The other day Friends of the Earth, who must have something better to do, staged a protest in Manchester to complain that full-sized, non-folding bicycles aren't allowed on the trams. "It is ridiculous that bicycles aren't allowed on the trams," said a spokesperson.
It's also ridiculous that cars, lorries and large steam traction engines aren't allowed on the trams. What are they thinking?
If you're going on a cycling tour of the Peak District or the seaside or something then you'll want to be able to take your bike on the train to get to the place you're going to explore. I've no problem with that and I'm happy to support moves to insist on bike space on trains.
But trams? Oh come on now... we're talking about journeys of half a dozen miles or less. Assuming there's room, of course: most mornings it's a struggle for a body to get on at all. If you're taking a bike on a six-mile tram journey into town you might as well cycle the whole way. What's the point of taking a bike onto a tram just to cycle the last hundred yards or so to work? Or else get off the tram and use Shanks' Pony to finish your journey like the rest of us.
What's the carbon footprint of a bicycle's being used as a handbag on public transport?
Its Raining Again…
-
The Costa Rican government has declared a state of national emergency
following ten days of heavy rains, with the prospect of a cyclone to
follow. Rivers h...
1 day ago
Posts
3 comments:
I wonder if people want to take their bike on the tram to get past parts of the journey that are just too dangerous to cycle? Sometimes you can't easily cycle a whole journey because of disappearing cycle paths and mad drivers zooming past at 40mph.
Quite possibly. In which case the protest demonstrations are addressing the wrong problem.
"What's the carbon footprint of a bicycle's being used as a handbag on public transport?"
That is hilarious!
Post a Comment