Train Fine

HappyMJ

daivid wrote: »

Shoes on or off? I doubt it makes any difference in the wording of the fine, but I've often taken my shoes off to stretch out on a long journey in a sparsely populated carriage (a rarity these days perhaps) and can't see the harm, my socks are as clean as the seat of my trousers.

And neither do I and I would probably do the same but the issue I and many others have is with people who are placing their feet with shoes on a seat in a carriage with many people.

OP if you want to fight it then go ahead and fight it. I don't believe the railway by-laws regarding having your feet on the seat have to be displayed anywhere but if that's the argument you have then try that.

I really can't imagine what a train would look like if you displayed every single by-law. No feet on seats, no smoking, no drinking alcohol, no swearing, no graffiti, no tagging, no knives, no guns, no climbing on the train, no trespassing, no entering the drivers cab....you'd have signs everywhere. I really don't think that argument would work.

GingerBob_3

What a most obnoxious sign to see in a train. It is, of course symptomatic of modern life, whereby you are threatened, admonished and warned by an ever greater number of signs, everywhere you go! I wonder if they have a REAL problem with feet on seats? If so, a small sign would suffice, not that monster shown in the picture. I see that despite the request from the OP not to lecture, some posters - the "perfect ones" - just can't help it. As for the "fine", as mentioned earlier, the beat approach to deal with public transport Hitlers is to always have a fake name and address ready, and of course don't admit to carrying anything that proves who you are (same goes for civic street bouncers if they think you've thrown down some litter).

jb66

what if you take your shoes off and put your socks on the seat? Is that criminal damage?

wealdroam

I think this discussion should be about anti-social behaviour, not about criminal damage.

TrulyMadly

How do we feel about both shoes AND socks off.

This is me with my friend in the bath:o

I'm thinking my bunions might upset other passengers:o

pendragon_arther

daivid wrote: »

Shoes on or off? I doubt it makes any difference in the wording of the fine, but I've often taken my shoes off to stretch out on a long journey in a sparsely populated carriage (a rarity these days perhaps) and can't see the harm, my socks are as clean as the seat of my trousers.

Yeah, but your socks haven't potentially walked in dog poo, have they?

jon81uk

GingerBob wrote: »

What a most obnoxious sign to see in a train. It is, of course symptomatic of modern life, whereby you are threatened, admonished and warned by an ever greater number of signs, everywhere you go! I wonder if they have a REAL problem with feet on seats? If so, a small sign would suffice, not that monster shown in the picture. I see that despite the request from the OP not to lecture, some posters - the "perfect ones" - just can't help it. As for the "fine", as mentioned earlier, the beat approach to deal with public transport Hitlers is to always have a fake name and address ready, and of course don't admit to carrying anything that proves who you are (same goes for civic street bouncers if they think you've thrown down some litter).

I think the issue with"modern life" is that these signs are needed as many people have forgotten what normal manners are, don't put feet on seats, don't spit, don't litter, put gum in a bin etc, if everyone just did these things then we wouldn't need signs!

[Deleted User]

Tell them the knee joints on your false legs got jammed.

GingerBob_3

jon81uk wrote: »

I think the issue with"modern life" is that these signs are needed as many people have forgotten what normal manners are, don't put feet on seats, don't spit, don't litter, put gum in a bin etc, if everyone just did these things then we wouldn't need signs!

Emm... maybe you're right, but I have a feeling the signs would be there all the same. It's perhaps something in the British psyche - nanny state and all that.

yorkie2

It's a straightforward strict liability byelaw offence, for which no intent to cause any damage needs to be proven.

So, the short answer is simply "no"