this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
1097 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

60021 readers
3392 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I've done the bike-on-train thing many times and in many countries. The issue isn't just the space the bike needs on the train itself, it's the space the person needs to be able to get a bike on board without blocking the path and the infrastructurerequired to get the bike right next to the train. Trains fit for many bikes need wider doors, more doors (that costs seats), alignment between platform and train becomes even more important, that the platforms are very accessible too (there is often, if you're lucky, 1 elevator to the platform that fits 1 or 2 bikes at a time, that elevator gets jammed up and competes with wheelchairs and childstrollers and large suitcases very quickly) et cetera. Many smaller stations still have 0 elevators of ramps, only stairs. The only somewhat convenient bike on a train is the foldable bike, but even that creates the hassle described, tho less. I try to avoid taking my own bike on a train (and I think taking your own is usually too cheap compared to a person-ticket and the hassle taking the bike creates).

Anyhow, I think 1 person + 1 bike = 1,75 seats is underestimating it a lot.