In news:1fe53f3f-99d4-4b5f-9d3e-0e88211a443f@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com,
MIG  typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:

>No, he is just wrong.  Most passengers don't like them either, and I
>can't believe it's much fun for the drivers except if they are paid
>more for coping with them.

They're no more complicated than any other bus, just longer. The rear
>section exactly tracks the front, so if that goes round a
>bend the rear bit will. It's not like an artic lorry. As for
>payment, I once talked to a driver who claimed he was paid
>£16/hr on them, but he was a long serving driver (30+ years)
>which may have had a bearing on his rate.
 
>>Operators may like the idea of not having to collect fares,
>>but that is independent of the shape of the bus.
> 
>And don't forget pedestrians, whose crossings are constantly
>blocked by them.

I like them, but then I always was an awkward sod!

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:00:02AM +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> They're no more complicated than any other bus, just longer. The rear
> section exactly tracks the front, so if that goes round a
> bend the rear bit will.

Which buses are you talking about here? It's certainly not the bendy
buses used in London where the rear very obviously does *not* precisely
follow the front section.  This is particularly obvious where they turn
90 degrees left from Regent St onto Picadilly at Picadilly Circus, and
have to go *very* wide to make sure that the rear end doesn't clobber
street furniture.

-- 
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

       23.5 degrees of axial tilt is the reason for the season