Taking a folding bike into a station during peak hours

[jon0844]

Secure bike parking is a must. Hatfield now has loads more cycle parking, but it's all open and - unsurprisingly - bikes are being stolen quite regularly (I had my bike stolen years ago when I first discovered from staff that it was a daily occurrence). To the point where I am sure a lot of people are now deciding not to leave their bikes there.

Question is, if they're not taking them on the train (some do by lying about where they're going to get through the gatelines) then I assume those people are now potentially driving. Maybe taking the bus (you'd hope, but buses are pretty scarce these days) or walking, which is unlikely if they were cycling before.

With so much space, I can't see how they couldn't do something akin to the secure facilities that are present near Finsbury Park station, or at Broxbourne etc.

 

[stut]

So passengers breaking rules? The views of other posters on this thread suggests they should all be banned before they enter the station.

That would certainly make my commute smoother...

But no, a little civility all round is all that's needed. It's curious to see which stations have commuters already in "London mode" and which are a bit more laid-back.

 

[rebmcr]

How can a Brompton with handlebars at right angles to the direction of travel and both pedals out be narrower than when folded.
The justifications offered by those who don't think the rules should apply to them just get more and more proposterous.

The bike itself may not be narrower, but consider the situation where you have someone standing, carrying a pannier in their left hand and the folded bike in their right hand. I'd guarantee that's wider and more awkward than walking with the unfolded bike with the pannier on the front. Especially if both are heavy and the person is stopping every now and again according to when they get tired, as opposed to where is convenient/not in the way, which is inevitable.

A crowd can flow around an object being carried much more easily than around a bike with its various 'outcrops', and especially length in combination with width. Wheeling an unfolded bike is fundamentally and factually more awkward.

This is not my opinion, it is specifically why bicycles are disallowed on the deep tubes and on the Bank tunnel of the DLR.

Of course, despite this, there are still many situations where it is perfectly OK to wheel an unfolded bike.

 

[jon0844]

For one, this thread is about peak times. I doubt there's such a concern at 11.30 on a weekday when you may travel on a train with nobody else in the same carriage as you.

While a pram in a vestibule can cause issues, or large suitcases, most of them don't have anything that's going to cause you to either get dirty (at best) or even hurt yourself (at worst) on things like pedals sticking out.

 

[EssexCommuter]

How can a Brompton with handlebars at right angles to the direction of travel and both pedals out be narrower than when folded.
The justifications offered by those who don't think the rules should apply to them just get more and more proposterous.

Only one handlebar sticks out as I am right next to the bike. However that's not the point. I don't break any rules as my TOC only states it should be folded on the train, which it is. As I stated, I can move far more quickly when the bike is unfolded, so that is being considerate to others around me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For one, this thread is about peak times. I doubt there's such a concern at 11.30 on a weekday when you may travel on a train with nobody else in the same carriage as you.

While a pram in a vestibule can cause issues, or large suitcases, most of them don't have anything that's going to cause you to either get dirty (at best) or even hurt yourself (at worst) on things like pedals sticking out.

On a Brompton, the chain is on the inside and the outer pedal folds so they are no dirtier than a pram or suitcase, and take up considerably less room. If the train is busy (which is unlikely as I choose my trains carefully) I can even sit on my bike freeing up a seat for others.

 

[AM9]

... If the train is busy (which is unlikely as I choose my trains carefully) I can even sit on my bike freeing up a seat for others.

That creates an image in my ming of you riding it inside the train. Just imagine the fun that you could have in a class700.

 

[jon0844]

A folded Brompton is fine, but many bikes aren't of the folding type.. and it's not uncommon to have bikes on trains that don't allow non-folding bikes.

As I've said before, some cyclists find ways to get around barriers. For example, taking bikes to platforms 9-11 at King's Cross via platform 8, where chances are the gates are open for a lot of the time, or even via the escalators and overbridge. Or lying to gateline staff (e.g. Hatfield) on which way they're going. Many are spotted but can't be removed, so the most staff can do is radio ahead to try and get them further up the line.

There was recently a cyclist who got through to a peak train out of King's Cross. He was asked to get off, but refused and swore at staff. The decision was taken to let the train go with him still on it. He got off quick at Finsbury Park before staff could get to him, and the train left before I saw what happened next.

I can well believe that gateline staff have had so many bad experiences with /some/ cyclists that they introduce blanket rules that will, sadly, affect those who aren't out to take the ****.

That creates an image in my ming of you riding it inside the train. Just imagine the fun that you could have in a class700.

You could probably just about do it without clipping the seats or poles!

 

[marks87]

Interestingly, I was at Waterloo the other day, going up the escalators from McDonalds to the concourse, at the tail end of the evening rush hour. The person in front of me had a Brompton bike, and with practiced hand swung it folded as he got onto the escalator...

... narrowly missing the person to our left climbing the escalator.

(I try to not bias myself against cyclists, I really do, but when I see this sort of thing happen, or cyclists hitting pedestrians because they've flouted traffic laws like red traffic lights or one-way streets, I do find it hard not to...)

Presumably you bias yourself against motorists for flouting red lights, and pedestrians for stepping out in front of traffic (etc. etc.)?

Too often I see people start a sentence with "I'm not against cyclists, but..." (or similar) then proceed to pick out behaviour that is also exhibited by other road users. It in fact suggests the opposite of what they claim.

Your extension is in no way logical. Asking someone to do something for what is likely safety reasons cannot possibly be extended to banning everyone.

Of course his extension is logical.

You're wanting to ban unfolded bikes from platforms because some people decide to ride them. In other words, ban X because some subset, X`, of X performs some action Y that is dangerous.

Any number of things can fit that rule. "Ban people because some people stand too close to the platform edge when trains approach".

 

[jon0844]

First of all. Cars jump red lights. Usually one or two will push through on amber, and some on red itself. Then everyone stops. Most lights, right or wrong, are times to take into account that expectation.

Cyclists don't always respect red lights at all, so as a pedestrian, I feel far more at risk from cyclists when crossing a road than a car. Maybe that's why I've never been run over by a motorised vehicle, but have been clipped by cyclists numerous times - and hit full on (in the stomach) by one.

And for the second point. People aren't ever going to be banned from using trains, so it is a ridiculous extension. Anyone saying 'it's a slippery slope' would be dumb to take things to such extremes.

Public transport is about moving people, so that's never going to change (bar perhaps one day having compulsory reservations on some trains) but I can see various rules being implemented on bikes, buggies, luggage and other items that it could be argued are not essential. Wheelchairs and walking aids being the obvious exceptions.

And to end, I am not against all cyclists. I am one myself. I am against an increasingly large number of militant cyclists who think that they're saving the planet and should be treated like gods, and that anyone who dares question them is a fascist. The law abiding ones are fine, and would support those that call out the bad ones. Those that defend all cyclists are in a dream land.

For one, where do you ever see people saying only good things about motorists? Go on any car forum and you'll see people moaning all day long. There are thousands of hours of dash cam footage posted by motorists of car/van/lorry drivers doing crazy things. Sure, there are of cyclists too, and of cyclists getting involved with idiot drivers.

That's because there are idiots everywhere. Nobody can and should defend their actions ever. It's not solidarity to stick together when some people are a menace.

But back to the topic of bikes in the peaks... Carry on!

 

[bramling]

First of all. Cars jump red lights. Usually one or two will push through on amber, and some on red itself. Then everyone stops. Most lights, right or wrong, are times to take into account that expectation.

Cyclists don't always respect red lights at all, so as a pedestrian, I feel far more at risk from cyclists when crossing a road than a car. Maybe that's why I've never been run over by a motorised vehicle, but have been clipped by cyclists numerous times - and hit full on (in the stomach) by one.

And for the second point. People aren't ever going to be banned from using trains, so it is a ridiculous extension. Anyone saying 'it's a slippery slope' would be dumb to take things to such extremes.

Public transport is about moving people, so that's never going to change (bar perhaps one day having compulsory reservations on some trains) but I can see various rules being implemented on bikes, buggies, luggage and other items that it could be argued are not essential. Wheelchairs and walking aids being the obvious exceptions.

And to end, I am not against all cyclists. I am one myself. I am against an increasingly large number of militant cyclists who think that they're saving the planet and should be treated like gods, and that anyone who dares question them is a fascist. The law abiding ones are fine, and would support those that call out the bad ones. Those that defend all cyclists are in a dream land.

For one, where do you ever see people saying only good things about motorists? Go on any car forum and you'll see people moaning all day long. There are thousands of hours of dash cam footage posted by motorists of car/van/lorry drivers doing crazy things. Sure, there are of cyclists too, and of cyclists getting involved with idiot drivers.

That's because there are idiots everywhere. Nobody can and should defend their actions ever. It's not solidarity to stick together when some people are a menace.

But back to the topic of bikes in the peaks... Carry on!

Unfortunately it's very difficult to have a sensible discussion as soon as the word "cyclist" crops up. Yes you're absolutely right there are some pretty obnoxious, arrogant and/or incompetent cyclists, however the same applies to all walks of life - motorists, rail users, etc etc.

Actually the notion of banning everyone from railway premises is quite appealing, it would certainly make my life easier.

 

[jon0844]

Unfortunately it's very difficult to have a sensible discussion as soon as the word "cyclist" crops up. Yes you're absolutely right there are some pretty obnoxious, arrogant and/or incompetent cyclists, however the same applies to all walks of life - motorists, rail users, etc etc.

Actually the notion of banning everyone from railway premises is quite appealing, it would certainly make my life easier.

Indeed. The downside is that I doubt the industry would continue employing people if all passengers were banned, so your fun might not last long.

 

[marks87]

First of all. Cars jump red lights. Usually one or two will push through on amber, and some on red itself. Then everyone stops. Most lights, right or wrong, are times to take into account that expectation.

Cyclists don't always respect red lights at all, so as a pedestrian, I feel far more at risk from cyclists when crossing a road than a car. Maybe that's why I've never been run over by a motorised vehicle, but have been clipped by cyclists numerous times - and hit full on (in the stomach) by one.

My point is, why pigeon-hole people based on their mode of transport?

You get idiots on bikes. You get idiots in cars. You get idiots in buses. You get idiots on two legs...

Why can't we just say "idiots on the road" and be done with it?

And for the second point. People aren't ever going to be banned from using trains, so it is a ridiculous extension. Anyone saying 'it's a slippery slope' would be dumb to take things to such extremes.

Public transport is about moving people, so that's never going to change (bar perhaps one day having compulsory reservations on some trains) but I can see various rules being implemented on bikes, buggies, luggage and other items that it could be argued are not essential. Wheelchairs and walking aids being the obvious exceptions.

The same point applies.

I would put someone riding their bike on a platform in the same category as people who stand too close to the edge of the platform. Idiots.

But that doesn't mean we should blanket ban everyone else who shares the same characteristics as these idiots (i.e. people with unfolded cycles, and, well, people in general).

 

[jon0844]

Why are you so desperate to find other examples to try and lessen the problem?

So someone riding a bike on a platform is bad, but no worse than someone standing too close to the edge, and certainly nowhere near as bad as a serial killer going around murdering people at night... so in the grand scheme of things, it's not so bad after all.

This thread is about bikes. Not motorists jumping lights, or people that carry their whole house in a suitcase, or people who won't move down inside a train carriage to make room, or feet on seats, or Donald Trump becoming POTUS, Brexit or the weather. There are other threads for that I'm sure.

It's about people being asked, or even told, to fold their bikes before passing the gates. And the belief that this is silly because there's nothing to stop them unfolding them after - even though that would surely show their arrogance by thinking they 'know better'.

Perhaps someone should speak to the TOCs and get clarification on the policy and argue the case for or against the rule instead?

 

[marks87]

Why are you so desperate to find other examples to try and lessen the problem?

I'm not trying to lessen the problem. I'm merely saying that there's idiots in all walks of life, so why pigeon-hole them based on some characteristic, to the determent of non-idiots who also have that characteristic?

So someone riding a bike on a platform is bad, but no worse than someone standing too close to the edge, and certainly nowhere near as bad as a serial killer going around murdering people at night... so in the grand scheme of things, it's not so bad after all.

This thread is about bikes. Not motorists jumping lights, or people that carry their whole house in a suitcase, or people who won't move down inside a train carriage to make room, or feet on seats, or Donald Trump becoming POTUS, Brexit or the weather. There are other threads for that I'm sure.

Are you feeling OK? I'm not quire sure what that rant was about.

It's about people being asked, or even told, to fold their bikes before passing the gates. And the belief that this is silly because there's nothing to stop them unfolding them after - even though that would surely show their arrogance by thinking they 'know better'.

The question being asked is "why is this seen as necessary when in most cases it's safer and more convenient to others for a bike to be pushed?". People then cited examples of bike-users cycling on station platforms. I'm simply responding to that.

 

[jon0844]

Are you feeling OK? I'm not quire sure what that rant was about.

Playing dumb and patronising me isn't a great way to argue, but I suspect that your constant repeating and attempts to deflect isn't working too great either.

We get it, people in all walks of life are idiots. I made that point, you keep saying it too. So shall we stop talking about that?

Now can we just concentrate on talking about cyclists here and stop trying to come up with other examples, or this nonsense about it being a slippery slope until all people are banned from the railway - which as I said before is a totally ludicrous assumption.

 

[stut]

It's not an assumption, it's a reductio ad absurdum.

But the point has been made: some people jump to "bloody cyclists" mode whenever bikes are brought up, and it's not helpful. Labouring the point about this phenomenon is also not helpful.

Personally, I can see how unfolded bikes can cause an obstruction when you have a restricted flow of passengers. You see this at stations like London Bridge, less so at stations like King's Cross. Surely a bit of discretion, on both sides, is all that's needed?

 

[bramling]

It's about people being asked, or even told, to fold their bikes before passing the gates. And the belief that this is silly because there's nothing to stop them unfolding them after - even though that would surely show their arrogance by thinking they 'know better'.

And they may well 'know better' - staff don't have the power to make up their own rules.

It's a bit like being told one can't take photos in a public place. Perhaps it's arrogant to know better in that instance?

 

[KTHV]

And they may well 'know better' - staff don't have the power to make up their own rules.

I'd wager they do if it's on their own property (the station and it's environs) and put into place by the Station Manager (no doubt with blessing from above).

Quite simply - if you do not wish to follow their guidance and request - then you could always cycle the full distance on the unfolded vehicle, or simply use another form of transport.

 

[bramling]

I'd wager they do if it's on their own property (the station and it's environs) and put into place by the Station Manager (no doubt with blessing from above).

Nope - not how the rail industry works at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cyclists don't always respect red lights at all, so as a pedestrian, I feel far more at risk from cyclists when crossing a road than a car. Maybe that's why I've never been run over by a motorised vehicle, but have been clipped by cyclists numerous times - and hit full on (in the stomach) by one.

This is where your argument falls down.

If you're saying that unfolded bicycles are a safety hazard on a station platform, then the logical reaction to that is that *all* bicycles should be banned, at all times. Perhaps one could take it a step further and include anything with wheels in your ban - so including wheelchairs, pushchairs, wheeled suitcases etc.

I wouldn't agree with that idea, but it's a logical position.

Your position is all over the place. First of all bikes should be folded because (in your opinion) they get in the way. Then they should be folded because people might ride them (even though having unfolded bikes on platforms would, presumably, be permissible at certain locations and times). On top of this we see also read stuff about jumping red lights.

 

[jon0844]

And they may well 'know better' - staff don't have the power to make up their own rules.

It's a bit like being told one can't take photos in a public place. Perhaps it's arrogant to know better in that instance?

Not really connected. You are allowed to take photos in a public place. It does then get confused when people wish to argue about whether a train stations is private or public, and that is often debated elsewhere.

It would be nice to read the official responses from the train operator, network rail, DfT etc on this. Is it a rule or someone making things up as they go along?

As people aren't asked to fold bikes at the gate line at my station, is it certain places due to overcrowding, a particular problem or an earlier incident?

 

[bramling]

Not really connected. You are allowed to take photos in a public place. It does then get confused when people wish to argue about whether a train stations is private or public, and that is often debated elsewhere.

It would be nice to read the official responses from the train operator, network rail, DfT etc on this. Is it a rule or someone making things up as they go along?

As people aren't asked to fold bikes at the gate line at my station, is it certain places due to overcrowding, a particular problem or an earlier incident?

Unfortunately, it sounds like it's more like Patsy at XXX station has just got a job on the railway and finds it all wonderful and exciting, and for the first time in her life has a bit of "power", and doesn't like cyclists because they delay her when she's driving her car, so decides she is going to make people fold them when passing through "her" gateline.

(In reality the use of the automatic wide gates negates the issue nowadays - there's not much the staff can do if someone refuses to fold one. And in any case it's probably a non-issue anyway - I for one can't ever recall being asked to fold mine).

As far as I know, and it's certainly the case where I am, the official line is that they must be folded on trains where a ban on unfolded cycles applies. The possible exception is London Underground's Tube stations.

 

[jax4154]

c2c now have posters up at all stations saying 'please carry your wheels' staff allowed passengers to walk their bikes onto the platform in the trust they would fold them before they got on the train, unfortunately this didn't always happen and a select few ruined it for everyone else and with twitter being a easy complaint tool c2c had to take action. Also carry your wheels is for safety as your be surprised the amount of idiots that ride bikes on platforms, ride skateboards or don't remove roller skates.

 

[jon0844]

your be surprised the amount of idiots that ride bikes on platforms, ride skateboards or don't remove roller skates.

I wouldn't be. I see it a lot. Staff shake their head, and we all know that sooner or later something bad will happen.

Platform 3 at Hatfield, on account of trains stopping at the far end, is notorious for people riding their bikes to the stairs. I'm surprised that many then carry their bikes up the steps rather than use the lift. I'd have thought they'd love to cycle in to the lift, then out and along the bridge, down and along platform 1 to cruise through the gates and into the road!

 

[Doctor Fegg]

as a pedestrian, I feel far more at risk from cyclists when crossing a road than a car

Just to add a bit of data into the conversation:

Pedestrians killed by motorists: 253
Pedestrians killed by cyclists: 1
Pedestrians seriously injured by motorists: 4,426
Pedestrians seriously injured by cyclists: 78
(UK urban areas, 2012)

On topic, I would of course fold my bike on a platform if requested to by station staff; but my bike (being a bit heavier and a bit less wieldy than a Brompton) is easier to carry and therefore less likely to bump people when unfolded. So generally I'll wheel it on the platform, and I try not to travel with it at peak times. Station staff are of course welcome to say "you need to fold that" and I would, but I would hope that most are smart enough to recognise this isn't always the best course of action.

 

[Deepgreen]

At the risk of being cynical and heartless, if a member of staff asks you to fold your bike then really that it what you should do. Perhaps there is good reason why the staff are enforcing such a policy? Perhaps there have been previous incidents, it wouldn't suprise me as some cyclists behave as if the railway was built specifically for their convenience (bloke carrying his none folding bike up the escalator at Leeds yesterday morning, I'm looking at you). I am not saying that the OP is such, but some do tend to use their bikes as battering rams to ensure a spot on the platform / train. And I have watched many a folding bike owner board a train with bike fully unfolded, secure a seat then attempt to unfold their bikes sitting in the doorwells whilst other commuters have to clamber around said bike.

If a folded bike is such an inconvenience to carry around, well that begs the question what is the point in buying one if you are barely going to use this functionality?

If it's a policy, it should be publicised.

A folding bike is not bought so that it can be folded and carried around the station, it is bought to take on the train!

 

[rebmcr]

Just to add a bit of data into the conversation:

Pedestrians killed by motorists: 253
Pedestrians killed by cyclists: 1
Pedestrians seriously injured by motorists: 4,426
Pedestrians seriously injured by cyclists: 78
(UK urban areas, 2012)

These statistics need to be normalised against the km travelled by each mode before they can be used for the basis of any arguments.

 

[Bantamzen]

If it's a policy, it should be publicised.

A folding bike is not bought so that it can be folded and carried around the station, it is bought to take on the train!

To put it bluntly, that is neither the concern of the TOCs or your fellow passengers as to why anyone buys a folding bike. Someone blocking the doorwell to a busy train whilst they start to fold their bike causes problems regardless. If people have been causing issues with bikes at stations and on trains, regardless as to whether you have not expect the TOCs to look to enforce more controls on when and how you can carry your bike around their stations and trains. Its the same for all sorts of people, there are plenty of sensible drivers, but because of the actions of the minority measures such as speed cameras, speed humps, lower speed limits, reshaping junctions etc has happened. Even at places like Leeds, because of idiots trying to ram large suitcases onto the escilators and causing problems (and I've witnesses those too) there are now narrow gates to pass through. Seriously, I really cannot see why this folding at the gates is such an issue. After all, wasn't the whole idea of buying a bike to keep up fitness levels? If so, why are so many complaining about a bit more physical work??

And while we are on with the reasons for buying bikes, let us not kid ourselves that folding bikes, especially a certain popular and expensive brand are bought for praticable purposes alone!!!

 

[bramling]

let us not kid ourselves that folding bikes, especially a certain popular and expensive brand are bought for praticable purposes alone!!!

What on earth are you on about?

 

[Deepgreen]

What on earth are you on about?

That was an especially garbled rant, it must be said!

 

[Doctor Fegg]

What the heck.

Assuming you mean Bromptons (and why you don't name them I have no idea), they fold more compactly, carry more easily, and are more bullet-proof than any other bike in the same market.

I have absolutely no skin in the game as my folder is a Bike Friday and my wife's is an Airnimal - superb bikes both, and both temperamentally unsuited for everyday commuting. If I were commuting every day with a folder, I would buy a Brompton at the drop of a hat.

Sorry, but if this is the level of your insight into bikes on trains, I think that pretty much shows how seriously to take your arguments.

wasn't the whole idea of buying a bike to keep up fitness levels?

Er, no? I ride a bike because it's the easiest and often fastest way to get around town, and it's the best way to see the countryside. Nothing to do with fitness. Some people ride for fitness: doesn't mean everyone does.