School charging for pupils cycling to school

[TonyB[_2_]]

My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. His new
school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-

a) normal
b) reasonable
c) bl**dy unbelievable?

[Clive George]

"TonyB" > wrote in message
...
>My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. His new
>school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
>4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
>
>a) normal
>b) reasonable
>c) bl**dy unbelievable?

What sort of school?
What do they claim to offer for their 54 quid?

[Myra in Cambridge]

I vote c).

-Myra

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 2:38*pm, Myra in Cambridge > wrote:
> I vote c).


Lacking any other information, I also vote c).

The question is, WHY are they charging? What for? Surely not
insurance premia (is that the word? "premiums", anyway)? Perhaps you
get a free service every day, or something?!

PhilD

--
<><

[Martin[_2_]]

TonyB wrote:
> My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. His new
> school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
> 4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
>
> a) normal
> b) reasonable
> c) bl**dy unbelievable?

What is this charge for?
The only thing I can think of is bike parking, which seems an
unreasonable cost. The only time I have been charged for bike parking it
was something like 5ukp per year.

Is this charge to actively discourage cycling, or does the school have a
sustainable transport plan which encourages cycling. If it does have a
plan, then you could tell the school that you think the charge is
unreasonable, and that you will drive your child there and back instead.

Martin.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:30:54 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be TonyB
> wrote this:-

>My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. His new
>school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
>4 miles from home.

Why do they think they can charge you £54 per term? What is supposed
to be for? Do they charge pupils and teachers who come to the school
by other means?

Does the school have some bull**** policy about encouraging
sustainable travel?

Something to try and crush the school under your wheels over. Would
the local paper be interested in this?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Jens Müller[_2_]]

On 23.03.2009 15:30, TonyB wrote:
> My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. His new
> school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
> 4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
>
> a) normal
> b) reasonable
> c) bl**dy unbelievable?

Illegal. It is none of the school's business how your child commutes to
school.

[Jon[_5_]]

On 23 Mar, 14:30, TonyB > wrote:
> My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. *His new
> school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
> 4 miles from home.

This is ridiculous, surely against the LEA's policies, and probably
illegal unless it is a private school.

Can you tell us more? What sort of school is this? What is the charge
supposed to be for?

Jon

[francis]

On 23 Mar, 14:30, TonyB > wrote:
> My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. *His new
> school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
> 4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
>
> a) normal
> b) reasonable
> c) bl**dy unbelievable?


Ask them what the £54 is for, if you don't like the answer take it up
at the next governers meeting.
If you find out what it is for, post the answer here.
It might be that they are charging for secure parking for his cycle,
but even then £54 is over the top.
It could be that that is the charge they make for the maintaince &
cleaning of his bike every week, plus of course a valet would park the
bike in the morning & be there to hand the (by now polished) bike to
you at night.

Francis

[judith smith]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:30:54 -0700 (PDT), TonyB
> wrote:

>My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. His new
>school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
>4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
>
>a) normal
>b) reasonable
>c) bl**dy unbelievable?


Will they insist he wears a helmet?

Are you aware of how potentially dangerous it may be?

Compared with 2006, there was a 6 per cent fall in child pedestrian
KSI casualties, a 12 per cent
fall in car occupant KSI casualties but a rise of 4 per cent in child
pedal cyclist KSI casualties.

--

Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:
Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians : 384
All casualties:
Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795

Which do you think is the most dangerous?

[JNugent[_5_]]

TonyB wrote:

> My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. His new
> school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
> 4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
> a) normal
> b) reasonable
> c) bl**dy unbelievable?

They can't possibly be charging for exrcising the right to cycle along the
road. The charge must be for allowing the parking of the bike on school
premnises (it's the only credible explanation, and it's not the first time
that similar things have been reported here).

Charging for the parking of vehicles is endemic in this country, even in
locations where there is plenty of space and you'd think it wasn't a problem.

[Marc[_2_]]

TonyB wrote:
> My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. His new
> school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
> 4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
>
> a) normal
> b) reasonable
> c) bl**dy unbelievable?

C

[Paul Weaver]

On 23 Mar, 14:30, TonyB > wrote:
> My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. *His new
> school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
> 4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
>
> a) normal
> b) reasonable
> c) bl**dy unbelievable?

I assume they're providing the bike?

[judith smith]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:25:02 +0000, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

>TonyB > considered Mon, 23 Mar 2009
>07:30:54 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>>My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. His new
>>school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
>>4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
>>
>>a) normal
>>b) reasonable
>>c) bl**dy unbelievable?
>
>d) completely and utterly barking, probably illegal, certainly
>unreasonable, and very unlikely to be enforceable.



Ah - yes - we were waiting for the legal point of view.

Any idea which law has been broken?

--
Commenting on a legal gate in a public park: I'd think it comes under
the heading of "causing an obstruction", and should be investigated by
the police as such. Phil W(anker) Lee - well known Psycholist

[Tim Hall]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:55:35 -0700 (PDT), Paul Weaver
> wrote:

>On 23 Mar, 14:30, TonyB > wrote:
>> My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. *His new
>> school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
>> 4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
>>
>> a) normal
>> b) reasonable
>> c) bl**dy unbelievable?
>
>I assume they're providing the bike?

That's got to be it. 6 years,3 terms a year = 18 terms. So 18 x 54 =
972 quid.

A sort of School sized Cycle to Work scheme.


--
Tim

[Jolly Polly]

TonyB wrote:
> My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. His new
> school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
> 4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
>
> a) normal
> b) reasonable
> c) bl**dy unbelievable?

Are you serious? (it's not yet April 1st)
What exactly do they say the charge for?
What would/could they do if you refuse to pay?
Would you like to name & shame the school?

[Roos Eisma]

Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:

>TonyB > considered Mon, 23 Mar 2009
>07:30:54 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

>>My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. His new
>>school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
>>4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
>>
>>a) normal
>>b) reasonable
>>c) bl**dy unbelievable?

>d) completely and utterly barking, probably illegal, certainly
>unreasonable, and very unlikely to be enforceable.

>What do they propose doing if you just refuse to pay?

Or locks his bike on the /outside/ of the school fence and then walks in?

Roos

[Peter Clinch]

TonyB wrote:
> My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. His new
> school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
> 4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
>
> a) normal
> b) reasonable
> c) bl**dy unbelievable?

Along the lines of the others for the most part, but we'll give (b)
a /possible/ look in if they're providing high quality parking,
by which I mean an individual locker. At Ninewells there's a
waiting list for individual lockers and IIRC it's something like a
fiver a month for you personal box which keeps the bike dry,
vandal-proof and yours and also gives you personal space to leave
stuff you have no wish to cart about all day.
If a term is ~ 10 weeks then you're looking at the same order of
price, which I'd say for a school (as against a large teaching
hospital) is still unreasonably high, but at least you get
something for your money. If the provision is letting you turn up
with a bike and a place in a lean-to anyone can get at then they
need their heads boiling.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Peter Grange]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:51:11 +0000, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>TonyB wrote:
>> My 11 year old is starting senior school next September. His new
>> school will charge him (us) £54 per term if we allow him to cycle the
>> 4 miles from home. Does uk.rec.cycling think this is:-
>>
>> a) normal
>> b) reasonable
>> c) bl**dy unbelievable?
>
>Along the lines of the others for the most part, but we'll give (b)
> a /possible/ look in if they're providing high quality parking,
>by which I mean an individual locker. At Ninewells there's a
>waiting list for individual lockers and IIRC it's something like a
>fiver a month for you personal box which keeps the bike dry,
>vandal-proof and yours and also gives you personal space to leave
>stuff you have no wish to cart about all day.
>If a term is ~ 10 weeks then you're looking at the same order of
>price, which I'd say for a school (as against a large teaching
>hospital) is still unreasonably high, but at least you get
>something for your money. If the provision is letting you turn up
>with a bike and a place in a lean-to anyone can get at then they
>need their heads boiling.
>
>Pete.

Was that a typo or a mathematical error? Fiver a month for 10 weeks
doesn't come close to fifty quid.

[Neil Williams]

On 23 Mar, 14:49, Jens Müller > wrote:

> Illegal. It is none of the school's business how your child commutes to
> school.

Not quite. They are within their rights to charge for on-premises
cycle parking, but this does seem more than a little excessive.

If, OTOH, it provided secure, locked cycle accommodation with CCTV and
keys for the cyclists and caretaker only, and the school is in an area
of high cycle theft, it might not be all that bad. The main reason I
never cycled to school was that bikes got nicked/vandalised all the
time in the school racks.

Neil

[Neil Williams]

On 24 Mar, 07:01, Roos Eisma > wrote:

> Or locks his bike on the /outside/ of the school fence and then walks in?

Then they can remove it. You do not have a right to lock a bike to
someone's property if they do not wish you to do so, and they have the
right to impose any terms and conditions they like on you doing so if
they choose to allow it.

If you locked it to a public stand, OTOH...

I just read it again, anyway - £54 per year would seem reasonable for
a good CCTV-covered, locked secure cycle storage facility, but not per
term. Even our Council doesn't charge that much for lockers at the
station.

Neil

[Neil Williams]

On 24 Mar, 09:51, Peter Clinch > wrote:

> Along the lines of the others for the most part, but we'll give (b)
> * a /possible/ look in if they're providing high quality parking,
> by which I mean an individual locker. *At Ninewells there's a
> waiting list for individual lockers and IIRC it's something like a
> fiver a month for you personal box which keeps the bike dry,
> vandal-proof and yours and also gives you personal space to leave
> stuff you have no wish to cart about all day.

What is the theft rate from these boxes? I ask as that it's clearly
the case that nobody would bother with one unless their bike was worth
stealing, and having seen them it doesn't look like it would be all
that difficult to kick the door in.

Neil

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Neil Williams > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On 24 Mar, 07:01, Roos Eisma > wrote:
>
>> Or locks his bike on the /outside/ of the school fence and then
>> walks in?
>
> Then they can remove it. You do not have a right to lock a bike to
> someone's property if they do not wish you to do so, and they have the
> right to impose any terms and conditions they like on you doing so if
> they choose to allow it.

Sounds like a job for The Fencemaster:

http://www.whatshouldiputonthefence.co.uk

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
It is not possible to call a complex number from a phone box.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:30:39 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Neil
Williams > wrote this:-

>Not quite. They are within their rights to charge for on-premises
>cycle parking, but this does seem more than a little excessive.

Schools have converted playgrounds into car parking space for
teachers, a clear example of the public sector organising things for
the producer rather than those the service supposedly exists for. Do
any schools charge teachers for the provision of these car parking
spaces?

We don't yet know what this proposed charge is for, but if it is for
bike parking it would be interesting to see if the school charges
teachers for car parking.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Peter Clinch]

Neil Williams wrote:

> What is the theft rate from these boxes? I ask as that it's clearly
> the case that nobody would bother with one unless their bike was worth
> stealing, and having seen them it doesn't look like it would be all
> that difficult to kick the door in.

But you wouldn't know what you're getting until you'd bust the door
the door down, and in the case of Ninewells Hospital you'd be doing
it in an easily overseen well-lit area with CCTV. The chances that
you can't find easier, and more predictable, pickings elsewhere
(including 100m up the way with an open bike shed) is quite low.

On the wouldn't know what you're getting front, if I had something
like a Moulton I'd want to keep it in a locker for protection from
vandals in a lot of places, but though in strictly financial terms
it's worth a lot it's not very desirable to a thief: resale is hard
as it's easily identifiable and Joe Punter down the pub probably
wants an MTB (or maybe a road bike these days), not some built out
of scaffloding /thing/ with silly wee wheels...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[lardyninja]

Neil Williams wrote, On 25/03/2009 09:35:
> What is the theft rate from these boxes? I ask as that it's clearly
> the case that nobody would bother with one unless their bike was worth
> stealing, and having seen them it doesn't look like it would be all
> that difficult to kick the door in.
>


I was interested to see three of these installed at the station I used
to commute to. They were placed in front of the station under a street
light and in full view of surveillance cameras. They lasted less than a
month. Now they are forlorn looking with their doors hanging off.

LN


--

Professor of Madeupology at
the University of Myhouse

[Neil Williams]

On 25 Mar, 10:24, David Hansen >
wrote:

> We don't yet know what this proposed charge is for, but if it is for
> bike parking it would be interesting to see if the school charges
> teachers for car parking.

Or bicycle parking.

The reason I say that is that it's quite feasible that the school
offers certain things to its staff for free that it does not offer to
its pupils. They are, after all, on rather different contracts.

Back to the charge, though, the school cannot charge for travelling by
bike, but it could equally well ban all cycles from its property (and
some idiotic ones do).

Neil

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:09:19 -0000
"Dave Larrington" > wrote:

> http://www.whatshouldiputonthefence.co.uk
>
Is it just me who thinks that's a bit pathetic?

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 2:43*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2:38*pm, Myra in Cambridge > wrote:
>
> > I vote c).
>
> Lacking any other information, I also vote c).
>
> The question is, WHY are they charging? *What for? *Surely not
> insurance premia (is that the word? *"premiums", anyway)? *Perhaps you
> get a free service every day, or something?!
>
> PhilD

My suggestion would be to get a few facts together & then call the
newsdesks at your local BBC radio & TV stations, as well as any local
paper(s). (Obv you might want to think about anonymity).

They're always desperate for stories and this one could have some
mileage as it goes against all of the govt policy about exercise,
traffic reduction etc etc.
You almost wonder if it's a tactic by the school to get some kind of a
grant or to make another point.

Michael

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:24:42 +0000, David Hansen
> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:30:39 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Neil
>Williams > wrote this:-
>
>>Not quite. They are within their rights to charge for on-premises
>>cycle parking, but this does seem more than a little excessive.
>
>Schools have converted playgrounds into car parking space for
>teachers, a clear example of the public sector organising things for
>the producer rather than those the service supposedly exists for. Do
>any schools charge teachers for the provision of these car parking
>spaces?
>
>We don't yet know what this proposed charge is for, but if it is for
>bike parking it would be interesting to see if the school charges
>teachers for car parking.

Colleagues at the school where I teach pay £300 per annum for a
parking space. Cycle parking is free for staff and teachers.

[Marc[_2_]]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:09:19 -0000
> "Dave Larrington" > wrote:
>
>> http://www.whatshouldiputonthefence.co.uk
>>
> Is it just me who thinks that's a bit pathetic?
>

Yes.

[JNugent[_5_]]

Marc wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
>> "Dave Larrington" > wrote:

>>> http://www.whatshouldiputonthefence.co.uk

>> Is it just me who thinks that's a bit pathetic?

> Yes.

No.

Leaving rubbish outside someone's home is deeply anti-social. Affixing it to
railings is even worse.

What is it with these people who think they have the right to make use of
other peoples' private property?

[judith smith]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:02:04 +0000, Marc
> wrote:

>Rob Morley wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:09:19 -0000
>> "Dave Larrington" > wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.whatshouldiputonthefence.co.uk
>>>
>> Is it just me who thinks that's a bit pathetic?
>>
>
>Yes.

No


--

There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury.

The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should wear one.

Mr Justice Griffith Williams

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

JNugent wrote:
>
> Leaving rubbish outside someone's home is deeply anti-social.

And yet you think parking your car outside someones house is fair game.

[Jolly Polly]

Adam Lea wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> Leaving rubbish outside someone's home is deeply anti-social.
>
> And yet you think parking your car outside someones house is fair game.
>
>

outside, on a public road, yes

perhaps the correct thing to do is, to ask the owners permission to lock
your cycle to there railings, before doing so ;)

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:04:47 +0000 someone who may be Tom Crispin
> wrote this:-

>Colleagues at the school where I teach pay £300 per annum for a
>parking space.

I'm glad to here there is one school which does this. Are there any
more?

>Cycle parking is free for staff and teachers.

Excellent.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[JNugent[_5_]]

Adam Lea wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> Leaving rubbish outside someone's home is deeply anti-social.

> And yet you think parking your car outside someones house is fair game.

I have no idea what you are gibbering about.

[JNugent[_5_]]

Jolly Polly wrote:

> Adam Lea wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:

>>> Leaving rubbish outside someone's home is deeply anti-social.
>> And yet you think parking your car outside someones house is fair game.

> outside, on a public road, yes

> perhaps the correct thing to do is, to ask the owners permission to lock
> your cycle to there railings, before doing so ;)

....and to accept refusal without demur.

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

Jolly Polly wrote:
> Adam Lea wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Leaving rubbish outside someone's home is deeply anti-social.
>>
>> And yet you think parking your car outside someones house is fair
>> game.
>>
>>
>
> outside, on a public road, yes
>
> perhaps the correct thing to do is, to ask the owners permission to
> lock your cycle to there railings, before doing so ;)

If we're talking only about chaining to private property then I would agree.
If you include chaining your bike to railings that are outside someones
house but are not part of the property and the bike is not causing an
obstruction I don't see a problem with that.

[judith smith]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:29:53 -0000, "Adam Lea" >
wrote:

>Jolly Polly wrote:
>> Adam Lea wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Leaving rubbish outside someone's home is deeply anti-social.
>>>
>>> And yet you think parking your car outside someones house is fair
>>> game.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> outside, on a public road, yes
>>
>> perhaps the correct thing to do is, to ask the owners permission to
>> lock your cycle to there railings, before doing so ;)
>
>If we're talking only about chaining to private property then I would agree.
>If you include chaining your bike to railings that are outside someones
>house but are not part of the property and the bike is not causing an
>obstruction I don't see a problem with that.
>


Who would you think would own the railings - someone must do - and it
is not you?

--
British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:
Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries, as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

[JNugent[_5_]]

Adam Lea wrote:

> Jolly Polly wrote:
>> Adam Lea wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:

>>>> Leaving rubbish outside someone's home is deeply anti-social.

>>> And yet you think parking your car outside someones house is fair
>>> game.

>> outside, on a public road, yes
>> perhaps the correct thing to do is, to ask the owners permission to
>> lock your cycle to there railings, before doing so ;)

> If we're talking only about chaining to private property then I would agree.
> If you include chaining your bike to railings that are outside someones
> house but are not part of the property and the bike is not causing an
> obstruction I don't see a problem with that.

In general principle, neither do I, as long as footways are not being
obstructed and as long as narrow cul-de-sac carriageways are not being
obstructed.

If a car or van could be parked against the kerb in a particular location, I
can't see a problem with leaving a bike there (on the highway). You used to
see that a fair bit years ago - with bikes often propped up by a fold-down
stand or even a pedal wedged against the kerbstone.

Howver, in the instant case, that railing is most unlikely to be public
property. On the contrary, the blog-poster accepts that it is private
property (very ungraciously, of course, but that's another matter).

[Tony Dragon]

JNugent wrote:
> Adam Lea wrote:
>
>> Jolly Polly wrote:
>>> Adam Lea wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>> Leaving rubbish outside someone's home is deeply anti-social.
>
>>>> And yet you think parking your car outside someones house is fair
>>>> game.
>
>>> outside, on a public road, yes
>>> perhaps the correct thing to do is, to ask the owners permission to
>>> lock your cycle to there railings, before doing so ;)
>
>> If we're talking only about chaining to private property then I would
>> agree. If you include chaining your bike to railings that are outside
>> someones house but are not part of the property and the bike is not
>> causing an obstruction I don't see a problem with that.
>
> In general principle, neither do I, as long as footways are not being
> obstructed and as long as narrow cul-de-sac carriageways are not being
> obstructed.
>
> If a car or van could be parked against the kerb in a particular
> location, I can't see a problem with leaving a bike there (on the
> highway). You used to see that a fair bit years ago - with bikes often
> propped up by a fold-down stand or even a pedal wedged against the
> kerbstone.
>
> Howver, in the instant case, that railing is most unlikely to be public
> property. On the contrary, the blog-poster accepts that it is private
> property (very ungraciously, of course, but that's another matter).

Can we get back to the OP, why is the school charging for what?

--
Tony the Dragon

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
JNugent > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

> If a car or van could be parked against the kerb in a particular
> location, I can't see a problem with leaving a bike there (on the
> highway). You used to see that a fair bit years ago - with bikes
> often propped up by a fold-down stand or even a pedal wedged against
> the kerbstone.

These days the outcome would be coming out of the shop five minutes later
and finding the local minipikeys have made off with it. A bike needs to be
locked to something immovable and difficult to disassemble and/or demolish
without power tools.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
If you are choking on an ice cube, simply pour a jug of boiling
water down your throat and presto! The blockage is almost
instantly removed.

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:12:46 -0000 someone who may be "Dave
Larrington" > wrote this:-

>A bike needs to be
>locked to something immovable and difficult to disassemble and/or demolish
>without power tools.

The insurance company would also be unhappy about a bike which is
not locked to something.

I know that the usual suspects claim cyclists have no insurance, but
back in reality there is a clause about locking bikes to something
"immovable" [1] in every insurance policy I have read.


[1] which is obviously mince but anything written by an insurance
company tends to be mince, there is nothing which is immovable.





--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[JNugent[_5_]]

Tony Dragon wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> Adam Lea wrote:
>>
>>> Jolly Polly wrote:
>>>> Adam Lea wrote:
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Leaving rubbish outside someone's home is deeply anti-social.
>>
>>>>> And yet you think parking your car outside someones house is fair
>>>>> game.
>>
>>>> outside, on a public road, yes
>>>> perhaps the correct thing to do is, to ask the owners permission to
>>>> lock your cycle to there railings, before doing so ;)
>>
>>> If we're talking only about chaining to private property then I would
>>> agree. If you include chaining your bike to railings that are outside
>>> someones house but are not part of the property and the bike is not
>>> causing an obstruction I don't see a problem with that.
>>
>> In general principle, neither do I, as long as footways are not being
>> obstructed and as long as narrow cul-de-sac carriageways are not being
>> obstructed.
>>
>> If a car or van could be parked against the kerb in a particular
>> location, I can't see a problem with leaving a bike there (on the
>> highway). You used to see that a fair bit years ago - with bikes often
>> propped up by a fold-down stand or even a pedal wedged against the
>> kerbstone.
>>
>> Howver, in the instant case, that railing is most unlikely to be
>> public property. On the contrary, the blog-poster accepts that it is
>> private property (very ungraciously, of course, but that's another
>> matter).
>
> Can we get back to the OP, why is the school charging for what?

Dunno.

But logic suggests that it must be for some physical service (perhaps cycle
parking) rather then the already-extant right to cycle along the carriageway
to the vicinity of the school.

[JNugent[_5_]]

Dave Larrington wrote:

> JNugent >:

>> If a car or van could be parked against the kerb in a particular
>> location, I can't see a problem with leaving a bike there (on the
>> highway). You used to see that a fair bit years ago - with bikes
>> often propped up by a fold-down stand or even a pedal wedged against
>> the kerbstone.

> These days the outcome would be coming out of the shop five minutes later
> and finding the local minipikeys have made off with it. A bike needs to be
> locked to something immovable and difficult to disassemble and/or demolish
> without power tools.

I'm sure that if you say so, you must be right.

But can that mean that householders and other premises-occupiers somehow lose
control of their property, simply on the basis that a passing cyclist "needs"
to fix his bike to their gate, railings, etc?

[JNugent[_5_]]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:12:46 -0000 someone who may be "Dave
> Larrington" > wrote this:-
>
>> A bike needs to be
>> locked to something immovable and difficult to disassemble and/or demolish
>> without power tools.
>
> The insurance company would also be unhappy about a bike which is
> not locked to something.
>
> I know that the usual suspects claim cyclists have no insurance, but
> back in reality there is a clause about locking bikes to something
> "immovable" [1] in every insurance policy I have read.
>
>
> [1] which is obviously mince but anything written by an insurance
> company tends to be mince, there is nothing which is immovable.

The issue of whether the owner of a bicycle is or is not insured against its
theft has nothing whatever to do with whether the occuper of premises has the
right to insist that bicycles (or anything) are not chained to his property.

[Adam Funk[_3_]]

On 2009-03-27, JNugent wrote:

> Dave Larrington wrote:
>
>> JNugent >:
>
>>> If a car or van could be parked against the kerb in a particular
>>> location, I can't see a problem with leaving a bike there (on the
>>> highway). You used to see that a fair bit years ago - with bikes
>>> often propped up by a fold-down stand or even a pedal wedged against
>>> the kerbstone.
>
>> These days the outcome would be coming out of the shop five minutes later
>> and finding the local minipikeys have made off with it. A bike needs to be
>> locked to something immovable and difficult to disassemble and/or demolish
>> without power tools.
>
> I'm sure that if you say so, you must be right.
>
> But can that mean that householders and other premises-occupiers somehow lose
> control of their property, simply on the basis that a passing cyclist "needs"
> to fix his bike to their gate, railings, etc?

I don't think anyone is claiming that the "leave on the fence" guy has
a *right* to lock his bike to the fence. I think the point is that if
locking it there isn't causing any harm, then that particular
fence-owner is simply being petty and selfish.

[JNugent[_5_]]

Adam Funk wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Dave Larrington wrote:
>>> JNugent >:

>>>> If a car or van could be parked against the kerb in a particular
>>>> location, I can't see a problem with leaving a bike there (on the
>>>> highway). You used to see that a fair bit years ago - with bikes
>>>> often propped up by a fold-down stand or even a pedal wedged against
>>>> the kerbstone.

>>> These days the outcome would be coming out of the shop five minutes later
>>> and finding the local minipikeys have made off with it. A bike needs to be
>>> locked to something immovable and difficult to disassemble and/or demolish
>>> without power tools.

>> I'm sure that if you say so, you must be right.
>> But can that mean that householders and other premises-occupiers somehow lose
>> control of their property, simply on the basis that a passing cyclist "needs"
>> to fix his bike to their gate, railings, etc?

> I don't think anyone is claiming that the "leave on the fence" guy has
> a *right* to lock his bike to the fence. I think the point is that if
> locking it there isn't causing any harm, then that particular
> fence-owner is simply being petty and selfish.

If that's what you want to call it, no-one can stop you.

Of course, the *occupier's* view seems likely to be that a bike chained to
his fence or gate *is* causing harm. And let's face it: he's the only one
qualified to judge whether harm is being caused, isn't he?

[James[_5_]]

On Mar 28, 8:15*am, JNugent > wrote:

> Of course, the *occupier's* view seems likely to be that a bike chained to
> his fence or gate *is* causing harm. And let's face it: he's the only one
> qualified to judge whether harm is being caused, isn't he?

What a bizarre suggestion! What on earth makes you think that the only
person who is qualified to judge whether harm is being caused is the
owner of the fence or gate? isn't that rather the domain of a judge or
jury (or more informally, an impartial observer)?

James

[Sir Jeremy]

On 25 Mar, 21:01, "Adam Lea" > wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
> > Leaving rubbish outside someone's home is deeply anti-social.
>
> And yet you think parking your car outside someones house is fair game.


Yes

parking in someones drive would be anti social and rather stupid

[JNugent[_5_]]

James wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:

>> Of course, the *occupier's* view seems likely to be that a bike chained to
>> his fence or gate *is* causing harm. And let's face it: he's the only one
>> qualified to judge whether harm is being caused, isn't he?

> What a bizarre suggestion! What on earth makes you think that the only
> person who is qualified to judge whether harm is being caused is the
> owner of the fence or gate? isn't that rather the domain of a judge or
> jury (or more informally, an impartial observer)?

No. You haven't been reading carefully enough, hence your bizarre suggestion
that a judge is involved.

In the situation actually being *discussed* (which is the question of whether
the occupier of premises should give permission to the person who wishes to
attach his bike to railings) that occupier is the only one with a right to
make the decision, and if he thinks that attaching a bike to his garden gate
or fence would cause him harm, his is the only opinion that is relevant. He
therefore says "No".

Just in case you were not aware, there is no hard and legal definition of
"harm". Harm can, in some circumstances, be caused simply by leaving an
object where it should not be. The harm caused does not have to be permanent.
It doesn't even have to be something you (or the cyclist) would think is
harm. Causing the premises to look unsightly could certainly count as harm.

[James[_5_]]

On Mar 28, 9:04*pm, JNugent > wrote:
> James wrote:
> > JNugent > wrote:
> >> Of course, the *occupier's* view seems likely to be that a bike chained to
> >> his fence or gate *is* causing harm. And let's face it: he's the only one
> >> qualified to judge whether harm is being caused, isn't he?
> > What a bizarre suggestion! What on earth makes you think that the only
> > person who is qualified to judge whether harm is being caused is the
> > owner of the fence or gate? isn't that rather the domain of a judge or
> > jury (or more informally, an impartial observer)?
>
> No. You haven't been reading carefully enough, hence your bizarre suggestion
> that a judge is involved.
>
> In the situation actually being *discussed* (which is the question of whether
> the occupier of premises should give permission to the person who wishes to
> attach his bike to railings) that occupier is the only one with a right to
> make the decision, and if he thinks that attaching a bike to his garden gate
> or fence would cause him harm, his is the only opinion that is relevant. He
> therefore says "No".
>
> Just in case you were not aware, there is no hard and legal definition of
> "harm". Harm can, in some circumstances, be caused simply by leaving an
> object where it should not be. The harm caused does not have to be permanent.
> It doesn't even have to be something you (or the cyclist) would think is
> harm. Causing the premises to look unsightly could certainly count as harm.

None of that has any relevance to your silly suggestion that the owner
is "the only one qualified to judge whether harm is being caused".

James

[JNugent[_5_]]

James wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> James wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:

>>>> Of course, the *occupier's* view seems likely to be that a bike chained to
>>>> his fence or gate *is* causing harm. And let's face it: he's the only one
>>>> qualified to judge whether harm is being caused, isn't he?

>>> What a bizarre suggestion! What on earth makes you think that the only
>>> person who is qualified to judge whether harm is being caused is the
>>> owner of the fence or gate? isn't that rather the domain of a judge or
>>> jury (or more informally, an impartial observer)?

>> No. You haven't been reading carefully enough, hence your bizarre suggestion
>> that a judge is involved.

>> In the situation actually being *discussed* (which is the question of whether
>> the occupier of premises should give permission to the person who wishes to
>> attach his bike to railings) that occupier is the only one with a right to
>> make the decision, and if he thinks that attaching a bike to his garden gate
>> or fence would cause him harm, his is the only opinion that is relevant. He
>> therefore says "No".

>> Just in case you were not aware, there is no hard and legal definition of
>> "harm". Harm can, in some circumstances, be caused simply by leaving an
>> object where it should not be. The harm caused does not have to be permanent.
>> It doesn't even have to be something you (or the cyclist) would think is
>> harm. Causing the premises to look unsightly could certainly count as harm.

> None of that has any relevance to your silly suggestion that the owner
> is "the only one qualified to judge whether harm is being caused".

You have repeated the same error; of all the above material, only mine is
relevant to the subject under discussion, whereas only yours is not.

Be clear: *yours* is the bizarre suggestion; there are no courts involved.

On the question of whether permission should be granted for the chaining of a
bike to part of his property, the only person whose opinion matters is the
occupier of the premises.

[James[_5_]]

On Mar 29, 3:25*am, JNugent > wrote:

> You have repeated the same error; of all the above material, only mine is
> relevant to the subject under discussion, whereas only yours is not.
>
> Be clear: *yours* is the bizarre suggestion; there are no courts involved..

I never said there was, but if there was any dispute over the harm
caused, a judge (or similar) would seem to be the person best
qualified to judge.

>
> On the question of whether permission should be granted for the chaining of a
> bike to part of his property, the only person whose opinion matters is the
> occupier of the premises.

Maybe so, but that has little to do with whether harm is caused, or
imagined, by either party.

James

[JNugent[_5_]]

James wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:

>> You have repeated the same error; of all the above material, only mine is
>> relevant to the subject under discussion, whereas only yours is not.
>> Be clear: *yours* is the bizarre suggestion; there are no courts involved.

> I never said there was, but if there was any dispute over the harm
> caused, a judge (or similar) would seem to be the person best
> qualified to judge.

There is no occasion for "dispute" over it. The property owner or occupier is
the one with all the rights and all the say. Other peoples' opinions about
whether there is or is not harm are irrelevant.

>> On the question of whether permission should be granted for the chaining of a
>> bike to part of his property, the only person whose opinion matters is the
>> occupier of the premises.

> Maybe so, but that has little to do with whether harm is caused, or
> imagined, by either party.

Have you not read the previous posts in this thread?

Harm is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't have to be permanent and mere
unsightliness can be harm. The fact that you don't like that, and that it is
inconvenient for your "argument", is nothing to the point.

[James[_5_]]

On Mar 29, 7:45*pm, JNugent > wrote:

> Have you not read the previous posts in this thread?

I have indeed, but it is possible that I missed something of
importance (my kf is non-empty, although I consider it extremely
unlikely that the inhabitants will have contributed anything of
interest).

> Harm is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't have to be permanent and mere
> unsightliness can be harm. The fact that you don't like that, and that it is
> inconvenient for your "argument", is nothing to the point.

Where was it alleged that any harm was caused by anyone to anything?
This idea appears to be entirely your own personal invention, although
I admit I might have missed something of relevance up-thread.

James

[JNugent[_5_]]

James wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:45 pm, JNugent > wrote:
>
>> Have you not read the previous posts in this thread?
>
> I have indeed, but it is possible that I missed something of
> importance (my kf is non-empty, although I consider it extremely
> unlikely that the inhabitants will have contributed anything of
> interest).
>
>> Harm is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't have to be permanent and mere
>> unsightliness can be harm. The fact that you don't like that, and that it is
>> inconvenient for your "argument", is nothing to the point.
>
> Where was it alleged that any harm was caused by anyone to anything?
> This idea appears to be entirely your own personal invention, although
> I admit I might have missed something of relevance up-thread.

The issue of harm (or lack of it) was not raised by me; it was raised in the
context of a claim that chaining a bike to someone's home was "doing no harm".

[Roger Merriman]

Adam Lea > wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
> >
> > Leaving rubbish outside someone's home is deeply anti-social.
>
> And yet you think parking your car outside someones house is fair game.

yes much like attaching ones bike to lamppost etc, if its some ones
fence etc then to state the bleeding obvous well it's attached which
might well anoy.

personally i do tend to attch to lampposts,other street furture before
attaching to fences, and private ones at that.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

[Roger Merriman]

JNugent > wrote:

> Adam Lea wrote:
>
> > Jolly Polly wrote:
> >> Adam Lea wrote:
> >>> JNugent wrote:
>
> >>>> Leaving rubbish outside someone's home is deeply anti-social.
>
> >>> And yet you think parking your car outside someones house is fair
> >>> game.
>
> >> outside, on a public road, yes
> >> perhaps the correct thing to do is, to ask the owners permission to
> >> lock your cycle to there railings, before doing so ;)
>
> > If we're talking only about chaining to private property then I would agree.
> > If you include chaining your bike to railings that are outside someones
> > house but are not part of the property and the bike is not causing an
> > obstruction I don't see a problem with that.
>
> In general principle, neither do I, as long as footways are not being
> obstructed and as long as narrow cul-de-sac carriageways are not being
> obstructed.
>
> If a car or van could be parked against the kerb in a particular location, I
> can't see a problem with leaving a bike there (on the highway). You used to
> see that a fair bit years ago - with bikes often propped up by a fold-down
> stand or even a pedal wedged against the kerbstone.
>
yup i've been know to do that, it's a cheap heavy bike so loop of bike
lock so it can't be wheeled away, and it's stayed put even in central
london though i've never left it like that for more than a hour.

> Howver, in the instant case, that railing is most unlikely to be public
> property. On the contrary, the blog-poster accepts that it is private
> property (very ungraciously, of course, but that's another matter).

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman