Boycott London! The Double-Decker Buses Are No More

[amicus]

On the news today, those familiar tourist attraction double-decked buses seen in probably every filmed that shows the London environs, have been retired.

Now, I could understand if it was economics, even something silly like air pollution, or height restrictions but no...

Those buses did not have wheelchair facilities for the 'physically challenged'.


Sighs...


While I personally have great compassion for those people who are 'challenged' in any way, to build a society around their impairment....is just plain silly.

amicus....

 

[oggbashan]

Sorry, Amicus,

I too regret the passing of the Routemasters although they haven't wholly vanished. They will still run on some tourist routes.

The real problem wasn't the disabled access but the extreme age of the vehicles. The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, had several overhauled and put back into service even though the cost of the overhaul was beyond reasonable limits. That kept Routemasters in service for about 5 years longer than would have been financially prudent.

The service mileage of most of them is in the millions and they were only surviving by cannibalisation of other Routemasters that had equally high usage. Eventually it had to stop.

There will still be a few Routemasters to see in London but only touring the sights.

However many of them have been preserved by enthusiasts and appear at rallies throughout each summer.

Og

PS. I misread your post. The double deckers are NOT going. The Routemasters, designed in 1954, are going. Single deckers will be used, as they are now, on certain routes where passengers carry a lot of luggage or wheelchair users are likely. The new double deckers will be redesigned so that they can take wheelchairs on the lower floor.

 

[Liar]

While I personally have great compassion for those people who are 'challenged' in any way, to build a society around their impairment....is just plain silly.

amicus....

It's not about building a society around impairments. It's about accomodating the service to the needs of the potentional customers. It's not only people in wheelchairs. It's old folks, anyone with a mobility injury, parents pushing their children in carts (prams, trolleys, or whatver it is they are called). They'll all have an easier time taking the bus. And thus will, to a greater extent.

What is it to you if certain parts of society is adapted to not shut out those who are impaired? Does it make it more difficult for you? I don't get it.

 

[NoJo]

Here's my take on it: https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=379455

 

[Liar]

Thanks, Joe. I had this faint whiff of "Didn't somebody mention this already?"

 

[amicus]

Here's my take on it: https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=379455

Ah, thank you, a superbly done piece.

amicus

 

[amicus]

It's not about building a society around impairments. It's about accomodating the service to the needs of the potentional customers. It's not only people in wheelchairs. It's old folks, anyone with a mobility injury, parents pushing their children in carts (prams, trolleys, or whatver it is they are called). They'll all have an easier time taking the bus. And thus will, to a greater extent.

What is it to you if certain parts of society is adapted to not shut out those who are impaired? Does it make it more difficult for you? I don't get it.

A matter of efficiency and cost effectiveness, I guess, Liar. The marketplace, through competition and basically trial and error and invention, meets demand by producing the least expensive but best option as a solution to a problem.

I have see American city streets torn up, at great cost and inconvenience to replace curbs with ramps for wheelchair access, and read of building licenses and permits denied unless these changes were incorporated.

When government has control and gets a hair up its ass to be politically correct in all things, it always means less efficiency and higher costs/taxes.

While much of government's intentions are no doubt well meaning, when you add up the cost of all the changes and modifications for social reasons in a variety of areas it becomes burdensome and unreasonable.

For example, the federal safety requirements on modern automobiles increases the cost to the consumer by thousands of dollars per unit. I sometimes think if they could they would force automobile manufacturers to produce cars like A1M1 Abrams Battle tanks to prevent injuries.

amicus...

 

[LadyJeanne]

For example, the federal safety requirements on modern automobiles increases the cost to the consumer by thousands of dollars per unit. I sometimes think if they could they would force automobile manufacturers to produce cars like A1M1 Abrams Battle tanks to prevent injuries.

amicus...

But just think what that would do for gas consumption! 3 miles to the gallon! Oil companies would be rich! Oh, wait, they already are.

 

[TheEarl]

The marketplace, through competition and basically trial and error and invention, meets demand by producing the least expensive but best option as a solution to a problem.

Cars without seatbelts?
The London Smog?
Asbestos in walls?
Untried and untested drugs and pharmaceuticals?

Your viewo n the free market is over-simplistic and doesn't take into account even the most rudimentary of economic theory.

The Earl

 

[Liar]

A matter of efficiency and cost effectiveness, I guess, Liar. The marketplace, through competition and basically trial and error and invention, meets demand by producing the least expensive but best option as a solution to a problem.

And this is not it? Like I said, are you sure that what they do is not the best thing to do from a supply and demand viewpoint?

Question to the English: (or anyone else who knows) What caused the London busses to start accomodatong the less mobile? (Again, let me remind you that this is good not only for those in weelchairs, but for many more people.) A need for that service amongst it's potentional customers? General public opinion? (which makes it good business to be seen as an operator with a good ethos) Or just legislation that is not supported by the common man?

And to Londoners: Would you, given the choice, travel with a bussing company that gave good service to everyone, or one that discrimiated the disabled?

 

[amicus]

Cars without seatbelts?
The London Smog?
Asbestos in walls?
Untried and untested drugs and pharmaceuticals?

Your viewo n the free market is over-simplistic and doesn't take into account even the most rudimentary of economic theory.

The Earl

The Earl:

You should have the opportunity in the market place to purchase an automobile with as many seat belts and the crash rating you desire. It should not be mandated by government.

Before coal smoke, there was woodsmoke. Mankind did not come into existence all knowing. Keeping warm and lighting the dark is a benefit, a 'good' thing. Necessity is the mother of invention, the saying goes, and nothing is ever free or absent a downside.

Asbestos was a solution to a problem. We did not know the corollary side effects, Now we do and we fixed it.

Snake oil pedlars, witchdoctors and shams have always been with us. Natural medicines, herbology, has been around since the beginning. Pharmaceuticals are a commodity like any other, there is no 'special' area of the market that requires restriction and regulation outside the workings of the market place, your 'externalities' included.

While my 'rudimentary' knowledge of economics can be overcome, your internal bias against the free exchange of goods and services seems endemic to your mindset and most likely cannot be cured.

Many 'model oriented' economists perceive a controlled and regulated environment as ideal for growth and maximum efficiency, I do not.

One may indeed apply such thinking to an individual enterprise and within that framework, effectively maximize efficiency weighed against all factors by a presumed desired goal.

That desired goal may be beneficial, in general, or not, and that is where your economic system becomes a dictatorship, and will eventually collapse upon itself.

At the University of Hawaii, many years ago, I studied under one of these model oriented economists who was well published and known world wide, it was his text used for class purposes. I can't at this moment recall his name...but I will.

There are thousands of economic theories out there in the world, but most of them use the free market place as a base theorem and then try to 'tweak' it to suit their own particular fetish.

They often gain political popularity for a while, until another model oriented, fetish driven dry wall stud upsets their model.

In the meantime, the free market, the 'unfettered' free market gains acceptance, more and more as the proof of the pudding is available to more and more.


amicus...

 

[amicus]

And this is not it? Like I said, are you sure that what they do is not the best thing to do from a supply and demand viewpoint?

Question to the English: (or anyone else who knows) What caused the London busses to start accomodatong the less mobile? (Again, let me remind you that this is good not only for those in weelchairs, but for many more people.) A need for that service amongst it's potentional customers? General public opinion? (which makes it good business to be seen as an operator with a good ethos) Or just legislation that is not supported by the common man?

And to Londoners: Would you, given the choice, travel with a bussing company that gave good service to everyone, or one that discrimiated the disabled?

Liar:

Underlying almost everything you post, is the assumption that you, or government in general, has the innate right to 'manage' the conduct and activities of all people as you might in your own home.

In your own sphere of influence you can exercise whatever control or lack of it, or democratic participation that you wish. You may have to browbeat your spouse and children to gain compliance, but you may have some success.

That success will be determined by whether your 'system' works or does not, you could flourish or starve.

You in essence become a little dictator within your sphere of control.

But when you attempt to apply that benevolent dictatorship to others, ah that is where the rub begins.

...nevermind...


amicus...

 

[TheEarl]

Asbestos was a solution to a problem. We did not know the corollary side effects, Now we do and we fixed it.

And why is it being fixed? Because there is government regulation to ban it. If there wasn't, then what would be the incentive for business owners to remove it. To spend a costly lump sum on something that wouldn't increase profits? People would still work for them regardless, especially those who didn't understand the risks involved. Without government sponsored advertising of course, the group of people who didn't know these risks would be larger. So there would still be asbestos in millions of workplaces in your free market.

Snake oil pedlars, witchdoctors and shams have always been with us. Natural medicines, herbology, has been around since the beginning. Pharmaceuticals are a commodity like any other, there is no 'special' area of the market that requires restriction and regulation outside the workings of the market place, your 'externalities' included.

You are in favour of drugs going on the market completely untested? Cause that's cost efficient. Sure, a lot of people would go for ones that had been tested by using their free-market choice, but poorer people might go for the cheapest, untested ones and get horribly ill or die. Or be fed placebos because there's no government law against false advertising.

nothing is ever free or absent a downside.

You said it yourself, in the same post whilst rubbishing 'my externalities'. The downside is a negative externality. The free market, whilst maximising growth and trade, creates more negative externalities than some forms of intervention. The downsides are bigger, to put it in your language.

You can tell me that you don't believe in externalities if you like, but it's like saying you don't believe in the fossil record. It's as close to fact as anything gets in economics.

The Earl

 

[amicus]

And why is it being fixed? Because there is government regulation to ban it. If there wasn't, then what would be the incentive for business owners to remove it. To spend a costly lump sum on something that wouldn't increase profits? People would still work for them regardless, especially those who didn't understand the risks involved. Without government sponsored advertising of course, the group of people who didn't know these risks would be larger. So there would still be asbestos in millions of workplaces in your free market.



You are in favour of drugs going on the market completely untested? Cause that's cost efficient. Sure, a lot of people would go for ones that had been tested by using their free-market choice, but poorer people might go for the cheapest, untested ones and get horribly ill or die. Or be fed placebos because there's no government law against false advertising.



You said it yourself, in the same post whilst rubbishing 'my externalities'. The downside is a negative externality. The free market, whilst maximising growth and trade, creates more negative externalities than some forms of intervention. The downsides are bigger, to put it in your language.

You can tell me that you don't believe in externalities if you like, but it's like saying you don't believe in the fossil record. It's as close to fact as anything gets in economics.

The Earl

The Earl: We keep going round and round on these issues.

Government does provide a means of rectifying situations. It is basically known as 'contract law.' Government provides a court system wherein the contents of contracts are enforced.

If the buyer/seller in a contractual agreement is damaged, such as with asbestos contamination, a system exists, under law, for resolution.

Your apparent innate distrust of individuals and corporations leads you to insist that government and the use of force is necessary for justice to occur.

I disagree and will always disagree with those who abridge freedom by calling upon the power of government to resolve issues in the market place.

Free people, making free choices will always arrive at a just decision. They may take some time to arrive there, but when they do arrive, they will still possess their freedoms and their rights. But when government steps in, those freedoms and rights begin to evaporate.

You know that as well as I do, so as I said to Roxanne Appleby, it must be a psychological persuasion of yours that abhors free choice for all individuals.

amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

Question to the English: (or anyone else who knows) What caused the London busses to start accomodatong the less mobile? (Again, let me remind you that this is good not only for those in weelchairs, but for many more people.) A need for that service amongst it's potentional customers? General public opinion? (which makes it good business to be seen as an operator with a good ethos) Or just legislation that is not supported by the common man?

And to Londoners: Would you, given the choice, travel with a bussing company that gave good service to everyone, or one that discrimiated the disabled?

The Disability Discimination Act, passed by the UK Houses of Parliament, requires businesses to make their premises accessible to the disabled. For shops and offices it came into force late in 2004. Transport providers have been given longer to meet the requirements of the act because of the implications for their infrastructure (train platforms, stairs etc.).

Many modern buses do provide limited access for wheelchairs. It is not always possible at every bus stop because it depends on the road surface but at least we are trying.

The legislation was generally supported but there are some nonsenses like trying to provide access to a historic castle's upper floors. With old buildings, an attempt has to be made - if possible, and without damaging the structure. New houses should be built with level access instead of steps at the main door.

I'm not a Londoner any more but the answer to your question is that doing away with Routemasters increases travel difficulties for the many without really dealing with access for the few. Fast mass transit and disabled access are not wholly compatible. Loading and unloading one wheelchair on a bus can delay the other 80 passengers significantly. On a train the delays can be considerable and have consequences not just to the passengers on that train but on the whole network. One wheelchair user insisting on his/her rights could delay hundreds of thousands of other travellers. There are solutions but the costs are horrendous. The Act has been phased in over years yet it will take many more years before public transport is really disability friendly.

Og

 

[yui]

Liar:

Underlying almost everything you post, is the assumption that you, or government in general, has the innate right to 'manage' the conduct and activities of all people as you might in your own home.

In your own sphere of influence you can exercise whatever control or lack of it, or democratic participation that you wish. You may have to browbeat your spouse and children to gain compliance, but you may have some success.

That success will be determined by whether your 'system' works or does not, you could flourish or starve.

You in essence become a little dictator within your sphere of control.

But when you attempt to apply that benevolent dictatorship to others, ah that is where the rub begins.

...nevermind...


amicus...

Actually, Amicus, the majority of the world would live a good life under the benevolent dictatorship of Liar. Can't quite say the same about Amicus World.

And the arguments regarding a free market are rather moot; true free markets don't exist. They will never exist. Your arguments, in truth, seem to be nothing more than a bit of a cry for your own version of a socialist utopia. The assumption that human beings can flourish economically/socially, with only free market structure, is invalid in the same way that a command economy, as a viable option, is invalid. You fail to take into account human frailties, like weakness and greed. You also assume equality, at least in the beginning, among all the participants in your free market. Again, utopia, much?

 

[CharleyH]

On the news today, those familiar tourist attraction double-decked buses seen in probably every filmed that shows the London environs, have been retired.

Now, I could understand if it was economics, even something silly like air pollution, or height restrictions but no...

Those buses did not have wheelchair facilities for the 'physically challenged'.


Sighs...


While I personally have great compassion for those people who are 'challenged' in any way, to build a society around their impairment....is just plain silly.

amicus....

LOL I agree. What's London without them? LOL

 

[R. Richard]

I'm not a Londoner any more but the answer to your question is that doing away with Routemasters increases travel difficulties for the many without really dealing with access for the few. Fast mass transit and disabled access are not wholly compatible. Loading and unloading one wheelchair on a bus can delay the other 80 passengers significantly. On a train the delays can be considerable and have consequences not just to the passengers on that train but on the whole network. One wheelchair user insisting on his/her rights could delay hundreds of thousands of other travellers. There are solutions but the costs are horrendous. The Act has been phased in over years yet it will take many more years before public transport is really disability friendly.

Og

I am not a New York City boy any more, but I can echo your comments on bus access for the disabled. When I was in NYC, I often saw delays approaching 10 minutes for a whole packed busload of commuters to deal with one wheelchair bound passenger. In an ideal world, I would support unlimited access for wheelchair bound passengers. However, as you have pointed out, we do not live in an ideal world.

JMHO.

 

[CharleyH]

It's not about building a society around impairments. It's about accomodating the service to the needs of the potentional customers.

It is really. If 99.9 per cent of customers do not need a wheel chair, then why should any business accomodate .5 out of 100 people? It's expensive with minimal return! Should that not be the decision of the business owners on the basis of customers and not the governments problem? (not saying London transit is privately owned) Is there any such thing as personal freedoms in business anymore or are small businesses - especially - bankrupt because of these largely lifestyle and politically correct laws?

 

[TheEarl]

The Earl: We keep going round and round on these issues.

Government does provide a means of rectifying situations. It is basically known as 'contract law.' Government provides a court system wherein the contents of contracts are enforced.

If the buyer/seller in a contractual agreement is damaged, such as with asbestos contamination, a system exists, under law, for resolution.

Your apparent innate distrust of individuals and corporations leads you to insist that government and the use of force is necessary for justice to occur.

I disagree and will always disagree with those who abridge freedom by calling upon the power of government to resolve issues in the market place.

Free people, making free choices will always arrive at a just decision. They may take some time to arrive there, but when they do arrive, they will still possess their freedoms and their rights. But when government steps in, those freedoms and rights begin to evaporate.

You know that as well as I do, so as I said to Roxanne Appleby, it must be a psychological persuasion of yours that abhors free choice for all individuals.

amicus...

So, to summarise:

You are in favour of people using only the market principle of "What's most profitable" and believe that this will produce the best outcome.
This will mean that asbestos will not be removed because it's not profitable.
Yet you believe that asbestos will be removed because you trust corporations to do the right thing.
But the right thing is not the most profitable thing in this case.
So you are in favour of people not using only the market principle of "What's most profitable."

This is the kind of thing that mathematicians use to prove that a theorem is false - you follow around the logic until you get it to prove two irreconcilable statements.

The Earl

 

[yui]

It is really. If 99.9 per cent of customers do not need a wheel chair, then why should any business accomodate .5 out of 100 people? It's expensive with minimal return! Should that not be the decision of the business owners on the basis of customers and not the governments problem? (not saying London transit is privately owned) Is there any such thing as personal freedoms in business anymore or are small businesses - especially - bankrupt because of these largely lifestyle and politically correct laws?

Is it not fair to assume, though, in the long term, that as the population pyramid is gradually reversing itself, and people are living relatively active lives while being somewhat infirm, that the needs of those people (who comprise, or will comprise, society in near equal numbers to the spry folks), should be met? In the form of accessible public transportation?

Everything is relative, eh? Imagine if you couldn't get a cab or a bus or a train, if you couldn't get up the steps to the Court House, or have access to a restroom, or even to a restaurant.

Peace,

Yui

 

[CharleyH]

Is it not fair to assume, though,

Yui

What makes you think I am assuming?

 

[yui]

What makes you think I am assuming?

It was kind of the "royal assume", Charley. Not directed at you, exactly.

Would you rather flirt? Or mebbe talk about the post-structuralism movement in post-modern renditions of pre-structuralist authors?

 

[amicus]

It is really. If 99.9 per cent of customers do not need a wheel chair, then why should any business accomodate .5 out of 100 people? It's expensive with minimal return! Should that not be the decision of the business owners on the basis of customers and not the governments problem? (not saying London transit is privately owned) Is there any such thing as personal freedoms in business anymore or are small businesses - especially - bankrupt because of these largely lifestyle and politically correct laws?

CharlieH I knew if I looked long enough, I could find something we agreed upon. How nice.

However, it seems to be a rather emotional issue. I recall, a long time ago, while doing a radio talk show in Portland, Oregon, I took issue with the city tearing up sidewalks to make wheelchair accessible ramps and then going on to require the same in rental properties for business and residences alike.

I took the side that you did above and was somewhat astounded at the oupouring of criticism that came back, not just on my radio program but in the newspaper and even to the extent of picketing my radio station with a covey of wheelchair bound grandma's

It is incumbent upon any society, I think, to show as much compassion and concern for those who are challenged in any way.

There are those who seem to think they can create a 'perfect world' for all concerned with no attention paid to the reality of the situation.

regards...


amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

It was kind of the "royal assume", Charley. Not directed at you, exactly.

Would you rather flirt? Or mebbe talk about the post-structuralism movement in post-modern renditions of pre-structuralist authors?

This is good for now, sexy.