Talk:Bus deregulation in Great Britain

Deregulation date

I always thought deregulation took place on 1. September 1986?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it may need checking. (RM21 00:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

De-regulation strated from the 1st of September 1986. I found a ? I have found many sources one of which is the Manchester First Travel would have be in the October. Whereby such as Birmingham Travel West Midlands websites.(The West Midlands Travel website has been updated, this page hase been changed) has its egsitance started on 01st September 1986. It was a gradual roll out.

(http://mancunian1001.wordpress.com/2006/09/14/20-years-of-hurt-bus-deregulation-in-greater-manchester/) (http://www.firstgroup.com) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6086668.stm) (http://www.politics.co.uk/news/public-services/road/congestion-charge/bus-deregulation-isnt-working-$455887.htm)

In relation to my text being onesided. The refarances show a both sided views. Of which my texts is based on, more in realtion to this web site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/are_we_there_yet/6397543.stm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.193.95 (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have done a quick Google search and I have found several independent sources that support the October date. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Road Wizard 00:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Deregulation occured earlier in Scotland than in England and Wales.

Bias

I see this article as being overly anti-deregulation. The only criticism listed is negative, while the regulated environment within London is praised as a "success" (taking almost as fact that regulation itself leads London buses to be successful). This is clearly one side of a debate, and needs to be balanced out if this article is to be encyclopaedic.

I propose that this article should receive an NPOV tag. Mixsynth 10:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is manifestly biased, an obvious example is the assertion that fares rise after a bus war but fares are more 'realistic' in regulated London. It would seem to me that a realistic price would be the market price, not one imposed by regulators.FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no discussion as to why bus wars happened in some places but not in others. IMHO they occurred where subsides were too high, ie where there was a lot of money to be made by bus operators. On commercial routes, where there was no subsidy, no such 'bus wars' took place. As subsidies came down, bus wars ended. Bus wars were therefore caused by excess subsidy, not privatisation itself.FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather late to respond I know, but I think it's worth correcting this nonetheless. Yes, they did occur where there was a lot of money to be made by bus operators — but this was due to passenger numbers being high, and had nothing to do with subsidies. In fact, AIUI, if a service is subsidised, and an operator comes along that is willing to operate that route commercially, then the authority is obliged to cease the subsidised service. In other words, bus wars cannot occur where there are subsidies (in these cases, operators merely compete to be awarded the tender for the route), and bus wars actually ONLY took place on commercial routes with no subsidy! Quackdave (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Poorly sourced text from 80.195.193.95

80.195.193.95 (talk · contribs) and Djmnm (talk · contribs) have inserted this text into the article on several occasions now. Apart from being extremely poorly formatted with multiple spelling mistakes and a whole paragraph in capitals, it also reads like original research. The text is phrased to suggest a personal view point is factual with only a very vague source as supporting evidence. This text needs cleaning up, rephrasing and proper sourcing before it can be introduced into the article. Road Wizard (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bus deregulation in Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019120120/http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/assets/competitioncommission/docs/pdf/non-inquiry/press_rel/2009/nov/pdf/51-09.pdf to http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/assets/competitioncommission/docs/pdf/non-inquiry/press_rel/2009/nov/pdf/51-09.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Bus and Coach Link to be updated?

Good day to you all,

I was just reading up and noticed a dead link leading to the Bus and Coach website (Ref.16)

Normally I go straight into the article and change the link, but just in case it's the wrong one, I'll paste it here:

http://www.busandcoach.com/news/articles/archive/foreign-ownership-on-the-rise/

I think it's the right one though.

Nowell87 out. Nowell87 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)