Full size bikes on trains

[2dmuppet]

To be honest I would write to great northern as this is actually a safety issue.

They may put someone on that train as it seems a common pattern. If they do nothing use the safety angle to take it further.

Snap! I had just finished typing to GNR just before reading your post. The most sensible approach under the circumstances.

 

[Clip]

Well exactly. Whoever thought "let's put tip-up seats in the cycle space so we can create needless conflict between cyclists and other passengers" wants shooting.

That's a bit harsh and unreasonable

I agree. Tip up seats in cycle and wheelchair spaces, and dual purpose cycle and wheelchair spaces, are a bad idea.

Theyre a good usage of space though so that they can provide seating when there are no cycles or wheelchairs using them.

People not moving when the space is needed is the real issue and that's the hard part in changing peoples mindest around what they are entitled too

 

[Llanigraham]

I would also suggest including a photo of the "blockage" to show had bad it is.

 

[stut]

Cycling will struggle in the UK because I recommend being as self sufficient as possible. What a bizarre claim.

There isn't a cycling equivalent of the AA*, and unlike a car, a bicycle is a simple machine, so yes I do advocate that anyone cycling regul;arly should learn at least the basics of roadside repair. My cycle commute is 10 miles each way on country lanes, if I have a mechanical problem I can't repair I have little option other than a long walk home (which has happened once).

Not really. It's the difference between something being a mainstream and a specialist activity. I'm simply making observations about countries where cycling is a default mode of transport. People don't expect to wear specialist clothing, safety gear, carry toolkits with them - they just jump on and go.

As things stand in the UK, yes, of course you need to be able to sort yourself out. But if we want to promote more widespread cycling (because frankly, it makes the roads better for all road users - and you can demonstrate that) then you need to make it accessible for all. And making repairs easy for people who have no ability or desire to carry them out on the roadside is just one small part of it.

Cycle commuting won't be mainstream for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the perception it is dangerous. Secondly, the perception that it is not possible to dress appropriately for the weather, thirdly, it does suck sometimes, fourthly, it requires physical effort, and why bother when you have a combustion engine to do the work, and finally, it is something you have to be interested in. One thing that somewhat irritatres me are the enthusiasts who aggressively push cycling because they can't comprehend why someone would not prefer it to driving (because they are egocentric). If you come across someone like that, just ask them if they would prefer to rent an allotment and grow their own veg instead of using a supermarket.

Cycle commuting is becoming significantly more mainstream in certain parts of the country where investment is being made in genuinely helpful infrastructure to make it so, by people who understand what is required, and where to target. We don't have the cultural relationship with bikes that the Dutch do, or the ubiquitous flat landscapes that they and the Danes do. Our city layouts have been pretty car-centric since the 70s (although this was the case in the Netherlands in the 60s also). But we do have specific places which are perfect for it and, with the right infrastructure, you can see how vast the appetite for it is.

If it's hilly, it's going to be less popular, but there is technology (e-bikes) to help with that, and you get fitter the more you do it. On average, a UK cycle commuter gets wet *7 times* a year, so the weather issue is significantly overstated. And the whole point is that, in countries where it is ubiquitous, it's not something you have to be interested in, any more than you have to be interested in buses, trains or cars to use those modes of transport. It's just something you have to choose as a preferred option on a particular day. Most cyclists also own cars and drive: it's not a lifestyle choice.

So, make it easy, and more will do it. And that benefits everybody. Make secure cycle parking available, and fewer bikes will come on the train. But if that bike's not taken home, you'll need a way to maintain it. So make it easy. You'll see this everywhere in the Netherlands and Denmark, little booths by the cycle cages at major transport points. €5 to fix up your tyre and puncture while you're at work, tighten up your cables, replace all your batteries or sort our your dynamo. Works for them, works for me. No specialist knowledge required, no lifestyle choice, just a way of getting home. One that I happen to enjoy, and that keeps the pies from my waist at that.

 

[xotGD]

One of today's papers has a report that the government is considering making cycle helmets compulsory. So will stations not only have bike racks, but somewhere to securely store a helmet?

I choose not to wear a helmet, and one factor in that decision is that I would have to carry it around with me all day after parking up my bike at the station.

 

[stut]

One of today's papers has a report that the government is considering making cycle helmets compulsory. So will stations not only have bike racks, but somewhere to securely store a helmet?

I choose not to wear a helmet, and one factor in that decision is that I would have to carry it around with me all day after parking up my bike at the station.

The report in question was somewhat sensationalist and the minister involved has since clarified:

https://twitter.com/Jesse_Norman/status/933941460117975040

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of today's papers has a report that the government is considering making cycle helmets compulsory. So will stations not only have bike racks, but somewhere to securely store a helmet?

I choose not to wear a helmet, and one factor in that decision is that I would have to carry it around with me all day after parking up my bike at the station.

I don't wear one either, there are many reasons why not, being a 1980s kid (and so taking a 1980s H&S view at times) may be one of them, another is that I am a very strong proponent of the Dutch cycling model (and ride an actual Dutch bike to go with it, albeit a 7 geared version to deal with hills) and think high quality dedicated cycle facilities are the way to make cycling safe, not specialist clothing. (MK of course has those facilities and has had since the start).

But for those who do wear them...I often see them locked to the bike with a secondary cable lock that is also used to lock the front wheel. Like with the bike itself it would be sensible to choose a cheap one for a station commute, they're under a tenner from Tesco and as they are regulated by a CE standard all of them will offer pretty much the same protection, what you pay more for is lightness and style.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Are those any good? I've always thought there was a reason that not a single motor vehicle has solid tyres.

I have them on my bike (which has no suspension front or rear) - they are narrow 700c wheels/rims, yet I ride on towpaths, bridlepaths, converted rail routes etc. It's a hard ride, but not terribly so. Grip is remarkable given there is no tread to speak of, and there is absolutely zero chance of a flat. Would I fit them again? Definitely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have them on my bike (which has no suspension front or rear) - they are narrow 700c wheels/rims, yet I ride on towpaths, bridlepaths, converted rail routes etc. It's a hard ride, but not terribly so. Grip is remarkable given there is no tread to speak of, and there is absolutely zero chance of a flat. Would I fit them again? Definitely.

As I said I would not fit anything else (I have tried others and nothing has been as good). They do a variety of treads now too.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

"You can take a bike with you at any time between Stevenage and Hertford North".
Until GTR scrap the train service, and substitute a bus service, that is...

 

[jon0844]

Many thanks to everybody who have contributed to my initial thread. It has certainly provoked an interesting discussion.

Sadly, same thing again this morning - three bikes deep - couldn't get in the compartment. Had to ask people to move them (one of them was the same person as yesterday).

Then they put the bikes back, trapping us in the compartment (it doesn't take much to jam the door mechanism).

It's like trying to reason with a brick wall. No empathy on display. State of the world etc etc.....

It is Friday though. Excellent!

I've seen bikes pushed into the first class compartment of a 365, effectively cutting off all the seats. The compartment was empty (and would clearly have to remain so because of said bikes) and I wonder if the driver would be happy knowing his/her potential escape route was blocked?

(I've also seen first class used as a luggage area, so I assume passengers are thinking they can't get done for being in first class if it's only their possessions - and sod anyone who might actually want to use first class or need access).

 

[Failed Unit]

"You can take a bike with you at any time between Stevenage and Hertford North".
Until GTR scrap the train service, and substitute a bus service, that is...

Probably quick to cycle between them anyway when that happens.

 

[beeza1]

One of today's papers has a report that the government is considering making cycle helmets compulsory. So will stations not only have bike racks, but somewhere to securely store a helmet?

I choose not to wear a helmet, and one factor in that decision is that I would have to carry it around with me all day after parking up my bike at the station.

It was reported on local radio the other day that the government were considering not only making helmets compulsory but also hi-vis clothing, considering the amount of clowns who ride about dressed from head to toe in black it is not before time.
I remember when they made helmets compulsory for motor cyclists, there was a lot of opposition, one chap, Fred Hill IIRC, even went to prison.
To me it's just plain common sense to wear a helmet and make yourself visible, plus I would imagine if you were unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident any compensation would be significantly reduced if you were not wearing a helmet at the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They could try enforcing the existing laws on lights before making new laws that won’t be enforced either.

 

[Mugby]

I remember a driver at my depot one day in a 158, a bike got placed in the vestibule behind his cab. He got out and asked the bloke to move it to the bike space to which the bloke got in his face and confrontational. The driver proceeded back into his cab and just before the hustler alarm went he got back out and launched the bike back onto the platform and then it was bye bye bike

Well done that driver! It does me good to hear things like that!

 

[tspaul26]

To me it's just plain common sense to wear a helmet and make yourself visible, plus I would imagine if you were unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident any compensation would be significantly reduced if you were not wearing a helmet at the time.

As a broad rule of thumb the damages would be halved.

 

[xotGD]

It was reported on local radio the other day that the government were considering not only making helmets compulsory but also hi-vis clothing, considering the amount of clowns who ride about dressed from head to toe in black it is not before time.
I remember when they made helmets compulsory for motor cyclists, there was a lot of opposition, one chap, Fred Hill IIRC, even went to prison.
To me it's just plain common sense to wear a helmet and make yourself visible, plus I would imagine if you were unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident any compensation would be significantly reduced if you were not wearing a helmet at the time.

Well let's make hi-vis compulsory for pedestrians too - they are almost always dressed in dark clothing and can be very difficult to see when crossing the road.

 

[jon0844]

Well let's make hi-vis compulsory for pedestrians too - they are almost always dressed in dark clothing and can be very difficult to see when crossing the road.

While that is clearly unworkable, and pedestrians don't (generally) walk in the road, it's actually a valid point that people these days are near invisible at night.. especially when street lights might be turned off, and people have little to nothing that is reflective (if you had that, you could still wear black and be seen).

Cyclists that are on the road, and I've had kids on bikes riding towards me on the wrong side of the road with no lights, and all black clothing and hoodie. No reflectors from the front, so pretty much invisible. It's a miracle we don't hear about more accidents involving bikes, and that's before you consider the current craze of doing stunts and engaging with vehicles in games of chicken, or just to cause mischief - then film it with a GoPro to share on YouTube or instant messaging. Here there have been been accidents and very near misses that could be fatal.

But that's a bit off topic as, although I've seen kids racing up and down platforms so I guess there is some connection with the railway.

If a kid wants to end up on the track and killed, that's his lookout (not seen a female yet) but what about the poor driver? What about someone who might jump to avoid a cyclist on a platform who then ends up on the track?

 

[inthearea]

The issue I think is that those trains are DOO so nobody is there to enforce any ban nor the limit of 2.

Unless you're me and call them out on the PA especially on that Cambridge service you are talking about. A commuter then said I could not blame the full size bikes for the lack of space and I politely said I can and I just did.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a broad rule of thumb the damages would be halved.

That's very blunt. Surely it should depend on what the injury was. If there was no head injury, it should be 100%, but if the only injury was a head injury it should be 0%?

 

[tspaul26]

That's very blunt. Surely it should depend on what the injury was. If there was no head injury, it should be 100%, but if the only injury was a head injury it should be 0%?

It is very blunt, but there are a number of reasons for this:

• If a cyclist does not take simple precautions for his own safety then it invites the inference that he is negligent more generally.
  
• It is difficult to apportion contributory negligence with any precision.
• It would encourage the wearing of bicycle helmets.
• It is simple.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is very blunt, but there are a number of reasons for this:

• If a cyclist does not take simple precautions for his own safety then it invites the inference that he is negligent more generally.
  
• It is difficult to apportion contributory negligence with any precision.
• It would encourage the wearing of bicycle helmets.
• It is simple.

It is not (or rather should not be) the business of a Court to encourage actions which are not required by law. Particularly ones which are rather questionable in their overall effectiveness like cycle helmets.

A Court exists to interpret and apply law as written by lawmakers. I find this happens rather too often for my liking.

 

[bspahh]

Are those any good? I've always thought there was a reason that not a single motor vehicle has solid tyres.

Solid tyres are fine on a train, running on nice smooth rails. On a bicycle they are awful.

Solid bicycle tyres have been reinvented every 10 years forever. On the plus side, you get no more punctured tyres. The downside is that you get poor grip, rough ride, high rolling resistance, and when you hit a pothole, you get a bent wheel.

 

[tspaul26]

It is not (or rather should not be) the business of a Court to encourage actions which are not required by law. Particularly ones which are rather questionable in their overall effectiveness like cycle helmets.

It is quite proper for the courts so to do. Judicial decisions are derived from three main factors: the law; the equity of the matter; and public policy.

For example, parties to litigation are not legally obliged to settle cases out of court, but if they don't then they will generally be punished for their failure to attempt it.

A Court exists to interpret and apply law as written by lawmakers. I find this happens rather too often for my liking.

Not so. It is for the courts to interpret and apply the law. This is not restricted to the interpretation of statutes.

The courts themselves also have an inherent non-legislative 'law-making' power, although this is very rarely used.

 

[Via Bank]

To me it's just plain common sense to wear a helmet and make yourself visible, plus I would imagine if you were unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident any compensation would be significantly reduced if you were not wearing a helmet at the time.

Have you ever been to the Netherlands?

The only people to wear helmets and hi-vis there are (a) tourists, (b) sports cyclists aiming to go fast. The Netherlands has some of the safest roads in the world for cycling.

Why should I have to dress up like a Christmas tree in body armour if I’m going to pootle to the shops? Is it to protect me from my own incompetence? Or is it to protect me from being flattened by a texting driver speeding onto a roundabout without looking? (A helmet won’t do an ounce of good in the vast majority of car/bike collisions.)

All helmet/hi-vis laws do is
(A) discourage cycling as transport by making it less convenient, and seem inherently dangerous by forcing you to dress for an extreme sport;
(B) abrogate drivers’ responsibility to pay attention and drive their machines defensively;
(C) abrogate road designers’ responsibility to eliminate dangerous conflict altogether.

This happens time and time again. Vulnerable road users are patronised and punished for drivers’ incompetence, and the consequences for public health are appalling.

Children in schools are told to wear REFLECTORS when walking home. Why should they? A child walking home from school isn’t dangerous. A driver mounting the pavement at speed so they can park up and go shopping is.

 

[tspaul26]

Have you ever been to the Netherlands?

The only people to wear helmets and hi-vis there are (a) tourists, (b) sports cyclists aiming to go fast. The Netherlands has some of the safest roads in the world for cycling.

Why should I have to dress up like a Christmas tree in body armour if I’m going to pootle to the shops? Is it to protect me from my own incompetence? Or is it to protect me from being flattened by a texting driver speeding onto a roundabout without looking? (A helmet won’t do an ounce of good in the vast majority of car/bike collisions.)

All helmet/hi-vis laws do is
(A) discourage cycling as transport by making it less convenient, and seem inherently dangerous by forcing you to dress for an extreme sport;
(B) abrogate drivers’ responsibility to pay attention and drive their machines defensively;
(C) abrogate road designers’ responsibility to eliminate dangerous conflict altogether.

This happens time and time again. Vulnerable road users are patronised and punished for drivers’ incompetence, and the consequences for public health are appalling.

Children in schools are told to wear REFLECTORS when walking home. Why should they? A child walking home from school isn’t dangerous. A driver mounting the pavement at speed so they can park up and go shopping is.

I agree with much of this. These are some of the reasons that I am in favour of compulsory re-testing for vehicle drivers.

 

[43096]

Have you ever been to the Netherlands?

The only people to wear helmets and hi-vis there are (a) tourists, (b) sports cyclists aiming to go fast. The Netherlands has some of the safest roads in the world for cycling.

Why should I have to dress up like a Christmas tree in body armour if I’m going to pootle to the shops? Is it to protect me from my own incompetence? Or is it to protect me from being flattened by a texting driver speeding onto a roundabout without looking? (A helmet won’t do an ounce of good in the vast majority of car/bike collisions.)

All helmet/hi-vis laws do is
(A) discourage cycling as transport by making it less convenient, and seem inherently dangerous by forcing you to dress for an extreme sport;
(B) abrogate drivers’ responsibility to pay attention and drive their machines defensively;
(C) abrogate road designers’ responsibility to eliminate dangerous conflict altogether.

This happens time and time again. Vulnerable road users are patronised and punished for drivers’ incompetence, and the consequences for public health are appalling.

Children in schools are told to wear REFLECTORS when walking home. Why should they? A child walking home from school isn’t dangerous. A driver mounting the pavement at speed so they can park up and go shopping is.

Ah, the holier-than-thou bike lobby.

You seem to be blissfully unaware of the huge danger posed by bikes, or more specifically their riders. A huge proportion of them think that they can ride on the pavement, ignore red lights, go the wrong way down a one-way street etc etc. Walking round London there is far more danger to pedestrians from bikes than other road vehicles. They are an enormous danger to other road users - high time they were properly regulated with proper testing that they are fit to go on the road and know the rules.

Cyclists need to put their own house in order, too. Stopping the smug preaching would be an idea as well.

 

[tspaul26]

Ah, the holier-than-thou bike lobby.

You seem to be blissfully unaware of the huge danger posed by bikes, or more specifically their riders. A huge proportion of them think that they can ride on the pavement, ignore red lights, go the wrong way down a one-way street etc etc. Walking round London there is far more danger to pedestrians from bikes than other road vehicles. They are an enormous danger to other road users - high time they were properly regulated with proper testing that they are fit to go on the road and know the rules.

Cyclists need to put their own house in order, too. Stopping the smug preaching would be an idea as well.

I agree with much of this as well. It requires effort from all road users.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with much of this as well. It requires effort from all road users.

In the end it comes down to "aren't we all just trying to get somewhere"? That Honda advert has a huge lesson we all need to follow on the road. Aggression and non defensive[1] driving/riding has no place at all.

But I'm a big fan of the Dutch model myself, as I said I ride a Dutch sit up and beg (with gears for the UK hills) and do so in normal clothes. It has lights permanently fitted (as all Dutch bikes do) which are used when it is dark. Suits the MK Redways very well, but also elsewhere - the Boris bikes, again mostly ridden in normal clothes, are basically highly robust sit-up-and-begs with fixed lights and that nifty laser thing that projects a bike on the road in front.

[1] Today's example: a lorry driver going all the way round a roundabout in the left hand lane, which didn't cause an accident because he was driving erratically so rather than assert my right of way I hung back to allow him to complete his stupid manoeuvre.

 

[pt_mad]

Does anyone else think the arrangements for carrying regular bikes on class 390s (pendolinos) are inefficient, outdated and act as a deterrent to 'turn up and go' bicycle/train travel?

When they eventually do an interior 390 refurbishment, will they look at either moving the cycle accomodation to another customer vestibule like on the voyagers, or perhaps allowing the leading door on a 390 to be accessed simply by a push button rather than requiring staff to be present with a key?