People going to work on bikes.

[Cyclone 10]

On 03/05/2019 at 12:25, Tony said:

That is fast becoming an old wives tale. Various studies seem to show that runners are no more prone to osteoarthritis than non runners, and that they might even do better. 

 

The thing that is really dangerous to health is not doing exercise so I'd say that having a ride, run or walk it into the daily routine with commuting is very sensible when possible.   Most people working in the city centre could walk to / from work in about an hour which is probably not much slower than using the bus in reality.

I'm not sure about that.  Have you just decided that "most" people in the city centre live within 3 miles?

I don't think that assumption is safe, based on my knowledge of my co-workers commuting distances.

On 03/05/2019 at 08:36, Annie Bynnol said:

 

A 60" TV in a box does not have sharp and oily surfaces to injure or damage and anyway if the a staff member decides that a new 60" tele in a box, " could be reasonably expected to cause or does cause obstruction, inconvenience or danger to any person"(Bylaws 9.1b).

Any authorized person can then insist(9.2) on, moving it a safe place and/or on making the item safe or having it removed(9.3).

So if your view is similar to that of an authorized person, the 60"  TV,  would not be carried.

 

(Supertram by-laws ) 9. Bicycles and luggage

9.1 No person shall cause or permit to be brought onto, or permit to remain upon any vehicle or any tram stop:

a) any bicycle or other wheeled vehicle (save for wheelchairs, pushchairs and prams) unless authorised by the Conditions of Carriage; 

b) any luggage or other article which by reason of its nature could be reasonably expected to cause or does cause obstruction, inconvenience or danger to any person (whether a passenger on the system or not) or damage to any property (including but not limited to the system).

 

 

I think that bikes at the discretion of the conductor would be reasonable, in rush hour, no, when it's quiet, no reason not to.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

23 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

 

I think that bikes at the discretion of the conductor would be reasonable, in rush hour, no, when it's quiet, no reason not to.

Sheffield trams and tram trains do not have adequate space or restraints to protect passengers from physical injury, dirt and damage to their property by bikes. Insurance claims would require Stagecoach to pass on this cost to all passengers.

Operationally the tram timetable would have to slowed down because of the need to increase dwell times thus creating fewer and longer journeys, and more standing and congestion when there was none.

Allowing bikes to be anywhere near the doors unrestrained would be a serious hazard and potentially fatal in an emergency evacuation.

Netherthorpe Road?

The conductor could be anywhere on the tram, the delays in finding the conductor would add further unpredictable delays.

 

Solution is get two bikes, one for each end of the route, or get a Brompton + cover and you get to use buses and trains as well.

 

 

[Baron99 797]

Heard someone from a bike group on Radio Sheffield stating that he (they) had put a graphic on a Facebook page showing how Division St would look if it were pedestrianised as part of an idea to improve air quality in the city centre. 

 

Fair enough but:

1.That would mean another arterial city centre  road taken out of action. 

2.  How would the businesses get their supplies? 

3. Why do I get the feeling that despite the area being pedestrianised, cyclists would still be want to be able to ride up & down it risking the actual pedestrians' life & limbs? 

[Annie Bynnol 612]

2 hours ago, Baron99 said:

Heard someone from a bike group on Radio Sheffield stating that he (they) had put a graphic on a Facebook page showing how Division St would look if it were pedestrianised as part of an idea to improve air quality in the city centre. 

 

Fair enough but:

1.That would mean another arterial city centre  road taken out of action. 

2.  How would the businesses get their supplies? 

3. Why do I get the feeling that despite the area being pedestrianised, cyclists would still be want to be able to ride up & down it risking the actual pedestrians' life & limbs? 

1 It is not an arterial road- at best a one way street.

2 In the same way as Fargate.

3 Roads are often segregated, cyclists need to have a bell.

[WalkleyIan 10]

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Baron99 said:

2.  How would the businesses get their supplies? 

 

The same way that businesses on the Moor and Fargate get their supplies, from a van or lorry?

 

University seems to manage just fine with the pedestrian/cycle route are outside the diamond and Jessop West. 

 

Removing cars traffic from Division st was originally planned out years ago when it had that makeover with all the fake blue brick paving and bollards that look so tatty now. The ruling party on the council (the Lib Dems) blocked the idea. Mainly at the insistence of our old friend  Councillor Hesketh who said that said something along the lines of traffic adding to the vitality of the area.  

 

 

[Cyclone 10]

21 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Sheffield trams and tram trains do not have adequate space or restraints to protect passengers from physical injury, dirt and damage to their property by bikes. Insurance claims would require Stagecoach to pass on this cost to all passengers.

Operationally the tram timetable would have to slowed down because of the need to increase dwell times thus creating fewer and longer journeys, and more standing and congestion when there was none.

Allowing bikes to be anywhere near the doors unrestrained would be a serious hazard and potentially fatal in an emergency evacuation.

Netherthorpe Road?

The conductor could be anywhere on the tram, the delays in finding the conductor would add further unpredictable delays.

 

Solution is get two bikes, one for each end of the route, or get a Brompton + cover and you get to use buses and trains as well.

 

 

These are made up problems.  There is no reason that anyone would be injured by someone securely holding a bike.  And assuming that there are no wheelchairs on board there is a large area where a bike could be safely stored, so long as the owner stayed with it.

It takes no longer to wheel on and off than it takes to walk.

How is a bike a danger to the doors, when other luggage isn't.

 

Having two bikes isn't a solution, it's ridiculous.  As are the problems (apart from locating the conductor to ask, so it would need to be easier than that, time based perhaps).

[Annie Bynnol 612]

3 hours ago, Cyclone said:

These are made up problems.  There is no reason that anyone would be injured by someone securely holding a bike.  And assuming that there are no wheelchairs on board there is a large area where a bike could be safely stored, so long as the owner stayed with it.

It takes no longer to wheel on and off than it takes to walk.

How is a bike a danger to the doors, when other luggage isn't.

 

Having two bikes isn't a solution, it's ridiculous.  As are the problems (apart from locating the conductor to ask, so it would need to be easier than that, time based perhaps).

I can only think that your experience of suburban rail travel in London or other big cities with large networks is limited.

 

Why would commuter rail systems make up problem as reasons to ban or severely limit the carriage of bicycles eg London commuter travel between 07:00 – 10:00 and 16:00 – 19:00 and many bans and limitation and  advance booking required at other times.

You ignored the rules on carrying luggage on Supertram now you are ignoring the rules on luggage on trains.

The "unused" wheelchair area is for people to sit or stand or for walkers and other aids and prams.

Having two bikes is also quite common solution to suburban cycle bans.

There are no restraints for the bikes and staying with it is not going to help in an emergency.

Holding on to a rail with one hand and the bike with the other will not stop the bike moving on a swaying tram.

Physical injury (falling, tripping over, slipping, gashing  etc.),property damage(clothing, bags, tram furniture etc.)are covered  by Stagecoach insurance if. There is the additional and significant cost of insuring and modifying vehicles to carry bikes. Who pays?

You payed for one space and occupy four.

 

The velocity of getting through the doors might be the same possible on an empty tram but highly unlikely in reality.

Reality is called "dwell time" which is the length of time at platform. This directly effects journey time and therefore the timetable.

Dwell time will increase:

The bike is longer and so will take more time to get through the door.

Usually it will be one at bike at a time not two.

 

A considerate cyclist would leave a bigger space between them and the person in front.

The passenger behind would slow down to leave a bigger space to avoid potential physical injury or property damage.

You have to slow down to take the required 90  degree turn.

You will slow down everybody behind you as try to block the vestibule trying to arrange/position your bike.

 

There is the criminal law and civil law aspect of the TramTrain as it operates on NR track.

The TramTrain has a very rigid timetable which has to be adhered to

If it is established that the evacuation time on the recent Moscow disaster, was far longer than planned due to behaviour associated with luggage there will be changes to all public transport rules and design restricting all types of "carry on" items.

[ads36 217]

i'm not sure why you're turning this into a 'thing'

 

other countries can do it,  easily. it really isn't a problem. I've been on more than a few trains/trams, with my bike.

 

yes, more than a few bikes, and we'd probably need to fit some kind of rack. you could design it to hold bikes, you could call it a 'bike rack' ...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2019 by ads36

[Cyclone 10]

13 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

I can only think that your experience of suburban rail travel in London or other big cities with large networks is limited.

Think what you like, I don't see how your speculation is relevant to the Sheffield tram.

Quote

Why would commuter rail systems make up problem as reasons to ban or severely limit the carriage of bicycles eg London commuter travel between 07:00 – 10:00 and 16:00 – 19:00 and many bans and limitation and  advance booking required at other times.

So what you're saying is that commuter rail systems DO allow bikes on them at some times and with limitations.  

Quote

You ignored the rules on carrying luggage on Supertram now you are ignoring the rules on luggage on trains.

 

I didn't ignore anything.

Quote

The "unused" wheelchair area is for people to sit or stand or for walkers and other aids and prams.

That's what it's for NOW yes.  It could also be for bikes.

Quote

Having two bikes is also quite common solution to suburban cycle bans.

I know a lot of cyclists in Sheffield, let me tell you how many have 2 bikes to solve this ban.  ZERO. 0. None.  Not a single one.  So how common is it?

Quote

There are no restraints for the bikes and staying with it is not going to help in an emergency.

This is not a problem without a solution is it.

Quote

Holding on to a rail with one hand and the bike with the other will not stop the bike moving on a swaying tram.

Errr, well, I disagree.

Quote

 

Physical injury (falling, tripping over, slipping, gashing  etc.),property damage(clothing, bags, tram furniture etc.)are covered  by Stagecoach insurance if. There is the additional and significant cost of insuring and modifying vehicles to carry bikes. Who pays?

 

Who pays right now if any of those things happen?

Quote

You payed for one space and occupy four.

Well, we'd better apply this argument to pushchairs, luggage and wheelchairs hadn't we.

Quote

 

The bike is longer and so will take more time to get through the door.

Usually it will be one at bike at a time not two.

 

I can only assume that you don't catch the tram, particularly at quiet times.  The doors stay open for far longer than would be required to unload a few people and a bike or two.

Quote

 

A considerate cyclist would leave a bigger space between them and the person in front.

The passenger behind would slow down to leave a bigger space to avoid potential physical injury or property damage.

You have to slow down to take the required 90  degree turn.

 

Seriously, slow down to take the 90 degree turn...  You're just being silly now.

Quote

You will slow down everybody behind you as try to block the vestibule trying to arrange/position your bike.

Hence why I wouldn't expect it at busy times.

 

 

You've come up with a lot of "problems", ranging from the reasonable to the ludicrous, but I don't see you making any effort to think of solutions.

[Tony 10]

On 06/05/2019 at 08:54, Cyclone said:

I'm not sure about that.  Have you just decided that "most" people in the city centre live within 3 miles?

I don't think that assumption is safe, based on my knowledge of my co-workers commuting distances.

I think that bikes at the discretion of the conductor would be reasonable, in rush hour, no, when it's quiet, no reason not to.

No, I am reasonably certain that I said that "Most people working in the city centre could walk to / from work in about an hour which is probably not much slower than using the bus in reality".  If you have a little play with Google maps you'll see that "most" of Sheffield's urban population are no more than an hour or so's walk to town. I certainly live further than 3 miles out and I will often walk into town (just over an hour since you asked) or occasionally ride (about 15 minutes). I have even been known to take a bus or taxi instead of a car.

 

The point, if there is one to be made, is that including exercise into a commute is relatively trivial for many people. 

[Cyclone 10]

The average walking speed is about 3mph, hence why I changed "1 hour" to be "3 miles".

So if most of the people working in the centre could walk there in an hour, then they have to live within that distance.

I'm not sure how it's not much slower than the bus, I have once or twice caught the bus (and I live 5km from the city centre), it takes about 25 mins, half the time that walking takes (that's including me getting to the stop and waiting for it).

 

I'll still repeat my anecdote that very few of my colleagues live within 3 miles.  Out of 10+ people, 2 of us live that close.  And I cycle routinely and she does walk on nice days and takes the bus on others.

[Tony 10]

13 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

The average walking speed is about 3mph, hence why I changed "1 hour" to be "3 miles".

So if most of the people working in the centre could walk there in an hour, then they have to live within that distance.

I'm not sure how it's not much slower than the bus, I have once or twice caught the bus (and I live 5km from the city centre), it takes about 25 mins, half the time that walking takes (that's including me getting to the stop and waiting for it).

 

I'll still repeat my anecdote that very few of my colleagues live within 3 miles.  Out of 10+ people, 2 of us live that close.  And I cycle routinely and she does walk on nice days and takes the bus on others.

Cyclone, I can only be responsible for what I write, not what you think, or who you work with. What I wrote was about the ease of incorporating exercise into the commute for many people. You can take it, leave it, or completely miss the point by trying to score one, it is your call. 

 

I am fast remembering why I stopped contributing to SF.