"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

Did anyone else get the above e-mail? (Link to text
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10943.asp
)

Seems to me the next step is to raise a petition to require the DOT to
include a requirement in future farnchise bids for companies to provide free
transport for bikes.

"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
Did anyone else get the above e-mail? (Link to text
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10943.asp
)

Seems to me the next step is to raise a petition to require the DOT to
include a requirement in future farnchise bids for companies to provide
free
transport for bikes.


Forgive me for asking, but why free transport for bikes?

Space on trains for bikes by all means but I think cyclists along with the
rest of us should pay for the space they use.


--
Paul Stevenson
--
For railway photos see ebay
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZpdsteveoQQhtZ-1



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Feb 10, 10:17 am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
Did anyone else get the above e-mail? (Link to texthttp://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10943.asp
)

Seems to me the next step is to raise a petition to require the DOT to
include a requirement in future farnchise bids for companies to provide free
transport for bikes.

Perhaps those of us who are not cyclists or only casual cyclists would
feel a bit more sympathy to this cause when cyclists start to comply
with the requirements of the highway code. ie No cycling on pavements,
comply with traffic lights, have lights on their bikes after dark etc
etc etc

Bill

Bill Harris wrote on 10/02/2007 11:02 +0100:
On Feb 10, 10:17 am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
Did anyone else get the above e-mail? (Link to
texthttp://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10943.asp )

Seems to me the next step is to raise a petition to require the DOT
to include a requirement in future farnchise bids for companies to
provide free transport for bikes.

Perhaps those of us who are not cyclists or only casual cyclists
would feel a bit more sympathy to this cause when cyclists start to
comply with the requirements of the highway code. ie No cycling on
pavements, comply with traffic lights, have lights on their bikes
after dark etc etc etc


ITYM highway users start to comply with the Highway Code. Why single
out cyclists and what has it got to do with carriage on trains? Does
the Channel Tunnel refuse to carry cars because they break the speed
limit and parking restrictions?

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On 10 Feb, Bill Harris wrote:

Perhaps those of us who are not cyclists or only casual cyclists
would feel a bit more sympathy to this cause when cyclists start to
comply with the requirements of the highway code. ie No cycling on
pavements, comply with traffic lights, have lights on their bikes
after dark etc etc etc

Look, some idiots break the law - most motorists break speed limits, a
worryingly high proportion have no insurance, some train users don't
buy a ticket, some bike users ride on the pavements.

But:

1: Using this as a justification to characterise a whole group is
neither sensible nor useful. In the quote above "when cyclists start
to comply..." is a pointless statement - most cyclists _do_ comply
with traffic lights, for example - when the RAC did an actual count to
try an prove how reckless cyclists were, they unfortunately (for them)
found that it was a minority going through lights, and that motorists
were about as bad (though there's some statistical arguing you can do
about that).

2: Using this as a justification to claim it would be sensible to do
or not do something is equally silly. How about we stop doing any
road maintenance until every driver complies with all the law? How
about we halve train movements each week until no passenger ever puts
their feet on the seat?

It really is a pitifully silly argument, and achieves nothing.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Feb 10, 10:17 am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
Did anyone else get the above e-mail? (Link to texthttp://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10943.asp
)

Seems to me the next step is to raise a petition to require the DOT to
include a requirement in future farnchise bids for companies to provide free
transport for bikes.



I think the free carriage thing is a red herring. A reasonable fee
might be ... reasonable. There's a more general problem that trains
are being designed very inappropriately. Although not always.

Much as I don't like the 455s, because they are claustrophobic, the
space around the doors released by removal of seats on SWT has flipup
seats in it, can be used easily for standing in and would be suitable
for a couple of bikes at off-peak times. It shows what can be done
with a bit of intelligence.

The 376s on the other hand have space around the doors that is almost
unusable. One person can stand where two might have sat and there are
chunky obstructions all around.

I think that intelligent design could allow both bikes at quieter
times and maximum usable space for people at busy times. Trouble is
that we are going to be stuck with quite a lot of bad design for at
least forty years.

On 10 Feb, 10:17, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
Did anyone else get the above e-mail? (Link to texthttp://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10943.asp
)

Seems to me the next step is to raise a petition to require the DOT to
include a requirement in future farnchise bids for companies to provide free
transport for bikes.

Laudable idea, obviously many practical difficulties. Witnessed my
first example of "bicycle" rage on SWT this week when someone brought
a muddy/oily contraption into a train and rubbed against some standing
passengers in the vestibule.
On HST's only a few bikes can be carried in the van area (and no we
don't want people using the power car van for obvious reasons)
The ideal solution on longer trains is a coach in the centre of the
formation with tip up seats along the outside with space to put bikes.
This avoids people running one end to the other when a train is in
reverse formation. On HST's I would suggest the redundant buffets
could be a trial conversion. The market may increase. Convince Tom
Harris though? Doubt it. The German 423/424 series of units cope with
this admirably and passengers with bikes are welcome. Over here cost
overrides everything and the DfT would rob Peter to pay Paul.
I take a bike for my commute as there is a cycle track from the
station to the depot, but I've decided to compromise and have a bike
that folds into a bag for taking on the train. It won't win any races
but is perfectly rideable and practical as something for daily use. In
terms of daily delays there are many hundreds of little incidents
across the UK that are due to cyclists getting their bikes on and off
the train and it is common to see people waiting to load and offload
their machines. The industry needs to recognise this and accomodate
the demand by making it easier to achieve what DB has. Costs money,
who pays? It's the government that dictates expenditure on such
things. For example more dmu's are at last being allowed to run on
services around Bristol as the DfT allowed more to be leased, but this
has to be paid for elsewhere. So if it was adopted the question would
be asked of the TOC and Passenger Groups, "What will you give up to
have free bike carriage? If more vehicles or vehicle space is
required, what vehicles/seats are you prepared to sacrifice?"
For example, to allow for extra bike space which would benefit
hundreds daily, would it be worth dumping the sleeper which benefits
tens in basic passenger numbers? (Yes I recognise the value of the
sleeper overall this is just an example of DfT thinking)
What has proved effective where adopted, lockable shelters allowing
people to have a bike kept at the station, not sure of the costs, SWT
have them at some locations. Cheap bikes are often kept at both ends
of a train journey, cheap due to theft concerns. Overall a combination
of ideas would be required and personally I think that with more
companies announcing HD type layouts, more space for bikes will get
short shrift. The folding bike market howvever is growing and they're
reducing in price.

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for
Handgliders on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."



"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for
Double Bass and Drum Kits on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train
operators."



"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for
Any length of wood or composite material that is normally sold by B&Q on
Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."



Where will it end?
--
Ken Ward

"Society for the production of Maritime Reefs using MerseyRail 142's"
(For membership email... )

MIG wrote:
On Feb 10, 10:17 am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
Seems to me the next step is to raise a petition to require the DOT to
include a requirement in future farnchise bids for companies to provide free
transport for bikes.

I think the free carriage thing is a red herring. A reasonable fee
might be ... reasonable. There's a more general problem that trains
are being designed very inappropriately. Although not always.

Well, we don't want to lose free carriage off-peak, but I agree in
principle.

First we need all trains to be capable of carrying bikes. Then we need
bikes to be allowed at ALL times. Companies will be allowed to charge
a fee at peak times, up to the full adult single fare.

It's easier to enforce a charge than a ban, and there are times when
taking a bike at peak times is worth paying a high fare for.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Ken Ward wrote on 10/02/2007 12:39 +0100:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for
Handgliders on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for
Double Bass and Drum Kits on Trains Free and Compulsory by all train
operators."

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for
Any length of wood or composite material that is normally sold by B&Q on
Trains Free and Compulsory by all train operators."

Where will it end?

Perhaps with complimentary modes of transportation? A bicycle is
something that can be carried on the train and allows many more
transport options than without. I am going to a meeting with a work
colleague this week and we will both cycle from the train station to our
meeting on our folding bikes. Without the bikes we would have to drive
as it is a rural station with no taxis and the meeting is too far from
the station to walk. If your drum kits and hardware store goods could
do that you might have a point but they don't and you don't.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy