Pieces and Bits for a Wednesday

The front page of yesterday’s Chester local newspaper featured what is now a high profile quarrel between a local councillor and the proprietor of Helm’s of Eastham, writes Omnibuses’ Northern Correspondent.

It’s all about the new livery sported by Helm’s Chester station to city centre service, what Helm’s is now calling—ouch—the “Inter-the-City” link.

Councillor David Robinson felt that the new livery was ugly. The proprietor retaliated by naming two of the three buses after pantomime ugly sisters. OK so far. The third? Helm’s has named that vehicle David Robinson. It’s said that on the rear it reads, “I’m not as ugly as Councillor David Robinson”. Remember, this is the proverbial back end of a bus.

Hmmm. Is this a wise move? The councillor is entitled to an opinion the same as the rest of us. The fact that he’s a councillor means he is more likely to be heard, even though the livery of this now commercial service is entirely for the operator to determine. But won’t non-users jump to conclusions about Helm’s seemingly childish move? Isn’t it always best to keep councillors on side rather than cause potential damage to your reputation? What will other councillors feel about Helm’s?

Still, the aforementioned councillor is said to be taking things with good humour. As for Helm’s, its parent Aintree Coach Lines is before the traffic commissioner on 8th February under S. 17 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. That’s the power to revoke or suspend a licence under defined circumstances. Probably doesn’t stretch to libel or defamation of character but may be the councillor will still have the last laugh.

We should’ve published the survey results of the London drivers’ olympic £500 demands on Sunday (see also 15 comments).We asked,“Should London's bus drivers receive a £500 bonus for working during the olympics?” Here is the result. The outcome isn’t particularly surprising. There was an excellent turn out for the survey, for which many thanks.

Monday’s post on company cars (or allowances and salary increases in lieu) touched a few raw nerves (26 comments). My own view is that we don’t have to use buses continually and exclusively to prove that we support them. It isn’t some sort of contest. Using public transport should be preferable and the default situation but it’s also about appropriateness in certain circumstances. Those managers who abuse their cars by over-claiming should find themselves on the opposite side of their line manager’s desk. As for abandoning cars altogether, in the absence of the once universal staff bus, where would the first shift be without a car? And the last.