Dear N16

Whilst no longer a resident of N16, I was alarmed whilst visiting a friend in Stoke Newington the other day to read Trevor Jones' piece on Bendy Buses (last issue). In general, the piece was not only incredibly badly researched and written but full of
bigoted and irrational speculation. In specific, I found his comment on cyclists in the article not only offensive, but obviously designed to provoke a response irrespective of its relevance to the article's main subject matter.

I will not dwell on his infantile and reprehensible classing of cyclists in general as 'ugly' reprobates not fit to occupy the road, lest to say that this is the kind of comment that does nothing to aid the situation faced by the multitude of road users every day.
Drivel like this should at best be limited to drunk banter between friends; clearly it is a mistake to air such negligent and frankly irresponsible subjective rubbish masquerading as journalism in any publication. This said, I think it's necessary to correct some of the erroneous facts given in his article and present a more rounded appraisal of Bendy Buses and some kind of point of view as to why people choose to cycle rather than take public transport.

Firstly, it should be noted that when the Bendy Busses came into circulation there were no warnings displayed on the back of the buses. The subsequent number of accidents and injuries that resulted and consistent lobbying from cyclists and other road users, forced TFL to introduce the current stickers. These stickers in themselves are in any case an anomaly in road transport terms, and perhaps if Trevor was more familiar with his highway code, he would know himself that a simple 'long vehicle' sign would have sufficed.

Secondly, with regard to the decision to put Bendy Buses on the streets of London, there is a wealth of logical arguments that err against it for entirely practical reasons.  The decision by Ken Livingston to put these buses on our streets was taken I believe from an economic standpoint and not as a result of their suitability to London's streets and traffic. The fact that the busses have had overheating problems and some have even caught on fire is well known and documented. Whilst this problem now seems to have been rectified, it still does not solve the problems the buses have negotiating the largely medieval street plan of London. The fact is that the buses in many cases contribute massively to the general slowdown of traffic owing to their relative inability to take sharp corners and negotiate obstacles when compared to standard double decker buses.
This problem is further amplified by the fact that the busses take up over a third more room on London's streets whilst actually seating fewer people. It seems clear that whilst these busses are well suited to the more amicable infrastructure of most European cities they seem seriously out of place in London.

Lastly, and perhaps most alarmingly considering the recent G8 summit at which climate change was such a visible concern, it seems clear to me that any saving in carbon emissions that the Bendy Buses may give is all but lost as a result of the traffic congestion problems they contribute to and the fact that buses with driver operated doors and without a conductor mean more time has to be spent at bus stops, which in turn means more time spent holding up other traffic. This is not helped by the fact that Ken Livingstone has now flooded London with so many buses irrespective of their actual benefit to the routes they run on. It is now not an uncommon site in London to see trafic jams entirely created by and composed of buses, something which surely defies any logic.

On balance, I feel that it is an absolute travesty that Route 73 has lost its Routemaster buses. Not only were they the most appropriate bus design on their inception in 1956, but the design has yet to be surpassed in terms of its combination of practicality and ergonomics, so much so that they remain to this day the symbol of the capital itself. Not only do I very much doubt that the generic Mercedes lining our streets now will be around in 50 years time, I also doubt they will elicit such affection. 

The reason Routemasters are being taken out of service are firstly economic and secondly due to emissions. Whilst I agree with the need to give value for money and reduce emissions in public transport, it should be noted that no real effort has been made to re-design the Routemaster or design a bus like the Routemaster which incorporates so many of the features that made it such a practical bus. The new London taxis are a distinct improvement on the older models whilst retaining all of the positive aspects of the former's design. Why can't someone do the same for the buses? As for getting rid of the conductors on buses, I wonder in fact whether this has saved the bus companies any money (something that may be reflected in Ken Livingstone's inability to honour his pledge to freeze bus fares at £1), whereas the loss of the bus conductor as a pillar of the traveling community is surely something to be lamented.

For only some of the reasons I have listed above (intolerable traffic congestion, an environ mental consciousness or a simple wish to take some exercise whist going to work) it seems to me obvious why large numbers of people (including prominent politicians and TV personalities) are choosing to cycle in London. Whilst I admit that not all cyclists have impeccable road manners (although this could equally be said of car drivers and for that matter bus drivers), it is no reason to implicate the vast majority of good cyclists in their wake.

Perhaps in the interest of investigative journalism Trevor should haul his lard into the saddle of a bike and see how many times he's cut up by a bus, ignored by other road users, has his cycle lane cut by the often ludicrously designed cycle lane and light systems. Perhaps then he might have more sympathy for the plight of the cyclist and even find that his journey to work need not be a tedious slog saturated by advertising and media drivel (such as his own), but is nevertheless a daily enlightening experience
Sincerely, Sam Britton

Dear N16

I find the comments by Charles Heller about the Jewish state (issue 19) to be most provocative. Like Charles Heller I also come from Stoke Newington, like him I also have a Jewish family, and like him I also live in Canada. The Jewish state does not need to be smeared. It is doing an excellent job of this all on its own. For example, it is inconceivable that the British government would build a wall round parts of the country to keep out whole ethnic groups lest some of them may be suicide bombers. Yet that is what Israel is doing. Finally, contrary to what Charles Heller states, there are many rabbis who make no secret of their disgust with the policies of Israel.

Norman Temple, Edmonton, Canada

Dear N16

I should like to make a comment about your article about Chomsky (issue 25).
You quote without comment: '...international terrorist network...it was Taiwan, Israel....that's a kind of international terror network...' This is a strange comment to make at a time when your own life is being threatened by enemies of Israel.
It sounds more like the kind of antisemitism used by Hitler, Ford etc when they wrote about the menace of the International Jew. I am sorry that you do not like Israel, but how does mindless hatred help anybody?

Charles Heller, Toronto