Drinking ban applies to the bus and DLR as well as the tube

[zenie]

Nonsense, he's instituted measures to re-phase traffic signals (presumably to the way they were before Ken had them "adjusrted" to generate "congestion") - good for you Mr J.

It's my understanding that the traffic lights were configured to support London's pedestrian's, not increase car congestion.

Do you have something to back your opinion up?

I value pedestrians over traffic funnily enough, and that's what the change in lights did, didn't it?

I really don't see how they'll implement this ban, will they have a SWAT tem of Transport Police watching over stations ready to pounce on drinkers?

Also, re; the buses thing, I've been not allowed on with open drinks before so I assumed it was already banned.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Have the traffic lights at Trafalger Sq been reconfigured since the pedestrianisation of the northern edge of the Sq?

I'm pretty sure they have. I used to work in Admiralty Arch and have definitely noticed the lights being slower at the top of Whitehall

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I like the idea of a dress code on the tube as suggested earlier. The ticket staff should insist on a 'no trainers' rule and for ties to be worn fastened right up to the collar with the top button fastened and for shirts to be tucked in.

Oh yes, and no running in the stations and no talking once the train has started.

 

[George & Bill]

why? i can't see a reason for drinking on a bus tbh, you're moronic

Reason or not, what possible reason could there be to ban such a thing? You can't stop drunk people from travelling, and you can't stop badly-behaved people from travelling - at least, not with a ban such as the one shortly to begin. Indeed, the people who currently drink and misbehave on buses will probably ignore the ban - the only people it will effect are the entirely unproblematic drinkers enjoying a quiet beer on their way out or a G&T on their way home.

 

[George & Bill]

Also, re; the buses thing, I've been not allowed on with open drinks before so I assumed it was already banned.

Bus drivers have always exercised some sort of digression - if they don't want boozers on their bus, they can stipulate that. But otherwise, it hasn't until now been banned.

 

[kaiser]

so you are suggesting these traffic lights have been set to intentionally cause this congestion?

again, i will ask for evidence to back up this assertion.

I don't think they have been set up intentionally. Obviously there been alterted for the pedestrians to allow more time to cross. But, in trafalgar square, if driving from whitehall into pall mall(towards piccadilly) you have to negotiate 4 traffic lights in and around that roundabout.

If a long vehicle (like a bendy bus) has to wait at the third light then traffic from the mall are unable to get through. Also, note the third and fourth lights are for pedestrians only but its one of those lights that always change regardless if anyone pressed the button.

 

[toggle]

I don't think they have been set up intentionally. Obviously there been alterted for the pedestrians to allow more time to cross. But, in trafalgar square, if driving from whitehall into pall mall(towards piccadilly) you have to negotiate 4 traffic lights in and around that roundabout.

If a long vehicle (like a bendy bus) has to wait at the third light then traffic from the mall are unable to get through. Also, note the third and fourth lights are for pedestrians only but its one of those lights that always change regardless if anyone pressed the button.

Intentionally causing the traffic congestion was cobbles original assertion. which is likely a load of old cobblers.

Alterations to traffic lights to allow for pedestrians has been a bonus, I've realised after walking through london with a toddler, who can't scoot across the road at a run, quite how dangerous some lights are when I'm only getting halfway across the road with the child and people are driving at me because the time allotted to cross is too short. Where lights have been altered to make this less likely to happen, they shouldn't' be changed, safety should trump traffic problems.

But yes, lights systems not designed for something the size of a bendy bus is just one of the problems with the things. IMo, the removal of the bendy bus should be done before altering the place to fit them and other oversized vehicles should be limited to non peak hours.

 

[pengaleng]

good. should have been done a long fuckin time ago imo.

 

[spacemonkey]

Good idea.

What sort of dress code do you think would be acceptable for public transportation?

Would there be changing facilities on-board or would you expect people to be properly dressed before boarding said transport?

What kind of penalties would there be for disobedience? Some sort of on-the-spot fine or a court summons similar to those given for fare-dodging?

 

[wiskey]

frankly given the fact they've trashed 3 carriages i think the people on the circle line party have completely proved why alcohol being banned is a good thing.

 

[Geri]

You must, in this case, be a moron.

Fuck right off, you loser.

 

[scifisam]

Have none of you lot noticed any of the threads that already existed about this?

 

[George & Bill]

Fuck right off, you loser.

Oh yeah? Can you explain how such a ban as you support will have a positive effect?

Dullard.

 

[Geri]

Oh yeah? Can you explain how such a ban as you support will have a positive effect?

Because I have to use the bus a lot - sometimes alone, sometimes late at night, and I would prefer it if it was not full of people drinking.

We don't have conductors on our buses and any trouble means that a) the driver is potentially unaware of what is happening (if it's upstairs) and b) if he/she is aware, he/she is unlikely to be able to deal with it and have to wait for the police.

I really can't understand why you have to be so abusive about the fact that people might want to feel safer on public transport, and a ban of alcohol will help that.

 

[Termite Man]

frankly given the fact they've trashed 3 carriages i think the people on the circle line party have completely proved why alcohol being banned is a good thing.

Thats just the media attention attracting twats though rather than people having a drink on the way to a gig or something .

The only time I drink on public transport if I'm heading out ( normally to camden or somewhere else in north london ) to see a band and I'll get the bus from stockwell up to camden which takes about an hour and I'll have 1 beer on the way because beer in clubsare fucking expensive ! When I do this I sit quietly with my mp3 player on and don't cause any trouble , so this ban is effectivly saying I'm being anti-social when you would be hard pushed to find anything anti social about my actions .

 

[George & Bill]

Because I have to use the bus a lot - sometimes alone, sometimes late at night, and I would prefer it if it was not full of people drinking.

We don't have conductors on our buses and any trouble means that a) the driver is potentially unaware of what is happening (if it's upstairs) and b) if he/she is aware, he/she is unlikely to be able to deal with it and have to wait for the police.

I really can't understand why you have to be so abusive about the fact that people might want to feel safer on public transport, and a ban of alcohol will help that.

Use your head for once love: how do you expect a ban to help if there is not the manpower to deal with disruptive or abusive passengers? A ban does not enforce itself. Further, if there were the manpower to deal with such passengers, a blanket ban would not be necessary, because anyone behaving inappropriately could be dealt with and anyone drinking but not behaving inappropriately could be left alone.

I will stop being 'abusive' (telling it like it is ) when you stop being stupid.

 

[marty21]

Use your head for once love: how do you expect a ban to help if there is not the manpower to deal with disruptive or abusive passengers? A ban does not enforce itself. Further, if there were the manpower to deal with such passengers, a blanket ban would not be necessary, because anyone behaving inappropriately could be dealt with and anyone drinking but not behaving inappropriately could be left alone.

I will stop being 'abusive' (telling it like it is ) when you stop being stupid.

you're not telling it as it is ffs, you can't understand that some people don't want drinking on buses, it doesn't bother me one way or another, but you resort to abuse when someone disagrees with you, nice debating technique

 

[George & Bill]

Thats just the media attention attracting twats though rather than people having a drink on the way to a gig or something .

The only time I drink on public transport if I'm heading out ( normally to camden or somewhere else in north london ) to see a band and I'll get the bus from stockwell up to camden which takes about an hour and I'll have 1 beer on the way because beer in clubsare fucking expensive ! When I do this I sit quietly with my mp3 player on and don't cause any trouble , so this ban is effectivly saying I'm being anti-social when you would be hard pushed to find anything anti social about my actions .

Indeed; you can't turn around and say 'look what a mess this party made, this vindicates the ban', when the party has only been organised in response to the ban's introduction

(e2a: this is a tongue-in-cheek point; I don't think the tube is the place for a party and think a better point would have been made by having a mass non-disruptive drinking session on the first day of the ban)

 

[George & Bill]

you're not telling it as it is ffs, you can't understand that some people don't want drinking on buses, it doesn't bother me one way or another, but you resort to abuse when someone disagrees with you, nice debating technique

AFAIK no-one really objects to drinking on public transport per se, but rather to the disruptive or abusive behaviour that sometimes goes with it. My point is that without enforcement, the ban will have no effect on problem drinkers, and that if such enforcement were introduced, no ban would be required, because problem individuals (whether drinking on the bus/tube or already drunk when they got on) could be dealt with using powers that have always existed.

Before accusing others of abuse you should consider the abuse you are perpetrating against yourself as a supposedly liberal-minded individual who is mindlessly supporting illiberal legislation.

 

[scifisam]

Because I have to use the bus a lot - sometimes alone, sometimes late at night, and I would prefer it if it was not full of people drinking.

We don't have conductors on our buses and any trouble means that a) the driver is potentially unaware of what is happening (if it's upstairs) and b) if he/she is aware, he/she is unlikely to be able to deal with it and have to wait for the police.

I really can't understand why you have to be so abusive about the fact that people might want to feel safer on public transport, and a ban of alcohol will help that.

Being abusive about it is wrong, but I really don't understand why you, or anyone, thinks this will help. There will be just as many drunk people on PT as before, because people get drunk before they get on the bus/tube, not during the ride. Sure, they won't be drinking in front of you, but why exactly does that bother you?

(And you want the police called for people drinking who are not causing trouble?)

 

[marty21]

You must, in this case, be a moron.

Well why don't we impose a fucking dress code while we're at it?

Fucking prick.

Unlike you - the worst idea your parents ever had (that is, if it was intentional).

Oh yeah? Can you explain how such a ban as you support will have a positive effect?

Dullard.

Use your head for once love: how do you expect a ban to help if there is not the manpower to deal with disruptive or abusive passengers? A ban does not enforce itself. Further, if there were the manpower to deal with such passengers, a blanket ban would not be necessary, because anyone behaving inappropriately could be dealt with and anyone drinking but not behaving inappropriately could be left alone.

I will stop being 'abusive' (telling it like it is ) when you stop being stupid.

AFAIK no-one really objects to drinking on public transport per se, but rather to the disruptive or abusive behaviour that sometimes goes with it. My point is that without enforcement, the ban will have no effect on problem drinkers, and that if such enforcement were introduced, no ban would be required, because problem individuals (whether drinking on the bus/tube or already drunk when they got on) could be dealt with using powers that have always existed.

Before accusing others of abuse you should consider the abuse you are perpetrating against yourself as a supposedly liberal-minded individual who is mindlessly supporting illiberal legislation.

how could i be so stupid accusing you of being abusive

 

[girasol]

When I was in Biarritz a few years ago, we got told off by the police for drinking in a public place: we were near the tourist information area, holding our drinks and they told us to throw it away - they were really pissed off as well. Not sure if that's the law in France, but it certainly felt that you can only drink in certain places.

I wonder how long it'll be before they try and do something like that in here. Although that would cause massive riots... Not a lot makes people get up and angry but this might just do it, so maybe it'll never happen.

Anyway, as it's been said before, it's not drinking in public transport that's the problem, people who can't handle their drink and become violent will still do it, this isn't going to make any difference.

 

[George & Bill]

how could i be so stupid accusing you of being abusive

At least, along side my abuse, I have also developed an argument.

 

[pogofish]

When I was in Biarritz a few years ago, we got told off by the police for drinking in a public place:

A lot of French municipalities set local bans on this & other things. Esp touristy places, where they seem to see petty fines as another form of tourist tax - I was with a school party to a place near Biarritz in my last job & the amount of fines for some minor transgression or other the kids (& some staff) clocked-up was quite staggering.

They have had similar "No Alcohol Zones" in Scotland for a few years now & TBH, they are either honoured in the breach or policed pretty effectively. I don't remember a great deal of fuss about them.

 

[miss giggles]

I hate people drinking on the nightbus, I find it really threatening. People who've had a drink tend to just fall asleep. I also don't like people drinking on the street it's horrible. In fact, I just hate the whole drinking culture. Drunk people scare me.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Tbh, I'm hard pushed to think of a time when I've ever been intimidated by a person drinking on public transport who wasn't already obviously steaming (in which case it was the state they were already in which was the problem). The majority of people I've noticed having a drink on the tube or bus have always seemed on their way out somewhere, and in high but friendly spirits, or quite likely having one on a day back from work.

I've occasionally drunk on the tube and bus. I'd be extraordinarily surprised if anyone had ever been intimidated by me doing so, given that to paraphrase Spaced, I look like a primary school teacher.

Anyway, as it's been said before, it's not drinking in public transport that's the problem, people who can't handle their drink and become violent will still do it, this isn't going to make any difference.

Well, exactly.

 

[J@ffa]

From the Times:

From today, passengers will be ordered off Tube trains and buses if they consume alcohol while on board. Until it is enshrined in a bylaw, which will take about a year, there is no punishment available to transport staff except for ejection.

(emphasis mine).

 

[George & Bill]

I hate people drinking on the nightbus, I find it really threatening. People who've had a drink tend to just fall asleep. I also don't like people drinking on the street it's horrible. In fact, I just hate the whole drinking culture. Drunk people scare me.

If you find people drinking scary in itself then I would have to suggest, with due respect, that this is something you need to deal with. I object as much as anyone to people who are drunkenly abusive or disruptive on PT, but I see no reason for conflating this with the simple act of drinking.

 

[moose]

When I was in Biarritz a few years ago, we got told off by the police for drinking in a public place: we were near the tourist information area, holding our drinks and they told us to throw it away - they were really pissed off as well. Not sure if that's the law in France, but it certainly felt that you can only drink in certain places.

I wonder how long it'll be before they try and do something like that in here. Although that would cause massive riots... Not a lot makes people get up and angry but this might just do it, so maybe it'll never happen.

There are alcohol bans in many towns in the UK, preventing people from drinking in the streets. They've been in place in this town for around 4 years, and policed fairly effectively. It means I can't take a bottle of wine to the park with a picnic, but then you don't see so many drunk kids staggering round the place either.

 

[George & Bill]

There are alcohol bans in many towns in the UK, preventing people from drinking in the streets. They've been in place in this town for around 4 years, and policed fairly effectively. It means I can't take a bottle of wine to the park with a picnic, but then you don't see so many drunk kids staggering round the place either.

The loss of your own liberty being a small price to pay for the curtailment of someone else's?