"Cycling as a mass form of transport is pure fantasy"

[JNugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:

>>>>> It's increasingly typical of universites not to allow students to
>>>>> have car parking on campus unless there is a special need for such.
>>>>> Which increasingly means students without cars. Example: UEA in
>>>>> Norwich - students by the zillion seen on bicycles.

>>>> So cycling thrives best when people are given no alternative?

>>> Walking is not an alternative? Did me fine when I was at university
>>> (and not a campus university either)

>> Dear me...
>> Some people on this NG *do* like to shave points, don't they?

> If that was shaving a point, the point in question was hairier than a St
> Bernard's winter coat. Do you really mean to suggest that preventing
> students from using a car to visit their university campus is equivalent
> to a mandate that they must learn to ride a bike?

*Learn to ride a bike*? I would expect that almost all (if not
absolutely all) university students already know how to ride a bike. I
suggest that the words "learn to" are redundant.

*If* they don't want to rely on buses (I rule out general reliance on
taxis) and *if* they want to move faster and/or further than they can
walk, I think the answer to your (amended) question is more a
not-too-cautious "yes" (and I suggest that this applies whether or not
they can even afford a car). What else would account for higher cycling
rates in such places (apart from the flatness of Norwich)?

The only way to test whether "cycling as a mass form of transport is
pure fantasy" is to allow it to compete with other modes. Or rather, to
allow other modes to compete with it. Hobbling the alternatives (or some
of them) is no test at all, or at least, it is not a test with immediate
relevance to other places.

> I've never had the
> privilege of studying at UEA, but even I can see that doesn't follow
> either logically or practically.

Clearly, some factor operates to increase cycling rates in places like
Oxford, Cambridge and the city where the UEA is.

I *wonder* what it could be?

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:48:52 -0000, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So if the students live within 10 miles of St Mary's Church they
> presumably cannot keep a car without permission. I am surprised
> that the university has the authority to dictate that students
> cannot keep cars at their own private address if they live within
> that 10 miles.

That just means 'while at the university'. If you go more than 10
miles from GSM you are deemed to have left the university. If you do
so overnight, you have left residence for that night. You have to be
resident a certain number of nights per year to be eligible for a
degree. That is, a student _cannot_ live more than 10 miles from GSM.

(And it is specifically Great SM - there is also a Little St Mary's
church).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Adam Lea <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> Yes but Cambridge go further than that:
>
> http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/so_ch02.pdf
>
> See p197:
> "A member of the University in statu pupillari shall not keep, use,
> or cause to be kept for his or her use any motor vehicle other than a
> moped within ten miles of Great St Mary’s Church while in residence
> in term or in the Long Vacation period of residence, unless he or she
> shall have obtained, on his or her Tutor’s written recommendation, a
> licence for that vehicle signed by the Special Pro- Proctor for motor
> vehicles."

ISTR that in the 1930's Whitney Straight got around /that/ one by having an
aeroplane

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
It is impossible to eat a banana without looking like a tw*t.

 

[Paul Rudin]

"Adam Lea" <[email protected]> writes:

> I am surprised that the university has the authority to dictate that
> students cannot keep cars at their own private address if they live
> within that 10 miles.

A university can impose whatever conditions it likes (provided such
conditions do not contravene any law). If you don't like the conditions
don't apply to that university...

 

[JNugent]

Paul Rudin wrote:

> "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> writes:

>> I am surprised that the university has the authority to dictate that
>> students cannot keep cars at their own private address if they live
>> within that 10 miles.

> A university can impose whatever conditions it likes (provided such
> conditions do not contravene any law). If you don't like the conditions
> don't apply to that university...

Exactly.

There are also some universities that don't allow students' motor
vehicles onto residence premises and some that merely "discourage"
parents (the ones wot pay) from providing cars for student use.

 

[Mark T]

JNugent writtificated

> The only way to test whether "cycling as a mass form of transport is
> pure fantasy" is to allow it to compete with other modes.

I'd say that the easiest way to test whether "cycling as a mass form of
transport is pure fantasy" is to just see if any country is already doing
it. <Glances over at the Dutch> Yeah, I'd say it's possible.

 

[JNugent]

Mark T wrote:

> JNugent writtificated

>> The only way to test whether "cycling as a mass form of transport is
>> pure fantasy" is to allow it to compete with other modes.

> I'd say that the easiest way to test whether "cycling as a mass form of
> transport is pure fantasy" is to just see if any country is already doing
> it. <Glances over at the Dutch> Yeah, I'd say it's possible.

As many as travel by car? Or as travel by public transport?

They are the only "mass" modes here (and, I suspect, in the Netherlands,
even though participation rates are visible higher there thahn here -
but then, they're even higher in Italy than they are here).

But taking your point, have the Dutch done [whatever has happened there]
by restricting travel by other modes? By imposing tolls? "Congestion"
taxes? "Lexus lanes"?

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Adam Lea wrote:
>"Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> It's not fantasy in Cambridge where more than a third of journeys are by
>> bike
>
>I suspect that figure is so high because of the student population, since
>the university forbids them from bringing a car into Cambridge without
>special permission.

Around 28% of commutes to work within the city are by bike. That doesn't
include the students, but it doesn't include commuters coming in from
outside the city who are more likely to use cars either.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cam.transport/msg/62189b187db33e82

 

[[email protected]]

JNugent wrote:
> The only way to test whether "cycling as a mass form of transport is
> pure fantasy" is to allow it to compete with other modes. Or rather, to
> allow other modes to compete with it. Hobbling the alternatives (or some
> of them) is no test at all, or at least, it is not a test with immediate
> relevance to other places.

You say "hobbling the alternatives", I say "having appropriate regard to
priorities". If the complaint was that UEA were not providing
helicopter landing pads for the use of students, nobody would take it
seriously. Likewise if they provided open car parks but the complaint
was that they did not guarantee an individually lockable garage space
for each student, I think most would regard that as taking the ****.
The university has (I see no reason not to assume) made this decision
after considering the uses to which they could put the land they might
build these car parks on and choosing to use it for something else.

As the effect of their action has apparently been "zillions of bicycles"
rather than a fall in the admission rates because people would rather go
to a university at which they can keep a car, their experience
"hobbling" the use of cars has immediate and direct relevance to any
other places with similar requirements. Such as anywhere land is
expensive or in short supply.

> Clearly, some factor operates to increase cycling rates in places
like > Oxford, Cambridge and the city where the UEA is.

I wonder if it's related to land for car provision being expensive and
in short supply? That would tend to throttle car provision and drive up
congestion, encouraging people (especially the young healthy and at
least moderately intelligent people who tend to attend universities) to
seek alternatives. London, you may be aware, has seen a similar rise in
cycling rates in recent years - perhaps similar factors are at play?

I've lived in Oxford for about ten years, both as a student and as a
grown-up, and London for about 6 years. They certainly do both have a
shortage of open space suitable for tarmacing. I've only visited
Cambridge as a tourist, but I gained a similar impression there.
Perhaps this calls for further research.


-dan

 

[Adam Lea]

"Paul Rudin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> I am surprised that the university has the authority to dictate that
>> students cannot keep cars at their own private address if they live
>> within that 10 miles.
>
> A university can impose whatever conditions it likes (provided such
> conditions do not contravene any law). If you don't like the conditions
> don't apply to that university...

On university owned premesis, yes. I am just surprised that a university can
prevent students from keeping cars at non-university (i.e. private)
addresses (note that I do not necessarily disagree with this concept).

Would it be legal, for example, if your workplace forbid you from keeping a
car on your driveway without their permission?

Adam

 

[Paul Rudin]

"Adam Lea" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Paul Rudin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> I am surprised that the university has the authority to dictate that
>>> students cannot keep cars at their own private address if they live
>>> within that 10 miles.
>>
>> A university can impose whatever conditions it likes (provided such
>> conditions do not contravene any law). If you don't like the conditions
>> don't apply to that university...
>
> On university owned premesis, yes. I am just surprised that a university can
> prevent students from keeping cars at non-university (i.e. private)
> addresses (note that I do not necessarily disagree with this concept).
>
> Would it be legal, for example, if your workplace forbid you from keeping a
> car on your driveway without their permission?

Sure, why wouldn't it be? People can contract to do whatever they like
(provided it's legal). You don't have to take a particular job or apply
to a particular university if you don't like the deal on offer.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Adam Lea wrote:
>"Paul Rudin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> I am surprised that the university has the authority to dictate that
>>> students cannot keep cars at their own private address if they live
>>> within that 10 miles.
>>
>> A university can impose whatever conditions it likes (provided such
>> conditions do not contravene any law). If you don't like the conditions
>> don't apply to that university...
>
>On university owned premesis, yes. I am just surprised that a university can
>prevent students from keeping cars at non-university (i.e. private)
>addresses (note that I do not necessarily disagree with this concept).

You could keep a car at your parents' house or a friend's house in
Cambridge for use in the vacations, but not if it's for your use in
term time. (Or indeed your own house, but I'd guess you would probably
get permission in that case. Permission to use college or faculty
parking spaces is another matter though, so you would still generally
be walking or cycling in town though.)

But in practise keeping a car at a non-student friend's house and being
discrete about it is unlikely to cause a problem, even if it is against
the rules. But again, you wouldn't be able to use it much in town.

 

[JNugent]

Paul Rudin wrote:
> "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Paul Rudin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> I am surprised that the university has the authority to dictate that
>>>> students cannot keep cars at their own private address if they live
>>>> within that 10 miles.
>>> A university can impose whatever conditions it likes (provided such
>>> conditions do not contravene any law). If you don't like the conditions
>>> don't apply to that university...
>> On university owned premesis, yes. I am just surprised that a university can
>> prevent students from keeping cars at non-university (i.e. private)
>> addresses (note that I do not necessarily disagree with this concept).
>>
>> Would it be legal, for example, if your workplace forbid you from keeping a
>> car on your driveway without their permission?
>
> Sure, why wouldn't it be? People can contract to do whatever they like
> (provided it's legal). You don't have to take a particular job or apply
> to a particular university if you don't like the deal on offer.

It would have to be a condition of accepting the job in the first place,
rather than being imposed later on. It wouldn't stand up for five
minutes in court if imposed on an existing employee, and any dismissal
for its "breach" would be seen by the law as unfair dismissal, subject
to the usual penalties. Even a resignation to avoid having to comply
with it would be seen as constructive dismissal. And quite right too.
Think of all the other unreasonable conditions that employers might feel
tempted to impose if they copuld just act like that with impunity.

 

[Paul Rudin]

JNugent <[email protected]> writes:

> Paul Rudin wrote:
>> "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> "Paul Rudin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I am surprised that the university has the authority to dictate that
>>>>> students cannot keep cars at their own private address if they live
>>>>> within that 10 miles.
>>>> A university can impose whatever conditions it likes (provided such
>>>> conditions do not contravene any law). If you don't like the conditions
>>>> don't apply to that university...
>>> On university owned premesis, yes. I am just surprised that a
>>> university can prevent students from keeping cars at non-university
>>> (i.e. private) addresses (note that I do not necessarily disagree
>>> with this concept).
>>>
>>> Would it be legal, for example, if your workplace forbid you from
>>> keeping a car on your driveway without their permission?
>>
>> Sure, why wouldn't it be? People can contract to do whatever they like
>> (provided it's legal). You don't have to take a particular job or apply
>> to a particular university if you don't like the deal on offer.
>
> It would have to be a condition of accepting the job in the first
> place, rather than being imposed later on. It wouldn't stand up for
> five minutes in court if imposed on an existing employee, and any
> dismissal for its "breach" would be seen by the law as unfair
> dismissal, subject to the usual penalties. Even a resignation to avoid
> having to comply with it would be seen as constructive dismissal. And
> quite right too. Think of all the other unreasonable conditions that
> employers might feel tempted to impose if they copuld just act like
> that with impunity.

It's quite probably something that would need to be tested. There's no
specific law of course, but employment law is complicated.

On a vaguely related note ISTR that a company successfully defended the
imposition of a rule prohibiting employees from smoking (at all - not
just at work). I can't seem to find anything online about it now,
although see e.g.:
<http://www.eubusiness.com/Health/060805101502.vn9iycuv>,
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article489662.ece>,
<http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16515416&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=sacked-for-being-a-smoker-name_page.html>.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Adam Lea
[email protected] says...
>
> On university owned premesis, yes. I am just surprised that a university can
> prevent students from keeping cars at non-university (i.e. private)
> addresses (note that I do not necessarily disagree with this concept).

All universities have a code of conduct which the student undertakes to
observe when s/he signs up. These codes apply to the student's
behaviour while enrolled at the university, not just while on university
premises.
>
> Would it be legal, for example, if your workplace forbid you from keeping a
> car on your driveway without their permission?
>
Why wouldn't it be, as long as it was part of the original contract of
employment or part of a legitimate renegotiation of terms? Lots of
contracts forbid working for another employer, it's perfectly reasonable
that e.g. a car manufacturer wouldn't want its executives to drive a
different make etc.

 

[MJ Ray]

JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> *If* they don't want to rely on buses (I rule out general reliance on
> taxis) and *if* they want to move faster and/or further than they can
> walk, I think the answer to your (amended) question is more a
> not-too-cautious "yes" (and I suggest that this applies whether or not
> they can even afford a car). What else would account for higher cycling
> rates in such places (apart from the flatness of Norwich)?

While hardly mountainous, Norwich is most definitely not flat. While at
UEA, I struggled up Grapes Hill, had a friend stopped for cycle-speeding
(so far as it exists) on Guardian Road and been in a car overtaken by
a cyclist doing 30+ down Ketts Hill.

Norwich (like Oxford and Cambridge) was pretty congested with a rather
torturous traffic system in the city centre that is far easier by bike
than car. I think that combines with the lower cost of cycling and
parking to encourage poor students to cycle more.

By the way - it's not UEA any more. The new logo says IE+1.
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

 

[MJ Ray]

[email protected] wrote:
> [...] If the complaint was that UEA were not providing
> helicopter landing pads for the use of students, nobody would take it
> seriously. [...]

I believe the landing pad is in front of Norfolk Terrace and the
SCVA. Pick-up and set-down only, but no ban on student use AFAIK.
I think the Society for Environmental Action tried to get it
removed while I was there, but failed.

Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/