On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:44:42 +0000, Mrs Redboots wrote:

Anyway, if more than the 3 or so people who do take bikes on the train
did so regularly, I expect the TOCs would provide space for more than
about 3 bikes.

Indeed - and they'd probably introduce a charge, as well. Mind you,
I'd not object at all to paying the going rate if it funded more
good-quality cycle accommodation on trains.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Huge wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 13 Jan 2005:

A space which, in the case of Thameslink, is that normally
occupied by not two but *three* fare-paying passengers.

So? If Thameslink object to that, they can always withdraw the
facility. They don't, so evidently they think the goodwill it generates
worth the loss of revenue.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 2 January 2005

wrote in message

When cyclists
snip
pay the same amounts of money that ALL other uses have to pay then I
may just have a little more time for them .

Something escapes me here. "All other road users" includes pedestrians.
What are they paying? And what do cyclists have to pay that you think they
are evading?

Actually, I think you will find people using bikes legally avoid tax and it
is an option open to everybody. How about you? You could use one and
increase the number of cyclists setting good manners. With enough people
doing it, it might catch on. But if you don't want a tax free option, well,
that's your choice.

If you think cyclists should pay tax, why don't you write to Gordon Brown
and suggest it.

wrote:
wrote:
Typical! This unashamed 4x4 user is now cycle bashing.

Don't tell me, Duhg: you're one of those obnoxious idiots who feel
they
have the right to block the doors and walkways on trains for the rest
of us with your bloody bike?

Trains are designed to carry people, not arrogant, self-centered
cyclists.

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.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people".

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!

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people".

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.

Those who do need it (cyclists, those with luggage and wheelchair
users) are better served by distributed space in the passenger saloon
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.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On 13 Jan 2005 22:53:36 -0800, wrote:

Blimey! You, a motorist, are actually admitting that VED is not a road
tax? Amazing!

It doesn't matter whether he is a motorist or not. It is a fact that
VED does not exist purely for the purpose of funding road building and
maintenance. It goes into the general taxation pot.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

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?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:37:32 +0000, Huge wrote:
What I object to is those who are permitted to take something on the
train that is sharp and dirty

Like my wit?

Perhaps not.

--
Everything I write here is my personal opinion, and should not be taken as fact.

This is an issue that's going to get more important. A lot of people,
(such as myself in Kent), now find with DSL we only need to be in
London 2 to 3 days a week. There's no ticket for that - yet. I just try
and arrange meetings so I can travel after 9.30.