Jump to content


CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

  • Joined


Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    retired KCM operator and drove buses for over 30-years

Recent Profile Visitors

6,420 profile views
  1. I certainly agree with J. Mc. The more he plays golf at this point, the better. Again, I'm a believer in science and not conspiracy theories combined with a lot of nonsense (e.g. injecting disinfectant and powerful light into the body as a cure, etc.). Therefore, trump should stay on the golf course as much as possible and leave the decisions pertaining to getting the virus under control to scientist and medical professionals. Again, I apologize for letting my political stance clearly known. J. Mc 's post is extremely poignant and spot on using succinct wording and appropriateness. I didn't realize there was actually a "politics" sub-forum here. I know this is a Canadian forum so won't go ranting about U.S. politics there but, again, please excuse my inappropriate and off-topic remarks ...it's just that I'm so stressed-out with not only how badly this virus is being treated by our U.S. administration but with a lot of things they have been and are currently doing.
  2. True, I agree with your specifying it being more nuanced and your perception is spot on. Republicans generally see it as you described. Most Democrats do not. Again, I used to be a Republican voter and spent thousand of dollars through the decades supporting Republican campaigns but never again will give a dime to any GOP candidate because of the lack in believing in what is essentially "science" and their very shallow and short-sighted thinking. But anybody reading what you wrote should see the absurdity in the logic of those claiming that their rights are being violated. Again, masks are not protecting YOU as much as it's protecting those around you. To me, it is selfish to say "my Constitutional rights are being violated because I have a right not to wear a mask as the government can't tell me what to do." Yes, if it is only protecting you, then it might be a valid argument. I don't think a person has the right to spread the virus around to other people because once again, "science" is showing that the virus can be and in many cases is asymptomatic. A person can be spreading it and infecting others hours before they show symptoms or may end up never showing symptoms and be infecting others. Wearing a mask can help not to spread the virus under those conditions. If it's strictly based on "the government can't tell me what to do as I have the freedom to do what I want" then it truly is ABSURD! Why should I obey a law or any social mores? That's taking away my freedom. The government tells me I can't poop in the street in public but it's something I want to do. That's taking away my freedom! I should have the right to poop in the street if I want. But there are rules governing pooping in the street to protect society from getting infected with those random people who may want to spread human feces in the streets. But what if I'm one who wants very badly to do it? Are my rights being violated? Shouldn't I have the freedom to do as I wish?? My apologies for using such an inappropriate analogy but I guess I find both "the government shouldn't require me to wear a mask, I have the right to spread a deadly virus to others" and "the government can't tell me that I can't poop in the street as that's taking away my freedom" equally ABSURD.
  3. Pertaining to the efficacy of face masks, I tend to take as truth what "the scientists" (e.g. U.S. CDC) are advising. The use of a non-medical face mask isn't to protect the wearer. It seems many are not interpreting the efficacy in terms of who it's protecting. The wearing of a non-medical face mask is to protect those around you from YOU. Since we know that Covid19 can be asymptomatic, many might have it and not know it. Therefore, wearing a non-medical face mask is protecting those around you from your spittle just in case you are carrying the virus. The U.S. CDC's exact wording is "...the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others." Even if we do not sneeze or cough, when a human talks there's a certain amount of saliva being sprayed into the air. Very minute amounts, yes. But if one of those minute specks of spittle land on your face or hand, and you touch your face with your hand that contains the very tiny amounts of spittle, you could become infected should that person who produced the spittle is positive for Covid19. Remember, that person might not know if they have the virus since many cases are asymptomatic. And even if you've had a test in the morning and you tested negative, it doesn't mean that you're negative forever. You could very well test positive in the afternoon. So why not wear a mask just in case? ...it's to protect others from YOU. It's selfish, IMO, not to wear a mask. I hear so many saying "I don't have the virus so I'm not going to wear a mask" or "I'm young and have a good immune system so I'm not worried about getting Covid 19 so I'm not wearing a mask. Not wearing a mask in public (or covering your mouth with something ...cloth, paper, or whatever other non-medical face covering), is inconsiderate ...period. It shows you only care about yourself and not others. Sure, when I put on a mask, I don't believe it's doing too much to protect me from getting the virus but I would be devastated if I were to learn that I somehow transmitted it to someone else and they were to get severely sick or die from it. So I want to do everything I can to not have that happen ...staying at home as much as possible, wearing mask in public, and keeping distance when around others. I'll protect YOU by wearing a mask and I hope you'll do the same for me. (In the U.S., it's a politically divided issue. Democrats understand "the scientific" reasoning behind wearing face-coverings. Republicans do not think they really have to wear a mask. I've been a life-long Republican voter but will never vote for another as I do believe in "science" and do not believe it should be a political issue. Therefore, I will never associate myself with Republicans again --but I do not have much longer to go as I'm an old fart as many of you know. Moderators, feel free to delete this post as I really don't want this to become a political discussion. Thank you.)
  4. So do I but that is not the topic of this thread, LOL. I too prefer the Gillig Phantom. Yeah, being an old fart, I too long for a "real bus" and that's a traditional high-floor 40-footer as it pertains to city transit applications. The first bus I ever drove was a 1955 GM TDH-5105 and was a "real bus" to me as I also used to ride on those same GM old-look buses when I was a kid.
  5. Pick one for what? ...price? ...appearance? ...function? Why do we need to pick? Most believe the BRT front cap looks nice and more modern. But from my understanding, both have essentially the same underpinnings. The main difference from all that I've heard is that the front cap makes the BRT appear more modern and resembling modern rail design and was originally configured for BRT applications ...it's only for aesthetics and not at all for function as it pertains to BRT operation. That modular front cap of the BRT adds a few inches to the front overhang and those agencies that have routing that may need a bus that can handle the approach angle specifications that a shorter front-overhang provides might choose the traditional LF (do they still call them "Gillig Advantage" ...?) as even a few inches makes a LOT of difference. KCM in Seattle latest order of Gilligs, as an example, have been LFs as the city and surrounding areas have a lot of hilly routing along with dips and other obstacles that would make a shorter front-overhang very beneficial. I keep hearing that was the main reason they didn't go with BRTs ...plus, LFs have a slightly lower price than the BRTs from what I've read. I wish they would have ordered BRTs as I like the look but if they cost less and function better for the territory, I can understand. I argued on another thread that the traditional LF design makes it appear as if it was 20+ year old bus ...if I were to show a person off the street a 2019 Gillig LF without frame-less and tinted windows and a 1999 NFI D40LF, I bet they wouldn't know what bus was newer. These are only my opinions, etc. I invite others to correct my faulty perceptions, however.
  6. Thanks, A. Wong ! The article didn't mention the left mirrors, however. I may write to the reporter and have him view this thread. And maybe to Bradshaw too. Although bus manufacturers have some responsibility in making the windshield A-pillar as thin as possible, Edmonton Transit, in my opinion, is derelict by using those mirrors. Believe me, it makes a world of difference by not having the mirror housing blocking your vision being mounted at eye-level when making a left turn in a bus. Being able to easily see over the left mirror housing is the difference between night and day ...or it was for me.
  7. Yes! Definitely. I've always been angry at the LFR windshield design with its thick pillar. The Xcelsior's pillar design was a definite improvement. I initially thought that the Xcelsior's design was a result of the law suit that came about from the horrific 2010 TriMet accident that killed two and injured three others in a left-turn accident where the driver did not see the group legally crossing the street because her vision was blocked by the left mirror housing and A-pillar. However, the Xcelsior was designed much before that accident happened. BTW, as I said in my post of 21 February, I'm so angry at TriMet. They still use a huge left mirror despite what happened in 2010. Evidently, on their Xcelsiors, they use a mirror of the same dimensions and mounting position as Edmonton ...example HERE. "TriMet "has not gone anywhere near far enough to address the problems that this has exposed," Pope said. The transit agency still trains its drivers to make unsafe turns, he said. The driver's side mirror also creates a dangerous blind spot for bus operators and should be repositioned, he said." From article updated Jan 10, 2019: Despite $4 million settlement in fatal Portland bus crash, TriMet safety problems persist, lawyers say Very interesting! Thank you. “We’re not sure yet whether or not the blind spot issue was a factor in this tragedy." Gimme a break! I'll bet my life on the fact that it was "the blind spot" ...like I mentioned, a driver doesn't purposely run into a pedestrian legally crossing the street inside a crosswalk with a green light!! Comparison of the three NFI coaches, LF, LFR, and Xcelsior:
  8. Thanks for posting. I can't tell you how much it hurts to see these accidents continue to happen especially when discovering that an agency continues to use the exact mirror and mounting position that just increases the chances of a driver not seeing a pedestrian crossing the street. The bus involved in this accident was Edmonton Transit System coach 4790, an NFI D40LFR. Edmonton Transit continues to use one of the longer/ taller left mirrors and some are mounted where they can block the vision of a driver seeing a pedestrian crossing the street as the bus is making a left turn. This is the classic example: a lady innocently crossing the street with a green light inside a crosswalk. The driver did not hit this pedestrian on purpose. I'm certain that his/her report will state something similar to "I just didn't see the pedestrian in time to stop." Transit agencies can help their bus drivers by using a smaller left mirror and mounting it in a lower position so it doesn't block vision while making a left turn but some just don't see the necessity for doing so. 😧
  9. Hah, interesting. So the "era" continues. I'm kind of chuckling to myself. My fiddling with the wiki is futile and kind of stupid especially since it's so awkward and time consuming for me as an "elderly person" with no tech skills to struggle with the language. I'll move both the 1100s and the 3600s back to the active section and leave it to others more "in the know" to adjust the wiki page going forward.
  10. Thanks. I'll adjust the wiki when I can get to it ...unless somebody else wants to jump in to do it. It is the end of an era but not anything groundbreaking as this was scheduled to be done way before this time. Now, all the primary fleet is low-floor and hybrid, battery-electric, or ETB, correct? Because of the Sound Transit overlay, however, I suppose there will be traditional buses --high-floors, straight diesel, etc.-- around the area for a long time to come.
  11. Both were signed out yesterday. I'm monitoring them but I think it's too early to call them officially retired. Let's at least wait until service levels get back to normal and/or employees or others that know employees can give us information from the inside. eta: ...sorry, not yesterday but on Wednesday
  12. Okay, I just cleaned up the 3600 wiki page and moved the 1100 page to the retired section the other day. Yes, once 3660 and 3680 are no longer used, it will be the end of an era ...no more traditional high floors and no more traditional diesels.
  13. Interesting idea. We all hope it won't be needed for too long. I've added Seattle. I hope others will add other Washington state agencies.
  • Create New...