In finding it hard to believe people let their young kids take up seats on trains when adults are standing

[gatorgolf]

Never get the train anymore, first time today in about 10 yrs got train to take DS to London. Train home was really really busy people standing in all the aisles as well as the doorways. We sat DS who is 5 on our knee as I thought that was the done thing when train busy. Family near us had two kids, one about the same age as DS, one slightly older maybe 6 or 7, kids had a seat each for the entire journey. I know its not comfortable to have kids on your knee for long time but its more comfortable than having to stand, there was 4 adults in there party so they could have taken the knee sitting in turns or even made the kids squeeze onto one seat to free one up.

Extremely precious of you, NotSo, to think that your children take priority over everyone else. If you don't like the conditions of carriage, why don't you drive? Or are you going to say you can't drive, or you don't have a car?

Also, some people don't drive and don't have a choice of alternatives to public transport. Not sure why less off chilldren can't be entitled to some comfort. And in some circumstances (not even really hidden disabilities) it may well not be OK for children to sit on the adult's lap for more than a few minutes. At least in the most basic public transport that are buses.
In fact, and upon reflection, that is one condition of carriage I strongly disagree with and think it should be revised to children up to 2 years of age, for example.

Then they don't have the right to complain about it. Either learn to drive, or abide by the conditions of carriage and stop moaning. Really simple!

I don't drive. I make long trips by train, get my 1 year old a seat and I wouldn't move him for an able-bodied adult.

Either learn to drive, or abide by the conditions of carriage and stop moaning. Really simple!
Is it that hard to grasp that some people can't drive (and aren't allowed to) or can't afford a car? Or even to have driving lessons?
Glad most people aren't this short sited or nasty.

No, it's not at all. But if public transport is your only option, then abide by the conditions of carriage. You don't get to change them our flout them to suit yourself or because you're being precious about your children being more important than everyone else ("you general", not you specifically) What about that is so hard to grasp?

And it's "short-sighted".

And here's what the National Rail conditions of carriage - which apply to every train operating company in the land - say:

1. Children

Up to two children under five years of age may travel free of charge with a passenger holding a ticket or other authority to travel. However, children under five years of age who are travelling free may only occupy a seat which is not required by a passenger holding a ticket or appropriate authority to travel.

These are the rules. You enter into a contract and agree to abide by those rules when you buy your ticket. If your child is travelling free and a paying adult requires the seat, you must give it to them.

If you do not like this, either buy your child a seat (fine, well done to those who do and don't continually whine about "but they're chiiiiiildren!!!"), or stop whining about your kids being more important than everyone else and learn to drive.

Sorry for the short-sighted correction. My phone is funny sometimes. It didn't like intercourse just a few moments before and the letter buttons are really small.
Thanks for pointing that out. :) I could never live with myself for having a post with a typo.

I think we have covered how children can have a seat without infringing on the conditions of carriage.
We can moan about lots of things. Thankfully, the UK is a democracy and encourages freedom of expression. We can also disagree with conditions of carriage and could (see, I have narrowly avoided having cold there) campaign to change them.

I'll ask again: are you saying that only children with parents who can afford to drive should be allowed any comfort travelling? Or that parents with children shouldn't be able to sit comfortably even though they may have a heavy 4 year old?
Why not tell pensioners on a free bus pass to drive or take a cab if they want to sit?

You're perfectly entitled to comfort travelling - if you pay for a seat for your child.

If you don't, then the discomfort of a "heavy 4 year old" is the price you have to pay.

Non-paying children should not be allowed to take up a seat when an adult requires it. Basic manners and conditions of carriage all rolled into one.

I dont drive so if my 3 kids are with me we walk or use public transport. When they were little I would have one strapped to me and the others in close proximity. When buying train tickets I would utilise my family rail card and so they would all have tickets to travel and seats booked where possible. I always plan to travel on non commuter services of course, on occasion it is unavoidable, if we are on a 6 hour journey the beginning or end may be on a busy commuter train. I always stand on the section of the platform for the start or end of the train (note the train length and stand at 4/6/8car stop depending), so we get on a less busy carriage, we squeeze together where practical. My kids are 6, 9 and 11 now so I will have ds1 and I stand if train is busy. Dd1 I prefer to have seated she is 9 and tall but she has ASD and coordination difficulties and standing can be problematic as she can get stressed (noisy) and is prone to falling so it is better all round if she is seated... of course that is not obvious from looking at her.

I have instilled manners and good travel etiquette in my kids unfortunately it is often not modelled by the adults that surround them. They are always seeing adults ignoring pregnant women, older people and very small children when we are on the tube, while I will usher people into our seats if they need them more. Dd1 can be difficult but my younger and older children are very aware of people who may need a seat and they are willing to squeeze up or stand. It is commonsense and common courtesy not memorising the conditions of travel.

It is the single working age traveller with their head in a tablet and their ears plugged with headphones, who travel every day and are fucking well going to sit in their seat that do not stand for others in my experience.

But as we are on a train route that goes through London and two airports go not get me started on travellers with large suitcases taking up 4 seats!!!!

What? I won't let my children (who have paid for a seat, incidentally) stand, unsafely, for a random stranger therefore I can't drive? how did you get to that conclusion?

We very rarely don't drive, actually, I can't bear public transport for reasons just like this. It's not precious at all. Perhaps we can turn it around and if you demand a seat at all times at the expense of people who already have them, you "should" drive.

It's not basic manners, as many people disagree with you on that one.

And my point, that you have disregarded, is that other categories of passengers don't pay fares and have priority seating. So, comfort for non paying passengers is still a concern for buses, so why not bus companies. (And if free bus passes are provided by councils, why not provide them for children as well?)
As for the conditions of carriage, you can bang on and on about them, but I'm saying I disagree with them and that they should be changed. I may abide by them (if perfectly able bodied adults with no concern for children insist on it), but I'd still campaign to have them changed.
Personally, I rarely used public transport with my child when he was under 5, but I encounter many children travelling on my daily commute and don't begrudge them and their parents separate seats at all.
IMO it's basic manners to allow those less capable and more vulnerable a proper seat.

Not really, no.

Firstly: Like I said, if you've paid for your child's seat, no problem at all and this becomes redundant.

Secondly: A paying adult shouldn't have to demand a seat or even ask for one; the parent of a non-paying child should automatically move the child onto his/her lap, as per the conditions of carriage and good manners.

Thirdly: Nobody is insisting your child stands. Move them onto your lap (again, redundant, since you've paid for their seat). What, exactly, is so difficult about this? We're talking about a child under 5, not a huge strapping 10-year old who won't sit on his/her mum's lap.

I have absolutely no issue with parents buying a seat for their child and not giving up that seat for an adult; they've paid for it. I do have a massive issue with people who get on a bus, for example, with free or half-fare travel for their child, then sit there taking up both seats when paying adults are standing because they're too precious to put their child on their lap.

Lweji - Why, exactly, do you think you need to campaign to get the conditions of carriage changed? All the conditions of carriage set out is that a non-paying child must not occupy a seat if a paying adult requires it.

The only possible reason to campaign to change this would be if you genuinely think that a child should be able to occupy a seat their parents haven't paid for at the expense of someone who has paid for a seat, which would make you all kinds of special snowflakey.

What, exactly, is so difficult about this? We're talking about a child under 5, not a huge strapping 10-year old who won't sit on his/her mum's lap.

Well, you seem to have trouble understanding my posts (for which I apologise, as in my stupidity I cannot find a way of making them more clear) or are ignoring my points (in which case, carry on).

And I do wonder if you have ever carried a heavy 4 year old for an hour or more on a bus.
But you seem to think that people can just choose to drive and take a car, so probably a tad detached from that reality.

A half fare or discounted fare allows a child a seat on a train (it is often cheaper to travel on trains with children and a family railcard than alone), but a discounted seat on a bus should be given up for a fare paying adult? Do I have that right Greenwich? I think that logic may feel right in south London were everyone travels by bus and their are daily buggy wars to contend with. But here in my county where buses cost loads to travel on and are so infrequent that you consult a calendar not a timetable, where if you get a return you better hope you Cú Chulainn

I do think that because I'm happy for a pensioner to have a seat they haven't paid for too.

Also, some other adults may be on free travel, such as close relatives of bus employees. Should they take a seat from a child? Shouldn't they get up for all other paying adults? (Oh, it doesn't say so on conditions of travel, so we just follow that and forbid ourselves from having a different opinion)

I don't have any trouble at all understanding your posts. I disagree with them, which is something else entirely.

I am asking you a perfectly reasonable question: Why do you want the conditions of carriage changed? Do you believe a non-paying child should be allowed to occupy a seat at the expense of an adult who has paid and is left standing, simply by virtue of them being your child?

I think I had made it clear that I do think that, and have given plenty of reasons.
Except not for the reason of being my child, but any child. Which has also been pointed out in my posts. I haven't had a vested interest in this for at least 6 years.

Then that makes you an extreme special snowflake. If you have not paid for a seat, you do not get to put your child in it at the expense of someone who has. Why on earth should a paying customer be left standing because you're (you general) too precious to put a child on your lap?

Do you apply the same logic apply to the theatre, cinema, etc? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

Well I plan on continuing to allow small children mine or anyone else's my seat. If I've dropped the kids off somewhere I still had a full and half monthly passes on my so if I don't use a seat there are two available on me.

There are plenty of reasons why laps aren't an option.

1. mum already standing
2. mum already has a baby on their lap
3. the second person on the seat is taking up part of the free seat and to sit on it means sitting sideways blocking the aisle.
4. mum is pregnant and bump is in way.
5. dad is in a wheelchair and kid has to sit further back.
6. seats are so close together that you have to again sit diagonal or sideways to fit legs in
7. space is limited due to buggy or trolly or wheelchair or guide dog so easier if mum stands and kid sits.

not always a case of being too "precious" I always shoved up/ placed on laps whenever possible. I never take up more seats than I need.

so yes, if a small child is still left standing due to whatever reason. I will give up my seat to allow that child to sit safely.

and dd1/dp and I are prepared quite happily to give up the three seats we have paid for if there is only one left as dd2 is likely to fall and be hurt. She's having 1 of 3 seats we have paid fir.

Difference being Giles that you've paid for that seat, so there's really no issue is there?