Re: Boris Johnson's bike stolen

  • Thread starter Helen Deborah Vecht
  • Start date



H

Helen Deborah Vecht

Guest
Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>typed

> >>
> >> When you said "These crimes are not victimless", I wondered how often
> >> you thought the crime of illegal parking had victims.

> >
> > sometimes.


> OK, so /mostly/ victimless then.


You forget how often parking endangers or inconveniences others.

In general, a car must cross a cyclist's potential path twice, when
parking and moving off and potentially open the door into their path
when leaving and re-entering the car; That's 4 possible conflicts for
every parking action.

I haven't yet mentioned obstruction of dropped kerbs causing major
wheelchair problems, visibilty and access issues.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:52:40 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I haven't yet mentioned obstruction of dropped kerbs causing major
>wheelchair problems, visibilty and access issues.


Yesterday I saw a white van man park his van at a pedestrian
crossing. Not only did this endanger people using the crossing but
it also made it impossible for bus drivers to stop at the stop
properly (which affected the mobility impaired passenger) and it
also made it more difficult for other motorists to park.

There is a suitable parking place nearby, from which one can carry
items to and from the shop. However, the white man was too bone idle
to find a suitable place to park, instead turning his "I can park
where I like" lights on.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>typed
>
>>>> When you said "These crimes are not victimless", I wondered how often
>>>> you thought the crime of illegal parking had victims.
>>> sometimes.

>
>> OK, so /mostly/ victimless then.

>
> You forget how often parking endangers or inconveniences others.


No I don't. I am talking about parking where it is safe and where it
doesn't cause undue inconvenience.

> In general, a car must cross a cyclist's potential path twice, when
> parking and moving off and potentially open the door into their path
> when leaving and re-entering the car; That's 4 possible conflicts for
> every parking action.


Explain why (if) you think those potential conflicts would be reduced by
staying 60 rather than 65 mins in a 60 min space, or not parking with a
wheel one inch over the line.

> I haven't yet mentioned obstruction of dropped kerbs causing major
> wheelchair problems, visibilty and access issues.


Dropped kerbs are more to do with access to property than with parking.,
I agree though that /they/ are a complete nuisance. The undulating
pavements that they give rise too are a complete pain. Also they reduce
the length of kerbside available to park at - given that they usually
represent vehicle access to fronting properties.

Visibility is a controversial point. Conventional road safety thinking
was to maximise visibility with increased sight-lines. Now the trend is
to reduce them arguing that reducing them leads to more cautious, and
thus safer, actions.

--
Matt B