From: NM on
On 9 Dec, 22:29, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...(a)>
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:25:14 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.mor...(a)>
> wrote:
> >On 9 Dec, 18:38, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...(a)>
> >wrote:
> >> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 01:20:41 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.mor...(a)>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Point 1, Why allow bikes on trains that are very busy.
> >> >Point 2, If you must tolerate bikes then make some proper provision
> >> >for processing them.
> >> Point 3, There was there someone oggling on without offering to lend a
> >> hand.
> >That's easy, I was on the wrong side of the barrier with a wheelie
> >case and a shouldwer bag plus a right arm in a sling due to being
> >knocked off my motorcycle a few weeks ago,.otherwise I would have been
> >happy to assist but I was not in a position to offer any help.
> >There were many incoming passengers who were all in too much of a
> >hurry to help, why are you not picking on them instead of a laden
> >crippled pensioner?
> Point 1, I was unaware that you were a laden crippled pensioner.
> Point 2, I have no way of contacting the many incoming passengers who
> were all in too much of a hurry to help.
> Point 3, Even a laden crippled pensioner would have been able to
> summon assistance.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

From the wrong side of the barrier without a valid ticket and with a
tidal wave of commuters coming through, How exactly? Are you
suggesting I should have found the nearest phone box and changed at
superspeed into Cycloman then swooped down to assist, that was a no
no, they have taken all the phone boxes away.

From: NM on
On 9 Dec, 22:54, Tom Anderson <t...(a)> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, NM wrote:
> > Point 1, Why allow bikes on trains that are very busy.
> They don't:
> But it seems they don't consider the trains arriving at 0615 to be very
> busy.
> Seriously though, who on earth arrives at Liverpool Street at 0615? If you
> are doing this regularly, you need to reexamine your life choices.
> tom
> --
> Yulava? Niob Yam!

I agree, I had family commitments in Amsterdam, I thought I would be
'green' and go by train instead of air. The last few air experiences
put me off so much that I resolved to find a different less stressful

The interminable waiting and the lenghty list of restricted articals
could just about be tolerated but now I am being asked for more than
the airfare as 'extra' charges for baggage plus on top the taxes and
charges come to more than the air fare without baggage charges. (35
pounds each way for a small case off clothes and some toiletries is
plain stupid, for seventry quid I could buy a toothbrush etc and some
underwear to throw away and still be well in front, then we come to
parking charges on top again.

Having a full family's christmas presents to transport I went by train
and boat. NEVER AGAIN, hours of purgatory starting at 0532 and ending
at 2000. luckily I had the forethought to bring my own refreshments as
Stena Line's food prices are silly expensive (So expensive I saw no
takers from the public, only truckers whose meals are subsudised).

So having over the last few years made lengthy in depth research of
the available methods without doubt the quickest easiest and least
stressful method of travelling from rural Britain to a near European
destination is to get in your car and drive, take advantage of the
many cheap deals available on the short sea crossings and it will be
cheapest method.
From: Neil Williams on
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:51:31 +0000, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis(a)> wrote:

>Just after it opened there were reports that luggage was banned from the
>new metro line to the airport in Dubai.

Large luggage is banned from the Delhi Metro, as they X-ray everything
(really!) and big bags wouldn't fit. (Actually, the security on the
Delhi Metro is a good advert for why it would be completely
impractical on LUL - their passenger throughput is tiny in comparison,
but the queues can be horrendous).

It does make it a bit useless for travelling between the coach and
railway stations, though I forget if the airport is served or not.


Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
From: Neil Williams on
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:08:26 -0000, "MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage |
at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com> wrote:

>Platforms are not highways, so [Road] Traffic Regulations don't
>generally apply. However, there are almost certainly byelaws that
>do apply.

Riding bicycles, rollerskating, skateboarding and rollerblading (as
repeatedly announced at Birmingham New St) is definitely prohibited on
railway station platforms, so I suspect there is indeed a byelaw.


Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
From: Neil Williams on
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:38:14 +0000, Marc
<initial.surname(a)> wrote:

>And then ask for it to be removed to reduce the premium?

Good point.

>I dread the idea of having to make a claim for third party liability, I
>have at the last count 4 policies that cover it and each will argue that
>the other should be paying.

I suppose strictly speaking if you double-insure the claim has to go
to all of them, and be split between them on some basis. Not sure
what that basis is, though.

I suppose the German option of it being an effectively mandatory[1]
but separate policy avoids that.

[1] I don't think it's required by law, but it is certainly one that
practically everyone there has, and I suspect legal cases take this
into account when awarding compensation.


Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Prev: A danger to motorists...
Next: Brown bin day!