Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Adrian
writes Ian Jelf ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : How do you regard those of us who take folding bikes, such as the Brompton? As long as it's in it's bag, why not? That said, I've never actually taken mine on a deep-level tube, only on the sub surface lines. Why not, erm, ride it? Because I *do* tend to ride it is one of the reasons I've not taken it on a deep level tube. But journeys from - say - Amersham to Baker Street or Hillington to Baker Street aren't really practicable in the time frame I've usually had! -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
#52
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Neil Williams wrote: On 13 Jan 2005 22:45:33 -0800, wrote: Before privatisation most trains had guard/luggage vans where bikes could be stored. Now only a few remaining slam door trains have them. Pity also the poor traveller with lots of luggage and nowhere to put it on a train. Yet another example of market forces driven profit before people. Twaddle. New trains have, for a long period, not had guard's vans, even under BR. This is nothing to do with "profit before people", but is merely because passenger trains no longer carry newspapers, parcels and post so the space is really not needed. New trains mainly came in after privatisation. Before the BR had been run down. Cyclists and people with lots of luggage still need the space. Those who do need it (cyclists, those with luggage and wheelchair users) are better served by distributed space in the passenger saloon Sure! Crammed in with standing passengers near the doors. or vestibule, because in the former case they can keep an eye on their bike or luggage, while in the latter they can travel in suitable accommodation and not in what feels like the back of a lorry. When I use the few remaining guard's vans I sit in the adjacent compartment with other travellers. Cycling groups are constantly at odds with TOs over the modern lack of provision. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net "Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people". |
#53
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Adrian writes Ian Jelf ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : How do you regard those of us who take folding bikes, such as the Brompton? As long as it's in it's bag, why not? That said, I've never actually taken mine on a deep-level tube, only on the sub surface lines. Why not, erm, ride it? Because I *do* tend to ride it is one of the reasons I've not taken it on a deep level tube. But journeys from - say - Amersham to Baker Street or Hillington to Baker Street aren't really practicable in the time frame I've usually had! The problem with the Underground is that it often involves a great deal of walking to and from platforms and exits, as well as stairs. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net "Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people". |
#54
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike Bristow" wrote in message ... In article .com, wrote: Another ivory tower commentator. I have never known anybody who does long commutes by choice. They all do. The fact that long distance commuters consider the alternatives unpalatable does not negate the fact that they made a choice not to move closer to work, get a job closer to home or work in the first place. -- Mike Bristow - really a very good driver A load of ******** - I drive 30 miles each way to get to my job - I don't wan't to, but I can't find a job closer and I can't afford to move nearer my job because of house prices. I start at 7.00am and finish at 5.00pm - no chance of using PT. Thank ****. |
#55
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message oups.com... Huge wrote: Ian Jelf writes: In message , Huge writes I find cyclists on trains less than amusing. How do you regard those of us who take folding bikes, such as the Brompton? As long as it's in it's bag, why not? What I object to is those who are permitted to take something on the train that is sharp and dirty and takes up the room of two people for free, merely because it happens to be a bicycle. Typical! This unashamed 4x4 user is now cycle bashing. I wondered when you would pop up. You must have been touching cloth to last this long. |
#56
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message oups.com... Huge wrote: (Neil Williams) writes: On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:58:06 +0000, wrote: It just shows the utter contempt which most people have for cycles and their riders which is fully justified in my opinion . When cyclists begin to observe the laws relating to the use of UK roads and have to pay the same amounts of money that ALL other uses have to pay then I may just have a little more time for them . I agree with the first point, and I'd like to point out that, as a cyclist, I do obey traffic lights etc, use lights when it is dark and do not ride on the pavement. It is noticeable how many do not, mind. As for paying for the use of the road, to fit with the existing road tax system it'd have to be in proportion to the damage caused by the vehicle to the road 'Fraid not. Two reasons; (i) Road taxes are not levied in proportion to damage (else HGVs would pay *much* more) & (ii) road taxes are not for using the roads. They're just tax. Blimey! You, a motorist, are actually admitting that VED is not a road tax? Amazing! I really think we should start calling you zebedee instead of dugh. |
#57
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:44:17 GMT, (Neil
Williams) said: As for paying for the use of the road, to fit with the existing road tax system it'd have to be in proportion to the damage caused by the vehicle to the road (infinitessimally small) and the pollution emitted while in use (that'd be none). Pink and green lycra is perhaps the worst possible form of pollution. -- David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david |
#58
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message oups.com... Neil Williams wrote: On 13 Jan 2005 22:45:33 -0800, wrote: Before privatisation most trains had guard/luggage vans where bikes could be stored. Now only a few remaining slam door trains have them. Pity also the poor traveller with lots of luggage and nowhere to put it on a train. Yet another example of market forces driven profit before people. Twaddle. New trains have, for a long period, not had guard's vans, even under BR. This is nothing to do with "profit before people", but is merely because passenger trains no longer carry newspapers, parcels and post so the space is really not needed. New trains mainly came in after privatisation. Before the BR had been run down. Cyclists and people with lots of luggage still need the space. Those who do need it (cyclists, those with luggage and wheelchair users) are better served by distributed space in the passenger saloon Sure! Crammed in with standing passengers near the doors. or vestibule, because in the former case they can keep an eye on their bike or luggage, while in the latter they can travel in suitable accommodation and not in what feels like the back of a lorry. When I use the few remaining guard's vans I sit in the adjacent compartment with other travellers. Cycling groups are constantly at odds with TOs over the modern lack of provision. Using a train and a bicycle ? bit OTT that, smacks of hypermobility. I use just one car, no need for all the other forms of transport being used at the same time. Plus I can get big suitcases in it. |
#59
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ups.com... Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Adrian writes Ian Jelf ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : How do you regard those of us who take folding bikes, such as the Brompton? As long as it's in it's bag, why not? That said, I've never actually taken mine on a deep-level tube, only on the sub surface lines. Why not, erm, ride it? Because I *do* tend to ride it is one of the reasons I've not taken it on a deep level tube. But journeys from - say - Amersham to Baker Street or Hillington to Baker Street aren't really practicable in the time frame I've usually had! The problem with the Underground is that it often involves a great deal of walking to and from platforms and exits, as well as stairs. Really? Well I'll be damned. Just like parking in a multi story carpark then? I never knew.... |
#60
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Taz" me@home wrote in message ... "Mike Bristow" wrote in message ... In article .com, wrote: Another ivory tower commentator. I have never known anybody who does long commutes by choice. They all do. The fact that long distance commuters consider the alternatives unpalatable does not negate the fact that they made a choice not to move closer to work, get a job closer to home or work in the first place. -- Mike Bristow - really a very good driver A load of ******** - I drive 30 miles each way to get to my job I don't think you're the guy in the firing line. 30 miles is not excessive, it's the 70-100 (and more) mile commuters that ought to be re-evaluating their position. tim - I don't wan't to, but I can't find a job closer and I can't afford to move nearer my job because of house prices. I start at 7.00am and finish at 5.00pm - no chance of using PT. Thank ****. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Consequences of ticket office closures, part 94 | London Transport | |||
earn money at part time. | London Transport | |||
Gold Card season ticket and LT (was Annual vs monthly season tickets) | London Transport | |||
Greeting Cards Earn Part time.... | London Transport | |||
Using season ticket for part journey | London Transport |