| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Rucksacks worn on the tube
I had to use the tube today and had the pleasure of some eejit wearing a
rucksack in front of me constantly swivelling it about and bumping me. Happily I managed to get my own back when I got off the train by just shoving past their rucksack and almost knocking them over but shouldn't there be some sort of bylaw for not wearing huge rucksacks to deal with these sorts of idiots who seem to think they're still trecking in nepal even when squashed on the victoria line? B2003 |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
|
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:10:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:51:35 on Fri, 30 Jul 2010, d remarked: I had to use the tube today and had the pleasure of some eejit wearing a rucksack in front of me constantly swivelling it about and bumping me. I had someone like that bumping me every few minutes on a full-and-standing Cambridge train one morning. And the wearer almost got violent when I politely (no, really) asked him to stop it. Rucksack wearers generally have no concept of their "rear facing" personal space. I think with some of them its more a case of their rear personal space is wherever their rucksack is. I don't have a problem with little rucksacks but I don't see the need to go on a train wearing something the size of a suitcase on your back. In fact if someone has that much to carry why don't they just use a suitcase anyway? Thats what they're for. B2003 |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On 30 July, 15:44, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:10:03 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:51:35 on Fri, 30 Jul 2010, remarked: I had to use the tube today and had the pleasure of some eejit wearing a rucksack in front of me constantly swivelling it about and bumping me. I had someone like that bumping me every few minutes on a full-and-standing Cambridge train one morning. And the wearer almost got violent when I politely (no, really) asked him to stop it. Rucksack wearers generally have no concept of their "rear facing" personal space. I think with some of them its more a case of their rear personal space is wherever their rucksack is. I don't have a problem with little rucksacks but I don't see the need to go on a train wearing something the size of a suitcase on your back. In fact if someone has that much to carry why don't they just use a suitcase anyway? Thats what they're for. B2003 Er, no. Suitcases are for stacking. Rucksacks are for carrying. I could carry a helluva lot more weight in a rucksack than a suitcase of equivalent capacity. Neither are great in crowded trains without a luggage space. |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On Jul 30, 9:51*am, wrote: I had to use the tube today and had the pleasure of some eejit wearing a rucksack in front of me constantly swivelling it about and bumping me. Happily I managed to get my own back when I got off the train by just shoving past their rucksack and almost knocking them over but shouldn't there be some sort of bylaw for not wearing huge rucksacks to deal with these sorts of idiots who seem to think they're still trecking in nepal even when squashed on the victoria line? I had this happen twice recently, and politely spoke to both of the rucksack wearers. The first was a girl from up north who was very apologetic, we actually had a little chat and it turns out it was her first time in London, and was all wide-eyed about it, as well as being somewhat pensive - amusingly she thought the tube train we were on was 'very busy' and was a bit disbelieving when I said it wasn't really (mid-morning/lunchtime Saturday on the Northern line, Jubbly closed I dare say, a few free seats and a fair few standing but certainly not packed by any stretch of the imagination). The second was an Italian girl who when I politely confronted her shrugged expressively, huffed and then tried to give me the dagger eyes - so I glared back (it went on for a bit), and then had reason to laugh out loud when a big Aussie barged past getting on at the next stop and, on her huffing and turning to look at him, gave her a firm and no-nonsense verbal admonishment. In general I'm all for speaking up in situations like this - it might feel awkward I grant you, but so long as you keep your cool it's the right way to go. |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
|
Rucksacks worn on the tube
In message , at 18:18:30 on
Fri, 30 Jul 2010, Neil Williams remarked: I think with some of them its more a case of their rear personal space is wherever their rucksack is. I don't have a problem with little rucksacks but I don't see the need to go on a train wearing something the size of a suitcase on your back. Not even if you're, for instance, taking the Tube to the station to go on a hiking expedition? Rucksacks are fine, but should be removed from the back when inside the confined spaces of public transport. In fact if someone has that much to carry why don't they just use a suitcase anyway? Thats what they're for. Trolley cases are *far* more annoying, IMO. And not much good for hiking :) Trolley cases can trip up those not paying attention, but at least the owners don't unpredictably whirl them around, five feet off the ground, as happens with rucksacks. -- Roland Perry |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
|
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:51:35 on Fri, 30 Jul 2010, d remarked: I had to use the tube today and had the pleasure of some eejit wearing a rucksack in front of me constantly swivelling it about and bumping me. I had someone like that bumping me every few minutes on a full-and-standing Cambridge train one morning. And the wearer almost got violent when I politely (no, really) asked him to stop it. Rucksack wearers generally have no concept of their "rear facing" personal space. This is the problem. I have a friend who suffers from this disability. He sometimes carries a unicycle on his back. It really beggars belief, but i think it really is the case that some people just have very poor spatial awareness. tom -- sh(1) was the first MOO |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
|
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On 30 July, 19:17, Tom Anderson wrote:
This is the problem. I have a friend who suffers from this disability. He sometimes carries a unicycle on his back. It really beggars belief, but i think it really is the case that some people just have very poor spatial awareness. tom Am I the only one who pondered what sort of disability your friend has but can still ride a unicycle ? Whoooosh. Being rotund, I make a fine siight with a rucksack, I usually have a small but always full one with me (NO NOT FOOD) and am always aware that I take up the space of three (Belly / me / bag) when wearing it, so remove it prior to entering buses, tubes and trains and carry it. I have encountered the problem on the Vic and TBH I think the only answer is that the Status Quo will apply. People off of overnight planes and long distance coaches have little interest in spacial awareness (I agree they should). The only spacial thing most of them understand is the state of space they have been rendered in the recent past. Richard |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On 2010-07-30, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Eric writes On 2010-07-30, Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, d wrote: I had to use the tube today and had the pleasure of some eejit wearing a rucksack in front of me constantly swivelling it about and bumping me. Happily I managed to get my own back when I got off the train by just shoving past their rucksack and almost knocking them over but shouldn't there be some sort of bylaw for not wearing huge rucksacks to deal with these sorts of idiots who seem to think they're still trecking in nepal even when squashed on the victoria line? Yes, there should. Also people who roll their little rolly cases in the tube passageways, And people who walk down the middle of a passageway, occupying the whole thing, at a speed slower than intended by anyone else. Admittedly this only applies to wide people and narrow passages, but this is London, and that is a frequent combination. Do we in fact need a taxonomy of intolerable underground behaviour? Perhaps, but not yours. I have removed a lot of your list, but what's left is pretty much equivalent to saying that people with disabilities should stay home and keep out of your way. Er, that's one heck of a jump of reasoning from what Tom actually wrote! Not given considerable experience of abusive and threatening behaviour from people who disapprove of these actions when in fact our choice is between doing that and never going anywhere. Not to say that Tom would be abusive and threatening, but enough people are to make me somewhat bitter about it all. My basic point is that unless you have had some sort of mobility problem you tend to think that the tolerance and helpfulness of the world at large is much greater than it actually is. E. |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On 30/07/2010 21:16, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:14:42 +0100, Tom wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, d wrote: I had to use the tube today and had the pleasure of some eejit wearing a rucksack in front of me constantly swivelling it about and bumping me. Happily I managed to get my own back when I got off the train by just shoving past their rucksack and almost knocking them over but shouldn't there be some sort of bylaw for not wearing huge rucksacks to deal with these sorts of idiots who seem to think they're still trecking in nepal even when squashed on the victoria line? Well it is the holiday season. This year is nowhere near as bad as previous years for rucksackitis. I used Victoria tube at lunchtime earlier this week - it was complete mayhem with so many visitors just not knowing where to go or what to do. The queue for tickets was enormous at the ticket office and the machines - a real surprise even though it is one of the busiest stations. Yes, there should. Also people who roll their little rolly cases in the tube passageways, and people who think that just having stepped off a train is the right time to put their bag down and fiddle with it. Oh yes. It's the handbags (not cases) on wheels that stagger me. What can you be carrying in a handbag that is so heavy that you need wheeled assistance? And also people who only start retrieving their ticket when they get to a gate. And people who think right in front of an entrance or the foot of an escalator is the right place to stand in groups of a dozen and discuss where to go. And people who walk down the middle of a passageway, occupying the whole thing, at a speed slower than intended by anyone else. Admittedly this only applies to wide people and narrow passages, but this is London, and that is a frequent combination. You (and others) have mentioned most of my pet hates. A recent annoyance is people managing to combine standing at the edge of a platform, the middle of the platform and the back plus littering it with bags, standing in groups and also obstructing the entrance to the platform [1]. This is a speciality of the westbound District Line at Victoria - an absolute shambles. None of the people have any clue that in combination they have effectively prevented all movement on the platform or that people might just want to get past.deep breath& sigh I hate to say it but one day there will be an accident as a result of this. [1] note this is not the height of the rush hour when I accept platforms can get completely packed out with people but at least they "know the drill". What really annoys me are people who stop just before getting on an escalator. They to put both feet on one of the plates and will hesitate, rather than just stepping on. |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
wrote in message news:9kH4o.6$Mh1.2@hurricane... What really annoys me are people who stop just before getting on an escalator. They to put both feet on one of the plates and will hesitate, rather than just stepping on. That's exactly where the uninitiated first become aware that they should be carrying a dog. It's hardly surprising they hesitate... :-) Paul S |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
Some of us - those with mobility problems, for instance - have no
choice but to use a packpack. I use a crutch, and need my other arm free to hold on to moving buses, Underground cars etc. But 2-3 times a week I also have to carry my 'gym kit' for physio sessions in addition to day to day items. Here's yesterday's load: packed lunch, 2 apples, 50cl water 2 business files, notebook and A4 pad laptop and compact camera shorts, T-shirt and toiletries ... all of which were either essential or (deodorant, toothpaste) highly desirable If the train is standing at a platform, and space & time permits, I hand-carry the bag on board, but that's not feasible if I need my spare hand to grab a rail and "hold tight" as bus conductors of old would call. But reboarding [if that's the phrase] a Circle line train at Edgware Road yesterday I was taken aback to see a woman accompanying what I assume was a picture or print of some sort - a size I can only describe as "bigger than A0 - more than half a door" It blocked off both her seat and the next two down the car. Several passengers asked her to move it, with varying degrees of politeness. All to no avail - a shrug was her only response until another 20-something woman told her brusquely "stand it up - or walk home and let more intelligent people have a seat". -- Writer / editor on London's River |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
wrote in message ... I had to use the tube today and had the pleasure of some eejit wearing a rucksack in front of me constantly swivelling it about and bumping me. Happily I managed to get my own back when I got off the train by just shoving past their rucksack and almost knocking them over but shouldn't there be some sort of bylaw for not wearing huge rucksacks to deal with these sorts of idiots who seem to think they're still trecking in nepal even when squashed on the victoria line? Some of us HAVE been trekking in Nepal. Get over it. :-) -- Brian "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." www.imagebus.co.uk/shop |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 08:51:35 on Fri, 30 Jul 2010, d remarked: I had to use the tube today and had the pleasure of some eejit wearing a rucksack in front of me constantly swivelling it about and bumping me. I had someone like that bumping me every few minutes on a full-and-standing Cambridge train one morning. And the wearer almost got violent when I politely (no, really) asked him to stop it. Rucksack wearers generally have no concept of their "rear facing" personal space. Personally, I am always equipped with flashing indicators and reversing lights when so encumbered, not to mention my bodies audible warning system (eg, "out of the way, fatty, I'm coming through!" -- Brian "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." www.imagebus.co.uk/shop |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... On Jul 30, 9:51 am, wrote: I had to use the tube today and had the pleasure of some eejit wearing a rucksack in front of me constantly swivelling it about and bumping me. Happily I managed to get my own back when I got off the train by just shoving past their rucksack and almost knocking them over but shouldn't there be some sort of bylaw for not wearing huge rucksacks to deal with these sorts of idiots who seem to think they're still trecking in nepal even when squashed on the victoria line? I had this happen twice recently, and politely spoke to both of the rucksack wearers. The first was a girl from up north who was very apologetic See, they don't have trains oop north... -- Brian "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." www.imagebus.co.uk/shop |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message rth.li... First person to mention people using escalators while not carrying a dog gets a kicking. I thought they all got out at Barking? -- Brian "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." www.imagebus.co.uk/shop |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
|
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On Jul 30, 10:17*pm, "
wrote: On 30/07/2010 21:16, Paul Corfield wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:14:42 +0100, Tom wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, wrote: I had to use the tube today and had the pleasure of some eejit wearing a rucksack in front of me constantly swivelling it about and bumping me.. Happily I managed to get my own back when I got off the train by just shoving past their rucksack and almost knocking them over but shouldn't there be some sort of bylaw for not wearing huge rucksacks to deal with these sorts of idiots who seem to think they're still trecking in nepal even when squashed on the victoria line? Well it is the holiday season. *This year is nowhere near as bad as previous years for rucksackitis. * I used Victoria tube at lunchtime earlier this week - it was complete mayhem with so many visitors just not knowing where to go or what to do. *The queue for tickets was enormous at the ticket office and the machines - a real surprise even though it is one of the busiest stations. Yes, there should. Also people who roll their little rolly cases in the tube passageways, and people who think that just having stepped off a train is the right time to put their bag down and fiddle with it. Oh yes. *It's the handbags (not cases) on wheels that stagger me. What can you be carrying in a handbag that is so heavy that you need wheeled assistance? And also people who only start retrieving their ticket when they get to a gate. And people who think right in front of an entrance or the foot of an escalator is the right place to stand in groups of a dozen and discuss where to go. And people who walk down the middle of a passageway, occupying the whole thing, at a speed slower than intended by anyone else. Admittedly this only applies to wide people and narrow passages, but this is London, and that is a frequent combination. You (and others) have mentioned most of my pet hates. A recent annoyance is people managing to combine standing at the edge of a platform, the middle of the platform and the back plus littering it with bags, standing in groups and also obstructing the entrance to the platform [1]. *This is a speciality of the westbound District Line at Victoria - an absolute shambles. *None of the people have any clue that in combination they have effectively prevented all movement on the platform or that people might just want to get past.deep breath& *sigh * *I hate to say it but one day there will be an accident as a result of this. [1] note this is not the height of the rush hour when I accept platforms can get completely packed out with people but at least they "know the drill". What really annoys me are people who stop just before getting on an escalator. They to put both feet on one of the plates and will hesitate, rather than just stepping on. That must be me then, blame it on the dodgey hip, and hope you never have the same problem. Or do you want to ban me from PT because I also take a bit longer then mosy people getting on/off busses & trains. |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
Greetings.
In article , Eric wrote: On 2010-07-30, Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, d wrote: And people who walk down the middle of a passageway, occupying the whole thing, at a speed slower than intended by anyone else. Admittedly this only applies to wide people and narrow passages, but this is London, and that is a frequent combination. Do we in fact need a taxonomy of intolerable underground behaviour? Perhaps, but not yours. I have removed a lot of your list, but what's left is pretty much equivalent to saying that people with disabilities should stay home and keep out of your way. Exactly what disability causes people to walk slowly down the middle of a narrow passageway? Is there some affliction that prevents them from keeping to one side, thereby allowing faster-moving traffic to pass them? Or is "being inconsiderate of others" now classed as a disability? Regards, Tristan -- _ _V.-o Tristan Miller Space is limited / |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In a haiku, so it's hard (7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ To finish what you |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On 01/08/2010 13:21, Tristan Miller wrote:
Greetings. In , Eric wrote: On 2010-07-30, Tom wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, d wrote: And people who walk down the middle of a passageway, occupying the whole thing, at a speed slower than intended by anyone else. Admittedly this only applies to wide people and narrow passages, but this is London, and that is a frequent combination. Do we in fact need a taxonomy of intolerable underground behaviour? Perhaps, but not yours. I have removed a lot of your list, but what's left is pretty much equivalent to saying that people with disabilities should stay home and keep out of your way. Exactly what disability causes people to walk slowly down the middle of a narrow passageway? Is there some affliction that prevents them from keeping to one side, thereby allowing faster-moving traffic to pass them? Being really, seriously, even Americans would be shocked, overweight? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On 2010-07-31, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Eric writes On 2010-07-30, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Eric writes On 2010-07-30, Tom Anderson wrote: Do we in fact need a taxonomy of intolerable underground behaviour? Perhaps, but not yours. I have removed a lot of your list, but what's left is pretty much equivalent to saying that people with disabilities should stay home and keep out of your way. Er, that's one heck of a jump of reasoning from what Tom actually wrote! Not given considerable experience of abusive and threatening behaviour from people who disapprove of these actions when in fact our choice is between doing that and never going anywhere. Not to say that Tom would be abusive and threatening, Quite. but enough people are to make me somewhat bitter about it all. I am - of course - sorry to hear that. My experience of dealing with a mobility problem (not my own) has increased considerably recently to the point where "planning trips in detail" is now a regular activity. My basic point is that unless you have had some sort of mobility problem you tend to think that the tolerance and helpfulness of the world at large is much greater than it actually is. And my basic point is that you can't make that assumption. To believe that only those with a mobility problem can "understand" is wrong. I'm not saying you can't understand at some level, just that unless you are the one with the problem (or their immediate helper), you probably over-estimate the helpfulness of the rest of the world. If someone moves slowly but there's nowhere else for them to go, then those behind will just need to wait, angry and abusive or not. I think though that here the point being made was that slower moving people tend to occupy unnecessarily large bits of passageways sometimes, where a little consideration from them (ie moving to the side) would help *everyone*. Give and take, manners and all that. Thus showing what I mean about not getting it. As well as slowness, there is lack of manoeuvrability, and the stick or similar which makes the person wider than they would otherwise be. If the stick is on the wall side, more clearance is needed to keep the wall from interfering than a able-bodied person would need for their own body-parts. If the stick is on the outside, any accompanying person will quite likely be in a protective position, making the two-person combination wider still. This is due to the number of times the stick has actually been kicked away by the unthinking (so far, in our case, without disastrous consequence). There are also the issues of not being able to pause when necessary, and being forced to pause when not necessary, both of which are a problem. Then there's having luggage (in whatever form) as well! As an aside, I remain genuinely surprised and delighted at the treatment a group of (elderly but not disabled) visitors I once had to take on the District Line were given. A crowded but not heaving carriage had no seats and people gave up their seats in large numbers to allow them to sit down. It made a favourable impression on them as it did on me. I'm afraid I am cynical enough to wonder if this was a "ripple of shame" effect from one or two considerate individuals. Eric |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On 2010-08-01, Tristan Miller wrote:
Greetings. In article , Eric wrote: On 2010-07-30, Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, d wrote: And people who walk down the middle of a passageway, occupying the whole thing, at a speed slower than intended by anyone else. Admittedly this only applies to wide people and narrow passages, but this is London, and that is a frequent combination. Do we in fact need a taxonomy of intolerable underground behaviour? Perhaps, but not yours. I have removed a lot of your list, but what's left is pretty much equivalent to saying that people with disabilities should stay home and keep out of your way. Exactly what disability causes people to walk slowly down the middle of a narrow passageway? Is there some affliction that prevents them from keeping to one side, thereby allowing faster-moving traffic to pass them? Or is "being inconsiderate of others" now classed as a disability? Normally, I would say "see my response to another post", but I think in this case I should make sure you see it by repeating it here. Apologies to anyone who is thinking "I've read this before". As well as slowness, there is lack of manoeuvrability, and the stick or similar which makes the person wider than they would otherwise be. If the stick is on the wall side, more clearance is needed to keep the wall from interfering than a able-bodied person would need for their own body-parts. If the stick is on the outside, any accompanying person will quite likely be in a protective position, making the two-person combination wider still. This is due to the number of times the stick has actually been kicked away by the unthinking (so far, in our case, without disastrous consequence). There are also the issues of not being able to pause when necessary, and being forced to pause when not necessary, both of which are a problem. Then there's having luggage (in whatever form) as well! Or are you really one of those who believes that we should stay at home for ever? Someone who seems inconsiderate may still be doing they best they can. Eric |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On 1 Aug, 21:37, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Eric writes Or are you really one of those who believes that we should stay at home for ever? Eric, of *course* they don't. * There's that chip again. I would "chip" in at this point that the kind of problems people were complaining about were mainly to do with some people's wilful lack of awareness of their surroundings, and that I would expect the mobility impaired to be more acutely aware of their surroundings than most and not to be the ones causing these problems. And my anecdote: being berated for colliding with a woman who had stopped dead at the bottom of the escalator from Waterloo East to Waterloo and evidently assumed that I could prevent it from propelling me into her. |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On 2010-08-01, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Eric writes On 2010-07-31, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Eric writes On 2010-07-30, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Eric writes On 2010-07-30, Tom Anderson wrote: Do we in fact need a taxonomy of intolerable underground behaviour? Perhaps, but not yours. I have removed a lot of your list, but what's left is pretty much equivalent to saying that people with disabilities should stay home and keep out of your way. Er, that's one heck of a jump of reasoning from what Tom actually wrote! Not given considerable experience of abusive and threatening behaviour from people who disapprove of these actions when in fact our choice is between doing that and never going anywhere. Not to say that Tom would be abusive and threatening, Quite. but enough people are to make me somewhat bitter about it all. I am - of course - sorry to hear that. My experience of dealing with a mobility problem (not my own) has increased considerably recently to the point where "planning trips in detail" is now a regular activity. My basic point is that unless you have had some sort of mobility problem you tend to think that the tolerance and helpfulness of the world at large is much greater than it actually is. And my basic point is that you can't make that assumption. To believe that only those with a mobility problem can "understand" is wrong. I'm not saying you can't understand at some level, Good. Because you have no right to determine what I do or don't understand. just that unless you are the one with the problem (or their immediate helper), you probably over-estimate the helpfulness of the rest of the world. I "probably" do nothing of the sort. Just because I'm lucky enough not to have a disability (yet) does not mean that I am somehow incapable of understanding. I suggest that you get the chip off your shoulder. No one here was talking about being "delayed" by someone with a mobility issue. They were opining that people just dozily stop at inopportune times sometimes. This afternoon, I witnessed *exactly* that (not in London), where two people who evidently know each other bumped into each other in a doorway. I'll let you guess where they instantly paused to catch up on old times. If someone moves slowly but there's nowhere else for them to go, then those behind will just need to wait, angry and abusive or not. I think though that here the point being made was that slower moving people tend to occupy unnecessarily large bits of passageways sometimes, where a little consideration from them (ie moving to the side) would help *everyone*. Give and take, manners and all that. Thus showing what I mean about not getting it. It shows nothing of the sort. As well as slowness, there is lack of manoeuvrability, and the stick or similar which makes the person wider than they would otherwise be. If the stick is on the wall side, more clearance is needed to keep the wall from interfering than a able-bodied person would need for their own body-parts. If the stick is on the outside, any accompanying person will quite likely be in a protective position, making the two-person combination wider still. This is due to the number of times the stick has actually been kicked away by the unthinking (so far, in our case, without disastrous consequence). Again, no one here was talking about being "delayed" by someone with a mobility issue. There are also the issues of not being able to pause when necessary, and being forced to pause when not necessary, both of which are a problem. We live an imperfect world. Then there's having luggage (in whatever form) as well! As an aside, I remain genuinely surprised and delighted at the treatment a group of (elderly but not disabled) visitors I once had to take on the District Line were given. A crowded but not heaving carriage had no seats and people gave up their seats in large numbers to allow them to sit down. It made a favourable impression on them as it did on me. I'm afraid I am cynical enough to wonder if this was a "ripple of shame" effect from one or two considerate individuals. Whereas I'm a pleasant enough individual just to acknowledge kindness when I see it rather than being perennially cynical and grumpy. Phew. Bit opinionated for me but.......hey, this is Usenet! Happy travelling. ;-) If this is Usenet (yes, I know, it is) then I should probably say that the smiley will not get you out of being killfiled. No, nobody said "delayed", not even me, but this went from specific inconsiderate behaviour (rucksacks) to a list, which included things which I know can be due to mobility problems. And nobody knows what goes on in someone else's head, we only go on external evidence. You think I have a chip on my shoulder - you might too if your partner frequently came home crying because no-one would give her a seat and people pushed her out of the way and ... . And that's why I am less than certain of your (or anybody's) level of understanding. Continued on next rock... Eric |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On 2010-08-01, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Eric writes Or are you really one of those who believes that we should stay at home for ever? Eric, of *course* they don't. There's that chip again. Next rock... some people have said so (not in this thread but...). And I was responding to someone who sounded as if he might be not far off that. I see that there a couple of other posts not altogether different from my viewpoint. However, it is far too late for this, so goodnight, Eric |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:17:28 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote: Not sure if the prospect of being killfiled is supposed to make me feel in some way threatened or bothered. Plainly it won't! It might be a first, though (unless others have done it for reasons of boredom!). Still here, Ian. Beginning to yawn, though. ;-) |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 05:06:40PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 01/08/2010 13:21, Tristan Miller wrote: Exactly what disability causes people to walk slowly down the middle of a narrow passageway? Is there some affliction that prevents them from keeping to one side, thereby allowing faster-moving traffic to pass them? Being really, seriously, even Americans would be shocked, overweight? I'm a fatty and I manage to keep to one side or the other of a passageway. -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive It wouldn't hurt to think like a serial killer every so often. Purely for purposes of prevention, of course. |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 09:16:45PM +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:
Oh yes. It's the handbags (not cases) on wheels that stagger me. What can you be carrying in a handbag that is so heavy that you need wheeled assistance? They're either smuggling plutonium or gold. Either way, you should "inform a member of staff or a police officer". -- David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig For every vengeance, there is an equal and opposite revengeance. -- Cartoon Law X |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
In message , Tristan Miller
writes Exactly what disability causes people to walk slowly down the middle of a narrow passageway? Is there some affliction that prevents them from keeping to one side, thereby allowing faster-moving traffic to pass them? Or is "being inconsiderate of others" now classed as a disability? I'm not disabled but am frequently confused by the use of the tube. In this country we drive on the left, so it is normal to walk on the left, but the escalators say stand on the right. Londoners who should know better frequently go against the arrows and arrive on a platform from the exit, confusing the tourists. What's the convention for walking through those small passages that interlink platforms etc? -- Clive |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
In message , Mochilero
writes I've lost count of the number of people I've come across (both on and off of public transport) who can't even *see* the rucksack , let alone walking sticks and crutches, when they're walking straight towards it. A single bump can feel like a knife going in... Now there a good point, have a knife (pointed and sharp) sticking out. They see your rucksack then and give you plenty of space. -- Clive |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
In message , Brian Watson
writes Some of us HAVE been trekking in Nepal. Get over it. Or, get back to Nepal until you have consideration for your fellow man. -- Clive |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On Aug 2, 3:44*pm, Clive wrote: In message , Tristan Miller writes: Exactly what disability causes people to walk slowly down the middle of a narrow passageway? *Is there some affliction that prevents them from keeping to one side, thereby allowing faster-moving traffic to pass them? Or is "being inconsiderate of others" now classed as a disability? I'm not disabled but am frequently confused by the use of the tube. * In this country we drive on the left, so it is normal to walk on the left, but the escalators say stand on the right. [...]* And? It's results in the same outcome, in that others can walk on the left. [...] Londoners who should know better frequently go against the arrows and arrive on a platform from the exit, confusing the tourists. [...] Perhaps they do that because they *do* know better! (Many tourists are readily confused anyhow - if Londoners had to alter all their behaviours so as to avoid confusing tourists, nothing would happen in London.) [...]* What's the convention for walking through those small passages that interlink platforms etc? On the left, as with staircases. |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On Aug 2, 4:26*pm, Clive wrote: In message , Brian Watson writes: Some of us HAVE been trekking in Nepal. Get over it. Or, get back to Nepal until you have consideration for your fellow man. Interesting how you seem to *know* that Brian is one of the inconsiderate ones! |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:14:42 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, d wrote: I had to use the tube today and had the pleasure of some eejit wearing a rucksack in front of me constantly swivelling it about and bumping me. Happily I managed to get my own back when I got off the train by just shoving past their rucksack and almost knocking them over but shouldn't there be some sort of bylaw for not wearing huge rucksacks to deal with these sorts of idiots who seem to think they're still trecking in nepal even when squashed on the victoria line? Yes, there should. Also people who roll their little rolly cases in the tube passageways, and people who think that just having stepped off a train is the right time to put their bag down and fiddle with it. And also people who only start retrieving their ticket when they get to a gate. And people who think right in front of an entrance or the foot of an escalator is the right place to stand in groups of a dozen and discuss where to go. And people who walk down the middle of a passageway, occupying the whole thing, at a speed slower than intended by anyone else. Admittedly this only applies to wide people and narrow passages, but this is London, and that is a frequent combination. Do we in fact need a taxonomy of intolerable underground behaviour? People who walk the wrong way down the one-way passages of deep level stations, and look offended when they barge into me simply because I hold my line. -- Fig |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On 2 Aug, 17:15, Mizter T wrote:
On Aug 2, 3:44*pm, Clive wrote: In message , Tristan Miller writes: Exactly what disability causes people to walk slowly down the middle of a narrow passageway? *Is there some affliction that prevents them from keeping to one side, thereby allowing faster-moving traffic to pass them? Or is "being inconsiderate of others" now classed as a disability? I'm not disabled but am frequently confused by the use of the tube. * In this country we drive on the left, so it is normal to walk on the left, but the escalators say stand on the right. [...]* And? It's results in the same outcome, in that others can walk on the left. [...] Londoners who should know better frequently go against the arrows and arrive on a platform from the exit, confusing the tourists. [...] Perhaps they do that because they *do* know better! (Many tourists are readily confused anyhow - if Londoners had to alter all their behaviours so as to avoid confusing tourists, nothing would happen in London.) It generally makes sense to follow the arrows, but there are a couple of notable exceptions. At Bank, pretty well all signs must be ignored if possible, but Bank is weird. The wrong passageway that I would use would be the cross passageway at Euston in the morning, at the level between the escalators. The one slightly further north is filled both with people heading from the mainline station to the City branch/Victoria Line and with people trying to exit from the Charing Cross branch. The other one isn't really used at all unless someone wanted to change from Victoria Line to Charing Cross branch there. (I don't understand why they don't avoid this crush by making both escalators from the ticket hall two-way.) [...]* What's the convention for walking through those small passages that interlink platforms etc? On the left, as with staircases. |
Rucksacks worn on the tube
On 2010-08-02, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Eric writes On 2010-08-01, Ian Jelf wrote: Phew. Bit opinionated for me but.......hey, this is Usenet! Happy travelling. ;-) If this is Usenet (yes, I know, it is) then I should probably say that the smiley will not get you out of being killfiled. Not sure if the prospect of being killfiled is supposed to make me feel in some way threatened or bothered. Plainly it won't! It might be a first, though (unless others have done it for reasons of boredom!). 'Twas merely an observation. Killfiles and their like are for spammers and trolls. No, nobody said "delayed", not even me, but this went from specific inconsiderate behaviour (rucksacks) to a list, which included things which I know can be due to mobility problems. And nobody knows what goes on in someone else's head, we only go on external evidence. You think I have a chip on my shoulder - you might too if your partner frequently came home crying because no-one would give her a seat and people pushed her out of the way and ... . And that's why I am less than certain of your (or anybody's) level of understanding. Pleased to see you're less than certain" about what I think, rather than assuming you *know* what I think. I don't know what you think. I do know that I find insufficient evidence in what you have written that you do understand what I am saying. I stand by my view that few people would be harsh on someone with a mobility impairment, even in crowded London. I do understand, though, that some people's impairments are less than obvious (as people with parking badges sometimes find out from "interested" passers-by). Not necessarily deliberately harsh, just selfish and/or arrogant. It is a fact of life, though, that London tends to be full of people in a hurry, mingling with people not in a hurry (for reasons varying from being mobility-impaired to being tourists) and they tend to chaff, sometimes. Chaff? As for your partner being upset by people's actions, Not their actions, the consequences of them, which is mostly pain! that's unlikely to change in the foreseeable future and only three courses of action are open: (1) Carry on being upset. (2) Stop using public transport or (3) The only real choice.......being more forceful. That's not everyone's cup of tea but - given the innate undesirability of the other two choices - it's the only one open to them. The response to which has been known to be "aggressive compliance", feigned deafness, or abuse. Unlike many posters here, I post under a real name and am very easily identifiable online! That makes me more careful and considered about what I write, which in turn makes me only write things I can stand by. There is, of course, no answer to that except to wonder why you thought it necessary to say it. Eric (which is my real name :) ) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:49 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk