Legalised Parking on the pavement

[Andy_R]

Here we go again...the car is a luxury.....what do you not understand about that statement? There is no "right" to ownership. To be honest, perhaps making cars a little more limited in their availability would be a good thing.

Having more than one car per household in an area where there is not enough space to support that level of car ownership can be viewed as selfish. ("I need 2 parking spaces because I have 2 cars" mentality) Additionally, look carefully at the images you linked to, and you will plainly see vehicles parking too close to houses, leaving insufficient space for pedestrians. You can also see the kind of problems caused on bin days (luckily the images were recorded on a day when everyone's bins were out, great example of motorists negelcting the needs of pedestrians or cyclists). Yes, I am making a definite distinction between motorists and pedestrians as they are up to a certain point, different creatures, perhaps not biologically, but certainly in their psychology.

I do thing you would find in a straw poll in that road that the residents would view removal of parking rights to be an infringement on their liberty. Cars are seen as status symbols at the end of the day, and right of ownership should not be limited to the better off because they can afford to live in houses with drives....

And I'm sure the same residents would view removal of their Sky HD boxes and their plasma TVs as an infringement on their liberty. Utter b@ll@x.

 

[ufkacbln]

I do thing you would find in a straw poll in that road that the residents would view removal of parking rights to be an infringement on their liberty. Cars are seen as status symbols at the end of the day, and right of ownership should not be limited to the better off because they can afford to live in houses with drives....

Whereas the ability of the disabled, elderly, those with children and the infirm can be deprived of their liberty and their rights driven over roughshod?

Or should the ability to leave your house and proceed down the street with a pram or wheelchair be limited to the better off because they can afford to live in an area where houses have drives.

 

[gambatte]

The elephant in the room is the small detail that 'ALL THE VEHICLES THERE BELONG TO THE RESIDENTS'

If houses have 2 or 3 vehicles then not all residents have cars on that street. So a minority of houses have the majority of parking.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

It can only get worse as new build sites squish the land for each property ever smaller. The house I've just offered on has two spaces at the side of the house. This area is also the shared driveway for 3 other houses.
Either planning regulations are dictating less spaces than properties, or builders want to stuff as many houses onto land as possible, and gardens and parking are the casualties.
I visited a new build site recently where you could not see the pavement. Every inch was covered in metal. Then I visited a 6 apartment building with 3 parking spaces.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

There's a house in my street with 4 cars in the week, and sometimes 5 at weekends.
Where they all sleep in a 2 bedroom semi must be interesting.
They distribute their cars in front of other houses, usually blocking entrances. If someone is on holiday, they park in their driveways.

 

[snorri]

One measure that could be introduced to improve the situation would be the imposition of a hefty charge for motor vehicles left on public roads and pavements, we could call it Road Tax.

 

[Linford]

Whereas the ability of the disabled, elderly, those with children and the infirm can be deprived of their liberty and their rights driven over roughshod?

Or should the ability to leave your house and proceed down the street with a pram or wheelchair be limited to the better off because they can afford to live in an area where houses have drives.

Obviously what happens is that people exit their house, cross over to the other side of the road where the pavement is clear, and then use it. I think it fair to say that the council consider this to be an acceptable solution in this road.

 

[Linford]

One measure that could be introduced to improve the situation would be the imposition of a hefty charge for motor vehicles left on public roads and pavements, we could call it Road Tax.

Don't they call that VED nowadays

 

[Linford]

Here we go again...the car is a luxury.....what do you not understand about that statement? There is no "right" to ownership. To be honest, perhaps making cars a little more limited in their availability would be a good thing.

Having more than one car per household in an area where there is not enough space to support that level of car ownership can be viewed as selfish. ("I need 2 parking spaces because I have 2 cars" mentality) Additionally, look carefully at the images you linked to, and you will plainly see vehicles parking too close to houses, leaving insufficient space for pedestrians. You can also see the kind of problems caused on bin days (luckily the images were recorded on a day when everyone's bins were out, great example of motorists negelcting the needs of pedestrians or cyclists). Yes, I am making a definite distinction between motorists and pedestrians as they are up to a certain point, different creatures, perhaps not biologically, but certainly in their psychology.

And I'm sure the same residents would view removal of their Sky HD boxes and their plasma TVs as an infringement on their liberty. Utter b@ll@x.

Until they get behind the wheel and drive off, they are 'PEDESTRIANS' , and another thing to note is that the pavements there have not been conveyed the rights of a 'shared space' for cyclists as well as pedestrians. The additional line marking is clearly for car parking on the pavement.

 

[subaqua]

http://youparklikeacunt.com/
sorry for the rude word its not my website

 

[snorri]

Don't they call that VED nowadays

No! No! No!
Oh dear, back to basics. VED or Vehicle Excise Duty is a tax on vehicle ownership, my proposed Road Tax would be a tax on use of roadspace.

 

[ufkacbln]

Obviously what happens is that people exit their house, cross over to the other side of the road where the pavement is clear, and then use it. I think it fair to say that the council consider this to be an acceptable solution in this road.

Obvious?

I suppose it is, you get your wheelchair, pram etc and open your door, you can't turn left to get to a drop kerb, you can't turn right to access a drop kerb, and the gap betwen the cars in front of you is to narrow to allow you to cross. You are unable to go out.... so go back home.


The ignorance of the needs of the disabled and infirm is the only thing that is really obvious in your post!

 

[Linford]

No! No! No!
Oh dear, back to basics. VED or Vehicle Excise Duty is a tax on vehicle ownership, my proposed Road Tax would be a tax on use of roadspace.

That would convey the notion that people paying it have a god given right to park their vehicles on it where they like

Would that be in addition to VED ?

 

[Linford]

Obvious?

I suppose it is, you get your wheelchair, pram etc and open your door, you can't turn left to get to a drop kerb, you can't turn right to access a drop kerb, and the gap betwen the cars in front of you is to narrow to allow you to cross. You are unable to go out.... so go back home.


The ignorance of the needs of the disabled and infirm is the only thing that is really obvious in your post!

I guess they would ask for the kerb to be dropped on the pavements outside their door, but in any case, it is actually quite low. I do actually appreciate where you are coming from with this and do regularly take my (mostly) chair bound MIL out with hers.

 

[snorri]

That would convey the notion that people paying it have a god given right to park their vehicles on it where they like

It just might, but few would be able to pay it anyway, which is why I referred to it as a "hefty" charge back on Post 57 of this thread.