cycling on narrow platform incident

[TonyR]

Well, we've had two people on this thread that thought it was OK to ride on that narrow platform! If that is typical, then there is clearly no hope and people will continue to fall over into the tracks or knock over fellow walking pax or even knock them onto the tracks. A thoroughly disappointing response, but I suppose the two of them were at least honest with us.

What a wonderful post. First totally misrepresent and then wave a shroud. Go back and read my post. What I didn't say was it was OK. I said it wasn't. What I did
say is it was not as dangerous in that case as people were making out.

And as for the rest, how many cyclists have actually fallen onto the tracks; how many pax have been knocked over on platforms or onto the tracks? Google comes up with a big fat zero of results for anywhere nearer than Germany. Can someone access the stats? A station I go through give stats for passengers injured on the escalators so I am sure they will have stats for passengers injured by cyclists, knocked onto tracks by cyclists or cyclists falling on the tracks. So lets get this in perspective with evidence, not anecdote and prejudice. But I repeat, I am not condoning it, just trying to get some perspective on the actual dangers.

 

[najaB]

And as for the rest, how many cyclists have actually fallen onto the tracks...

At least one, as witnessed by Johnuk123 and one under a train as witnessed by Carntyne, so there clearly is some risk.

 

[TonyR]

My local station has no 'No Smoking' signs. What law do I break by lighting up a cigarette? Or for that matter an e-cigarette which aren't even covered by ANY prohibitive legislation as yet.

"In terms of the railways, all train operating companies and Network Rail have worked together under their own by-laws to prohibit smoking in all areas of their premises, with the possible exception of car parks and forecourts. The British Transport Police are responsible for enforcement of the smoking ban on railway premises."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04414/SN04414.pdf

e-cigarettes are included since last year.

 

[Llanigraham]

I have checked the byelaws. They say:



My local station has no 'No Smoking' signs. What law do I break by lighting up a cigarette? Or for that matter an e-cigarette which aren't even covered by ANY prohibitive legislation as yet.

Who mentioned "By-Laws"?

I suggest you look up the 2006 Act which came into force on 1st July 2007, for England.
This may help, especially the Public Transport section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban_in_England
Relevant legislation for Wales:
http://gov.wales/topics/health/improvement/smoking/legislation/ban/?lang=en
We banned it from April 2006, a bit early than the english.

 

[TonyR]

At least one, as witnessed by Johnuk123 and one under a train as witnessed by Carntyne, so there clearly is some risk.

Anecdotes. If they happened there will be an SMIS record of them. So who has access to the SMIS data at the necessary level of detail?

 

[bnm]

Who mentioned "By-Laws"?

I suggest you look up the 2006 Act which came into force on 1st July 2007, for England.
This may help, especially the Public Transport section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban_in_England
Relevant legislation for Wales:
http://gov.wales/topics/health/improvement/smoking/legislation/ban/?lang=en
We banned it from April 2006, a bit early than the english.

Legislation please. Not what TOCs have 'banned'.

Health Act 2006 only covers enclosed or substantially enclosed buildings to which the public have access. Byelaws apply where 'No Smoking' is signed.

Illegality is very different from 'banned'.

I struggle to see how a TOC could prosecute someone found smoking or vaping on an open platform where there is no signage.

 

[najaB]

Anecdotes.

"I heard that" is anecdote, "I saw" is not. Unless, of course, you are accusing them of lying?

 

[Johnuk123]

Anecdotes. If they happened there will be an SMIS record of them. So who has access to the SMIS data at the necessary level of detail?

I can assure you the one I saw at Cambridge was no anecdote.
Nobody is saying cyclists end up on the track each and every day after they've cycled off platforms but it does happen.

 

[TonyR]

"I heard that" is anecdote, "I saw" is not. Unless, of course, you are accusing them of lying?

I think you are confusing anecdote with hearsay. Anecdotes may or may not be true, and may or may not be embellished. The Disputes and Prosecutions section is full of anecdotes

 

[najaB]

I think you are confusing anecdote with hearsay. Anecdotes may or may not be true, and may or may not be embellished. The Disputes and Prosecutions section is full of anecdotes

No, I'm not. In both these instances we have witnesses saying exactly what they saw - not what they've heard about (anecdote) or a retelling of what a third-party said (hearsay) - but about what they personally saw.

Nor is it a statement of opinion, rather a statement of directly observed events - we either have to accept that they saw what they say they saw or posit that they are lying.

 

[tony_mac]

"In terms of the railways, all train operating companies and Network Rail have worked together under their own by-laws to prohibit smoking in all areas of their premises, with the possible exception of car parks and forecourts. The British Transport Police are responsible for enforcement of the smoking ban on railway premises."
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04414/SN04414.pdf
.

That is actually wrong. Merseyrail have never banned smoking on open platforms.
https://twitter.com/merseyrail/status/672370422504153088

We have had this exact conversation more than once before!

 

[TonyR]

No, I'm not. In both these instances we have witnesses saying exactly what they saw - not what they've heard about (anecdote) or a retelling of what a third-party said (hearsay) - but about what they personally saw.

Nor is it a statement of opinion, rather a statement of directly observed events - we either have to accept that they saw what they say they saw or posit that they are lying.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

 

[anme]

Apologies to any sensible cyclists, but there is a sizeable minority who can only be described as selfish morons. They ride on platforms, pavements - even through our local bus station, expecting passengers to move out of their way. They ignore traffic lights and road signs, but try to blame drivers for any accidents. And at nights, it is rare to eee more than 20% of cyclists with any adequate lighting.

I'd say virtually all car drivers fit your description. (And does anyone else find car headlights far too BRIGHT? They dazzle cyclists and pedestrians, and other car drivers.)

 

[Llanigraham]

Legislation please. Not what TOCs have 'banned'.

Health Act 2006 only covers enclosed or substantially enclosed buildings to which the public have access. Byelaws apply where 'No Smoking' is signed.

Illegality is very different from 'banned'.

I struggle to see how a TOC could prosecute someone found smoking or vaping on an open platform where there is no signage.

Health Act 2006, in England, as already stated.
In Wales the legislation I linked to.

But then I get the impression that you will not agree with it!

 

[90019]

(And does anyone else find car headlights far too BRIGHT? They dazzle cyclists and pedestrians, and other car drivers.)

Only those that are badly aligned or have cheap eBay HID kits fitted to light clusters not designed for them.
I rarely have any issue with headlights being too bright, and I do a lot of driving at night.

 

[bnm]

Health Act 2006, in England, as already stated.
In Wales the legislation I linked to.

But then I get the impression that you will not agree with it!

Where in the Health Act 2006 does it state that smoking on open railway platforms is illegal? As for Wales, what legislation do they have beyond the same Act?

You do know not what 'enclosed, or substantially enclosed' means?

 

[tony_mac]

But then I get the impression that you will not agree with it!

perhaps because you are wrong?

This topic has been discussed multiple times. Smoking on open platforms is only banned by the byelaws - and they require a sign to be in place.
As posted previously, not all TOCs even ban smoking on platforms - how would that be possible if it was illegal?

 

[anme]

Only those that are badly aligned or have cheap eBay HID kits fitted to light clusters not designed for them.
I rarely have any issue with headlights being too bright, and I do a lot of driving at night.

I do a lot of walking and cycling after dark, and I find almost *all* car headlights to be too bright in areas without much street lighting. They are not *so* bad when driving a car, behind a shaded windscreen, although still too bright in my opinion.

 

[TonyR]

That is actually wrong. Merseyrail have never banned smoking on open platforms.
https://twitter.com/merseyrail/status/672370422504153088

We have had this exact conversation more than once before!

Either way I have never seen anyone on any railway premises do anything about the gauntlet of smokers you have to run to get through the station door.

 

[EM2]

I struggle to see how a TOC could prosecute someone found smoking or vaping on an open platform where there is no signage.

Are there any platforms where there is no signage? I've never seen one.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

On our patch you get an announcement at least once an hour, if not more frequently reminding people that they cannot smoke or use E-cigs anywhere on the station.

 

[Bevan Price]

I accept your apology...

When I go out on my bike I am always lit up fully, have reflective gear and only once rode on the pavement when it was part of a publicity stunt/event

I only wish that all other cyclists followed your fine example.

 

[ilkestonian]

Right, I watched and re watched the video linked to in the first post, and whilst I realise the guy on the bike was both stupid and probably breaking a bye law or two, I didn't see the incident.

Where was it?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Right, I watched and re watched the video linked to in the first post, and whilst I realise the guy on the bike was both stupid and probably breaking a bye law or two, I didn't see the incident.

Where was it?

I agree with this. I watched the video, with gritted teeth as I was expecting to see a near-miss or worse... What I saw was someone being a bit silly but suffering no ill-effects.

 

[TonyR]

I only wish that all other cyclists followed your fine example.

Most of them don't because a) there is no requirement to wear reflective gear any more than there is a requirement to only drive silver cars because they have the lowest accident rate b) its quite understandable that when councils spend a lot of time encouraging cyclists to cycle on pavements (and many motorists encouraging them to "get off the road" that many casual cyclists then fail to understand that its only the pavements with litttle blue signs hidden away that are legal to cycle on.

As for lights, most cyclists I know have and use them although there is a class of "people on bikes" that don't. The interesting thing is given how often people point out cyclists without lights yet hit cyclists lit up like Christmas trees, its questionable whether your actually more visible without

 

[90019]

The interesting thing is given how often people point out cyclists without lights yet hit cyclists lit up like Christmas trees, its questionable whether your actually more visible without

A worrying proportion of cyclists I see on the roads seem to have difficulty understanding that lights aren't a protective forcefield.

This is from my perspective as a pedestrian, cyclist, car driver and bus driver.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A worrying proportion of cyclists I see on the roads seem to have difficulty understanding that lights aren't a protective forcefield.

This is from my perspective as a pedestrian, cyclist, car driver and bus driver.

The same could be said of pedestrians, who seem to have a habit of wearing dark clothing around dusk! I agree though that a lot of cyclists seem to be unaware of how vulnerable they are, though no more than many motorists seem to underestimate how much space cyclists actually need. I've given up cycling on highways after far too many impatient drivers deciding that the ideal time to overtake is as we both pass a traffic island- meaning I'm lucky if they've given me three inches of clearance. Bus drivers seem to be more aware of cyclists, but my observations would have van drivers down as the worst offenders.

 

[TonyR]

I've given up cycling on highways after far too many impatient drivers deciding that the ideal time to overtake is as we both pass a traffic island- meaning I'm lucky if they've given me three inches of clearance.

That's a technique thing. You need to take control of the lane through road narrowings. If you take a Bikeability course they will show you how to do that. I have part of my cycle commute through a village on a busy A-road with a whole series of central islands. I just ride in the middle of the road at each island so there is no room to pass. But I agree if you don't some drivers will quite happily squeeze you off the road at the narrowings to get to the back of the queue in front.

 

[jopsuk]

chatting to a club mate yesterday, he'd recently been hit from behind whilst wearing hi vis, well lit and taking the lane. Hit and run too. When will drivers get their house in order? /s

 

[anme]

The same could be said of pedestrians, who seem to have a habit of wearing dark clothing around dusk!

So you expect pedestrians to dress up in ridiculous clothing so some people can drive around in dangerous stinking noisy metal boxes? How about expecting car drivers to drive slowly and not kill and maim people?

(I assume you're joking, so apologies. )
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's a technique thing. You need to take control of the lane through road narrowings. If you take a Bikeability course they will show you how to do that. I have part of my cycle commute through a village on a busy A-road with a whole series of central islands. I just ride in the middle of the road at each island so there is no room to pass. But I agree if you don't some drivers will quite happily squeeze you off the road at the narrowings to get to the back of the queue in front.

I agree that's good technique, but in the end it's the fault of car drivers that cyclists have to do it, and car drivers must take responsibility.

BTW, drivers *really* hate it when cyclists do this. It does mean they will reach the next red light perhaps 1-2 seconds later, and for a car driver 1-2 seconds is worth far more than your life. I once had a taxi driver slow down after a narrow section of road, wind down his window and shout abuse at me, all while continuing to use his mobile phone. (It was almost impressive that he could drive sort-of straight while doing these things.) He then had to brake suddenly because traffic was queuing. Of course, I reported him to the relevant licensing authority.