> Devil's advocate: The same could be said for a baby buggy. I don't disagree with you, but I can be more sympathetic to the need for a baby buggy over that of

> Devil's advocate: The same could be said for a baby buggy. I don't disagree with you, but I can be more sympathetic to the need for a baby buggy over that of a bike, because there aren't baby buggy parkings, and it's a lot harder to move your baby back and forth than it is to park a bike. The same goes for your semi-absurd comparison with zimmer frames -- obviously senior citizens have a place in public transportation and they need to be catered to. It's not the same thing as the convenience of not having to park your bike and walking. > Bicycles are already allowed on most suburban London trains, but are sometimes limited during rush hour. It's a win-win for everyone without having an outright ban. I already explicitly said "If we are talking about metro transportation, and not intercity trains and such" -- meaning I also recognize the need to transport bikes on "suburban trains", but for inter-city transportation with sufficient bike parking I don't see the need to cater for bikes on trains seeing the negative downsides they bring. Also, baby buggies are already prohibited in many metro systems, and I have never advocated them to be anything else. There are better ways to transport your baby around, such as an on-body baby carrier.