Unicycles on the London Underground

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:34:41 +0100, John Hearns <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Bicycles are banned on the deep sections of the Tube.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. I have seen Bromptoneers with their
trusty steeds in the folded state on the deep lines.

fold - unfold - fold - unfold

no, the novelty ha not worn off yet


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:10:14 +0100, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>If they operate in the same way as bicycles, the answer must be "yes".

Your ignorance is, as ever, encyclopaedic. They don't operate in the
same way, and the answer is not, in any case, unequivocally yes for
bicycles.

The legal definition of cycles is, in most Acts where they are
covered, "a bicycle, a tricycle or a cycle having four or more wheels
not being in any case a motor vehicle". TfL's website only refers to
restrictions on *unfolded bicycles*. In fact it says "To take a bike
on public transport *without restriction*, you need to invest in a
folding cycle" (my emphasis) which clearly implies that folding bikes
are exempt.

Unicycles have just the one wheel and no chain or handlebars. They
are about the same width and thickness as a folded Brompton (depending
on wheel size). A yike (unless it's a Coker or one of the bigger
Munis) is likely to be smaller than a guitar, and will have no
projecting oily bits. And of course it is not a bicycle, being short
one wheel.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Helen Deborah
Vecht ('[email protected]') wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]>typed
>
>> > Do unicycles?
>
>> If they operate in the same way as bicycles, the answer must be
>> "yes".
>
>> Not that you see too many of them.
>
> You obviously don't see them, or look at them then. Unicycles are
> driven directly without gears, cog or a chain...

Except giraffes.

Kenya, come to Kenya!

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Generally Not Used
;; Except by Middle Aged Computer Scientists

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, John Hearns
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Mon, 23 May 2005 21:43:32 +0100, David Hansen wrote:
>
>> What are banned precisely?
>>
>> If unicycles are banned then presumably the much larger rucksacks are
>> also banned. If not, why not?
> For crying out loud.
> Bicycles are banned on the deep sections of the Tube.

That's fine. But we weren't discussing bicycles. We were discussing
unicycles.

> Now, why dance on a pinhead regarding why/why not unicycles are
> allowed?

But /are/ they 'not allowed'? Where does it say so, and why?

I'm not being argumentative, just interested. I don't have a unicycle,
and I wouldn't go to London if you paid me.

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

;; Woz: 'All the best people in life seem to like LINUX.'
;; <URL:http://www.woz.org/woz/cresponses/response03.html>

 

[David Nutter]

On 2005-05-23, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Do rucksacks also have hardened steel sharp bits sticking out and/or covered
> in black grease as well?

One of mine does (lots of buckles, a metal frame etc). Grease-wise, it's
cotton duck (I think) covered in some stinky wax waterproofing that is wont
to smear everywhere.

It's highly amusing to use the beast on the tube, especially on a hot day
when the wax melts, smells and runs.

Regards,

-david

 

[John Hearns]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:51:50 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:34:41 +0100, John Hearns <[email protected]> wrote
> in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>Bicycles are banned on the deep sections of the Tube.
>
> Up to a point, Lord Copper. I have seen Bromptoneers with their trusty
> steeds in the folded state on the deep lines.
Yes indeed, and I apologise for my rant.
Common sense should be applied.


> fold - unfold - fold - unfold
>
> no, the novelty ha not worn off yet

 

[Eric Junkermann]

In message <[email protected]>, Simon
Brooke <[email protected]> writes
>
>Except giraffes.
>
>Kenya, come to Kenya!
>

Reminds me of a PA announcement I heard earlier this year:

"The next station is Bowen Hills. Change at Bowen Hills for <list
omitted>. If you've got anything on the seat beside you, like your
phone, or your keys, or your pet giraffe, please remember to take it
with you."

(this was in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia)
--
Eric Junkermann

 

[James Annan]

Clive George wrote:

> "James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Clive George wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clive George wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>(never been to the circus?)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Never read uk.transport?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do we get lions on newsgroups?
>>>
>>
>>Clowns and the occasional unicyclist not enough?
>
>
> I was thinking a Roman style lion pit may have its uses. But what I really
> want is elephants.

Last (probably only) circus I went to was all chainsaws, flamethrowers
and motorbikes. Perhaps more uk.rec.motorcycles than uk.tosspot then.

> (And sabre-toothed chickens, but that's a seperate
> issue).

They're as rare as hen's teeth, so I've heard.

James

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"John Hearns" <[email protected]> wrote

> As the poster says, what if a Tube train had to be evacuated inside
a
> deep tunnel?

In Washington DC cyclists are advised that they should then leave
their bikes on the train, piling them on the seats, to avoid blocking
the aisles.

Riding your bike down the tunnel in order to escape is not permitted.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Malcolm & Nika]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 20:57:55 GMT someone who may be "Malcolm & Nika"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>> Ah, basic knowledge. Pardon me while I laugh.
>>
>>Laugh????? Why is that then?
>
> I regard it in much the same way as I regard common sense.
>
>>> If unicycles are banned then presumably the much larger rucksacks
>>> are also banned. If not, why not?
>
>>Ok so you want them banned also????? ...perhaps you would like to ban
>>children in peak time? Or guide dogs? What about those pesky other paying
>>people....you could have a car all to yourself if they weren't on as
>>well.......
>
> I note that you did not answer the question.
>
>
> --
Perhaps I dont know the answer.......... I wish they would.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 23 May 2005, John Hearns <[email protected]> wrote:

> And FFS, how many unicycles do you see in London.

Depends if you go into a unicycle shop, I suppose.

> So would be unicycles - if ANYONE ever carried one on a Tube. I have
> never seen one.

I have carried one on the tube. HTH.

By the way, I don't think anyone _is_ getting wound up about not
being able to take a unicycle on the tube. There are a few that seem
to be getting wound up that people ARE allowed to take unicycles on the
tube, but as far as can be seen, everyone that's tried it has
succeeded without problems.

regards, Ian SMith

 

[JNugent]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]>typed

>>> Do unicycles?

>> If they operate in the same way as bicycles, the answer must be
>> "yes". Not that you see too many of them.

> You obviously don't see them, or look at them then. Unicycles are
> driven directly without gears, cog or a chain...

Not all of them, clearly.

The only one I have ever seen "in the flesh" definitely had a crank wheel
attached to the pedals and a gear chain driving the wheel.

It er... some years ago...

I have not seen another these last... thirty+ years?

Is it known that any are in use as pukka transport?

 

[JNugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote:

>> If they operate in the same way as bicycles, the answer must be
>> "yes".

> Your ignorance is, as ever, encyclopaedic.

And as usual, you are 100% wrong.

> They don't operate in the
> same way, and the answer is not, in any case, unequivocally yes for
> bicycles.

> The legal definition of cycles is, in most Acts where they are
> covered, "a bicycle, a tricycle or a cycle having four or more wheels
> not being in any case a motor vehicle". TfL's website only refers to
> restrictions on *unfolded bicycles*. In fact it says "To take a bike
> on public transport *without restriction*, you need to invest in a
> folding cycle" (my emphasis) which clearly implies that folding bikes
> are exempt.

So what?

> Unicycles have just the one wheel and no chain or handlebars.

Nut true.

There only has to be one example of a unicycle with a chain for you to be
wrong in that statement of such misplaced generality.

And you *are* wrong.

> They
> are about the same width and thickness as a folded Brompton (depending
> on wheel size). A yike (unless it's a Coker or one of the bigger
> Munis) is likely to be smaller than a guitar, and will have no
> projecting oily bits. And of course it is not a bicycle, being short
> one wheel.

Dear me.

What shade of anorak do you prefer?

 

[JNugent]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]>typed

>> Why?
>> Do rucksacks also have hardened steel sharp bits sticking out and/or
>> covered in black grease as well?

> Rucksacks have aluminium frames that are almost as hard. They can seem
> to move in the opposite direction to their owner.

Not too welcome on the Northern Line during the rush-hour, I should think.

> There ain't much grease on a unicycle, cos most don't have chains...

But some do.

 

[JNugent]

Ian Smith wrote:

> On Mon, 23 May 2005, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mark Thompson wrote:

>>> I think he mentioned them as a way of highlighting the idiocy of
>>> banning a unicycle...

>> Why?
>> Do rucksacks also have hardened steel sharp bits sticking out and/or
>> covered in black grease as well?

> As well as what?

As well as cycles.

> None of my rucksacks have hardened steel sharp bits sticking out
> (unless, I suppose, I put a hardened steel sharp thing that's too big
> to fit entirely inside partly within the rucksack).

Good.

> Neither does my unicycle. Nor is it covered in black grease (or any
> other sort of grease). There's a small amount of grease sealed within
> the pedals, and an even smaller amount sealed within the cartridge
> bearings.

> The tyre, pedal ends and seat (ie, all extremities) are all black
> rubber, so not liable to scratch dig or gouge anything.

....but still containing enough road dirt to be easily able to foul the
clothing of an adjacent passenger, perhaps on their way to a night out?

Whatever your views on where the balance should be struck between the rights
of cyclist passengers and the rights of pedestrian passengers, you *can* see
why bikes (and, if appropriate, unicycles) are banned on the Underground?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:35:40 +0100, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> You obviously don't see them, or look at them then. Unicycles are
>> driven directly without gears, cog or a chain...

>Not all of them, clearly.

Only giraffes have chains, and they are not the kind you'd use for
commuting.

>I have not seen another these last... thirty+ years?

You might be surprised how many urcers own them. Most can even ride
them...

>Is it known that any are in use as pukka transport?

Yes. Sarah Miller late of this parish commutes on one in Reading.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:39:08 +0100, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>> If they operate in the same way as bicycles, the answer must be
>>> "yes".
>> Your ignorance is, as ever, encyclopaedic.
>And as usual, you are 100% wrong.

Really? Do feel free to prove it.

You admitted you'd not even seen a unicycle in 30+ years. I own one.
They do not operate the same way as bicycles, and the answer you gave
- that this being the case they "must" be banned on the tube is in any
case wrong.

>> The legal definition of cycles is, in most Acts where they are
>> covered, "a bicycle, a tricycle or a cycle having four or more wheels
>> not being in any case a motor vehicle". TfL's website only refers to
>> restrictions on *unfolded bicycles*. In fact it says "To take a bike
>> on public transport *without restriction*, you need to invest in a
>> folding cycle" (my emphasis) which clearly implies that folding bikes
>> are exempt.

>So what?

So your statement "the answer must be yes" is clearly false.

>> Unicycles have just the one wheel and no chain or handlebars.

>Nut true.

Only giraffes have chains, they are not usually considered suitable
for commuting (as per the OP). I imagine someone must have tried, but
the ones I see used for commuting are all 24" or 26" wheel standard
yikes. I've seen two people commuting on 26" Munis.

And yes, there is a "unicycle" with multiple wheels. Like the
giraffe, it's a trick bike, and not for transport. And yea, I have
seen a man ride a yike pushing along a front fork and wheel with
handlebars attacked. He was a clown, not a commuter.

>> They
>> are about the same width and thickness as a folded Brompton (depending
>> on wheel size). A yike (unless it's a Coker or one of the bigger
>> Munis) is likely to be smaller than a guitar, and will have no
>> projecting oily bits. And of course it is not a bicycle, being short
>> one wheel.

>Dear me. What shade of anorak do you prefer?

The OP asked a technical question. You gave an answer based on
prejudice which was wrong in every important respect. I corrected
you. Live with it.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:44:36 +0100, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Whatever your views on where the balance should be struck between the rights
>of cyclist passengers and the rights of pedestrian passengers, you *can* see
>why bikes (and, if appropriate, unicycles) are banned on the Underground?

Er, except they aren't. Non-folding bikes are banned on deep lines,
and from subsurface lines at some times of day, folding bikes are not
restricted and there is no evidence of any restriction on unicycles.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[JNugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> You obviously don't see them, or look at them then. Unicycles are
>>> driven directly without gears, cog or a chain...

>> Not all of them, clearly.

> Only giraffes have chains, and they are not the kind you'd use for
> commuting.

But (if I read between the lines clearly) such a unicycle is the only sort I
have ever seen.

>> I have not seen another these last... thirty+ years?

> You might be surprised how many urcers own them. Most can even ride
> them...

Perhaps I would be surprised. In fact, if there are many around at all (and
you seem to be saying so), I am already surprised.

>> Is it known that any are in use as pukka transport?

> Yes. Sarah Miller late of this parish commutes on one in Reading.

Hmmm.

OK.

 

[JNugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Whatever your views on where the balance should be struck between
>> the rights of cyclist passengers and the rights of pedestrian
>> passengers, you *can* see why bikes (and, if appropriate, unicycles)
>> are banned on the Underground?

> Er, except they aren't.

They are.

Not *completely banned*, but there is a partial ban which is complained of
in this thread.

> Non-folding bikes are banned on deep lines,
> and from subsurface lines at some times of day, folding bikes are not
> restricted and there is no evidence of any restriction on unicycles.

Except for what the (assumed) LU employee said.