Bye-bye bike parking?

wafflycat said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7095884.stm

Includes:--

"How do you terror-proof a major public building without turning it into
a fortress? Benches and water walls are in, bike racks could be out and
those pretty shrubs... they'll need to be well pruned."

Depressing isn't it? Just when it seemed that some momentum was building
up for routes that are door to door this pops up.And I have the feeling
that "terrorist threat" will be the new damping excuse for not doing
anthing , replacing "elf N Safety" which in it's turn replaced "
Insurance". I blame Churchill for forming the S.O.E. in 1940 with their
ideas of using cycles as bombs in Europe. :-(

wafflycat said the following on 15/11/2007 12:35:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7095884.stm

Includes:--

"How do you terror-proof a major public building without turning it into
a fortress? Benches and water walls are in, bike racks could be out and
those pretty shrubs... they'll need to be well pruned."

The whole scenario seems to be getting out of hand. We didn't have this
mass panic during the IRA bombing campaigns. I thought Christian
Wolmar's comment about the Blitz spirit was very appropriate - only
yesterday were we talking at work about how they coped in the war
without being molly-coddled.

Besides, what's the point of making a major railway station secure if a
terrorist can just get on a train at a minor railway station and carry a
bomb in by simply stepping off the train?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7095884.stm

Includes:--

"How do you terror-proof a major public building without turning it into
a fortress? Benches and water walls are in, bike racks could be out and
those pretty shrubs... they'll need to be well pruned."

Depressing isn't it? Just when it seemed that some momentum was building
up for routes that are door to door this pops up.And I have the feeling
that "terrorist threat" will be the new damping excuse for not doing
anthing , replacing "elf N Safety" which in it's turn replaced "
Insurance". I blame Churchill for forming the S.O.E. in 1940 with their
ideas of using cycles as bombs in Europe. :-(

Indeed. Whatever happened to 'carry on with our way of life'
It seems to me the paranoid have taken over the asylum completely :-(

marc said:

Depressing isn't it?

Certainly is. From what I've seen of this type of thing, bikes are
"out" as they may contain a bomb, but cars and vans are "in". But
couldn't you stuff more nasty things in a builder's van than a bike?
Well, no one thinks that's a problem.

PhilD

--
<><

Paul Boyd said:

Besides, what's the point of making a major railway station secure if a
terrorist can just get on a train at a minor railway station and carry a
bomb in by simply stepping off the train?

In fact, what's the point of making large modern public buildings secure
anyway, when all the terrorist has to do is plant his device in the
nearest slightly smaller, slightly less modern building? Or are the
terrorists going to have to conform to Gordon's guidelines as well?

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:56:43 -0800 (PST)

PhilD said:

marc said:

Depressing isn't it?

Certainly is. From what I've seen of this type of thing, bikes are
"out" as they may contain a bomb, but cars and vans are "in".

Easy. You just load your bike bomb inna car or van.

--
not me guv

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:47:33 +0000

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

Besides, what's the point of making a major railway station secure if
a terrorist can just get on a train at a minor railway station and
carry a bomb in by simply stepping off the train?

Shut up you fool! If the spooks read that, they'll be closing down
all stations other than the 250 terror-police hubs.

--
not me guv

wafflycat said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7095884.stm

Includes:--

"How do you terror-proof a major public building without turning it into
a fortress? Benches and water walls are in, bike racks could be out and
those pretty shrubs... they'll need to be well pruned."

So they will remove the bike racks 5 yards from the building to stop a
bike carrying 20 odd kg of explosives from being locked there, but allow
a van carry 100 times than amount to be parked 20 yards away.

ISTR reading somewhere that doubling the amount of explosives in a bomb,
more than doubles the destructive power.

Martin.

Nick Kew said:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:47:33 +0000

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

Besides, what's the point of making a major railway station secure if
a terrorist can just get on a train at a minor railway station and
carry a bomb in by simply stepping off the train?

Shut up you fool! If the spooks read that, they'll be closing down
all stations other than the 250 terror-police hubs.

Trains from minor stations will just travel to other minor stations. If
one does stop at a terror-police hub, they simply won't open the doors
to let anyone on or off.
Trains from the terror-police hubs will only stop at other terror-police
hubs problem solved.

(Idea stolen from Rory Bremna about rail privatisation).

PhilD twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

marc said:

Depressing isn't it?

Certainly is. From what I've seen of this type of thing, bikes are
"out" as they may contain a bomb, but cars and vans are "in". But
couldn't you stuff more nasty things in a builder's van than a bike?
Well, no one thinks that's a problem.

If the experiences of my landlady the day before yesterday at York
station are anything to go by, we've already reached that size. She
queried why there was a sign saying that GNER reserved the right to
search any bicycle panniers left on bikes in the station (and to
confiscate any items in them, and charge you for returning them) but
there where no similar signs in the motorbike parking area (right next to
the bicycles) or the executive parking (right next to the motorbikes).

The response was apparently a combination of "we can't search every car
going into the car park!" and "how dare you argue with any measure that's
suppose to make you safer?".
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Paul Boyd twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

Besides, what's the point of making a major railway station secure if a
terrorist can just get on a train at a minor railway station and carry a
bomb in by simply stepping off the train?

Well at the the TOCs already seem to be dealing with the idea that said
terrorist might put the bomb in a bicycle and then attempt to put that on
the train! :-(
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Paul Boyd said:

wafflycat said the following on 15/11/2007 12:35:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7095884.stm

Includes:--

"How do you terror-proof a major public building without turning it
into a fortress? Benches and water walls are in, bike racks could be
out and those pretty shrubs... they'll need to be well pruned."

The whole scenario seems to be getting out of hand. We didn't have this
mass panic during the IRA bombing campaigns. I thought Christian
Wolmar's comment about the Blitz spirit was very appropriate - only
yesterday were we talking at work about how they coped in the war
without being molly-coddled.

Besides, what's the point of making a major railway station secure if a
terrorist can just get on a train at a minor railway station and carry a
bomb in by simply stepping off the train?

I thought that on Sat. The coffee machine in Cardiff station had it's
litter bin taped up "For security reasons" yet the one on the train were
available. Back to SOE again, their operatives were trained to attach
explosives to moving parts to get most bang for their buck, using the
kinetic energy of the moving part to create more destruction than just
the explosive could manage. Take that thought and apply it to the two
bins, which package is going to create more mayhem, the one with the
kinetic energy of a derailed train to aid it or one inside a bin? Now
which has the higher probability?

Risk = probability x effect

Station probability = Y as unknown

Train probability = Y as also unknown

Station added kinetic energy = 0

Train added kinetic energy = mass of train(M) x V

So the risk of the station = Y x 0

Risk of Train = Y x ( MxV) where V could be up to 120 MPH

So we have the one with the lower risk being taped up "For security
reasons" and the higher risk one not. Who did the risk assesment I wonder?

PhilD said:

marc said:

Depressing isn't it?

Certainly is. From what I've seen of this type of thing, bikes are
"out" as they may contain a bomb, but cars and vans are "in". But
couldn't you stuff more nasty things in a builder's van than a bike?
Well, no one thinks that's a problem.

As I said, MI5 are working from a SOE manual from 1940 when cars weren't
available...

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

Besides, what's the point of making a major railway station secure if a
terrorist can just get on a train at a minor railway station and carry a
bomb in by simply stepping off the train?

<Capt. Mainwaring> Typical shabby terrorist trick! </Capt. Mainwaring>

--
Dave...

marc twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

As I said, MI5 are working from a SOE manual from 1940 when cars weren't
available...

ITYYM "cars aren't widely available and are, in any case, only driven by
people of quality"?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Alistair Gunn said:

marc twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

As I said, MI5 are working from a SOE manual from 1940 when cars weren't
available...

ITYYM "cars aren't widely available and are, in any case, only driven by
people of quality"?

No, I meant what I said. In occupied Europe during WW2 Cars woun't have
been available for leaving outside somewhere that you wanted to blow up.
They woudn't have been available for a number of reasons, such as
scarcity, value, the need to have papers for them etc...
On the other hand cycles were ubiquitous

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

wafflycat said the following on 15/11/2007 12:35:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7095884.stm

Includes:--

"How do you terror-proof a major public building without turning it into
a fortress? Benches and water walls are in, bike racks could be out and
those pretty shrubs... they'll need to be well pruned."

The whole scenario seems to be getting out of hand. We didn't have this
mass panic during the IRA bombing campaigns. I thought Christian
Wolmar's comment about the Blitz spirit was very appropriate - only
yesterday were we talking at work about how they coped in the war
without being molly-coddled.

Besides, what's the point of making a major railway station secure if a
terrorist can just get on a train at a minor railway station and carry a
bomb in by simply stepping off the train?

That assumes they can make a major railway station secure. They can't
and keep a train service running. It is just security theatre.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Besides, what's the point of making a major railway station secure if a
terrorist can just get on a train at a minor railway station and carry a
bomb in by simply stepping off the train?

That assumes they can make a major railway station secure. They can't
and keep a train service running. It is just security theatre.

Meanwhile 3,000 plus people a year are being killed on the roads and
nobody's bothered.

More people died on London's roads in the three months following 7/7
than in the bombings themselves.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

Tony Raven said:

Meanwhile 3,000 plus people a year are being killed on the roads and
nobody's bothered.

More people died on London's roads in the three months following 7/7
than in the bombings themselves.

Why would bicycle parking be removed, anyway? Surely it would just be
moved further away from the building, say to the same distance away as
the cars are? At many stations, it already is a way from the door
anyway.

Methinks the press are scare-mongering, just as they are about there
being full airline-style security at railway stations, which is just
so impractical it won't happen. There might be random checks, but
there won't be full scanning, as it just couldn't be done to deal with
the kind of passenger volumes involved. Random checks with sniffer
dogs are a lot more likely, and a lot more effective.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.