Cycling Forums › Forums › Regional Cycling Forums › UK and Europe › "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free... - Page 2

post #16 of 258
2/10/07 at 1:45pm

Re: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

In article <EaSdneTx-pKzUVDYRVnyhwA@bt.com>, Al C-F
aloysius_cholmondeley_featherstonehawe@hotmail.com says...
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > In article <535tllF1o37fpU2@mid.individual.net>, Tony Raven
> > junk@raven-family.com says...
> >> JP wrote on 10/02/2007 12:07 +0100:
> >>> Laudable idea, obviously many practical difficulties.
> >> Why is it that British trains have so many practical difficulties and
> >> perceived delays with bicycles whereas in Switzerland, Germany, Denmark,
> >> Finland etc the railways not only run efficiently and on time but they
> >> carry bicycles without hesitation? What are their train operators
> >> capable of that ours aren't?
> >>
> >>
> > They're part of a proper integrated transport system rather than playing
> > second fiddle to road haulage and private motoring interests.
>
> Which is probably true, and almost but not quite entirely irrelevant to
> their ability to carry a gentleman's velocipede.
>
Not at all - a well integrated system enables appropriate modes for
different situations. Trains are particularly good at shifting large
loads over long distances and bicycles are particularly good personal
transportation for local use - the countries mentioned above recognise
this and facilitate the integration of the two modes.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 258
2/10/07 at 3:13pm

Re: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:17:55 -0000, "Graham Harrison"
<edward.harrison1@castle.btinternet.com> wrote:

>Did anyone else get the above e-mail? (Link to text
>http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10943.asp
>)
>
>Seems to me the next step is to raise a petition to require the DOT to
>include a requirement in future farnchise bids for companies to provide free
>transport for bikes.

If a backwater like Manx can do it, it's an embarrassment that an industrial
powerhouse like Great Britain can't:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/eur...an/6346283.stm
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 258
2/10/07 at 3:16pm

Non-discriminatory provision (Re: "We the undersigned ...")

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:17:55 -0000
"Graham Harrison" <edward.harrison1@castle.btinternet.com> wrote:

> Did anyone else get the above e-mail? (Link to text
> http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10943.asp
> )
>
> Seems to me the next step is to raise a petition to require the DOT to
> include a requirement in future farnchise bids for companies to
> provide free transport for bikes.

That could be a whole lot more effective if you remove "free"
and substitute "non-discriminatory". Bikes should be allowed
on trains on the same basis as comparably bulky objects.

So if a train company wants to impose a charge or a peak time
ban on "large items", then OK, that's fair and we know where we
stand[1]. What's unfair is imposing specific restrictions on
bikes that don't apply to other large but portable items.

FWIW, I haven't tried to take a full-size bike on the train
for several years, and I've never had a problem taking the
folding bike on one.

[1] At least, provided they're clear about it in all relevant
publicity, and when you buy a ticket.

--
not me guv
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 258
2/10/07 at 3:16pm

Re: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provisionfor Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

Charles Ellson wrote on 10/02/2007 17:31 +0100:
>
>> ITYM highway users start to comply with the Highway Code. Why single
>> out cyclists
>>
> Because they have a self-evidently high proportion of law-breakers
> among their number.
>

With 13.5 million motoring offences dealt with by the police every year
- that's one for every two vehicles - I would have thought drivers had
cyclists beaten hollow in the competition to be the biggest law
breakers. The big difference though is that motorists killed over 3,000
people a year. Measured in railway terms that's a Potter's Bar crash a
day. While those killed by cyclists can be easily counted on the
fingers of one hand.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 258
2/10/07 at 4:47pm

Re: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

"Charles Ellson" <charles@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cl4ss25ibvijrq2fae5g6v5duib6n839vg@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:16:44 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Charles Ellson wrote on 10/02/2007 17:31 +0100:
>>>
>>>> ITYM highway users start to comply with the Highway Code. Why single
>>>> out cyclists
>>>>
>>> Because they have a self-evidently high proportion of law-breakers
>>> among their number.
>>>
>>
>>With 13.5 million motoring offences dealt with by the police every year
>>- that's one for every two vehicles - I would have thought drivers had
>>cyclists beaten hollow in the competition to be the biggest law
>>breakers. The big difference though is that motorists killed over 3,000
>>people a year. Measured in railway terms that's a Potter's Bar crash a
>>day. While those killed by cyclists can be easily counted on the
>>fingers of one hand.
>>
> Try that as a defence in court after you ride your bike through a red
> light. Anyway, you are failing to differentiate between absolute
> figures and a proportion; taking my local set of traffic lights as an
> example, during each cycle of the lights it is usual to see at least
> one motor vehicle being driven past a stop signal representing around
> 1-2% failure to obey while the proportion of cyclists committing the
> same offence is usually in excess of 50% of a smaller total figure.

One junction is not representitive of the entire population.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/fal...mposition.html

Nor is one particular offence representitive of all traffic offences.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 258
2/10/07 at 5:40pm

Re: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provisionfor Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

Charles Ellson wrote on 10/02/2007 18:51 +0100:
>
> Try that as a defence in court after you ride your bike through a red
> light. Anyway, you are failing to differentiate between absolute
> figures and a proportion; taking my local set of traffic lights as an
> example, during each cycle of the lights it is usual to see at least
> one motor vehicle being driven past a stop signal representing around
> 1-2% failure to obey while the proportion of cyclists committing the
> same offence is usually in excess of 50% of a smaller total figure.

Don't need to. I don't condone cyclists running red lights but the
consequences are trivial and almost totally to the perpetrator. Which
is why the police accord it low priority in favour of crimes with a
greater impact on society and the innocent. More cyclists have been
killed on a green light in London by cars running red lights than
cyclists have been killed running a red light, just to put it in
perspective.

Incidentally an RAC survey found that one in ten car drivers and one in
five bus drivers crossed a red light _more_ than 3 seconds after it had
turned red. They tried counting all drivers who crossed after it had
turned red but the numbers were too high. So as I said at the outset,
it is users of the Highway in general, not cyclists specifically, who
are to blame and there is no rationale in picking on cyclists alone.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 258
2/10/07 at 5:51pm

Re: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provisionfor Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

Charles Ellson wrote on 10/02/2007 20:44 +0100:
>
> I could go on and mention cycling without obligatory lights, cycling
> on the pavement, cycling recklessly or dangerously, cycling in the
> wrong direction in a one-way street, all committed by a higher
> proportion of cyclists than the equivalent offences by their motorised
> brethren.

Do you have a reference for that or is that your prejudices showing?
Remind me. How many motorists admit to speeding? And which group kills
over 3,000 people a year?

And would those be the pavements that the Councils are encouraging
people to cycle on or other pavements? By the way did you know that
motorists kill and seriously injure over 40 times as many people on the
pavement as cyclists?

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 258
2/10/07 at 6:26pm

Re: Non-discriminatory provision (Re: "We the undersigned ...")

Nick Kew wrote:

[...]

> So if a train company wants to impose a charge or a peak time
> ban on "large items", then OK, that's fair and we know where we
> stand[1]. What's unfair is imposing specific restrictions on
> bikes that don't apply to other large but portable items.

[...]

> [1] At least, provided they're clear about it in all relevant
> publicity, and when you buy a ticket.

I was expecting that footnote to say something like:
[1] Because there is no hope of getting a seat.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Turn on, log in, fight spam.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 258
2/10/07 at 6:39pm

Re: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:40:03 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com>
wrote:

>Don't need to. I don't condone cyclists running red lights but the
>consequences are trivial and almost totally to the perpetrator.

So stop defending them, and stop spouting nonsense about totally to
the perpetrator, the fact that other people are noticing it happen
makes it clear it's not solely on the perpetrator as it's eating up
attention from other road users.

Particularly stop defending them at the same time as complaining about
the offence anywhere, you are massively undermining your very good
points about cycling safety by this attitude.

Jim.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 258
2/10/07 at 6:41pm

Re: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

"Charles Ellson" <charles@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
newsdess2doe4tkgh7ua7k9g3585jv5qlskuu@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:32:17 GMT, Señor Chris <nospam@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>
>>> Try that as a defence in court after you ride your bike through a red
>>> light. Anyway, you are failing to differentiate between absolute
>>> figures and a proportion; taking my local set of traffic lights as an
>>> example, during each cycle of the lights it is usual to see at least
>>> one motor vehicle being driven past a stop signal representing around
>>> 1-2% failure to obey while the proportion of cyclists committing the
>>> same offence is usually in excess of 50% of a smaller total figure.
>>
>>Try observing your local motorway. What's the proportion of traffic
>>driving at over 70 mph ?
>>
> They aren't doing it six inches away from pedestrians.

Irrelevent - you are talking about law breaking in general and the
proportions committed by motorists and cyclists. Speeding is as much
breaking the law as red light running.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 258
2/10/07 at 6:42pm

Re: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

"David Jackson" <dijackson@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:313030303337333345CE046428@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <02jzh.11670$OK6.5268@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>
> from "Ken Ward" <ken.g1itv@MTLworld.com> contains these words:
>
>> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for
>> Any length of wood or composite material that is normally sold by B&Q on
>> Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."
>
> Is that for the "Thick as two short planks" brigade?

If only we could send them to Chirk for processing :-)


--
Ken Ward

"Society for the production of Maritime Reefs using MerseyRail 142's"
(For membership email... mersey142.splash@ntlworld.com)
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 258
2/10/07 at 6:47pm

Re: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

"Charles Ellson" <charles@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h7bss212aknahl41h6ds31e3q3i81gn9f8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:47:37 -0000, "Adam Lea" <asrlea@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles Ellson" <charles@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:cl4ss25ibvijrq2fae5g6v5duib6n839vg@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:16:44 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Charles Ellson wrote on 10/02/2007 17:31 +0100:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ITYM highway users start to comply with the Highway Code. Why single
>>>>>> out cyclists
>>>>>>
>>>>> Because they have a self-evidently high proportion of law-breakers
>>>>> among their number.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>With 13.5 million motoring offences dealt with by the police every year
>>>>- that's one for every two vehicles - I would have thought drivers had
>>>>cyclists beaten hollow in the competition to be the biggest law
>>>>breakers. The big difference though is that motorists killed over 3,000
>>>>people a year. Measured in railway terms that's a Potter's Bar crash a
>>>>day. While those killed by cyclists can be easily counted on the
>>>>fingers of one hand.
>>>>
>>> Try that as a defence in court after you ride your bike through a red
>>> light. Anyway, you are failing to differentiate between absolute
>>> figures and a proportion; taking my local set of traffic lights as an
>>> example, during each cycle of the lights it is usual to see at least
>>> one motor vehicle being driven past a stop signal representing around
>>> 1-2% failure to obey while the proportion of cyclists committing the
>>> same offence is usually in excess of 50% of a smaller total figure.
>>
>>One junction is not representitive of the entire population.
>>
>>http://www.logicalfallacies.info/fal...mposition.html
>>
> It is an example which IME is very much representative of the state of
> traffic in a wide area.

Your estimation is not fact.

>
>>Nor is one particular offence representitive of all traffic offences.
>>
> I could go on and mention cycling without obligatory lights, cycling
> on the pavement, cycling recklessly or dangerously, cycling in the
> wrong direction in a one-way street, all committed by a higher
> proportion of cyclists than the equivalent offences by their motorised
> brethren.

Ahh - so now you are comparing the total cycling offences to only the
motoring equvalent and not the total motoring offences. I notice that this
conveniently misses out such common offences as speeding and illegal parking
which I am sure there are figures which show the relative proportion of
motorists that commit these offences.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 258
2/10/07 at 6:53pm

Re: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

"Colin McKenzie" <news@proof-read.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45ce077a$0$8724$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

>
> Actually, the restrictions on bikes are far more stringent than on any
> other form of luggage. It is permitted to travel with a full-size
> cardboard cut-out of a bike at any time - someone has done it to prove it.
> I believe there is a weight restriction, set at a very high level, but
> nothing else, unless the luggage is a bike.


1.12 Bicycles

Northern Rail serves stations in some of the most beautiful and challenging

countryside in the UK. We would like to welcome you and your bicycle to

Northern England . by train. Cyclists may travel on any service operated by

Northern Rail where space permits. Most trains can only accommodate two

bicycles. There will be no extra charge for bringing your bicycle on a

Northern Rail service.

Bicycle spaces can be reserved on certain services. To avoid disappointment

it is essential to book at least 48 hours in advance of your journey.

Reservations can be made at many staffed stations, at Rail appointed Travel

Agents or by phoning 0845 600 8008. On all other services, space is
allocated

on a first come, first served basis subject to space being available. Only
one

accompanied bicycle per person will be allowed, in the interests of other

customers.

Motorised cycles, tandems, tricycles and .Rann. type trailers cannot be

conveyed.



What is unreasonable about that?
--
Ken Ward

"Society for the production of Maritime Reefs using MerseyRail 142's"
(For membership email... mersey142.splash@ntlworld.com)
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 258
2/10/07 at 6:58pm

Re: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

"Marc Brett" <usenet@fordson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fj2ss298glkjtgrpt647a53bs25bvujeq2@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:17:55 -0000, "Graham Harrison"
> <edward.harrison1@castle.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Did anyone else get the above e-mail? (Link to text
>>http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10943.asp
>>)
>>
>>Seems to me the next step is to raise a petition to require the DOT to
>>include a requirement in future farnchise bids for companies to provide
>>free
>>transport for bikes.
>
> If a backwater like Manx can do it, it's an embarrassment that an
> industrial
> powerhouse like Great Britain can't:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/eur...an/6346283.stm
>
Do let us know what becomes of the "thoughts" they are having in IOM and how
much expansion comes to their routes as a result.
Britain, Great?
Powerhouse, Industrial?
Bread, Garlic?
--
Ken Ward

"Society for the production of Maritime Reefs using MerseyRail 142's"
(For membership email... mersey142.splash@ntlworld.com)
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 258
2/10/07 at 7:18pm

Re: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

On 10 Feb 2007 22:07:20 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:39:14 GMT, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:40:03 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Don't need to. I don't condone cyclists running red lights but the
>> >consequences are trivial and almost totally to the perpetrator.
>>
>> So stop defending them,
>
>Where has anyone defended cyclists running red lights?

Tony's post, the "it's bad, but XXX is worse" is defending it, by
trying to confuse the issue wth another worse one, he's excusing it yb
linking it to the worse one.

They are seperate issues, it matters not how many non-cyclists run red
lights, it's completely unrelated to cyclists doing it. Stop linking
them, and that way, they'll never be any doubt that Tony isn't
defending them. Every time red-light running cyclists are criticised
in urc, immediately posters start comparing other groups, it's
irrelevant, they're independant events, and it looks exactly like the
cyclists are being defended.

Jim.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: UK and Europe
Cycling Forums › Forums › Regional Cycling Forums › UK and Europe › "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."