In message , Adrian
writes
Ian Jelf ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

How do you regard those of us who take folding bikes, such as the
Brompton?

As long as it's in it's bag, why not?


That said, I've never actually taken mine on a deep-level tube, only on
the sub surface lines.

Why not, erm, ride it?

Because I *do* tend to ride it is one of the reasons I've not taken it
on a deep level tube. But journeys from - say - Amersham to Baker
Street or Hillington to Baker Street aren't really practicable in the
time frame I've usually had!

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Neil Williams wrote:
On 13 Jan 2005 22:45:33 -0800, wrote:

Before privatisation most trains had guard/luggage vans where bikes
could be stored. Now only a few remaining slam door trains have
them.
Pity also the poor traveller with lots of luggage and nowhere to put
it
on a train. Yet another example of market forces driven profit
before
people.

Twaddle. New trains have, for a long period, not had guard's vans,
even under BR. This is nothing to do with "profit before people",
but
is merely because passenger trains no longer carry newspapers,
parcels
and post so the space is really not needed.

New trains mainly came in after privatisation. Before the BR had been
run down. Cyclists and people with lots of luggage still need the
space.

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

Sure! Crammed in with standing passengers near the doors.

or vestibule, because in the former case they can keep an eye on
their
bike or luggage, while in the latter they can travel in suitable
accommodation and not in what feels like the back of a lorry.

When I use the few remaining guard's vans I sit in the adjacent
compartment with other travellers.

Cycling groups are constantly at odds with TOs over the modern lack of
provision.

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

Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Adrian

writes
Ian Jelf ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like
they were saying :

How do you regard those of us who take folding bikes, such as the
Brompton?

As long as it's in it's bag, why not?


That said, I've never actually taken mine on a deep-level tube,
only on
the sub surface lines.

Why not, erm, ride it?

Because I *do* tend to ride it is one of the reasons I've not taken
it
on a deep level tube. But journeys from - say - Amersham to Baker
Street or Hillington to Baker Street aren't really practicable in the

time frame I've usually had!

The problem with the Underground is that it often involves a great deal
of walking to and from platforms and exits, as well as stairs.

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

"Mike Bristow" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
Another ivory tower commentator. I have never known anybody who does
long commutes by choice.

They all do.

The fact that long distance commuters consider the alternatives
unpalatable does not negate the fact that they made a choice not
to move closer to work, get a job closer to home or work in the
first place.

--
Mike Bristow - really a very good driver

A load of ******** - I drive 30 miles each way to get to my job - I don't
wan't to, but I can't find a job closer and I can't afford to move nearer my
job because of house prices. I start at 7.00am and finish at 5.00pm - no
chance of using PT. Thank ****.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Huge wrote:
Ian Jelf writes:
In message , Huge

writes
I find cyclists on trains less than amusing.

How do you regard those of us who take folding bikes, such as the
Brompton?

As long as it's in it's bag, why not?

What I object to is those who are permitted to take something on the
train that is sharp and dirty and takes up the room of two people for
free, merely because it happens to be a bicycle.

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

I wondered when you would pop up. You must have been touching cloth to last
this long.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Huge wrote:
(Neil Williams) writes:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:58:06 +0000, wrote:

It just shows the utter contempt which most people have for cycles
and
their riders which is fully justified in my opinion . When cyclists
begin to observe the laws relating to the use of UK roads and have
to
pay the same amounts of money that ALL other uses have to pay then
I
may just have a little more time for them .

I agree with the first point, and I'd like to point out that, as a
cyclist, I do obey traffic lights etc, use lights when it is dark
and
do not ride on the pavement. It is noticeable how many do not,
mind.

As for paying for the use of the road, to fit with the existing road
tax system it'd have to be in proportion to the damage caused by the
vehicle to the road

'Fraid not. Two reasons; (i) Road taxes are not levied in proportion
to damage (else HGVs would pay *much* more) & (ii) road taxes are
not for using the roads. They're just tax.

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


I really think we should start calling you zebedee instead of dugh.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:44:17 GMT, (Neil
Williams) said:

As for paying for the use of the road, to fit with the existing road
tax system it'd have to be in proportion to the damage caused by the
vehicle to the road (infinitessimally small) and the pollution emitted
while in use (that'd be none).

Pink and green lycra is perhaps the worst possible form of pollution.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

wrote in message
oups.com...

Neil Williams wrote:
On 13 Jan 2005 22:45:33 -0800, wrote:

Before privatisation most trains had guard/luggage vans where bikes
could be stored. Now only a few remaining slam door trains have
them.
Pity also the poor traveller with lots of luggage and nowhere to put
it
on a train. Yet another example of market forces driven profit
before
people.

Twaddle. New trains have, for a long period, not had guard's vans,
even under BR. This is nothing to do with "profit before people",
but
is merely because passenger trains no longer carry newspapers,
parcels
and post so the space is really not needed.

New trains mainly came in after privatisation. Before the BR had been
run down. Cyclists and people with lots of luggage still need the
space.

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

Sure! Crammed in with standing passengers near the doors.

or vestibule, because in the former case they can keep an eye on
their
bike or luggage, while in the latter they can travel in suitable
accommodation and not in what feels like the back of a lorry.

When I use the few remaining guard's vans I sit in the adjacent
compartment with other travellers.

Cycling groups are constantly at odds with TOs over the modern lack of
provision.


Using a train and a bicycle ? bit OTT that, smacks of hypermobility. I use
just one car, no need for all the other forms of transport being used at the
same time. Plus I can get big suitcases in it.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Adrian

writes
Ian Jelf ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like
they were saying :

How do you regard those of us who take folding bikes, such as the
Brompton?

As long as it's in it's bag, why not?


That said, I've never actually taken mine on a deep-level tube,
only on
the sub surface lines.

Why not, erm, ride it?

Because I *do* tend to ride it is one of the reasons I've not taken
it
on a deep level tube. But journeys from - say - Amersham to Baker
Street or Hillington to Baker Street aren't really practicable in the

time frame I've usually had!

The problem with the Underground is that it often involves a great deal
of walking to and from platforms and exits, as well as stairs.


Really? Well I'll be damned. Just like parking in a multi story carpark
then? I never knew....

"Taz" me@home wrote in message ...

"Mike Bristow" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
Another ivory tower commentator. I have never known anybody who does
long commutes by choice.

They all do.

The fact that long distance commuters consider the alternatives
unpalatable does not negate the fact that they made a choice not
to move closer to work, get a job closer to home or work in the
first place.

--
Mike Bristow - really a very good driver

A load of ******** - I drive 30 miles each way to get to my job

I don't think you're the guy in the firing line. 30 miles is not
excessive, it's the 70-100 (and more) mile commuters that
ought to be re-evaluating their position.

tim

- I don't
wan't to, but I can't find a job closer and I can't afford to move nearer
my job because of house prices. I start at 7.00am and finish at 5.00pm -
no chance of using PT. Thank ****.