I must say that as somebody who frequently took small children born less than two years apart onto busses and trains, I'm extremely intolerant of giagantic megashoppingcarts with baby excuses hidden in them somewhere. I'm not talking the little umbrella types, but the bigger-than-my-minivan ones. I've even seen the tiny baby being carried while the parent shoves a stroller full of shopping and baby crap onto a train. Fold that damn thing, will ya?
I used to bring my kids in backpacks, true, but backpack kids just take up the same space they would have taken standing on the floor - without getting squished by oblivious clods pushing into every available space.
Sometimes, I can put it between my feet, and I do that if I can. Or I hold it by the handle, if there's room to do that. However, when I'm packed sardine-like into the car and and practically standing between the knees of someone who is sitting, neither is really an option -- there's nowhere on the floor, and holding it by the handle means I'm likely to bonk the sitting person with it. So I often swing the backpack around so that it's still over one shoulder, but I'm holding it to the front of me, rather than keeping on my back or shoulder. That's worked out pretty well - no one gets hurt, no one shoots me dirty looks, and I'm able to keep a better eye on it...y'know, so nobody liberates me of my wallet or iPod while I'm trying to maintain my balance.
Look, there just isn't this motherlode of space on the floor where a big back back can go. Taking off a backpack doesn't do much good if there is no where for it to go. Putting it on the ground can throw people off balance and just make the poor use of floor space on the T even worse. Its easier for other people to work around a backpack in general.
The problem are the few people with backpacks who are obnoxious about it. Carting around hiking gear that's taller than their whole torso. That becomes a bit of a problem, yes, but I think in general people with backpacks don't pose a problem and are not limiting space on the T. Far more space is lost to self-important jerks who refuse to move into the train while simultaniously blocking anyone else from moving further in. Now THAT is an epidemic.
I'm guilty of inadvertently smacking people; I carry my fiddle on my back, and I know I've hit people with it. Trust me, though, it's better that it's securely strapped to my back than it would be if it were loose in my hands.
MY WIFE is a petite woman (a shade over 5' 1") and she is constantly whacked by backpack-toters. The problem is that these people don't think about others. Before they turn, they should at least give a passing thought to who might be impacted by their wearable luggage. They are incredibly rude.
Then, when they hit her head with their canvas hump, they give HER a dirty look, as though SHE headbutted their knapsack.
(Obviously, not an indictment of all backpackers; just the ones who believe they own whatever space their gear takes up at any particular moment, whether previously occupied by someone's head or not.)
The day before I posted this, I was smacked around repeatedly by someone's backpack on the D Line. I'm not saying there aren't jerks with backpacks. I'm saying the problem is more them being jerks than anything fundamentally wrong with the backpack itself. I'll still contend that placing them on the floor carries its own problems without creating more space or accounting for the real culprit with backpack smackery. Even when I'm getting smacked around myself. The bigger problem is that I was getting smacked around because the idiot with the bag wouldn't move into the train and give me a place to stand that wasn't at face level with their massive and useless hiking gear.
BStu is precisely correct. Unless you are a massive, apple-shaped blob or your backpack is quite large, you're only going to recover an inch or two by holding it closer to the ground.
It's annoying, but people just need to get over it and deal with a) the giant SUV-strollers that have also been mentioned -and- 2) the legions of morons that take one step inside the bus/trolley/car and take up residence. Usually the same person that knocked you over to get to said door before you could. WALK UNTIL YOU REACH THE BACK WALL, people.
I disagree. I'm a tiny, hour-glass shaped woman and find I can hold my backpack by the top handle easily in the space between where I'm standing and the pole or railing I am holding. It takes a little more effort than having it on my back, but then my karma is clear because I'm not knocking innocent people senseless. Keeping it there is not to create more space on the train, but to keep my backpack from hitting other riders.
But the BEST part is when I am re-shouldering my pack, I can overswing and nail the *$)*@^& standing just inside the door blocking the flow of commuters on and off the train.
Perhaps the space issue is true, but those of us who are short don't appreciate being smacked in the face by peoples' rucksacks. If the person is turning around suddenly, it can hurt quite a bit! I'd rather be elbowed in the eye (which is almost as frequent as the backpack-to-the-face).
BStu is precisely correct. Unless you are a massive, apple-shaped blob or your backpack is quite large, you're only going to recover an inch or two by holding it closer to the ground.
WRONG
I've carried both a shoulder pack, and a backpack on the train before, and you grab quite a bit more room holding it in front of you, or on your feet. Just the way you're shaped, with feet that jut out, means you can hold a backpack more over your center of gravity and over your space that normally is only occupied by your feet below. (Unless you're a fatass with a huge gut!)
You also will have a lot more control over moving in and out of the train, as you're aware of where the damn thing is. It's really easy to slink around people in front of you while holding the pack in front of you, instead of on your back where you can't feel out where others are.
oh, and its'....
JUST RESPECTFUL TO THOES AROUND YOU ...... masshole....
I'm a student and I ride the T almost daily. If I sit down, which is rare, I keep my backpack in my lap. If I'm standing, I usually lean against the wall in an open space. On an overcrowded train, which, let's face it, is almost every green line train, I don't see how removing ones backpack is going to help with the problem. Sure they stick out but do you really want the obstruction moved to the floor where people may not even notice it?
In a city with more than 100 colleges, I can't believe some people would suggest that everyone should remove their backpacks. That would be a lot of backpacks on the filthy floor of the T.
is that it's tougher to keep an eye on it, and to protect it from pickpockets, which have long been a problem on the T. I still remember hearing announcements from MBTA staff a number of years ago to
"watch one's wallets and pocketbooks", and with ample reason.
Where are you getting the information that pickpocketing is a big problem on the T? The Transit Police statistics only show a couple dozen larcenies per year anywhere in the system: http://transitpolice.us/index.htm
It also doesn't seem logical that people would steal a bag or items from it when they're in an enclosed space where they can't run off. I'm sure some thefts happen on the T, but it doesn't seem that this is common. Also, wouldn't it be easier to take stuff from a backpack that's on someone's back (like, where they don't have eyes or as many nerves) than a backpack that's sitting on someone's feet or being held in knee region?
Well, maybe I am exaggerating a tad or two about the pickpocketing problem on the T, and I agree that it's easier to pick somebody's knapsack when it's being carried on their back. However, nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution.
Wouldn't the side of caution be to hold it in front of you then?
(I usually leave my messenger bag on my back when on the T, but I'm pretty sure I'd notice if someone opened it. There's not usually anything anyone would want in it.)
and I'd always hold it in front of me as a precaution. If I were standing, I'd hold it by the handle. I'd still do likewise if I carried a knapsack on the T nowadays.
Ok, perhaps putting your bag down won't actually make more room, but it does change the dynamic of where the room is displaced.
In a crowded green line train, it can be really hard for those of us who aren't 6 feet tall to find something to hold on to. If the person between me and the pole is wearing a back pack it can be well on impossible for me to sneak an arm around him/her to hopefully get a finger of traction on the pole. If the bag was at his/her feet it would be easier for me and everyone else crammed in and trying not to love their neighbor, to bend around it.
You'd rather that I put it on the ground so people can trip over it? You want to buy me a briefcase instead?
People should be careful with their backpacks, as they should be with their bodies and any other belongings. But aside from that, this is a silly discussion.
You have feet. They're sticking out in front of you anyway, whether you are sitting or standing. Place your backpack on top of those feet. No wasted space at all. Nobody getting hit by your backpack. The backpack will not contact the filthy floor. If someone goes to lift it, you will immediately feel the difference in weight.
If your wife is 5'1", I'd bet she needs her hands to grab wherever she can.
Just like somebody decided that every rear end was only 1' wide and made seats for skinny teens only, some other knucklehead ignored data on the population that 1/2 of riders are typically female and 1/2 of those are under 5'5" tall! If you add in men under 5'5" tall, upwards of 1/3 to 1/2 the population under 5'3" or 5'4" CANNOT REACH the stupid overhead bars. The overhead bars are much of the grab space and much more flexible grab space than seat backs and poles - even when some dope isn't playing "pole dancer" and hogging.
That leaves us to need both hands to grab whatever we can and fight to keep it. In other words, backpack has to go on the back for both maneuverability and anchoring.
But Suldog, you forget about those Gimpian-Americans who can't feel our feet. Clearly, you're making assumptions that everyone has the same feet-feeling-abilities that you're privileged enough to have. That's totally feetist of you! I think you need some sensitivity training about the systems of oppression resulting from life in a feetist society!
(OK, so, I can see my bag and notice if it moves, and I can feel knee-area enough to know if anything down there was moving.)
I assumed that my sensitive clodhoppers were standard equipment. Maybe I need to do a little time in the Thom McAn clinic and learn a bit more concerning the misfortunes of those with bunions, plantar's warts and ingrown nails. I'll try to be more sensitive and not kick them when they're down...
(I was going to include corns, but I think I probably qualify as corny, myself, so no need to.)
(And I could have just said, "Too Damned Bad!" after you pointed out the "Wife - no place to grab" line, but I decided to take the high road.)
I used to laugh at Thom McAn because there was one across the street from this coffee shop I'd go to, and there was a giant sign that said AAA-EEEEEEE. You can imagine how I'd mentally pronounce said combination of letters of course, so every time I looked at the place my brain would start screaming at the sign. My psyche thinks the place is called "Thom McAn AAAAAAAGGGGGHHHH!"
In my case, my feet are fine, but my spinal cord is damaged, so my feet nerves don't work so well. My type of injury is one where shoes with support are actually way worse, because they eliminate any possibility of feeling my feet contact the ground and, like, knowing where the ground is. So I'm all about barefoot or flipflops. No Thom McAn (AAAAGGGHHH!) for me. Aren't you glad you started this barrage of feetism?
This just reminded me of a cute little story concerning my niece.
When she was very young, maybe two, we used to play the "piggy" game with her. You know the one - grab the kids toes and recite a line with each one:
This little piggy went to market
This little piggy stayed home
This little piggy had roast beef
This little piggy had none
And this litle piggy went "wee, wee, wee, wee, wee" all the way home
Well she enjoyed it greatly when somebody else would do it. She liked the whole poem, with appropriate flourishes and ticklings and whatnot. But, when we asked her to do the same, this i what we got:
Alyssa grabs big toe, and says, "This little piggy..."
Then she immediately lets go, grabs the little toe, and says, "Wee, wee, wee". And then looks up at you with a great big smile.
... your ankles? They touch your feet. And the anklebone's connected to the shinbone. The shinbone's connected to the thighbone. The thighbone's connected to the hip bone. The hip bone's connected to the backbone. The backbone's connected to the... well, sooner or later you reach your hands, so you're always touching your own feet by proxy.
What prompted the poll
This discourse on T backpack etiquette.
Stroller Etiquette is a more important topic
I must say that as somebody who frequently took small children born less than two years apart onto busses and trains, I'm extremely intolerant of giagantic megashoppingcarts with baby excuses hidden in them somewhere. I'm not talking the little umbrella types, but the bigger-than-my-minivan ones. I've even seen the tiny baby being carried while the parent shoves a stroller full of shopping and baby crap onto a train. Fold that damn thing, will ya?
I used to bring my kids in backpacks, true, but backpack kids just take up the same space they would have taken standing on the floor - without getting squished by oblivious clods pushing into every available space.
Definitely space issues.
Sometimes, I can put it between my feet, and I do that if I can. Or I hold it by the handle, if there's room to do that. However, when I'm packed sardine-like into the car and and practically standing between the knees of someone who is sitting, neither is really an option -- there's nowhere on the floor, and holding it by the handle means I'm likely to bonk the sitting person with it. So I often swing the backpack around so that it's still over one shoulder, but I'm holding it to the front of me, rather than keeping on my back or shoulder. That's worked out pretty well - no one gets hurt, no one shoots me dirty looks, and I'm able to keep a better eye on it...y'know, so nobody liberates me of my wallet or iPod while I'm trying to maintain my balance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jen Stewart
Mostly a non-issue
Look, there just isn't this motherlode of space on the floor where a big back back can go. Taking off a backpack doesn't do much good if there is no where for it to go. Putting it on the ground can throw people off balance and just make the poor use of floor space on the T even worse. Its easier for other people to work around a backpack in general.
The problem are the few people with backpacks who are obnoxious about it. Carting around hiking gear that's taller than their whole torso. That becomes a bit of a problem, yes, but I think in general people with backpacks don't pose a problem and are not limiting space on the T. Far more space is lost to self-important jerks who refuse to move into the train while simultaniously blocking anyone else from moving further in. Now THAT is an epidemic.
I'm guilty of inadvertently
I'm guilty of inadvertently smacking people; I carry my fiddle on my back, and I know I've hit people with it. Trust me, though, it's better that it's securely strapped to my back than it would be if it were loose in my hands.
You've obviously have never
You've obviously have never taken the green line past Kenmore....
The Problem Is The Rudeness
MY WIFE is a petite woman (a shade over 5' 1") and she is constantly whacked by backpack-toters. The problem is that these people don't think about others. Before they turn, they should at least give a passing thought to who might be impacted by their wearable luggage. They are incredibly rude.
Then, when they hit her head with their canvas hump, they give HER a dirty look, as though SHE headbutted their knapsack.
(Obviously, not an indictment of all backpackers; just the ones who believe they own whatever space their gear takes up at any particular moment, whether previously occupied by someone's head or not.)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
As a fellow 5'1"-er, I can
As a fellow 5'1"-er, I can totally sympathize with your wife. I am constantly getting beaned in the FACE by peoples' bags.
--
[VARiable expression] @ http://www.mvarmazis.com
Actually
The day before I posted this, I was smacked around repeatedly by someone's backpack on the D Line. I'm not saying there aren't jerks with backpacks. I'm saying the problem is more them being jerks than anything fundamentally wrong with the backpack itself. I'll still contend that placing them on the floor carries its own problems without creating more space or accounting for the real culprit with backpack smackery. Even when I'm getting smacked around myself. The bigger problem is that I was getting smacked around because the idiot with the bag wouldn't move into the train and give me a place to stand that wasn't at face level with their massive and useless hiking gear.
right
BStu is precisely correct. Unless you are a massive, apple-shaped blob or your backpack is quite large, you're only going to recover an inch or two by holding it closer to the ground.
It's annoying, but people just need to get over it and deal with a) the giant SUV-strollers that have also been mentioned -and- 2) the legions of morons that take one step inside the bus/trolley/car and take up residence. Usually the same person that knocked you over to get to said door before you could. WALK UNTIL YOU REACH THE BACK WALL, people.
Backpacks
I disagree. I'm a tiny, hour-glass shaped woman and find I can hold my backpack by the top handle easily in the space between where I'm standing and the pole or railing I am holding. It takes a little more effort than having it on my back, but then my karma is clear because I'm not knocking innocent people senseless. Keeping it there is not to create more space on the train, but to keep my backpack from hitting other riders.
But the BEST part is when I am re-shouldering my pack, I can overswing and nail the *$)*@^& standing just inside the door blocking the flow of commuters on and off the train.
Perhaps the space issue is
Perhaps the space issue is true, but those of us who are short don't appreciate being smacked in the face by peoples' rucksacks. If the person is turning around suddenly, it can hurt quite a bit! I'd rather be elbowed in the eye (which is almost as frequent as the backpack-to-the-face).
--
[VARiable expression] @ http://www.mvarmazis.com
Really...?
BStu is precisely correct. Unless you are a massive, apple-shaped blob or your backpack is quite large, you're only going to recover an inch or two by holding it closer to the ground.
WRONG
I've carried both a shoulder pack, and a backpack on the train before, and you grab quite a bit more room holding it in front of you, or on your feet. Just the way you're shaped, with feet that jut out, means you can hold a backpack more over your center of gravity and over your space that normally is only occupied by your feet below. (Unless you're a fatass with a huge gut!)
You also will have a lot more control over moving in and out of the train, as you're aware of where the damn thing is. It's really easy to slink around people in front of you while holding the pack in front of you, instead of on your back where you can't feel out where others are.
oh, and its'....
JUST RESPECTFUL TO THOES AROUND YOU ...... masshole....
Frankly, I believe that the ideal solution to the situation
would be to
(A) Improve public transit by adding more cars.
(B) Limit the number of people who can get onto a given MBTA car at one time so that they're not all packed in like sardines.
satchels
I'm a student and I ride the T almost daily. If I sit down, which is rare, I keep my backpack in my lap. If I'm standing, I usually lean against the wall in an open space. On an overcrowded train, which, let's face it, is almost every green line train, I don't see how removing ones backpack is going to help with the problem. Sure they stick out but do you really want the obstruction moved to the floor where people may not even notice it?
In a city with more than 100 colleges, I can't believe some people would suggest that everyone should remove their backpacks. That would be a lot of backpacks on the filthy floor of the T.
Not a big deal to me...
but I generally put my backpack between my feet when standing on a crowded train or bus. Seems to work well.
The only trouble with putting one's knapsack on the floor
is that it's tougher to keep an eye on it, and to protect it from pickpockets, which have long been a problem on the T. I still remember hearing announcements from MBTA staff a number of years ago to
"watch one's wallets and pocketbooks", and with ample reason.
Really?
Where are you getting the information that pickpocketing is a big problem on the T? The Transit Police statistics only show a couple dozen larcenies per year anywhere in the system: http://transitpolice.us/index.htm
It also doesn't seem logical that people would steal a bag or items from it when they're in an enclosed space where they can't run off. I'm sure some thefts happen on the T, but it doesn't seem that this is common. Also, wouldn't it be easier to take stuff from a backpack that's on someone's back (like, where they don't have eyes or as many nerves) than a backpack that's sitting on someone's feet or being held in knee region?
Well, maybe I'm exaggerating a tad or two about the pickpockets
Well, maybe I am exaggerating a tad or two about the pickpocketing problem on the T, and I agree that it's easier to pick somebody's knapsack when it's being carried on their back. However, nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution.
Gotcha
Wouldn't the side of caution be to hold it in front of you then?
(I usually leave my messenger bag on my back when on the T, but I'm pretty sure I'd notice if someone opened it. There's not usually anything anyone would want in it.)
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Yup. I used to occasionally carry a knapsack on the T,
and I'd always hold it in front of me as a precaution. If I were standing, I'd hold it by the handle. I'd still do likewise if I carried a knapsack on the T nowadays.
Whatever one is comfortable with is best.
mulling it over
Ok, perhaps putting your bag down won't actually make more room, but it does change the dynamic of where the room is displaced.
In a crowded green line train, it can be really hard for those of us who aren't 6 feet tall to find something to hold on to. If the person between me and the pole is wearing a back pack it can be well on impossible for me to sneak an arm around him/her to hopefully get a finger of traction on the pole. If the bag was at his/her feet it would be easier for me and everyone else crammed in and trying not to love their neighbor, to bend around it.
You could try clinging to
You could try clinging to their backpack and see if they notice...
i would but...
now I'm scared they'll call the MBTA police saying I was pickpocketing them!! :)
What?
You'd rather that I put it on the ground so people can trip over it? You want to buy me a briefcase instead?
People should be careful with their backpacks, as they should be with their bodies and any other belongings. But aside from that, this is a silly discussion.
Feet
You have feet. They're sticking out in front of you anyway, whether you are sitting or standing. Place your backpack on top of those feet. No wasted space at all. Nobody getting hit by your backpack. The backpack will not contact the filthy floor. If someone goes to lift it, you will immediately feel the difference in weight.
EVERY problem solved, no?
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
It's a step in the right direction, anyway.
even if not every problem is solved.
Ask your wife about the "no place to grab on" problem
If your wife is 5'1", I'd bet she needs her hands to grab wherever she can.
Just like somebody decided that every rear end was only 1' wide and made seats for skinny teens only, some other knucklehead ignored data on the population that 1/2 of riders are typically female and 1/2 of those are under 5'5" tall! If you add in men under 5'5" tall, upwards of 1/3 to 1/2 the population under 5'3" or 5'4" CANNOT REACH the stupid overhead bars. The overhead bars are much of the grab space and much more flexible grab space than seat backs and poles - even when some dope isn't playing "pole dancer" and hogging.
That leaves us to need both hands to grab whatever we can and fight to keep it. In other words, backpack has to go on the back for both maneuverability and anchoring.
AAAAAHAHAHAHA
Swirlygrrl, was that subject line intentional? It's making me giggle. :o)
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
That's feetist!
But Suldog, you forget about those Gimpian-Americans who can't feel our feet. Clearly, you're making assumptions that everyone has the same feet-feeling-abilities that you're privileged enough to have. That's totally feetist of you! I think you need some sensitivity training about the systems of oppression resulting from life in a feetist society!
(OK, so, I can see my bag and notice if it moves, and I can feel knee-area enough to know if anything down there was moving.)
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Yes, You're Right - I Was Being An Elitist Feetist
I assumed that my sensitive clodhoppers were standard equipment. Maybe I need to do a little time in the Thom McAn clinic and learn a bit more concerning the misfortunes of those with bunions, plantar's warts and ingrown nails. I'll try to be more sensitive and not kick them when they're down...
(I was going to include corns, but I think I probably qualify as corny, myself, so no need to.)
(And I could have just said, "Too Damned Bad!" after you pointed out the "Wife - no place to grab" line, but I decided to take the high road.)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Hee
I used to laugh at Thom McAn because there was one across the street from this coffee shop I'd go to, and there was a giant sign that said AAA-EEEEEEE. You can imagine how I'd mentally pronounce said combination of letters of course, so every time I looked at the place my brain would start screaming at the sign. My psyche thinks the place is called "Thom McAn AAAAAAAGGGGGHHHH!"
In my case, my feet are fine, but my spinal cord is damaged, so my feet nerves don't work so well. My type of injury is one where shoes with support are actually way worse, because they eliminate any possibility of feeling my feet contact the ground and, like, knowing where the ground is. So I'm all about barefoot or flipflops. No Thom McAn (AAAAGGGHHH!) for me. Aren't you glad you started this barrage of feetism?
And yes, you're corny!
Not corny, just callous?
Yes, I Suppose I Am Callous
As a matter of fact, I'm such a hugely callous person, you might say I'm the Paul Bunion of callous.
(I had to go a long way for that. At least applaud the effort.)
By the way, the improvisational skillz around here are pretty good. I'm really enjoying this toe jam.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
What a blistering retort! I
What a blistering retort!
I think you nailed it there, Suldog!
Piggy Story
This just reminded me of a cute little story concerning my niece.
When she was very young, maybe two, we used to play the "piggy" game with her. You know the one - grab the kids toes and recite a line with each one:
This little piggy went to market
This little piggy stayed home
This little piggy had roast beef
This little piggy had none
And this litle piggy went "wee, wee, wee, wee, wee" all the way home
Well she enjoyed it greatly when somebody else would do it. She liked the whole poem, with appropriate flourishes and ticklings and whatnot. But, when we asked her to do the same, this i what we got:
Alyssa grabs big toe, and says, "This little piggy..."
Then she immediately lets go, grabs the little toe, and says, "Wee, wee, wee". And then looks up at you with a great big smile.
Kid has a future with Readers Digest, methinks.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
YES
I'm totally feet-o-phobic, and I can't touch something that touched feet. Totally skeeves me out. THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH FEET ISSUES, MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
How about...
... your ankles? They touch your feet. And the anklebone's connected to the shinbone. The shinbone's connected to the thighbone. The thighbone's connected to the hip bone. The hip bone's connected to the backbone. The backbone's connected to the... well, sooner or later you reach your hands, so you're always touching your own feet by proxy.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
foot fetish by proxy
I've pointed this out to her. Well, the ankles part, anyway.