Cycle ban on London rush-hour trains

[David Martin]

On 24/8/04 9:18 pm, in article [email protected],
"elyob" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> SWT is the last company I'd use to get from London to Plymouth.
>>
>> If you really cannot leave London until after 10am, FGW leaves
>> Paddington at 1033 for a Plymouth arrival at 1334 and they are a far
>> better company to take bikes on.
>
> I'm in Surbiton, so have to use them one way or the other. I got it to
> Woking last time, then changed there.
>
You are on a bike tour. Why not ride to Paddington?
(It's what I did when I last went on tour from Paddington.. I lived in
Harrow then)

...d

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
('[email protected]') wrote:

> vernon levy wrote:
>>
>> Normally fold to a much smaller bundle. Are bromptons and folding
>> bikes banned?

Are you sure? My reading of the article about the new policy is that
they will be. After all, they are the only bikes which are allowed on
commuter trains now, so if it isn't them that are being banned, where
is the change in policy?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and
;; it isn't furry.

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:26:59 +0100, vernon levy <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Tumbleweed wrote:
>> >>Has he never i assume heard of "Le Shuttle" then?
>> >
>> > Or car ferries?
>>
> Design with the primary purpose of transporting other forms of
> transport.
>
>> Or motorail. And what about those mothers that take their pushchairs on
>> buses?
>
> Normally fold to a much smaller bundle.

Than what? The buses I use these days are specifically designed to take
pushchairs unfolded. I very rarely see a mother (or, even more rarely, a
father) removing a baby, folding a push chair and getting on a bus or
train. It seems standard practice to wheel the pushchair straight on,
especially as modern pushcahairs seem to be shopping trolley-cum-baby
transporters.

Colin

 

[james]

davek <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Tumbleweed wrote:
> >>Has he never i assume heard of "Le Shuttle" then?
> >
> > Or car ferries?
>
> Or motorail. And what about those mothers that take their pushchairs on
> buses?

What about people with non-removeable legs?

best wishes
james

 

[james]

"vernon levy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Tumbleweed wrote:
> > >>Has he never i assume heard of "Le Shuttle" then?
> > >
> > > Or car ferries?
> >
> Design with the primary purpose of transporting other forms of transport.
>
> > Or motorail. And what about those mothers that take their pushchairs on
> > buses?
>
> Normally fold to a much smaller bundle. Are bromptons and folding bikes
> banned?

not with a nipper in them. When DW or I have both in tow the
little'un stays in the buggy (on short hop bus or train) but we tend
to avoid rush hour where possible

best wishes
james

 

[vernon levy]

> You are on a bike tour. Why not ride to Paddington?

Because compromise and lateral thinking is not part of some folks lives.

I can understand the issues surrounding the reluctance of some train
companies to cater for cyclists during rush hour. I found myself using a
train that was not equipped to deal with cycles last Monday. The train
guard was very helpful and accomodating as were the passengers on the very
crowded train that helped me squeeze into the space that they subsequently
shared with me and a fully laden touring bike. I dread to think what whould
have happened if another cyclist had tried to board.

As folding bikes are not banned, then the ban is not as draconian as it's
purported to be.

 

[elyob]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> vernon levy wrote:
>>>
>>> Normally fold to a much smaller bundle. Are bromptons and folding
>>> bikes banned?
>
> Are you sure? My reading of the article about the new policy is that
> they will be. After all, they are the only bikes which are allowed on
> commuter trains now, so if it isn't them that are being banned, where
> is the change in policy?

The main change is that the ban operates both in and, now, *out* of London
in morning rush hour. Vice-versa in the evening.

 

[elyob]

"vernon levy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> You are on a bike tour. Why not ride to Paddington?
>
> Because compromise and lateral thinking is not part of some folks lives.

Obviously not.

Why would I want to cycle tour my local area when I'm paying to go on
holiday in Cornwall? I'm also not that keen on building up a sweat before
sitting on a train for 4-5 hours. You might not mind your hygiene ...

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:26:59 +0100 someone who may be "vernon levy"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>And what about those mothers that take their pushchairs on
>> buses?
>
>Normally fold to a much smaller bundle. Are bromptons and folding bikes
>banned?

I caught the train to work this morning. There were two ladies with
pushchairs on the cycle storage area. If they did fold smaller the
ladies couldn't be bothered to do so. They each took up more space
than a bike. A cyclist had to place his vehicle in the doorway.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[vernon levy]

> All you need do is take the front wheel off and hey presto - it's no
> longer a bicycle.

Correct. It's a bicycle with a wheel missing.

 

[davek]

vernon levy wrote:
> I can understand the issues surrounding the reluctance of some train
> companies to cater for cyclists during rush hour.

Reluctance is the operative word. They simply have no desire to make an
effort to cater for the needs of any of their passengers beyond what
they are obliged to do, and they even fall short on their obligations a
lot of the time.

The line I use is busy but relatively quiet compared to some lines, so
taking my bike on the train is only a problem when rail operator
incompetence means the train is short and thus overcrowded.

On some other lines, it seems that /all/ rush hour trains are /always/
overcrowded, even when running smoothly, which is surely an extremely
serious safety issue that needs to be addressed regardless of the bikes
on trains problem.

In other words, the train operators are trying to deal with their rank
incompetence by imposing measures that inconvenience their own customers.

Bastards, the lot of them.

d.

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:38:10 +0100 someone who may be davek
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>They simply have no desire to make an
>effort to cater for the needs of any of their passengers beyond what
>they are obliged to do, and they even fall short on their obligations a
>lot of the time.

Do remember that they are heavily fined if they do not meet these
obligations.

>On some other lines, it seems that /all/ rush hour trains are /always/
>overcrowded, even when running smoothly, which is surely an extremely
>serious safety issue

That is what people with limited knowledge of the subject often
claim. They think "it is obvious." However, like a lot of "obvious"
things reality is rather more complicated. One of the advantages of
a crowded train in a crash is that passengers cannot be thrown a
great distance. There were about 1350 people on the two loaded
trains that crashed at Clapham Junction in 1988, only 35 were
killed.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[elyob]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:38:10 +0100 someone who may be davek
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
> That is what people with limited knowledge of the subject often
> claim. They think "it is obvious." However, like a lot of "obvious"
> things reality is rather more complicated. One of the advantages of
> a crowded train in a crash is that passengers cannot be thrown a
> great distance. There were about 1350 people on the two loaded
> trains that crashed at Clapham Junction in 1988, only 35 were
> killed.

That's alright then.

BTW, do you also have a figure for the numbers of crushed vertebrae, hips,
ribs, heads, etc ..

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:39:38 GMT someone who may be "elyob"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>There were about 1350 people on the two loaded
>> trains that crashed at Clapham Junction in 1988, only 35 were
>> killed.
>
>That's alright then.

Nice try, but I did not say that it was alright.

I have read the report by a specialist doctor which outlines how the
people died in some detail. Have you?

>BTW, do you also have a figure for the numbers of crushed vertebrae, hips,
>ribs, heads, etc ..

46 people were detained in hospital. 130 were treated in hospital
but not detained. A remarkably low number of deaths and injuries.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[James Hodson]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:05:37 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I caught the train to work this morning. There were two ladies with
>pushchairs on the cycle storage area. If they did fold smaller the
>ladies couldn't be bothered to do so. They each took up more space
>than a bike. A cyclist had to place his vehicle in the doorway.

Hi David

My GP's practice has banned the leaving of push-chairs and prams in
the vestibule (for want of a better word) or the surgery.

Fortunately, as least from my POV, this leaves a roomy space for me to
park a bike.

James