| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Heightened Security & Photography
Last week I made the monumental mistake of taking photographs of
Cockfosters Station, on my way home from work. I always take pictures of tube stations - the Piccadilly Line ones are just beautiful. Especially Southgate, but I digress. One of the station staff approached me and asked what I was doing and I told him. (I have spoken to him before about taking pictures and it was never a problem...) First things first - I should have asked permission as a courtesy. I totally accept that. In my defence it was spare of the moment with the light and shadows and I was in the last carriage, so didn't think about walking the length of the platform and back again. But yes, I should have asked permission. I thought that was the end of it. I apologised and explained that I thought it was fine because I recall seeing a sign (somewhere) asking people not to take flash photography, so I kind of thought that was a presumed permission. He then said that I was causing alarm amongst passengers and drivers - which was totally not the case. There were no passengers or drivers about at that time. And I actually don't want people in photographs of buildings. One of the cleaners exclaimed something in French to me but I didn't understand. But accept that she could have been alarmed. But then she alarmed me by not speaking in English but that's beside the point. He then got his supervisor who asked the same question, and said he understood that I wanted to take pictures of the architecture but I wasn't too photograph anything in the roof, due to "heightened security". Yet Cockfosters is without staff for several hours in the morning and evening - if security was so heightened should this not be addressed? Or was that a fib? SO I then decided to check the TfL website, where I discovered some fairly stringent rules about taking pictures, he http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...aspx#section-2 TfL's website offers a "student/non professional users" £40 license fee, that takes about three weeks to be processed and "this permit is only a permit to film or photograph. It does not allow you to publish or broadcast your photographs or films anywhere externally, including on the internet..." Then I found this: https://custserv.tfl.gov.uk/icss_csi...ewTabtext=Tube Taking photographs on the Tube If you are just passing through, you shouldn't have a problem taking personal snaps, souvenir shots etc. although you must NOT use flash or lights on any of our platforms. However, if you want to spend more than 10-15 minutes at any one station videoing or taking photos, or if they are for professional use, you MUST have a permit. So, I was correct in the presumed permission - the pictures were not for professional use, and I was at the station for about 5 minutes. I suppose my point is that if you want to take pictures, take a print out of that webpage from TfL with you! And that if people mention security as a reason for anything, I instantly lose interest in what they are saying. It seems such an easy one-excuse-fits-all kind of answer. |
Heightened Security & Photography
Railist wrote:
Last week I made the monumental mistake of taking photographs of Cockfosters Station, on my way home from work. I always take pictures of tube stations - the Piccadilly Line ones are just beautiful. Especially Southgate, but I digress. One of the station staff approached me and asked what I was doing and I told him. (I have spoken to him before about taking pictures and it was never a problem...) First things first - I should have asked permission as a courtesy. I totally accept that. In my defence it was spare of the moment with the light and shadows and I was in the last carriage, so didn't think about walking the length of the platform and back again. But yes, I should have asked permission. I thought that was the end of it. I apologised and explained that I thought it was fine because I recall seeing a sign (somewhere) asking people not to take flash photography, so I kind of thought that was a presumed permission. He then said that I was causing alarm amongst passengers and drivers - which was totally not the case. There were no passengers or drivers about at that time. And I actually don't want people in photographs of buildings. One of the cleaners exclaimed something in French to me but I didn't understand. But accept that she could have been alarmed. But then she alarmed me by not speaking in English but that's beside the point. He then got his supervisor who asked the same question, and said he understood that I wanted to take pictures of the architecture but I wasn't too photograph anything in the roof, due to "heightened security". Yet Cockfosters is without staff for several hours in the morning and evening - if security was so heightened should this not be addressed? Or was that a fib? SO I then decided to check the TfL website, where I discovered some fairly stringent rules about taking pictures, he http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...aspx#section-2 TfL's website offers a "student/non professional users" £40 license fee, that takes about three weeks to be processed and "this permit is only a permit to film or photograph. It does not allow you to publish or broadcast your photographs or films anywhere externally, including on the internet..." Then I found this: https://custserv.tfl.gov.uk/icss_csi...ewTabtext=Tube Taking photographs on the Tube If you are just passing through, you shouldn't have a problem taking personal snaps, souvenir shots etc. although you must NOT use flash or lights on any of our platforms. However, if you want to spend more than 10-15 minutes at any one station videoing or taking photos, or if they are for professional use, you MUST have a permit. So, I was correct in the presumed permission - the pictures were not for professional use, and I was at the station for about 5 minutes. I suppose my point is that if you want to take pictures, take a print out of that webpage from TfL with you! And that if people mention security as a reason for anything, I instantly lose interest in what they are saying. It seems such an easy one-excuse-fits-all kind of answer. I think you were basically correct to do what you did, and I see no reason why you should have felt obliged to ask permission for five minutes of picture-taking. The LU guidelines are quite clear and reasonable and they should not need to be modified to suit the security paranoia of a particular member or members of LU staff. However, all TfL staff are required to be very aware of potential risks and one thing they are probably trained to look out for is people who behave in a manner that makes them stand out. So their response is perhaps understandable in that context. There is one grey area in the guidelines and that is the meaning of "for personal use". A court would have to decide precisely what that term meant, but it would normally exclude publication (except for editorial use). Once again, the term "publication" is not precisely defined anywhere, and would need to be decided on in court, but the term would normally include display on a web site or internet file-sharing. |
Heightened Security & Photography
In message , at 00:00:30 on
Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Bruce remarked: TfL staff are required to be very aware of potential risks and one thing they are probably trained to look out for is people who behave in a manner that makes them stand out. And, obviously, terrorists doing reconnaissance will be trying hard to stand out from the crowd. -- Roland Perry |
Heightened Security & Photography
Railist wrote: Then I found this: https://custserv.tfl.gov.uk/icss_csi...ewTabtext=Tube Taking photographs on the Tube If you are just passing through, you shouldn't have a problem taking personal snaps, souvenir shots etc. although you must NOT use flash or lights on any of our platforms. However, if you want to spend more than 10-15 minutes at any one station videoing or taking photos, or if they are for professional use, you MUST have a permit. TfL seems to have taken that page down since you posted the link to it, although it is still available in Google's cache for now: http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ache:-vfRGwN0- MEJ:https://custserv.tfl.gov.uk/icss_csi...Information.do %3Bjsessionid%3D %28J2EE704339600%29ID0483828352DB00743095560877256 388End%3Bsaplb_*%3D %28J2EE704339600%29704339652%3FentityNum %3D00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003 939%26kbname%3DSDB %26newTabtext%3DTube+site:custserv.tfl.gov.uk+%22T aking+photographs+on +the+Tube%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.g oogle.co.uk or http://tinyurl.com/Tube-Photo-Rule-Cache The fact that TfL is secretly trying to hide or remove its more helpful rules like this is proof that it, like all public transport organisations, is full of evil, sadistic *******s who like nothing more than any flimsy excuse to make their unlucky customers suffer as much as possible. |
Heightened Security & Photography
wrote: Railist wrote: Then I found this: https://custserv.tfl.gov.uk/icss_csi...ewTabtext=Tube Taking photographs on the Tube If you are just passing through, you shouldn't have a problem taking personal snaps, souvenir shots etc. although you must NOT use flash or lights on any of our platforms. However, if you want to spend more than 10-15 minutes at any one station videoing or taking photos, or if they are for professional use, you MUST have a permit. TfL seems to have taken that page down since you posted the link to it, although it is still available in Google's cache for now: [snip massive URL] or http://tinyurl.com/Tube-Photo-Rule-Cache The fact that TfL is secretly trying to hide or remove its more helpful rules like this is proof that it, like all public transport organisations, is full of evil, sadistic *******s who like nothing more than any flimsy excuse to make their unlucky customers suffer as much as possible. No Pippa, it's because the 'custserv' system which is used for the FAQ section on the TfL website uses dynamic URLs or somesuch which can't be used to directly hyperlink to particular FAQs - less than ideal, I fully grant you, however the TfL webmaster is not sitting and monitoring discussion on usenet or traffic flow to particular webpages and then taking them down when they get mentioned or get too popular. Sorry, I realise that doesn't follow the script of abject paranoia. Let me try again... Yes Pippa, it's hard to believe it but it seems you've finally found proof that operatives sit in the TfL Lair Of Doom buried deep under London looking for ways to purposefully frustrate everyone - they monitor all communications, and are perpetually tinkering with things so as to cause frustration so as to please their twisted psyches. Even when you do encounter supposed helpfulness, if you look deep into their eyes you'll see the tell tale giveaway signs that they aren't like you or I, but are in fact lizards, who exist here on earth to fulfill some devilish masterplan so obscure and unfathomable that we can merely wonder and shudder at their fundamental evil. On a lighter note, have you met Boltar? I reckon you two would get on famously. |
Heightened Security & Photography
Mizter T wrote: wrote: Railist wrote: Then I found this: https://custserv.tfl.gov.uk/icss_csi...ewTabtext=Tube TfL seems to have taken that page down since you posted the link to it, although it is still available in Google's cache for now: [snip massive URL] or http://tinyurl.com/Tube-Photo-Rule-Cache The fact that TfL is secretly trying to hide or remove its more helpful rules like this is proof that it, like all public transport organisations, is full of evil, sadistic *******s who like nothing more than any flimsy excuse to make their unlucky customers suffer as much as possible. No Pippa, it's because the 'custserv' system which is used for the FAQ section on the TfL website uses dynamic URLs or somesuch which can't be used to directly hyperlink to particular FAQs Interesting. Thanks for that. Of course, the real question is why TfL goes out of its way to use a system that automatically hides/changes URLs all the time? What is it trying to hide? - less than ideal, I fully grant you, however the TfL webmaster is not sitting and monitoring discussion on usenet or traffic flow to particular webpages and then taking them down when they get mentioned or get too popular. Well, of course, if the system has been set up to hide webpages from people automatically, then obviously the webmaster doesn't need to do it himself. Sorry, I realise that doesn't follow the script of abject paranoia. Let me try again... Yes Pippa, it's hard to believe it but it seems you've finally found proof that operatives sit in the TfL Lair Of Doom buried deep under London looking for ways to purposefully frustrate everyone - they monitor all communications, and are perpetually tinkering with things so as to cause frustration so as to please their twisted psyches. Even when you do encounter supposed helpfulness, if you look deep into their eyes you'll see the tell tale giveaway signs that they aren't like you or I, but are in fact lizards, who exist here on earth to fulfill some devilish masterplan so obscure and unfathomable that we can merely wonder and shudder at their fundamental evil. Sorry to disappoint you. I'm not that kind of a conspiracy theorist, and there's no masterplan beyond simple human nature. After all, Public Transport will always be something that no-one wants to use, unless they reluctantly have to as a last resort. It's only natural that people working in/for it end up sadistically taking advantage of this, enjoying schadenfreude over our misery, and finding ways to increase it. We'd all do the same if we were in their shoes. On a lighter note, have you met Boltar? I reckon you two would get on famously. No. Although he talks a lot of good sense about transport, on just about everything else he's a useless piece of evil right-wing ****. I mean, he actually thinks the recent rioters were bad guys, instead of the plucky little heroes standing up against the bourgeois control- freaks running the powers that be. How wrong could he get? |
Heightened Security & Photography
wrote: Mizter T wrote: wrote: Railist wrote: Then I found this: https://custserv.tfl.gov.uk/icss_csi...ewTabtext=Tube TfL seems to have taken that page down since you posted the link to it, although it is still available in Google's cache for now: [snip massive URL] or http://tinyurl.com/Tube-Photo-Rule-Cache The fact that TfL is secretly trying to hide or remove its more helpful rules like this is proof that it, like all public transport organisations, is full of evil, sadistic *******s who like nothing more than any flimsy excuse to make their unlucky customers suffer as much as possible. No Pippa, it's because the 'custserv' system which is used for the FAQ section on the TfL website uses dynamic URLs or somesuch which can't be used to directly hyperlink to particular FAQs Interesting. Thanks for that. Of course, the real question is why TfL goes out of its way to use a system that automatically hides/changes URLs all the time? What is it trying to hide? It's quite annoying, I fully agree - for their FAQs (IIRC there were separate LU and Oyster FAQs), TfL used to use the widely implemented 'custhelp' system (from a company called RightNow) which did produce static URLs which could be quited elsewhere - I dunno if the newer 'custserv' system is from the same company, but it seems to be a rather more comprehensive combined FAQ and contact tool/interface - it handles a whole range of contact possibilities for TfL as a whole (complaints / suggestions / report lost property / street faults etc) as well as the FAQs ("Search Common Questions") - you can see that this all sits together in the same interface he http://www.tfl.gov.uk/contact (The above is a pseudo-address which actually takes you straight into the 'custserv' pages.) I've probably used all the wrong terminology above - the 'custserv' and 'custhelp' descriptions I used feature in the respective URLs - for example, here's a couple of example of the 'custhelp' system in current use... ....by TheTrainline... http://thetrainline.custhelp.com/ ....and BT... http://bt.custhelp.com/ - less than ideal, I fully grant you, however the TfL webmaster is not sitting and monitoring discussion on usenet or traffic flow to particular webpages and then taking them down when they get mentioned or get too popular. Well, of course, if the system has been set up to hide webpages from people automatically, then obviously the webmaster doesn't need to do it himself. See above - it's an annoying feature of this particular system, and I think it's a pretty safe bet it's an off-the-shelf system rather than being one designed specifically by/for TfL. Sorry, I realise that doesn't follow the script of abject paranoia. Let me try again... Yes Pippa, it's hard to believe it but it seems you've finally found proof that operatives sit in the TfL Lair Of Doom buried deep under London looking for ways to purposefully frustrate everyone - they monitor all communications, and are perpetually tinkering with things so as to cause frustration so as to please their twisted psyches. Even when you do encounter supposed helpfulness, if you look deep into their eyes you'll see the tell tale giveaway signs that they aren't like you or I, but are in fact lizards, who exist here on earth to fulfill some devilish masterplan so obscure and unfathomable that we can merely wonder and shudder at their fundamental evil. Sorry to disappoint you. I'm not that kind of a conspiracy theorist, and there's no masterplan beyond simple human nature. After all, Public Transport will always be something that no-one wants to use, unless they reluctantly have to as a last resort. It's only natural that people working in/for it end up sadistically taking advantage of this, enjoying schadenfreude over our misery, and finding ways to increase it. We'd all do the same if we were in their shoes. I know many many people who want to use public transport (no, not just me) - you shouldn't project your own thoughts onto the populace at large. Even if one goes along with the premise of your first sentence, I'm left wondering at your world view, what with all this 'natural' sadism and enjoyment of misery that again you seem to think are traits which are or would be shared by everyone else. On a lighter note, have you met Boltar? I reckon you two would get on famously. No. Although he talks a lot of good sense about transport, on just about everything else he's a useless piece of evil right-wing ****. I mean, he actually thinks the recent rioters were bad guys, instead of the plucky little heroes standing up against the bourgeois control- freaks running the powers that be. How wrong could he get? If he turns up then you can both enjoy a nice troll fight together. |
Heightened Security & Photography
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
" wrote: On a lighter note, have you met Boltar? I reckon you two would get on famously. No. Although he talks a lot of good sense about transport, on just about everything else he's a useless piece of evil right-wing ****. I Its nice to be loved. mean, he actually thinks the recent rioters were bad guys, instead of the plucky little heroes standing up against the bourgeois control- freaks running the powers that be. How wrong could he get? Well quite. I probably just need to drink more Guardian Cola and then I'll get better. :) B2003 |
Heightened Security & Photography
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:32:57 +0100
"Mizter T" wrote: If he turns up then you can both enjoy a nice troll fight together. Who would look after my bridge while I was gone?? B2003 |
Heightened Security & Photography
On 10 Apr, 12:27, Railist wrote:
Last week I made the monumental mistake of taking photographs of Cockfosters Station, on my way home from work. I always take pictures of tube stations - the Piccadilly Line ones are just beautiful. Especially Southgate, but I digress. One of the station staff approached me and asked what I was doing and I told him. (I have spoken to him before about taking pictures and it was never a problem...) First things first - I should have asked permission as a courtesy. I totally accept that. In my defence it was spare of the moment with the light and shadows and I was in the last carriage, so didn't think about walking the length of the platform and back again. But yes, I should have asked permission. I thought that was the end of it. I apologised and explained that I thought it was fine because I recall seeing a sign (somewhere) asking people not to take flash photography, so I kind of thought that was a presumed permission. He then said that I was causing alarm amongst passengers and drivers - which was totally not the case. There were no passengers or drivers about at that time. And I actually don't want people in photographs of buildings. One of the cleaners exclaimed something in French to me but I didn't understand. But accept that she could have been alarmed. But then she alarmed me by not speaking in English but that's beside the point. He then got his supervisor who asked the same question, and said he understood that I wanted to take pictures of the architecture but I wasn't too photograph anything in the roof, due to "heightened security". Yet Cockfosters is without staff for several hours in the morning and evening - if security was so heightened should this not be addressed? Or was that a fib? SO I then decided to check the TfL website, where I discovered some fairly stringent rules about taking pictures, hehttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...aspx#section-2 TfL's website offers a "student/non professional users" £40 license fee, that takes about three weeks to be processed and "this permit is only a permit to film or photograph. It does not allow you to publish or broadcast your photographs or films anywhere externally, including on the internet..." Then I found this:https://custserv.tfl.gov.uk/icss_csi...ion.do?entityN... Taking photographs on the Tube If you are just passing through, you shouldn't have a problem taking personal snaps, souvenir shots etc. although you must NOT use flash or lights on any of our platforms. However, if you want to spend more than 10-15 minutes at any one station videoing or taking photos, or if they are for professional use, you MUST have a permit. So, I was correct in the presumed permission - the pictures were not for professional use, and I was at the station for about 5 minutes. I suppose my point is that if you want to take pictures, take a print out of that webpage from TfL with you! And that if people mention security as a reason for anything, I instantly lose interest in what they are saying. It seems such an easy one-excuse-fits-all kind of answer. You didn't make any mistake this member of staff did, ask for his name and report him to LU/TFL. The only restriction is on flash photography. |
Heightened Security & Photography
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:37:12PM +0100, Mizter T wrote:
Yes Pippa, it's hard to believe it but it seems you've finally found proof that operatives sit in the TfL Lair Of Doom buried deep under London looking for ways to purposefully frustrate everyone - they monitor all communications, and are perpetually tinkering with things so as to cause frustration so as to please their twisted psyches. Even when you do encounter supposed helpfulness, if you look deep into their eyes you'll see the tell tale giveaway signs that they aren't like you or I, but are in fact lizards, who exist here on earth to fulfill some devilish masterplan so obscure and unfathomable that we can merely wonder and shudder at their fundamental evil. Yes, that's an excellent description of someone who would deliberately generate URLs for useful information that can't be bookmarked. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice Immigration: making Britain great since AD43 |
Heightened Security & Photography
On 10/04/2011 12:27, Railist wrote:
I suppose my point is that if you want to take pictures, take a print out of that webpage from TfL with you! And that if people mention security as a reason for anything, I instantly lose interest in what they are saying. It seems such an easy one-excuse-fits-all kind of answer. I used Oktyabrskaya station on the Minsk metro a fortnight ago. Photography is apparently banned on the metro, which must be why they are safe from bad things happening... -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Heightened Security & Photography
On 12/04/2011 11:02, George wrote:
On 10 Apr, 12:27, wrote: Last week I made the monumental mistake of taking photographs of Cockfosters Station, on my way home from work. I always take pictures of tube stations - the Piccadilly Line ones are just beautiful. Especially Southgate, but I digress. One of the station staff approached me and asked what I was doing and I told him. (I have spoken to him before about taking pictures and it was never a problem...) First things first - I should have asked permission as a courtesy. I totally accept that. In my defence it was spare of the moment with the light and shadows and I was in the last carriage, so didn't think about walking the length of the platform and back again. But yes, I should have asked permission. I thought that was the end of it. I apologised and explained that I thought it was fine because I recall seeing a sign (somewhere) asking people not to take flash photography, so I kind of thought that was a presumed permission. He then said that I was causing alarm amongst passengers and drivers - which was totally not the case. There were no passengers or drivers about at that time. And I actually don't want people in photographs of buildings. One of the cleaners exclaimed something in French to me but I didn't understand. But accept that she could have been alarmed. But then she alarmed me by not speaking in English but that's beside the point. He then got his supervisor who asked the same question, and said he understood that I wanted to take pictures of the architecture but I wasn't too photograph anything in the roof, due to "heightened security". Yet Cockfosters is without staff for several hours in the morning and evening - if security was so heightened should this not be addressed? Or was that a fib? SO I then decided to check the TfL website, where I discovered some fairly stringent rules about taking pictures, hehttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...aspx#section-2 TfL's website offers a "student/non professional users" £40 license fee, that takes about three weeks to be processed and "this permit is only a permit to film or photograph. It does not allow you to publish or broadcast your photographs or films anywhere externally, including on the internet..." Then I found this:https://custserv.tfl.gov.uk/icss_csi...ion.do?entityN... Taking photographs on the Tube If you are just passing through, you shouldn't have a problem taking personal snaps, souvenir shots etc. although you must NOT use flash or lights on any of our platforms. However, if you want to spend more than 10-15 minutes at any one station videoing or taking photos, or if they are for professional use, you MUST have a permit. So, I was correct in the presumed permission - the pictures were not for professional use, and I was at the station for about 5 minutes. I suppose my point is that if you want to take pictures, take a print out of that webpage from TfL with you! And that if people mention security as a reason for anything, I instantly lose interest in what they are saying. It seems such an easy one-excuse-fits-all kind of answer. You didn't make any mistake this member of staff did, ask for his name and report him to LU/TFL. The only restriction is on flash photography. IMHO, many of them enjoy intimidating passengers in order to feel powerful. |
Heightened Security & Photography
|
Heightened Security & Photography
On Apr 12, 10:27*pm, wrote:
In article , () wrote: You didn't make any mistake this member of staff did, ask for his name and report him to LU/TFL. The only restriction is on flash photography. IMHO, many of them enjoy intimidating passengers in order to feel powerful. Too true, especially of cyclists. I had some pretty offensive treatment from a SWT guard with my bike between Wandsworth Town and Putney. -- Colin Rosenstiel On the other hand last week there was a SWT guard on the train from Feltham to Waterloo who kept passengers amused by making humorous announcements. One of his more serious ones was that he would get seriously upset if he caught anyone with their feet up on the opposite seat. He got a rousing cheer at that. When people left they thanked him. CJB. |
Heightened Security & Photography
On Apr 12, 10:27*pm, wrote: In article , () wrote: [staff] IMHO, many of them enjoy intimidating passengers in order to feel powerful. Too true, especially of cyclists. I had some pretty offensive treatment from a SWT guard with my bike between Wandsworth Town and Putney. What happened? |
Heightened Security & Photography
In message
, CJB writes On the other hand last week there was a SWT guard on the train from Feltham to Waterloo who kept passengers amused by making humorous announcements. One of his more serious ones was that he would get seriously upset if he caught anyone with their feet up on the opposite seat. He got a rousing cheer at that. I've heard some good announcements on the SWT loop lines, ranging from a good history of the ramps between Putney and Wandsworth Town, to an almost interminable exposition of the variety of destinations reachable from Clapham Junction, relieved only by details of the likely platform needed for each destination (the latter announcement hadn't even been finished by the time we pulled away from CJ). -- Paul Terry |
Heightened Security & Photography
|
Heightened Security & Photography
|
Heightened Security & Photography
|
Heightened Security & Photography
|
Heightened Security & Photography
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:50:18 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: Later in the same trip, after the scooter had gone, a lycra-clad cyclist had to literally force his way onto the train it was that crowded. Given the conditions on the tubes and trains these days and the number of inconsiderate arseholes who won't move down, let other people pass without a shove or take up half of the seat either side of them with elbows or legs I'm surprised we don't hear about frequent rush hour punch-ups. B2003 |
Heightened Security & Photography
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote: In message , at 08:36:38 on Thu, 14 Apr 2011, d remarked: He got very huffy because my bike was in the doorway which he wanted to open the doors from at Putney, starting as the train left Wandsworth Town (where he had used another doorway), long before he needed to get me out of my seat to move it. He was very unpleasant about it. Taking a bike on slow trains from Vauxhall to Putney is a bit of a pain because the side the doors open on keeps changing from one station to the next. There are bike spaces in class 450 trains with tip-up seats but even well into the evening or mid-afternoon you try shifting someone sitting in one of them. Having had the misfortune of clambouring past a couple of his-n-hers bikes blocking a doorway on a cambridge service recently I can rather share his frustration. If you're going to take a bike on a commuter train take a fold-up. Large suitcases are bad enough but a bike with dirty wheel and a greasy chain getting in your way is just taking the ****. Colin's miffed because he would claim that he's a good guy and will get out of his seat and move the bike on approach to a station where it's now in the doorway on the platform side. Indeed.It's a right pain on the 09:20 from Cambridge to King's Cross since they added the Royston and Letchworth stops. But many people are not as considerate, and if the vestibule was full of standing passengers, then neither of his actions would be very easy. In such cases I always stand with the bike anyway. He might even claim that if the train was that full he'd not try to park the bike in such a vestibule - I'm not sure. in class 450s I try to get in the marked bike space but passengers don't usually agree. But in the race-to-the-bottom which characterises so much of modern life, the guard can't assume anyone will act the good guy. Indeed, on one of my most recent trips someone parked a disabled scooter in a dorway and then went and hid, leaving a substantial obstacle in the way of both passengers and their luggage. Later in the same trip, after the scooter had gone, a lycra-clad cyclist had to literally force his way onto the train it was that crowded. Not a problem on King's Cross trains though I try to get to the station early to get the bike out of the way before the crowds if any arrive. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Heightened Security & Photography - bicycles
*From:* d
*Date:* Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:36:38 +0000 (UTC) On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:00:40 -0500 wrote: He got very huffy because my bike was in the doorway which he wanted to open the doors from at Putney, starting as the train left Wandsworth Town (where he had used another doorway), long before he needed to get me out of my seat to move it. He was very unpleasant about it. Taking a bike on slow trains from Vauxhall to Putney is a bit of a pain because the side the doors open on keeps changing from one station to the next. There are bike spaces in class 450 trains with tip-up seats but even well into the evening or mid-afternoon you try shifting someone sitting in one of them. Having had the misfortune of clambouring past a couple of his-n-hers bikes blocking a doorway on a cambridge service recently I can rather share his frustration. If you're going to take a bike on a commuter train take a fold-up. Large suitcases are bad enough but a bike with dirty wheel and a greasy chain getting in your way is just taking the ****. B2003 I can see both sides of the argument about taking bikes on trains and I realise that everybody's not the same, but I wish they'd ban them from the Overground, at least at peak and other busy times. Having travelled on the Overground many times over the past couple of months, bikes are a menace. It's bad enough trying to find a space as a passenger in rush hour, let alone having to try and squeeze past a bike or stand there with a bike sticking in you. If bikes are to be allowed on trains, there should be a special place for them. I know some trains on FCC have the fold-up side seats near the doors on some cars, which I assume can be used for bikes as I have seen bikes there, but if those seats are the only ones available (and I don't like using them), I'm not going to give up my seat and stand, just so a bike can take my place!. I don't know what stock they are, but the diesel units that run from Norwich to Yarmouth / Lowestoft etc. have a special place for bikes as you enter the door. It's a good design and holds several bikes and seems to be well used. Mind you, I have similar feelings about buggies on buses. I fully appreciate that mothers need to use buses, but then they should use fold-up buggies and fold them. Now, it seems, everybody must have the three wheel buggies which don't (I assume) fold up. They struggle to get them on the bus and along the aisle. One seems to fill up the whole wheelchair / buggy section. I was on a single deck bus the other day where the wheelchair / buggy area was occupied by a shopping trolley and a large buggy, with a second buggy parked in front of the centre doors and a third parked in the aisle. The bus was almost full and passengers were having to struggle to get past them. Roger |
Heightened Security & Photography
|
Heightened Security & Photography - bicycles
wrote in message ... I can see both sides of the argument about taking bikes on trains and I realise that everybody's not the same, but I wish they'd ban them from the Overground, at least at peak and other busy times. There are already various banned times on the Overground - but I expect there's little or no enforcement - especially on DOO routes. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycl...aspx#section-4 Paul S |
Heightened Security & Photography - bicycles
In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote: wrote in message ... I can see both sides of the argument about taking bikes on trains and I realise that everybody's not the same, but I wish they'd ban them from the Overground, at least at peak and other busy times. There are already various banned times on the Overground - but I expect there's little or no enforcement - especially on DOO routes. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycl...aspx#section-4 Curious. Most of the rest of the old Network South East has a peak hour ban on bikes, as does LU (surface lines). I wonder why bits of London Overground don't? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Heightened Security & Photography - bicycles
wrote in message
... In article , (Paul Scott) wrote: There are already various banned times on the Overground - but I expect there's little or no enforcement - especially on DOO routes. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycl...aspx#section-4 Curious. Most of the rest of the old Network South East has a peak hour ban on bikes, as does LU (surface lines). I wonder why bits of London Overground don't? Yes - odd isn't it - maybe the rules reflect the situation before today's passenger numbers developed, and should be readdressed? Paul S |
Heightened Security & Photography - bicycles
In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote: wrote in message ... In article , (Paul Scott) wrote: There are already various banned times on the Overground - but I expect there's little or no enforcement - especially on DOO routes. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycl...aspx#section-4 Curious. Most of the rest of the old Network South East has a peak hour ban on bikes, as does LU (surface lines). I wonder why bits of London Overground don't? Yes - odd isn't it - maybe the rules reflect the situation before today's passenger numbers developed, and should be readdressed? Looks rather like it, doesn't it? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Heightened Security & Photography
|
Heightened Security & Photography - bicycles
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:44:12 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote: There are already various banned times on the Overground - but I expect there's little or no enforcement - especially on DOO routes. "We aren't moving until the bike is removed" works for Manchester Metrolink. It soon is, either by the owner or someone else. The same tends to go for people who haven't paid on London buses. Assumes they see it, of course. Neil -- Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK |
Heightened Security & Photography
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:17:22 +0200
Neil Williams wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 04:59:25 -0500, wrote: in class 450s I try to get in the marked bike space but passengers don't usually agree. IMO tip-up seats in these areas are a bad idea. People like to sit there; better to keep it as standing space. I agree , ditch those daft flip up seats - and fit proper seats instead. Commuter trains are for transporting people, not equipment. If someone can't fit their bike in thats just tough ****. People don't expect to fit a non folding bike on a bus so why should they expect to fit one on a train? B2003 |
Heightened Security & Photography
In article , d ()
wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:17:22 +0200 Neil Williams wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 04:59:25 -0500, wrote: in class 450s I try to get in the marked bike space but passengers don't usually agree. IMO tip-up seats in these areas are a bad idea. People like to sit there; better to keep it as standing space. I agree , ditch those daft flip up seats - and fit proper seats instead. Commuter trains are for transporting people, not equipment. If someone can't fit their bike in thats just tough ****. People don't expect to fit a non folding bike on a bus so why should they expect to fit one on a train? And where would people in wheelchairs go? Or would you ban them from trains too? Even commuter trains aren't just for sardines. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Heightened Security & Photography
|
Heightened Security & Photography
|
Heightened Security & Photography
|
Heightened Security & Photography
In article ,
d wrote: Well most stations arn't wheelchair accessable anyway so its a moot point and I'm sorry if someone is in a chair but public transport is not really for them. The majority has to take precendence I'm afraid. There is something called dial-a-ride you know. Have you ever spoken to someone who relies on dial-a-ride or seen the page about it on the TFL website? You keep on talking about it, but the service is pretty poor for anything time-critical. It couldn't replace /any/ of the journeys I have made by Tube this year, for example. The recent move to make tube trains wheelchair friendly is just idiotic pandering to political correctness. Rubbish. The aim is to make it incrementally more accessible to more people - not just wheelchair users - what's wrong with that? -- Mike Bristow |
Heightened Security & Photography
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:21:42 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote: Have you ever spoken to someone who relies on dial-a-ride or seen the page about it on the TFL website? You keep on talking about it, but the service is pretty poor for anything time-critical. It couldn't replace /any/ of the journeys I have made by Tube this year, for example. Why not? If something is time critical using the tube is a bad idea for anyone, wheelchair bound or not, as it simply can't be relied on. For example I never use public transport when going to an airport. Coming back from one to go home is another matter since it doesn't matter if I'm delayed then. The recent move to make tube trains wheelchair friendly is just idiotic pandering to political correctness. Rubbish. The aim is to make it incrementally more accessible to more people - not just wheelchair users - what's wrong with that? Because wheelchairs are an obstruction in confined spaces and could potentially be highly dangerous if a fast evacuation is required in a tunnel. And who is going to carry you out? Would you rely on the goodwill of other passengers? Aside from that most tube stations arn't wheelchair accessable and spending a billion on making them so for the tiny minority of people who'd take advantage of it is a waste of public money. B2003 |
Heightened Security & Photography
On Apr 15, 11:48*am, wrote:
Why not? If something is time critical using the tube is a bad idea for anyone, wheelchair bound or not, as it simply can't be relied on. And London's roads can? Don't be silly. Most of my rail journeys are pretty punctual these days. Because wheelchairs are an obstruction in confined spaces and could potentially be highly dangerous if a fast evacuation is required in a tunnel. Like the people who think luggage, bicycles and standing passengers in the way of doors are a serious safety issue, you're making the mistake of comparing a train, an electric one at that, with an aircraft. With an aircraft, due to the amount of fuel present, an accident very often results in a serious and fast-burning fire. The safest option in the event of an accident is therefore usually, subject to the engines having stopped, to get out as quickly as possible. The rules on operating aircraft, such as ensuring that the passengers in the exit row are able-bodied so they will be able to open the door and not get in the way, and ensuring that luggage may not be placed in the way of said doors, are based on this. With a train there is far less fuel (none in the case of an electric train) and the bodyshell is generally more substantial, with proper glass double-glazed windows rather than plastic ones, so any fire that occurs outside is likely to stay outside for some time, and any influence inside (even explosives) are unlikely to cause a serious fire. Also, in the immediate aftermath of a problem, there are likely to be trains moving on lines adjacent to the train concerned. Therefore, one of the most dangerous things to do in the event of a rail accident is to evacuate quickly[1]. You are better to remain on board while the situation is assessed, moving to another carriage if necessary. You'll note that all the safety posters in trains say this, as distinct from the ones in aircraft that basically say "get out"[2] and explain how. By the time it has been decided to evacuate, therefore, any bicycles or luggage could be thrown out of the doors if in the way, and there will be plenty of time for a wheelchair passenger to be got out. [1] There was the case of the runaway engineer's train a while ago where this *might* have been an exception for those in the rear couple of coaches. But this - and more important knowing this - is so rare it's almost not worth considering. [2] This has caused problems in the event of ditchings, where people have panicked, opened exit doors and the water has come in. But overall, as ditchings are fairly rare (just as serious fires on trains are), this is still the best advice. And who is going to carry you out? Would you rely on the goodwill of other passengers? People tend to help people in the event of disasters, yes. Aside from that most tube stations arn't wheelchair accessable and spending a billion on making them so for the tiny minority of people who'd take advantage of it is a waste of public money. I thought we were talking about mainline or LO railway stations, which are mainly accessible and are far cheaper to make so. FWIW, to make the District/Circle/H&C/Met line stations accessible is quite easy - mostly it just requires adding short lifts. The deep Tube is harder (except new build like the Jubilee Line). Though I don't recall seeing wheelchair spaces on deep Tube trains (the standbacks on the Picc are for luggage for Heathrow passengers!), but if there are they will otherwise provide room to stand, not wasted space. Neil |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:51 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk