Today's Articles: 34.
Articles' Numbers: (19980131_01-34)
Article 1:
Will 80 ' K ' open tomorrow???
Spice Boy ( 3AD10 ) (tsesh@hkstar.com) at Thu Jan 29 19:05, 1998 said:
As the topic. Thanks. and how much is the VA 40 & 222?
I want to buy it!! :D
Please reply it at once, Thankx :)
Spice Boy ( 3AD10 )
Article 2:
一碌葛在摩頓台 + 問字軌/掛牌表
Wong Kai Yeung, 671 (yeung@powernethk.com) at Thu Jan 29 19:07, 1998 said:
終於渡完板假番o黎喇，呢排個板o既治安好似好左，係咪？
講番正題，我o係大除夕晚去左維園幫個中七師兄攪個名為'虎年運程
問一問'o既攤位 ( 唔知你地行過未，64號檔 )。凌晨兩點幾，做到
悶悶地，忽然醒起o個晚 ( 年初一凌晨 ) 有好多特別車，就乘機蛇
出去摩頓台望巴士，首先見到 2109 行 E11S，跟住有 2103 行
930S，反而 969S 就多數用富豪十二米；係o甘而影左幾張相，見到一
班類似巴士迷o既人o係架 38 號拖車側邊放腳架影 Trident，眼見人
家裝備優良，我就柄埋部傻瓜機急急腳走人 ( 我o的相將會登上
671 Bus Page 和利樂街巴士總站 )。
行番出高士威道，又忽然醒起自己係 392、592S o既負責人 ( 字軌/
掛牌表 )，於是我就好似條'磨碌'o甘o係電車站企成粒幾鐘，數晒呢
兩條線用o既車，仲順便數埋 304，不過 304 用車之多實在數之不
盡，只係集中腦力數 392、592S，即使數唔晒都有八、九成喇，今次
我真正體驗到一個盡責的負責人唔易做 ( 592S 用車已加在字軌/掛
牌表上 )。
另外我想將 304、392 o既用車資料入字軌/掛牌表時，發覺中巴
260X – 788 o既資料好似唔見晒，又輸唔到資料入字軌/掛牌表，
但城巴 70 – 592S 就正常，請板主檢查一下。
祝各位大吉大利、新春快樂、* 龍運'噹'頭 ( Same as 鴻運當頭 )
* 即祝您地見多幾次龍運叮噹 ( Trident )
671 Bus Page / 利樂街巴士總站 站長
671
Article 3:
Answer your question!
Spice Boy (3AD10) (tsesh@hkstar.com) at Thu Jan 29 19:30, 1998 said:
Ivy (ngpt@netvigator.com) said:
> I have seen 2 bus have the same fleet no., but I don't know which one is the
> real one. Anybody can help me?
>
> 1. G279: CK8912 or CL1719?
CK 8912 ( from Danny 's bus book )
> 2. S3BL123: DN3681 or DK8975?
DN 3681 ( From Danny's Bus Book ) But I see it is DK8975( S3BL23 's number ) Is it KMB's wrong??
> 3. S3BL39: DK8065 or DL811?
S3BL39 is DL 811
DK 8065 is S3BL8
>
> And I have seen some interesting fleet no. which is easy to know that it is
> wrong:
You mean the number on the bus???
> 1. N329-->3N329 (91M)
> 2. AV191-->AV1
> 3. S3M60-->3M60 (44)
> 4. AD216-->AD1
> 5. AS1?-->AS137 (When I saw it, it is on E31!!)
So horrible!
And I saw
HA????---ADS116or 166--> ADS16
Spice Boy ( 3AD10 )
Article 4:
m
[網頁]101網絡---我的小經歷有文睇
艾莎 (96024880d@polyu.edu.hk) at Thu Jan 29 17:31, 1998 said:
101網絡 睇下.
Article 5:
告示 0129: 今晚所有資料上傳暫停
Ken Fung (kenf@hkstar.com) at Thu Jan 29 21:10, 1998 said:
由於硬碟空間不足, 所有本板內的資料上傳暫停, 包括討論區
貼文, 更改字軌/掛牌表內容, 今日特別所見加內容及每日一跪
加內容. 本板將於明日(1 月 30 日年初三)中午回復正常.
Ken
Article 6:
告示 0130: 昨日硬碟告滿之報告
Ken Fung (kenf@hkstar.com) at Fri Jan 30 12:26, 1998 said:
受到硬碟告滿影響, 以下標題內的文章全部遺失:
5658 64K巴士大比拼
5673 城記雙門B6!!
5675 續: 城巴雙門 B6LE
5676 一碌葛在摩頓台 + 問字軌/掛牌表
字軌/掛牌表亦受到影響, 現時中巴 260X-788 及 其他 101-182
內的資料都是 1 月 27 日的資料(backup).
Ken
Article 7:
Re: When HKF close the routes...
叻霸佳 (letchan@netvigator.com) at Fri Jan 30 14:00, 1998 said:
Ivy (ngpt@netvigator.com) said:
> Will KMB/CMB/CTB operate these route(s) when HKF close the new town ferry routes?
> 959: Tuen Mun Ferry<-->Causeway Bay
有可能，不過可能只行繁忙時間。因為平時的小輪乘客不太多，只有不過二三十人。
> 952: Tseng Choi St.<-->Causeway Bay (Via Gold Coast, Tsing Lung Tau)
嘩，客從何來。
> 963: Tin Shui Wai()-->Causeway Bay (Via Hung Shui Kiu, Fu Tei, Tuen Mun)
不如rt.968改行青山公路，屯門公路
> 939/934: All day service
不如坐地鐵
請原諒多聲多氣
叻霸佳(184,239)
Article 8:
告示 0130A: 文章再遺失及搬server問題
Ken Fung (kenf@hkstar.com) at Fri Jan 30 17:17, 1998 said:
- 本板在下午五時曾經發出通告聲言將本板搬至另一個 server,
但在五至十分鐘後收回, 原因是有部份用戶不能 access 到該
server, 而且該 server 暫時未能穩定. 如果該通告閣下造成不便,
板主謹此致歉.
- 在今早, 硬碟空間再次告滿, 受影響之標題包括
嚴重交通意外:城巴疑超速翻則、最少做成2死43傷 (5680)
丹尼士的意外 (5685)
假設意外過程 (5688)
Ken
Article 8: (Request 1)
請問轉了黑底白字是不是 bug? 還是專登轉o架呢?
轉左之後o的 link 好似唔多清楚 ~~~!
--
車匙!
Article 9:
Skill of drivers
Chan2 (97017130j@polyu.edu.hk) at Fri Jan 30 14:01, 1998 said:
Actually this thread I wanted to post last night.
Any boardmate think that which company's driver have better skill?
CTB? CMB? KMB? Male of female?
Out of today terrible news. I think CMB's drivers are better control
on bus. In some narrow road on HK island they can drive with high speed
with LX (rt.14,47). They can drive quite fast on urban road. (Nathan Road,
Prince Edward Road). And their percentage on serious accident are low.
KMB's driver, most of them are driving very careful. Also the bus is locked.
But I think some KMB's lady driver, their skill is not good. For my experience,
I always ride on rt.203E. I don't know that is single-deck braking problem or
the skill of them. Most of them braking the bus very 'chuk' and step the brake
very heavy. I also saw one lady alway pull handbrake when the bus still moving.
Therefore she always make it 'chuk'. Also one of the lady (80567) her no.is very
easy to memorise. Her skill is very bad. She alway drive at 40km/h. (No traffic jam)
No giving oil on the road (40km/h). Step brake before traffic light (green)... I think
she is seriously careful.
Because I am not live in HK Island. Therefore I will not give any comment to CTB's
driver. I am not always ride on CTB.
Article 10:
新到龍運ＴＲＩＤＥＮＴ
DennisTW (dennisow@netvigator.com) at Fri Jan 30 14:00, 1998 said:
昨晚我坐９３０時，見到有五架龍運ＴＲＩＤＥＮＴ停泊在貨櫃碼頭內。
唔知會唔會全部安排響Ｅ３２先呢？
另外在昨晚於煙花匯後，９３０居然做到６分鐘一班，仲要係８成滿，
真勁！
Article 11:
Re: Questions about 91R and other rt.s
eddie lam (bustop@glink.net.hk) at Fri Jan 30 14:00, 1998 said:
Ivy (ngpt@netvigator.com) said:
> I went to Clear Water Bay on a Sunday in December. But I didn't seen any 291R
> buses and stops. So I want to know does Rt.291R and 91R exist?
係有線冇車. 即係名義上有呢條路線, 但唔派車行.
> Also, I have some questions about routes:
> 1. Does buses on 49P, 51P and 270P just use 49X,51,270 sign respectively?
佢地係有自己o既分站. 但用車方面就跟番主線.
> 2. Is CMB rt.86 deleted since 308 opened?
又係有線冇車. 不過熱線冇資料.
> 3. Why 368, 369 still exist after 968,969 opened?
年鑑 98 度話為左市場佔有地位, 同路線網絡問題, 都要繼續營辦.
> 4. Why 272P via Tai Po Rd. and do not has stations on it?
272P 係特快線嘛, 咁唔停站都算係特快o既一種, 唔一定行快速公路o既.
> 5. Why KMB do not merge these routes: 6/6A, 105A/301/104(special), 6C/6F?
6/6A 合併與否都係大賺錢線, 所以唔合併都係咁.
6C 功能唔同 6F. 6C 服務青山道乘客, 6F 服務荔枝角道乘客.
當然旺角至土瓜灣兩架車都得.
105A/301/104特 又係唔取消得. 105A 有回程, 兼且收得貴.
301 只做火車客咁滯, 104 特要做石硤尾客. 客路唔同.
> 6. What is the purpose of CTB opened and closed rt.74?
相信已經取消左. 有 629 非專利車就唔駛再行 74. 629 又收咁貴.
> 7. Why CMB rt.95B does not have service at weekday noon?
> (The timetable said that it operates from 07:05 to 19:00!)
係上下午兩段時間服務, ㊣如 641, 中記熱線都係話朝七晚八, 又唔講係兩段時間.
95A 仲犀利, 只行上中下午三段時間都當全日計.
> 8. Why 368,369's timetable said that their journey time is 150,160 mins.,
> but they only need less than 100 mins. to travel?
好似話要計埋休息時間同埋返佐碼/九龍車站做 68X/69X o既回程時間.
Article 12:
Terrible News
Panda Ng (panda_ng@vol.net) at Fri Jan 30 13:16, 1998 said:
I am sure all of you know that there was a Citybus 118 (870, Dennis Dragon 12M a/c) overturned in the Tonnochy Road Flyover. I am also sure that all of the Hong Kong people, no matter whether they are fans of buses or not, will fell sad about that accident.
This is only the third day of the Chinese New Year, although the causalty of this accident is much smaller than some famous disasters, I am sure we won't be happy.
However, I have some problems about this:
1. the sharp turn of this flyover is banked, if a 870 overturned, the speed must be very fast (ignored the point of the shock absorbing system), why the driver still adpoted this speed? Was he in a great haste? Was the bus delayed? Or did the Citybus urge him to drive so fast?
According to news, he used only 10MINUTES to drive from Siu Sai Wan to the accident point. I am a usual passenger, I am sure at least , it takes 20-25 minutes to get there, also the standard time for a 118 to get to Hung Hom is 30 minutes. Why he overspeeded???
2. From the point of Shock Absorbing System. If you are a Hong Kong Island Passenger, you must know that the shock absorbing system of 860-880 is much softer than old 8XX or 7XX. Drivers driving old 8XX can turn the accident-causing turn without deceleration (I have experienced), but a 860-880 must prohibit this. Is the driver was used to drive old 8XX? Or the driver has no experience on 870? Is the random deploying system of drivers to different kind of buses of Citybus appropriate?
3. Should all the soft shock absorbing buses, e.g. 860-880, 490 etc. be replaced with a harder system.
4. Once I have complaint the softer shock absorbing bus ( you may have awared that once a 490 NC Volvo Olym. turns a bank, it tilts in a larger angles than the other does)
but Citybus ignored me!
5. However, I don't think we should put all the blaimes on the driver, he is a human, he will feel sorry about that matter automatically. I think the related departments should find the cause, the solution and prevention
Once again, please do a bless on the victims.
Fell Sad
Panda Ng
a Citybus rt. 118, 8X and Dennis Dragon Fans
(sorry if I have grammar or spelling mistakes as I can't proofread it because of my sadness)
Article 12: (Request 1)
rt.788 十二米熱龍由中環到柴灣中巴車廠只要十五分鐘(早上唔塞車)
我也一樣充心祝福﹗
叻霸佳
Article 12: (Request 2)
Panda Ng (panda_ng@vol.net) said:
> 1. the sharp turn of this flyover is banked, if a 870 overturned, the speed must be very fast (ignored the point of the shock absorbing system), why the driver still adpoted this speed? Was he in a great haste? Was the bus delayed? Or did the Citybus urge him to drive so fast?
> According to news, he used only 10MINUTES to drive from Siu Sai Wan to the accident point. I am a usual passenger, I am sure at least , it takes 20-25 minutes to get there, also the standard time for a 118 to get to Hung Hom is 30 minutes. Why he overspeeded???
今日係公眾假期兼係早上, 行車環境應該好好, 我估唔會
係過左鐘
> 2. From the point of Shock Absorbing System. If you are a Hong Kong Island Passenger, you must know that the shock absorbing system of 860-880 is much softer than old 8XX or 7XX. Drivers driving old 8XX can turn the accident-causing turn without deceleration (I have experienced), but a 860-880 must prohibit this. Is the driver was used to drive old 8XX? Or the driver has no experience on 870? Is the random deploying system of drivers to different kind of buses of Citybus appropriate?
咁快掟灣, dart仔出事都唔奇
> 3. Should all the soft shock absorbing buses, e.g. 860-880, 490 etc. be replaced with a harder system.
硬避震冇咁舒服, 可能城巴又會比人投訴
Article 13:
有感而發
AL (akyl@rubens.its.unimelb.edu.au) at Fri Jan 30 17:22, 1998 said:
1.新正頭[日日發]巴士反車, 大吉利事!
2.城巴為你提供更[街/雞]服務!
3.生命比時間重要! Take 106!
4.I wish to express my sympathy to the families of the dead and injured.
5.On the other hand, I wish to express my anger at Citybus's appalling safety record and management ognorant of passengers lives! Stop Citybus putting our lives at risk!
AL
Sympathetic but angry
Article 14:
About the accident
Terry Pan (koala@cuhk.edu.hk) at Fri Jan 30 17:31, 1998 said:
Sorry ro use English as I am in work.
Very sad to heard about the news of Citybus, I think this accident imply somethings:
1. People who complain about KMB's 'lock' the bus scheme, please think twice before you say that again.
2. People who say that over-speed is not a problem, please shut up your mouth.
3. People believe that speed is everything, please be realize that bus is not racing car.
4. Speed is not everything, safety is the main concern. We are bus fans, not fan of car racing.
Angry koala
Article 15:
城巴翻車最新及修正資料 HKT1700
William Fung (hk711997@netvigator.com) at Fri Jan 30 18:00, 1998 said:
(1)事發地點:灣仔北，杜老志道天橋
(2)事發時間:30-1-98 HKT約 0950
(3)巴士公司:Citybus
(4)巴士行走: 118 小西灣 至 深水[士步]
(5)車隊編號:#870
(6)巴士車廠:英國-丹尼士
(7)巴士車型:巨龍(三軸、12米、空調)
(8)巴士車齡:9個月
(9)死傷人數:至下午5時 - 3死54傷(包括7位重傷)
(10)傷者送往:鄧肇堅、瑪麗、東區、律敦治
附注:城巴表示該車已裝防超速裝置，並鎖定不會超過70KM/H
William Fung
Article 16:
【最新消息】一二七城巴大車禍
KK Fung (kenfung@netcom.ca) at Fri Jan 30 17:57, 1998 said:
一、最新死傷數字：三人死，七傷者情況危殆，有生命危險。
二、城巴工程部聲稱該巴士(870)有限速裝置，該裝置能將車速限制在70km/h以下。
﹝編按：雖云此車有鎖車速，但若以70km/h衝上杜老誌道天橋那個急彎的話，
翻車是仍然有機會發生的！﹞
願各傷者能吉人天相，早日康服
KK Fung
AL2(ER4295)
Article 17:
The serious accident of 118!
HC9918 (lch@chevalier.net) at Fri Jan 30 18:08, 1998 said:
'Speed is not everything.' It is right.
Now, I am taking pride of the service of KMB. According to
my experience, the drivers of KMB are very careful and drive
the buses not in high speed. Even in the Tolo Harbour,
most buses are at the speed of 65 - 69. Some of their speed
are even around 60!
Hope the no. of deaths will not increase anymore and the
injured people can return home as soon as possible.
Article 18:
【最新消息】一三零城巴大車禍
KK Fung (kenfung@netcom.ca) at Fri Jan 30 18:14, 1998 said:
一、最新死傷數字：三人死，七傷者情況危殆，有生命危險。
二、城巴工程部聲稱該巴士(870)有限速裝置，該裝置能將車速限制在70km/h以下。
來源：香港電台新聞報導 - RealAudio
﹝編按：雖云此車有鎖車速，但若以70km/h衝上杜老誌道天橋那個急彎的話，
翻車是仍然有機會發生的！﹞
願各傷者能吉人天相，早日康服
KK Fung
AL2(ER4295)
Article 19:
假設意外過程
Edward Shum (edshum@hkstar.com) at Fri Jan 30 18:26, 1998 said:
我根據電視中影像認為該司機由左線上橋, 但在彎前發現車速過高而急烈殺車,
就在這一刻車已經過了過彎點而向下, 車的下挫力聚於左前輪,
加上殺車必有的頭挫力(可妨急烈殺車叱呢!),
左前輪會變成轉軸心, 車子便以順時針方向打滑, 做成這次意外。
如果當時司機唔死守自己行車線, 在過彎後唔落腳踏而順勢過左面行車線,
或許沒有那麼嚴重(唔知當時左面行車線有冇車呢?)。
你覺得我假設有冇可能? 其實都係祝傷者康復最重要。
PS.阿Ken, 好彩我有save, 唔駛打過 :)
Jubilant
Article 20:
Not the problem on internal retarder
Panda Ng (panda_ng@vol.net) at Fri Jan 30 18:48, 1998 said:
First, I can't guarantee that whether the internal retarder worked properly or not when the accident happened.
However, I ride on rt.8X everyday, I have many experience on 8XX, the internal retarder always works properly. The speed cannot over 70km/hr. On the contrary, once I rode on a 3AV 118, it delayed terribly, the driver drove over 80km/hr even the bus was completely full.
I am sure this accident is about the drivers, he must know that turning this accident-bank must brake first. He didn't.
I also don't think that it is about the matter of the corporate policy, but the drivers' mind.
Still feel sorry about the victims, wish they can recover soon.
Panda
a Citybus rt.8X, 118 and Dennis Dragon fans
Walter Kwong (walter@school.net.hk) said:
> 講明先, 本人不太鍾意城記, 但會力求公正!
>
> 睇左咁多板友關於車禍的感受, 我也發表了幾
> 篇看法, 但好多人也認為車禍和城記行政有關
> ! 城記不嬲唔太鎖車, 好似有Olympian分分鐘
> 會成100km/h . 而這次車禍我覺得和超速有關
> , 但我以為, 這和城記行政冇關, 重要是和車
> 長超速很有關係!
>
> 記得好多板友成日講城記車好正, 搭中記9 號
> 又點正, 因為可以飛得好快! 又成日有人話九
> 記鎖車鋇鎖得好過分, 成舊廢鐵咁, 但..講真
> 鎖車是巴士呢樣Pubilc Transport大眾安全的
> 保証!
>
> 照睇這次和鎖車冇關, 因為落斜波鎖到60km/h
> 都番, 但希望各司機不會再行到咁快!!!!
>
> 如有得罪, 敬希原諒!
>
> P.S.黑色background好難睇, 可不可以用第二
> 種色呀, 例如灰色
Article 20: (Request 1)
唔駛貼5篇咁多下嘛...
DA82,HB8095.
Article 21:
集中討論城巴事件
Kwan (SFAC3A09@NETVIGATOR.COM) at Fri Jan 30 19:02, 1998 said:
各位板友:
本人對今次城巴反車深表悲痛,而各板友亦在此各抒己見.
但你們是否感到文章放得太亂,很難閱讀呢? 所以我希望各板友能集
中一地討論,或者板主能開一角給大家發表意見. 一來比較容易閱讀,
二來也較方便發表個人觀點,也可以減少硬碟空間,不至'爆碟'.雖然
可能會受人們反對,但也希望能實施.
祝
各傷者早已康復
Kwan
30/1/1998
Article 22:
板主警告: 請善用空間
Ken Fung (kenf@hkstar.com) at Fri Jan 30 19:23, 1998 said:
因為硬碟空間仍然有限, 而且星光由於放新年假, 相信短期內
硬碟空間仍然缺乏, 如今重開討論區只為應急之用. 若果貼文時
剛遇上硬碟空間告滿, 就會將整個標題內的文章全部取消, 所以
文章遺失是仍然有機會發生的. 敬請各板友, 若非有重要觀點,
否則請盡量不要貼文, 以便節省硬碟空間. 多謝合作.
Ken
Article 23:
Re: 城記抄車大檸樂!!
叻霸佳 (letchan@netvigator.com) at Fri Jan 30 19:17, 1998 said:
鮑魚 (leyland@netvigator.com) said:
> 今日好地地買買下馬,忽然電台話城記118抄車,仲死4條友,真係大檸樂!
> 報道話條橋限制50km/h.0的人又話好快.個個都話事由超速所至.但,未必
> 據生還的人講,話架車當時好快.
> 用一個比喻:
> 0係大道西開60,你會唔會覺得好快?肯定會
> 0係西九高速公路開60,你會唔會覺得好慢?肯定會
> 愈窄的地方就愈覺得快,愈廣闊的地方就愈覺得慢.
> 佢地覺得快,可能只係因為0個道天橋,加上多樓,變成空間感好窄,才覺
> 得快也未定.
> 當然,最清楚的,肯定係車長自己.
> 而且所謂的改善方法--------鎖車---城巴已經將南區部的車鎖到70,
> 唔通你叫佢鎖到50[0羊]?
> 如果有睇新聞的話,應該會睇到在場有油漬,但係之前或之後才有的呢?
> 冇人知.
> 我估呢次的情形係巴士上斜後轉彎時遲左收油,加上路面有野,令到後
> 輪滑一滑引至傾側.上層左面車身先撞到橋的側邊欄位而剃開車尾頂,
> 再滑至新聞鏡頭所見的位置度.後座乘客被拋出車外.
> 大概係咁掛.
> 願死者亡魂得以安息,阿門..
>
> 唔想再多講野的
> 鮑魚
我同意你的講法，其實最重要還是司機自律。
叻霸佳
Article 23: (Request 1)
我相信,呢次翻車原因,係擦到右邊石屎欄河而反的.
因為我好多時都搭中記102VA,師傅從巴士線開始冇放過油門,用60幾KM/H 0既速度,
上呢個彎都冇事.(不過,不排除870用更快0既速度)
DA82,HB8095.
Article 24:
[板務] 嚴禁使用粗口及粗口諧音
Gakei! (95261675d@polyu.edu.hk) at Fri Jan 30 19:34, 1998 said:
犯上本規定者會被停止貼文權十天,
如有再犯將永久取消會籍, 敬請留意!
--
板務助理
家祺!
Article 25:
城巴反車及特別
flying chuk (chuk@netvigator.com) at Fri Jan 30 20:11, 1998 said:
本人覺得這次事件十分悲參,又可怕,但城記會否被運豬署告呢?
本人亦有一討論板,希望可暫時減輕本板的Loading.
http://disc.server.com/Indices/9131.html
Now is very Unhappy's Flying chuk
Article 26:
Re: 102, 106及118於灣仔的路線 - 事實是..
Claymon (claymon@cyberec.com) at Fri Jan 30 21:45, 1998 said:
叻霸佳 (letchan@netvigator.com) said:
> SH Lee (leesh@hkabc.net) said:
> > 其實102, 106 同 118在過海前係有三條路線入
> > 海隧, 一就係告士打道天橋, 二就係今日架118
> > 出事的灣仔北, 三就係九巴多用的上鵝頸橋.
> >
> > 其實係三條都行得定係只有一條才是對呢??
>
> rt.102,106指定上鵝頸橋，而出事的rt.118就指定行杜老志道天橋
> 叻霸佳(184,239)
102, 106實際行法是用告士打道天橋, 繁忙時間用鵝頸橋. 但由於海隧
經常塞車, 所以經常用鵝頸橋.
118就指定行杜老志道天橋.
資料: 九記傳真
希望城記車禍傷者早日康復.
Claymon
Article 26: (Request 1)
湯文 (taitaki@ipoline.com) said:
> 關於一一八線行杜老誌道天橋的問題，請問各版住有冇一種感
> 覺係佢唔應該行那處呢？
> 以小弟每次坐巴士經那兒的時候，巴士的速度都是很快的，但
> 是，小弟覺得該橋是否適合雙層巴士行走呢？因為從安全角度
> 來看，該橋由告士打道往杜老誌道的彎位都頗大，而且很急，
> 每天上該橋都有一種不安的感覺。
不單一一八線如此, 東隧線六二一也是同樣由東區走廊轉入杜老誌
道天橋的. 而三零零線更是行杜老誌道天橋入港灣道的.
城巴當初設計一一八線時決定行杜老誌道天橋, 是因為若要由告士
打道天橋或堅拿道天橋入海隧, 於東區走廊行走時必須取慢線, 而
北角一段的東區走廊西行慢線經常塞車. 為減少因擠塞而造成延誤,
令到一一八成為真正的柴灣特快線, 因此城巴決定由東區走廊經維
園道, 告士打道上杜老誌道天橋, 然後由鴻興道入海隧, 避開告士
打道慢線的擠塞.
Eric L.
Article 26: (Request 2)
兩者都冇錯。錯在好多司機都冇入 '灣仔（北）' o個條坑。條坑有
助減速，因為海隧多數有車出。
十分悲痛，祝傷者早日康復，死者安息。
心酸o既 LA17
Article 26: (Request 3)
我就覺得條橋冇乜問題啦.
行經該橋的路線有: 中巴18,(前87),88、隧巴300,621.
o甘耐都未試過炒大鑊. 而且條橋又闊, 又唔係有急彎、急斜.
講危險, 東廊接駁柴灣道o個條支路(筲箕灣巴士總站上面條橋)
咪仲危險!
o個條橋又窄(單線行車)、又高、又彎, 比起杜老誌道天橋危險得多.
C.K. Chow 傑仔
Article 27:
[討論]城巴870會否因為今次意外退役?
Eric L. (ericnet@hkstar.com) at Fri Jan 30 21:42, 1998 said:
今日看到新聞報導 118 號線 (城巴#870) 炒車意外.
請問各位, 這架 #870 會否因為今次意外而退役[當刀]車?
(之前在新田公路, 276P[AD2]就是因為炒車而退役)
巴士工務司司長
Eric L.
Article 27: (Request 1)
Peter (klaleung@hkstar.com) said:
>
> Eric L. (ericnet@hkstar.com) said:
> > 請問各位, 這架 #870 會否因為今次意外而退役[當刀]車?
> > (之前在新田公路, 276P[AD2]就是因為炒車而退役)
>
> 兩者損毀程度不同，難以相提並論ｏ既…… :|
>
> 〔傷者得康復，死者得安息。Amen. 〕
>
> Peter
我相信不會,因為在兩三年前在銅鑼灣海隧口
中記DL13意外當中車頭亦是嚴重損爛,幾乎車
頭撞到冇了.最後重新裝嵌車頭整體,現在DL13
愚上行走!
LV26 Mr.Tong
Article 27: (Request 2)
我認為這部870不[當刀]都要重建車身.看電視新聞見佢成部車頂飛起. 而看佢都幾傷.仲有一反車時個底盤可能受壓裂[在],隨時Rebuild 都無用. 所以部車都近'天主'矣.
可能說錯說話的 Kwan
如有得罪地方,請包涵.
Article 27: (Request 3)
Eric L. (ericnet@hkstar.com) said:
今日看到新聞報導 118 號線 (城巴#870) 炒車意外.
請問各位, 這架 #870 會否因為今次意外而退役[當刀]車?
(之前在新田公路, 276P[AD2]就是因為炒車而退役)
I think 不會退役, 因為上次202被削車頂, 傷勢更嚴重, 何況870
呢?
Article 28:
全新「49X巴士總站」重開
Dr.Route (ss78k@netteens.net) at Fri Jan 30 22:25, 1998 said:
由即日起，「49X巴士總站」已初步完成現代化工程，歡迎參觀。
由於118車禍事故，「49X巴士總站」也以黑色做版面。
Dr.Route
Article 29:
Re: 城巴翻車後眾人的表現
LV26 Mr.Tong (k5959585@hkschool.net) at Fri Jan 30 22:25, 1998 said:
荔景337傻佬 (a337@netvigator.com) said:
> 今日到事發現場拍照存檔，但到達現場時竟然看見一大班
> 賣相0既人在場拍攝；現場亦有一群巴士迷在場拍攝，他們
> 竟在巴士被拖走的一剎那，妄顧自己的生命安全，企在路中
> 心及跑去追著那部肇事城巴影相。
>
> 返到屋企開機上網，竟然見到有人用呢部肇事城巴去問人會
> 唔會再多一部鬼巴士，我並不知到這人居心何在，但如果你
> 自己係意外中死者或傷者的親人，眼見自己死去或受傷的親
> 人，竟然俾人用作作弄對象，內心是多難受呢？
>
> 死者而矣，我地應該尊重死者，並唔係用他們來開玩笑，這
> 是人的所為嗎？還有如果拍到該部城巴照片的各位兄台，千
> 奇唔好放上網喇，這表示對死者的尊重同避免勾起這個不快
> 樂的年初三吧！
>
> 希望死者早日安息，傷者盡快康復！
>
> 荔景337傻佬
我絕對同意你的講法!
LV26 Mr.Tong
Article 30:
城記翻車後感
Billy (billyyau@hk.super.net) at Fri Jan 30 22:03, 1998 said:
本人剛睇完城市追迫,睇到城記大炒車,個心當(棠)涼o左一o下.
講真,我認為今次單o野,嚮某程度上係個司機o既錯.有少少常識o既人都知,轉急彎要收油o架啦,點會飛到去o既.響青嶼就話開快 D(o即).
信相經過今次,城記 D 車都會鎖油o架啦.
在此,願主會保佑還在生o既傷者,令佢o地早D康復.
而經已離世o既不幸者,早登天國.
Article 31:
今早城記118反車意外看法:
LV26 Mr.Tong (k5959585@hkschool.net) at Fri Jan 30 22:03, 1998 said:
今早城記118線的龍頭反車意外,聽聞這城記車
長在東廊當時開得很快,用了10分鐘時間行東廊
而這車長哥哥在城記入行數個月.我估這城記車
長睡覺不足,在道X志道天橋彎位睇位不足和收
油不住而引起這嚴重慘劇......
[以上只是估估!]
祝這次意外的傷希望早日
康復,亦對死難深切慰問....
LV26 Mr.Tong
Article 32:
唉～～
Ivor Fung (ivorfung@hkstar.com) at Fri Jan 30 21:13, 1998 said:
剛剛睇完「今日睇甘D」，講城記單野，訪問過警方人員。
其中一個問題係：有冇同司機做酒精測試？
警方話有。
但問到測試結果既時候警方答案竟然係：「唔方便講。」
通常如果做完酒精測試如果冇事既話警方都會話冇事既。
但係今次呢個答案令人諗到個司機極有可能響小西灣有飲
過酒。
如果真係既話呢次就唔關車事，又唔關公司事喇。
best regards,
Ivor Fung
Article 33:
城記抄車感受
Pirro Cheung (y931204@netvigator.com) at Fri Jan 30 21:21, 1998 said:
Today,when I see TVB afternoon news,I feel very upset to heard
that kind of accident.I think is it the Bus captain lack of
experience in driving!
Most of the captain know that When you crossing a flyover,
you should reduce the speed,but passengers told the news
reporter that the bus is overspeed.I hope after this accident
All the bus captain can safety to drive!
祝願各傷者早日康復,死者親友節哀順變
Pirro Cheung
AV134---GX7696
574---HD9422
510---GW1534
Article 34:
Re: 118事件(870), 會否與司機無關?
叻霸佳 (letchan@netvigator.com) at Fri Jan 30 22:44, 1998 said:
Denny Yu (ykh97@hkstar.com) said:
> 因為可能與這架車有關, 870的巴士不然是開得快, 但這車在轉灣時必會傾斜, 傾斜到某限度, 巴士才會傾斜, 問題會否出於運輸署驗傾斜度時的問題呢?
我想可能性是有的，但看巴士(870)反的方向是和橋面的傾斜角成相
反。
明顯870是因超速或撞柵而反的。
我估0下嫁乍
叻霸佳(184,239)
