Bikes on trains and a moral conundrum

[horizon]

The other morning, I tried to board a two-car train with my bike. The platform was busy with people with luggage, parents with push chairs and so forth, the train crowded (but not full). Two people were told that they could not board and were left on the platform as the train pulled out. The next train was in about one hour's time. The two people left on the platform were myself and another cyclist. Everyone else was allowed to board.

There were four available bike spaces on the train (no other cyclists) but the space was being used by people sitting on flapdown seats which are fitted in the bike space.

There are a number of practical and operational issues here (not least the installation of seats in the bike space) but I'm interested in the moral aspect (i've posted this in the Tea Shop) and would appreciate your views in that regard.

[Cyril Haearn]

I don't mind standing on a shot trip

Buses have a notice something like this:
*55 seats, up to 50 standee allowed*

[mercalia]

The other morning, I tried to board a two-car train with my bike. The platform was busy with people with luggage, parents with push chairs and so forth, the train crowded (but not full). Two people were told that they could not board and were left on the platform as the train pulled out. The next train was in about one hour's time. The two people left on the platform were myself and another cyclist. Everyone else was allowed to board.

There were four available bike spaces on the train (no other cyclists) but the space was being used by people sitting on flapdown seats which are fitted in the bike space.

There are a number of practical and operational issues here (not least the installation of seats in the bike space) but I'm interested in the moral aspect (i've posted this in the Tea Shop) and would appreciate your views in that regard.

Who told you that? time of day rush hour? in London you cant duing rush hour, other wise first come first served? I wonder if the staff had the right to tell you not to board if the train operator dont have a rush hour policy as in London. Complain and seek compensation? did your ticket require you to use that train? I wonder what would have happened if you had refused to obey the instructions of the staff since you had a ticket

[bovlomov]

The cycle space is the same as that for wheelchairs and pushchairs. And there are the folding seats. If you wanted to sow discord between passengers, you could hardly do a better job.

If you were in a wheelchair, the seated passengers would probably have been asked to move, or they may even have volunteered. The same, to a lesser extent, goes for the child in a pushchair. But the cyclist's special needs are elective, so they go to the back of the queue.

I suspect that cycles travel free only because a fare would bring 'expectations'.

[reohn2]

It's simple,people are paying passengers,bikes(even if paid for At a lesser rate) take up the room of paying passengers so are secondary.
I have no problem with that because should the bike bay be a dedicated bay it would take up seating space for paying passengers.

[mercalia]

It's simple,people are paying passengers,bikes(even if paid for At a lesser rate) take up the room of paying passengers so are secondary.
I have no problem with that because should the bike bay be a dedicated bay it would take up seating space for paying passengers.

well once upon a time there were things called guards vans...

[bovlomov]

It's simple,people are paying passengers,bikes(even if paid for At a lesser rate) take up the room of paying passengers so are secondary.
I have no problem with that because should the bike bay be a dedicated bay it would take up seating space for paying passengers.

I can see that, but if taking a bike on a train is to be realistic, it needs to be more than a lottery.

[horizon]

It's simple,people are paying passengers,bikes(even if paid for At a lesser rate) take up the room of paying passengers so are secondary.
I have no problem with that because should the bike bay be a dedicated bay it would take up seating space for paying passengers.

This is the view that I am trying to get my head round. Let's start with a basic principle: no passenger should be treated less equally than another and no passenger's travel needs are less important than any other's (though one might argue over say a medical emergency or those travelling with children). Some passengers might also voluntarily give up their right to travel out of kindness, but that is indeed voluntary.

So here's principle number two: everyone has different needs and requirements that enable them to complete their journey. The train accommodates those needs within certain parameters. Although everyone pays the same fare (or at least under the same terms), some people may make use of certain facilities more than others and at different times e.g. the toilet, the luggage racks or the buffet. In my case, our local train service doesn't run in the late evening or on Sundays so taking a bike on the main line is crucial. I don't think any reasonable person would object to bike spaces on a train.

If however the train reaches capacity, how do you decide who is to be left behind? Do you decide it on the basis of who takes up the most space?

[reohn2]

It's simple,people are paying passengers,bikes(even if paid for At a lesser rate) take up the room of paying passengers so are secondary.
I have no problem with that because should the bike bay be a dedicated bay it would take up seating space for paying passengers.

This is the view that I am trying to get my head round. Let's start with a basic principle: no passenger should be treated less equally than another and no passenger's travel needs are less important than any other's (though one might argue over say a medical emergency or those travelling with children). Some passengers might also voluntarily give up their right to travel out of kindness, but that is indeed voluntary.

So here's principle number two: everyone has different needs and requirements that enable them to complete their journey. The train accommodates those needs within certain parameters. Although everyone pays the same fare (or at least under the same terms), some people may make use of certain facilities more than others and at different times e.g. the toilet, the luggage racks or the buffet. In my case, our local train service doesn't run in the late evening or on Sundays so taking a bike on the main line is crucial. I don't think any reasonable person would object to bike spaces on a train.

If however the train reaches capacity, how do you decide who is to be left behind? Do you decide it on the basis of who takes up the most space?

It's got to be the passenger with the "luggage" that can't be accommodated when the train is full.The passenger with the bicycle could equally be carrying a 60inch boxed TV he'd just bought in town somewhere.What I'm trying to say is that there's only so much room on a train.
What you appear to be calling for is that there should be bicycle spaces that are sacrosanct and nothing else should be allowed in such spaces on the off chance a passenger with a bike is waiting on the platform,when such passengers are a rarety for the most part.
IMO it'd be a perfect world if that were the case,unfortunately.........

[thirdcrank]

Various approaches to this. The over-riding thing, will be the train operating company's terms and conditions KA the TOC's T&C's. When you buy your ticket you are entering into a contract with them which is subject to the law, which takes precedence and those conditions. Had you been a wheelchair user, the law would have given you certain rights which the TOC must honour. We've recently had a case on a bus in Leeds where wheelchair user couldn't get on because a mum with child in a pushchair was already occupying the relevant space and refused to move. I can't remember all the details but IIRC, the bus operator said they had done all they could when the driver asked the woman to move. That was ruled insufficient but I can't remember how the court hearing the case suggested the driver should shift the woman and child. They probably didn't go that far. Anyway, a cyclist as such has no special legal protection so it's back to T&C's. Only guessing, but I'll wager a pound to a pinch of that they say something like "subject to availability."

Another approach is a moral one: has one passenger any more right to travel than another? Are some journeys more important than others?

If there's a grievance, it's surely with the TOC and the toothless watchdoggy ORR(?) rather than other poor buggers on the train.

[661-Pete]

This is always going to be a dilemma, unsolvable in some cases.

Locally for us (Sussex) we're much better off because the trains are a lot longer (up to 12 coaches) and, outside peak hours (when bikes aren't allowed), it's usually possible just to prop your bike in a door bay.

However it would be unwise to bring a bike during busy off-peak periods, especially Saturday mornings when the trains are often packed with people going to Croydon or London for shopping. I can well envisage being chased off a train at such times.

It's particularly hard if you have a connection (with booked space) to make - possibly with a different train company. I wonder what your redress is? On one occasion when I was travelling (without bike) on a reserved 'Advance' ticket, I missed the booked train (Virgin) because my Southern connection was delayed ½ hour. However the Virgin staff let me board the next train (without reserved seat) once I explained the situation. Would they have done the same if I'd had a bike?

[pete75]

Never heard of this - bikes in the same carriage as passengers seems an odd arrangement. Have taken bikes on trains lots of times and always bikes travelled in a locked compartment passengers have no access to.

[pete75]

It's simple,people are paying passengers,bikes(even if paid for At a lesser rate) take up the room of paying passengers so are secondary.
I have no problem with that because should the bike bay be a dedicated bay it would take up seating space for paying passengers.

This is the view that I am trying to get my head round. Let's start with a basic principle: no passenger should be treated less equally than another and no passenger's travel needs are less important than any other's (though one might argue over say a medical emergency or those travelling with children). Some passengers might also voluntarily give up their right to travel out of kindness, but that is indeed voluntary.

So here's principle number two: everyone has different needs and requirements that enable them to complete their journey. The train accommodates those needs within certain parameters. Although everyone pays the same fare (or at least under the same terms), some people may make use of certain facilities more than others and at different times e.g. the toilet, the luggage racks or the buffet. In my case, our local train service doesn't run in the late evening or on Sundays so taking a bike on the main line is crucial. I don't think any reasonable person would object to bike spaces on a train.

If however the train reaches capacity, how do you decide who is to be left behind? Do you decide it on the basis of who takes up the most space?

Were you banned from travelling on the train per se or from travelling with your bikes? If the latter you're being treated no less equally than all the passengers without bikes. Also as you say the bike spaces were in a multi use area with fold down seats which could and were occupied by far paying passengers. Should a passenger who has paid for a seat be asked to stand in order that a seating area he could use be occupied by a non fare paying bike?

[PH]

Sounds like you were just unlucky, it happens, it's happened to me twice* in 15 years of frequent train/bike use**. It's the reason I'm reluctant to use the last train of the day and a bit nervous when it is (Despite the last train probably being the least likely to be crowded) I think the conditions of carriage for all the companies state that bikes are only carried at their discretion, even if you have a reservation. As bovlomov says it shouldn't be a lottery, but it is, even though you win nearly every time.
I'm not sure there's any morality to it, if the conductor judges there to be not enough space for everyone, there's going to be losers - as the issue is space then starting with those taking up the most seems logical. Given that the obligations to transport your bike are less than those to transport the passenger it becomes a question of how to best fulfil the terms of the contract.

* There was a third time in Scotland, but some boozy youths intervened and suggested to the guard he wouldn't leave a dog out on a night like that, even an English one! The guard relented and let me on, probably for a quiet life.
** Not as frequent as those who commute by train, so far this year I've been on around 18 trains.

[bikepacker]

I don't think any reasonable person would object to bike spaces on a train.
?

Sorry but they do. I brought up the subject at a meeting with a director of a rail company following an argument with a guard over a bike on a train. I told him exactly what you said and he called his PA to bring in letters of complaint from passengers regarding bikes. Most of the ones he showed me were passenger complaining about bikes taking up space next to drop-down seats when they had to stand. He also showed the considerable amount of potential revenue that would be lost by converting passenger seats to dedicated bike space.

He also stressed that there is no legal requirement for them to carry bicycles and they do so as an added service to a minority section of passengers.