Know something you shouldn't? Tell us, using our quick, 100% anonymous tip-off form!
Union "slashes" Nightbus service
Imperial College Union's nightbus service has found itself the victim of this year's budget cuts.
Glad to see that some more money is flowing towards Clubs and Societies budgets.
Surprised that these figures weren't shown earlier; surely at ?20 per person, it would have been cheaper for the union to call and pay for a minicab than to finance this service, especially as more than one person might be going to the destination?
The Nightbus is a nice service to be able to offer; but is surely unjustifiable for just 300 students.
It's not the Union's responsibility to get their members home safely from SK, much like it isn't their responsibility to get them home safely from Picadilly.
How far away do you lot live? A black cab from the Albert Hall to Hammersmith tends to cost ?10/11 at night - share it with a couple of mates, and it's not going to destroy the budget. Surely?
Don't let this thread descent into "What price to stop a single student getting raped/assaulted?". The minibus ain't the only way of getting home safely, and your transport arrangements are not necessarily the responsibility of your union.
The only journey that the Night Minibus is useful for is South of the River, which is badly served by night buses (at least ones that don't require 3 changes).
But i agree with Prince A. if you're out and about at night, it's your responsibilty to get home safely - you don't get a free ride home from any other city nightspot you visit do you? (unless they call the police i suppose)
On a side note, Panic Alarms are available (free i think) from Union Reception.
Whilst I, of course, implore people to go out in a sustainable manner and get home without emitting another 200g CO2/km travelled, I can't help but wonder why so few people use a 'free bus home' service. Maybe it's because it was under advertised. More than likely it's because only single girls who go out in the Union (and let's face it, that's pretty much as minority as you get at IC) were even given a look-in, and by the time the bus was ready to leave, it would have been quicker to take the night bus.
So everyone just made arrangements to get home separately - after all, the boyf don't want to walk home while the girlf gets a free ride now, does he?!
Anyway - if it means that the ?120 (about 40%!!!)slashed from our budget is in part reinstated, AND that the wear and tear on the minibuses is reduced and they won't break down so frequently, then GOOD!
funny you should mention panic alarms - i heard a whisper that they wouldn't be free for much longer.
while i can see there may be some justification for the union not shelling out 20 quid a pop to get people home, not everyone lives in hammersmith and for anyone living any further away (and as a result, with fewer people to share the cab home) it starts getting a LOT more expensive to get home from the union.
maybe there is a case for reducing the service and advertising it a lot better than it has been - but cutting it completely seems a bit over the top (and not particularly student friendly).
Or dig this - make the pasengers pay a small charge and open teh service to all! Then the loss will be reduced and blokes might even consider trying to use it
London's a big place and tis true that not everyone lives in Hammersmith. It seems impractical to run a bus service to everywhere. By the time the Union nightbus has pottered around dropping everybody at their houses I suspect it would be just as quick to do the 2hr slog on the N9 to Trafalgar Sq and the N155 home. It's just as 'free' with a travelcard if you have one or a bit more than the price of a pint of coke if not. It's also (in my experience) safe, even at 4am on a tuesday morning. People will only start using the Union minibus if it's better than the alternatives and this seems hard to achieve.
Dear Ken. The tube should run 24-7 because this city does. Luv Nia.
the union is not just another "commercial entertainment venue"; it is a club with members and has a moral responsibility to those members not to put them in harm's way. i view this move as akin to sending the climbing club up Ben Nevis without any ropes, or the sailing lot out with no life jackets; its a pity the law doesn't take the same view.
I disagree. Your argument can be extrapolated to meaning you shouldn't sell the members booze either, which is quite frankly horses**t. People have the choice to do as please, including what time they leave and how they get home. People vote with their feet and the nightbus is quite often undersubscribed. Hence the cut. And my memory may be a little frayed but as I remember it more people have been attacked in the union itself or within 100 yards of it compared to people catching nightbuses, cabs etc.
The only thing that really strikes me (that seems to have missed quite a few people or they don't view it as being important) is that scrapping the minibus means that there is less choice of part time work available for students who wish to earn.
Chris & Nia,
A more workable proposition at http://www.londonbylondon.co.uk/latetube/
If the service were more heavily advertised, then it would degrade further. It would be simple discrimination for the union to refuse a trip home for (for example) a bunch of pissed up rugby players who can't be bothered to take the nightbus, while they give trips to women or other people at risk on their journey home. The union is not legally allowed to discriminate in that way with its funds, as far as I can tell. It's bloody unfair, but that is the system in which we live nowadays.
I'd still be interested to see if a minicab service would be cheaper (especially if the union had an account with the company), given the numbers of people involved and the natural overlap of destinations. It is a natural consequence of the expense of living in London that people are going to be living a) some distance away from college and b) in areas which aren't as nice as south kensington by a long chalk.
Does anyone know if other London unis offer similar schemes, or have any figures (unfortunate as it is to even contemplate reducing the decision on a Ford-esque cost / benefit system) on student assaults?
Quite frankly it is no surprise that the minibus service is being scaled back - it is resulting from clearer reporting of finances and (more overly) the shrinking share of the pie that can be afforded.
When I was a fresher, it was called the "Women's Minibus Service". And then Council when all equal-oppsy... and so on.
They are a huge drain on finances though; and finding the drivers... :)
Sporty - QM is reviewing its minibus services at the moment. ANd whether to own or hire them. I think the cab journey thing is also being looked into.
QM used to hire coaches during freshers' week and charge three quid a head to get freshers (who mostly live in the South Woodford Halls) back home. That felt the big chop a year or so ago - particulaly when they were booked and paid for and only a handful or students used them - they discoverd that a quid on the N25 nightbus was a better deal and often more reliable! :P
Interesting point from Idris.....
"...view this move as akin to sending the climbing club up Ben Nevis without any ropes........."
It should be noted that the climbing club have had their budget for ropes slashed......
On a more serious point someone suggested it was useful if you lived south of the river - last year I lived in Brixton and was denied a ride numerous times - the usual reason being that they couldn't be bothered to drive down there as it was getting late..... they obviously seemed to have forgotten they were getting paid....
Get rid of it and use the money on something that benefits more of our members....... like tours perhaps ??
Incidentally, Ben Nevis can be absolutely fine without ropes, if you take the tourist route. Similarly Snowdon - I've (stupidly) done Cryb Goch a couple of times without the correct gear, and it was mighty enjoyable (far more so than the miners trail).
Maybe the climbing club should have been more accurate in their inventory in the spring term; if the ropes are a genuine danger to members next year, then provision should have been made to replace them (and the equipment life listed as such on the inventory). Or maybe the union are still angry at mountaineering for trashing the bus and are confusing the clubs..
london is getting more overcrowded, overpriced, overpoluuteed and frankloy turning into a 3rd world city by the day. As someone who has lived here all my life (yes it's true) it is safe to say that the deterioration is ever apparent. The link about "why the tube can't run 24 hrs" is typical of the socialist layabouts who wrecked Britain in the 1970s. Ken is bad for london and it is showing daily. Transport is getting slower and still more expensive. The health service is virtually nonexistent- did you know that the earliest apponitment one can get at the IC health centre is 3 weeks for a GP and a month away for the dentist!while the asylum seekers rip the system left right and centre they are only further encouraged by the municipal socialists who see the whole thing as a way of getting "jobs for the boys". As to house prices they are simply ridiculous compared to most salaries- as are rents. This gets us back to the nightbus- whose neceesity lies in a) the lack of nearby accommodation, 2) the poor or very expensinve transpotation figures and 3)the ever spiralling crime rate.
However it does seem that the Union can hardly afford such a service, and indeed it cannot be practicable- or even useful to more than a handful of students- so their decsion to scrap the bus is probably quite wise. I suggest staying over at friends' houses nearby, leaving early so that you don't miss the last train, or going out less and spending the money on a taxi, or even (god forbid) buying les alcohol which frankly is over expensive, foul tasting and only serves to destroy the grey matter.
Amram: I actual agree with you on one point. The waiting times for IC health centre are pretty long - the longest of any GP I have had.
1. They can't do their maintance in just 2 hours a night
2. It is actually illegal to go on the tube if intoxicated (see the bylaws) so who would qualify to use it that late. I think most people have at least a few pints
3. Back at home I can't get a bus after 5pm and have to wait 2h45min for a connection to go 10 miles so the transport here is adequate
"socialist layabouts" - > surely that is tautology?
I think Ken is good for london, he's not scared to make the politically tough decisions.
And the health centers not a bad, I got an appointment within a week.
Chris & Amram - I suggest you register with a local GP near where you live. College/University health centres are very often overstretched (at least I know the one at Bath was).
Chris - 1. The proposed late running tube is only for Fri/Sat. There would still be 5hrs Sun-Thurs to do maintanance. Having read your link though I do take the argument that it can't easily be 24hr. 2. The argument that all people coming home late at night are drunk is simply not true. I absolutely adore drinking but the majority of the times I have been coming home late at night I've been doing other things and not been drinking. Besides which, it's a bit of a silly argument because loads of people already take the tube home completely wasted at 11/midnight no matter what bylaws say.
re: later-running tubes.
the majority of people who would use a later-running tube service are likely to be people who have been out socially, as opposed to people coming home from work. of this majority, some would be totally drunk, some would be totally sober and a fair few in between (for reference, look around the tube next time you find yourself going home around midnight -- unless you're pissed, in which case just concentrate on walking). but I digress...
notwithstanding the majority of non-working people using a late-running tube, there would be a *significant* minority of people who would use the tube to get home after work -- all those anonymous beings who serve your drinks and cook your food all night, who then have to stay around for hours afterwards cleaning up the mess. at the moment, the only options are black cabs (not feasible on ?4.20/hour), mini-cabs (better, but still expensive) or night buses (which are direct for some people, multiple-changes for a lot of people, and in most cases take hours to get you home).
where is this taking us?
1) the night bus system is certainly better and mroe extensive than late-night publci transport in (most) other UK towns/cities, but given a choice between the tube and the bus, I'd take the tube any day.
2) for those who say that a later tube is all about getting pissed people home, please note that there are other (poorly paid) potential users who would welcome a later-running tube system.
Etienne for Mayor?
Charge for minibus service - either pre-book (advertise it and encourage people to get together in group) or charge drunk people who have no friends to get them home after they have used it (take union card and charge them ?20). Problem with that - would probably make the union a licensed minicab service.
Don't see why everone else should lose ?6k because someone can't be a**ed or is too drunk to get the bus back home.
A later tube would be fantastic.
It's a scary thought, but not totally without basis. More on this when there's something to tell.
You can't charge for the nightbus.
The union is not covered for Hire & Reward driving by their insurance, and noobdy at the college has a D1 licence that is valid for Hire & Reward.
The old D1 licences were in fact specifically not for hire and reward hence you need to take a new test that costs over ?100 with the theory included.
In reply to Amram...
Most of your assertions are just that; assertions.
The first point made by Chris about 2 tunnels rather than four is a very valid argument as to why the Tube can't be maintained whilst simultaneously running. And, er, it was built well before the 70s!
Transport is not getting slower and still more expensive, it is only getting more expensive. The only transport that is getting slower is road transport, between 1990 and 2002 road traffic volume increased 18% to 485 billion vehicle kms (see [[here]|http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/indicators/headline/pdf/qolbar-mar2003.pdf]). This is due mostly to Maggie's aggressive car ownership policies, but without extra road capacity, gridlock has resulted. Some socialist!
Then there's 'Ken's Bad for London'... Well, our Mayor introduced the Congestion Charge, which has turned out to be a great success, though on the first day of operation, the Tory mayoral candidate said he'd run his campaign on abolishing it. As unelectable as ever then!! Then of course he's tried to stop the sell off of the Tube to Private consortia who can't maintain the overground (cf Potter's Bar, Hatfield...). But no, the 'new Labour' Government has ensured that the public will invest ?15.2 bn from taxes and fares by 2011 in London transport, private companies will invest ?10.2bn over same time, but those same private outfits will end up owning 100% (that's all) of the infrastructure at the end of the *PPP deal* (http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/1/pdf/11702.pdf) Nice one. Asset stripping Londoners' transport infrastructure at cheap prices for private engineering firms, some of which are run by the tory mayoral candidate (again). Yes, Norris is on the board of Jarvis.
Oh and incidentally, crime has fallen significantly nationally over the last 10 years, since the end of the last recession (22%).
But you seem to have forgotten the humble bike in your round up of solutions. Brixton's only 20mins from here on two wheels, and it costs you nothing, no running costs, very minimal pollution, more reliable than the Tube, keeps you fit, allows potential victims of crime to escape (by being much faster) etc etc. The benefits are immeasurable. Apart from to oil companies and taxi drivers who thrive on the notion that if you use your own energy to do anything, you're at grave risk from crime, you'll get home too late, you won't have fun, you can't be 'free' etc etc.
Now I won't get into why London housing is so expensive, but you can be sure it ain't helped by the fact that if you're very rich you can buy vast swathes of property here, even if you don't live in the country. Foreign investment in the UK property market, combined with insensitive planning, has resulted in spiralling prices and lack of housing, particularly in the south east, which is where new Labour wants to concentrate all the jobs...
So to sum up, the Union nightbus is being cancelled because it's expensive, and more and more people are taking the 33% cheaper night bus which is getting more frequent. What this hsa to do with asylum seekers or the Health service, I can't fathom.
PS if you don't like Ken, vote Green. There's an excellent candidate.
good night mr. tom...
Bikes are a) dangerous- likely to get run over
b)slow and c) often difficult to leave (save for at college) wand d)even at college tend to get stolen.
violent crime has risen over the past tne years. so has ALL crime- reported crime has gone down because people now know that the police will do sodd all if you've been burgled etc and so don't bother to report many crimes. Indeed you mention Brixton- where I believe gun crime has increased fourfold since 1989.
As to Congestion charge it is a poll tax that hasn't reduced traffic just diverted it from the very centre of town. Once Red Ken increases the zone's radius he will become even more unpopular. He is also thinking about charging 15 pounds to drive to Heathrow!
He seems more intereseted in going on rallies for Arab terrorists than doing anything good for london.
Indeed Council Tax in Westminster and Wandsworth has tripled since the redundant mayor and aseembly came.
As to the Bus- yes I agree the Union can ill afford it.
As to voting, well that will be difficult- a choice between europhilic shagger, or comrade ken is not enviable- I will probably vote for a chtistian fundamentalist again!
By the way I am soon to be in print...
Starbuck (and anybody else who fancies having a go): yes, people do have a choice whether to drink or not, but it's not too great a leap of faith to assume that if the union serves cheap alcohol to people (interestingly with no age checks and a significant proportion of the 1st year being under-age) until 1am two nights a week then there will be some casualties. The question is, does the management, having happily taken the drunkard's money all night, stand there and say "Oh well, mate, time to crawl home," or do they provide transport? Frankly, I despair that this should even be a question.
You can lay many criticisms on bikes but not slowness. The humble pushbike consistently wins the annual cross-London race between pedestrian, car, taxi, motorbike, bus, tube and pushbike.
Idris, indeed the bike is always quickest - it is a sign of ignorance that Amram does not appreciate that! I expect he can't even ride one, since mommy obviously drove him across London every morning to get to school... Anyway - he never provides evidence to backup his arguments.
I'd like to see the Union responding to a 'duty of care' but when the money dries up... How much was the Union rebranding again?
Union rebranding - er, peanuts...
As for a "duty of care", I think we prefer to better exercise our (legal) duty of care by not letting people get ridiculously drunk. These people are all adults - the idea that the Union must "nanny" them is ridiculous and insulting to our members.
Idris is in many ways correct! The "culture" of drunkeness and alcoholism is deeply repugnant and does not encourage a truly social and intellectual atmosphere. The Union should encourage more "non alcoholic events" that is why , on a different thread , I suggested that they close one of their three (dark gloomy and dirty) bars and turn it into a cafe a place with comfy chairs and lighting where the students can entertain themselves through conversation, reading or even the odd music recital.... alas this will always be ignored by the lager louts in power.
As to Bi-cycles, why use 2 wheels when one will do!
Agree with you on changing one of the bars into a "cafe" with comfy seating. On the whole, it would improve the number of people who go to the union, as you will probably find that a large number of people who do not use the Union precisely for the fact that it is essentially 1 big bar.
Agree with youu on bikes, cycling from the east end to s/ken only took about 45 minutes, about the same length of time as a car. But, with a bike, you can stop and enjoy the embankment scenary (very important for someone like me).
I think you will find that all publicans have a duty to their patrons to not let them get completely off their heads. Something they have to promise to get their licence I believe
Overall, it defeats the point of having a social area if people just use it to get wasted. I would pesonally like an area where I can sit down with my friends, and enjoy a chat with them, not needing alcohol to do this. Remember, there are some who do not drink for reasons of a medical nature, as well as those with reasons of religion, as well as those who choose not to. Maybe the Union should cater for them too.
From the BBC today:
Alcohol Abuse 'Rife and ignored'
*Sits on comfy sofas in Reynolds Bar, finishes mug of coffee and plays bar piano*
Can drinkers and non-drinkers not live together in peace and harmony?
Okay, the ones who're being 'laddish', doing drinking games and drinking purely to get drunk are not the best of company for anybody not joining in the drinking contest. But on 6 days of the week the Union bar is a lovely place to sit and chat to friends. Since being on the wagon I've not felt out of place just because I had a lemonade in my hand whilst others had beer. But equally, if people want to have a beer while they socialise it's nice that they're able to do so. Plus, at the same time they make money for the Union (correct me if I'm wrong but I think there's a significantly bigger profit margin on beer than soft drinks).
On a personal note, the deep intellectual conversations that you get when alcohol sets loose inhibitions and gets people saying what they *really* think is probably the thing I miss the most about alcohol.
If giving up alcohol had meant stopping going out with other people who are drinking I simply wouldn't have been able to do it because I'd have been missing so many of my friends.
Why is there a conflict?
No Nia, "soft" drinks have much higher profit margins than alcohol. That 50p lemonade you drank probably cost the union about 5p. Gross profit margins for alcoholic drinks are nothing like as sky-high (especially not at the prices we sell them).
Surveys carried out by NUS and other bodies consistently show that student demographics are changing. Students are drinking less. And less of them are drinking. And when they are drinking, they tend to go for the more "premium" stuff. There is also a big shift away from consumption in bars to consumption in ents. (These trends are esepcially true of postgrads who are the fastest increasing part of the College.)
Those students' unions that run cafes often make (a lot) more money money out of them than their bars.
iCU's current social facilites are stuck in the 1980s and serve a minority of studens. We need some major changes. Alas, our reserves are still recovering from our (expensive) expansion into the Beit basements - so things could take time. Plus these things need to be planned properly. Simply converting a bar is unlikely to be an optimum long-term solution - there's a lot of underutilised space in the building.
Why do you think people come to the union bars? I'd say the vast majority do so because alcohol is supplied relatively cheaply. Conerting bars into cafes is an interesting idea but I tend to think that thecafes will lack this comptitive edge; soft drinks aren't that outrageously expensive elsewhere.
It is perplexing that Oliver and others view not selling booze to anyone as less "nannyish" than providing transport to the incabable.
"[Mentions bicycles] Apart from to oil companies and taxi drivers who thrive on the notion that if you use your own energy to do anything, you're at grave risk from crime, you'll get home too late, you won't have fun, you can't be 'free' etc etc."
Although you were addressing amram re: not putting bicycles in the round-up of ways to get home, I should point out that i didn't include them in my round-up of ways to get late-workers home because: 1) there are many areas of london that are simply not safe to walk or cycle through late at night (especially for women), 2) cycling from central london to the 'burbs can be rather energy-sapping, which ain't terribly good if you've just done a 7 hour bar shift, 3) nightlife hot-spots often have poor or non-existent facilities for bike parking.
Idris, et al.
"yes, people do have a choice whether to drink or not, but it's not too great a leap of faith to assume that if the union serves cheap alcohol to people (interestingly with no age checks and a significant proportion of the 1st year being under-age) until 1am two nights a week then there will be some casualties. The question is, does the management, having happily taken the drunkard's money all night, stand there and say "Oh well, mate, time to crawl home," or do they provide transport? Frankly, I despair that this should even be a question."
This is a question that will never go away - to what extent do we legislate for stupidity? Given that most (but not all) first years live within staggering distance of Beit Quad, it's probably reasonable not to have to provide a bus service just for them. As for later years, they've had a year to grow up, so they should be abel to (in large part) look after themselves.
Amram (please don't turn this into a flame-war!) and Tafa:
"[basically, tart up the bars and turn one into a cafe]. Alas this will always be ignored by the lager louts in power."
Amusingly, the next person to be "in power" (tafa) is teetotal; his reply neatly contradicts your assertion that there can't be change in the union re: bars, ents, etc.. On this subject, some things to note:
1) Soft drinks *don't* have a ridiculous GP (gross profit) - back in 2001 I reduced the list price of soft drinks from 70p to (I think) 60p, but going any lower would have had seriously negative repercussions for the bar's profit/loss figures.
2) There are two basic models of cafe (sometimes combined) - passing trade and eat-in. Some places, such as Starbucks, combine both. Beit simply doesn't have the passing trade, beyond the small number of people who are there during the lunch-hour to do club/society business, and again in the late afternoon/early evening.
The other option is eat-in, whereby the cafe is a destination. The success of the SCR and, to a lesser extent, Starbucks on Gloucester Road, shows that people *will* travel short distances to get a comfy seat and a nice coffee. The bigger question is how much you can charge, how big a space you need, whether you run a full-service catering operation (vs. ready-made sandwiches, muffins, etc.), and - perhaps most importantly - what hours do you open? Calculating profit/loss on all of the above is *not* a simple operation, and from personal experience (working in a "destination" coffee shop in Earls Court) it's hard to make serious money form coffee and cakes alone.
So, the big questions are:
1) Where do you locate this mythical Beit cafe?
2) How much of a profit will it make relative to other potential uses of this space?
3) Do you make your cafe space multi-purpose (bars effectively act as "overspill areas" for the dance-floor dBs venue on Wednesday/Friday evenings).
4) Do you have (free) wireless Internet access in the cafe? ;-)
Your questions are exactly the sort of things that need to be answered - which is what I meant by "taking time". Also need to work out relationship with College development work in Upper Dalby and Southside.
As for Question 4, that's easy. "Yes". (A siginificant proportion of our market are fellow geeks :-)
BTW. GP figures - I was referring to post-mix. I appreicate that most soft-drinks aren't that ridiculously high. Thought they are still very high - coffee at ULU's Lunch Box is around 46% GP (IIRC).
An assertion that a significant proportion of the first year are underage is ridiculous.
The only way you can get to University and be 17 that i know of, is to be very smart and Scottish. The English education system makes it very difficult to get here faster.
Of those Scots who pass their highers early, some take gap years. So of the insignificantly small number of people who could get here early, most don't.
Also the assertion about age checking is wrong too. As in most pubs I'm sure there may be people who slip through the net as it were, but anyone working behind the bar is aware (or should be) that they will get sacked if they are caught serving underage persons.
I disagree with your stance I'm afraid. As has been pointed out up a few posts, students are drinking less and when they do drink they tend to go for more "premium stuff." That includes their choice of location as to where they are drinking. Hence less need for the nightbus in terms of numbers.
I do not think that the union has a responsibility to see drunk students home as much as the students have a responsibility themselves to see themselves home safely. They are young adults after all.
I think the obvious place for a coffee shop is the udh to be honest. The room is quite versatile at the moment. Functions, dinners, meetings, coctail bar, rehearsal room etc at the moment. Kitchen already there. Would not be difficult to set up a "Starbucks" esque venue for during the day in term time that could be used still on the late nights as a coctail bar to secure the extra capacity for the event. Just an idea.
I have a suggestion. If the purpose of the nightbus service was to primarly ensure the safety of the (few) females attending the union in their journeys home, then wouldn't a deal with a (local) women's (mini)cab firm be a good idea? For instance, we advertise their service and they give us a discount? And for the rest of IC (ie the majority) any other local cab firm in a similar fashion? Of course we would need to ensure that they were indeed reputable firms, but once we had established that, surely this would be a good solution, and it wouldn't limit destinations or numbers, or cost the union much at all, I would imagine.
Oh and while I'm here, Mustafa, PROJECT!
Finally, the minibus service was going to go anyways, it was a nice idea but let's face it, the buses are hardly safe (I'd rather walk through hyde park on my own than get in some of them) and the license needed to drive them cannot be obtained by most undergrads, so we'd need to rely on final year students and postgrads, who should have too much work for these jobs, meaning it's lifetime was limited anyways. I'd love to drive a minibus, but as with so many things these days it seems, I'm too young (grumbles on about paying extortionate insurance despite having 4yrs NCB for motorcycles and nearly 2 for cars, and still not being able to drive other people's "proper" cars).
Mustafa, again, PROJECT
The busses are extremely safe. They all pass a much stricter MOT than cars, and are fully road worthy. Also if they were not safe then I would not allow them to operate.
As for Nightbus anyone can drive it who is over 21 at the moment becuase people don't pay. The full D1 licence, which noone except the C&G Kart Section Leader holds, is only needed when people are towing, or charging passengers for use.
You should have a Northern Ireland licence :)
I have everything... thus i can do anything, including being paid for hire :)
Now stick that on you needles and knit it!
But then again no one would want to have me drive them in a minibus, would they? Are the rumours still circulating? Ask the Kart Section :)
Guild Pot 57 is a good start :)
You're wrong about a Northern Ireland license enabling you to drive anything - it doesn't. I have one so I should know. Unless you're licence is pre 1997 in which case you're in the same situation as holders of pre - 1997 english licenses, who can tow etc without having to do as many tests.
The NI licence does have lots of pictures of all the categories on the back, but the entitlement section is left blank, unless you are actually entitled to drive that category.
Maybe we should contract it out....
My licence is from 1992; so the categories which I don't have full entilement for I have provisional.
That includes in invalid carriage, bus and HGV.
I kinda helped that I passed my test in a 18 seater minibus - only drove a car for the first time in 2001! Before that is was only caravanettes, ford transits and a 1926 Morris flatbed lorry ;)
Live! is a City & Guilds Media Group Publication and editorially independent of City & Guilds College Union.
© 1999-2008 C&G Media Group