Im not sure if this is of interest, but in the city of london (the bit that doesnt even "belong" to the crown ) , you are legally allowed to walk sheep across to it over Tower Bridge if you are a freeman "Gentleman of the City" ( right into the heart of london!).
Also in Newcastle Upon Tyne I believe you are allowed to take yoru sheep to eat from the grassland in the city center too.
> Surprisingly, UK legislation doesn’t define “mechanically propelled”. Lawyers usually define everything, even words that seem obvious.
The terminology is self explanatory. Therefore it does not need any further explanation even for legal purposes. Also generally smart ass workarounds don't work with the magistrate and/or courts.
You probably can take an ox to Oxford, there's horses there so I don't see why oxen would be ruled out. What you probably can't do is get an ox through the traffic on Abingdon Road if you're taking it to work.
Right - but it is called Oxford, not Horseford. I think names need to own up to themselves from a legal point of view. Oxford must allow for oxes everywhere.
Well, the name only points to the fact that there was a ford (a crossing) on the River Thames where oxen used to cross.
Nothing suggests it would have been free — in fact, if I owned a ford (a shallow crossing point) running through my property, you can bet I would charge for it.
Oxford is heading straight back to the Middle Ages )) Soon we’ll have horse-drawn carriages at the city entrance (if they aren’t there already), shuttling people around instead of taxis. People still want to get from point A to point B quickly — that need isn’t going anywhere.
> The order defines Class M1 vehicles as “those falling within class M1(a) and class M1(b) as specified in Schedule 1 of the Vehicle Classes Regulations, which refers to another bit of UK legislation.
> Oxford’s congestion charge is almost certainly enforced by cameras that scan your number plate. An ox-drawn cart doesn’t have a number plate, so it won’t be charged. Other vehicles like a Renault Twizy or Reliant Robin do have number plates, so they’ll be charged even though they’re technically exempt.
So there's not much to it: Plates are scanned -> the number is checked in the vehicle registration database -> not class M1(a) or class M1(b) -> no charge.
This goes for ox carts, Twizys and Reliant Robins.
But if a vehicle is required to have a number plate, and doesn't (potentially an ox-cart), then you won't be charged for the congestion charge, but you will get charged for something entirely different
I get that the article is light hearted, but given how easy it is to confirm that yes cameras reading number plates is indeed how the system works, I don’t understand taking the time to write that article and not bothering to go further than guessing “almost certainly enforced by cameras that scan your number plate”.
Meanwhile, Cambridge has, or at least had a few years ago, at least one combined pedestrian/cattle tunnel (there was a fence down the middle!) under a major road.
The last time I was in Ireland, you'd still occasionally encounter a horse-drawn sulky on the roads. I've no idea if that is also the case in the UK, but a horse is more practical than an ox.
West Oxfordshire District Council is currently trying to find a way to stop a certain demographic from racing ponies and traps on the A40 dual carriageway.
Calling them travellers and/or gypsies (I know they are technically different groups of people but generally the terms are often used interchangeably) is not in itself a slur.
I can only speak of London - it is very rare to see oxes there. In fact, in my various visits to this city, I actually never saw an ox on the streets. In Oxford I would expect some, though. Oxford is in Oxfordshire - look how many ox-names there are. It's actually not so far away from London.
The whole technically zero emissions bit is not really convincing. Cattle makes up a considerable part of global emissions, to the point that there are entire industries focused on bringing that down. Surely the same would apply here?
Not the only emissions too. Faecal emissions (sorry if you're having your lunch) are locally polluting and unhygenic. It's not often recorded the mass rejoicing when cars replaced horses in cities. No longer having to step over/round piles of sh*t was a major improvement in everyone's life.
I remember some years ago waiting on my bike at some traffic lights behind a pair of police horses, which then proceeded to decorate the road in front of me with their emissions. No apologies from the officers, no attempt to clean it up. Disgusting stuff.
The thing is it depends on how you define your numbers. Personally I'm a fan of the carbon-above-ground accounting, where if you grow a tree it counts as 0 emissions, and if your burn the tree for fuel it also counts as 0 emissions since there wasn't any new carbon being dug up not was any carbon permanently sequestered.
Giving credit for the tree and taking it away when it is burnt is another choice. It shifts the focus to short term effects over long term ones. Which has both pros and cons.
> if your burn the tree for fuel it also counts as 0 emissions since there wasn't any new carbon being dug up not was any carbon permanently sequestered.
Ok but ... that definition makes not a whole lot of sense, right?
The only thing that should be considered is CO2 in the atmosphere / troposphere.
I think the idea is that the CO2 emitted from burning the tree is the same as is removed by the tree growing, so it cancels out. The tree is effectively a capacitor.
Fairly irrelevant when it comes to cattle though, as it's the methane that's the problem there.
Im not sure if this is of interest, but in the city of london (the bit that doesnt even "belong" to the crown ) , you are legally allowed to walk sheep across to it over Tower Bridge if you are a freeman "Gentleman of the City" ( right into the heart of london!).
Also in Newcastle Upon Tyne I believe you are allowed to take yoru sheep to eat from the grassland in the city center too.
> (the bit that doesnt even "belong" to the crown )
This is a myth, incidentally.
> Surprisingly, UK legislation doesn’t define “mechanically propelled”. Lawyers usually define everything, even words that seem obvious.
The terminology is self explanatory. Therefore it does not need any further explanation even for legal purposes. Also generally smart ass workarounds don't work with the magistrate and/or courts.
You probably can take an ox to Oxford, there's horses there so I don't see why oxen would be ruled out. What you probably can't do is get an ox through the traffic on Abingdon Road if you're taking it to work.
Right - but it is called Oxford, not Horseford. I think names need to own up to themselves from a legal point of view. Oxford must allow for oxes everywhere.
Well, the name only points to the fact that there was a ford (a crossing) on the River Thames where oxen used to cross.
Nothing suggests it would have been free — in fact, if I owned a ford (a shallow crossing point) running through my property, you can bet I would charge for it.
An affordable fee I hope.
This legal argument has been tried many times in Penistone
Likewise in Fartown near Huddersfield.
Did we ever find out who is/was the hero of Clitheroe?
Anyone who solves the Scunthorpe problem[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem
Oxford is heading straight back to the Middle Ages )) Soon we’ll have horse-drawn carriages at the city entrance (if they aren’t there already), shuttling people around instead of taxis. People still want to get from point A to point B quickly — that need isn’t going anywhere.
I wonder about a Ford F-250 owned by an ox (an ox Ford).
> The order defines Class M1 vehicles as “those falling within class M1(a) and class M1(b) as specified in Schedule 1 of the Vehicle Classes Regulations, which refers to another bit of UK legislation.
> Oxford’s congestion charge is almost certainly enforced by cameras that scan your number plate. An ox-drawn cart doesn’t have a number plate, so it won’t be charged. Other vehicles like a Renault Twizy or Reliant Robin do have number plates, so they’ll be charged even though they’re technically exempt.
So there's not much to it: Plates are scanned -> the number is checked in the vehicle registration database -> not class M1(a) or class M1(b) -> no charge.
This goes for ox carts, Twizys and Reliant Robins.
But if a vehicle is required to have a number plate, and doesn't (potentially an ox-cart), then you won't be charged for the congestion charge, but you will get charged for something entirely different
I get that the article is light hearted, but given how easy it is to confirm that yes cameras reading number plates is indeed how the system works, I don’t understand taking the time to write that article and not bothering to go further than guessing “almost certainly enforced by cameras that scan your number plate”.
But can an ox still ford the Isis at Oxford?
As an Oxford native I'd advise that anyone attempting to do this checks Thames Water's sewage dumping schedule beforehand!
Meanwhile, Cambridge has, or at least had a few years ago, at least one combined pedestrian/cattle tunnel (there was a fence down the middle!) under a major road.
The last time I was in Ireland, you'd still occasionally encounter a horse-drawn sulky on the roads. I've no idea if that is also the case in the UK, but a horse is more practical than an ox.
West Oxfordshire District Council is currently trying to find a way to stop a certain demographic from racing ponies and traps on the A40 dual carriageway.
Calling them travellers and/or gypsies (I know they are technically different groups of people but generally the terms are often used interchangeably) is not in itself a slur.
I can only speak of London - it is very rare to see oxes there. In fact, in my various visits to this city, I actually never saw an ox on the streets. In Oxford I would expect some, though. Oxford is in Oxfordshire - look how many ox-names there are. It's actually not so far away from London.
Clovelly in Cornwall still uses donkeys and sleighs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovelly
There should be a legal right to this. After all it is part of the name: Oxford.
Careful. You'll make the residents of Cockermouth nervous.
The person didn’t actually ride an ox cart anywhere.
They looked at the law, saw “motor vehicle” and said that an ox cart doesn’t have a motor so should be fine.
Must one personally be subject to a law in order to interpret it?
You must in order to know whether you can do something. The set of things you can do is rarely equal to the set of things the law says you can do.
The whole technically zero emissions bit is not really convincing. Cattle makes up a considerable part of global emissions, to the point that there are entire industries focused on bringing that down. Surely the same would apply here?
Not the only emissions too. Faecal emissions (sorry if you're having your lunch) are locally polluting and unhygenic. It's not often recorded the mass rejoicing when cars replaced horses in cities. No longer having to step over/round piles of sh*t was a major improvement in everyone's life.
I remember some years ago waiting on my bike at some traffic lights behind a pair of police horses, which then proceeded to decorate the road in front of me with their emissions. No apologies from the officers, no attempt to clean it up. Disgusting stuff.
Apparently it doesn't count at littering.
The thing is it depends on how you define your numbers. Personally I'm a fan of the carbon-above-ground accounting, where if you grow a tree it counts as 0 emissions, and if your burn the tree for fuel it also counts as 0 emissions since there wasn't any new carbon being dug up not was any carbon permanently sequestered.
Giving credit for the tree and taking it away when it is burnt is another choice. It shifts the focus to short term effects over long term ones. Which has both pros and cons.
> if your burn the tree for fuel it also counts as 0 emissions since there wasn't any new carbon being dug up not was any carbon permanently sequestered.
Ok but ... that definition makes not a whole lot of sense, right?
The only thing that should be considered is CO2 in the atmosphere / troposphere.
I think the idea is that the CO2 emitted from burning the tree is the same as is removed by the tree growing, so it cancels out. The tree is effectively a capacitor.
Fairly irrelevant when it comes to cattle though, as it's the methane that's the problem there.
Good luck making it drink.