Dogs on the Metrolink

[tspaul26]

Went on Metrolink yesterday and the signs now seem to say "no food or alcohol", so coffee allowed.

They have said that for years. Certainly since the M5000s were introduced.

A couple of observations from local public transport in Australia*, where food & drink is banned.

• Well-dressed young woman, presumably en route to her office job, boards city-bound bus, glances at the take-away latte in her hand and says apologetically to driver "Oh! Sorry. I'm not allowed on with this, am I?"
  Driver replies "You're all right love, take a seat. We only have that rule to stop teenagers spilling their McDonalds and Slurpees all over the floor."
• A different bus, two bogans (local term for chavs) jump onboard, make themselves comfortable on the back seats and each cracks open a can of beer. Bus promptly stops, driver comes up the back, tells them they can't drink alcohol "because the bus isn't licenced premises" and they need to either get off or pour their drinks into the gutter. It's an interesting approach I've never seen before, and maybe adds a bit more legal weight ("it's not me, mate, it's the law") to what some might otherwise consider a discretionary and trivial public transport by-law. They chose the pour into gutter option without complaint on that occasion.

* A fair distance away from Britain, but culturally comparable in this respect - including the number of don't-give-a-****-merchants who use local PT.

But the bye-law is being applied in a discretionary and inconsistent manner. Either food and drink is forbidden or it is not, but both of these examples of discriminatory behaviour I find troubling.

 

[londonbridge]

Bus promptly stops, driver comes up the back, tells them they can't drink alcohol "because the bus isn't licenced premises"

On more than one occasion my manager has told customers they can’t have open cans of beer in the shop on the grounds that our licence is to supply alcohol for consumption off the premises.

 

[AY1975]

Manchester in 1992 was a rather different place to now.

True, but how does that make the dog ban less appropriate today than it was then?

 

[507 001]

True, but how does that make the dog ban less appropriate today than it was then?

It means it’s required now more than ever.

 

[AY1975]

It means it’s required now more than ever.

Why? Do you think that there are even more badly behaving dogs and inconsiderate dog owners around now than there were in 1992?

 

[507 001]

Why? Do you think that there are even more badly behaving dogs and inconsiderate dog owners around now than there were in 1992?

Yes.

 

[185]

Yes.

Can only agree with this. Despite a number of dog owners who are responsible who do try to ensure their dog behaves, there are growing number of people who simply don't. One incident on a train some months ago was a student, 19 whose dog had bitten someone in the aisle walking past her seat. The whole "i'm not responsible, someone else is" attitude is why this ban shouldn't just be a Metrolink thing. I do feel sorry for those who do have well behaved dogs, but a (growing) few spoil it for the rest.

Some of the areas Metrolink runs through are truly rough as ____ and nothing worse than antisocial drug-dealing detritus bringing their angry bitey dog with them as a weapon... Perhaps Metrolink's staff shouldn't have to face them (and the dog) when asking for a ticket ....a ticket that they probably (as usual) don't have.

 

[507 001]

Can only agree with this. Despite a number of dog owners who are responsible who do try to ensure their dog behaves, there are growing number of people who simply don't. One incident on a train some months ago was a student, 19 whose dog had bitten someone in the aisle walking past her seat. The whole "i'm not responsible, someone else is" attitude is why this ban shouldn't just be a Metrolink thing. I do feel sorry for those who do have well behaved dogs, but a (growing) few spoil it for the rest.

Some of the areas Metrolink runs through are truly rough as ____ and nothing worse than antisocial drug-dealing detritus bringing their angry bitey dog with them as a weapon... Perhaps Metrolink's staff shouldn't have to face them (and the dog) when asking for a ticket ....a ticket that they probably (as usual) don't have.

Quite. Although I do feel this thread is going to go like Glasgow Underground.

Round and round and round and round again.

 

[Geordie driver]

I have been on the Tyne and Wear Metro many thousands of times and know a few drivers who work on there, number of dog problems I have encountered or had related to me?

Zero.

It one of those rules that seems like a good idea to some office dweller which has never been thought through.

Yes there is the minute possibility of a problem, all life is risk, but the reasons as to why dogs shouldn't be permitted to travel are just grasping at straws.

In 20 years of service bus driving I must have had many thousands of dogs on my bus, I even carried treats and got out the cab occasionally to greet them. When dog fares existed I never charged for them.

I never once had a problem dog. Humans on the other hand.......

 

[SLee]

I have been on the Tyne and Wear Metro many thousands of times and know a few drivers who work on there, number of dog problems I have encountered or had related to me?

Zero.

It one of those rules that seems like a good idea to some office dweller which has never been thought through.

Yes there is the minute possibility of a problem, all life is risk, but the reasons as to why dogs shouldn't be permitted to travel are just grasping at straws.

In 20 years of service bus driving I must have had many thousands of dogs on my bus, I even carried treats and got out the cab occasionally to greet them. When dog fares existed I never charged for them.

I never once had a problem dog. Humans on the other hand.......

I think metrolink would see problems.
The amount of litter left on the trams and the amount of chavs that use and abuse them it wouldn’t be long until they were full of dog crap and people being/feeling intimidated or bit by dogs.
I don’t know what it’s like in Newcastle but after darks the chavs run the show on some lines of metrolink.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I think metrolink would see problems.
The amount of litter left on the trams and the amount of chavs that use and abuse them it wouldn’t be long until they were full of dog crap and people being/feeling intimidated or bit by dogs.
I don’t know what it’s like in Newcastle but after darks the chavs run the show on some lines of metrolink.

They already employ enough of those jumped up security guards to stand around and harass people at Victoria, they could travel around on the tram instead/

 

[SLee]

They already employ enough of those jumped up security guards to stand around and harass people at Victoria, they could travel around on the tram instead/

They never do tho. Rarely see them in the problem areas. And just because you see them at vic doesn’t mean there is enough to patrol each line and each tram.

Never seen them harass anyone and if they do need to interact with people it’s generally because they are causing problems.

 

[Geordie driver]

I think metrolink would see problems.
The amount of litter left on the trams and the amount of chavs that use and abuse them it wouldn’t be long until they were full of dog crap and people being/feeling intimidated or bit by dogs.
I don’t know what it’s like in Newcastle but after darks the chavs run the show on some lines of metrolink.

Manchester is in no way different regarding problem passengers to the rest of the country. Why would it be?

Banning dogs solves a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester is in no way different regarding problem passengers to the rest of the country. Why would it be?

Anecdotally it does seem that there is a far greater ASB issue on Metrolink than there is on the comparable Merseyrail or London Underground (though London seems to perhaps have a bit more on buses). I don't really know about others as I don't have recent experience. With LU you could understand that being because all stations are gated so it's harder for such people to get access (as likely they won't pay the fare to do so, but Merseyrail is basically an open system other than the central Liverpool stations, Southport and Chester.

I suspect the serious issues at Piccadilly Gardens, arguably its main station, contribute to this. I'd say "possibly also the Wythenshawe line", but Kirkby is basically the same as Wythenshawe (i.e. a large 1960s overspill development with low employment, high poverty and high crime), and the Merseyrail Kirkby line isn't the same sort of hive of ASB for some reason and never really was.

I must admit I find the Piccadilly Gardens issue (and its knock-on) bizarre, almost as much so as the street crime issue which is in a very small area of Barcelona, because it's so self contained that it would strike me that it would, with the will, be really easy to solve it (or at least distribute it) by sending a load of (possibly plain clothes) Police Officers to that one place taking a zero tolerance approach.

 

[SLee]

Anecdotally it does seem that there is a far greater ASB issue on Metrolink than there is on the comparable Merseyrail or London Underground (though London seems to perhaps have a bit more on buses). I don't really know about others as I don't have recent experience. With LU you could understand that being because all stations are gated so it's harder for such people to get access (as likely they won't pay the fare to do so, but Merseyrail is basically an open system other than the central Liverpool stations, Southport and Chester.

I suspect the serious issues at Piccadilly Gardens, arguably its main station, contribute to this. I'd say "possibly also the Wythenshawe line", but Kirkby is basically the same as Wythenshawe (i.e. a large 1960s overspill development with low employment, high poverty and high crime), and the Merseyrail Kirkby line isn't the same sort of hive of ASB for some reason and never really was.

I must admit I find the Piccadilly Gardens issue (and its knock-on) bizarre, almost as much so as the street crime issue which is in a very small area of Barcelona, because it's so self contained that it would strike me that it would, with the will, be really easy to solve it (or at least distribute it) by sending a load of (possibly plain clothes) Police Officers to that one place taking a zero tolerance approach.

Actually the city centre is fairly trouble free, it’s the further you get from the city centre where the gangs start to congregate and then basically take charge of the tram.
With a large police presence in the city they probably don’t want to bring as much attention to themselves.
I’ve seen plenty of trouble the closer you get to Oldham/rochdale/Radcliffe/bury

generally it is groups of youths between 10-18 years old in packs of 10 or more.

Manchester is in no way different regarding problem passengers to the rest of the country. Why would it be?

Banning dogs solves a problem that doesn't exist.

Do you drive for metrolink?
You seem to feel fairly confident of what it’s like to be on the system at all times of the day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually the city centre is fairly trouble free, it’s the further you get from the city centre where the gangs start to congregate and then basically take charge of the tram.
With a large police presence in the city they probably don’t want to bring as much attention to themselves.
I’ve seen plenty of trouble the closer you get to Oldham/rochdale/Radcliffe/bury

generally it is groups of youths between 10-18 years old in packs of 10 or more.

Interestingly that's a totally different demographic to the city centre "spiceheads" who (though it's hard to tell as they are so haggard from the drugs and being outside all the time) seem to be mostly in their 20s/30s. So my suggestion of the two being related is unlikely.

The Merseyrail "pseudopolice"/"rent-a-thug" Byelaw officers, much as I'm no great fan of that approach as a way of dealing with chronic underfunding of the actual police, seem to work to manage ASB on Merseyrail, though really the level of it there was always much lower, typically more smoking and feet on seats than "taking over a train". Perhaps Metrolink needs to consider that approach.

 

[Geordie driver]

Actually the city centre is fairly trouble free, it’s the further you get from the city centre where the gangs start to congregate and then basically take charge of the tram.
With a large police presence in the city they probably don’t want to bring as much attention to themselves.
I’ve seen plenty of trouble the closer you get to Oldham/rochdale/Radcliffe/bury

generally it is groups of youths between 10-18 years old in packs of 10 or more.


Do you drive for metrolink?
You seem to feel fairly confident of what it’s like to be on the system at all times of the day.

Once again, in what way is Manchester any different to the rest of the UK regarding problem passengers?

This dog rule is punishing decent passengers for no other reason than is seems like a good idea.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once again, in what way is Manchester any different to the rest of the UK regarding problem passengers?

Only anecdotal, but as I said it does seem Metrolink has more of an ASB issue than Merseyrail or London Underground, and while I don't use them as often more than the Birmingham locals and Midland Metro too.

Personally I'd rather see effort put into solving that than persisting with the ban, though.

 

[SLC001]

As a dog owner (2 golden retrievers) we go everywhere by car and where possible take the dogs with us. It would be rather unfortunate if public transport would not allow dogs and so in these circumstances we would never be able to use the tram. But I guess that reflects society which is increasingly imposing new restrictions on dogs which are out of all proportion to the problems they cause. It is a minority of owners that haven't a clue about dogs and the responsibilities (and ties) that owning a dog brings and lack experience and understanding of their dog's behaviour.

Policing anti social behaviour is difficult. Undercover officers is not an effective use of person power (almost politically incorrect there!) and in any case drives the problem elsewhere. It doesn't go away, it just relocates.

"This dog rule is punishing decent passengers for no other reason than is seems like a good idea". Not sure I entirely agree with the good idea bit because there must be problems with dogs but it is a simple solution which is what beaurocrats want. An easy fix but overlooks the bigger problems.

 

[SLee]

Once again, in what way is Manchester any different to the rest of the UK regarding problem passengers?

This dog rule is punishing decent passengers for no other reason than is seems like a good idea.

I guess you aren’t going to answer the question. You are entitled to your opinion but I ain’t here to argue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a dog owner (2 golden retrievers) we go everywhere by car and where possible take the dogs with us. It would be rather unfortunate if public transport would not allow dogs and so in these circumstances we would never be able to use the tram. But I guess that reflects society which is increasingly imposing new restrictions on dogs which are out of all proportion to the problems they cause. It is a minority of owners that haven't a clue about dogs and the responsibilities (and ties) that owning a dog brings and lack experience and understanding of their dog's behaviour.

I must admit I do wonder if we need to return to a system of dog licensing, but not simply paying a fee in a post office for one as it used to be (it was more of a dog tax, really), but rather having some element of mandatory training and assessment before being permitted to own or be in control of one, with spot checks to ensure one is held, and hefty fines plus bans from holding one in future for breaches, obviously varying in extent for different breaches, e.g. if your dog attacks a person or wilful dog fighting meaning a very long or even lifetime ban and potentially prison time, but being caught fouling without picking it up being perhaps just an escalating fine for the first couple of offences but say a 6 month ban for a third offence.

It would be a small overhead to most responsible dog owners, but would make it easier for those who are irresponsible to be dealt with.

 

[Geordie driver]

I guess you aren’t going to answer the question. You are entitled to your opinion but I ain’t here to argue.

I assumed it was a rhetorical question as clearly I don't drive for metro link.

Are you going to answer my question as to why Manchester is any different to the rest of the country? Third time I have asked you. Clearly not rhetorical.

I have mentioned on here before how I stopped using the Tyne and Wear Metro line between St. James and the coast, I used to meet up with a mate for a mid week pint every Wednesday, it was better for my blood pressure to get the bus as almost invariably I would have words with passengers who thought it was ok to misbehave.

Never once did I have a problem with any dogs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I assumed it was a rhetorical question as clearly I don't drive for metro link.

Are you going to answer my question as to why Manchester is any different to the rest of the country? Third time I have asked you. Clearly not rhetorical.

I have mentioned on here before how I stopped using the Tyne and Wear Metro line between St. James and the coast, I used to meet up with a mate for a mid week pint every Wednesday, it was better for my blood pressure to get the bus as almost invariably I would have words with passengers who thought it was ok to misbehave.

Never once did I have a problem with any dogs.

I don't think it is easy to say why Manchester is different, but for those of us who have experience of the place I think there is general agreement that there is now a difference from some other cities in ASB terms, and one that was not there to the same extent just 20 years ago.

And it certainly does appear, as one of those differences, that the number of people involved in ASB in Manchester who have dogs of the more threatening breeds is higher than other cities.

And that is even in the context that I don't actually support the ban.

 

[SLee]

I assumed it was a rhetorical question as clearly I don't drive for metro link.

Are you going to answer my question as to why Manchester is any different to the rest of the country? Third time I have asked you. Clearly not rhetorical.

I have mentioned on here before how I stopped using the Tyne and Wear Metro line between St. James and the coast, I used to meet up with a mate for a mid week pint every Wednesday, it was better for my blood pressure to get the bus as almost invariably I would have words with passengers who thought it was ok to misbehave.

Never once did I have a problem with any dogs.

I can’t comment on any other place, only that Manchester metrolink has constant issues. Recently there has been stabbing on and around metrolink property/platforms, so that gives you an idea what it can be like.

we serve some of the poorer and rougher areas that orbit the city.

I work for metrolink and feb only comment on what I see often.

anyway I’ll leave it there. This is going around in circles.

Once again, in what way is Manchester any different to the rest of the UK regarding problem passengers?

This dog rule is punishing decent passengers for no other reason than is seems like a good idea.

and isn’t that how the world works now?

why do we have to lock our doors, why do we have to have security checks at airports? why do we use car alarms and immobilisers?

all because there is a minority that spoil it for the majority.
And to add to the record I would prefer it if metrolink had no restrictions because then I don’t have to try and enforce them, but I would expect there will be trams coming out of service and medical emergencies more than there is now.

As soon as a large spillage or bodily fluid is spilt on a tram it needs to come out of service to be properly cleaned.

as soon as a dog bites someone it will be a medical emergency which will likely lead to the tram staying out for a time and holding up other trams using the same line.

 

[507 001]

Just as I predicted. The discussion is going round in increasingly pointless circles.

The ban isn’t going to be lifted, and staff (myself included, and I’m a dog owner) don’t want it to be lifted. Simple.

Manchester is different to other cities. The ASB issue is off the scale compared to other cities. I don’t live in Manchester for context.

 

[Geordie driver]

I think one thing we can agree on is there is no shortage of specious reasoning and delusion in this thread.

Good day to you gentlemen.

 

[jumble]

Just as I predicted. The discussion is going round in increasingly pointless circles.

The ban isn’t going to be lifted, and staff (myself included, and I’m a dog owner) don’t want it to be lifted. Simple.

Manchester is different to other cities. The ASB issue is off the scale compared to other cities. I don’t live in Manchester for context.

Lucky for me I live in London, TFL are happy for me to be on public transport, there has never been an issue with me being on public transport in my life of 9 years and I dont care what Metrolink do or don't do.
Summer the Spaniel

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lucky for me I live in London, TFL are happy for me to be on public transport, there has never been an issue with me being on public transport in my life of 9 years and I dont care what Metrolink do or don't do.
Summer the Spaniel

Antisocial behaviour on the Tube does seem very, very low compared with what you might think it would be - to me it genuinely feels a safe environment, whereas Metrolink at night feels quite edgy at times. I think it being 100% gated and heavily staffed makes quite a difference.

Evening and night buses (which are more like Metrolink - a driver and nowt else) tend to be where much transport-based ASB in London occurs.

 

[507 001]

Lucky for me I live in London, TFL are happy for me to be on public transport, there has never been an issue with me being on public transport in my life of 9 years and I dont care what Metrolink do or don't do.
Summer the Spaniel

Sorry Summer, but the tube has every station staffed and is patrolled by the BTP. Metrolink has neither of these things and ASB is a huge problem.

 

[AlastairFraser]

They never do tho. Rarely see them in the problem areas. And just because you see them at vic doesn’t mean there is enough to patrol each line and each tram.

Never seen them harass anyone and if they do need to interact with people it’s generally because they are causing problems.

You rarely see them in the problem areas because Metrolink and GMP have given up on those areas. They don't necessarily need to be at every stop, they just need one or two per line up and down to spot trouble brewing. If the ne'er-do-well types see them, your ASB issues will soon decrease because the types committing these crimes don't like attention.

As for the harassment comment, the use of improperly selected and accredited security guards is why.
Do I need to recall this incident :https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ould-anyone-prosecuted-over-unlawful-19930755 ?