On 04/08/2022 22:02, Sam Wilson wrote:
> The Clyde ferries, the only ones I’ve used[1] since getting my oldies’
> card, have no such offer so far as I can see.

"Elderly and disabled residents in the Strathclyde region can save money
on public transport with the National Entitlement Card (NEC). The card
gives holders free bus travel in Scotland and, through the Strathclyde
Concessionary Travel Scheme, reduced fares on trains and Subway in the
Strathclyde area.

If you live on an island or peninsula within Strathclyde you can also
receive reduced ferry fares with a Strathclyde Concessionary Travel
Ferry Card."

I think that is similar to Western Isles

"Highland residents aged over 60 or with a disability, and holding the
free bus travel entitlement, can also travel free on ferry journeys
within Highland and at half fare on the Craignure to Oban service.
Concessions are for passenger fares only.2

On 04/08/2022 23:12, Charles Ellson wrote:
> There hasn't been a Highland Region since 1996.
> Residents of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles who qualify for
> free bus travel also have an entitlement to two return ferry trips per
> year to the mainland :-

I was using as a generic term, it sounds better than "Highland Council's
Area" as well as Highland Council not being very popular outside Inverness.

Strathclyde also disappeared years ago but the term is still used.

In message <tch1uf$2seot$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:08:15 on Thu, 4 Aug
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "In big cities like Cardiff, Sheffield and Liverpool, minicabs ARE
>> allowed access to the prized road space."
>>
>> I'm not sure they mean "like", because Nottingham is "like Sheffield" in
>> terms of being a big city.
>
>Presumably cities, big or otherwise, which are like Cardiff, Sheffield and
>Liverpool are the ones that allow minicabs access to bus lanes.

It would be far clearer if they said "such as", rather than "like".

Because in very many respects, *except in particular* the access for
minicabs, Nottingham is 'big, like those'.

In the true spirit of flushing out invisible words, perhaps you can let
us all know which you regard as present in front of your rendering "bus
lanes". Just so there's no ambiguity.

Is it some/many/most/all ? Or indeed some other invisible word.
--
Roland Perry

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 04/08/2022 22:02, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> The Clyde ferries, the only ones I’ve used[1] since getting my oldies’
>> card, have no such offer so far as I can see.
>
>
>
> "Elderly and disabled residents in the Strathclyde region can save money
> on public transport with the National Entitlement Card (NEC). The card
> gives holders free bus travel in Scotland and, through the Strathclyde
> Concessionary Travel Scheme, reduced fares on trains and Subway in the
> Strathclyde area.
>
> If you live on an island or peninsula within Strathclyde you can also
> receive reduced ferry fares with a Strathclyde Concessionary Travel
> Ferry Card."
>
> I think that is similar to Western Isles
>
> "Highland residents aged over 60 or with a disability, and holding the
> free bus travel entitlement, can also travel free on ferry journeys
> within Highland and at half fare on the Craignure to Oban service.
> Concessions are for passenger fares only.2

Ah, right. I’m not a resident and I wasn’t aware of those concessions.
I’m glad they exist.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tch1uf$2seot$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:08:15 on Thu, 4 Aug
> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> "In big cities like Cardiff, Sheffield and Liverpool, minicabs ARE
>>> allowed access to the prized road space."
>>>
>>> I'm not sure they mean "like", because Nottingham is "like Sheffield" in
>>> terms of being a big city.
>>
>> Presumably cities, big or otherwise, which are like Cardiff, Sheffield and
>> Liverpool are the ones that allow minicabs access to bus lanes.
>
> It would be far clearer if they said "such as", rather than "like".
>
> Because in very many respects, *except in particular* the access for
> minicabs, Nottingham is 'big, like those'.
>
> In the true spirit of flushing out invisible words, perhaps you can let
> us all know which you regard as present in front of your rendering "bus
> lanes". Just so there's no ambiguity.
>
> Is it some/many/most/all ? Or indeed some other invisible word.

I wasn’t intending any invisible word or words in that position, just
pointing out a reasonable interpretation of the word “like” in the context.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tch1uf$2seot$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:08:15 on Thu, 4 Aug
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "In big cities like Cardiff, Sheffield and Liverpool, minicabs ARE
>>>> allowed access to the prized road space."
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure they mean "like", because Nottingham is "like Sheffield" in
>>>> terms of being a big city.
>>>
>>> Presumably cities, big or otherwise, which are like Cardiff, Sheffield and
>>> Liverpool are the ones that allow minicabs access to bus lanes.
>>
>> It would be far clearer if they said "such as", rather than "like".
>>
>> Because in very many respects, *except in particular* the access for
>> minicabs, Nottingham is 'big, like those'.
>>
>> In the true spirit of flushing out invisible words, perhaps you can let
>> us all know which you regard as present in front of your rendering "bus
>> lanes". Just so there's no ambiguity.
>>
>> Is it some/many/most/all ? Or indeed some other invisible word.
>
> I wasn’t intending any invisible word or words in that position, just
> pointing out a reasonable interpretation of the word “like” in the context.
>

Yes, I think almost all normal people would share your interpretation.
Fortunately, very few people spend their lives deliberately misinterpreting
everything they read.

On 05/08/2022 22:30, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Ah, right. I’m not a resident and I wasn’t aware of those concessions.
> I’m glad they exist.

You have to hunt around to find the details. One link to information on
Highland Region just takes you to their home page and then have find the
relevant page on their website.

In message <af2hehdc456gvvsb30to2rip2lao70ueob@4ax.com>, at 03:27:29 on
Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:

>>The Megabus in Scotland that I mentioned yesterday isn't "local" most of
>>the way, because it stops only at Aberdeen, Perth (87 miles), Stirling
>>(34 miles); then Cumbernauld and Glasgow both around 13 miles.
>>
>Those latter two would seem to change it to a local bus.

But only, I think, on those legs of the trip.

Otherwise a long distance coach with stops at Marble Arch and Victoria
Coach Station would be local all the way from Manchester (or wherever).

>ISTR there used to be some Western SMT services running between
>Largs(?) and Glasgow which ran non-stop between Port Glasgow or
>Greenock and Glasgow (~23-25m) but stopped everywhere at the western
>end.

--
Roland Perry

In message <pp1hehd085178gu247df1uo8bq7lr24jf4@4ax.com>, at 03:17:35 on
Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:

>>>>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/67/section/2
>>>>> The underlying measure is that you haven't got stops within 15 miles
>>>>> of each other. Other "ifs and buts" apply.

>>>> I wonder if the 1985 Act is the one which brought in the Entitlement
>>>>Cards. Or is the definition of "local" in this instance for the
>>>>purposes of signs saying "Bus lane - local buses only"?

>>>> The Megabus in Scotland that I mentioned yesterday isn't "local"
>>>>most of the way, because it stops only at Aberdeen, Perth (87 miles),
>>>>Stirling (34 miles); then Cumbernauld and Glasgow both around 13 miles.
>>>>
>>>>>> Registered
>>>>>> Scheduled
>>>>>> Bus
>>>
>>>The 1985 Act has many exceptions referring out to Scottish legislation
>>>so unclear whether the "local" definitions are relevant north of the
>>>border
>>
>>Relevant to *what* though? Signs saying "No entry except local buses",
>>
>From the 2002 TSRGDs :-
>"local bus" means a public service vehicle used for the provision of a
>local service not being an excursion or tour;

Do those 2002 regs arise from the 1985 Act, or somewhere else?

And you've now quoted a third (2005) instrument which applies to
concessionary passes.

It's unfortunate that we now have three alternative definitions (to use
in different contexts) but that's the sort of muddle our law is often
in. I've often thought that when such ambiguous terms are used, there
should be at least some reference to the relevant legislation (a bit
like the footnotes in the Highway Code; although sadly Rule 141 is
missing such a footnote).

--
Roland Perry

In message <tck25d$3cbaf$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:30:21 on Fri, 5 Aug
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tch1uf$2seot$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:08:15 on Thu, 4 Aug
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "In big cities like Cardiff, Sheffield and Liverpool, minicabs ARE
>>>> allowed access to the prized road space."
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure they mean "like", because Nottingham is "like Sheffield" in
>>>> terms of being a big city.
>>>
>>> Presumably cities, big or otherwise, which are like Cardiff, Sheffield and
>>> Liverpool are the ones that allow minicabs access to bus lanes.
>>
>> It would be far clearer if they said "such as", rather than "like".
>>
>> Because in very many respects, *except in particular* the access for
>> minicabs, Nottingham is 'big, like those'.
>>
>> In the true spirit of flushing out invisible words, perhaps you can let
>> us all know which you regard as present in front of your rendering "bus
>> lanes". Just so there's no ambiguity.
>>
>> Is it some/many/most/all ? Or indeed some other invisible word.
>
>I wasn’t intending any invisible word or words in that position,

But there has to be something, otherwise the phrase is sufficiently
ambiguous it's meaningless.

>just pointing out a reasonable interpretation of the word “like” in
>the context.

It's nevertheless ambiguous. The meaning could be either of:

"In big cities such as..." or

"In cities which are as big as..." [When you wrote "presumably..." it
was making a nod at that possibility; despite introducing a new
'likeness' other than size. What could that possibly be: having a Labour
Mayor, having a Hansoms-only rank at the station, having a vociferous
trade association for Hansom drivers, having a weak trade association
for PHV drivers, having a bus company that has moaned about PHVs
blocking some but not all of their bus lanes...??]

No doubt everyone will have a view, but why not draft it more carefully
in the first place?
--
Roland Perry

On 06/08/2022 10:12, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <af2hehdc456gvvsb30to2rip2lao70ueob@4ax.com>, at 03:27:29 on
> Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>
>>> The Megabus in Scotland that I mentioned yesterday isn't "local" most of
>>> the way, because it stops only at Aberdeen, Perth (87 miles), Stirling
>>> (34 miles); then Cumbernauld and Glasgow both around 13 miles.
>>>
>> Those latter two would seem to change it to a local bus.
>
> But only, I think, on those legs of the trip.
>
> Otherwise a long distance coach with stops at Marble Arch and Victoria
> Coach Station would be local all the way from Manchester (or wherever).

The rule seems to be that a coach is local if anyone travels less than
15 miles. By that interpretation, the Manchester coach is local if and
only if tickets are sold for local trips between Marble Arch and
Victoria, which they probably aren't.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tck25d$3cbaf$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:30:21 on Fri, 5 Aug
> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tch1uf$2seot$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:08:15 on Thu, 4 Aug
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "In big cities like Cardiff, Sheffield and Liverpool, minicabs ARE
>>>>> allowed access to the prized road space."
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure they mean "like", because Nottingham is "like Sheffield" in
>>>>> terms of being a big city.
>>>>
>>>> Presumably cities, big or otherwise, which are like Cardiff, Sheffield and
>>>> Liverpool are the ones that allow minicabs access to bus lanes.
>>>
>>> It would be far clearer if they said "such as", rather than "like".
>>>
>>> Because in very many respects, *except in particular* the access for
>>> minicabs, Nottingham is 'big, like those'.
>>>
>>> In the true spirit of flushing out invisible words, perhaps you can let
>>> us all know which you regard as present in front of your rendering "bus
>>> lanes". Just so there's no ambiguity.
>>>
>>> Is it some/many/most/all ? Or indeed some other invisible word.
>>
>> I wasn’t intending any invisible word or words in that position,
>
> But there has to be something, otherwise the phrase is sufficiently
> ambiguous it's meaningless.
>
>> just pointing out a reasonable interpretation of the word “like” in
>> the context.
>
> It's nevertheless ambiguous. The meaning could be either of:
>
> "In big cities such as..." or
>
> "In cities which are as big as..." [When you wrote "presumably..." it
> was making a nod at that possibility; despite introducing a new
> 'likeness' other than size. What could that possibly be: having a Labour
> Mayor, having a Hansoms-only rank at the station, having a vociferous
> trade association for Hansom drivers, having a weak trade association
> for PHV drivers, having a bus company that has moaned about PHVs
> blocking some but not all of their bus lanes...??]
>
> No doubt everyone will have a view, but why not draft it more carefully
> in the first place?

It might take up less of all of our time if you offered your services as a
copywriter or subeditor rather than complaining here. Except all the rest
of us seem to have had the same understanding and it’s you who finds it
confusing.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 10:12:21 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <pp1hehd085178gu247df1uo8bq7lr24jf4@4ax.com>, at 03:17:35 on
>Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/67/section/2
>>>>>> The underlying measure is that you haven't got stops within 15 miles
>>>>>> of each other. Other "ifs and buts" apply.
>
>>>>> I wonder if the 1985 Act is the one which brought in the Entitlement
>>>>>Cards. Or is the definition of "local" in this instance for the
>>>>>purposes of signs saying "Bus lane - local buses only"?
>
>>>>> The Megabus in Scotland that I mentioned yesterday isn't "local"
>>>>>most of the way, because it stops only at Aberdeen, Perth (87 miles),
>>>>>Stirling (34 miles); then Cumbernauld and Glasgow both around 13 miles.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Registered
>>>>>>> Scheduled
>>>>>>> Bus
>>>>
>>>>The 1985 Act has many exceptions referring out to Scottish legislation
>>>>so unclear whether the "local" definitions are relevant north of the
>>>>border
>>>
>>>Relevant to *what* though? Signs saying "No entry except local buses",
>>>
>>From the 2002 TSRGDs :-
>>"local bus" means a public service vehicle used for the provision of a
>>local service not being an excursion or tour;
>
>Do those 2002 regs arise from the 1985 Act, or somewhere else?
>
"Something else" -
"The Secretary of State for Transport, in exercise of the powers
conferred by sections 64, 65 and 85(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation
Act 1984(1) and by section 36(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988(2) and
now vested in him(3), hereby—

(a)after consultation with representative organisations in accordance
with section 134(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and
section 195(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, makes the Regulations set
out in Part I of this Instrument, and
(b)gives the Directions set out in Part II.
[and further sub-references to other Acts and Regulations]"
[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/introduction/made]

The TSRGDs deal with traffic signs; they don't inevitably match other
matters such as vehicle licensing, construction or use. Neither are
the signs themselves a comprehensive representation of the
requirements, allowances etc. in the TSRGDs.

>And you've now quoted a third (2005) instrument which applies to
>concessionary passes.
>
>It's unfortunate that we now have three alternative definitions (to use
>in different contexts) but that's the sort of muddle our law is often
>in. I've often thought that when such ambiguous terms are used, there
>should be at least some reference to the relevant legislation (a bit
>like the footnotes in the Highway Code; although sadly Rule 141 is
>missing such a footnote).
>
There is no muddle. You start with where you have found your term and
work back back via the immediate interpretation (if any) to the root
legislation.
If you want to know whether or not you can drive your vehicle past the
sign in front of you then the relevant back-tracing starts from the
TSRGDs; definitions of "local buses" found by other routes could
easily be the wrong ones with incorrect inclusions and/or exceptions.

In message <tclou4$3s470$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:05:07 on Sat, 6 Aug
2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>On 06/08/2022 10:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <af2hehdc456gvvsb30to2rip2lao70ueob@4ax.com>, at 03:27:29
>>on Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>
>>>> The Megabus in Scotland that I mentioned yesterday isn't "local"
>>>>most of the way, because it stops only at Aberdeen, Perth (87
>>>>miles), Stirling (34 miles); then Cumbernauld and Glasgow both
>>>>around 13 miles.
>>>>
>>> Those latter two would seem to change it to a local bus.

>> But only, I think, on those legs of the trip.

>> Otherwise a long distance coach with stops at Marble Arch and
>>Victoria Coach Station would be local all the way from Manchester (or
>>wherever).
>
>The rule seems to be that a coach is local if anyone travels less than
>15 miles. By that interpretation, the Manchester coach is local if and
>only if tickets are sold for local trips between Marble Arch and
>Victoria, which they probably aren't.

Natex will sell you a ticket from Victoria to Golders Green, for £2.60
[plus £1 booking fee, bastards!] which is 6.7 miles. You could probably
stop short at Marble Arch if the fancy took you.

But the Golders Green ticket clinches my argument, apart from the minor
detail as to whether they'd accept an English concessionary pass for
that journey. There's no indication they would on their booking site.
--
Roland Perry

In message <mk9tehpv4i6kf8lmcqcjs317vj4u0vh6vf@4ax.com>, at 18:52:34 on
Sat, 6 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 10:12:21 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <pp1hehd085178gu247df1uo8bq7lr24jf4@4ax.com>, at 03:17:35 on
>>Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/67/section/2
>>>>>>> The underlying measure is that you haven't got stops within 15 miles
>>>>>>> of each other. Other "ifs and buts" apply.
>>
>>>>>> I wonder if the 1985 Act is the one which brought in the Entitlement
>>>>>>Cards. Or is the definition of "local" in this instance for the
>>>>>>purposes of signs saying "Bus lane - local buses only"?
>>
>>>>>> The Megabus in Scotland that I mentioned yesterday isn't "local"
>>>>>>most of the way, because it stops only at Aberdeen, Perth (87 miles),
>>>>>>Stirling (34 miles); then Cumbernauld and Glasgow both around 13 miles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Registered
>>>>>>>> Scheduled
>>>>>>>> Bus
>>>>>
>>>>>The 1985 Act has many exceptions referring out to Scottish legislation
>>>>>so unclear whether the "local" definitions are relevant north of the
>>>>>border
>>>>
>>>>Relevant to *what* though? Signs saying "No entry except local buses",
>>>>
>>>From the 2002 TSRGDs :-
>>>"local bus" means a public service vehicle used for the provision of a
>>>local service not being an excursion or tour;
>>
>>Do those 2002 regs arise from the 1985 Act, or somewhere else?
>>
>"Something else" -
>"The Secretary of State for Transport, in exercise of the powers
>conferred by sections 64, 65 and 85(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation
>Act 1984(1) and by section 36(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988(2) and
>now vested in him(3), hereby—
>
>(a)after consultation with representative organisations in accordance
>with section 134(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and
>section 195(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, makes the Regulations set
>out in Part I of this Instrument, and
>(b)gives the Directions set out in Part II.
>[and further sub-references to other Acts and Regulations]"
>[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/introduction/made]
>
>The TSRGDs deal with traffic signs; they don't inevitably match other
>matters such as vehicle licensing, construction or use. Neither are
>the signs themselves a comprehensive representation of the
>requirements, allowances etc. in the TSRGDs.
>
>>And you've now quoted a third (2005) instrument which applies to
>>concessionary passes.
>>
>>It's unfortunate that we now have three alternative definitions (to use
>>in different contexts) but that's the sort of muddle our law is often
>>in. I've often thought that when such ambiguous terms are used, there
>>should be at least some reference to the relevant legislation (a bit
>>like the footnotes in the Highway Code; although sadly Rule 141 is
>>missing such a footnote).
>>
>There is no muddle. You start with where you have found your term and
>work back back via the immediate interpretation (if any) to the root
>legislation.

That's not very practical when sat behind the wheel of a coach from
London to Manchester with a stop at Golders Green.

>If you want to know whether or not you can drive your vehicle past the
>sign in front of you then the relevant back-tracing starts from the
>TSRGDs; definitions of "local buses" found by other routes could
>easily be the wrong ones with incorrect inclusions and/or exceptions.

--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 19:03:24 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <mk9tehpv4i6kf8lmcqcjs317vj4u0vh6vf@4ax.com>, at 18:52:34 on
>Sat, 6 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 10:12:21 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <pp1hehd085178gu247df1uo8bq7lr24jf4@4ax.com>, at 03:17:35 on
>>>Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/67/section/2
>>>>>>>> The underlying measure is that you haven't got stops within 15 miles
>>>>>>>> of each other. Other "ifs and buts" apply.
>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if the 1985 Act is the one which brought in the Entitlement
>>>>>>>Cards. Or is the definition of "local" in this instance for the
>>>>>>>purposes of signs saying "Bus lane - local buses only"?
>>>
>>>>>>> The Megabus in Scotland that I mentioned yesterday isn't "local"
>>>>>>>most of the way, because it stops only at Aberdeen, Perth (87 miles),
>>>>>>>Stirling (34 miles); then Cumbernauld and Glasgow both around 13 miles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Registered
>>>>>>>>> Scheduled
>>>>>>>>> Bus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The 1985 Act has many exceptions referring out to Scottish legislation
>>>>>>so unclear whether the "local" definitions are relevant north of the
>>>>>>border
>>>>>
>>>>>Relevant to *what* though? Signs saying "No entry except local buses",
>>>>>
>>>>From the 2002 TSRGDs :-
>>>>"local bus" means a public service vehicle used for the provision of a
>>>>local service not being an excursion or tour;
>>>
>>>Do those 2002 regs arise from the 1985 Act, or somewhere else?
>>>
>>"Something else" -
>>"The Secretary of State for Transport, in exercise of the powers
>>conferred by sections 64, 65 and 85(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation
>>Act 1984(1) and by section 36(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988(2) and
>>now vested in him(3), hereby—
>>
>>(a)after consultation with representative organisations in accordance
>>with section 134(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and
>>section 195(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, makes the Regulations set
>>out in Part I of this Instrument, and
>>(b)gives the Directions set out in Part II.
>>[and further sub-references to other Acts and Regulations]"
>>[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/introduction/made]
>>
>>The TSRGDs deal with traffic signs; they don't inevitably match other
>>matters such as vehicle licensing, construction or use. Neither are
>>the signs themselves a comprehensive representation of the
>>requirements, allowances etc. in the TSRGDs.
>>
>>>And you've now quoted a third (2005) instrument which applies to
>>>concessionary passes.
>>>
>>>It's unfortunate that we now have three alternative definitions (to use
>>>in different contexts) but that's the sort of muddle our law is often
>>>in. I've often thought that when such ambiguous terms are used, there
>>>should be at least some reference to the relevant legislation (a bit
>>>like the footnotes in the Highway Code; although sadly Rule 141 is
>>>missing such a footnote).
>>>
>>There is no muddle. You start with where you have found your term and
>>work back back via the immediate interpretation (if any) to the root
>>legislation.
>
>That's not very practical when sat behind the wheel of a coach from
>London to Manchester with a stop at Golders Green.
>
There is a reasonable expectation that the driver should know which
legal requirements he has to comply with and where.
Presuming you are addressing the 15 mile restriction, I had a quick
poke around the National Express website. While it would offer
journeys into London destinations with stopping/changing points at
various locations within 15 miles of the end of the journey, it seemed
to simply refuse to recognise any of those intermediate points as an
origin. Heathrow (about 17 miles from Victoria) seems to be the only
point within Greater London available for starting a journey into
London.

>>If you want to know whether or not you can drive your vehicle past the
>>sign in front of you then the relevant back-tracing starts from the
>>TSRGDs; definitions of "local buses" found by other routes could
>>easily be the wrong ones with incorrect inclusions and/or exceptions.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 19:01:02 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <tclou4$3s470$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:05:07 on Sat, 6 Aug
>2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>On 06/08/2022 10:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <af2hehdc456gvvsb30to2rip2lao70ueob@4ax.com>, at 03:27:29
>>>on Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>
>>>>> The Megabus in Scotland that I mentioned yesterday isn't "local"
>>>>>most of the way, because it stops only at Aberdeen, Perth (87
>>>>>miles), Stirling (34 miles); then Cumbernauld and Glasgow both
>>>>>around 13 miles.
>>>>>
>>>> Those latter two would seem to change it to a local bus.
>
>>> But only, I think, on those legs of the trip.
>
>>> Otherwise a long distance coach with stops at Marble Arch and
>>>Victoria Coach Station would be local all the way from Manchester (or
>>>wherever).
>>
>>The rule seems to be that a coach is local if anyone travels less than
>>15 miles. By that interpretation, the Manchester coach is local if and
>>only if tickets are sold for local trips between Marble Arch and
>>Victoria, which they probably aren't.
>
>Natex will sell you a ticket from Victoria to Golders Green, for £2.60
>[plus £1 booking fee, bastards!] which is 6.7 miles. You could probably
>stop short at Marble Arch if the fancy took you.
>
>But the Golders Green ticket clinches my argument, apart from the minor
>detail as to whether they'd accept an English concessionary pass for
>that journey. There's no indication they would on their booking site.
>
They will also offer the same in the other direction. That seems to be
the one exception to the 15 mile limit with NatEx and thus an anomaly.
FOI request to TfL maybe?

https://www.buckscc.gov.uk/services/transport-and-roads/buses-and-trains/concessionary-bus-pass-faqs/what-is-the-definition-of-a-local-bus-service/
suggests that a service is not a local service if it has to be
pre-booked.

BUT :-
"Can I buy my ticket from your driver?

Yes you can, however this will be subject to availability as services
may be full with pre booked customers, so it is always advisable to
purchase your ticket in advance."
[faq.nationalexpress.com]

In message <tcm8fj$3di$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:27 on Sat, 6 Aug 2022,
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>It might take up less of all of our time if you offered your services as a
>copywriter or subeditor

I've done so much of that over the years, it's become a bit of a habit.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 19:01:02 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <tclou4$3s470$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:05:07 on Sat, 6 Aug
>2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>On 06/08/2022 10:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <af2hehdc456gvvsb30to2rip2lao70ueob@4ax.com>, at 03:27:29
>>>on Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>
>>>>> The Megabus in Scotland that I mentioned yesterday isn't "local"
>>>>>most of the way, because it stops only at Aberdeen, Perth (87
>>>>>miles), Stirling (34 miles); then Cumbernauld and Glasgow both
>>>>>around 13 miles.
>>>>>
>>>> Those latter two would seem to change it to a local bus.
>
>>> But only, I think, on those legs of the trip.
>
>>> Otherwise a long distance coach with stops at Marble Arch and
>>>Victoria Coach Station would be local all the way from Manchester (or
>>>wherever).
>>
>>The rule seems to be that a coach is local if anyone travels less than
>>15 miles. By that interpretation, the Manchester coach is local if and
>>only if tickets are sold for local trips between Marble Arch and
>>Victoria, which they probably aren't.
>
>Natex will sell you a ticket from Victoria to Golders Green, for £2.60
>[plus £1 booking fee, bastards!] which is 6.7 miles. You could probably
>stop short at Marble Arch if the fancy took you.
>
>But the Golders Green ticket clinches my argument, apart from the minor
>detail as to whether they'd accept an English concessionary pass for
>that journey. There's no indication they would on their booking site.

They wouldn't. Services on which most seats are bookable are exempt
(in Essex and I assume elsewhere).

In message <bma1fhligqg9u0ls2atrbe1ttegn7ob8ae@4ax.com>, at 07:19:36 on
Mon, 8 Aug 2022, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 19:01:02 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <tclou4$3s470$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:05:07 on Sat, 6 Aug
>>2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>>On 06/08/2022 10:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <af2hehdc456gvvsb30to2rip2lao70ueob@4ax.com>, at 03:27:29
>>>>on Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> The Megabus in Scotland that I mentioned yesterday isn't "local"
>>>>>>most of the way, because it stops only at Aberdeen, Perth (87
>>>>>>miles), Stirling (34 miles); then Cumbernauld and Glasgow both
>>>>>>around 13 miles.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Those latter two would seem to change it to a local bus.
>>
>>>> But only, I think, on those legs of the trip.
>>
>>>> Otherwise a long distance coach with stops at Marble Arch and
>>>>Victoria Coach Station would be local all the way from Manchester (or
>>>>wherever).
>>>
>>>The rule seems to be that a coach is local if anyone travels less than
>>>15 miles. By that interpretation, the Manchester coach is local if and
>>>only if tickets are sold for local trips between Marble Arch and
>>>Victoria, which they probably aren't.
>>
>>Natex will sell you a ticket from Victoria to Golders Green, for £2.60
>>[plus £1 booking fee, bastards!] which is 6.7 miles. You could probably
>>stop short at Marble Arch if the fancy took you.
>>
>>But the Golders Green ticket clinches my argument, apart from the minor
>>detail as to whether they'd accept an English concessionary pass for
>>that journey. There's no indication they would on their booking site.
>
>They wouldn't. Services on which most seats are bookable are exempt
>(in Essex and I assume elsewhere).

The list of criteria we started discussing was:

"nearly all local registered and long-distance scheduled bus
services. Only a few services, such as premium-fare night buses and
City Sightseeing buses, do not accept the card."

Nothing there about "bookable". Maybe the English rules are different?

.... later "Excluded journeys are: long distance coach services, services
with bookable seats, trams, tubes and rail travel."
--
Roland Perry

In message <tcdj4k$25vu5$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:37:08 on Wed, 3 Aug
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <8daieht7dmnl3beoa7ed6rk7d48b4naoc5@4ax.com>, at 14:42:20 on
>> Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:22:17 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <tcavop$1erug$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:54:18 on Tue, 2 Aug
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tcanma$1cqku$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:36:26 on Tue, 2 Aug
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02/08/2022 03:33, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Where there are, they would probably be also designated for taxis
>>>>>>>>> anyway. Strictly buses only tends to be for against the flow bus lanes
>>>>>>>>> and also private roads into stations and garages where most general
>>>>>>>>> traffic legislation doesn't apply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it has come with people who have used a London taxi as
>>>>>>>>a private
>>>>>>>> vehicle and claimed that being a "taxi" has given them access
>>>>>>>>to some of
>>>>>>>> these places.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The most famous owner of one was Prince Philip but others have
>>>>>>>>used them
>>>>>>>> as a private car.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but being taxi-shaped doesn't give them taxi-privileges,
>>>>>>>unless they
>>>>>>> are available for hire and comply with all the other taxi rules
>>>>>>> (onerous in
>>>>>>> London).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it your opinion that such a taxi has to be a hackney, or does a
>>>>>> private hire (Uber or whatever) count, and if so does it requires a
>>>>>> fare paying passenger on board at the time, rather than one driving
>>>>>> around randomly trying to be near potential "surge pricing" customers?
>>>>>
>>>>> Every reference I can find indicates that only Hackney taxis can use bus
>>>>> lanes. Certainly all the references to London exclude mini cabs and thus
>>>>> Uber. I suspect all bus lane regulations start from the same template with
>>>>> perhaps a bit of tailoring to suit the locality.
>>>>>
>>>>> There’s more here
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/bus-lanes-why-can-taxis-use-bus-lanes-
>>>>> and-what-does-the-future-hold-in-terms-of-access
>>>>
>>>> It just gets worse and worse:
>>>>
>>>> "For the most part, private hire vehicles (PHV) cannot access bus
>>>> lanes, however there are some exceptions.
>>>>
>>>> "In Coventry and Nottingham, wheelchair accessible PHVs can access
>>>> bus lanes. The same goes for Northern Ireland, where there are four
>>>> types of ‘taxi’. ‘Permitted’ taxis are allowed access
>>>> which refers
>>>> to public hire black taxis and wheelchair-accessible PHVs.
>>>>
>>>> "In big cities like Cardiff, Sheffield and Liverpool, minicabs ARE
>>>> allowed access to the prized road space."
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure they mean "like", because Nottingham is "like Sheffield" in
>>>> terms of being a big city.
>>>
>>> You missed the implied 'some'.
>>
>> Tricky things, invisible words. Or so people keep telling me.
>
>Your 'invisible' words are usually attempts by you to reverse the meaning
>of one of your many incorrect statements, without admitting your error.

Oh dear, not that zombie argument again. I won't ask you to produce an
example, because you've failed to do so every time previously.

--
Roland Perry

In message <tck3bv$3cjal$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:50:55 on Fri, 5 Aug
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tch1uf$2seot$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:08:15 on Thu, 4 Aug
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "In big cities like Cardiff, Sheffield and Liverpool, minicabs ARE
>>>>> allowed access to the prized road space."
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure they mean "like", because Nottingham is "like Sheffield" in
>>>>> terms of being a big city.
>>>>
>>>> Presumably cities, big or otherwise, which are like Cardiff, Sheffield and
>>>> Liverpool are the ones that allow minicabs access to bus lanes.
>>>
>>> It would be far clearer if they said "such as", rather than "like".
>>>
>>> Because in very many respects, *except in particular* the access for
>>> minicabs, Nottingham is 'big, like those'.
>>>
>>> In the true spirit of flushing out invisible words, perhaps you can let
>>> us all know which you regard as present in front of your rendering "bus
>>> lanes". Just so there's no ambiguity.
>>>
>>> Is it some/many/most/all ? Or indeed some other invisible word.
>>
>> I wasn’t intending any invisible word or words in that position, just
>> pointing out a reasonable interpretation of the word “like” in
>>the context.
>
>Yes, I think almost all normal people would share your interpretation.
>Fortunately, very few people spend their lives deliberately misinterpreting
>everything they read.

Yes indeed, but you are the master at that.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 12:05:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tcdj4k$25vu5$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:37:08 on Wed, 3 Aug
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <8daieht7dmnl3beoa7ed6rk7d48b4naoc5@4ax.com>, at 14:42:20 on
>>> Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:22:17 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <tcavop$1erug$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:54:18 on Tue, 2 Aug
>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tcanma$1cqku$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:36:26 on Tue, 2 Aug
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 02/08/2022 03:33, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Where there are, they would probably be also designated for taxis
>>>>>>>>>> anyway. Strictly buses only tends to be for against the flow bus lanes
>>>>>>>>>> and also private roads into stations and garages where most general
>>>>>>>>>> traffic legislation doesn't apply.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it has come with people who have used a London taxi as
>>>>>>>>>a private
>>>>>>>>> vehicle and claimed that being a "taxi" has given them access
>>>>>>>>>to some of
>>>>>>>>> these places.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The most famous owner of one was Prince Philip but others have
>>>>>>>>>used them
>>>>>>>>> as a private car.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, but being taxi-shaped doesn't give them taxi-privileges,
>>>>>>>>unless they
>>>>>>>> are available for hire and comply with all the other taxi rules
>>>>>>>> (onerous in
>>>>>>>> London).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it your opinion that such a taxi has to be a hackney, or does a
>>>>>>> private hire (Uber or whatever) count, and if so does it requires a
>>>>>>> fare paying passenger on board at the time, rather than one driving
>>>>>>> around randomly trying to be near potential "surge pricing" customers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every reference I can find indicates that only Hackney taxis can use bus
>>>>>> lanes. Certainly all the references to London exclude mini cabs and thus
>>>>>> Uber. I suspect all bus lane regulations start from the same template with
>>>>>> perhaps a bit of tailoring to suit the locality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There’s more here
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/bus-lanes-why-can-taxis-use-bus-lanes-
>>>>>> and-what-does-the-future-hold-in-terms-of-access
>>>>>
>>>>> It just gets worse and worse:
>>>>>
>>>>> "For the most part, private hire vehicles (PHV) cannot access bus
>>>>> lanes, however there are some exceptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> "In Coventry and Nottingham, wheelchair accessible PHVs can access
>>>>> bus lanes. The same goes for Northern Ireland, where there are four
>>>>> types of ‘taxi’. ‘Permitted’ taxis are allowed access
>>>>> which refers
>>>>> to public hire black taxis and wheelchair-accessible PHVs.
>>>>>
>>>>> "In big cities like Cardiff, Sheffield and Liverpool, minicabs ARE
>>>>> allowed access to the prized road space."
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure they mean "like", because Nottingham is "like Sheffield" in
>>>>> terms of being a big city.
>>>>
>>>> You missed the implied 'some'.
>>>
>>> Tricky things, invisible words. Or so people keep telling me.
>>
>>Your 'invisible' words are usually attempts by you to reverse the meaning
>>of one of your many incorrect statements, without admitting your error.
>
>Oh dear, not that zombie argument again. I won't ask you to produce an
>example, because you've failed to do so every time previously.

Don't be so silly — your attempted citations of supposedly invisible words to reverse the meaning of one of your
frequent misstatements are trivially easy to spot. It would be so much easier if you simply admitted you were
misinformed, and thanked the person who corrected your error. But, oh no, you have to be true to yourself, and
invariably deny your errors.

For example:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:43:15 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <t3pre9$qeo$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:46:01 on Wed, 20 Apr
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t3pbl5$kap$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:16:37 on Wed, 20 Apr
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <bc306htbrdo5e1saafln50i4imvcusc40o@4ax.com>, at 14:49:02 on
>>>>> Wed, 20 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:35:15 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <t3ovuf$bmn$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:56:47 on Wed, 20 Apr
>>>>>>> 2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 13:23, Certes wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Guardian reports a potential RMT ballot over Network Rail’s
>>>>>>>>> plans to
>>>>>>>>> cut 2,500 maintenance jobs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/20/threat-of-biggest-rai
>>>>>>>>> l-strike-in-modern-uk-history>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there any explanation why they have 2500 too many workers in the
>>>>>>>> first place?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A combination of historic inefficiencies, and perhaps even modern
>>>>>>> trackwork needing less maintenance than previously. Eliminating
>>>>>>> level crossings (annoying as it that is to road users) must also
>>>>>>> mean less maintenance required, and what of recently completed
>>>>>>> re-signalling such as ECML, surely that has fewer signalboxes to
>>>>>>> maintain, and why would it be breaking down quite so soon?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think the ECML resignalling is anywhere near complete yet, is
>>>>>> it? The existing signals are still in use. But
>>>>>> much of the work is done by contractors, not NR staff.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought they'd at least started using it as far as York.
>>>>
>>>> Not even close. ETCS will be deployed from King’s Cross to Stoke Tunnel,
>>>> just short of Grantham. The hope is to introduce ETCS from Stoke Tunnel
>>>> southwards by the end of Control Period 7 in 2029.
>>>
>>> Sounds like rather more has already been done than you give them credit
>>> for:
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Rail_Operating_Centre#Key_signallin
>>> g_transfers>
>>
>>I merely pointed out that there's at least seven more years of work to do,
>>just to fully switch over to ETCS just as far as Grantham, let alone
>>"completed re-signalling such as ECML".
>
>Oh, I see, you've been over-reading the phrase "recently completed
>re-signalling".

Ah, some more of your invisible words! What you should have said, if you understood the actual scope of the project
was: "recently NOT-NEARLY completed re-signalling such as ECML"

On Mon, 08 Aug 2022 11:20:34 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
> The list of criteria we started discussing was:
>
> "nearly all local registered and long-distance scheduled bus
> services. Only a few services, such as premium-fare night buses and
> City Sightseeing buses, do not accept the card."
>
> Nothing there about "bookable". Maybe the English rules are different?
>
> ... later "Excluded journeys are: long distance coach services, services
> with bookable seats, trams, tubes and rail travel."

The English rules *are* different, as I've said several times. In
Scotland, the National Entitlement Card is valid on all buses and coaches
with the very few exceptions above. In England, the equivalent pass is
valid on local buses, and is *not* valid on coaches.
The exact definition seems to involve a lot of searching of SIs, but it's
clear that in England things like Megabus and NX are coaches and you
can't use passes on them. In Scotland, Megabus, Citylink, and NX are
covered by the pass as there's no distinction made between bus and coach.

Mike

In message <tcrs53$112fl$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:36:51 on Mon, 8 Aug
2022, Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> remarked:
>On Mon, 08 Aug 2022 11:20:34 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>> The list of criteria we started discussing was:
>>
>> "nearly all local registered and long-distance scheduled bus
>> services. Only a few services, such as premium-fare night buses and
>> City Sightseeing buses, do not accept the card."
>>
>> Nothing there about "bookable". Maybe the English rules are different?
>>
>> ... later "Excluded journeys are: long distance coach services, services
>> with bookable seats, trams, tubes and rail travel."
>
>The English rules *are* different, as I've said several times. In
>Scotland, the National Entitlement Card is valid on all buses and coaches
>with the very few exceptions above.

And ones where the next formal pick/up set-down point is in England.

>In England, the equivalent pass is valid on local buses, and is *not*
>valid on coaches.

Whatever a "coach" is. (And of course whatever "local" means. We've been
round and round this several times now.)

>The exact definition seems to involve a lot of searching of SIs, but it's
>clear that in England things like Megabus and NX are coaches and you
>can't use passes on them. In Scotland, Megabus, Citylink, and NX are
>covered by the pass as there's no distinction made between bus and coach.

In England many longer distance services (such as the X5 from Cambridge
to Oxford) are exclusively operated by coach-shaped-objects.

Whether that makes them a 'coach' or not is a source of constant
speculation.

And we've uncovered the Natex from Golders Green to Victoria, which
might fall between all these stools, being perhaps a "local coach".

But is it poisoned by *some* of the seats being pre-bookable, even
though it's possible I think to buy walk-up tickets (if capacity is
available) as well.
--
Roland Perry