Dropped kerbs!

[simoncc]

Simon,

Would you manage without your car if your house didn't have a drive?

I bought a house with a drive so I could park my car on it. If I owned horses I'd have bought a house with stables. If I owned a helicopter I'd have bought a house with a landing pad. I wouldn't have expected to keep either my horses or the helicopter on the public roads when I wasn't using them simply because I chosen to buy a terraced house.


A few years ago my council was completely uninterested in the problems terraced house owners had in parking gtheir cars. Those problems were for the houseowner to take care of themselves. Various solutions present themselves. Move and buy a house with a drive, do without a car and use public transport or a bike or put up with having to park your car when and where you could.

Now, when the council tells us it want everyone to stop using cars so much it actively makes car ownership easier and more convenient for a great number of households by selling them guaranteed parking spaces at a very, very low cost. Not very sensisble at all.


If car ownership is made more convenient then care usage will probably go up. Councils should tax residents who have nowhere off-road to park their cars, not provide them with subsidised parking.

 

[tdr1nka]

I can now only imagine Simon's house with a helicopter parked in the road outside.

In America they have coloured kerbs for designated use and fines for their misuse. Oh yeah, that's America.

 

[purplepolly]

I bought a house with a drive so I could park my car on it.

Various solutions present themselves. Move and buy a house with a drive, do without a car and use public transport or a bike or put up with having to park your car when and where you could..

People tend to buy terraced houses becauses they can't afford the ones with drives. What you're actually saying is that we should go back to reserving driving for well-off people. Unfortunately, this is no longer the same country where that set-up worked. We no longer have scores of factories where the poor can work close to home, most households need to have two adults in work so it's hard to live close to both workplaces. We no longer have the public transport infrastructure for it. And lots of workplaces are moving to out of town business parks that are harder to get to.

But, if you think it is that easy, then why don't you set an example and give up the car instead of cricising other people for not doing that?

 

[ufkacbln]

These are two different issues - owning a car and having somewhere to park it is not a right.

It is also not an excuse to inconvenience others. If you cannot park your car legally - then simply park it somewhere else - if you park on a pavement or block a dropped kerb , don't bleat when you get done!

 

[snorri]

But, if you think it is that easy, then why don't you set an example and give up the car instead of cricising other people for not doing that?

Simoncc is not the culprit, the true injustice is the fact that people who cannot afford to own a car are paying through their taxes to provide the space for those who own cars and leave them on the street. This is all part of the subsidy to private motorists from HM government of which so many private motorists are in denial.

 

[theclaud]

Simoncc is not the culprit, the true injustice is the fact that people who cannot afford to own a car are paying through their taxes to provide the space for those who own cars and leave them on the street. This is all part of the subsidy to private motorists from HM government of which so many private motorists are in denial.

Quite.

I love the idea of putting other stuff in parking meter spaces. If you didn't remove it after the time had elapsed, could you get fined, or would they just have to tow your garden away and impound it?

 

[simoncc]

Simon,

I notice you're online, and don't like people not answer questions.

Would you mind awfully then?...



Would you manage without your car if your house didn't have a drive?

Social housing has nothing to do with it. It is ludicrous for a council which openly states it wants to encourage more people to use public transport and bikes to encourage car ownership, and therefore car usage, by making it much more convenient for some people to own a car by providing them with reserved car parking spaces on the public road.

And such parking often has no regard for the income of the owner. The terraced houses on my street are mainly owned by young professionals who own shiny new BMWs, VWs, Saabs and that sort of car. Even though these people could easily afford a house with a drive in most parts of Manchester they freely chose to buy a terraced house in a more expensive part and hey presto the council gives them guaranteed parking for two cars at £30 per year!

About 400 yds away on the main road are some much cheaper, smaller terraced houses presumably owned by people of more modest means. As the road is a major route into Manchester it is double yellow lined for miles, and no residents in those terraces get cheap, guaranteed parking courtesy of the council.

A couple of miles from me it is easily possible to pay £600,000 for a terraced house in a city where the average house price is about a quarter of that. And those residents get reserved parking at £30 per year too. Why?

 

[ufkacbln]

That doesn't answer my question.

Let's say you were in social housing with no drive?

Or are the ruffians not allowed in cars?

If you look at car ownership, it is ethnic minorities, the elderly and..... the lower income groups. Those who are more likely to be in social housing who are least likely to own a car. Figures show that in "deprived areas" represeted b these groups car ownership is less than 40%

 

[ufkacbln]

Another thought.... This is a local road with no parming restrictions, yet the locas decide to park on what should be a grassy verge, but due to the illegal parking is a mudbath

now if you were to do this with a spade it would be criminal damage, but because it ws done witha vehicle it is acceptable?

Do these people have a right to destroy a public amenity?

 

[dynohub]

This may well be a (currently) unsolvable problem.

There are, given the exigences of modern life and the shortcomings and lack of integration of public transport, people who NEED cars.

There are also a lot of people who WANT cars.

These two groups are spread between those with drives and those without drives (including people in social housing - as some social housing is built with parking provision).

It seems to me that society should do what it can to reduce the number of people who NEED cars by encouraging home working, improving public transport, making affordable housing easier to find (and hence making it easier for those on lower incomes to move).

I doubt politicians have the bottle to address the problems though.

Those who WANT cars have a choice over housing - buy somewhere with parking, pay an economic fee for on-road parking (rather than a subsidised one), or don't have a car and use the alternatives - including of course cycling.

(I'll admit to barely needing a car, but I want one because I like the convenience and also enjoy driving. I have however paid of a house with parking. My decision)

 

[simoncc]

yes it does. You claim that people without offroad parking should be dissuaded from having cars.

I asked you what you would do if you didn't have a drive, and gave the example of social housing, as those in it usually don't have a choice as to whether they have a drive or not.

I asked you how you would manage if you didn't have a drive. You're avoiding answering the question.

'I'm alright Jack' seems to be your attitude.

Poor people don't have cars. If you are poor you can't afford one, so where the poor park their cars is not an issue. Car ownership is not universal, and in many genuinely poor parts of Manchester it is possible to see streets of council houses with virtually no cars parked on the road or on the driveways. The reason is simple - most residents can't afford cars.

There is no reason for councils which claim to want people to use public transport to encourage car ownership and use by providing some people with extremely cheap personal parking spaces.

Cheap, council provided, on-road parking spaces can only drive up the value of a property. This is bad news anyone wanting to get on the property ladder.

 

[BentMikey]

So simon, what woudl you do with your car if you had to live in one of these houses?

 

[domd1979]

Simon - you seem to have a fixation that provision of on-street parking is somehow an incentive to car ownership. Since there is a finite amount of space on street, the amount of cars that can be accommodated on street is also finite. If anything the availability of plentiful off-road car parking underpins high levels of car ownership. Most houses with driveways can accommodate a minimum of two cars, often more. In those areas that only have on street parking, you'd be lucky if there were space for one car per household. The logical conclusion is that if you wanted to use residential parking provision to curb car ownership then off-road parking would have to be limited by planning guidance (I think some limits are in PPG13) and/or subject to an annual charge.

 

[ufkacbln]

The other problem is how far to go......

Reviewing "Parking complaints" in the local rag it appears that you should be entitled to a parking space (close to the entrance):

At home
At work
At the station
At the local Town Centre
At the supermarket / superstore
At the Hospital
At your friend's house
At the GP
At the Dentist
At the cinema
Ad infinitum........

So techincally each person needs a minimum of 8 - 10 parking spaces!

Where do we draw the line at this "entitlement"

 

[purplepolly]

If anything the availability of plentiful off-road car parking underpins high levels of car ownership. Most houses with driveways can accommodate a minimum of two cars, often more. In those areas that only have on street parking, you'd be lucky if there were space for one car per household. The logical conclusion is that if you wanted to use residential parking provision to curb car ownership then off-road parking would have to be limited by planning guidance (I think some limits are in PPG13) and/or subject to an annual charge.

A very good point, in fact a lot of semis have provision for 3 or 4 cars (1 in garage, 2 on driveway, 1 on street), and have 3 or 4 cars - the poeple opposite me certainly do, while in the terraces on my side we are restricted by only having on-street parking and only have 1 car per house. Therefore the logical way to reduce car ownership would be to only build new houses without driveways so they only have the 1 on-street space and stop people turning front gardens into more driveway.

As for subsidised parking spaces, if residents were charged a going rate for the space, then everyone else who parks on any public road for any length of time would also have to be charged. On my street, peak parking time is not at night when the residents cars are parked, but during daytime when people are visiting the local hospital or the church. Surely they should pay if we do? And then there's the people stopping to visit the bank or the local shops. They'll all have to pay just to make things fair, although it'll kill off the local shops.