Well like other drivers the world over they can look.
I'm not wasting any time discussing this. I'm still waiting for someone to actually give me a good reason why we shouldn't do this. No one has given one.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Can you take bikes on replacement buses?
- Thread starter Isaiah
- Start date
- Status
I'm not wasting any time discussing this. I'm still waiting for someone to actually give me a good reason why we shouldn't do this. No one has given one.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,520
You clearly feel very strongly about this and can't/won't understand the problems.
I look forward to seeing your progress in pursuing your aims.
As I mentioned in post #224: unauthorised persons riding on/clinging to the cycle rack while the bus is travelling [of fitted to the rear of the bus]
You replied to this in post # 227 stating that this was an existing problem. [which I am not arguing with, although I should imagine much smaller than the potential on slow moving buses]
And delays cause the most number of complaints. Why would a transport company wish to increase the number of delays, aside from a really compelling financial reason, which is unlikely in this case?
I understand the issues that this may raise however the issues you mention also occur on our public transport infrastructure already including busses
So I understand that the problems you think will be created are already there so they won't be new ones.
As I just said above these issues already occur and incur delays on our public transport system so you are basically arguing that we should just get rid of all public transport because some people may abuse it. Have I got that right?
Or we can look at trailers and caravans which cause a lot of havoc on our roads and may hours delay to all who are using the road/motorways . Are you advocating we bam them too due to the delays they may cause?
Stretch of M60 closed after crash involving car towing caravan
Two lanes were closed which caused long queues to form in the area
A localish story to me and very recent - so because of the risk to delays this accident caused we should ban caravans and trailers from the road yes?
I have never said that it would be a new problem, but I see little advantage in making an existing minor problem into a much larger one.
Or we can look at trailers and caravans which cause a lot of havoc on our roads and may hours delay to all who are using the road/motorways . Are you advocating we bam them too due to the delays they may cause?
Stretch of M60 closed after crash involving car towing caravan
Two lanes were closed which caused long queues to form in the areawww.google.com
A localish story to me and very recent - so because of the risk to delays this accident caused we should ban caravans and trailers from the road yes?
Have caravans been mentioned before? How much whataboutery are you planning on using here to prove your shaky arguments?
It is NOT safe to put bikes on the front of a bus, not least because of the difficulty in a bus turning at a junction which has parked vehicles that would make it impossible to see without pushing the bikes out into the path of oncoming traffic (and quite possibly other bike users). We are not the US with nice wide open roads with huge vehicle-free junctions.
Plus, I don't really look to the US for ideas on health and safety. Many people can't even drink clean water, and then there is the incredible (lack of) food standards. Ironically, we seem to want to lower our standards now we've left the EU so as to do great deals. I'm not really looking forward to this race to the bottom, which it would seem you're perfectly happy with.
I love the US, but even many Americans know they're way behind in so many things.
Mind you, most Americans don't cycle so when I was last in Las Vegas I think I saw one bike on a bus. Perhaps in recent years it has changed with the gig-economy jobs like Uber Eats and Deliveroo, but I'm not sure they're going to use public transport for deliveries.
As for the idea that a bus driver could leave their cab to assist with someone putting on/removing a bike, it has already been stated that nobody would tolerate the delays. People are impatient, right or wrong, and passengers would soon get very angry as someone struggles at the front (how easy is it to use the bike racks and secure things properly? Who is liable if they do it wrong?). There are reasons why a driver doesn't leave the cab, so you don't then create a situation that forces them out because otherwise the bus can't move.
Getting tired after cycling isn't a recent phenomenon. People either rest and cycle later, lock their bike up somewhere and retrieve it another day, or perhaps book an accessible taxi that can take a bike. If it can go on a train, fine, but buses? No - for all the many reasons explained here already.
You've been given countless reasons. Simply dismissing them all doesn't mean they don't exist.
There's no whataboutery on this end. Someone had made a statement about what if the bikes were not secured properly, I have shown an example that we already allowed things to be towed, which, if not secured properly, would equally cause an accident. So so why allow one with a risk of you don't allow another?
Which is why I have highlighted a few other similar things that we allow on our roads to counteract the arguement that carrying a cycle would be bad.
I also never looked to the US as any form of example of safety just that carrying bikes is what they do there.
You mention delays as a driver may get out to affix it properly however every day there are delays on our highways through the inactions of others are there not @jon0844 why is this any different?
You mention they may hit cars when turning a corner - that risk is already there including with other vehicles who may be carrying an overly long load possibly on their roof.
I mean I haven't even said let's do this for all busses however it appears that people seem to think that.
You mention cyclists having a rest and then setting off again but why can't we say, get a bus somewhere and cycle back? Or going somewhere and then cycling back? Is public transport not meant to be for all?
And as for this [/quote]
You've been given countless reasons. Simply dismissing them all doesn't mean they don't exist.
[\quote]
All of the reasons given are that they may injure someone or something. If that was our approach to safety then we wouldn't be allowed out of caves would we?
Which is why I have highlighted a few other similar things that we allow on our roads to counteract the arguement that carrying a cycle would be bad.
I also never looked to the US as any form of example of safety just that carrying bikes is what they do there.
You mention delays as a driver may get out to affix it properly however every day there are delays on our highways through the inactions of others are there not @jon0844 why is this any different?
You mention they may hit cars when turning a corner - that risk is already there including with other vehicles who may be carrying an overly long load possibly on their roof.
I mean I haven't even said let's do this for all busses however it appears that people seem to think that.
You mention cyclists having a rest and then setting off again but why can't we say, get a bus somewhere and cycle back? Or going somewhere and then cycling back? Is public transport not meant to be for all?
And as for this [/quote]
You've been given countless reasons. Simply dismissing them all doesn't mean they don't exist.
[\quote]
All of the reasons given are that they may injure someone or something. If that was our approach to safety then we wouldn't be allowed out of caves would we?
That would be your opinion Nd not one I would share as it really wouldnt
There's a good argument for having an elevated license required for caravans. I'd personally be in favour of it. But it's irrelevant to a bus carrying paying public.
No, you've offered evidence of why it wouldn't be as bad as other things on the road network. Doesn't mean the bad points of the cycle have gone away.
It's not any different, but suggesting we should accept delays because we're already delayed is hardly a positive solution.
How is this relevant? Or are you suggesting because there's already a risk from some other vehicle all bets are off?
If you didn't do this for all buses how would the practicalities of it work for RRBs? Is the rack kept at the station or the bus garage? would you offer it on planned works only or emergency runs as well?
There's a balance between being available to all and offering a useful service to those who need it most. I support bikes being allowed on buses generally, but an external rack is not the answer, for me.
So we should make absolutely no attempt to mitigate foreseeable risk of potentially serious injury?
"Is public transport not meant to be for all?"
Pigeons used to go one way on the train and fly back.
This leisure activity was so popular that the Railway met the demand they allowed hundreds of pigeons on trains every weekend.
To reduced complaints from other passengers they even built special trains. Steve Banks. Pigeon traffic.
But the world moved on and carrying groups of pigeons became less practical and the clever pigeon owners realised that carrying lots of pigeons on trains was no longer the best solution so they found other solutions like vans and trailers.
Pigeons used to go one way on the train and fly back.
This leisure activity was so popular that the Railway met the demand they allowed hundreds of pigeons on trains every weekend.
To reduced complaints from other passengers they even built special trains. Steve Banks. Pigeon traffic.
But the world moved on and carrying groups of pigeons became less practical and the clever pigeon owners realised that carrying lots of pigeons on trains was no longer the best solution so they found other solutions like vans and trailers.
You've been given countless reasons. Simply dismissing them all doesn't mean they don't exist.
[\quote]
All of the reasons given are that they may injure someone or something. If that was our approach to safety then we wouldn't be allowed out of caves would we?
That would be your opinion Nd not one I would share as it really wouldnt
[/QUOTE]
East Yorkshire buses do have buses that carry bicycles, there is a video on their website. To your question regarding the carriage of bicycles on the exterior of buses, I think you will find that this will fall foul of Construction & Use regulations with regards to turning circles and vehicle sweep, and possibly drivers vision. The crux of the matter relates to the type of vehicles being discussed that being Passenger Carrying Vehicles.
As i have said - it was used as a repost to someone who asked the question 'what if it wasnt secured properly and the amazing danger it would pose'
I never said the bad points about this idea would go away only that the risk is the same as other vehicles using the road
I didnt say we should accept them , I said that we already suffer delays in response to @jon0844 who said that passengers would not tolerate the delays - because obviously a delay by traffic/incident on board is fine however someone securing something is not fine. Doesnt sound right at all
I never said all bets are off - I merely said that the risks to others are already there and trying to claim injury as an excuse for doing it is not really an excuse
Well the practicality would be , as i have mentioned before, is that these racks fold up into the front of the bus when they are not in use so its perfectly feasible to use them as normal coaches or RRB should it be needed. Here is a video showing how urban busses use them
For you may be, for others then its a great solution to be able to use the open road rather than a car.
I didnt say we shouldnt, however if they argument
I cant be bothered to read the links as it wouldnt make any sense anyway
you have seen the videos I have posted showing that bikes on the front of busses dont actually impeded the drivers vision at all, haven't you? And regulations can always be changed to suit the problem, cant they?
against these are 'it may injure somebody' then I stand by my point.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Trouble with loads on the front of vehicles is that the regulations in the UK for the front of vehicles have tightened up a lot over the last 20-30 years. Vehicle fronts are a lot smoother nowadays. This is to reduce the chance of serious injury to people not in a vehicle - so pedestrians and cyclists. Having pedals and handlebars pointing in the direction of travel means an increased risk of serious internal injuries. Being hit at 30 mph by a flat surface does a lot less damage than being poked by a metal pole (pedal/handlebar) at the same speed. That will cause a collapsed lung for instance. Even a chrome bumper is frowned upon nowadays (even though blunter than a pedal/handlebar).
We are even getting rid of roadside railings as the leading edge is not very friendly to a passing (motor) cyclist !.
The pictures mean you don't need to read.
Vans and trailers are a better solution for the leisure cyclist than modifying buses and train.
Mind you Hulley's new X57 Sheffield Manchester service over the A57 Snake Pass could be a winner if a bus was adapted.
The answer appeared to be 'it would pose a very large danger'. Of course if it were a bus carrying loose passengers then the danger would be higher (coaches less so).
So because 1 risk is the same as another we should accept a higher total risk on the road?
In existing public transport (all forms), delays due to uncontrollable circumstances are tolerated - to an extent. Delays due to entirely controllable circumstances get a much shorter shrift from passengers. Right or not, that's the reality.
So, again, a greater risk of people being injured is acceptable to you?
Considering how tight many buses in UK towns are to existing houses/street furniture, I look forward to that rack being shown to drivers!
For the odd occassion when an RRB is required, I'd modify my plans. Although I do think the Conditions of carriage should be updated to clearly reflect an operator's responsibilities towards bikes if the facility is withdrawn after the journey has begun (e.g. outward leg by train, return leg cancelled with RRB), to prevent stranding/being out of pocket.
Not sure what you mean here.
This demonstrates a lack of openness to contrary evidence.
Is injuring somebody not a serious thing to consider?
I have seen some videos, but the point remains it is not a problem it is just your preference to be able to put a bike on a bus, and what happens outside the remit of the Department of Transport is irrelevant. What remains is does current legislation allow for this, and for what little use it is why bother changing it.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,520
......[hint....] Some of us gave up debating with him when he wouldn't accept any other points of view......
I like the bit about a bike rack on the front being safe when folded, which would mean that it would in fact not be allowed to operate with bikes on it at all. Once a bike(s) is fitted, those pedals and handlebars would definitely do harm in a collision. That's a risk that isn't present today, and would be if allowed now - so it isn't going to happen. Ever.
And I still never got an answer to how a RRB going down residential streets to get to a station would approach a junction safely with cars (and likely vans you can't see through) parked illegally near the junction, as is common, and proceed forward to give the driver a view of the main road - without the bikes poking out. And, no, a solution isn't better parking enforcement as that cannot ever be guaranteed.
There's also the question about tight turns. Does the driver get out and remove the bikes for that manoeuvre and then go back and put them on?
And I still never got an answer to how a RRB going down residential streets to get to a station would approach a junction safely with cars (and likely vans you can't see through) parked illegally near the junction, as is common, and proceed forward to give the driver a view of the main road - without the bikes poking out. And, no, a solution isn't better parking enforcement as that cannot ever be guaranteed.
There's also the question about tight turns. Does the driver get out and remove the bikes for that manoeuvre and then go back and put them on?
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I understand all the other points about safety you've made, but surely this is no different from practically every car on the UK's roads - where in order to get a clear view, the car bonnet has to poke out because the driver is seated a lot further back than the front of the car. I'd imagine car bonnets have to poke out a lot further than hypothetical bikes on the front of a bus would. And would do so more often because the driver is lower down, so his/her view would be obstructed by parked cars that would never obstruct a bus driver's view?
The Hope Valley stopping services are and will be seeing a lot of RRB's over the next few years.
Buses/minibuses hurtling around single track roads around Grindleford, Edale, Wynnat's Pass and Chinley which are always busy with m/cs, bicycles, hikers and sheep with clumps of metal front or back is too big a risk.
Buses/minibuses hurtling around single track roads around Grindleford, Edale, Wynnat's Pass and Chinley which are always busy with m/cs, bicycles, hikers and sheep with clumps of metal front or back is too big a risk.
lincolnshire
Member
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 884
I think you will find that Pigeon transport in the past was payed for as they was more treated as a parcel except the pigeons was released at the location they was sent to and the empty basket was sent back to the sender.s station and again charged for the service.
Because the health and safety of pedestrians is more important than your leisure preferences.
Perhaps, if you are so keen on hanging your bike on the front of a bus, you should move to somewhere where that is legal.
DJ_K666
Member
Believe you me a pedestrian getting g hit by a bus is very, very lucky to avoid requiring the Undertaker's attention. Even at 5mph. It's usually their head hitting the ground that kills them.
I've been unfortunate enough to have a front row seat when a guy attempted suicide in front of my double decker while it was doing 26mph. He'd hidden so I wouldnt slow down. He somehow survived, which I am eternally glad about and got away with a fractured skull, several broken ribs, a collapsed lung, broken hip and broken leg. As well as being thrown 50 feet. It was his third attempt.
The front of the bus (a Scania OmniCity - a big solid thing with a steel girder for a front bumper and toughened laminated windscreen) was damaged with the front panel hanging off and the windscreen caved in.
And I can still hear the thud.
Not nice.
ashkeba
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2019
- Messages
- 2,171
Are they a leisure cyclist not a commuter, then? I missed that.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It isn't feasible to provide cycle carriage on urban buses for commuters, as the demand would be well in excess of the supply. This is why most TOCs ban cycles at peak times. It is a leisure (or "positioning", i.e. taking a bike to your work city to keep it there) provision only in most cases.
Deafdoggie
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 3,092
Many stations are on RRB routes that restrict the size of bus used, adding a bike rack to the front or rear further restricts the size of actual bus used.
RRB now need, rightly or wrongly, to be wheelchair accessible. This has put some former RRB providers out of the running. Asking the rest to provide bike racks will mean most simply wont bother and we end up with no RRB at all.
The rule is bikes aren't conveyed on RRB. I'd say the rule is clear and easily understood. If you don't like it, don't travel by train. If enough people do that they'll have to change the rule, but till then, it's not a massive issue.
RRB now need, rightly or wrongly, to be wheelchair accessible. This has put some former RRB providers out of the running. Asking the rest to provide bike racks will mean most simply wont bother and we end up with no RRB at all.
The rule is bikes aren't conveyed on RRB. I'd say the rule is clear and easily understood. If you don't like it, don't travel by train. If enough people do that they'll have to change the rule, but till then, it's not a massive issue.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,520
Thank goodness for some sensible comments, I was wondering if we had lost the plot entirely.
CentralTrainer
Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 359
I found a study on this from an organisation called TRL commissioned by the DfT in 2004
Their conclusions found:
Data on bus and coach accidents with pedestrians have been analysed and the range of impact speeds determined.
Mathematical modelling has been carried out in order to determine the effect on the trajectory of the average height male of being struck by a bus and coach equipped with a front mounted rack.
A technical officer from the Vehicle Inspectorate was invited to TRL to offer an informed opinion of the selected coach with the front mounted bike rack fitted.
The inspector concluded that the vehicle failed to meet several safety requirements with the rack deployed.
He also noted that the construction of the rack, and the inevitable protrusions from any bikes carried, had the potential to cause serious impact injuries to pedestrians and other road users.
The vehicles with racks fitted were tested using an adaption of the EEVC pedestrian headform and legform test methods for cars.
The vehicles without the racks have also been tested so that the results can be compared with those obtained with the bike rack. These tests show that modern buses and coaches, of the type tested here, offer good pedestrian protection in much of their frontal structure and give few very bad results.
The child headform test results show that fitting of a bike rack, of the type tested, dramatically increases the risk of life threatening head injuries for children, if they are of such a stature to be hit by the features tested.
Taking into account the under reporting of injury risk when using rigid head forms to test bicycle and rack parts, which produce concentrated loads, the adult head form test results show that the fitting of a bike rack increases the risk of life threatening head injuries for adults if they are of such a stature to be hit by the features tested.
The relative heights of pedestrians and the cross bar of a rack-mounted bicycle mean that it will strike most adult and taller child pedestrians on the chest or the abdomen.
Furthermore, the handlebar end will make contact with the chest of most adult pedestrians and with the neck of the smaller females and some children. The characteristics of the impact and the available biomechanical data were considered to produce an informed estimate of the injury risks from this type of contact. It was concluded that the risks of fatal and serious injuries, from these contacts, were high.
The adult legform results show that the fitting of a bike rack of the type tested here dramatically increases the risk of long term disabling leg injuries for both adults and children, in accidents involving pedestrians.
It was also noted that when the bus was in motion, stowed bicycles tended to sway, sometimes bringing the innermost handlebar closer to the bus windscreen.
Female pedestrian (1.7m tall) alongside the stowed rack:
Female pedestrian alongside the handlebar of the outermost bike:
Their conclusions found:
Data on bus and coach accidents with pedestrians have been analysed and the range of impact speeds determined.
Mathematical modelling has been carried out in order to determine the effect on the trajectory of the average height male of being struck by a bus and coach equipped with a front mounted rack.
A technical officer from the Vehicle Inspectorate was invited to TRL to offer an informed opinion of the selected coach with the front mounted bike rack fitted.
The inspector concluded that the vehicle failed to meet several safety requirements with the rack deployed.
He also noted that the construction of the rack, and the inevitable protrusions from any bikes carried, had the potential to cause serious impact injuries to pedestrians and other road users.
The vehicles with racks fitted were tested using an adaption of the EEVC pedestrian headform and legform test methods for cars.
The vehicles without the racks have also been tested so that the results can be compared with those obtained with the bike rack. These tests show that modern buses and coaches, of the type tested here, offer good pedestrian protection in much of their frontal structure and give few very bad results.
The child headform test results show that fitting of a bike rack, of the type tested, dramatically increases the risk of life threatening head injuries for children, if they are of such a stature to be hit by the features tested.
Taking into account the under reporting of injury risk when using rigid head forms to test bicycle and rack parts, which produce concentrated loads, the adult head form test results show that the fitting of a bike rack increases the risk of life threatening head injuries for adults if they are of such a stature to be hit by the features tested.
The relative heights of pedestrians and the cross bar of a rack-mounted bicycle mean that it will strike most adult and taller child pedestrians on the chest or the abdomen.
Furthermore, the handlebar end will make contact with the chest of most adult pedestrians and with the neck of the smaller females and some children. The characteristics of the impact and the available biomechanical data were considered to produce an informed estimate of the injury risks from this type of contact. It was concluded that the risks of fatal and serious injuries, from these contacts, were high.
The adult legform results show that the fitting of a bike rack of the type tested here dramatically increases the risk of long term disabling leg injuries for both adults and children, in accidents involving pedestrians.
It was also noted that when the bus was in motion, stowed bicycles tended to sway, sometimes bringing the innermost handlebar closer to the bus windscreen.
Female pedestrian (1.7m tall) alongside the stowed rack:
Female pedestrian alongside the handlebar of the outermost bike:
Last edited:
gimmea50anyday
Established Member
looks pretty conclusive to me....
Don't let the facts get in the way of someone's hobby horse/personal preference...I found a study on this from an organisation called TRL commissioned by the DfT in 2004
Their conclusions found:
Data on bus and coach accidents with pedestrians have been analysed and the range of impact speeds determined.
Mathematical modelling has been carried out in order to determine the effect on the trajectory of the average height male of being struck by a bus and coach equipped with a front mounted rack.
A technical officer from the Vehicle Inspectorate was invited to TRL to offer an informed opinion of the selected coach with the front mounted bike rack fitted.
The inspector concluded that the vehicle failed to meet several safety requirements with the rack deployed.
He also noted that the construction of the rack, and the inevitable protrusions from any bikes carried, had the potential to cause serious impact injuries to pedestrians and other road users.
The vehicles with racks fitted were tested using an adaption of the EEVC pedestrian headform and legform test methods for cars.
The vehicles without the racks have also been tested so that the results can be compared with those obtained with the bike rack. These tests show that modern buses and coaches, of the type tested here, offer good pedestrian protection in much of their frontal structure and give few very bad results.
The child headform test results show that fitting of a bike rack, of the type tested, dramatically increases the risk of life threatening head injuries for children, if they are of such a stature to be hit by the features tested.
Taking into account the under reporting of injury risk when using rigid head forms to test bicycle and rack parts, which produce concentrated loads, the adult head form test results show that the fitting of a bike rack increases the risk of life threatening head injuries for adults if they are of such a stature to be hit by the features tested.
The relative heights of pedestrians and the cross bar of a rack-mounted bicycle mean that it will strike most adult and taller child pedestrians on the chest or the abdomen.
Furthermore, the handlebar end will make contact with the chest of most adult pedestrians and with the neck of the smaller females and some children. The characteristics of the impact and the available biomechanical data were considered to produce an informed estimate of the injury risks from this type of contact. It was concluded that the risks of fatal and serious injuries, from these contacts, were high.
The adult legform results show that the fitting of a bike rack of the type tested here dramatically increases the risk of long term disabling leg injuries for both adults and children, in accidents involving pedestrians.
It was also noted that when the bus was in motion, stowed bicycles tended to sway, sometimes bringing the innermost handlebar closer to the bus windscreen.
Female pedestrian (1.7m tall) alongside the stowed rack:
Female pedestrian alongside the handlebar of the outermost bike:
I believe that TRL is the Transport Research Laboratory (the privatised former Road Research Laboratory), an eminent body in it's field.
Deafdoggie
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 3,092
The ideal solution would be to invent a bike storage rack that fits in the under storage lockers of all coaches. It needs to be easily removable so can be taken out of the coach when not on RRB work and foldable so doesn't take up lots of room when stored out of use at the coach depot. It needs to be very cheap for coach companies to buy, or funded centrally for them by TOCs of DfT. I think everyone would agree that is an excellent idea. All that is probably, relatively, easy to do. The hard part is getting someone to sign the cheque. And therein lies the issue. And that's why the rule is "Bikes can not be conveyed on Rail Replacement services" (paraphrased)
- Status