Can you take bikes on replacement buses?

[Haywain]

When all said and done its part of the National Conditions of Service for all TOC,s that on rail replacement services that cycles, prams that don,t fold and animals except guide dogs or service dogs are not carried on rail replacement vehicles.

I wonder how often people travelling with their pets get turned away.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

a cat or small dog in a pet carrier or hamster or other similar sized pet in a small cage is hardly going to be turned away as it is hand held luggage. A large dog such as a doberman or alsatian may be a different kettle of fish as just like with a bike the vehicle isn't capable of accommodating them but again if the vehicle driver is able to make that judgement and accommodation is possible then thats down to the discretion of the driver amd the understanding of the dog owner. Either way, as you point out its in the NRCOC.

 

[Flying Snail]

Indeed. That is something that the policymaker grade has made a decision on.

All said and done, the TOC is the client and the bus operators are the suppliers. If TOCs want bikes carried on buses, they should instruct the bus operators as such and plan a safe way of doing so. Sometimes this does happen but where it doesn't, that is the TOC's choice.

Individual TOC staff intimidating and pressuring drivers to do something they're instructed not to by both the TOC and their employer is not the right way to go about things. Thankfully this isn't something I've ever seen front line staff do.

My response to this sort of thing was not to refuse but to hand a pad and pen to the person and say I'd be happy to comply as long as they write out and sign a direct order for me to follow their demand instead of the stated rules. I did that several times both with superiors from my company and a very bolshie individual from a "partner" company. Funnily enough none of them seemed to want to continue with their plan under that condition.

I know that such a note wouldn't fully or in some cases even partially be of any use in absolving me of responsibility for breaking the rules (or the law in the case of expecting me to take standees on a coach was the most regular demand) and I wasn't going to do it any way.

 

[Robertj21a]

And yet there's loads of places around the world that currently do this. And is it any worse than a parent stepping out into a road at a none traffic light crossing with their pram in front of them?

It does there just excuses as to why not to do something and for RRBs the surely you would make the frames for back and front detachable at the end of their RRB service?

As for internally carrying bikes isn't there a bus company in Edinburgh that has converted some to hold 2 cycles inside or has that idea ended now?

Are there 'loads of places' ? - I can only think of New Zealand and USA.

 

[Spandau]

I had a look at my rail replacement driving duty yesterday and it says in bold letters "Non folding bicycles must not be carried". This is consistent with the advice that the TOC puts out to the public.

Train companies normally say bicycles MAY NOT (not MUST NOT) be carried.

There are two interpretations of the word “may”. It might mean there is a possibility a bike might be refused - if for example the luggage space of a coach is full, the service is operated by a low floor bus, or too many cyclists turn up.

Alternatively it could suggest cycles are forbidden - i.e bicycles MUST not be accommodated (yet we know they frequently are).

The whole thing is a mess!

 

[Flying Snail]

Are there 'loads of places' ? - I can only think of New Zealand and USA.

I am amazed it is allowed at all, especially in the US.

European imports, both cars and commercial, usually end up having to be fitted with big dodgems-style bumpers to pass US pedestrian safety laws, to then strap a tangle of pointy and sharp metal guaranteed to skewer anyone it comes into contact with is rather counter-intuitive..

US VanHool coach: https://www.flickr.com/photos/flyer...6fu-WnP8Ly-JuoPdv-beumXD-9f1phr-7Hwp73-FXN18Q

EU VanHool coach: https://www.flickr.com/photos/welsh...T1y-KYQBtL-aAtJeT-pR7Kwr-e1m9tM-aneJ1x-aAtJn4

 

[Clip]

Are there 'loads of places' ? - I can only think of New Zealand and USA.

And places in America which are probably bigger than the UK.

Also in Canada and Oz and also in Madrid I believe.

They have been trialled in plenty of countries in Europe but for some reason they are seen as a danger.

Almost as if we can't be trusted to do things sensibly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And places in America which are probably bigger than the UK.

Also in Canada and Oz and also in Madrid I believe.

They have been trialled in plenty of countries in Europe but for some reason they are seen as a danger.

Almost as if we can't be trusted to do things sensibly.

The UK has higher road safety standards than many other countries, and we need to keep that, not relax it. Pointy metal on the front of a bus is a threat to anything that gets hit by it.

 

[Clip]

The UK has higher road safety standards than many other countries, and we need to keep that, not relax it. Pointy metal on the front of a bus is a threat to anything that gets hit by it.

They're not pointy though are they?

So street running trams through pedestrian areas like Piccadilly gardens is fine but a couple of cycles on the front of a bus is not?

Not a very good analogy really but was one that came to mind

 

[RT4038]

And places in America which are probably bigger than the UK.

Also in Canada and Oz and also in Madrid I believe.

They have been trialled in plenty of countries in Europe but for some reason they are seen as a danger.

Almost as if we can't be trusted to do things sensibly.

'We' can't be trusted not to sue the bus company should anybody or anything be hurt or damaged should an accident occur, and the bus company wouldn't trust the judiciary not to come down hard on them for breaching a duty of care or some such, in accordance with H & S legislation.

Of course Government could introduce Primary legislation to specifically absolve bus companies from liability, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[zwk500]

They're not pointy though are they?

So street running trams through pedestrian areas like Piccadilly gardens is fine but a couple of cycles on the front of a bus is not?

Not a very good analogy really but was one that came to mind

The front of the tram is specifically designed to deflect minor impacts and the bodywork to take the force of a bigger impact rather than the thing being hit. A bike rack cannot form a crumple zone for the obvious reason that it would require the bikes themselves to crumple. If the force of the impact is taken by the bus's crumple zone, then the driver ends up being in danger of the bike rack trapping them in the cab or worse. If the bus is strengthened to protect the driver then the thing that hits the bus will take the full force of that impact. A pedestrian being hit by a solid bar of steel at knee height then being thrown on to of a pair of bikes with levers, chains pedals etc, even at low speed, is going to require extended medical treatment.

If bikes are to be carried, the only real solutions are a trailer/platform on the rear or a dedicated area within the bus (either as part of a wheelchair/pram type area or coach-style underneath). A trailer will have problems if reversals are required, as well as security if the hitch broke. A platform has issues of security for the bikes being damaged/stolen and load times as the cyclist has to confirm the driver has stopped before putting the bike on the back then walk to the front to board. A space inside could cause issues if required to evacuate, compromises on the total number of people who can be carried, and brings the cyclist into potential conflict with others who may have need/want of the space.

Of course Government could introduce Primary legislation to specifically absolve bus companies from liability, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

That legislation would be a Pandora's box, I fear. Companies being obliged to maintain safety standards keeps people out of hospital. I wouldn't want to trade the minor convenience of bikes being able to be taken on buses for the major affect a pedestrian road collision has on all concerned, personally.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They're not pointy though are they?

The pedals and handlebars are (most people who are going to put bikes on a bus are not going to be the ones with drop-bar road bikes, as they could ride those far faster than the bus would go). They would be like a more damaging version of a bull bar (which, due to pedestrian safety issues, are already if I recall not allowed on new vehicles in the UK - cars that have them tend to have a fake plastic version for looks only).

So street running trams through pedestrian areas like Piccadilly gardens is fine but a couple of cycles on the front of a bus is not?

What has running street trams at walking pace have to do with putting a bull bar on the front of a bus that will do 30mph plus? (Also the trams now don't have the sticky out coupler on the front, they are flat-fronted).

But that's a false equivalence, very similar to "why can kids go to school and not distance when I can't go to the pub and distance". The two don't affect each other. Having the trams there has far more benefit than having bikes on city buses (which, as I've noted, in Hamburg where they actually are allowed, inside in the multipurpose area, you almost never see them, simply because it is quicker to ride the bike, or ride it to a station and put it on the train).

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The same reason bull bars were banned off the front of vehicles in this country.
Far from the lack of any need for them in this country they were only fitted for fashion, however they were killing children in what were very minor collisions whereas they would have bounced off anything else hitting them at faster speeds with a bit of a headache and a few scratches and bruises.

 

[RT4038]

If bikes are to be carried, the only real solutions are a trailer/platform on the rear or a dedicated area within the bus (either as part of a wheelchair/pram type area or coach-style underneath). A trailer will have problems if reversals are required, as well as security if the hitch broke. A platform has issues of security for the bikes being damaged/stolen and load times as the cyclist has to confirm the driver has stopped before putting the bike on the back then walk to the front to board. A space inside could cause issues if required to evacuate, compromises on the total number of people who can be carried, and brings the cyclist into potential conflict with others who may have need/want of the space.

There is also the problem, when fitted to the rear, of preventing unauthorised persons riding on/clinging to the cycle rack while the bus is travelling.

There is also an assumption that every cyclist would attach their cycle correctly, so the cycle would not fall off and be damaged, or injure/damage other people and property.

That legislation would be a Pandora's box, I fear. Companies being obliged to maintain safety standards keeps people out of hospital. I wouldn't want to trade the minor convenience of bikes being able to be taken on buses for the major affect a pedestrian road collision has on all concerned, personally.

Quite. It is just not going to happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is also the problem, when fitted to the rear, of preventing unauthorised persons riding on/clinging to the cycle rack while the bus is travelling.

There is also an assumption that every cyclist would attach their cycle correctly, so the cycle would not fall off and be damaged, or injure/damage other people and property.


Quite. It is just not going to happen.

If you really wanted to do it, using an oversized vehicle and having a secured storage area inside (which is possible, as it is being done in the UK, though I forget which operator) is probably the way.

 

[Robertj21a]

And places in America which are probably bigger than the UK.

Also in Canada and Oz and also in Madrid I believe.

They have been trialled in plenty of countries in Europe but for some reason they are seen as a danger.

Almost as if we can't be trusted to do things sensibly.

I'd already said USA, the size of the area is irrelevant.
Not seen any in Madrid when I've been there, not sure about Oz - there may have been an odd one.

 

[Clip]

The front of the tram is specifically designed to deflect minor impacts and the bodywork to take the force of a bigger impact rather than the thing being hit. A bike rack cannot form a crumple zone for the obvious reason that it would require the bikes themselves to crumple. If the force of the impact is taken by the bus's crumple zone, then the driver ends up being in danger of the bike rack trapping them in the cab or worse. If the bus is strengthened to protect the driver then the thing that hits the bus will take the full force of that impact. A pedestrian being hit by a solid bar of steel at knee height then being thrown on to of a pair of bikes with levers, chains pedals etc, even at low speed, is going to require extended medical treatment.

If bikes are to be carried, the only real solutions are a trailer/platform on the rear or a dedicated area within the bus (either as part of a wheelchair/pram type area or coach-style underneath). A trailer will have problems if reversals are required, as well as security if the hitch broke. A platform has issues of security for the bikes being damaged/stolen and load times as the cyclist has to confirm the driver has stopped before putting the bike on the back then walk to the front to board. A space inside could cause issues if required to evacuate, compromises on the total number of people who can be carried, and brings the cyclist into potential conflict with others who may have need/want of the space.


That legislation would be a Pandora's box, I fear. Companies being obliged to maintain safety standards keeps people out of hospital. I wouldn't want to trade the minor convenience of bikes being able to be taken on buses for the major affect a pedestrian road collision has on all concerned, personally.

The bars to carrying them dont have to be down at all times - they actually fold up against the bus when not in use. I believe theres some services in scotland which do, or did, indeed have the racks at the rear - and ive already mentioned that yet again in scotland and possibly the north east where they do carry them inside with racks similar to those you see on trains.

The pedals and handlebars are (most people who are going to put bikes on a bus are not going to be the ones with drop-bar road bikes, as they could ride those far faster than the bus would go). They would be like a more damaging version of a bull bar (which, due to pedestrian safety issues, are already if I recall not allowed on new vehicles in the UK - cars that have them tend to have a fake plastic version for looks only).



What has running street trams at walking pace have to do with putting a bull bar on the front of a bus that will do 30mph plus? (Also the trams now don't have the sticky out coupler on the front, they are flat-fronted).

But that's a false equivalence, very similar to "why can kids go to school and not distance when I can't go to the pub and distance". The two don't affect each other. Having the trams there has far more benefit than having bikes on city buses (which, as I've noted, in Hamburg where they actually are allowed, inside in the multipurpose area, you almost never see them, simply because it is quicker to ride the bike, or ride it to a station and put it on the train).

You obviously haven't seen the prototype that first trialled which is in use elsewhere that ahs the bikes positioned in such a way that the pedals and handle bars are not protruding as much as you would think. Lets face it cyclists can get swiped by car drivers wing mirrors cant they? So your concerns about sticky out bits is a bit moot seeing as cars/vans/buses can pose issues to even pedestrains walking on the pavement - especially those of us who are rather tall and can get hit by them.

There is no false equivalency here, you are trying to say that a tram over a pedestrian area is safer than a bus with a bike on the front which operates in places where people shouldnt be walking and indeed in some places where they have a guided busway for some of their length. You may also be thinking that everyone is a tour de france style cyclist and can ride everywhere but strangely enough people can and do get tired after a long cycle so its nice to be able to have the choice to take another method of transport home with your bike.

The same reason bull bars were banned off the front of vehicles in this country.
Far from the lack of any need for them in this country they were only fitted for fashion, however they were killing children in what were very minor collisions whereas they would have bounced off anything else hitting them at faster speeds with a bit of a headache and a few scratches and bruises.

How many children were killed by vehicles having bull bars and how many were killed in the same time period by vehicles that didnt have bull bars?

There is also the problem, when fitted to the rear, of preventing unauthorised persons riding on/clinging to the cycle rack while the bus is travelling.

There is also an assumption that every cyclist would attach their cycle correctly, so the cycle would not fall off and be damaged, or injure/damage other people and property.


Quite. It is just not going to happen.

Dont persons ride trains and things like the DLR already? So it wouldnt be a new problem. I take it you havent seen how these things work then on busses that do use them? on some its a big bar like you would secure your steering wheel with and its very hard to get wrong and the driver can also see that its attached correctly

I'd already said USA, the size of the area is irrelevant.
Not seen any in Madrid when I've been there, not sure about Oz - there may have been an odd one.

Plenty about - just because you havent seen them doesnt mean they dont exist. I do think the ones in madrid are on the rear though.



In the case of handle bars and chains and such like - is it going to be any worse in a collision on the rear or at the front?

What you are all saying is that we cant do it because of this that and the other - however if you take that view to risk management then how do we even function? We mitigate the risk as much as possible and then just get on with it. or do we still have men with red flags at the front of our trains?

 

[Haywain]

A pedestrian being hit by a solid bar of steel at knee height then being thrown on to of a pair of bikes with levers, chains pedals etc, even at low speed, is going to require extended medical treatment.

A pedestrian getting hit by a bus is likely to need medical treatment regardless of the presence of a bike or two on the front.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A pedestrian getting hit by a bus is likely to need medical treatment regardless of the presence of a bike or two on the front.

The medical treatment required can rather vary depending on how pointy the thing that hits them is. Bull bars were banned for a reason. The US still allows them, of course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Apr 2021 ==

You obviously haven't seen the prototype that first trialled which is in use elsewhere that ahs the bikes positioned in such a way that the pedals and handle bars are not protruding as much as you would think. Lets face it cyclists can get swiped by car drivers wing mirrors cant they? So your concerns about sticky out bits is a bit moot seeing as cars/vans/buses can pose issues to even pedestrains walking on the pavement - especially those of us who are rather tall and can get hit by them.

Wing mirrors are shaped so as not to be cutting holes in people if they hit people.

It's basically the equivalent of a bull bar, but a slightly pointier one. Bull bars are not allowed in the UK, and quite rightly not.

There is no false equivalency here, you are trying to say that a tram over a pedestrian area is safer than a bus with a bike on the front which operates in places where people shouldnt be walking and indeed in some places where they have a guided busway for some of their length.

No, I'm not trying to say that. Here's another way of putting it - risk benefit analysis - the tram in Manchester city centre benefits far more people than carrying 2 bicycles on some bus routes on the front. Now put that against the risk of each.

You may also be thinking that everyone is a tour de france style cyclist and can ride everywhere but strangely enough people can and do get tired after a long cycle so its nice to be able to have the choice to take another method of transport home with your bike.

Plan your rides to take the train, which is better suited to cycle carriage?

How many children were killed by vehicles having bull bars and how many were killed in the same time period by vehicles that didnt have bull bars?

I don't have that stat nor do I know where to get it from, but try this for a start:

Outlawed Abroad, Killer "Bull Bars" Are the Hot Fashion Accessory for Police Departments — Streetsblog USA

"Bull bars" make cars look aggressive and militaristic. And they kill pedestrians.

usa.streetsblog.org

In the case of handle bars and chains and such like - is it going to be any worse in a collision on the rear or at the front?

When was the last time you saw a cyclist cycle into the rear of a bus with enough force to cause injury? Or a pedestrian run at it?

Clearly the front makes a massive difference, as if you're going to hit something with the bus, the front does the hitting.

What you are all saying is that we cant do it because of this that and the other - however if you take that view to risk management then how do we even function? We mitigate the risk as much as possible and then just get on with it. or do we still have men with red flags at the front of our trains?

Risk-benefit analysis. The benefit of carrying bicycles on city buses is low (because you can cycle faster - hence why even where they are carried, the facility is not used that often), the risk is (say) medium. That tends to give the outcome as "nope".

Regional express buses (where there is a benefit - the sort of service that would be a train if there was a railway there) are better as coach-style vehicles like the X5 (high floor with a lift). These have space underneath where bikes can go (as the X5 does). Often the UK uses city bus style vehicles for regional services as they're cheaper, but this is just a reason not to do that and to use the appropriate vehicle.

 

[Haywain]

Clearly the front makes a massive difference, as if you're going to hit something with the bus, the front does the hitting.

I had a car written off by a bus reversing into it - and not parked, I was sitting in the car at the time waiting to see what it would do at a t-junction.

 

[Robertj21a]

The bars to carrying them dont have to be down at all times - they actually fold up against the bus when not in use. I believe theres some services in scotland which do, or did, indeed have the racks at the rear - and ive already mentioned that yet again in scotland and possibly the north east where they do carry them inside with racks similar to those you see on trains.

You obviously haven't seen the prototype that first trialled which is in use elsewhere that ahs the bikes positioned in such a way that the pedals and handle bars are not protruding as much as you would think. Lets face it cyclists can get swiped by car drivers wing mirrors cant they? So your concerns about sticky out bits is a bit moot seeing as cars/vans/buses can pose issues to even pedestrains walking on the pavement - especially those of us who are rather tall and can get hit by them.

There is no false equivalency here, you are trying to say that a tram over a pedestrian area is safer than a bus with a bike on the front which operates in places where people shouldnt be walking and indeed in some places where they have a guided busway for some of their length. You may also be thinking that everyone is a tour de france style cyclist and can ride everywhere but strangely enough people can and do get tired after a long cycle so its nice to be able to have the choice to take another method of transport home with your bike.

How many children were killed by vehicles having bull bars and how many were killed in the same time period by vehicles that didnt have bull bars?

Dont persons ride trains and things like the DLR already? So it wouldnt be a new problem. I take it you havent seen how these things work then on busses that do use them? on some its a big bar like you would secure your steering wheel with and its very hard to get wrong and the driver can also see that its attached correctly

Plenty about - just because you havent seen them doesnt mean they dont exist. I do think the ones in madrid are on the rear though.



In the case of handle bars and chains and such like - is it going to be any worse in a collision on the rear or at the front?

What you are all saying is that we cant do it because of this that and the other - however if you take that view to risk management then how do we even function? We mitigate the risk as much as possible and then just get on with it. or do we still have men with red flags at the front of our trains?

As far as I'm aware, we were discussing bikes being carried on the front of buses. Now you say that some in Madrid may be carried on the back.....
So, we're back to just USA and NZ, possibly plus Oz.

As I've said before, the only real solution to non-foldable bikes on UK buses is to refuse all such cases.

 

[Clip]

Wing mirrors are shaped so as not to be cutting holes in people if they hit people.

It's basically the equivalent of a bull bar, but a slightly pointier one. Bull bars are not allowed in the UK, and quite rightly not.

You are right they dont cut holes into people - however lots of vehicles on the road have the ability to cut holes into people if they get the right angle due to the load they may be carrying.

No, I'm not trying to say that. Here's another way of putting it - risk benefit analysis - the tram in Manchester city centre benefits far more people than carrying 2 bicycles on some bus routes on the front. Now put that against the risk of each

you know you can get 3 bikes on the front dont you? ill answer your second post on the next one

Plan your rides to take the train, which is better suited to cycle carriage?

I would love too - however sometimes the hills in the lakes can take it all out of me and i dont see many trains round there im afriad. Also im very sorry for getting out of breath on long bike rides, one tries to keep as fit as possible but sometimes it can get a bit much.

I don't have that stat nor do I know where to get it from, but try this for a start:

yes you can mention all you want about bull bars however using a story from the USA isnt really helping you consider there are may towns/cities/states which have busses with the ability to carry bikes on them and they are well used too.

I have yet to see a reasonable opinion here as to why we cant have bikes carried by busses apart from the fact they may injure people. Well lots of things injure people and i dont see anyone complaining about that?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Apr 2021 ==

As far as I'm aware, we were discussing bikes being carried on the front of buses. Now you say that some in Madrid may be carried on the back.....
So, we're back to just USA and NZ, possibly plus Oz.

As I've said before, the only real solution to non-foldable bikes on UK buses is to refuse all such cases.

Its a discussion about bikes being carried on busses - no one made a difference between front or back carriage - and please dont say possibly Oz as they are well used down there too. Also you forgot Canada

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Apr 2021 ==

I do apologise i forgot to post a link of a cyclist hitting a bus

Footage shows moment cyclist's brakes fail and he crashes into bus

The video, which has clocked up more than 500,000 views on YouTube, shows the cyclist hurtling past a set of traffic lights in Manchester city centre before colliding head-on with a bus.

www.dailymail.co.uk

his is the heart-stopping moment a cyclist crashed head-on into a double-decker bus after hurtling through a red light because his brakes failed.

The video, which has clocked up more than 500,000 views on YouTube, shows the cyclist riding past the traffic lights in Manchester city centre before colliding with the side of the bus and coming off his bike.

He was described as 'very lucky' by the bus driver after escaping with only a cut to one of his knuckles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You mention the Lakes - the 555 would probably be an ideal route for using longer buses and putting something inside, or having bike trailers, or even using accessible coaches. The 555 is exactly the sort of regional bus service where the UK tends to use vehicles that aren't really ideal for it (tarted up city buses, basically) because it is cheaper.

Its interesting that this sort of route is invariably a coach in Scotland, but double decker city buses with fancy seats in England.

 

[Clip]

Coaches dont really have the capacity a double decker has though.

If we can do it , we should.

 

[RT4038]

Dont persons ride trains and things like the DLR already? So it wouldnt be a new problem. I take it you havent seen how these things work then on busses that do use them? on some its a big bar like you would secure your steering wheel with and its very hard to get wrong and the driver can also see that its attached correctly

I see no good reason to make an existing problem any bigger (just because 'it wouldn't be a new problem'); there has been enough issues on certain bus types already.

I rather think that bus drivers have enough to do already, without having to check that cyclists have securely attached their cycles to the outside of the bus, I have seen some styles of equipment and am not sure that everyone could be trusted to attach and detach speedily and securely sufficient that drivers would not have to check to fulfil a 'duty of care', which could cause undue delay.

 

[Robertj21a]

I see no good reason to make an existing problem any bigger (just because 'it wouldn't be a new problem'); there has been enough issues on certain bus types already.

I rather think that bus drivers have enough to do already, without having to check that cyclists have securely attached their cycles to the outside of the bus, I have seen some styles of equipment and am not sure that everyone could be trusted to attach and detach speedily and securely sufficient that drivers would not have to check to fulfil a 'duty of care', which could cause undue delay.

It certainly couldn't be achieved in the London area where bus drivers are not allowed to leave their cabs.

 

[RT4038]

It certainly couldn't be achieved in the London area where bus drivers are not allowed to leave their cabs.

That is not quite right - if we are going to change the rules to (compel) the permitting of cycles to be attached to the outside of the bus, we could also change company rules about bus drivers leaving their cabs. It could be achieved, but I think it unlikely there will be the will.

 

[Robertj21a]

That is not quite right - if we are going to change the rules to (compel) the permitting of cycles to be attached to the outside of the bus, we could also change company rules about bus drivers leaving their cabs. It could be achieved, but I think it unlikely there will be the will.

Well anything at all is possible in theory!. My understanding is that the current rules are fully supported by both management and unions.
It's never going to happen anyway!

 

[Clip]

I see no good reason to make an existing problem any bigger (just because 'it wouldn't be a new problem'); there has been enough issues on certain bus types already.

I rather think that bus drivers have enough to do already, without having to check that cyclists have securely attached their cycles to the outside of the bus, I have seen some styles of equipment and am not sure that everyone could be trusted to attach and detach speedily and securely sufficient that drivers would not have to check to fulfil a 'duty of care', which could cause undue delay.

There isn't an existing problem though so I'm not sure what you are on about.

If a bus driver sees that a cycle isn't clipped on properly then he doesn't move and informs the cyclist to fix it properly.

A delay is a delay and one that plagues trains trams and buses all over the world.

Again, what is the real issue here? Is it because we don't do it so it can't be done or is it we haven't done it so let's not do it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Apr 2021 ==

It certainly couldn't be achieved in the London area where bus drivers are not allowed to leave their cabs.

Who says they have to leave their cab? You? Or they just tell the passenger that they won't love until it's secured?

 

[Robertj21a]

There isn't an existing problem though so I'm not sure what you are on about.

If a bus driver sees that a cycle isn't clipped on properly then he doesn't move and informs the cyclist to fix it properly.

A delay is a delay and one that plagues trains trams and buses all over the world.

Again, what is the real issue here? Is it because we don't do it so it can't be done or is it we haven't done it so let's not do it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Apr 2021 ==


Who says they have to leave their cab? You? Or they just tell the passenger that they won't love until it's secured?

If this was to ever become a reality, any professional bus driver would want to check that the bike had been properly secured.
In any event, we're all wasting our time. This is never going to happen.