Re: Belgian?
From: Peter T. Daniels (grammatim_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 07/16/04
- Next message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: King Arthur Movie - Languages"
- Previous message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Belgian?"
- In reply to: Sean O'Leathlobhair: "Re: Belgian?"
- Next in thread: Richard Herring: "Re: Belgian?"
- Reply: Richard Herring: "Re: Belgian?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:12:04 GMT
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote:
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<40F74087.5AC8@worldnet.att.net>...
> > Harlan Messinger wrote:
> > >
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:40F6AA7E.7B8C@worldnet.att.net...
> > > > Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > The funny thing is, you're taking this as though this were an arrangement
> > > that was being proposed, and you were arguing against it. It *is* done, and
> > > the rationale and/or the operational particulars are just eluding you.
> >
> > Where? We've just been informed that it is done somewhere in Britain,
> > but where is it "*is*" done over here in sensible-land?
>
> I haven't noticed the response from Eccentric-Land so here is one.
> The system of optional and compulsory stops is very common here and
> since I grew up with it, it seems normal and sensible. As a small
> kid, I rode a public bus to school and was familiar with this system.
> The terms we used were: Compulsory stop and Request stop. The type
> was marked on the sign posts.
>
> If you were waiting a compulsory stop then you could relax and stand
> back from the kerb since the bus would stop.
That could help explain London's legendarily lousy traffic and air
pollution!
> If you were at a request stop then you needed to watch every
> approaching bus, check its number (route), and if it was one that you
> wanted, then stand close to the edge and stick your arm out. I
> preferred the compulsory stops especially as a small child.
>
> If you were on the bus then the difference was whether or not you
> needed to ring the bell (by a cord or button). Again the compulsory
> stops were more relaxed. You were less likely to miss your stop. It
> is easy to remember to glance out of the bus when it stops and if you
> realise at the last moment that it is your stop, you usually have just
> enough time to get off. If your stop was a request stop then you
> needed to watch out more carefully and may need to get up while the
> bus was moving to ring the bell (not all buses have a cord or button
> within reach of every seat).
>
> I think that the system makes sense. If all stops were compulsory
> then life would be more comfortable and relaxed but the buses would be
> slower and they would disrupt traffic more. If all stops were request
> then the buses would run faster but life would be more frantic.
Are New York and Chicago life "more frantic" than London life?
> So I like the system in which stops which are frequently used are
> compulsory and more rarely used ones are optional.
>
> > > > > "Express bus" means that it doesn't stop at every stop on the route.
> > > > > That has nothing to do with whether people are boarding or alighting
> > > > > when it does stop..
>
> Express has that meaning here. An express bus will refuse to stop at
> some stops. This would usually be indicated at the sign post. It is
> no use waving at these buses if you at the wrong stop.
Express buses don't even hug the curb (Brit: kerb) -- they can use the
more flowing lanes in the middle of the street.
-- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net
- Next message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: King Arthur Movie - Languages"
- Previous message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Belgian?"
- In reply to: Sean O'Leathlobhair: "Re: Belgian?"
- Next in thread: Richard Herring: "Re: Belgian?"
- Reply: Richard Herring: "Re: Belgian?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|