Letter in local rag..

David Martin said:

A bit of background.. Staff commuting to the hospital by bike have
had access to a secure store for bikes upon payment of a deposit for
a key. The management now want to introduce a charge for them to use
this facility. At the same time, they have been redeveloping the
front of the hospital and landscaped the area the nicotine addicts
congregate in, providing weatherproof shelters for them.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2005/03/08/letters.asp
"Making sure of long term future"

No guesses as to the author of the letter..

I'm not sure I agree that providing shelters for smokers is encouraging
smoking. It's certainly encouraging them not to smoke in the building,
and at least it gets them, their foul air, and their disgusting litter
away from the doorways. It's a fact of life that there are still a
large number of nicotine addicts, and if the hospital wants to employ
them it presumably has to cater for them. I find it both puzzling and
sad that smoking seems to be so widespread among the young in
particular.

How much are they proposing to charge for use of the cycle store? Do
they provide staff car parking, and what do they charge for that?

I agree with you that it is outrageous to charge for secure cycle
parking. Apart from other considerations every cyclist using the store
potentially frees up a valuable parking space. Of course I don't know
how much of an issue this is at your site - perhaps you could give us
some more background.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

I'm not sure I agree that providing shelters for smokers is encouraging
smoking.

I disagree. I'm an ex-smoker (25 years, 2 packs a day), and I would see
any "provision" by anyone as a reason for a quick puff.

I'm much more a fan of more draconian measures:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/4232245.stm

but then that's often the case for ex-smokers. It'll be three years
since I stopped, at the end of this month. At the time I stopped, it was
as much as I could do to walk up a flight of stairs, now I regularly
cycle 100+km in a day. Smoking is foul, and (freewill be damned) any
product that kills people by using it for it's designed purpose should
be banned completely.

Hmmm... sorry - straying OT here.

--
Chris

dkahn400 said:

How much are they proposing to charge for use of the cycle store? Do
they provide staff car parking, and what do they charge for that?

Since this wasn't what you'd call widely advertised I just popped down
to the shed to ask one of the users (I walk to work, as I only live 1 km
away), and he said "something like £60 a year, it's a major disincentive".

The car parks are £1.50 a day generally, though staff can buy at some
degree of discount (I'm not aware how much) if they purchase an access fob.

Quoted message said:

I agree with you that it is outrageous to charge for secure cycle
parking. Apart from other considerations every cyclist using the store
potentially frees up a valuable parking space. Of course I don't know
how much of an issue this is at your site - perhaps you could give us
some more background.

There are 9 car parks, including a multi storey, and though parking is
not in chronic short supply it is the case that people park in adjacent
streets to avoid paying and the back end of car park 9 is a significant
wander from the door, to the extent that a "free" courtesy bus is
provided for the infirm (it is a hospital!) to actually get to the entrance.
There are three cycle sheds, two insecure ones and one "proper" one,
which must take up the same sort of space as /several parking spaces/,
perhaps as many as 4 or 5, though it's sited somewhere that car parking
wouldn't really be practical.

I've just sent off a letter to the NHS Tayside rag having my own moan,
pointing out that in the long term the NHS will save money if more of
its staff cycle because they won't get so ill on average. That's the
thing that /really/ pisses me off: the so-called National *Health*
Service (and at my particular site as well) providing reasons for people
/not/ to cycle. Though the UK is [censored]-poor for cardiovascular health on
the whole, Scotland is a particularly greasy black spot by overall
national standards, and this sort of thing doesn't help.

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 [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

The comparison does highlight the issue and contrast the relative
importance of the issues in the minds of the hospital authorities!

That a hospital should think of providing any facilities whatsoever for
smokers absolutely beggars belief. Why do they need to be provided with
facilities for something that they do outside of work? If they don't
want them smoking and littering at the entrances, ban smoking from
there and make them smoke elsewhere!

As for the bike parking - that depends on other factors. When I worked
in central London, a bike locker cost £50 per quarter, and was
allocated by drawing lots - they were highly sought-after. There were
no car facilities other than for the really big cheeses. Where I work
now, they provide car spaces on what would otherwise be good building
land, and for the overspill they pay £5 per day per employee. For the
cyclists they provide a chain bolted to the wall because they didn't
want to pay for proper stands!

If staff at your place get parking spaces provided, it would be wrong
for them to charge for bike parking. If not, then the alternative might
be that they turn the bike store into something else - so it may be
worth paying for. They might change their minds if they suddenly find
loads of bikes chained to objects around their nice new landscaping.

Succorso said:

dkahn400 said:

I'm not sure I agree that providing shelters for smokers is encouraging
smoking.

I disagree. I'm an ex-smoker (25 years, 2 packs a day), and I would see
any "provision" by anyone as a reason for a quick puff.

I'm much more a fan of more draconian measures:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/4232245.stm

banning smoking completely has to be combined with offering smoking
cessation services and NRT to hospital patients
http://www.oma.org/phealth/stopsmoke.htm

Mind you, don't underestimate the power of seeing the amputees puffing
away in the hospital grounds as a motivation to stop and stay stopped.

Quoted message said:

but then that's often the case for ex-smokers. It'll be three years
since I stopped, at the end of this month. At the time I stopped, it was
as much as I could do to walk up a flight of stairs, now I regularly
cycle 100+km in a day.

much the same here, just over 2 years since I stopped. Hardly
exercised at all then and hadn't been on a bike for 15+ years. Now I
exercise regularly and am working up to a 100km a day ride.

Succorso said:

dkahn400 said:

I'm not sure I agree that providing shelters for smokers is
encouraging smoking.

I disagree. I'm an ex-smoker (25 years, 2 packs a day), and I
would see any "provision" by anyone as a reason for a quick puff.

I'm much more a fan of more draconian measures:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/4232245.stm

but then that's often the case for ex-smokers. It'll be three
years since I stopped, at the end of this month. At the time I
stopped, it was as much as I could do to walk up a flight of stairs,
now I regularly cycle 100+km in a day. Smoking is foul, and (freewill
be damned) any product that kills people by using it for it's
designed purpose should be banned completely.

Of course I have to bow to your superior understanding as I've never
been tempted to try tobacco. I can forsee problems, however, if a
hospital should try to prevent staff smoking at all. Would there not be
a danger of people becoming ineffective, possibly making dangerous,
even fatal, errors of judgement, and certainly experiencing mood swings
and being difficult to work with?

Banning a popular drug is futile. You will just start an underground
trade with all that entails, as in the prohibition era in the US. I
used to think education was the answer, but clearly I was wrong. Young
people know they are starting a habit that will control them
completely, drain them financially, give them a permanent cough,
undermine their physical fitness, make them perpetually smelly and
dirty, and kill them prematurely, usually in extreme pain and
discomfort. But they still want to do it. I have no answer.

--
Dave...

Succorso said:

dkahn400 said:

I'm not sure I agree that providing shelters for smokers is

encouraging

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

smoking.

I disagree. I'm an ex-smoker (25 years, 2 packs a day), and I would

see

Quoted message said:

any "provision" by anyone as a reason for a quick puff.

I'm another ex-smoker but I agree with smoking shelters being provided.
It stops
the entrances to public buildings being littered with [censored] ends and
matches as many smokers don't give a toss how they dispose of their
litter.
Iain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Banning a popular drug is futile.

True.

However, banning a particular activity from your premises is entirely
acceptable.

email hidden said:

I'm another ex-smoker but I agree with smoking shelters being provided.
It stops
the entrances to public buildings being littered with [censored] ends and
matches as many smokers don't give a toss how they dispose of their

Not at Birmingham Children's Hospital it doesn't. Granted, the
majority of the smoking staff use the smoking ghettos; a minority of
staff smoke in an outside area which has numerous "No Smoking" signs.

Visitors and patients prefer to congregate outside the main entrance
to puff away on their cancer sticks, directly infront of signs that
read "Children with chest infections are seriously affected by
cigarette smoke. Please use the designated smoking areas".

Or they find their way down to the basement and smoke in the
stairwell.

It is seriously heartbreaking to have been looking after a severely
asthmatic child on a ventilator, and to go home from a shift, passing
the pregnant mother puffing away....

I don't know the solution.
--
Jesus was apparently betrayed by 8.3% of his disciples.

It does seem 'odd' that a hospital whose purpose is to cure ill people
should on one hand encourage an activity that is proved beyond all
doubt to be one of the biggest causes of ill-health and premature
death in this country (120,000 annually) and yet seem to discourage a
healthy activity and 'green' form of transport to work.

dkahn400 said:

people know they are starting a habit that will control them
completely, drain them financially, give them a permanent cough,
undermine their physical fitness, make them perpetually smelly and
dirty, and kill them prematurely, usually in extreme pain and
discomfort. But they still want to do it. I have no answer.

The problem as I see it is that people don't really /believe/ or understand
how highly addictive nicotine really is; afterall, how could something that
dangerous possibly be legal?

Make it illegal and you'd put a lot of people off. Not only is it
dangerously addictive, it's also a pretty [censored] drug.

archierob said:

It does seem 'odd' that a hospital whose purpose is to cure ill people
should on one hand encourage an activity that is proved beyond all
doubt to be one of the biggest causes of ill-health and premature
death in this country (120,000 annually) and yet seem to discourage a
healthy activity and 'green' form of transport to work.

And in praise of Birmingham Children's Hospital, cycle parking is free
and secure. When the stands were built, cyclists were consulted as to
their requirements. Unfortunately the Sheffield stands were put too
close together, but this was rectified once pointed out. Showers and
towels are provided.

My original suggestion of converting the space occupied by a smelly
urinal into a shower was rejected but it turns out that two showers is
quite adequate anyhow.

Bingo

--
Jesus was apparently betrayed by 8.3% of his disciples.

Richard Bates said:

And in praise of Birmingham Children's Hospital, cycle parking is free
and secure. When the stands were built, cyclists were consulted as to
their requirements. Unfortunately the Sheffield stands were put too
close together, but this was rectified once pointed out. Showers and
towels are provided.

It's good to see that they've put in a lot of provision for cyclists at
Southampton General (about 100 /covered/ Sheffield stands!).

Unfortunatley, the persistent congregation of smokers still clots around the
front entrance. Despite the notices.

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2005/03/08/letters.asp
"Making sure of long term future"

No guesses as to the author of the letter..

I like the first letter. Someone wants me to go to London on Monday to be
interviewed for a BBC Radio 4 programme due out next month. I joked with him
that I would look forward to getting a few grand like Fearon has. Apparently
I might get 70 quid travelling expenses which will not be enough to cover a
train ticket from Hull - London and back, so I will have to drive there :-(

--
Simon Mason
Anlaby
East Yorkshire.
53°44'N 0°26'W
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

Peter Clinch said:

dkahn400 said:

How much are they proposing to charge for use of the cycle store?
Do they provide staff car parking, and what do they charge for
that?

Since this wasn't what you'd call widely advertised I just popped
down to the shed to ask one of the users (I walk to work, as I only
live 1 km away), and he said "something like £60 a year, it's a
major disincentive".

The car parks are £1.50 a day generally, though staff can buy at
some degree of discount (I'm not aware how much) if they purchase an
access fob.

The management could argue that as the cycle parking charge is less
than a fifth of the car parking one, it's fair and reasonable. I don't
agree with that position of course, I'm just trying to forsee the
argument. For £60 a year I would want a personal secure bike locker,
and I probably would be prepared to pay that charge. I would not be at
all happy paying for a space in a locked shed.

Quoted message said:

There are three cycle sheds, two insecure ones and one "proper" one,
which must take up the same sort of space as /several parking
spaces/, perhaps as many as 4 or 5, though it's sited somewhere that
car parking wouldn't really be practical.

Is the secure one the one that's being proposed to be chargeable or is
that another store? Are they also proposing to charge for the using
insecure sheds?

Three possible lines of attack suggest themselves.

1. The policy is counter to the purpose of the NHS, which should not be
seen to discourage healthy lifestyle choices. Lots of negative
publicity and public ridicule could be heaped upon the managers.

2. Cycling is "green", reduces air pollution, and relieves pressure on
parking space, including the neighbourhood around the hospital. By
discouraging it the hospital is displaying indifference to the
well-being of the local population - the very people it is meant to
serve.

3. If cyclists are to be charged they will noisily demand much better
facilities. The costs of these will negate the revenue raised.

--
Dave...

David Martin said:

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2005/03/08/letters.asp
"Making sure of long term future"

I fear there may be a grain of truth in the irony. The balance of
effort between prevention and cure in the health care system seems to
be heavily wieghted in favour of cure, and one suspects that some of
the ways in which performance is measured exacerbates this.

Simon Mason said:

Someone wants me to go to London on Monday
to be interviewed for a BBC Radio 4 programme due out next month.

More info please.

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2005/03/08/letters.asp
"Making sure of long term future"

No guesses as to the author of the letter..

I like the first letter. Someone wants me to go to London on Monday to be
interviewed for a BBC Radio 4 programme due out next month. I joked with

him

Quoted message said:

that I would look forward to getting a few grand like Fearon has.

Apparently

Quoted message said:

I might get 70 quid travelling expenses which will not be enough to cover

a

Quoted message said:

train ticket from Hull - London and back, so I will have to drive there

:-(

Could you arrange to be interviewed remotely (don't the local BBC radio
stations have facilities for doing such a thing?)

cheers,
clive

Simonb said:

The problem as I see it is that people don't really /believe/ or
understand how highly addictive nicotine really is; afterall, how
could something that dangerous possibly be legal?

When they are young people also think they are immortal, and they have
no empathy with their future older selves.

Quoted message said:

Make it illegal and you'd put a lot of people off. Not only is it
dangerously addictive, it's also a pretty [censored] drug.

You would certainly put some people off, but for others you would
glamourise it.

--
Dave...