Legalised Parking on the pavement

[gambatte]

[QUOTE 1911714, member: 45"]It's a nonsense for anyone who chooses where they live to then complain about parking.[/quote]
Reminds me... similar to the parents who complain they can't park near school.
Even though the schools been there 40 years and little Tarquin/kylie is only 6

 

[snorri]

I think it could be argued that it is very much a cultural aspiration to own a car among the younger generation there, and to hinder that by not letting them park on the pavement might be construed as discriminatory.

.......and the discriminating effect on the younger generation of being all but barred from healthy outdoor activities like street football, cricket, kick the can, hide and seek, etc. etc. etc.?

 

[Andy_R]

The majority of people living down there traditionally have very large families, once the kids grow up, they may continue living with their parents for many years afterwards due to the pressures on affordable housing. It is what you might class as deprived area.

And yet they are able to afford to run more than one car per household? A car is a luxury, not a necessity.

 

[Andy_R]

.......and the discriminating effect on the younger generation of being all but barred from healthy outdoor activities like street football, cricket, kick the can, hide and seek, etc. etc. etc.?

and, god forbid, using a fekking bike instead of a car....

 

[gambatte]

.......and the discriminating effect on the younger generation of being all but barred from healthy outdoor activities like street football, cricket, kick the can, hide and seek, etc. etc. etc.?

I have a drive which'll fit 2 cars. Despite being a family of 5, we only have 1 car and 1 driver. I used to park on the drive.

I now park on the road (a close) - because families from down the road with 2 or 3 cars decide to park their caravan on their drive and their cars on the road. The kids can't do the activities as in your post, the roads too congested. So now they can - they've got a double drive to play on.

 

[Linford]

And yet they are able to afford to run more than one car per household? A car is a luxury, not a necessity.

I would imagine that a fair few down there are working vehicles. Just because the old man drives for a living shouldn't mean that the kids must be excluded from car ownership should it ?

 

[gambatte]

I would imagine that a fair few down there are working vehicles. Just because the old man drives for a living shouldn't mean that the kids must be excluded from car ownership should it ?

Now this REALLY winds me. Working vehicles on residential streets. Couple of years ago on a 200 yard road we must have regularly had eight railway contractors vehicles at different adresses. Transit vans being the smallest. up on the pavement, parked opposite each other, opposite peoples drives.

 

[snorri]

I would imagine that a fair few down there are working vehicles. Just because the old man drives for a living shouldn't mean that the kids must be excluded from car ownership should it ?

No reason whatsoever, but no one is suggesting such a restriction..

 

[theclaud]

That is possibly the biggest load of crap I've heard in a long time!

Stick around... he's here all week...

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 1911810, member: 45"]Have you forgotten that you've posted a photo of the vehicles you're talking about?[/quote]

I imagine he has.

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 1911810, member: 45"]Have you forgotten that you've posted a photo of the vehicles you're talking about?[/quote]
Not at all. How many did you count as a ratio, and how does that compare to what you can count on the road you live in using google maps as a point of reference ?

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 1911977, member: 45"]It's your ratio. Apparently a fair few are working vehicles, and the others are from multi-vehicle deprived families. Which are those in the picture?[/quote]

Why not just use the parked vehicles in the road as they present for the sake of the debate. How many did you count in total, and how many are work vehicles ?

 

[snorri]

How many did you count as a ratio,

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 1911985, member: 45"]Tell you what - I'll ask you a question, and in response you ask me the same question.[/quote]

I've already done a number count. I'm waiting to see if we come to the same result. I counted 6 out of 36 which were easily identifiable as work vehicles and parked in a residential street. I'd stick my neck out here and say that the owners of the vehicles lived there as well. Now if they are parked outside their own house, that leaves little else for other vehicle owners living in the same property as the houses are no wider than the length of the vehicles parked in front of them.

How many work vehicles did you see ?

 

[Andy_R]

Linford, I think you're missing the point. There isn't enough space in that street for the amount of vehicles in that street. Therefore, the local council has decided to make on pavement parking legal. So once again, motorists' requirements (notice I say requirements, not rights) are being put before anyone elses. I'm sorry, but that is just wrong on so many levels. Car ownership is a luxury. What about the rights of the pedestrians who live on that street and can't afford a car? Are you saying they have to give up their right (not requirement, but "right") to be allowed to travel, unimpeded, along the footpath (clue is in the name) without having to dodge around/squeeze past/be accused of damaging cars that are parked on the footpath that we as cyclists are told in law we are not allowed to use.

Sir, if you believe that this set of circumstances is acceptable, then your head is so far up your rear end, you don't know if it's Tuesday or Christmas.

[rant] [/endrant]