Too many bikes on train

[brompton rail]

Clearly you need to invest in a fatter bicycle which meets the Railway Group Standard 'cycle wheel fitting' specifications....

I never take my bike on a train without taking a bungee with me to secure it with. Even if I am taking a Brompton folder the bungee can come in handy to secure it with. Many of Northern's trains have car seat belt type restraints, but these are sometimes vandalised.

Almost all of Northern's rolling stock has been marked with a window strip to indicate where the cycle storage is located. Green strip (with bike logo) for cycles, blue strip (with wheelchair logo) for wheelchairs. The exception seems to be the 321/2 sets which now have no dedicated cycle space, just two tip up seat areas next to the newly installed accessible toilet (in one of the driving cars). Marked with blue wheelchair labels

 

[dviner]

A quick evacuation is almost never desirable. There is time to collect luggage (if safe to disembark with it) and throw a bicycle out.

It might never be desirable, but that doesn't rule out it being necessary.

The thrown bike isn't going to have gone very far, so you've then got to deal with either landing on it as you get out of the door, or clambering over it.

Of course, the throwing of the bike can only be done once you've got the door open, and I believe you've actually got to get right up to the doors to be able to prise them apart - so instead of simply throwing it out, you've got to man-handle it away from the doors, get the door open, then manhandle it back again so you can throw it out.

Sometimes legal ramifications have a connection to practical ramifications.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thrown bike isn't going to have gone very far, so you've then got to deal with either landing on it as you get out of the door, or clambering over it.

Of course, the throwing of the bike can only be done once you've got the door open, and I believe you've actually got to get right up to the doors to be able to prise them apart - so instead of simply throwing it out, you've got to man-handle it away from the doors, get the door open, then manhandle it back again so you can throw it out.

In the event of me *needing* to be out of the train those are tiny, irrelevant concerns. But, particularly in an EMU, that need is infinitessimally unlikely. You are in almost every instance safer on board, and the very small number of instances when you are not are even tinier when it's not a diesel.

As for opening the doors, while I've not used a release it should be relatively easy to open them once released, and to operate the release you tend to have to be a little back from the doors as it's in the panel above or at the side.

The risk is so small as to be irrelevant.

 

[cyclebytrain]

If the motion of the train causes my bike to fall over because the fitting that keeps the wheel upright is too wide, do I lock it to a grab handle to prevent it from falling into the path of an emergency exit or obey the sign, leave it and go to sit down in the carriage? I'm never sure which staff would prefer..

The best solution is to carry a bungee cord with you (they come in handy for lots of other things too). Failing that, leaving the key in the lock works if you want to stop the bike falling over but not to prevent it from being moved.

 

[tsr]

In the event of me *needing* to be out of the train those are tiny, irrelevant concerns. But, particularly in an EMU, that need is infinitessimally unlikely. You are in almost every instance safer on board, and the very small number of instances when you are not are even tinier when it's not a diesel.

As for opening the doors, while I've not used a release it should be relatively easy to open them once released, and to operate the release you tend to have to be a little back from the doors as it's in the panel above or at the side.

The risk is so small as to be irrelevant.

All the stock I sign, which is four classes varying greatly in age, soon to be five, will require at least one if not two pulls (depending on circumstances) of the egress handles and then for the doors to be manually pushed apart.

Some physical effort is involved in pushing the doors open. You would not want to be considering luggage or bikes - in the way or otherwise - as it would in all likelihood create a much slower process of returning to the vestibule or saloon before leaving the train. The primary concern in an emergency evacuation level is to get people out and to a place of safety, though it is accepted nowadays that passengers will inevitably take some luggage with them (which is also now a relatively modern extra concern amongst others when managing controlled evacuations).

 

[HarleyDavidson]

You just go diving out of those doors as soon as you come to a stand and there's a good chance you'll either get owned & creamed by a passing train or if in 3rd rail territory frazzled by a juice rail.

 

[tsr]

You just go diving out of those doors as soon as you come to a stand and there's a good chance you'll either get owned & creamed by a passing train or if in 3rd rail territory frazzled by a juice rail.

That's the other thing. The railway is one of those places where the sequence of events to be taken must seem a bit odd to the uninitiated, but the process between accident and egress handle being pulled is vastly more important, as steps go...

Maybe we should put bikes in the doorways which are locked to the frames with TCOCs. I mean, if people really want to jump out straight away, they may as well have the equipment...

 

[Bletchleyite]

You just go diving out of those doors as soon as you come to a stand and there's a good chance you'll either get owned & creamed by a passing train or if in 3rd rail territory frazzled by a juice rail.

Exactly. In near enough every case, evacuation is a slow and considered process, certainly on electric stock.

 

[Class 66's]

Ironically, one of the best units for bikes is the much derided Class 143, which will easily carry eight of the buggers!

New proposals for spare pacers after they're no longer fit for passenger use:
Bike carriers, with multiple unit control so one end can be used as a driving cab.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would actually be quite a sensible thing - keep hold of 10 or so for Northern to couple to the busiest 15x operated trains for cycle and luggage capacity only, no passengers permitted.

 

[krus_aragon]

Speaking as a motorist and a cyclist, I have been in both situations and can only come to the conclusion that everyone should be made to take a cycling test before a driving test. I can't see any drawbacks but a whole range of benefits. Don't think it would be too popular though.

I “grew out” of riding a bike as a teenager, and then passed my driving test at the age of 18. When I later exchanged that car for a bike again living in the centre of Cardiff, I feel that I was a far better cyclist than I might have been, for having passed a driving test in the meantime.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I “grew out” of riding a bike as a teenager, and then passed my driving test at the age of 18. When I later exchanged that car for a bike again living in the centre of Cardiff, I feel that I was a far better cyclist than I might have been, for having passed a driving test in the meantime.

Agreed. Though it amazes me how many cyclists shout insults at car drivers when they themselves are also a car driver.

The more vehicles you are trained in operating, the more understanding you will be of the operators of those vehicles when you encounter them and their challenges in traffic.

 

[brompton rail]

Surely you aren't suggesting car drivers don't shout at car drivers who annoy them? It's just that you can't hear them 'cause they are inside a vehicle.

Red light jumping, cutting in on others, driving arrogantly ( like accelerating to get into a gap before anyone else can), refusing to allow others to join the traffic queue / flow even if it isn't moving ....... I am sure you can add lots more examples of bad driving, dangerous driving or just plain bad manners. All these are perpetrated by some car drivers, bus drivers, white van (!)drivers, lorry drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and disabled buggy drivers

 

[BurtonM]

That would actually be quite a sensible thing - keep hold of 10 or so for Northern to couple to the busiest 15x operated trains for cycle and luggage capacity only, no passengers permitted.

I wouldn't say 'no passengers' but allow the owner of the oversize item to attend it, both as theft deterrence and damage prevention, and to stop the dwell time from increasing due to loading/unloading bulky items.

As a young cyclist with no car, but a driving licence I've had since 2013 (I'll be damned if I can afford a car), I agree wholeheartedly that cyclists need educating. I must be the only Mancunian cyclist that knows that the Highway Code actually applies to bikes, and that if a traffic light's red, you stop, even if it appears safe to proceed.

 

[krus_aragon]

He then got arsey (and presumably swore at me) when I yelled to him that there was a bell on his bicycle and he should use it.

An interesting aside: It is a legal requirement that all new bicycles are supplied (sold) with a bell, as well as front and rear reflectors. The separate act relating to use of bicycles on the road only demands that you have a rear reflector: the bell and front reflector aren't mentioned at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've had my share of run-ins with cyclists recently. Several of them have been pavement cyclists who seem to play chicken with unwilling and unwary pedestrians, but there was an incident a couple of weeks ago where one came up behind me and shot past at high speed. He then got arsey (and presumably swore at me) when I yelled to him that there was a bell on his bicycle and he should use it.

When I was a regular cyclist in Cardiff, I'd see plenty of bikes at dusk or night time with no visible lights. Were they switched off, or not present? I'd give them the 'benefit of the doubt', and call "your (front/rear) light is out" as I passed. I'd occasionally have someone mouthing back at me that they don't need any [expletive] lights.

 

[Flamingo]

When I was a regular cyclist in Cardiff, I'd see plenty of bikes at dusk or night time with no visible lights. Were they switched off, or not present? I'd give them the 'benefit of the doubt', and call "your (front/rear) light is out" as I passed. I'd occasionally have someone mouthing back at me that they don't need any [expletive] lights.

A friend was telling me that he comes across them a lot at work, and even has a title for them.

They are called "Organ Donors".

 

[jon0844]

I never understand why motorists don't wear seat belts and cyclists don't have lights and consider proper protection. It's for their good, nobody else.

Cycling ninjas are all over my home town. There's a business park where an awful lot of people cycle to and in the winter months, I'd say 80 or 90% don't have lights. It's really that bad.

On the other side of the coin, there are a few cycling clubs and they have all the gear - but generally aren't out in the dark.

 

[HowardGWR]

Just tuned into this and thought from the thread title that it would be about getting bikes onto trains, but it's actually about how cyclists behave on the roads, apparently.

On the thread title, I see a big problem here. If cyclism (?) ever becomes sufficiently popular, it will be simply impossible to accommodate them on trains.

In the Netherlands, people keep bikes in racks at both end stations of the commute rail journey and don't take bikes on the train. I had the impression that some were doing this here, for example at Bristol TM.

 

[jopsuk]

for commuting, the Cycle Scheme (salary sacrifice to get a bike at reduced tax) explicitly says that two bikes can be bought with one voucher for that exact purpose.

The Dutch situation is that bikes are banned from trains during the morning rush hour throughout. Outside of rush hour a day ticket for your bike can be bought for €6. But then the UK cycling rate is still only ~2% so we're nowhere near the Netherlands

 

[al78]

I never understand why motorists don't wear seat belts and cyclists don't have lights and consider proper protection. It's for their good, nobody else.

I know what you mean about lights, but what do you mean by proper protection? The obligation really should be on motorists to pay proper atterntion and avoid hitting things, after all, they are bringing all the danger so the responsibility should be primarily on them to drive safely, not blaming the victims of their carelessness/recklessness/stupidity. Wearing protective clothing (whatever that is) will not stop a cyclist getting hit by some careless idiot who isn't paying attention, and there is no evidence on a population scale that cycle helmets help mitigate severe head injuries (there have been studies on this).

 

[jon0844]

Until you can find some foolproof way to make motorists never make a mistake, I think cyclists should think about ways to protect themselves - and that includes lighting, some way to alert others, suitable clothing and, yes, helmets.

I know many people argue seat belts are dangerous too. I'm not one of them, and I've got a cycle helmet. I don't always wear it when cycling locally (and generally using cycle paths) but would feel safer wearing one.

I think it's very much a case of the jury being out as if it was so clear cut that helmets didn't work, I think we'd hear a lot more about it.

And, I repeat, saying motorists should simply stop hitting bikes is wishful thinking.

 

[The Ham]

Even if cycle helmets don't provide any protection (which I find very hard to believe, possibly that they don't provide much protection, especially if not written properly) then if nothing else they stop your head from making direct contact with the road, which if nothing else would stop a few grazes.

Yes there are times cyclists are idiots (not having lights, not following the rules, etc.) however so are other road users (using mobile phones, not following the rules, thinking that speed cameras are there to steal their hard earned money*, etc.) that are no better. That's not too excuse those cyclists, but rather to point out that other people don't always use the roads as safely as they should and often those that think that they are doing so are the worst offenders.

If there is a problem with lots of cyclists in an area not using lights maybe film it and show it to your local police officer and ask if something can be done. If they can see that there is a clear problem then they may allocate some resources to it. As a few officers for an hour on a few nights, the first to warn and then a few more times over the next few weeks to issue fines and it will be much better. As even those who avoid being caught are likely to hear about it.

(* not wanting to take this thread off topic, but it is easy to ensure that speed cameras don't take your money and that is by obsessing the LAW and not existing the speed limit, it is not the recommended speed but the upper limit. It's also worth remembering that the fines from speed cameras are fairly small, other than the points it is on a par with the fine for shop lifting. A car doing 40 in a 30 is still traveling at well above running pace in the disgrace that a car doing 30 has stopped. Given how much it hurts when you walk into aiming solid running into it will hurt a lot more. Even if it doesn't really in a car/squishy accident it could save you from hitting another vehicle, which if it is bigger than you will cause more damage to your car. Just the inconvenience of having to go through getting your car fixed should be enough to deter people from wanting to risk that too much. Yes there are some speed limits which are difficult to keep below and some which are frustrating, but the vast majority are fine).

 

[jopsuk]

If you want to dramatically cut serious injury admissions to hospital then mandatory helmets are the answer.

For car drivers and passengers.

The evidence, from New Zealand, Australia and bits of Canada and the US that have implemented mandatory helmet laws is that they make no measurable difference to head injury admissions at A&E but do make a huge difference to the number of people of cycling.

Switzerland for a while had a "registration plate" scheme for bikes. They abandoned this as it didn't help for, well, anything and was purely an administrative cost.

Given the low level of cycling in this country anywhere that's not Cambridge, Oxford, York, Bristol or central London, it amazes me the level of anecdotes that people have about the hordes of black clad unlit helmetless cyclists who nearly killed them whilst they were driving.

 

[jon0844]

it amazes me the level of anecdotes that people have about the hordes of black clad unlit helmetless cyclists who nearly killed them whilst they were driving.

I am thinking more about cyclists who nearly killed themselves, as I am not aware of many cyclists killing motorists? I've not even read any stories of such that I can recall.

Anyone who can drive should have been taught to drive defensively. There should be no such thing as an accident (bar perhaps something like a plane falling out of the sky or something totally unpredictable) and you should be able to avoid most things.

I don't see why the same logic doesn't apply to cyclists. Obviously it does to many, who value their own life, but loads don't seem to care (or are simply lacking basic common sense) about ways to protect themselves from a huge number of risks. Cars, vans, lorries etc are a risk, but a manageable risk to a degree.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anyone who can drive should have been taught to drive defensively. There should be no such thing as an accident (bar perhaps something like a plane falling out of the sky or something totally unpredictable) and you should be able to avoid most things.

And to be fair, despite road travel being much less safe than rail travel, most drivers do go through their entire driving career without hitting anything at all, or if they do it's minor scrapes and bumper damage just requiring the opening of their wallet rather than causing anyone any physical harm.

That said, there are some drivers, primarily younger ones, with completely the wrong view. "It doesn't matter, the insurance will pay" is something I have genuinely heard. Yes, it does matter, and if you do that too much they will do nothing of the sort!