# Legalised Parking on the pavement



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

Well it is hard to argue against cycling on the pavement when you go down this road in Gloucester 

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=ble...fGqsXtDs6NRIYe46WRhjlQ&cbp=12,207.42,,0,19.18


----------



## Moodyman (29 Jun 2012)

I think parking on the pavement makes sense where the road is narrow and the pavement is wide enough to lose a little to cars.

So long as pedestrians and pushchairs are not hindered.


----------



## gambatte (29 Jun 2012)

Nah, we're getting crammed in. Closer and closer.
Houses are now smaller than they used to be. Gardens are being sold off and built on and now we've got families with 3 or 4 cars, on streets with no off road parking. Plod turning round and saying "the roads were built before we had so many cars"
IMO tough. VED should be a licence to drive a car on the road, not to use the road as a car park - even less the pavement.
Pavements are for peds, roads for vehicles. If you can't park safely outside your house, you can't park outside your house. Physical construction of a pavements different to that of a road too, less protection for services....


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

gambatte said:


> Nah, we're getting crammed in. Closer and closer.
> Houses are now smaller than they used to be. Gardens are being sold off and built on and now we've got families with 3 or 4 cars, on streets with no off road parking. Plod turning round and saying "the roads were built before we had so many cars"
> IMO tough. VED should be a licence to drive a car on the road, not to use the road as a car park - even less the pavement.
> Pavements are for peds, roads for vehicles. If you can't park safely outside your house, you can't park outside your house. Physical construction of a pavements different to that of a road too, less protection for services....


 
In fairness though, the only time it really becomes an issue is if they impede the flow of traffic or everybody starts fighting over the same bit of space.


----------



## srw (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Well it is hard to argue against cycling on the pavement when you go down this road in Gloucester
> 
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=blenheim road gloucester&hl=en&ll=51.858716,-2.236168&spn=0.000013,0.006856&hnear=Blenheim Rd, Gloucester, United Kingdom&gl=uk&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=51.858487,-2.236364&panoid=fGqsXtDs6NRIYe46WRhjlQ&cbp=12,207.42,,0,19.18


Very easy to argue - parking shouldn't be allowed at all on that road. It's a death-trap.


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

srw said:


> Very easy to argue - parking shouldn't be allowed at all on that road. It's a death-trap.


 
So where do the residents park then ? The person I visited reckon that each house has at least couple of cars and it becomes a real scrum for parking in the evening.


----------



## theclaud (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> So where do the residents park then ? The person I visited reckon that *each house has at least couple of cars* and it becomes a real scrum for parking in the evening.


 
I feel a no-brainer coming on...


----------



## youngoldbloke (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Well it is hard to argue against cycling on the pavement when you go down this road in Gloucester


 
Interesting point. There is a new estate nearby which was built with shared use pavements - in that they are the same level as the road surface, minimal kerb, only the finish is different. Cars are parked partly on this 'pavement'. There are no signs specifying anything. Have often wondered what the legal position was.


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

theclaud said:


> I feel a no-brainer coming on...


 
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.


----------



## srw (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 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.


It could, but such an argument would be what is known in the trade as "total bollocks".


----------



## Andy_R (29 Jun 2012)

Perhaps a resident only parking permit system, with one permit per house. Quite simply, if there isn't enough room to park safely, then don't park


----------



## gambatte (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> In fairness though, the only time it really becomes an issue is if they impede the flow of traffic or everybody starts fighting over the same bit of space.


Nah again, residential areas are just that, residential, not car parks. Cars shouldn't take priority. I'd put double yellows down one side of that road and enforce them.


----------



## junglegusset (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 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.



Easy tiger!


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

Andy_R said:


> Perhaps a resident only parking permit system, with one permit per house. Quite simply, if there isn't enough room to park safely, then don't park


 
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.


----------



## rusky (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 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.


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


----------



## gambatte (29 Jun 2012)

[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 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 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 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 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 (29 Jun 2012)

snorri said:


> .......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 (29 Jun 2012)

snorri said:


> .......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 (29 Jun 2012)

Andy_R said:


> 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 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 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 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 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 (29 Jun 2012)

rusky said:


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


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


----------



## theclaud (29 Jun 2012)

[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 (29 Jun 2012)

[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 (29 Jun 2012)

[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 (29 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> How many did you count as a ratio,


----------



## Linford (29 Jun 2012)

[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 (30 Jun 2012)

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]


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (30 Jun 2012)

Well...it's a pet hate of mine.

If a car is on the pavement I will under no circumstances walk on the road. I have been known to run ahead of my wife (who was pushing her elderly mother in a wheel chair) and push back parked cars wing mirrors to make room, and that's something I do with very little care or attention ..if I set an alarm offI don't care, if I scratch a car (though I would never do it on purpose out of malice or anger) I equally don't care.

I'm sure this makes me petty to the point of OCD.. But if there's no space for me, a wheelchair, a pram ect then I find them as deplorable as people who park in disabled spots.

Quick question....say my 4 year old son is on the pavement and he falls into a stationary car that's parked on the pavement and scratches it...who's liable? Equally, say an blind person accidentally scratches the paintwork trying to squeeze past a parked car who's liable for the damage?


----------



## Andy_R (30 Jun 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> Well...it's a pet hate of mine.
> 
> If a car is on the pavement I will under no circumstances walk on the road. I have been known to run ahead of my wife (who was pushing her elderly mother in a wheel chair) and push back parked cars wing mirrors to make room, and that's something I do with very little care or attention ..if I set an alarm of I don't care, if I scratch a car (though I would never do it on purpose out of malice or anger) I equally don't care.
> 
> I'm sure this makes me petty to the point of OCD.. But if there's no space for me, or a wheelchair, pram ect then I find them as deplorable as people who park in disabled spots.


Wing mirrors on cars parked on the footpath do not like me


----------



## subaqua (30 Jun 2012)

gambatte said:


> 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


 
yes because its always the toffs who call kids sily names and must drive them to school. never anybody from the chavvier households.


----------



## gambatte (30 Jun 2012)

I guess I'm disliked on those rare occasions I do the school run in the car. Our lass usually walks the little darlings, it's less than a mile.
The usual is for cars to be pavement parked on both sides of the local roads, allowing one narrow lane down the middle. Being unused to the school run timings, I tend to set off early... and park as I was taught.


----------



## gambatte (30 Jun 2012)

subaqua said:


> yes because its always the toffs who call kids sily names and must drive them to school. never anybody from the chavvier households.


Not in my experience - thats why I also put 'kylie'. Our local 'kylie' is definite low class chav


----------



## subaqua (30 Jun 2012)

pah, thats nothing . the Local authority here ( LBWF) have been converting 2 lane roads to single lanes removing the nice wide lane we could cycle in. extending the pavement and letting cars park wholly off road.

Alexandra road E10 is a great example.


----------



## Andy_R (30 Jun 2012)

gambatte said:


> I guess I'm disliked on those rare occasions I do the school run in the car. Our lass usually walks the little darlings, it's less than a mile.
> The usual is for cars to be pavement parked on both sides of the local roads, allowing one narrow lane down the middle. Being unused to the school run timings, I tend to set off early... and park as I was taught.


Awkward bugger!


----------



## gambatte (30 Jun 2012)

The ironic thing is that after months of paying no attention to complaints about parking, the local plod and council turned up ticketing after a 2 year old got knocked down and hospitalised. The ironic part being that the mother of the kid that got knocked down was one of the worst offenders. Big chelsea tractor, usually pavement parked on the mouth of a junction.


----------



## subaqua (30 Jun 2012)

gambatte said:


> The ironic thing is that after months of paying no attention to complaints about parking, the local plod and council turned up ticketing after a 2 year old got knocked down and hospitalised. The ironic part being that the mother of the kid that got knocked down was one of the worst offenders. Big chelsea tractor, usually pavement parked on the mouth of a junction.


 
not that i want to see people, especially innocent kids, get hurt but thats Karma.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (30 Jun 2012)

subaqua said:


> pah, thats nothing . the Local authority here ( LBWF) have been converting 2 lane roads to single lanes removing the nice wide lane we could cycle in. extending the pavement and letting cars park wholly off road.
> 
> Alexandra road E10 is a great example.


 
Probably a road narrowing scheme in preparation for something else. If it were Rotherham I'd be looking for the nice new road humps next.


----------



## subaqua (30 Jun 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Probably a road narrowing scheme in preparation for something else. If it were Rotherham I'd be looking for the nice new road humps next.


 
its one of the approaches to the olympic park notrh Plaza. The same Rd where residents were given a grand by the borough to tart up the front of their houses. £200K in total- but they close a library citing no funds for the £200K a year to run it.

LBWF the borough that wants to make you fat and stupid ( i am part way there on both i think  )

i have been cut up several times , 1 even tried to undertake me. sadly i didn't have the vid cam on that day.


----------



## GrasB (30 Jun 2012)

Parking on the pavement has to be taken in context. There are some places where it's obnoxiously anti-social at best & at worst down right dangerous. However there are other places where it's a sensible thing to do.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> So where do the residents park then ? The person I visited reckon that each house has at least couple of cars and it becomes a real scrum for parking in the evening.


 

So where do the residents walk then ? The person I visited uses a wheelchair and it becomes a real scrum for getting out in the evening.

Surely we have not yet reached the point where parking is considered more important than the mobility of individuals and the necessity to use the pavement


----------



## Linford (30 Jun 2012)

Andy_R said:


> 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]


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

I just love the way people try to differentiate between motorists and pedestrians as some sort of different species.
It is just quite a ridiculous notions, and worse than that, some bright spark idiot working for local government with then try and flog resident only permits at £100 PA to stop non residents parking there and then dish out 3 permits per household 

This is the way it works down there. They keep the pavement clear on one side, and allow the vehicles to straddle the other side. The vehicles straddling the pavement leave enough room for people to access their properties in the same way that houses with front gardens will have a gate into it only the width of the footpath to the front door. The down side is that they need to cross the road to gain access to the pavement on the other side of it.

There are many instances where this is in fact the norm in villages up and down the country.


----------



## Linford (30 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> So where do the residents walk then ? The person I visited uses a wheelchair and it becomes a real scrum for getting out in the evening.
> 
> Surely we have not yet reached the point where parking is considered more important than the mobility of individuals and the necessity to use the pavement


 

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....


----------



## Andy_R (30 Jun 2012)

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.



Linford said:


> 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 (30 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 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 (30 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 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 (30 Jun 2012)

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 (30 Jun 2012)

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 (30 Jun 2012)

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 (30 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> 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 (30 Jun 2012)

snorri said:


> 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 (30 Jun 2012)

Andy_R said:


> 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 (30 Jun 2012)

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


----------



## snorri (30 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 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 (30 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 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 (30 Jun 2012)

snorri said:


> 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 (30 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (30 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 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.


----------



## Linford (30 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1912800, member: 45"]Go and do one of your ratio things and find out how many of those residents chose to live there....[/quote]

I would actually say a fair few consciously have made that choice.


----------



## snorri (30 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> I would actually say a fair few consciously have made that choice.


It's just amazing the conclusions one can draw from a single Streetview picture.


----------



## Linford (30 Jun 2012)

snorri said:


> 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.


 
And then we go back to the thing about discriminating against people who see a car as a status symbol and feel a requirement as a statutory one which needs to be satisfied.


----------



## Linford (30 Jun 2012)

snorri said:


> It's just amazing the conclusions one can draw from a single Streetview picture.


 
I drove down there the other day as I was visiting one of the neighbouring streets (which was actually laid out in exactly the same way) There were more working vehicles there then, but it was evening time.


----------



## snorri (30 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> And then we go back to the thing about discriminating against people who see a car as a status symbol and feel a requirement as a statutory one which needs to be satisfied.


Eh?


----------



## Linford (30 Jun 2012)

snorri said:


> Eh?


 
The working vehicles are almost all taxi and private hire cars and vans, and the owners live here because it is the centre of their community, place of prayer is on the doorsetp, as is the location of the specialist food marts, schooling to cater specifically for religious teaching etc etc.
The demography of the area is the same as is being discussed in another thread now in this section and clarified specifically in this particular post - The yawning gulf between cyclists and non-cyclists.

Ride a cycle in this area and you are considered to be impoverished, and car ownership is something to aspire to and take pride in.


----------



## Andy_R (30 Jun 2012)

You just dont get it, do you? Whilst parking their cars on the footpath, they are motorists. Causing an obstruction for pedestrians.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Jun 2012)

Is a three seater settee a necessity?


----------



## gambatte (30 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Is a three seater settee a necessity?


Its zero emisssion, but try parking it on the road....


----------



## Andy_R (30 Jun 2012)

gambatte said:


> Its zero emisssion, but try parking it on the road....


The council would come down on you like a ton of bricks for inconveniencing motorists


----------



## Andy_R (30 Jun 2012)

You'd probably be made to park it on the footpath instead


----------



## srw (30 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> And then we go back to the thing about discriminating against people who see a car as a status symbol and feel a requirement as a statutory one which needs to be satisfied.


Which is still bollocks.

Some councils have bitten the bullet. Our flat is in a block of 11. 6 flats have on-site parking. The others fight for residents-only on-street parking. For which there is a waiting list. 

The flat is on an A-road through a large market town.


----------



## Andy_R (30 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> 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.


 


Linford said:


> I would actually say a fair few consciously have made that choice.


 
Come on Linford, make your mind up.....forced to live there or choose to live there.....


----------



## PK99 (30 Jun 2012)

srw said:


> Which is still bollocks.
> 
> Some councils have bitten the bullet.* Our flat is in a block of 11. 6 flats have on-site parking*. The others fight for residents-only on-street parking. For which there is a waiting list.
> 
> The flat is on an A-road through a large market town.


 
Built since 2001? ie when Prescott introduced a limit on numbers of parking spaces for new developments?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Jun 2012)

gambatte said:


> Its zero emisssion, but try parking it on the road....


 
Which is the point exactly..... you don't buy a sofa then make demands that you have to be provided with somewhere to put it!


----------



## snorri (30 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> and the owners live here because it is the centre of their community, place of prayer is on the doorsetp, as is the location of the specialist food marts, schooling to cater specifically for religious teaching etc etc.


Are you proposing to have variations in traffic law throughout the land dependent on the ethnicity and religious persuasions of the inhabitants of individual streets?


----------



## al78 (30 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Which is the point exactly..... you don't buy a sofa then make demands that you have to be provided with somewhere to put it!


 
A sofa isn't a car. Just because rules/guidelines apply to one object does not mean that the same rules/guidelines must apply to a completely different object with completely different properties.

There are better ways of getting the point across without resorting to flawed analogies.



Linford said:


> 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....


----------



## gambatte (30 Jun 2012)

al78 said:


> A sofa isn't a car. Just because rules/guidelines apply to one object does not mean that the same rules/guidelines must apply to a completely different object with completely different properties.
> 
> There are better ways of getting the point across without resorting to flawed analogies.


only a car is a car... so we can't refer to anything else? Problem is they keep changing the rule/guidelines to advantage the car driver and in the process disadvantage others.
Hows about this analogy, people are aspirational about holidays. A car can park on there, with a caravan behind, unhitch and you're in trouble.
How much clearer would the roads be if they weren't car parks?


----------



## gambatte (30 Jun 2012)

al78 said:


> A sofa isn't a car. Just because rules/guidelines apply to one object does not mean that the same rules/guidelines must apply to a completely different object with completely different properties.
> 
> There are better ways of getting the point across without resorting to flawed analogies.


only a car is a car... so we can't refer to anything else? Problem is they keep changing the rule/guidelines to advantage the car driver and in the process disadvantage others.
Hows about this analogy, people are aspirational about holidays. A car can park on there, with a caravan behind, unhitch and you're in trouble.
How much clearer would the roads be if they weren't car parks?


----------



## Andy_R (30 Jun 2012)

al78 said:


> A sofa isn't a car. Just because rules/guidelines apply to one object does not mean that the same rules/guidelines must apply to a completely different object with completely different properties.
> 
> There are better ways of getting the point across without resorting to flawed analogies.


Actually, the analogy is rather good. We all aspire to have things, that's just human nature. Sometimes the things we want just won't fit in where we live. So we can't have them or others have to suffer because of our aspirations." If my family want to have four cars, but live in a house with space outside for 1 car, should I deny other people 3 spaces for my families' cars. Of course I should, because I'm greedy, feck you, my needs wishes are more important than your needs."

How does that sound?

I wouldn't want to live near someone like that. Unfortunately, I do though.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (30 Jun 2012)

Andy_R said:


> Actually, the analogy is rather good. We all aspire to have things, that's just human nature. Sometimes the things we want just won't fit in where we live. So we can't have them or others have to suffer because of our aspirations." If my family want to have four cars, but live in a house with space outside for 1 car, should I deny other people 3 spaces for my families' cars. Of course I should, because I'm greedy, feck you, my needs wishes are more important than your needs."
> 
> How does that sound?
> 
> I wouldn't want to live near someone like that. Unfortunately, I do though.


 
Same here. There's a few of them.


----------



## Linford (30 Jun 2012)

User3094 said:


> Linf, Linf, Linf..... please tell me you are not some of ironic racist twonk, cos if you, are Im going to have to "de-friend" you know


 
Absolutely not. I think people should attempt to respect the choices others make for whatever reason they do. The argument put across here is there is no justification for having a couple of cars whilst living in a terrace house, and I say different and presented a perfectly plausible argument which many households will face down there. - some middle class cyclist spouts about the kids living there not being able to own a car which they buy and pay all the bills on because they sometimes have to park outside a neighbours house because dad drives for a living and also keeps his car in the street. If I were them I'd say go spin on it.....about 45rpm


----------



## Linford (30 Jun 2012)

Andy_R said:


> Actually, the analogy is rather good. We all aspire to have things, that's just human nature. Sometimes the things we want just won't fit in where we live. So we can't have them or others have to suffer because of our aspirations." If my family want to have four cars, but live in a house with space outside for 1 car, should I deny other people 3 spaces for my families' cars. Of course I should, because I'm greedy, feck you, my needs wishes are more important than your needs."
> 
> How does that sound?
> 
> I wouldn't want to live near someone like that. Unfortunately, I do though.


 
That is life though. I sacrificed my front garden to park my cars there - just like many of my neighbours also. Not everyone is fortunate as we are though, and so they and their neighbours have to scrap it out like I did when I lived in my old terraced house. I'd rather have to scrap for car parking spaces than have to put up with an inconsiderate one pumping music out of open windows or a back garden based PA system at 1am.

If you live in a terraced street and own a car, don't moan about parking it there - simples


----------



## Linford (30 Jun 2012)

Andy_R said:


> Come on Linford, make your mind up.....forced to live there or choose to live there.....


 
Both


----------



## 400bhp (30 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Well it is hard to argue against cycling on the pavement when you go down this road in Gloucester
> 
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=blenheim road gloucester&hl=en&ll=51.858716,-2.236168&spn=0.000013,0.006856&hnear=Blenheim Rd, Gloucester, United Kingdom&gl=uk&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=51.858487,-2.236364&panoid=fGqsXtDs6NRIYe46WRhjlQ&cbp=12,207.42,,0,19.18


 
Question:

What happens if someone parks in front of a doorway on that street which (from the picture) appears to prevent full access to the front door?

(full access being able to, say, wheel a wheelchair in through the door, or carry a large boxed item).

I can see some argy bargy down that street-shame no-one has installed a cctv down there.


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

400bhp said:


> Question:
> 
> What happens if someone parks in front of a doorway on that street which (from the picture) appears to prevent full access to the front door?
> 
> ...


 
From what I saw, they don't actually do that. The cars still need space front and back to get in and out of the spaces - like any other parking spot. These seemed to match up well with the spacing of the houses. If they do obstruct, I would expect they get told to shift it. Nobody would park down there unless they were visiting someone TBH.


----------



## 400bhp (1 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> From what I saw, they don't actually do that. The cars still need space front and back to get in and out of the spaces - like any other parking spot. These seemed to match up well with the spacing of the houses.


 
Eh?

Look at the pic on google-the only car in clear view is blocking a front door.


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

400bhp said:


> Eh?
> 
> Look at the pic on google-the only car in clear view is blocking a front door.


could be their own house


----------



## 400bhp (1 Jul 2012)

So, everyone has just one car then?

Don't be silly.


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

Still begs the question that the council must have done this to satisfy the residents living there as it isn't strangers dumping their cars on the pavement is it.


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

400bhp said:


> So, everyone has just one car then?
> 
> Don't be silly.


 
covered that further up the page


----------



## 400bhp (1 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Still begs the question that the council must have done this to satisfy the residents living there as it isn't strangers dumping their cars on the pavement is it.


 
So many assumptions in that statement.

Define "satisfy"

If you really wanted to pish of a neighbour it'd be pretty easy.


----------



## 400bhp (1 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> covered that further up the page


 
Sorry, so you if covered this further up the page, then why did you post a poorly conceived reply?


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

400bhp said:


> So many assumptions in that statement.
> 
> Define "satisfy"
> 
> If you really wanted to pish of a neighbour it'd be pretty easy.


 
Erm, the community is a much closer one that you or I live in. There is a mosque near as damned it at each end of the road. I would fully expect neighbours to resolve their differences after prayers before they went to the council to formalise the arrangement. We have lost that sense of community for the greater part which is a great shame.


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

400bhp said:


> Sorry, so you if covered this further up the page, then why did you post a poorly conceived reply?


 
I've just spent 4 hours filming a gig. It's late and I'm fairly knackered since my dog got me up at 5am this morning. I'll take a look tomorrow.


----------



## srw (1 Jul 2012)

PK99 said:


> Built since 2001? ie when Prescott introduced a limit on numbers of parking spaces for new developments?


Yes, but there's no room in the development for more than 6 spaces, even if all the gardens were tarmaced over.


----------



## srw (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913203, member: 45"]You think that because they're all brown they all get on really well??[/quote]
You know, I really think he does. Both that they're all brown, and that therefore they get on really well.

Frankly nothing would surprise me any more about Linford.

This argument is probably a completely irrelevant one anyway - a combination of recession, increasing fuel prices and the availability of other options will see private car use begin to wither fairly spectacularly within the next 20 years or so.


----------



## gambatte (1 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> If you live in a terraced street and own a car, don't moan about parking it there - simples


Exactly, we agree. The streets been there longer than the residents. If you decide to get a car, you know the parking situation. Don't park on the pavement. Don't double park. If you can't park outside your house or even on your street, park further away.
Simples.


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913203, member: 45"]You think that because they're all brown they all get on really well??[/quote]

That is an extremely naive thing to say. It isn't the colour, but the community aspect of the prayer meetings which allows people to communicate better than most regular neighbours. My friends will stand chatting outside the mosque after prayer meetings and that is where the differences can better be resolved.



srw said:


> Yes, but there's no room in the development for more than 6 spaces, even if all the gardens were tarmaced over.


 
Do you own a car ?


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913205, member: 45"]No, you're reading it wrong. No-one is saying that those living in terraced houses should only be allowed one car.

We used to live on a terraced street and had two cars. Sometimes we even had to park one around the corner. Big wows.[/quote]

So you shifted your problem elsewhere then, but will stand in judgement now over the residents there ?


----------



## srw (1 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Do you own a car ?


I do, but do not have the right to a parking space for that flat, or a resident's parking permit - others need the space more than me. When I'm down there I usually park the car in the office car-park, nearly a mile away, and do this very odd thing called cycling to get between office and flat.


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

srw said:


> I do, but do not have the right to a parking space for that flat, or a resident's parking permit - others need the space more than me. When I'm down there I usually park the car in the office car-park, nearly a mile away, and do this very odd thing called cycling to get between office and flat.


 
So your company is subsidizing your car ownership/cost of accommodation by allowing you to use their parking spaces. Hope the job's a keeper


----------



## srw (1 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> So your company is subsidizing your car ownership/cost of accommodation by allowing you to use their parking spaces. Hope the job's a keeper


It is. And when I no longer work for that company I will no longer need the flat.


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913358, member: 45"]

This thread is full of your judgements linfy, not mine.[/quote]

[QUOTE 1913356, member: 45"]you're making ignorant, prejudiced assumptions.[/quote]


----------



## PK99 (1 Jul 2012)

srw said:


> It is. And when I no longer work for that company I will no longer need the flat.


 
do you pay tax on that as a benefit in kind?


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

srw said:


> It is. And when I no longer work for that company I will no longer need the flat.


 
You will move into a cardboard box on the pavement when you finish working there ? - no wonder you are complaining about the cars parked there.

Will you also give up the luxury of the car which you never drive also ?


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

PK99 said:


> do you pay tax on that as a benefit in kind?


 
Don't expect an answer. Awkward questions prompt long silences from srw when his back is against the wall.


----------



## srw (1 Jul 2012)

PK99 said:


> do you pay tax on that as a benefit in kind?


I don't. I'm no expert on tax, but I believe that parking at an office is not treated as a taxable BIK.

It would be good if it were, of course - it might provide yet another incentive for a more sensible, non-car-based economy.


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913387, member: 45"]Of course this has everything to do with parking on the pavement, and it's a diversion away from the matter at hand...[/quote]

You mean making your problem, someone else's problem and them not feeling responsible for that


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

srw said:


> I don't. I'm no expert on tax, but I believe that parking at an office is not treated as a taxable BIK.
> 
> It would be good if it were, of course - it might provide yet another incentive for a more sensible, non-car-based economy.


 
They pay business rates on not just the building, but also the parking. If they are allowing you to park there, then that is a BIK - which is something which should be declared. You obviously haven't.....


----------



## srw (1 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> They pay business rates on not just the building, but also the parking. If they are allowing you to park there, then that is a BIK


No it's not.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/paye/exb/a-z/c/car-parking-spaces.htm

As I've already said, it would be a sensible step to make it a taxable BIK.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Nobody would park down there unless they were visiting someone TBH.


 
Uniquely so I suspect!

That is why there are now so many resident's parking schemes and controlled parking areas.


In most residential areas, commuting traffic is becoming a massive issue. Drivers commute the long distance to a town, patk n residential areas to avoid car parking charges and then make the final short trip by other means.

I know of one group who take it in turns to do this. All 5 drive into Portsmouth, park in the residential area, get into one car and that then drives to the workplace. 80% savings on car parking charges!


----------



## PK99 (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913387, member: 45"]Of course this has everything to do with parking on the pavement,* and it's a diversion away from the matter at hand..*.[/quote]

It is not actually, if someone does not need to park outside their flat (which has no parking provision) simply because of the largesse of their employer, and accepts that that this a subsidy, then surely that is a benefit in kind not in any way related to the employment contract and should be declared as a taxable benefit,: if it is not so declared then it is hypocritical for that person to criticise others in a similar position vis a vis parking outside their house but who do not have such generous and untaxed perks from their employer.


----------



## PK99 (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913414, member: 45"]Parking at work is a non-taxable benefit.[/quote]

during office hours but not outside working time when the worker commutes by bike - at least not ethically


----------



## PK99 (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913823, member: 45"]Why is parking at work the only alternative to parking outside your house?[/quote]

it is not, but SRW is using his employer' s facilities outside working hours in lieu of paying for parking somewhere on the street. it hypocritical of him to hten take the high moral ground regarding on street parking given that fact.


----------



## srw (1 Jul 2012)

Even though I've said that parking should be taxed? I think you're clutching at straws.


----------



## snorri (1 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Don't expect an answer. Awkward questions prompt long silences from srw when his back is against the wall.


Linf wanders off topic once again, nothing new there then.


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

srw said:


> Even though I've said that parking should be taxed, I'm a hypocrite in my own actions, and I now know I'm clutching at straws trying to defend them.


 
FTFY

Perhaps what you need to do is go and find a pay and display space near your home, and use it. Then you won't be evading what you should morally be paying, and in addition to that, you won't be wasting fuel/destroying the planet by going that extra mile every time you need to drive something too heavy for the bike to your home


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

snorri said:


> Linf wanders off topic once again, nothing new there then.


 
Good to see another member here sees the hypocrisy in the posts of the detractors ^

srw just 'took one for the team'


----------



## PK99 (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913895, member: 45"]Paying for parking on the street?[/quote]
[QUOTE 1913895, member: 45"]Paying for parking on the street?[/quote]

lots of us do that to park outside our houses


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913895, member: 45"]Paying for parking on the street?[/quote]


Perish the thought - A bit like a parking permit


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913917, member: 45"]...and lots of us don't. That's not what this thread is about.[/quote]

That's because you're middle class and can afford a house with a drive in a nice area though. I'll wager that it even has enough space for the missus and kids cars when they pass their test.
You also don't feel a sense of community or else you'd have not moved away from Brum.


----------



## Norm (1 Jul 2012)

I think that this thread is getting close to its time too.

Avoid the personal comments and, if someone come up with something original, that'll be great. Otherwise, it is just regurgitating stuff that's been part-digested many times before.


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

Apology Norm. Perhaps I got a bit close to the knuckle with that one, but I do get frustrated when people object to the way other people live their lives, whilst themselves being in the position to make privileged choices for their families which these residents are unlikely to be able to do.


----------



## Norm (1 Jul 2012)

No worries... I'm just jealous because we haven't got space on the drive for Tarquin's and Ffion's cars in a couple of years.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Absolutely not. I think people should attempt to respect the choices others make for whatever reason they do. The argument put across here is there is no justification for having a couple of cars whilst living in a terrace house, and I say different and presented a perfectly plausible argument which many households will face down there. - some middle class cyclist spouts about the kids living there not being able to own a car which they buy and pay all the bills on because they sometimes have to park outside a neighbours house because dad drives for a living and also keeps his car in the street. If I were them I'd say go spin on it.....about 45rpm



Wrong the argument here is the opposite

I think people should attempt to respect the choices others make for whatever reason they do. The argument put across here is there is no justification for being able to walk down the street with a pram or use a wheelchair whilst living in a terrace house, simply because someone else wants to obstruct the path with their car!

Why not respect the right of individuals to use the pavement?


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Jul 2012)

Norm said:


> No worries... I'm just jealous because we haven't got space on the drive for Tarquin's and Ffion's cars in a couple of years.



Entirely your fault!

The pink Shogun with "My little thoroughbred" stickers on the windows is really a bit ostentatious, and as for the spoilers and MAG wheels on Tarquin's Animal branded Warrior.....

You should have bought them Saxos!


----------



## gambatte (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913205, member: 45"]We used to live on a terraced street and had two cars. Sometimes we even had to park one around the corner. Big wows.[/quote]



Linford said:


> So you shifted your problem elsewhere then, but will stand in judgement now over the residents there ?


 
No, not a problem. he couldn't park outside his house so he parked legally elsewhere.
I used to live on a terraced street, In Doncaster and pretty close to a mosque too.....sometimes I couldn't park my car outside the house, sometimes I couldn't park it on the same street. Simple, park it legally a few streets away.

There was a point where I aspired to motorised personal transport, but I was at my parents, money was tight, parking was tight etc. I got a moped, then a motorbike.

BTW. I wonder at these deprived areas and the legality of the cars there. I remember a few months ago a piece of research quoting Bradford and Birmingham as being capitals of vehicles which weren't road legal (can't remember if that was based on insurance or VED). A few years earlier it was Sheffields Manor top quoted as having the biggest concentration of non taxed vehicles. Maybe a blitz on these would reduce the problem?


----------



## Linford (1 Jul 2012)

gambatte said:


> No, not a problem. he couldn't park outside his house so he parked legally elsewhere.
> I used to live on a terraced street, In Doncaster and pretty close to a mosque too.....sometimes I couldn't park my car outside the house, sometimes I couldn't park it on the same street. Simple, *park it legally a few streets away*.
> 
> There was a point where I aspired to motorised personal transport, but I was at my parents, money was tight, parking was tight etc. I got a moped, then a motorbike.
> ...


 
And this gives someone else your problem......


----------



## gambatte (1 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> And this gives someone else your problem......


No, you're assumption is it's a problem. Why's it a problem?
I can't park on my street, I can't park on my street. I'll park legally somewhere else.
.
Its only a problem if you assume you have a right to park outside your house. You don't.
.
The problem is when I/you/whoever assumes I have a right to park outside my door and park on the pavement or opposite someone so only a Fiat 500 can pass down the road.


----------



## subaqua (1 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Uniquely so I suspect!
> 
> That is why there are now so many resident's parking schemes and controlled parking areas.
> 
> ...


 
sadly CPZs just move the problem further along a road. a better option would be decent pubic(sic) transport that can cope with the numbers that the government want to shovel onto it.

I really do wish that the CPZs by us were free for residents and administered sensibly.


----------



## summerdays (1 Jul 2012)

In my old house we never parked immediately outside our house it was too narrow - the only time was literally to unload something heavy and then immediately move the car. However someone decided to park immediately outside our gate and due to the narrowness - up onto the pavement. I was working in the garden and heard her congratulate herself to her companion on her excellent parking. So I checked with her it was ok to scratch her car when I took out either my bike or the buggy (can't remember which it was) when I left in 10 mins time. She promptly moved the car! And no I couldn't of got out the gate without scratching her car - probably quite badly.

Looking at the original image my immediate thought is trying to walk with a buggy and a toddler - it would be a nightmare. The toddler would be unable to walk beside you and would be unseen by any car driver. We are a one car family - you can share a car. If you are very short of money then it makes sense. At the opposite end of the spectrum I know friends who live in large houses with off street parking in the front garden who share a car with their neighbour or hire a car as necessary and saves money as a result.


----------



## PK99 (1 Jul 2012)

From the scrubbed out double level lines on the LHS of the street in the OP, i suspect residents asked for the parking to be modified as shown


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

summerdays said:


> In my old house we never parked immediately outside our house it was too narrow - the only time was literally to unload something heavy and then immediately move the car. However someone decided to park immediately outside our gate and due to the narrowness - up onto the pavement. I was working in the garden and heard her congratulate herself to her companion on her excellent parking. So I checked with her it was ok to scratch her car when I took out either my bike or the buggy (can't remember which it was) when I left in 10 mins time. She promptly moved the car! And no I couldn't of got out the gate without scratching her car - probably quite badly.
> 
> Looking at the original image my immediate thought is trying to walk with a buggy and a toddler - it would be a nightmare. The toddler would be unable to walk beside you and would be unseen by any car driver. We are a one car family - you can share a car. If you are very short of money then it makes sense. At the opposite end of the spectrum I know friends who live in large houses with off street parking in the front garden who share a car with their neighbour or hire a car as necessary and saves money as a result.


 
I appreciate what you are saying as have a couple of now grown up kids and look after one of their 2 year old and so do have to face these problems on a weekly basis, however there is an unobstructed pavement on the other side of the road though. If there were cars straddling that one also, then I would say the wheelchair/pushchair/toddler on foot argument would stand and take presedence. I can think of quite a few roads where there are back gates/garages straight onto the road on one side of it, and then on the other, cars parked, and beyond that a pavement, and then a front door. I don't actually see much of a difference on principle to this, and often see people pushing wheelchairs in the road as the pavements are too uneven for them.


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1914815, member: 45"]...so how do they ensure that the spaces between cars are wide enough to get a wheelchair through? What's the added level of risk of trying to cross a road with a pushchair between parked cars just because someone won't walk 20 metres?[/quote]

I'd have thought that was fairly obvious - Because the cars still need enough space on one end or another to actually get in and out of the parking space  - fish in a barrel this morning


----------



## srw (2 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> I'd have thought that was fairly obvious - Because the cars still need enough space on one end or another to actually get in and out of the parking space  - fish in a barrel this morning


 What dreadful control you must have of your 4x4. I need about 18 inches each end - only just enough room for a pedestrian, unecumbered by such a frippery as a pushchair or a wheelchair.


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

srw said:


> What dreadful control you must have of your 4x4. I need about 18 inches each end - only just enough room for a pedestrian, unecumbered by such a frippery as a pushchair or a wheelchair.


 
So you aren't worried about boot access when you park up then or that you might give a bit of consideration for the car drivers you are shoehorning your car into ?

My 4x4 has the turning ciricle of the QE2 and if you were to park nose to taill with it like that, you would be asking for trouble. However, I've also got an A-class merc which is the primary runaround, but I'd still think you were a bit of a knob if you got that close as regualr car bumpers are nowhere near as resistant to damage as the steel ones (and tow bar) of my 4x4.

When peopl claim to be both caring for others around you for people on foot, but then careless around their property when parked up on the road, it makes them come across as a bit of a selfish coward.

I hope I'm just reading them wrong as they would make ghastly neighbours....


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Jul 2012)

I still haven't had a reply to the question as to why we should "respect the choice" of those who wish to park on and obstruct the pavement, rather than "respect the choice" of those who wish to use the pavement for access with a pram or wheelchair.

Is that because it is simply an indefensibly arrogant and self centred position


----------



## PK99 (2 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> *I still haven't had a reply to the question as to why we should "respect the choice" of those who wish to park on and obstruct the pavement*, rather than "respect the choice" of those who wish to use the pavement for access with a pram or wheelchair.
> 
> Is that because it is simply an indefensibly arrogant and self centred position


 
If you check out most of the roads around that shown in the op you will see that they have the same parking arrangement ie on road on one side, half on pavement on the other. they also used to have double yellow lines on the "half and half side" which have been painted over to install the half and half bays. You will also note they are in a densely packed residential area, I strongly supect the parking arrangements will have been at the request of residents.

Ohhhh, ain't google good! See the Public notice from the council setting out the current arrangements...... >>> http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/extra/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=47697&p=0

And a local newspaper report on the residents' victory in getting the removal of the double yellow lines >>>> http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...w-Barton-end/story-15790203-detail/story.html


> Four year parking review in Barton almost at an end


 


> More than 1,500 residents signed a petition back in June 2008 lobbying county transport chiefs to solve parking issues in the area. They wanted double yellow lines to be removed so they could park outside their homes.


----------



## theclaud (2 Jul 2012)

PK99 said:


> If you check out most of the roads around that shown in the op you will see that they have the same parking arrangement ie on road on one side, half on pavement on the other. they also used to have double yellow lines on the "half and half side" which have been painted over to install the half and half bays. You will also note they are in a densely packed residential area, I strongly supect the parking arrangements will have been at the request of residents.
> 
> Ohhhh, ain't google good! See the Public notice from the council setting out the current arrangements...... >>> http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/extra/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=47697&p=0
> 
> And a local newspaper report on the residents' victory in getting the removal of the double yellow lines >>>> http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...w-Barton-end/story-15790203-detail/story.html


 
_"They wanted double yellow lines removed so that they could park outside their homes."_

In what sense does this undermine the argument that they are simply selfish? It's rare to meet motorists who don't want things removed to make way for their vehicles - that is no reason to appease them.


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1914882, member: 45"]Grow up linf.

Whatever space you need to get your car into a parking slot is halved when you centre up. The car either side will have another half the other side of it, enough to be able to reverse and pull out, but often (and more so in a street like this where people are desperate to get close to their house) not enough for a wheelchair. If a pushchair can fit, it's hidden from view as you're trying to cross because John likes no more than two strides to his front door.[/quote]

Well I keep a push chair in the boot of both of my cars, and if I park in a tight spot, will pull forward to give me clearance to open the boot/hatch, open the push chair up, and still give me space to close the boot afterwards as trying to do this on the pavement when people walk past means you are usually in their way - how long has it been since you had small kids in your car as you haven't taken this into accouint at all ?


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

theclaud said:


> _"They wanted double yellow lines removed so that they could park outside their homes."_
> 
> In what sense does this undermine the argument that they are simply selfish? It's rare to meet motorists who don't want things removed to make way for their vehicles - that is no reason to appease them.


 

If 1500 people signed the petition, then I'd say that the objectors are in the minority and not acknowledging what the majority residents really want or need - and that in my book is a selfish stance to take.


----------



## theclaud (2 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> If 1500 people signed the petition, then I'd say that the objectors are in the minority and not acknowledging what the majority residents really want or need - and that in my book is a selfish stance to take.


 
I'm sure you would say that, but then a lot of what you say is cobblers.


----------



## PK99 (2 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1914956, member: 45"]Wheelchair linf. Wheelchair.

.[/quote]

on the streets in question, disabled residents have disabled bays stretching across the full width of their property (see street view)


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

theclaud said:


> I'm sure you would say that, but then a lot of what you say is cobblers.


 
What an incredibly arrogant and sniffy attitude to take.


----------



## srw (2 Jul 2012)

PK99 said:


> on the streets in question, disabled residents have disabled bays stretching across the full width of their property (see street view)


A bay which is just about long enough for what looks like a Corsa - with about 18 inches at each end.


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1914956, member: 45"]Wheelchair linf. Wheelchair.

It's very tempting to show you up by demonstrating the level of contact that I have with children and disabled people, but I don't need to.[/quote]

Yes, I also carry one of those as well when I take the in laws out. there isn't a huge difference in width between the two if you put a tape measure across them, and many people with disabled badges park wherever they like.


----------



## PK99 (2 Jul 2012)

srw said:


> A bay which is just about long enough for what looks like a Corsa - with about 18 inches at each end.


 
clearly i should have been more specific- on the half and half parking side of the road (ie the issue this thread is about), there is a disabled bay outside number 53 (one street view step back) which stretches across the whole frontage of the house.


----------



## theclaud (2 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> What an incredibly arrogant and sniffy attitude to take.


 
Thank you. I work at it. Mr Paul is doing a good enough job at taking what passes for your argument to pieces. I can simply relax and enjoy the spectacle, and think of creative ways to interfere with the next 4x4 I see parked on a pavement.


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

theclaud said:


> Thank you. I work at it. Mr Paul is doing a good enough job at taking what passes for your argument to pieces. I can simply relax and enjoy the spectacle, and think of creative ways to interfere with the next 4x4 I see parked on a pavement.


 
You might try taking those rose tinted glasses off, You might be ableto see a bit more clearly


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1915045, member: 45"]Are wheelchair users only allowed to roll between their own car and their own front door then?[/quote]

They can go wherever they like - on the pavement on the other side or the road - most seem to prefer the roads though as already discussed ^


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1915051, member: 45"]or she might just be right.:/[/quote]

You know what they say about opinions


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1915056, member: 45"]So you haven't really had much experience of the problem then. Come back when you have and then you might have something of value to say.[/quote]

You have had no real experience of motorcycing, or 4x4 ownership, but that never stops you from trying to dictate to those who do


----------



## srw (2 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> You have had no real experience of motorcycing, or 4x4 ownership, but that never stops you from trying to dictate to those who do


 Ahem.

4x4 or motorbike use is a choice.
Wheelchair use is rarely a choice.

I've got a spare shovel if you want to keep digging your own grave.


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1915071, member: 45"]I tell it like it is. It's only the terribly insecure who interpret this as control.[/quote]

Being a control freak is entirely different to actually controlling the actions of others. One is a psychological problem, the other functioning with a bit of authority.
I can differentiate between the two, and happily the former doesn't float my boat - I say live and let live, what say you ? - You have the right to remain silent


----------



## theclaud (2 Jul 2012)

WTF is he on about? Is he ever going to write anything that makes any sense?


----------



## srw (2 Jul 2012)

theclaud said:


> WTF is he on about? Is he ever going to write anything that makes any sense?


 No. I reckon successive incarnations of "Linf" are attempts at the Turing Test. Eventually they all fail.


----------



## subaqua (2 Jul 2012)

srw said:


> What dreadful control you must have of your 4x4. I need about 18 inches each end - only just enough room for a pedestrian, unecumbered by such a frippery as a pushchair or a wheelchair.


 
I too only needed about 18 inches room , and have done it with a lot less on several occasions , to get my 4x4 out of a end to end space


----------



## subaqua (2 Jul 2012)

User3094 said:


> I on the hand, am fricking useless at parking, yet i have an extraordinarily large penis.
> 
> Go figure?


 on your head or in a display cabinet like a trophy

some of us have both attributes great at parking etc


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

subaqua said:


> I too only needed about 18 inches room , and have done it with a lot less on several occasions , to get my 4x4 out of a end to end space


 
Well, yes, I know how to parallel park also, but when the lock is not brilliant (due to the 31" dia tyres), you can end up totally mashing your tyres and steering box working into place so I find it better to avoid the tight spaces where possible


----------



## mangaman (2 Jul 2012)

theclaud said:


> WTF is he on about? Is he ever going to write anything that makes any sense?


 
Well you know what they say about monkeys and typewriters.

I suppose in about 2219 he might write a sensible sentence by pressing the wrong keys or something.


----------



## mangaman (2 Jul 2012)

User3094 said:


> I on the hand, am fricking useless at parking, yet i have an extraordinarily large penis.
> 
> Go figure?


 
Come on Linford, answer that.

You're the self-appointed parking expert.

How can you explain Smeggers' parking penis paradox?


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

mangaman said:


> Come on Linford, answer that.
> 
> You're the self-appointed parking expert.
> 
> How can you explain Smeggers' parking penis paradox?


 
I say...I do believe you've got your dander up. I understand that you can get help for that


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1915406, member: 45"]I do believe that I had to educate you on the physics of counter-steering on a motorcycle, and explain how the emissions on your old exhaust were measured.

But hey, that has nothing to do with our current culture of 2 legs bad, 4 wheels essential...[/quote]

Who says 2 legs are bad ? I walk miles at the weekends around my town. In any case, if you felt they weren't essential, you'd not be running 2 cars yourself would you.


----------



## Andy_R (2 Jul 2012)

Back to the point in question, pavement parking. Does the roadbed extend under the footpath? If not, who's going to pay for the repairs to the footpath when it fails due to excessive pressure from vehicles?


----------



## subaqua (2 Jul 2012)

Andy_R said:


> Back to the point in question, pavement parking. Does the roadbed extend under the footpath? If not, who's going to pay for the repairs to the footpath when it fails due to excessive pressure from vehicles?


 
depends on how it was constructed in the 1st place. a lot of roads were built at one width and a kerb laid to mark pavement with the substructure being the same . then the cheap nasty developer came along


----------



## Linford (2 Jul 2012)

I'd say that the houses in these roads are at least 100 years old


----------



## gambatte (3 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1915957, member: 45"]You also need to consider how deep the utilities have been buried.[/quote]
Which is where i was cming from several pages ago.
case in point. Works just moved, but where we were upto a couple of months ago - Rawmarsh road in Rotherham. The roads been there a consderable time. I've seen pictures, 1920s, it's obviously the same road. One of the local companies has a constant supply of wagons. They seem to feel they can pavement park and that the use of the hazard warning light negates the power of the double yellow.
In the two and a half years I had experience of walking past, into town, I never saw the road dug up or any problem with the surface. However the pavement has a definite deep dip, just about where the wagons wheels sit. Over a 50 yard stretch I saw the pavemnet dug up twice to repair water mains that were leaking, upwards onto the pavement. There were also 2 or 3 other times I saw the pavement dug up. Contractors vehicle, so you couldn't identify who they were, but they were digging up the pavement within the same physical parameters.
I wonder whose water bills the cost of those repairs were on?


----------



## subaqua (3 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> I'd say that the houses in these roads are at least 100 years old


 

originally cobbled ?? if so then its unlikely that the footpath was constructed as well as the road bed. 

talking to the civil engineer on site ( thats an oxymoron if there ever was one) in his VHO the 1930s to the 1950s were the best constructed roads on housing developments.


----------



## Linford (3 Jul 2012)

subaqua said:


> originally cobbled ?? if so then its unlikely that the footpath was constructed as well as the road bed.
> 
> talking to the civil engineer on site ( thats an oxymoron if there ever was one) in his VHO the 1930s to the 1950s were the best constructed roads on housing developments.


 

Well, if it is a weight per axle issue, then there is at least some saving grace. It is usually buses and HGV's which cause this sort of problem (indicated further up there) You will never get anything bigger than a 7.5 tonne truck up there for deliveries. the only possible issue I might forsee is broken slabs due to poor work by untility contractors not compacting the substrate properly after they have dug them up


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Yes, I also carry one of those as well when I take the in laws out. there isn't a huge difference in width between the two if you put a tape measure across them, and many people with disabled badges park wherever they like.



Since when have Blue Badge holders "parked wherever they like"?



It certainly is not within UK law!

This mischievous claim really needs explaining... Or comparing with reality


----------



## Linford (5 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Since when have Blue Badge holders "parked wherever they like"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Next time I'm in town, I'll get some pictures for reference


----------



## gambatte (5 Jul 2012)

maybe they just need to get 1,500 signatures......


----------



## subaqua (5 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Next time I'm in town, I'll get some pictures for reference


 
and ???


----------



## Linford (5 Jul 2012)

subaqua said:


> and ???


 
It will prove that I also live in the real world


----------



## subaqua (5 Jul 2012)

no it proves you have the motor skills to operate a camera


----------



## youngoldbloke (5 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1920991, member: 45"]There is clear guidance about where blue badge holders can and cannot park.

Some ignore the restrictions.[/quote]
- and get tickets like anyone else.


----------



## mangaman (6 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Next time I'm in town, I'll get some pictures for reference


Bloody disabled people.

Most of the trouble in the world can ultimately be traced back to them I believe.


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

mangaman said:


> Bloody disabled people.
> 
> Most of the trouble in the world can ultimately be traced back to them I believe.


 
Do you reckon that one might get one of these new Bently 4x4's on the motability scheme ?


----------



## mangaman (6 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Do you reckon that one might get one of these new Bently 4x4's on the motability scheme ?


No


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

mangaman said:


> No


 
That is a shame, its extra ground clearance would be perfect for climbing onto the pavement when parking up......


----------



## youngoldbloke (6 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1920991, member: 45"]There is clear guidance about where blue badge holders can and cannot park.

Some ignore the restrictions.[/quote]
See Blue Badge Use esp. pages 14-22 - and you *will* get a ticket if you park in the wrong place - for example in a Taxi rank, or a no loading zone. Don't ask me how I know. On the other hand some badge users do park stupidly - in dangerous or obstructive positions on double yellow lines, for example. In contrast to able bodied drivers who never park illegally or badly, of course.


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

User3094 said:


> I always take my mum with me to the cinema (blue badge holder)... means we can park right outside on the double yellows for free, rather than pay 6 quid for the car park.
> 
> I don't think she enjoyed he Human Caterpillar much though


 
About time they handed these badges out to everyone. After all if someone can park on double yellows legally with a badge, the double yellows aren't really neccessary are they, and are just there to make the motorist pay to park in pay and display bays - or to put it another way, paying twice for the same thing (being VED and on road parking) Prius owners should of course pay twice as much in parking bays as regular cars on account of the fact thay they have been given VED exemption on the mistaken assumption that their owners are saving the planet


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

User3094 said:


> My local town has just introduced car park charges. By not being disabled, and therefore sentenced to a lifetime of continuing pain and humiliation, I had to park normally to go to the library.
> 
> It cost me 30 bloody pence. 30 BLOODY PENCE!!!!!
> 
> disgusting


 
And they say it's grim oop north. You'd have to pay a couple of quid for the same priviledge darn sarf.

Bloody favouritism


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

User3094 said:


> By not being disabled, I once had to park on the top floor of a multistorey car park.
> 
> It was right above the shops, but I had to wait 4 minutes for the lift. 4 BLOODY MINUTES!!!!!
> 
> disgusting


 
You know when I took that long haul flight to the states last year, I noticed in the lifts there were stickers saying if you waddle when you walk, you need to take the stairs instead. More people over there are disabled by their obesity related problems than any other condition, and it is classed a disability. Fancy that !!


----------



## mangaman (6 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> That is a shame, its extra ground clearance would be perfect for climbing onto the pavement when parking up......


 
Yes but a Bentley 4*4 is the ultimate in stupidity.

It looks shoot.

You shouldn't park on the pavement at all, especially in such a massive vehicle


----------



## mangaman (6 Jul 2012)

User3094 said:


> Yeh funny how we allow people to become classed as "_disabled_" when theyve done it to themselves.
> 
> I once knew a motorcyclist who lost his hand after crashing his bike. The fool. Hes now classed as "_disabled_".
> 
> Fancy that!


 
I hate disableds. They take up valuable space from Linford *and* they wobble when they walk.

Bastards


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

User3094 said:


> Yeh funny how we allow people to become classed as "_disabled_" when theyve done it to themselves.
> 
> I once knew a motorcyclist who lost his hand after crashing his bike. The fool. Hes now classed as "_disabled_".
> 
> Fancy that!


 
Indeed and something to watch out for. However, the obesity problem over there is called 'death by knife and fork' - quite astonishing how much effort is expended to achieve this.


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

mangaman said:


> I hate disableds. They take up valuable space from Linford *and* they wobble when they walk.
> 
> Bastards


 
In the states of course, it is part of the culture to supersize things, burgers, shakes, wheelchairs etc. The Bentley would be perfect for supersized disabled people due to the huge doors, 600bhp engines, and good suspension. You aren't going to get many supersized people in regular cars once they get over a certain point.


----------



## benb (6 Jul 2012)

My local council has taken the decision not to enforce double yellow lines, if the person parking there is displaying a blue badge. My response to this was WTF!

If there are not enough disabled spaces in the car parks, then make more, by removing regular spaces. I can't fathom how it's ever OK to park on a double yellow. Either it's an appropriate place to park, or it isn't. If it is, make it into a parking bay (disabled only if you want); if it isn't then don't allow anyone to park there.

It causes access problems getting into and out of my (cul-de-sac) road, as it means the road is now single file. Also they frequently partially block the pavement.

I have written to the council, but they simply stated their policy, without justifying it.


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> My local council has taken the decision not to enforce double yellow lines, if the person parking there is displaying a blue badge. My response to this was WTF!
> 
> If there are not enough disabled spaces in the car parks, then make more, by removing regular spaces. I can't fathom how it's ever OK to park on a double yellow. Either it's an appropriate place to park, or it isn't. If it is, make it into a parking bay (disabled only if you want); if it isn't then don't allow anyone to park there.
> 
> ...


 
They removed on road parking around here to ensure the car parks filled up (which they get rates from ) I would envisage that is the case in most towns. It is mostly about raising revenue because free parking is always going to fill up before the paid parking is.


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1921890, member: 45"]They need to raise the money somewhere. It's a win-win. Either drivers are encouraged out of their vehicles, or they're justifiably paying a bit more for their oversubsidised lifestyle choice.[/quote]

The motorr industry, and vehicle use is far too important to stifle. They need cars on the road to keep commerce moving and also to help cover the debts run up by all the government spending.


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1921908, member: 45"]Personal vehicle use is different to commercial vehicle use.

The only reason that things are allowed to remain as bad as they are is that any changes are vote losers.

Let's not bother with the DM government spending guff, eh? We need money to run the country.[/quote]

The last lot bankrupted the country by being far too generous in rewarding its workers who for the greater squandered any opportunity it might have brought with incompetence and bad decision making.

How many projects for centralisation of gov resources, and super networks been canned after billions have been expended, and that the massive IOU's have been written to support the gold plated pensions of the gov workers who retire young, and only ever put in a fraction of what the gov has promised to pay out ?


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1922001, member: 45"]OK then, you get the DM guff out of the way, and then we can move on....[/quote]

I wish it were guff. We are looking into a black hole with this, and the contributions being paid by the gov workers today are actually being paid into the bank accounts of the previous gov workers as pensions. You aren't investing in a pension pot,, but merely buying an IOU multiplier which will then be paid from printing money, and the contributions of the fellow gov workers who will remain in employment after you have retired.


----------



## youngoldbloke (6 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> I wish it were guff. We are looking into a black hole with this, and the contributions being paid by the gov workers today are actually being paid into the bank accounts of the previous gov workers as pensions. You aren't investing in a pension pot,, but merely buying an IOU multiplier which will then be paid from printing money, and the contributions of the fellow gov workers who will remain in employment after you have retired.


I thought this was the way the National "Insurance" scheme has always worked.


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

User3094 said:


> Any chance of some actual _facts_ then?


 
http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/finance/n...-predicted-within-three-years/5038842.article

What this means in real terms is that the greater sum of money being paid in is being paid straight back out again, and by next year, all of it will be paid out, and then more money printed to make up the shortfall. This is just the NHS. The black hole is growing year on year any any money previously hived away will get swallowed up very soon.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> Next time I'm in town, I'll get some pictures for reference



Which will prove zilch!

Blue Badge holders cannot as you claim park wherever they like

Edited...

In fact from my experience it is the bad drivers who have "borrowed" Great Aunt Lilith's badge (and she is 100 miles away in a care home) that are the ones causing problems


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

User3094 said:


> Fact 1: A single pension scheme that hasnt happened yet, may or may not be in deficit at some point in the future, assuming nothing changes. From a source I cant read or verify, as its subscription only
> 
> Got any more?


 
It stands to reason that if it is going into deficit in the next year, then the contributions being paid in today by the current workers are being paid out tomorrow in their entirety- or else they would not project a deficit.



> The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast the NHS pension scheme will pay out more money than it receives in 2013-14, meaning it will require a £500m Treasury bailout.
> The OBR’s analysis shows spending by the NHS pension scheme in 2011-12 will leap by £600m from the government’s own forecast in March to £7.7bn. Predicted payments into the scheme – which come from both NHS employees and employers – have also been revised down this year, by £400m to £8.5bn.
> By 2015-16 the NHS pension scheme will be in deficit by £1.2bn, even though a £200m surplus was predicted six months ago.
> The OBR report said the rise in predicted payouts “reflects the latest in-year data, which shows an increase in retirement and average lump sum payments, and higher than expected pension lump sum commutation rates over the last couple of years”.


----------



## Linford (6 Jul 2012)

User3094 said:


> Whose reason, yours? But yes, I agree. Its the wider conclusions your draw from this about the public service which dont stack.


 

The rest of the gov dept pension schemes are in an even worse position being already in a deficit position


----------



## benb (6 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> I wish it were guff. We are looking into a black hole with this, and the *contributions being paid by the gov workers today are actually being paid into the bank accounts of the previous gov workers as pensions*. You aren't investing in a pension pot,, but merely buying an IOU multiplier which will then be paid from printing money, and the contributions of the fellow gov workers who will remain in employment after you have retired.


 
You mean like all pension schemes work then?


----------



## srw (6 Jul 2012)

Linford said:


> The rest of the gov dept pension schemes are in an even worse position being already in a deficit position


 Careful - "deficit" has a very specific meaning in pensions that you aren't really showing you understand.

PAYG schemes, like most public sector schemes, can be in deficit in a single year but still expected to be in surplus over the lifetime of the members.

Funded pension schemes are currently in deficit (over the lifetime of members) because interest rates are at historically abnormally low levels.


----------



## gambatte (6 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> In fact from my experience it is the bad drivers who have "borrowed" Great Aunt Lilith's badge (and she is 100 miles away in a care home) that are the ones causing problems


 
I remember, round here a year or 2 ago they decided to have a blitz on blue badge abuse. Standard tactic was to spot a car parked in a way that would require use of the blue badge privilege to be legal.
They then called home telephone number of the badge holder. You'd be surprised how often it was answered .
You might not be surprised of the amount of people who said as an excuse in court, they thought what they were doing was legal......


----------



## 400bhp (6 Jul 2012)

srw said:


> Careful - "deficit" has a very specific meaning in pensions that you aren't really showing you understand.
> 
> PAYG schemes, like most public sector schemes, can be in deficit in a single year but still expected to be in surplus over the lifetime of the members.
> 
> *Funded pension schemes are currently in deficit (over the lifetime of members) because interest rates are at historically abnormally low levels*.


 
Partially.

There's many reasons and that is one of them. 40% increase in life expectancy over the last 30 years and is expected to contine to increase, poor asset returns, increasing inflation expectations to name but 3.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> You mean like all pension schemes work then?


 
Nope, most don't work like that, in particular the private sector schemes. See srw's reply.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Jul 2012)

gambatte said:


> I remember, round here a year or 2 ago they decided to have a blitz on blue badge abuse. Standard tactic was to spot a car parked in a way that would require use of the blue badge privilege to be legal.
> They then called home telephone number of the badge holder. You'd be surprised how often it was answered .
> You might not be surprised of the amount of people who said as an excuse in court, they thought what they were doing was legal......


 
Sadly there is also a black market for stolen or forged Blue Badges!


----------



## srw (6 Jul 2012)

400bhp said:


> Partially.
> 
> There's many reasons and that is one of them. 40% increase in life expectancy over the last 30 years and is expected to contine to increase, poor asset returns, increasing inflation expectations to name but 3.


You're probably more familiar with more schemes than me. But having watched one particular scheme rack up an increase in accounting deficit [and yes, I know accounting deficit isn't real deficit - but then I'd argue that "real" deficit isn't actually real, since I don't hold with the tenets of market-consistent valuation] over the last year or so as big as the total increase in deficit over the previous ten from all the other factors you mention - I know what I think is the most important.


----------



## david k (7 Jul 2012)

Moodyman said:


> I think parking on the pavement makes sense where the road is narrow and the pavement is wide enough to lose a little to cars.
> 
> So long as pedestrians and pushchairs are not hindered.


 
true to a certain extent, i remember pushing a pram and having to walk on the road when cars were parked on the pavement blocking my way. could they not park round the corner and walk 50 yards to save pedestrians having to walk on the road?


----------



## subaqua (7 Jul 2012)

gambatte said:


> I remember, round here a year or 2 ago they decided to have a blitz on blue badge abuse. Standard tactic was to spot a car parked in a way that would require use of the blue badge privilege to be legal.
> *They then called home telephone number of the badge holder. You'd be surprised how often it was answered* .
> You might not be surprised of the amount of people who said as an excuse in court, they thought what they were doing was legal......


 
so to have a blue badge you have to live on your own ?? thats what the post reads.

when me or wifey take her Mother to the shops in my car and use her blue badge - legal- the other one of us will likely be at her mothers house and would answer the phone. top detective work by your local issuing authority.


----------



## gambatte (7 Jul 2012)

subaqua said:


> so to have a blue badge you have to live on your own ?? thats what the post reads.
> 
> when me or wifey take her Mother to the shops in my car and use her blue badge - legal- the other one of us will likely be at her mothers house and would answer the phone. top detective work by your local issuing authority.


No.
I figured i didn't have to spell it out precisely, seeing as it led to prosecutions I assumed you'd make the leap to there being evidence of illegal use. They phoned and asked to speak to the relevant disabled person.......


----------



## subaqua (7 Jul 2012)

gambatte said:


> No.
> I figured i didn't have to spell it out precisely, seeing as it led to prosecutions I assumed you'd make the leap to there being evidence of illegal use. They phoned and asked to speak to the relevant disabled person.......


 
then post what you mean , otherwise you give Linf ammo .


----------



## gambatte (7 Jul 2012)

Had a look back, apparantly Rotherhams just got an award for being one of the best councils for enforcing blue badge infringements. Unfortunately at the same time it's being overshadowed by a councillor being caught by an enforcement officer, using his wifes blue badge whilst she wasn't present, and the allegations of cronyism and cover up by the local labour party.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Jul 2012)

srw said:


> You're probably more familiar with more schemes than me. But having watched one particular scheme rack up an increase in accounting deficit [and yes, I know accounting deficit isn't real deficit - but then I'd argue that "real" deficit isn't actually real, since I don't hold with the tenets of market-consistent valuation] over the last year or so as big as the total increase in deficit over the previous ten from all the other factors you mention - *I know what I think is the most important.*


 
Fine, but that's not what you said. Clearly as you well know, the discount rate assumption is the greatest factor in any valuation calculation as it affects every cashflow.


----------



## srw (9 Jul 2012)

400bhp said:


> Fine, but that's not what you said. Clearly as you well know, the discount rate assumption is the greatest factor in any valuation calculation as it affects every cashflow.


Guilty as charged, m'lud. Call it simplification for a numpty.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Jul 2012)

Anyway-wtf are we doing discussing work


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Jul 2012)

I dropped the Mayor of Fareham in it once.

Car parked across the access to a cycle track, on double yellows and difficult to squeeze past

When asked to move it, the driver's attitude was "Tough, It will be moved when we are finished"

Quick photo on the phone (that's why poor quality) and off to the local Paper's "Snap and Send"... who loved it, but the Mayor did not!


----------

