys that made them apparently more prone to accidents? I really can't understand how they could be more dangerous. They are long but they bend so they wheelbase can't have been significantly longer.
And unlike the other "London rejected classes" they haven't exactly been snapped up by other UK operators either...
To be fair the borismaster was meant to have an on board conductor to watch people board so this would have put people off fare dodging. However a conductor on bendy buses would probably have solved the fare dodging issue.
Plus the fare evasion issue, which I'm not even sure a conductor could actually do much about. Did they have powers to issue penalty fares?
I've used bendy buses without incident in Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, York, Manchester, Brighton, off the top of my head.
There wasn't a market for hundreds suddenly coming on the market over a very short time period.
There aren't many LHD models being offered at the moment or I suspect there would be more about.
None of the Borisbuses had conductors - it didn't take long for people to realise that the staff on a Borisbus did not check tickets at all.
The Passenger (or Customer) Assistants on bendy buses did not check tickets or check that people had touched in (if any did they were acting outside of their job description).
As such, they would not issue penalty fares.
I believe the passenger service assistant on the New Routemaster would put people off using the rear door to fare dodge. They did used to watch people as they entered so would see if you had touched in or not. If you didn't I doubt they would ignore it.
I don't remember bendy buses ever having Assistants/conductors, but I did state that I think if they had been implemented then the fare dodging would be reduced.
Long standing contracting policy of Tfl, buses over 5 years not to be submitted for use on new tender apart from some heritage services. Leads to the average of London bus fleet being 6 (up on pre NB4L days) compared with around 8 excluding London and operators having to cascade buses too old for London to the regions reducing demand for new.
I believe the passenger service assistant on the New Routemaster would put people off using the rear door to fare dodge. They did used to watch people as they entered so would see if you had touched in or not. If you didn't I doubt they would ignore it.
.
Either way, I don't mind them but can't see them operating outside of central London, as the extra length, door and staircase is only justified (if at all) on busy Central London routes.
But... it was confirmed some time ago by TfL that some will be going onto the EL routes in Barking.Either way, I don't mind them but can't see them operating outside of central London, as the extra length, door and staircase is only justified (if at all) on busy Central London routes.
Bendy buses did go over the kerbs, and swing over onto pavements - but I'm willing to say that they were just used on the wrong routes.
The fact street furniture had to be moved in places, and that they caused chaos on some junctions (even if driver error) and problems at bus stops when there were 2 or 3 buses and a driver at the back wouldn't drive on, so you had to go after it (great for wheelchair/buggy users and the elderly etc, not).
Whatever the stats, I am sure buses clipping kerbs and potentially swiping at people walking along the road wasn't a good thing.
Plus the fare evasion issue, which I'm not even sure a conductor could actually do much about. Did they have powers to issue penalty fares?
The length of them and the fact they are articulated on the awkward and sometimes windy streets of London. Bendy buses work well on wide streets in cities built on a grid system, but in London they are a recipe for disaster.
I get you but when as the chap above said the wheelbase may well have been shorter than a 12m rigid why were they clipping curbs more? Not arguing by the way, just trying to understand.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I still don't get why the length of them makes them dangerous. Also re the articulation, it is not to far from the centre so surely the rear end pretty much follows the line of the front end unlike an articulated lorry. Again I am just asking out of ignorance to be honest, not saying you are wrong.
Basically people didn't like them because they were different! When Boris realised he could get some kudos by whipping up negative PR around them then they didnt stand a chance. The Borismaster can be more difficult to get round corners (again down to the skill of the driver) and one of the suggestions above is that longer double deckers will be needed on some routes which, again, gives a longer wheelbase to manoeuvre.
The length of them and the fact they are articulated on the awkward and sometimes windy streets of London. Bendy buses work well on wide streets in cities built on a grid system, but in London they are a recipe for disaster.
I get you but when as the chap above said the wheelbase may well have been shorter than a 12m rigid why were they clipping curbs more? Not arguing by the way, just trying to understand.
I get you but when as the chap above said the wheelbase may well have been shorter than a 12m rigid why were they clipping curbs more? Not arguing by the way, just trying to understand.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I still don't get why the length of them makes them dangerous. Also re the articulation, it is not to far from the centre so surely the rear end pretty much follows the line of the front end unlike an articulated lorry. Again I am just asking out of ignorance to be honest, not saying you are wrong.
This was my thinking, I am struggling to find figures but just looking at the thing a Borrismaster must have a longer wheelbase than a bendy. If so how were the bendys causing more accidents, clipping more curbs etc.
Because the rear section tended to understeer in corners, swinging out further than the front section before correcting. People were often caught unawares by this not expecting to be caught when they had made sure to be clear of the first section. You see the same thing with cars towing caravans. The rear section of an articulated vehicle is also much more vulnerable to wind pushing it out during the corner creating lateral movement (road slip) against the drivers steering of the front section.
hock: hock: hock:Because the rear section tended to understeer in corners, swinging out further than the front section before correcting. People were often caught unawares by this not expecting to be caught when they had made sure to be clear of the first section. You see the same thing with cars towing caravans. The rear section of an articulated vehicle is also much more vulnerable to wind pushing it out during the corner creating lateral movement (road slip) against the drivers steering of the front section.
I would respectfully suggest that the rear section is going to follow the front piece, given that they are connected together?With a bendy bus you have to consider where the rear section is. Now this is fine on a straight section of road - but interacting with these buses as a vulnerable road user is harder and therefore more dangerous, in the same way interacting with an articulated lorry is.
:
I would respectfully suggest that the rear section is going to follow the front piece, given that they are connected together?
As I understood it 1000 was the point at which TfL got exclusive rights over the design and until that point Wrights could sell it elsewhere. However why anybody wants to fight over the design of a bus with too many doors and too many staircases is a bit of a mystery to me!I haven't been on here for a while so this post comes late in the argument... to get back to the original subject of the thread...
Sadiq Khan has NOT cancelled the contract with Wrights for the NBFL... the contract was for TfL to guaruntee to take the first 1000 vehicles which it will still be doing... HOWEVER there was no onus on TfL to take any more.
I'd also like to point out to the NBFL neigh sayers that point to it being a failure because no other operator has taken any.... under the terms of the same contract Wrights were unable to sell any to any other operator until TfL has taken it's 1000th vehicle as TfL has the exclusive rights on the 1st 1000 vehicles.
While I don't know the ins and outs of the reliability problems of the NBFL could it be anything to do with the fact that when it was designed hybrid technology, whilst maybe not in it's infancy, could have been deemed to be in it's toddler-hood? In many ways it was still experimental technology and the newer... more reliable systems... now in production can be seen as being a direct result of the lessons learned from the intensive use in normal service by the NBFL?
I'd also like to point out to the NBFL neigh sayers that point to it being a failure because no other operator has taken any.... under the terms of the same contract Wrights were unable to sell any to any other operator until TfL has taken it's 1000th vehicle as TfL has the exclusive rights on the 1st 1000 vehicles.
Other hybrid buses were already in intensive use before the NBfL, so no they are not a result of the NBfL.In many ways it was still experimental technology and the newer... more reliable systems... now in production can be seen as being a direct result of the lessons learned from the intensive use in normal service by the NBFL?
Do you know of any operators who have even submitted orders for NBFLs?
Other hybrid buses were already in intensive use before the NBfL, so no they are not a result of the NBfL.
...why anybody wants to fight over the design of a bus with too many doors and too many staircases is a bit of a mystery to me!
The Boris hybrid design (like the original Routemaster) was overtaken in the time between the prototypes and the production run.