'New' Routemaster design released

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Well why do we need a conductor then? All the responsible adults will buy their tickets, and will act in a rational collective way to deal with troublemakers. And rose petals will issue forth from the air vents.

Rose petals are dangerous

 

[Crispy]

Rose petals are dangerous

Ok, hypoallergenic biodegradeable non-toxic rose petal substitutes not to be handled by small children.

 

[Roadkill]

It also only takes one court decision along the lines of 'it's your own stupid fault, now hobble off back where you came from'.

Nice idea, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to happen that way in practice.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I know what you mean, but my point is that there will always be stupid people. We can either say "well, you're stupid, tough luck - have fun hurting yourself" or "we'd better design things so that even stupid people can't fuck it up". Personally I prefer the latter, as less people end up hurt.

For me the question in law should be this: 'should a reasonable person be expected to know that their actions are dangerous?' If so, then they should take responsibility for any injury incurred.

There is no inevitability to the 'blame culture' - all that is needed is for someone to argue the case convincingly in court and for the courts to agree.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Ok, hypoallergenic biodegradeable non-toxic rose petal substitutes not to be handled by small children.

well I was thinking of the potential for slipping on them when wet, but obviously there's all the above to be taken into consideration as well

 

[Santino]

There aren't only stupid people to consider, but stupid people's families.

 

[mattie]

For me the question in law should be this: 'should a reasonable person be expected to know that their actions are dangerous?' If so, then they should take responsibility for any injury incurred.

There is no inevitability to the 'blame culture' - all that is needed is for someone to argue the case convincingly in court and for the courts to agree.

To turn on its head, a court could ask 'did you, the bus company, know that this feature could be easily misused and that misuse could lead to serious injury?'

Further to this, by making it so easy to jump of a moving bus it could be argued that the bus company have given its implicit approval of this course of action.

 

[Gixxer1000]

It's not a case of doubting who is at fault, more that the fundamental design allows these faults to occur.

Guess they should ban the Tube then with all those dangerous leading edges I mean FFS

 

[kyser_soze]

We can either say "well, you're stupid, tough luck - have fun hurting yourself" or "we'd better design things so that even stupid people can't fuck it up". Personally I prefer the latter, as less people end up hurt.

Hmm, while I know I *should* prefer the latter, I think an element of risk makes us more aware of life.

 

[kyser_soze]

Ok, hypoallergenic biodegradeable non-toxic rose petal substitutes not to be handled by small children.

Warning: May contain smalll parts.

 

[zenie]

And how many people are bunking those?!

I do get your point, I just can't seem them going BACK to conductors when they got rid of them IYSWIM, also they are cracking down on fare dodgers...not sure how well it's going mind...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I know what you mean, but my point is that there will always be stupid people. We can either say "well, you're stupid, tough luck - have fun hurting yourself" or "we'd better design things so that even stupid people can't fuck it up". Personally I prefer the latter, as less people end up hurt.

but things are more dull as a result with less invvoation and conversly more damage to the enviroment. modern cars are only achiving the same mpg on average as cars from the 80's not becuase the engines aren't anymore efficent or better designed in fact the opposite is true but because with SIPS airbags torsion bars impact intrusions devices A/C etc they are a great deal heavier....

at some point we have to weight off the material cost vs the potential for injury to indivudual and also the practicalities of it. our enviroment demands it. getting rid of desieal powered buses which as the articule discusses isn't eco friendly at all, is a start, would improve air quality and i suspect asthema and other related breathign problems no end.

added to that removing the bloody terrible bendy bueses from Londons streets which are diabolical and really not designed for London at all has to be an advancement.

there'd be nothing to stop a barrier being on the top deck which wouldn't relase (except in emergancy) to prevent stair movment duirn transit and the same for the main downstairs area... sure people would still jump on the platform, but then that's their look out... you don't stop tube trains from running becuase someone might jump in front of them...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

To turn on its head, a court could ask 'did you, the bus company, know that this feature could be easily misused and that misuse could lead to serious injury?'

Further to this, by making it so easy to jump of a moving bus it could be argued that the bus company have given its implicit approval of this course of action.

People who build skyscrapers don't give implicit approval to people who jump off the top of them. By that logic, we'd all be living in bungalows.

 

[mattie]

Guess they should ban the Tube then with all those dangerous leading edges I mean FFS

How does that little analogy work?

 

[mattie]

People who build skyscrapers don't give implicit approval to people who jump off the top of them. By that logic, we'd all be living in bungalows.

No, but they sure as hell make it difficult for anyone to jump. Much as banning open doors on buses prevents anyone from jumping.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Well what about the trams in San Francisco? This is something that's always got me when people talk about falling off Routemasters.

How come the Merkins are suing away quite happily for falling off these?

 

[London_Calling]

Isn't it a modern double decker with the exit and stairs moved to the back and the doors taken off ?

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I used to love standing on the breezy platform of Routemasters in summer as we whizzed along central London, ready to jump off when the bus had reached a slow enough speed.

Ah yes, and running up the road to catch the 137 to work, 'oops it's pulling away' Grab the pole and hop on.

 

[jæd]

I used to love standing on the breezy platform of Routemasters in summer as we whizzed along central London, ready to jump off when the bus had reached a slow enough speed.

But in the winter it was an icy gale...!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, but they sure as hell make it difficult for anyone to jump. Much as banning open doors on buses prevents anyone from jumping.

OK. In that case, the law needs to be framed thus:

It is nobody's responsibility to stop others from doing things that they know are dangerous, if the danger is to themselves only. I know this would involve not having the wearing of helmets on motorbikes etc legal too, but it's the kind of world I want. If people want to take risks, let them.

 

[mattie]

Well what about the trams in San Francisco? This is something that's always got me when people talk about falling off Routemasters.

How come the Merkins are suing away quite happily for falling off these?

*image removed for brevity*

It's odd, isn't it, that perhaps the most litigious society have kept with them and they're gone from London.

All I can guess at is that there's far fewer injuries on the tram.

 

[Crispy]

OK. In that case, the law needs to be framed thus:

It is nobody's responsibility to stop others from doing things that they know are dangerous, if the danger is to themselves only. I know this would involve not having the wearing of helmets on motorbikes etc legal too, but it's the kind of world I want. If people want to take risks, let them.

Nice thought - and I'm not being patronising there, I mean it. But that's not the world we currently live in, and until that world changes, the routemaster will not be coming back.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

It's odd, isn't it, that perhaps the most litigious society have kept with them and they're gone from London.

All I can guess at is that there's far fewer injuries on the tram.

Well the fact that it's on tracks I guess makes it less liable to brake sharply, but I'm sure I've seen people jumping on them when they're moving (or do I watch too much television? )

 

[kyser_soze]

but things are more dull as a result with less invvoation and conversly more damage to the enviroment. modern cars are only achiving the same mpg on average as cars from the 80's not becuase the engines aren't anymore efficent or better designed in fact the opposite is true but because with SIPS airbags torsion bars impact intrusions devices A/C etc they are a great deal heavier....

at some point we have to weight off the material cost vs the potential for injury to indivudual and also the practicalities of it. our enviroment demands it. getting rid of desieal powered buses which as the articule discusses isn't eco friendly at all, is a start, would improve air quality and i suspect asthema and other related breathign problems no end.

added to that removing the bloody terrible bendy bueses from Londons streets which are diabolical and really not designed for London at all has to be an advancement.

there'd be nothing to stop a barrier being on the top deck which wouldn't relase (except in emergancy) to prevent stair movment duirn transit and the same for the main downstairs area... sure people would still jump on the platform, but then that's their look out... you don't stop tube trains from running becuase someone might jump in front of them...

Here's an idea - someone should design 'The Idiot Ball' - it's like a mobile airbag that tossers could wear and if they do something stupid - like jump off a bus into the path of a moving vehicle - it inflates like those balls you can roll down a hill inside, and the moron is thus protected. It would also serve to let the rest of us know where the idiots are, and thus avoid them in our daily lives.

 

[mattie]

OK. In that case, the law needs to be framed thus:

It is nobody's responsibility to stop others from doing things that they know are dangerous, if the danger is to themselves only. I know this would involve not having the wearing of helmets on motorbikes etc legal too, but it's the kind of world I want. If people want to take risks, let them.

I don't disagree with your sentiment, I'm just guessing how a court would perceive it - whether we like it or not, I could see only one outcome if a company knew of inherent risks and did nothing to mitigate them.

Where to draw the line in saving people from themselves is a tricky issue, and I suspect public services have to hedge their bets on the conservative side.

 

[kyser_soze]

OK. In that case, the law needs to be framed thus:

It is nobody's responsibility to stop others from doing things that they know are dangerous, if the danger is to themselves only. I know this would involve not having the wearing of helmets on motorbikes etc legal too, but it's the kind of world I want. If people want to take risks, let them.

YEAH!

With you all the way. Did out stone age ancestors build fences around cliffs? Did they have to be told 'Product may contain nuts' with a product called 'Chocolate Covered Brazil Nuts'?

No. If you walked along the edge of a cliff and fell off it was your own fault. If you poked a tiger with a stick and it turned round and bit your ass off it was your fault.

I also think you should have to take some kind of map reading test before being allowed to use a SatNav.

 

[mattie]

YEAH!

With you all the way. Did out stone age ancestors build fences around cliffs? Did they have to be told 'Product may contain nuts' with a product called 'Chocolate Covered Brazil Nuts'?

Yes!

No. If you walked along the edge of a cliff and fell off it was your own fault. If you poked a tiger with a stick and it turned round and bit your ass off it was your fault.

Yes!

I also think you should have to take some kind of map reading test before being allowed to use a SatNav.

eh?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Well what about the trams in San Francisco? This is something that's always got me when people talk about falling off Routemasters.

How come the Merkins are suing away quite happily for falling off these?

sadly it appears this is one area where the USA is less sue happy than the UK... maybe they value history and practicallity...

 

[zenie]

sadly it appears this is one area where the USA is less sue happy than the UK... maybe they value history and practicallity...

What??

Where do you think compensatiuon culture came from if not the US?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Here's an idea - someone should design 'The Idiot Ball' - it's like a mobile airbag that tossers could wear and if they do something stupid - like jump off a bus into the path of a moving vehicle - it inflates like those balls you can roll down a hill inside, and the moron is thus protected. It would also serve to let the rest of us know where the idiots are, and thus avoid them in our daily lives.

or preparred idiot wackers at street courners so that we can beat them (possibly mandated by law) for dragging the whole of humanity backwards with their moronic actions...