TOCs being anti bike?

[cjp]

Book in advance! Is that really so hard? Presumably it's what all the other people with bikes do, hence them getting the space and not you.

Huh
There is not always a space to book on the day one wants to travel as there are so few spaces let alone the train one wants
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are you seriously comparing a bike with a child?

I think the comparison was with a pram or buggy rather than the child

But hey a child in a sling rather than buggy or a pram?

And introduce a charge for bikes - say a flat fare of a pound a journey. Some income for a TOC and also a measure of the number bikes travelling which they do not have at present (reservations excepted).
The measure of course would only be of usage rather than demand but it would be an indicator.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bikes should be carried at a special freight rate at maybe 3x passenger fare. You love your bike so much, why are you on a train???

Silly
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't believe cyclists comparing buggies with their own mode of transport :roll:

Why not?
The debate centres around the space taken up by a bicycle. Folding and folded bikes are always allowed (Stanstead Express being something of an exception) so welcome a buggy that folds (after removing small person of course, who not having a ticket is not allowed to take up a seat just a lap).
Treat non folded baby carriages as cycles and for the same reasons.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This just buying a bike ticket doesn't solve the problem. A 156 will hold 4 bikes, 5 people buy a bike ticket. Now not only does the guard have to turn one person away but they are having to turn someone away who has paid extra to carry their bike.

I do not see your point a full train is a full train.
Before now (with no bicycle) I have declined to barge my way onto a crush hour train and waited 20 minutes or so for the next one on which I can travel in a fairly civilised manner. And sometimes for the one after that
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

.I don't want to get halfway through my journey to suddenly find I can't board the next train, so never take a train for a journey requiring a non-cycle-reservable train that isn't the first leg.

Wish me luck tomorrow then as I go from Newark to Lincoln
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

:roll:

What a self-centred anti-child rant.

Sorry but catching up on this thread I think that there needs to be a realisation that issue being discussed is the mode of transport (of the child) in same way that we ought to consider cycles rather than cyclist.
Yes there are bad, ill-mannered, inconsiderate people around but that should not stop an objective discussion of the issues of the space taken (by cycles, or prams or huge suitcases) and of the limited or perhaps inadequate facilities provided.
Politics and Pennies drive the issue along with the railways perhaps being a victim of its success.
Or short sighted?

 

[Cliveblackpool]

My favourite cycling day out was train to St Ives, cycle to Lands End, and return to Penzance via a few watering holes, for the train home . About 6+ of us used to go - was not a problem with older rolling stock.
Today it can be a pain carrying just holiday luggage as well as cycles, buggys etc.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Only 5-10%? Given the cheap prices on some Advances, such as £3.95 for London to Birmingham, I might sometimes even stretch to paying the same again to carry a bicycle. Can I buy 2 APs and park my cycle across 2 seats

lol, yes on that cheap ticket I might be willing to pay more, but I'm rarely able to plan journeys far enough in advance to get that kind of ticket. More typically I'm paying about £90 to travel half way up the country, or a couple of quid to spend 5 minutes on a local train in London. For those kind of journeys I'd say 5-10% extra is what I'd be willing to pay without complaining

It annoys me too. Some people have no concept of the Highway Code, and it gives us all a bad name, sadly. I would guess that these are not the cyclists that want to take their cycles on intercity routes though.

To be fair the highway code is largely designed to benefit car drivers and is not really fit for purpose for cyclists. At worst, there are many situations where following the rules of the highway code would require cyclists to unnecessarily put their life in danger. I'd suggest it's best to judge cyclists by whether they are acting safely and considerately rather than by whether they are literally following the highway code.

 

[Marklund]

Sorry but catching up on this thread I think that there needs to be a realisation that issue being discussed is the mode of transport (of the child) in same way that we ought to consider cycles rather than cyclist.
Yes there are bad, ill-mannered, inconsiderate people around but that should not stop an objective discussion of the issues of the space taken (by cycles, or prams or huge suitcases) and of the limited or perhaps inadequate facilities provided.
Politics and Pennies drive the issue along with the railways perhaps being a victim of its success.
Or short sighted?

If this thread is purely about space taken, (which it's not), pray tell the world what your policy would be with wheelchairs?

 

[The Ham]

To be fair the highway code is largely designed to benefit car drivers and is not really fit for purpose for cyclists. At worst, there are many situations where following the rules of the highway code would require cyclists to unnecessarily put their life in danger.

Can you give an example of how following the rules for cyclists could cause them harm?

Here's a link to the highway code section on cycles: https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

 

[GatwickDepress]

In an attempt to get this topic back on track, what could reasonably be done?

If I had unlimited pools of money which with to strengthen services in the Southern area, I'd create a BLV (Brighton Luggage Van).

This would be converted from a standard Electrostar DMCO bodyshell with cabs and gangways at both ends of the vehicle. The vehicle would be able to run under it's own power but would be intended to be coupled up to a 377/3 in order to run 4, 8, or 12 car workings. Although intended for London/Brighton workings, it could be allocated to any service running throughout busy events or the holiday seasons.

The sections before the gangway would be intended for passenger use, so cyclists could remain with their bicycles and anyone with excessive luggage could

In order for the TOC to make a profit from such a vehicle, bicycles would have a £5 surcharge to be carried in the vehicle - along with £1 discounts for railcards plus £1 off for online reservations, along with £2 for any piece of luggage deemed necessary to be carried in the unit

The large costs of building these sorts of units and the low income received from them would, of course, cause any sane beancounter to cross it out in red ink as soon as possible. Plus, the nightmare of ensuring the correct subclass of 377 has to arrive without ending up making a 13 car train... There's just far too many variables and negatives to both provide a viable financial case and making it not an operational snarl.

Hmm...

How about every cyclist learns to take up the unicycle instead?

 

[maniacmartin]

If this thread is purely about space taken, (which it's not), pray tell the world what your policy would be with wheelchairs?

Wheelchair users have special protection under law, so I doubt the railways could introduce a charge for carrying them even if they wanted to. Plus the negative PR that it would generate would be a disaster.

 

[jopsuk]

In the NSE area you can't realistically have bike capacity at peak hours. In much of the rest of the country platform shortening has left services running packed at the maximum platforms cn handle too. So any specialist luggage/bike stock would unfortunately only be able to be used off-peak/for special events. As you say, the idea of having stock that's not used- indeed, not useable- during peak hours is not something that could be realistically entertained.

I do wonder though if a charter operator would be able to make money from having a fleet of converted LHCS (as I doubt there's GUV/ex postal stock that's in working condition?) that can be used with bikes? There's increasing numbers of mass participation events such as London-Brighton. These require truck services to get bikes to the start or from the finish (note that Southern and FCC ban all bikes from the route on that day due to sheer volume). With suitably equipped stock, a check-in system could be used allowing bikes to be dropped off at departure and collected at the end of the journey- as these tend to be on Sundays the extra platform occupation, paths should be easy to obtain.

 

[FenMan]

Last week I was amused to read notices on North Downs Line stations saying that due to some bike ride or other around the Surrey Hills area FGW had banned the carriage of bikes on their trains on Sunday, 4 August as services were expected to be "exceptionally busy".

I then checked the timetable to see what FGW had planned to cope with this exceptional busy-ness and the answer was - absolutely nothing, just the normal Sunday schedule, which is already inadequate during the summer months.

 

[DeeGee]

Can you give an example of how following the rules for cyclists could cause them harm?

Here's a link to the highway code section on cycles: https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

Those aren't the only rules which apply to cycles, though, are they? Those are the special additional rules which apply to us in addition to the rest of the Highway Code.

And let's not forget that most of the Highway Code is advisory and not compulsory.

 

[maniacmartin]

And let's not forget that most of the Highway Code is advisory and not compulsory.

Indeed, but a lot of its content makes direct reference to pieces of legislation in the footnotes.

 

[tsr]

Last week I was amused to read notices on North Downs Line stations saying that due to some bike ride or other around the Surrey Hills area FGW had banned the carriage of bikes on their trains on Sunday, 4 August as services were expected to be "exceptionally busy".

I then checked the timetable to see what FGW had planned to cope with this exceptional busy-ness and the answer was - absolutely nothing, just the normal Sunday schedule, which is already inadequate during the summer months.

The large Prudential RideLondon event was causing additional passenger traffic. Due to the layout and standing areas of the 165s/166s it is often impractical to accommodate more than a couple of passengers with bikes at busier times, despite this often being permitted as a matter of course at other times of the year.

Extra trains were run for the duration of the event and for the travel of spectators before and after it occurred. They worked between Redhill & Guildford on a roughly hourly (possibly more frequent) basis, and in general had a calling pattern of Redhill, Reigate, Dorking Deepdene, Gomshall and Guildford. These trains ran on an STP basis. One of the major hazards with overcrowding during this event is the foot crossing at Gomshall. It would be extremely hazardous to have large numbers of people and bikes using this crossing, which has no lights or automatic gates.

Note that very few if any of the serious competitors in the Classic race would have been using the train, as the race neither stopped nor started near any of the aforementioned stations. Overall leisure traffic for the season would still have generated a higher number of bikes.

 

[jopsuk]

None of the competitors in the Classic race would have used the train as they were all pros... but then none of the riders in the 100 miles Sportive would have used the trains either for the reasons you note- the start was at the Olympic Park and the finish on The Mall. However specators may have been tempted to turn up by train & bike what the the road closures.

(please don't let this be followed up with a rant about those road closures)

 

[reb0118]

Shall we ban buggies as well then?

Yes please!

 

[AlexS]

:roll:

What a self-centred anti-child rant.

Not all of it is true but some is. I certainly recall last time I was carting a child around in a pushchair in the 90s on trains (my siblings) that my mum had a lightweight buggy for public transport and a heavier one that could be carried around by car if required.

I actually had the misfortune of having to deal with a passenger yesterday who turned up with a double pushchair. But this wasn't just any double pushchair, in parallel, side by side if you like. This was like two normal pushchairs joined together end on end, complete with attachment at the back for another child to stand on. This pushchair was easily 5 or 6 feet long. And said mother went ballastic at not being able to get it on the train without folding it because it would block the aisle and both doorways at once.

What is easily forgotten here is that if a wheelchair user turned up with vehicles as big as these child bearing contraptions, they'd be turned away for being oversized (only done it once when someone turned up with a mobility scooter that was like a small car, complete with number plate and tax disc!). So why should massive buggies be carried unfolded.

If you want to take a buggy on the train, get a lightweight one, not something that could be used in times of war should we get short handed.

 

[parkender102]

I take my bike up and down the country from North Wales to London all the time and never have a problem.

Luckily it's Virgin most of the way so I take advantage of the Free Cycle Reservations and book my bike onto the service I'm on. If I change the train I'm due to travel on I get another cycle reservation 10 minutes before departure at the station. On Pendolino and Voyagers I think there are 4 bookable bike spaces which are in the vestibule behind the drivers area Front or Back. Never had a problem as if booked they are expecting you and the compartment is away from the main passenger seating areas.

Sometimes I leave my Hybrid Mountain Bike locked up at work and bring my Brompton instead which requires no reservation as it's a folder and goes in the Luggage space on Virgin.

The only hassle I ever have is the connecting Journey from Chester to the North Wales Coast. I'm not sure of the train type but it's the 2 or 3 coach ones that run Manchester to Llandudno and Holyhead. Usually rammed with people forcing prams/buggies on and refusing to budge from the vestibules by the toilets because they can't be bothered, DESPITE the fact that there are plenty of empty seats that if the prams/buggies were folded and they sat down would be a more pleasureable journey for them and their Children. I've given up on this journey now and would rather cycle the 45 minutes along the River Dee than put up with the hassle. Yes some of these buggies are tandem or double sized ones as the poster above mentioned. This sevice has no bookable bike spaces so it's a bit of a lottery although there are 2 official bike places these are usually taken up by people with oversized luggage.

When we travelled with young children by train/plane etc when they were small we always got a lightweight easily foldable 'Trave Type' buggy to make life easier - as the above poster points out most of the buggies you see people travelling on trains with now are 'Street going' types and not meant for trains. After all you wouldn't see anyone trying to get one of these on a plane - they would go in the Cargo Hold.

 

[Ironside]

Not all of it is true but some is. I certainly recall last time I was carting a child around in a pushchair in the 90s on trains (my siblings) that my mum had a lightweight buggy for public transport and a heavier one that could be carried around by car if required.

I actually had the misfortune of having to deal with a passenger yesterday who turned up with a double pushchair. But this wasn't just any double pushchair, in parallel, side by side if you like. This was like two normal pushchairs joined together end on end, complete with attachment at the back for another child to stand on. This pushchair was easily 5 or 6 feet long. And said mother went ballastic at not being able to get it on the train without folding it because it would block the aisle and both doorways at once.

What is easily forgotten here is that if a wheelchair user turned up with vehicles as big as these child bearing contraptions, they'd be turned away for being oversized (only done it once when someone turned up with a mobility scooter that was like a small car, complete with number plate and tax disc!). So why should massive buggies be carried unfolded.

If you want to take a buggy on the train, get a lightweight one, not something that could be used in times of war should we get short handed.

Sounds like a Husky Sleigh, just greatful she did not bring the dogs as well.

 

[DeeGee]

When we travelled with young children by train/plane etc when they were small we always got a lightweight easily foldable 'Trave Type' buggy to make life easier.

We had a reasonably heavy-duty buggy for our boy which was sturdy enough to withstand a two mile walk into town. Quite heavy, but by no means these massive "travel system" things that some parents have.

However, Granny is dependent on buses as she doesn't drive, and she takes him swimming on a Tuesday. There's one bus every 30 minutes and a four mile walk otherwise. All too often she was having to walk because she couldn't get on the bus as there was another buggy there and it didn't really fold down very well.

Our solution was very simple. We got a lightweight folding buggy.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Can you give an example of how following the rules for cyclists could cause them harm?

Here's a link to the highway code section on cycles: https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

A fair question. These to my mind are the obvious examples - all taken from the extra rules for cyclists that you linked to:

Rule 63: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
That seems sensible on first read – obviously you wouldn’t cycle on a pavement packed with pedestrians, but the rule is too wide. It tells you that even if it’s a pavement away from a town centre (perhaps a 70mph slip-road type junction in the country) that would allow you to avoid entering a dangerous junction, and there are no pedestrians anywhere on it or nearby, you must still cycle in the dangerous junction instead of on the pavement.

Rule 69: You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
The problem here is that very often if you’re at the head of a queue waiting at a red light controlling a junction, and provided you can see that it’s safe to go, it’s much safer to go a few seconds before the lights change to green, so you’re clear of the junction before it fills up with turning lorries etc.

Rule 71: You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red.
Crossing the stop line and waiting just past it when the lights are red is often the only way to be clear of other traffic so that you are relatively safe when the lights change and you can go.

I’d say all three of these rules are appropriate for *some* locations, but there are other locations for which obeying them is dangerous and breaking them (when you can see that you’re not going to inconvenience anyone else) is much safer.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I can't think of many (if any) places where breaking 69 and/or 70 would make me safer as a cyclist and in regard to 63, well, as my mother would say, "get off and walk" would seem sensible to me.

Note: I regular cycle along main roads with no cycle path and do so within the 'rules of the road'.

 

[The Ham]

I can't think of many (if any) places where breaking 69 and/or 70 would make me safer as a cyclist and in regard to 63, well, as my mother would say, "get off and walk" would seem sensible to me.

Note: I regular cycle along main roads with no cycle path and do so within the 'rules of the road'.

I agree, as I can pull away than most cars from a stop line for a good few meters, so lorries are of no concern going through junctions. Add to that I sit in the middle of the lane through junctions so that I don't get squeezed out. Although this could cause a little frustration for car drivers, it is only for a short distance so it doesn't appear to be a major problem.

Of course with the advent of advance cycle stop lines it does allow cyclists to do these legally (as long as other traffic doesn't block them and the feeder lanes are long enough), but has caused more cyclists to go over the stop lines. However given how many drivers I see flouting stop lines it is not just cyclists who think that they can stop forward of the stop line.

Although I can see that it can be frustrating on some duel carriageways (mostly if they are uphill) that you can't use an underused footway, but then the extra safety of using the footway can then be offset by having to cross busy junctions on foot (or cycling).

If the footway is fairly wide (2m or ideally 2.5m wide) then it is a fairly cheap upgrade to make them a shared cycleway (not much more than some signs in many cases), then look at asking your local highway authority to convert it (it would be worth doing a survey during the morning and/or evening peak hour and providing the results in your request to show that there is a need).

 

[Jeni]

Rule 69: You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
The problem here is that very often if you’re at the head of a queue waiting at a red light controlling a junction, and provided you can see that it’s safe to go, it’s much safer to go a few seconds before the lights change to green, so you’re clear of the junction before it fills up with turning lorries etc.

As a pedestrian, this is one attitude of cyclists which really hacks me off. No! A red light is a red light, it means stop. It doesn't mean go if you think it's going to change in a few seconds. Do you have no consideration for people trying to cross that road at all?

I've got to a point that if I'm crossing a road and a cyclist has gone through on red in front of me, I won't stop or get out of the way, simply push him off in self defence. At the end of the day, in that situation I have right of way and I'm merely stopping him from riding into me.

Rule 71: You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red.
Crossing the stop line and waiting just past it when the lights are red is often the only way to be clear of other traffic so that you are relatively safe when the lights change and you can go.

All well and good, but when you guys stop in the middle of the pedestrian crossing because you deem it's safer for you, do you not think about how difficult it makes things for us pedestrians?

I drive, walk and get on the train and across all 3 methods of getting around, cyclists are by far the biggest nuisance. Yes Mr "I'm going to fit my bike on the 17:33 Droitwich - Birmingham service every day by any means necessary", I'm talking about you.

 

[DeeGee]

Rule 69: You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
The problem here is that very often if you’re at the head of a queue waiting at a red light controlling a junction, and provided you can see that it’s safe to go, it’s much safer to go a few seconds before the lights change to green, so you’re clear of the junction before it fills up with turning lorries etc.

Rule 71: You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red.
Crossing the stop line and waiting just past it when the lights are red is often the only way to be clear of other traffic so that you are relatively safe when the lights change and you can go.

A rather parochial example, I know, but between my home and the secure cycle parking in Grimsby Town Centre there is a traffic light controlled junction where it is necessary to turn left and then about 35-40yds later, move into the right-hand filter lane and turn right at another light-controlled junction.

If I were to wait behind the line for green, I'd get to the left hand turn as cars would begin to pass. It would be dangerous to then cut across the moving traffic which has just rounded a blind corner to reach the right hand filter lane.

Traffic on the road which crosses has a right-hand filter to turn into the road where I would be waiting at the lights- traffi from the right is therefore stopped. If the road which I was waiting in were wider, it would doubtless have a left-hand filter at this point for traffic turning left.

It is safer for me to turn left when the right hand filter is showing for the traffic turning into my road, thus giving me time to get the 40 yds and move across into my right-turning lane, than to wait to be shown green myself and then have to mix it with all the traffic.

Just one example of many, I'm sure. Anyway, I'm taking this wildly off-topic now.

 

[90019]

I've got to a point that if I'm crossing a road and a cyclist has gone through on red in front of me, I won't stop or get out of the way, simply push him off in self defence. At the end of the day, in that situation I have right of way and I'm merely stopping him from riding into me.

One point - you have priority, not right of way.

 

[jopsuk]

Anyway, just booked a trip to Scotland and back with bike reservations on the sleeper and EC. Fun bit with the EC booking- you know right away if you're travelling on an HST or a 91+Mark 4, as on the HST your bike booking is in Coach A (the Guard's part of the TGS, the seated part is coach B) and on a 225 your booking is in coach P (the DVT).

Never been with a bike on the sleeper before- presumably the station staff at Euston will point me in the right direction? I'm guessing it goes in the appropriate BUO (I'm in a standard class berth)?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As a pedestrian, this is one attitude of cyclists which really hacks me off. No! A red light is a red light, it means stop. It doesn't mean go if you think it's going to change in a few seconds.

Sure, the current rules say that a red light means stop. My point is that that in many locations, that is an inappropriate rule that amounts to telling cyclists to unnecessarily put their lives in danger.

Do you have no consideration for people trying to cross that road at all?

Ummm, did you read the bit of my post where I said: when you can see that you’re not going to inconvenience anyone else? If you read that sentence then you should be able to work out the answer to your question.

All well and good, but when you guys stop in the middle of the pedestrian crossing because you deem it's safer for you, do you not think about how difficult it makes things for us pedestrians?

To clarify: At no point in my post did I say anything about pedestrian crossings so I'm baffled as to why you think that's what I was talking about. Of course I would not cycle across pedestrians trying to cross a crossing.

I drive, walk and get on the train and across all 3 methods of getting around, cyclists are by far the biggest nuisance. Yes Mr "I'm going to fit my bike on the 17:33 Droitwich - Birmingham service every day by any means necessary", I'm talking about you.

Obviously I have no idea what the situation is on that train, having never travelled on it. So I can't tell what the cyclist you are referring does or whether or not it is needlessly inconsiderate. However I would point out that just because he has a bicycle does not mean his need to travel on that train is any less than yours. Is he really being inconsiderate or is it rather that all the passengers, including you and him, are victims of an insufficient rail service?

 

[The Ham]

Sure, the current rules say that a red light means stop. My point is that that in many locations, that is an inappropriate rule that amounts to telling cyclists to unnecessarily put their lives in danger.

Ummm, did you read the bit of my post where I said: when you can see that you’re not going to inconvenience anyone else? If you read that sentence then you should be able to work out the answer to your question.

To clarify: At no point in my post did I say anything about pedestrian crossings so I'm baffled as to why you think that's what I was talking about. Of course I would not cycle across pedestrians trying to cross a crossing.

The problem comes at junctions when pedestrians wish to cross the road in front of the stop line (as many junctions do), some are controlled by the lights (and will have red tactile paving and road studs) but a lot will be where the pedestrians make a choice to cross (and will have buff tactile paving but otherwise it will not be obvious that there is a place for pedestrians to cross).

It doesn't take much for a cyclist to not realise that a pedestrian is about to cross (as they are watching the traffic) and then cause harm to the pedestrian and possibly even themselves.

 

[cjmillsnun]

A fair question. These to my mind are the obvious examples - all taken from the extra rules for cyclists that you linked to:

Rule 63: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
That seems sensible on first read – obviously you wouldn’t cycle on a pavement packed with pedestrians, but the rule is too wide. It tells you that even if it’s a pavement away from a town centre (perhaps a 70mph slip-road type junction in the country) that would allow you to avoid entering a dangerous junction, and there are no pedestrians anywhere on it or nearby, you must still cycle in the dangerous junction instead of on the pavement.

Rule 69: You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
The problem here is that very often if you’re at the head of a queue waiting at a red light controlling a junction, and provided you can see that it’s safe to go, it’s much safer to go a few seconds before the lights change to green, so you’re clear of the junction before it fills up with turning lorries etc.

Rule 71: You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red.
Crossing the stop line and waiting just past it when the lights are red is often the only way to be clear of other traffic so that you are relatively safe when the lights change and you can go.

I’d say all three of these rules are appropriate for *some* locations, but there are other locations for which obeying them is dangerous and breaking them (when you can see that you’re not going to inconvenience anyone else) is much safer.

So it's OK to jump red lights because you think it's safer? Sorry that doesn't wash. Be more assertive. Use your position in the road to stop people overtaking you when near junctions. It's not illegal and is safer. It also allows you to stop on or behind the stop line and be safe. A red light means stop. No excuses.

Also riding on the pavement? You want to avoid the dangerous junction, then pull onto the pavement and dismount, WALK your bike clear of the junction, then mount and cycle off. The good news is that a lot of these junctions are being dealt with and cycle routes provided.

I could argue that a road law is unsafe in a car, but if I break it, that's not a defence.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As a few other posters have mentioned them, it seems that the minority of cyclists who have rather a casual attitude to traffic signals seem to be making people rather annoyed. If I'm using the roads as a driver, cyclist or as a pedestrian there's nothing more annoying than cyclists ignoring red lights. The 'Critical Mass' movements was formed to remind drivers that cyclists don't slow the traffic- they ARE the traffic. A noble and admirable stance, but if you are traffic, then you should obey the laws of the road- simples.

To bring us slightly back onto topic, I took my bike on the train (Slaithwaite-Huddersfield & return) for the first time in about 5 years yesterday. Had no hassle from other passengers or staff (but then I was trying my best not to create any!). 150 on the outbound was only about half-full so no problems there. On the return, I was a bit nervous when a 156 turned up as I wasn't sure what the cycle storage situation would be (and there were two young lads with BMXs also waiting). It's been a while since I had a 156 and I was pleasantly surprised by both the bike provisions and the general quality of the interior.

The P1 lift at Huddersfield is a pain though, as you have to leave by the same door as you entered by, rather than at the opposite end- not ideal with a heavy old mountain bike and I imagine even more of a pain for any wheelchair users that are travelling alone!

 

[anme]

I'm always amazed at the vitriol directed towards cyclists in the UK. I don't defend cyclists breaking the law or behaving in an inconsiderate manner. However, just think about it for a moment. Cars are one tonne or more of high powered metal - spewing out pollution, occupying a lot of road space, creating noise, killing thousands of people per year (look at the accident statistics), consuming fossil fuels, etc. And car drivers are hardly known for obeying the law - think about the attitude towards speeding.
If there were fewer cars and more cyclists on the roads, we would all be much safer.