I don't remember SBS Transit having so much bad press before the
KUBs come on. Most complaints now are directed at KUB, yes, due to
the sheer number of buses on the roads. However, if most of the
complaints are on the same problems and policies, there should be a
re-look at these policies made and probably even at the bus
itself.
If the company doesn't want more liabilities, make their
policies known and make prominent signages. To many locals, it is
simply ridiculous to reject a baby pram. So to say all passengers
with baby prams are to find alternative transportation?
I don't really buy your explanation on the refurbishment. It
sounds too personal of an opinion to me. Do not forget most of the
mid-life refurbishments for SBS Transit took place were the
conversion from NAC to CAC buses. TIBS back then did not have this
worry as most of their fleet are air conditioned buses. I do see
this as quite an unfair comparison.
the policies are there for good reason. the main purpose of a
wheelchair-accessible bus is to allow access to wheelchair-bound
passengers. not babies in prams. this policy has been clearly
communicated on their website and IIRC, on promotional material
when the B9TLs were launched. drivers have also been instructed to
request passengers to fold up baby prams. this is sufficient notice
on making their policies known and should absolve them from any
further liabilities.
unfortunately SBST have already taken a re-look at the K230UB as
you have suggested and have continually made improvements in
response to feedback.
unfair comparison in what terms? there were a substantial number
of air-conditioned buses that were also refurbished (50 N113CRBs +
500 O405s + 300 Mk IIIs = 850 buses), more than the non
air-conditioned buses (150 N113CRBs + 200 Mk IIs + 200 O405s = 550
buses). sure, you can say that SBST might as well do it all at one
shot, but going by your logic, SBST should not have refurbished the
aircon buses then?
