Arrogant selfish cyclist

[webreader]

I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
correct area of the train.
A member of the station staff asked him to leave the train, but no he
could not do that, he was only going a short distance, he was in
nobody's way, he wasn't going to leave, the railway staff were holding
everybody up because they had asked him to leave. The excuses just
fell out of his mouth.
The train guard was called, who explained yet again that he would have
to leave, but no, the cyclist would not leave. Even when he was told
that the train would depart until he left would not change his mind.
Next the police (or PCSO) turned up & told him to leave the train. At
this point Mr. arrogant decided that he would continue to argue, up to
the point when he was told that he would be arrested.
He then left the train, what happened after that I don't know as the
train departed somewhat late.
What makes a cyclist like this think he has the right to delay a whole
trainload of people (and that's a lot of passengers) & cause the knock
on effect that this delayed service would cause?
500 plus people delayed because of one selfish arrogant cyclist, he
even managed to cause more problems to more people than CM.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

webreader wrote:
> I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
> Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
> He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
> on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
> correct area of the train.
> A member of the station staff asked him to leave the train, but no he
> could not do that, he was only going a short distance, he was in
> nobody's way, he wasn't going to leave, the railway staff were holding
> everybody up because they had asked him to leave. The excuses just
> fell out of his mouth.
> The train guard was called, who explained yet again that he would have
> to leave, but no, the cyclist would not leave. Even when he was told
> that the train would depart until he left would not change his mind.
> Next the police (or PCSO) turned up & told him to leave the train. At
> this point Mr. arrogant decided that he would continue to argue, up to
> the point when he was told that he would be arrested.
> He then left the train, what happened after that I don't know as the
> train departed somewhat late.
> What makes a cyclist like this think he has the right to delay a whole
> trainload of people (and that's a lot of passengers) & cause the knock
> on effect that this delayed service would cause?
> 500 plus people delayed because of one selfish arrogant cyclist, he
> even managed to cause more problems to more people than CM.

you should have assisted in his ejection. Pleased to hear that the train
staff dealt with it eventually.

[Tony Dragon]

webreader wrote:
> I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
> Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
> He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
> on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
> correct area of the train.
> A member of the station staff asked him to leave the train, but no he
> could not do that, he was only going a short distance, he was in
> nobody's way, he wasn't going to leave, the railway staff were holding
> everybody up because they had asked him to leave. The excuses just
> fell out of his mouth.
> The train guard was called, who explained yet again that he would have
> to leave, but no, the cyclist would not leave. Even when he was told
> that the train would depart until he left would not change his mind.
> Next the police (or PCSO) turned up & told him to leave the train. At
> this point Mr. arrogant decided that he would continue to argue, up to
> the point when he was told that he would be arrested.
> He then left the train, what happened after that I don't know as the
> train departed somewhat late.
> What makes a cyclist like this think he has the right to delay a whole
> trainload of people (and that's a lot of passengers) & cause the knock
> on effect that this delayed service would cause?
> 500 plus people delayed because of one selfish arrogant cyclist, he
> even managed to cause more problems to more people than CM.

Yes but he was using a motorised vehicle, so he could not be a 'real
cyclist'

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

webreader wrote:
> I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
> Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
> He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
> on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
> correct area of the train.

Are you sure of that? The restrictions only apply to journeys to
certain stations outside London; others are not restricted.
http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/uploads/cyclerestrictionsmaprevised04.pdf

> A member of the station staff asked him to leave the train, but no he
> could not do that, he was only going a short distance, he was in
> nobody's way, he wasn't going to leave, the railway staff were holding
> everybody up because they had asked him to leave. The excuses just
> fell out of his mouth.

Was he in anybody's way? Or was this an oft found situation where a
railway jobsworth could have avoided the delay with a little bit of
tolerance and common sense? I have travelled on a virtually empty ten
carriage train recently where the guard insisted a cyclist (not me, I
have a Brompton) get off because only four cycles were allowed on the
train. There was only me, him and the guard in the carriage.

>
> 500 plus people delayed because of one selfish arrogant cyclist, he
> even managed to cause more problems to more people than CM.

Or possibly one jobsworth railway worker. I wasn't there so don't know
but have seen enough of the latter category where the guard has delayed
the train for a long time for a problem that wasn't a problem except
that he chose to make it one.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Graham Harrison[_3_]]

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> webreader wrote:
>> I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
>> Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
>> He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
>> on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
>> correct area of the train.
>
> Are you sure of that? The restrictions only apply to journeys to certain
> stations outside London; others are not restricted.
> http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/uploads/cyclerestrictionsmaprevised04.pdf
>

While nobody is perfect and even railway workers make mistakes, the fact
that the railway employees asked him to leave and he (seems to have) never
claimed he *was* allowed suggests to me he (the cyclist) knew he was in the
wrong.

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:08:38 -0700 (PDT), webreader
> wrote:

>Next the police (or PCSO) turned up & told him to leave the train. At
>this point Mr. arrogant decided that he would continue to argue, up to
>the point when he was told that he would be arrested.

Perhaps the cyclist should have taken off the front wheel. Then he
would not have had a bicycle with him and the train would be allowed
to proceed without let or hinderance.

I am somewhat surprised that taking a bicycle onto a train is
considered an arrestable offence - though I suppose the Police could
claim they were arresting him under the prevention of terrorism act or
even shot him in the head seven times 'cos he had wires coming out of
his bottle dynamo.

[Tony Dragon]

Tony Raven wrote:
> webreader wrote:
>> I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
>> Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
>> He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
>> on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
>> correct area of the train.
>
> Are you sure of that? The restrictions only apply to journeys to
> certain stations outside London; others are not restricted.
> http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/uploads/cyclerestrictionsmaprevised04.pdf
>

He said Waterloo after work, your link states "At the stations shown in
red, cycles may not
join or leave from services due to arrive at London Waterloo
between 0715 and 1000 inclusive and departing
London Waterloo from 1645 to 1900 inclusive"
I would sya as long as the train left Waterloo between 16:45 & 17:00
cycles were not allowed.

>> A member of the station staff asked him to leave the train, but no he
>> could not do that, he was only going a short distance, he was in
>> nobody's way, he wasn't going to leave, the railway staff were holding
>> everybody up because they had asked him to leave. The excuses just
>> fell out of his mouth.
>
> Was he in anybody's way? Or was this an oft found situation where a
> railway jobsworth could have avoided the delay with a little bit of
> tolerance and common sense?

An empty train leaving Waterloo during the rush hour, have you ever been
at Waterloo at those times?
And he mentions 500 plus people, a little on the low side for some
services, wikipedia gives 240 seats for a four car unit, there would be
at least two units probably three, then add those standing & we are well
over 500.

> I have travelled on a virtually empty ten
> carriage train recently where the guard insisted a cyclist (not me, I
> have a Brompton) get off because only four cycles were allowed on the
> train. There was only me, him and the guard in the carriage.
>
>>
>> 500 plus people delayed because of one selfish arrogant cyclist, he
>> even managed to cause more problems to more people than CM.
>
> Or possibly one jobsworth railway worker. I wasn't there so don't know
> but have seen enough of the latter category where the guard has delayed
> the train for a long time for a problem that wasn't a problem except
> that he chose to make it one.
>

Yes OK, we know it wasn't the cyclists fault, heard it all before.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Graham Harrison wrote:
>
> While nobody is perfect and even railway workers make mistakes, the fact
> that the railway employees asked him to leave and he (seems to have)
> never claimed he *was* allowed suggests to me he (the cyclist) knew he
> was in the wrong.

Yes some railway workers may make mistakes but my experience is that
while most are great people, there are a few are real jobsworths about
that like to throw their weight around. I carry a copy of the National
Rail Conditions of Carriage and a few other documents on my laptop as
often they are way outside their powers and essentially bullying people.
The last one I had recently tried to claim I couldn't have my folded
bike in the carriage because "it might fly around and injure someone".

There is no indication in this story that the cyclist was causing any
form of difficulty or obstruction so do you think it was wise of the
railway worker to hold up the train while first a guard and then the
police were called and everyone waited for them to arrive. Or do you
think he would have been better to let it go, close the doors and go?


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Tony Dragon]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:08:38 -0700 (PDT), webreader
> > wrote:
>
>> Next the police (or PCSO) turned up & told him to leave the train. At
>> this point Mr. arrogant decided that he would continue to argue, up to
>> the point when he was told that he would be arrested.
>
> Perhaps the cyclist should have taken off the front wheel. Then he
> would not have had a bicycle with him and the train would be allowed
> to proceed without let or hinderance.
>
> I am somewhat surprised that taking a bicycle onto a train is
> considered an arrestable offence - though I suppose the Police could
> claim they were arresting him under the prevention of terrorism act or
> even shot him in the head seven times 'cos he had wires coming out of
> his bottle dynamo.

As I read it, it was when he didn't obey the police instruction that he
was told that he might be arrested.

Next contestant please.

--
Tony Dragon

[webreader]

On Jun 30, 7:34*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> webreader wrote:
> > I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
> > Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
> > He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
> > on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
> > correct area of the train.
> > A member of the station staff asked him to leave the train, but no he
> > could not do that, he was only going a short distance, he was in
> > nobody's way, he wasn't going to leave, the railway staff were holding
> > everybody up because they had asked him to leave. The excuses just
> > fell out of his mouth.
> > The train guard was called, who explained yet again that he would have
> > to leave, but no, the cyclist would not leave. Even when he was told
> > that the train would depart until he left would not change his mind.
> > Next the police (or PCSO) turned up & told him to leave the train. At
> > this point Mr. arrogant decided that he would continue to argue, up to
> > the point when he was told that he would be arrested.
> > He then left the train, what happened after that I don't know as the
> > train departed somewhat late.
> > What makes a cyclist like this think he has the right to delay a whole
> > trainload of people (and that's a lot of passengers) & cause the knock
> > on effect that this delayed service would cause?
> > 500 plus people delayed because of one selfish arrogant cyclist, he
> > even managed to cause more problems to more people than CM.
>
> you should have assisted in his ejection. *Pleased to hear that the train
> staff dealt with it eventually.

Couldn't do that, I would have lost my seat.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Tony Dragon wrote:
>
> As I read it, it was when he didn't obey the police instruction that he
> was told that he might be arrested.
>
> Next contestant please.
>

If it was a PCSO as indicated, they have extremely limited powers of
arrest and I am just wondering under which authority and offence he
could have been arrested.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[webreader]

On Jun 30, 9:00*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> webreader wrote:
> > I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
> > Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
> > He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
> > on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
> > correct area of the train.
>
> Are you sure of that? *The restrictions only apply to journeys to
> certain stations outside London; others are not restricted.http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/uploads/cyclerestrictionsmaprevised0...

http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/cycle-policy.aspx
Cycles cannot be carried on any service bounded by Waterloo and Hook,
Alton, Guildford, Reading and Dorking at the following times:

* Trains arriving into Waterloo from 0715 to 1000 inclusive
* Leaving Waterloo from 1645 to 1900 inclusive
* In addition, they cannot be carried on any service bounded by
Clapham Junction and Feltham and Strawberry Hill (via Richmond) from
0745 to 0900.

This train was the 17.02
>
> > A member of the station staff asked him to leave the train, but no he
> > could not do that, he was only going a short distance, he was in
> > nobody's way, he wasn't going to leave, the railway staff were holding
> > everybody up because they had asked him to leave. The excuses just
> > fell out of his mouth.
>
> Was he in anybody's way? *

Yes & bikes have pointy bits that are dangerous on a crowded train

> Or was this an oft found situation where a
> railway jobsworth could have avoided the delay with a little bit of
> tolerance and common sense? * I have travelled on a virtually empty ten
> carriage train recently where the guard insisted a cyclist (not me, I
> have a Brompton) get off because only four cycles were allowed on the
> train. *There was only me, him and the guard in the carriage.
>
>
>
> > 500 plus people delayed because of one selfish arrogant cyclist, he
> > even managed to cause more problems to more people than CM.
>
> Or possibly one jobsworth railway worker. *I wasn't there so don't know
> but have seen enough of the latter category where the guard has delayed
> the train for a long time for a problem that wasn't a problem except
> that he chose to make it one.

Tell me why one person should be allowed to break the rules (that are
there for a reason) & inconvience a large number of people.?
>
> --
> Tony
>
> " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
> Bertrand Russell

[webreader]

On Jun 30, 10:19*pm, Tom Crispin
> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:08:38 -0700 (PDT), webreader
>
> > wrote:
> >Next the police (or PCSO) turned up & told him to leave the train. At
> >this point Mr. arrogant decided that he would continue to argue, up to
> >the point when he was told that he would be arrested.
>
> Perhaps the cyclist should have taken off the front wheel. Then he
> would not have had a bicycle with him and the train would be allowed
> to proceed without let or hinderance.

A bikes a bike, even if you take it to pieces

>
> I am somewhat surprised that taking a bicycle onto a train is
> considered an arrestable offence - though I suppose the Police could
> claim they were arresting him under the prevention of terrorism act or
> even shot him in the head seven times 'cos he had wires coming out of
> his bottle dynamo.

Oh dear, grasping at straws are we?

[webreader]

On Jun 30, 10:38*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Graham Harrison wrote:
>
> > While nobody is perfect and even railway workers make mistakes, the fact
> > that the railway employees asked him to leave and he (seems to have)
> > never claimed he *was* allowed suggests to me he (the cyclist) knew he
> > was in the wrong.
>
> Yes some railway workers may make mistakes but my experience is that
> while most are great people, there are a few are real jobsworths about
> that like to throw their weight around. *I carry a copy of the National
> Rail Conditions of Carriage and a few other documents on my laptop as
> often they are way outside their powers and essentially bullying people.
> * The last one I had recently tried to claim I couldn't have my folded
> bike in the carriage because "it might fly around and injure someone".
>
> There is no indication in this story that the cyclist was causing any
> form of difficulty or obstruction so do you think it was wise of the
> railway worker to hold up the train while first a guard and then the
> police were called and everyone waited for them to arrive. *Or do you
> think he would have been better to let it go, close the doors and go?
>
> --
> Tony
>
> " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
> Bertrand Russell

The train was standing room only, & at least on passanger was
complaining that she had trouble getting on the train because of the
bike.
I don't know if she complained to the station staff.
And yes he should have been evicted from the train

[Tony Dragon]

Tony Dragon wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> webreader wrote:
>>> I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
>>> Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
>>> He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
>>> on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
>>> correct area of the train.
>>
>> Are you sure of that? The restrictions only apply to journeys to
>> certain stations outside London; others are not restricted.
>> http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/uploads/cyclerestrictionsmaprevised04.pdf
>>
>>
>
> He said Waterloo after work, your link states "At the stations shown in
> red, cycles may not
> join or leave from services due to arrive at London Waterloo
> between 0715 and 1000 inclusive and departing
> London Waterloo from 1645 to 1900 inclusive"
> I would sya as long as the train left Waterloo between 16:45 & 17:00
> cycles were not allowed.

Correction

I would say as long as the train left Waterloo between 16:45 & 17:00
cycles were not allowed.

>
>>> A member of the station staff asked him to leave the train, but no he
>>> could not do that, he was only going a short distance, he was in
>>> nobody's way, he wasn't going to leave, the railway staff were holding
>>> everybody up because they had asked him to leave. The excuses just
>>> fell out of his mouth.
>>
>> Was he in anybody's way? Or was this an oft found situation where a
>> railway jobsworth could have avoided the delay with a little bit of
>> tolerance and common sense?
>
> An empty train leaving Waterloo during the rush hour, have you ever been
> at Waterloo at those times?
> And he mentions 500 plus people, a little on the low side for some
> services, wikipedia gives 240 seats for a four car unit, there would be
> at least two units probably three, then add those standing & we are well
> over 500.
>
>> I have travelled on a virtually empty ten carriage train recently
>> where the guard insisted a cyclist (not me, I have a Brompton) get off
>> because only four cycles were allowed on the train. There was only
>> me, him and the guard in the carriage.
>>
>>>
>>> 500 plus people delayed because of one selfish arrogant cyclist, he
>>> even managed to cause more problems to more people than CM.
>>
>> Or possibly one jobsworth railway worker. I wasn't there so don't
>> know but have seen enough of the latter category where the guard has
>> delayed the train for a long time for a problem that wasn't a problem
>> except that he chose to make it one.
>>
>
> Yes OK, we know it wasn't the cyclists fault, heard it all before.
>


--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>
>> As I read it, it was when he didn't obey the police instruction that
>> he was told that he might be arrested.
>>
>> Next contestant please.
>>
>
> If it was a PCSO as indicated, they have extremely limited powers of
> arrest and I am just wondering under which authority and offence he
> could have been arrested.
>

He did not indicate if it was a PSCO or not, he just said "or PCSO2" &
if a PCSO has problems he will call for help.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

webreader wrote:
>
> Yes & bikes have pointy bits that are dangerous on a crowded train
>

So do lots of other things people take on trains with them. Not that
there is any evidence of the claimed dangers ever manifesting themselves
in injuries to passengers.


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[JMS]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:38:41 +0100, Tony Raven >
wrote:

<snip>


>There is no indication in this story that the cyclist was causing any
>form of difficulty or obstruction so do you think it was wise of the
>railway worker to hold up the train while first a guard and then the
>police were called and everyone waited for them to arrive. Or do you
>think he would have been better to let it go, close the doors and go?


How do you know there is not a sudden inrush of passengers at the next
station?

What if someone had tripped over the bike and been injured - the guard
would be at fault as he knew of the potential problem

Perhaps the guard knew the typical loading - and knew what would
happen.

The point being made is clearly stated in the Subject line.

The only word missing was "****" after "cyclist"

--
2008 DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 541 Pedestrians 382
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3814 Pedestrians : 1666
(Pedal cyclist casualties up 9% - pedestrians up 2%: Cycling is becoming more dangerous each year when compared to walking as a means of transport)

[JNugent[_7_]]

Tony Raven wrote:
> webreader wrote:
>> I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
>> Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
>> He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
>> on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
>> correct area of the train.
>
> Are you sure of that? The restrictions only apply to journeys to
> certain stations outside London; others are not restricted.
> http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/uploads/cyclerestrictionsmaprevised04.pdf
>
>> A member of the station staff asked him to leave the train, but no he
>> could not do that, he was only going a short distance, he was in
>> nobody's way, he wasn't going to leave, the railway staff were holding
>> everybody up because they had asked him to leave. The excuses just
>> fell out of his mouth.
>
> Was he in anybody's way? Or was this an oft found situation where a
> railway jobsworth could have avoided the delay with a little bit of
> tolerance and common sense?

What do you mean, "jobsworth"?

Either the cyclist was allowed to do as he liked or he wasn't. And if the OP
is to be believed, the cyclist was trying to do something he wasn't allowed
to so. End of.

>> 500 plus people delayed because of one selfish arrogant cyclist, he
>> even managed to cause more problems to more people than CM.

> Or possibly one jobsworth railway worker.

Not AT ALL.

> I wasn't there so don't know

That's true of all of us. We have to take the OP's word for it.

> but have seen enough of the latter category where the guard has delayed
> the train for a long time for a problem that wasn't a problem except
> that he chose to make it one.

Wasn't he protecting the passemgers on the train as well as any yet to board,
AND preventing the "no cyclists" rule from being pared down by abuse?

[JNugent[_7_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:08:38 -0700 (PDT), webreader
> > wrote:
>
>> Next the police (or PCSO) turned up & told him to leave the train. At
>> this point Mr. arrogant decided that he would continue to argue, up to
>> the point when he was told that he would be arrested.
>
> Perhaps the cyclist should have taken off the front wheel. Then he
> would not have had a bicycle with him and the train would be allowed
> to proceed without let or hinderance.

Perhaps he should have cycled all the way.

[Tony Dragon]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Graham Harrison" > considered
> Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:38:31 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> "Tony Raven" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> webreader wrote:
>>>> I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
>>>> Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
>>>> He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
>>>> on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
>>>> correct area of the train.
>>> Are you sure of that? The restrictions only apply to journeys to certain
>>> stations outside London; others are not restricted.
>>> http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/uploads/cyclerestrictionsmaprevised04.pdf
>>>
>> While nobody is perfect and even railway workers make mistakes, the fact
>> that the railway employees asked him to leave and he (seems to have) never
>> claimed he *was* allowed suggests to me he (the cyclist) knew he was in the
>> wrong.
>
> It's rather hard to know that, when the OP is a well known
> anti-cyclist ranter - he is more than likely to have omitted
> inconvenient truths, and has a history of doing so whenever it suits
> him.

It seems to me that he has posted inconvenient truths & you can't handle it

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Tony Dragon wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> webreader wrote:
>>>> I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
>>>> Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
>>>> He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
>>>> on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
>>>> correct area of the train.
>>>
>>> Are you sure of that? The restrictions only apply to journeys to
>>> certain stations outside London; others are not restricted.
>>> http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/uploads/cyclerestrictionsmaprevised04.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>
>> He said Waterloo after work, your link states "At the stations shown
>> in red, cycles may not
>> join or leave from services due to arrive at London Waterloo
>> between 0715 and 1000 inclusive and departing
>> London Waterloo from 1645 to 1900 inclusive"
>> I would sya as long as the train left Waterloo between 16:45 & 17:00
>> cycles were not allowed.
>
> Correction
>
> I would say as long as the train left Waterloo between 16:45 & 17:00
> cycles were not allowed.
>

Bugger, I can't even get my correction right, it should be 19.00

>>
>>>> A member of the station staff asked him to leave the train, but no he
>>>> could not do that, he was only going a short distance, he was in
>>>> nobody's way, he wasn't going to leave, the railway staff were holding
>>>> everybody up because they had asked him to leave. The excuses just
>>>> fell out of his mouth.
>>>
>>> Was he in anybody's way? Or was this an oft found situation where a
>>> railway jobsworth could have avoided the delay with a little bit of
>>> tolerance and common sense?
>>
>> An empty train leaving Waterloo during the rush hour, have you ever
>> been at Waterloo at those times?
>> And he mentions 500 plus people, a little on the low side for some
>> services, wikipedia gives 240 seats for a four car unit, there would
>> be at least two units probably three, then add those standing & we are
>> well over 500.
>>
>>> I have travelled on a virtually empty ten carriage train recently
>>> where the guard insisted a cyclist (not me, I have a Brompton) get
>>> off because only four cycles were allowed on the train. There was
>>> only me, him and the guard in the carriage.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 500 plus people delayed because of one selfish arrogant cyclist, he
>>>> even managed to cause more problems to more people than CM.
>>>
>>> Or possibly one jobsworth railway worker. I wasn't there so don't
>>> know but have seen enough of the latter category where the guard has
>>> delayed the train for a long time for a problem that wasn't a problem
>>> except that he chose to make it one.
>>>
>>
>> Yes OK, we know it wasn't the cyclists fault, heard it all before.
>>
>
>


--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Tony Raven wrote:
> webreader wrote:
>>
>> Yes & bikes have pointy bits that are dangerous on a crowded train
>>
>
> So do lots of other things people take on trains with them. Not that
> there is any evidence of the claimed dangers ever manifesting themselves
> in injuries to passengers.
>
>

Very true, but bikes are banned.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Tony Dragon wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> webreader wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes & bikes have pointy bits that are dangerous on a crowded train
>>>
>>
>> So do lots of other things people take on trains with them. Not that
>> there is any evidence of the claimed dangers ever manifesting
>> themselves in injuries to passengers.
>>
>>
>
> Very true, but bikes are banned.
>

So are many other items, or charges are payable, but discretion is
nearly always used. For example, when was the last time you saw someone
charged for putting their luggage on a seat or told their folded
pushchair is banned because its over 1m in one dimension?

So do you think the guard should have delayed the train departure for a
long time or exercised discretion if there was room and got the train
away on time?

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[mileburner]

"webreader" > wrote in message
...
>I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
> Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
> He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
> on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
> correct area of the train.

I took my bike on a train for a longish journey a while ago.

I checked the train times and the carrier's policy. They vary. Some carriers
need to be pre booked, others will allow you on if there is space at the
time, some journey times are banned. It's a minefield. So to be on the safe
side, I worked out my four-train return journey and pre-booked my bike on
all of them. That itself was problematic enough but at least it meant that I
could take my bike on the train that I was getting on myself.

At the station I asked where the bike should go. I was told the front of the
train. I got on at the front of the train with the bike but shortly after
that an announcement was made along the lines of "Would the idiot cyclist
please leave the train and go to the other end of the train and place his
bicycle in the proper place". This of course held up the train. For the next
train I asked where it should go before the train arrived and was told that
it would need to be loaded by a member of staff. When the train arrived I
asked. The member of staff treated me as if I was a ****ing idiot, he opened
the cargo door and stood there, I asked him what I should do, and he told me
to put it on. So, delaying the train (again) I searched around for the cycle
racks and loaded it.

The only real option is to use a folding bike for train journeys. The
railway staff are generally "indifferent" which I guess is because they are
no longer allowed to be rude. The rail operators boast how they encourage
greener travel and combined cycle and train journeys but it is a load of
********.

[Tony Dragon]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> webreader wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes & bikes have pointy bits that are dangerous on a crowded train
>>>>
>>>
>>> So do lots of other things people take on trains with them. Not that
>>> there is any evidence of the claimed dangers ever manifesting
>>> themselves in injuries to passengers.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Very true, but bikes are banned.
>>
>
> So are many other items, or charges are payable, but discretion is
> nearly always used. For example, when was the last time you saw someone
> charged for putting their luggage on a seat or told their folded
> pushchair is banned because its over 1m in one dimension?
>
> So do you think the guard should have delayed the train departure for a
> long time or exercised discretion if there was room and got the train
> away on time?
>

The OP stated that the train was crowded, IIRC a passenger was
complaining, the guard was not the one delaying the train it was the
cyclist.
IIRC the departure board on the platform would say no cycles on this
service (or similar)he was asked to leave, he didn't.



--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Tony Dragon wrote:
>
> The OP stated that the train was crowded, IIRC a passenger was
> complaining, the guard was not the one delaying the train it was the
> cyclist.

Not as recounted. The OP said a member of the platform staff complained
and nowhere was it said the train was crowded. Given webreader's
attitude to cyclists, I am sure he would not have missed the opportunity
for those embellishments when he originally told the story.


> IIRC the departure board on the platform would say no cycles on this
> service (or similar)he was asked to leave, he didn't.
>

It does beg the question of if it was a member of the platform staff who
started it off, where were they when the cycle was pushed down the
platform and loaded onto the train. IME at Waterloo there are nearly
always station staff lolling around by the platform barriers during peak
hours. Did none of them see it and step in? Or was it just one that
saw his opportunity to flex his jobsworth muscles?

But you haven't answered the question of whether it was sensible for the
platform staff to escalate the problem and delay the train or exercise
discretion and let it get on its way.

You also have not answered why other banned or restricted articles are
not similarly treated. Bicycles are allowed on most trains free of
charge and on all trains if they fold. Most pushchairs are not allowed
on any trains except for a fee as they exceed the maximum permitted
dimension of 90cm. So how often have you seen a train held and a
pushchair owner ejected unless they pay the half adult fare for it?
(NRCoC, Appendix B1 & 3)

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[JNugent[_7_]]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> webreader wrote:

>>>> Yes & bikes have pointy bits that are dangerous on a crowded train

>>> So do lots of other things people take on trains with them. Not that
>>> there is any evidence of the claimed dangers ever manifesting
>>> themselves in injuries to passengers.

>> Very true, but bikes are banned.

> So are many other items, or charges are payable, but discretion is
> nearly always used.

You mean that even though there's a ban, it doesn't really matter and
everyone can do as they like just as though there was no ban?

That's what "discretion" means, is it?

Well, it's a funny old world. I'd have thought that the railway employee, as
described, was actually *using* his discretion.

> For example, when was the last time you saw someone
> charged for putting their luggage on a seat or told their folded
> pushchair is banned because its over 1m in one dimension?

Is luggage banned from being brought onto the train?

> So do you think the guard should have delayed the train departure for a
> long time or exercised discretion if there was room and got the train
> away on time?

He could and arguably should have resorted to reasonable force at an earlier
juncture. If I were passenger on a train during such an incident, I'd
probably be willing to help. Wouldn't you?

[Tony Dragon]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>
>> The OP stated that the train was crowded, IIRC a passenger was
>> complaining, the guard was not the one delaying the train it was the
>> cyclist.
>
> Not as recounted. The OP said a member of the platform staff complained
> and nowhere was it said the train was crowded. Given webreader's
> attitude to cyclists, I am sure he would not have missed the opportunity
> for those embellishments when he originally told the story.

"The train was standing room only, & at least on passanger was
complaining that she had trouble getting on the train because of the
bike."

>
>
>> IIRC the departure board on the platform would say no cycles on this
>> service (or similar)he was asked to leave, he didn't.
>>
>
> It does beg the question of if it was a member of the platform staff who
> started it off, where were they when the cycle was pushed down the
> platform and loaded onto the train. IME at Waterloo there are nearly
> always station staff lolling around by the platform barriers during peak
> hours.

IME they are not at every gate.

> Did none of them see it and step in? Or was it just one that
> saw his opportunity to flex his jobsworth muscles?

By applying the conditions of carriege.

>
> But you haven't answered the question of whether it was sensible for the
> platform staff to escalate the problem and delay the train or exercise
> discretion and let it get on its way.

IMO the staff did the right thing.

>
> You also have not answered why other banned or restricted articles are
> not similarly treated.

You tell me, I don't know.

> Bicycles are allowed on most trains free of
> charge and on all trains if they fold.

But apparently this train.

> Most pushchairs are not allowed
> on any trains except for a fee as they exceed the maximum permitted
> dimension of 90cm. So how often have you seen a train held and a
> pushchair owner ejected unless they pay the half adult fare for it?

Never & I have never seen a bike do the same thing, your point is?

> (NRCoC, Appendix B1 & 3)
>


--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

mileburner wrote:
> "webreader" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I got on the train after work today at Waterloo.
>> Shortly after a cyclist get on complete with bike (not a fold up)
>> He put bike by the doors, ignoring the fact that bikes are not allowed
>> on this service & even if they were they should be placed in the
>> correct area of the train.
>
> I took my bike on a train for a longish journey a while ago.
>
> I checked the train times and the carrier's policy. They vary. Some carriers
> need to be pre booked, others will allow you on if there is space at the
> time, some journey times are banned. It's a minefield. So to be on the safe
> side, I worked out my four-train return journey and pre-booked my bike on
> all of them. That itself was problematic enough but at least it meant that I
> could take my bike on the train that I was getting on myself.
>
> At the station I asked where the bike should go. I was told the front of the
> train. I got on at the front of the train with the bike but shortly after
> that an announcement was made along the lines of "Would the idiot cyclist
> please leave the train and go to the other end of the train and place his
> bicycle in the proper place". This of course held up the train. For the next
> train I asked where it should go before the train arrived and was told that
> it would need to be loaded by a member of staff. When the train arrived I
> asked. The member of staff treated me as if I was a ****ing idiot, he opened
> the cargo door and stood there, I asked him what I should do, and he told me
> to put it on. So, delaying the train (again) I searched around for the cycle
> racks and loaded it.
>
> The only real option is to use a folding bike for train journeys. The
> railway staff are generally "indifferent" which I guess is because they are
> no longer allowed to be rude. The rail operators boast how they encourage
> greener travel and combined cycle and train journeys but it is a load of
> ********.
>
>


When I got on the train at Waterloo this afternoon (I might have seen
WSR, but how would I know) the platform display clearly said 'no cycles'

But somebody might be able to answer me this question, at the country
end of one platform there is a large cycle park, is this for the workers
at Waterloo or what?

This cycle park may explain why bikes are let through the barriers.

--
Tony Dragon

[OG]

"Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> When I got on the train at Waterloo this afternoon (I might have seen WSR,
> but how would I know) the platform display clearly said 'no cycles'
>
> But somebody might be able to answer me this question, at the country end
> of one platform there is a large cycle park, is this for the workers at
> Waterloo or what?
>
> This cycle park may explain why bikes are let through the barriers.

There seems to be a goodly number of cycle racks at Stafford Station.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Tony Dragon wrote:
>
> "The train was standing room only, & at least on passanger was
> complaining that she had trouble getting on the train because of the
> bike."
>

That was only added later and was not part of the original story. But
standing room only does not mean that the vestibules are packed, it just
means most of the seats are taken. And the "at least one passenger"
complaining was probably webreader knowing her love of cyclists.


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[mileburner]

"Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
...

> When I got on the train at Waterloo this afternoon (I might have seen WSR,
> but how would I know) the platform display clearly said 'no cycles'
>
> But somebody might be able to answer me this question, at the country end
> of one platform there is a large cycle park, is this for the workers at
> Waterloo or what?
>
> This cycle park may explain why bikes are let through the barriers.

We really need a situation where cycles are either not allowed at all, or
they are allowed and welcomed on all trains at all times.

Travelling by train is a PIA, it's not cheap either, but if you are trying
to complete a journey with a bike, it is ridiculous to have situations arise
where you cannot take your bike. WTF *are* you supposed to do? Sleep on the
platform and wait for a train with the facilities and space to accommodate a
bike?

[webreader]

On Jul 1, 11:53*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>
> > "The train was standing room only, & at least on passanger was
> > complaining that she had trouble getting on the train because of the
> > bike."
>
> That was only added later and was not part of the original story. But
> standing room only does not mean that the vestibules are packed, it just
> means most of the seats are taken. And the "at least one passenger"
> complaining was probably webreader knowing her love of cyclists.
>
> --
> Tony
>
> " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
> Bertrand Russell

Your wriggleing is truely amazing, anything to divert the blame from
the cyclist.

Must go now, I've a train to catch.

[Tony Dragon]

mileburner wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> When I got on the train at Waterloo this afternoon (I might have seen WSR,
>> but how would I know) the platform display clearly said 'no cycles'
>>
>> But somebody might be able to answer me this question, at the country end
>> of one platform there is a large cycle park, is this for the workers at
>> Waterloo or what?
>>
>> This cycle park may explain why bikes are let through the barriers.
>
> We really need a situation where cycles are either not allowed at all, or
> they are allowed and welcomed on all trains at all times.
>
> Travelling by train is a PIA, it's not cheap either, but if you are trying
> to complete a journey with a bike, it is ridiculous to have situations arise
> where you cannot take your bike. WTF *are* you supposed to do? Sleep on the
> platform and wait for a train with the facilities and space to accommodate a
> bike?
>
>
>

Bikes are banned on SWT at those times for good reasons I imagine.
As a regular user during the banned times (bugger)I can see that the
might be a danger & an inconvenience, those trains are very crowded, and
don't forget this cyclist did not even use the correct area to stow his
bike.

I would like to know about the bike park though, because I have seen
obvious cyclists on the trains but no bikes, perhaps they are able to
leave them at Waterloo overnight.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

webreader wrote:
> On Jul 1, 11:53 pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
>> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>
>>> "The train was standing room only, & at least on passanger was
>>> complaining that she had trouble getting on the train because of the
>>> bike."
>> That was only added later and was not part of the original story. But
>> standing room only does not mean that the vestibules are packed, it just
>> means most of the seats are taken. And the "at least one passenger"
>> complaining was probably webreader knowing her love of cyclists.
>>
>> --
>> Tony
>>
>> " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
>> Bertrand Russell
>
> Your wriggleing is truely amazing, anything to divert the blame from
> the cyclist.
>
> Must go now, I've a train to catch.


Might see you at Waterloo then, wear a rose, stand under the clock.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

webreader wrote:
>
> Your wriggleing is truely amazing, anything to divert the blame from
> the cyclist.

Just providing a bit of devil's advocate counterbalance to your obvious
love of cyclists.

>
> Must go now, I've a train to catch.

Just watch your blood pressure if a cyclist gets on board.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Tony Dragon wrote:
> webreader wrote:
>>
>> Must go now, I've a train to catch.
>
>
> Might see you at Waterloo then, wear a rose, stand under the clock.
>

Was it one of you two the other night who insisted they had to sit in
the seat where my folded bike was when the rest of the carriage was
virtually empty?


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

mile****** wrote:

> I took my bike on a train for a longish journey a while ago.
>
> an announcement was made along the lines of "Would
> the idiot cyclist please leave the train and go to the other end of
> the train and place his bicycle in the proper place".

> The member of
> staff treated me as if I was a ****ing idiot,

Nice to know that railway staff have been correctly trained in how to treat
scum.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

mile****** wrote:

> We really need a situation where cycles are either not allowed at
> all, or they are allowed and welcomed on all trains at all times.

Not allowed at all. Problem solved.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[JNugent[_7_]]

mileburner wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> When I got on the train at Waterloo this afternoon (I might have seen WSR,
>> but how would I know) the platform display clearly said 'no cycles'
>>
>> But somebody might be able to answer me this question, at the country end
>> of one platform there is a large cycle park, is this for the workers at
>> Waterloo or what?
>>
>> This cycle park may explain why bikes are let through the barriers.
>
> We really need a situation where cycles are either not allowed at all, or
> they are allowed and welcomed on all trains at all times.
>
> Travelling by train is a PIA, it's not cheap either, but if you are trying
> to complete a journey with a bike, it is ridiculous to have situations arise
> where you cannot take your bike. WTF *are* you supposed to do? Sleep on the
> platform and wait for a train with the facilities and space to accommodate a
> bike?

Just a suggestion:

Cycle all the way (unless there is some facility for freighting a bike over a
distance impossible to cycle)?

It works with my car.

[Tony Dragon]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>> webreader wrote:
>>>
>>> Must go now, I've a train to catch.
>>
>>
>> Might see you at Waterloo then, wear a rose, stand under the clock.
>>
>
> Was it one of you two the other night who insisted they had to sit in
> the seat where my folded bike was when the rest of the carriage was
> virtually empty?
>
>

Nah, can't be bothered to answer that.

Where were you WSR?

--
Tony Dragon

[webreader]

On Jul 2, 6:07*pm, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > Tony Dragon wrote:
> >> webreader wrote:
>
> >>> Must go now, I've a train to catch.
>
> >> Might see you at Waterloo then, wear a rose, stand under the clock.
>
> > Was it one of you two the other night who insisted they had to sit in
> > the seat where my folded bike was when the rest of the carriage was
> > virtually empty?
>
> Nah, can't be bothered to answer that.
>
> Where were you WSR?
>
> --
> Tony Dragon

I was there,
Were you the big, short, bald bloke with blonde hair, wearing a kilt &
a bikini top, carrying a double bass & a frisbee?

[Tony Dragon]

webreader wrote:
> On Jul 2, 6:07 pm, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>>> webreader wrote:
>>>>> Must go now, I've a train to catch.
>>>> Might see you at Waterloo then, wear a rose, stand under the clock.
>>> Was it one of you two the other night who insisted they had to sit in
>>> the seat where my folded bike was when the rest of the carriage was
>>> virtually empty?
>> Nah, can't be bothered to answer that.
>>
>> Where were you WSR?
>>
>> --
>> Tony Dragon
>
> I was there,
> Were you the big, short, bald bloke with blonde hair, wearing a kilt &
> a bikini top, carrying a double bass & a frisbee?

No, that was Uncle Henry, we're getting a bit worried about him.

--
Tony Dragon