Re: Legality of chaining Bicycles to footway apparatus



J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sun, 08 May 2005 09:08:32 +0100, Not Responding
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>...that shows that it is the /least/ able bodied pedestrians that short
>cut around anti-ped railings. The hypothesis being that the old and
>feeble cannot face the detours so choose to dice with traffic instead.


Many of the things done to "help" pedestrians (in reality make them
less of an inconvenience to drivers) add distance and effort - it's
not a big surprise that the least able bodied are the most likely to
resist the extra effort. Have you read "One False Move"?


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
N

Not Responding

Guest
JNugent wrote:
> Jon Senior wrote:
>
>>JNugent wrote:

>
>>>What I'm saying is that no-one should be allowed to permanently
>>>arrogate a stretch of the highway for their own exclusive use. It is
>>>that arrogation of a public asset for private use which is the
>>>selfish act.

>
>>You are right. Use of any part of the public highway for parking is
>>selfish. This of course extends to both at-home parking, and
>>journey's-end parking.


It's only selfish if it's not paid for. If the car parker repays the
community for the asset he's using then it's simply a fair trade.

> As a matter of unalloyed ideals, I can see the point you are making, but for
> very practical reasons, I can't agree with that more extreme position. Taken
> literally, it would mean that no journey could ever be made by motor vehicle
> (other than by taxi) unless the vehicle-occupants knew in advance that there
> was an off-street space available for their use at their destination - which
> may be in a residential road where there are simply no off-street parking
> facilities available to them (even if there are enough - or none - for the
> residents). It would be the equivalent of insisting that each car was
> preceded by a man on foot carrying a red flag - it would have much the same
> effect for most people.
>
>
>>Parked cars pose a threat to pedestrian
>>visibility when trying to cross roads and to cyclists both on account
>>of reduced visibility and the danger of being "doored". Can we assume
>>then that you would support the removal of all vehicles onto off-road
>>parking such as centralised multi-storey or underground complexes.

>
>
> Where they are available, I could support that, although the facilities I
> most readily envisage consist of the usual off-street driveway and/or
> garage, since we are principally discussing residential quarters rather than
> shopping and business areas.


Only a few estates built in the latter part of the last century have
much off road parking. Land value and design requirements mean that
virtually no developments have any more than an average of 1.5 spaces
per dwellling - and it's usually less.

> AFAICS, what you suggest is already the
> situation in most city and town centres (unless one is lucky enough to be
> given an off-street space at work or by a retailer). Where the street has to
> be kept clear for traffic purposes, double yellows are used. For less
> essential inner-city streets, most councils can't resist the easy income to
> be made from meters or ticket-issuing machines, which I suppose at least has
> the virtue of rationing the kerbside space.


I have to object to that "easy income" bit. Surely the council has a
duty to taxpayers to maximise efficient use of assets. The council /may/
decide that there are community reasons to forego a revenue stream but
the subsidy of people driving expensive cars is hardly likely to qualify.
>
>
>>Strange... you see "fine", I see "toll". If you just pay the "toll",
>>you wont get the "fine". ;-)

>
> I prefer the word "fine". Mad Ken regards all drivers as offenders just for
> having the effrontery to drive.


In a remarkably uncharacteristic attack of free marketeering all Ken is
doing is allowing price rationing of roadspace to replace the communist
style queueing that went before.

>
>>>After a little thought (difficult for you, I know), you'll probably
>>>get to grips with the concept: "all of the road is for everyone's
>>>use".


You've triggered my curiosity; I'm now going off to google to see if I
can find out what the law says about using the highway for storing
things other than motorcars. Providing you're not causing an obstruction
I wonder what you can do? You can store a skip (maybe subject to a
licence) but what else? I have a vision of someone "storing" a shed on
the road instead of a car and keeping bikes in it:)

>>Indeed, see above for my (mini-)treatise on the elimination of on-road
>>parking.

>
>
> Indeed. Yours is a rather more extreme position than mine, but perhaps we
> are along the same vector.


Certainly you're both heading down a road that leads to more expense for
the motorist and (assuming they are rational economic creatures), fewer
cars on the road.
>
>>I stand on a residential road. Without knowing the owners of the
>>various cars that I can see parked, I do not know whether they are
>>local or visitors. A parked car is a parked car; it still
>>appropriates some quantity of the public highway for personal use.
>>The proximity of that vehicle to the owner's property has no bearing
>>on the selfishness of the act.

>
> I don't agree.
>
> Take the example of a resident who has a garage and space for two cars
> off-street, yet chooses to leave one of the household's two cars on the
> road, so that (a) no-one else can park there, and (b) so that he and his
> wife do not have to "shuffle" when the car farthest up the driveway is being
> used. Lots of people do that, nd it is arguably selfish - more so because it
> is unnecessary.


So charge 'em. That'll put a stop to it in a nice simple, easily
enforced manner.

>
> Then take the example of a couple who go several times a year to a
> university town to visit their son or daughter who is studying there. They
> stay for four or five hours before returning... but the address at which the
> student lives is in a residential road and there is no off-street parking.
> Disregarding impractical and extraordinarily-contrived and expensive
> "solutions" like parking several miles away in a town centre car-park and
> taking a taxi there and back, it is hard to see that this is anything other
> than a very reasonable use of the road as parking space.


Er, but what about the people who live *live* in this street? Where do
they park? Far simpler to charge anyone; wherever they live.

> Is the resident parker being selfish? I think there is a good case for
> saying that he is. His actions are unnecessary on any reasonable reading of
> the situation.
>
> Is the visiting parent being selfish? Of course not. Unless they can park,
> their journey is wasted.


Crumbs. I've been travelling widely over the UK and beyond and in the
past 18 months haven't had to park once. Hadn't realised I'd made so
many wasted journeys.

> Where your problem (standing on the residential road) could be addressed is
> by making garaging (at-home parking if you prefer) unlawful. Then you would
> know that the cars belonged either to legitimmate visitors or to
> law-breakers. There would need to be a regime of severe penalty for
> deliberate breach - especially by deception as to correct residential
> address - as the system would probably have to work largely on trust.
>
>
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sun, 8 May 2005 10:13:15 +0100, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> As stated elsewhere, I was perfectly clear about the distinction you
>> draw, I just think it is bogus. Around here it is hard to tell
>> whether a parked car is a resident or a commuter. The problem is the
>> same either way.


>Of course it is.


I could interpret that as an acknowledgement that it's a bogus
distinction. In fact I think I will :)

>But if people were *prevented* by law from garaging on-street (with
>appropriately severe penalties for breach or attempts, whether by mere
>non-compliance or by deception), the difference would become clear.


I am not sure what point you are trying to make. In residents parking
zones people are prevented from parking on street without a permit.
There are other roads around here that have 24 hour parking
restrictions: residents may not park outside their houses at all. As
far as I can tell the only distinction between on-street parking at
the two ends of the journey is the purely accidental one that the
destination tends to have more pressure for road space, so is more
likely to have controlled parking. That doesn't mean this is always
absent at the home end of the journey, and around here it is clearly
enthusiastically present (hence the residents' parking schemes)

>> See, there's that word "garaging" again. Why use a word whose meaning
>> is clearly understood by most people to mean something else, when a
>> perfectly good word (parking) already exists, which has no ambiguity
>> about it? Pointless.


>It is far from pointless. Using two distinct terms (with similar but not
>identical meanings) is normal and everyday in discussion. And using the term
>"garaging" is simpler than repeating the phrase "at-home parking".


Up to a point. What you are doing is using distinct terms with
not-particularly-similar meanings where one of the terms is generally
understood to mean something else entirely.

All of which is semantic juggling, and misses the fundamental point
that the distinction you draw is largely false anyway. You can't
empty the roads of cars without getting rid of the cars themselves.
Most of our towns and cities were largely laid out before the age of
mass private motoring, and many areas have no realistic options for
off-street parking. In any case, what goes on in residential streets
is largely a matter for the people who live there. Making life harder
for residents in order to speed the journey of rat-runners is unlikely
ever to be much of a priority.

>>>> The simple truth is, cars are just about the least space-efficient
>>>> form of urban transport available, especially when not being used
>>>> (which is most of the time of course). Bikes are very
>>>> space-efficient.


>That's nothing to do with the issue. But widening the question well beyond
>the scope of the thread, bikes have their own severe limitations which
>render them unsuitable for the real world everyday requirements of most
>people, no matter how useful they undoubtedly are to a minority for everyday
>transport for commuting and to a larger minority for leisure and exercise.


So you say. Every day I pass people in their cars driving to the
station from houses near me. They take at least twice as long to get
to the station, and it costs them a preposterous amount in parking
fees. But they apparently feel, as you do, that the bike has "severe
limitations". Strangely these limitations very often turn out not to
apply, once an effort is made to test the hypothesis.

For everyday urban commuting (which accounts for a very large number
of journeys) it is hard to think of anything more practical than a
bike. And before you start wittering about having to carry stuff with
you, I've just need reading about a guy who transported a desktop PC
and 17" monitor on a Brompton folding bicycle.

Wouldn't your life be better if the quarter or so of all journeys
which are under 1 mile were done on foot or by bike? Or if an
appreciable proportion of the 60% of single occupancy cars converted
into public transport? Of course it would. But you're not going to
be the one to change, and you're not going to allow anyone to advocate
these alternate modes. Instead you require that the nebulous "they"
should do "something" about the problem which you, and others like
you, create.

>There is nothing wrong with riding a bike, and I have never claimed that
>there is. Let's just not run away with the idea that you can run your
>teenage child and their possessions 175 miles to university and back by bike
>(for instance), stopping at Sainsbury's on the way to stock up with
>provisions. There are many examples as telling as that. Horses for courses,
>and more power to the knees of cyclists.


I do like the examples people come up with to excuse car dependence.
How many times a year do you drive your child 175 miles to Uni with
all possessions? Three? Six, counting both ways? 18 journeys total
over a lifetime? Hire a van six times a year and be done with it.
Better still, share the van hire between two or more whose homes are
more or less on the same route and save some serious cash. My mate
Mike did that when he was a student.

So many of the alleged failures of the bicycle turn out on closer
inspection to be failures of the imagination.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sun, 08 May 2005 10:36:40 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>> (which is most of the time of course). Bikes are very
>> space-efficient. Especially the new bike I've just ordered which,
>> when parked, takes up a space approximately 22" long and high, and
>> under 10" wide. Most cars are bigger than that crushed!


>You're not going for the extended seatpost then?


I am. I suppose that might add a couple of inches? Better bulldoze a
few more tenements to make room to park the thing, then ;-)


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
T

Tom Anderson

Guest
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Not Responding wrote:

> (let me look...ah..."Towards a fine City for People; Public Spaces and
> Public Life - London" (TfL:June 2004)[1])
>
> [1] a supremely interesting document (with lots of pictures). Or
> interesting to those who, like me, have an unhealthy interest in urban
> design. I seem to have retained the .pdf but lost the URL but I'm sure
> google will do the business if you look.


It did:

http://www.gehlarchitects.dk/html/projects/london/pix/28780_TFL_Public_Spaces.pdf

Executive summary here:

http://www.gehlarchitects.dk/html/projects/london/pix/28781_Executive_Summary.pdf

I heard about this report when it came out, but hadn't realised you could
download the whole thing. Thanks for correcting me!

tom

--
OBEY GIANT
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:39:15 +0900, James Annan
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>My mind boggles at the thought that young adults these days still
>apparently need their parents to act as unpaid taxi-drivers even after
>they have gone to university...


I blame the dependency culture fostered by lack of independent
mobility. Oh look! we've come full-circle :)


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
J

James Annan

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I do like the examples people come up with to excuse car dependence.
> How many times a year do you drive your child 175 miles to Uni with
> all possessions? Three? Six, counting both ways? 18 journeys total
> over a lifetime? Hire a van six times a year and be done with it.
> Better still, share the van hire between two or more whose homes are
> more or less on the same route and save some serious cash. My mate
> Mike did that when he was a student.



My mind boggles at the thought that young adults these days still
apparently need their parents to act as unpaid taxi-drivers even after
they have gone to university...

James
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, JNugent
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> Really? So calling on-street parking at home "garaging" is not
>> nebulous and unhelpful in understanding the topic?

>
> Which particular bit of the comprehensive explanation: "I distinguish
> "garaging" (ie, parking at or near the home) from "parking" (ie, at
> the other end of the journey made from home)" do you fail to
> understand?
>
> Please be specific in your response (if any).


'Garaging' is clearly a derivative of 'garage' which is a permanent
roofed structure for storing a car in. A car on the public street is by
definition not garaged, so calling a car parked on the public street
'garaged' is simply an abuse of language. Furthermore, a house owner
has no more (and no less) right in law to park on the street adjacent
to his house than to park on the street adjacent to the restaurant he
is visiting (unless he lives in a resident permit zone), so the
distinction is simply bogus. Finally, a car parked on the street is an
obstruction wherever it is parked, be that adjacent to the owners
residence or otherwise.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
;; This joke is not funny in emacs.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, JNugent
('[email protected]') wrote:

> I explained my terms and use the word "garaging" as a term of art for
> "at home parking". Why wrote "at home parking" every time, when
> "garaging" is so easily distinguishable from "(any old) parking"?


I see a car parked obstructively on the street. What difference does it
make to me whether the owner lives close by or not? It's still parked
on the street.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Tony Blair's epitaph, #1: Tony Blair lies here.
Tony Blair's epitaph, #2: Trust me.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, JNugent
('[email protected]') wrote:

> That's nothing to do with the issue. But widening the question well
> beyond the scope of the thread, bikes have their own severe
> limitations which render them unsuitable for the real world everyday
> requirements of most people, no matter how useful they undoubtedly are
> to a minority for everyday transport for commuting and to a larger
> minority for leisure and exercise. There is nothing wrong with riding
> a bike, and I have never claimed that there is. Let's just not run
> away with the idea that you can run your teenage child and their
> possessions 175 miles to university and back by bike (for instance)


As it happens I recently had to transport my niece 400 miles to
University with all her possessions. I hired a Renault Laguna. I
actually hired it because apart from the comfort the cost of running
the Laguna down to Devon and back - including the hire charge - was
less than the fuel cost of taking my 4x4, but it does demonstrate that
you don't need to actually own a car to do that sort of run once in a
while.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.
 
N

Not Responding

Guest
Not Responding wrote:

>
> You've triggered my curiosity; I'm now going off to google to see if I
> can find out what the law says about using the highway for storing
> things other than motorcars. Providing you're not causing an obstruction
> I wonder what you can do? You can store a skip (maybe subject to a
> licence) but what else? I have a vision of someone "storing" a shed on
> the road instead of a car and keeping bikes in it:)
>


Ah. Probably not on. From the Highways Act 1980:

"If, without lawful authority or excuse -

....

(c) a person deposits any thing whatsoever on a highway to the
interruption of any user of the highway, or,

....

he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on
the standard scale."

But, then again, if a car (which qualifies as "any thing whatsoever")
doesn't cause "interruption of any user", why should a shed of the same
dimensions?
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Not Responding wrote:

> Not Responding wrote:


>> You've triggered my curiosity; I'm now going off to google to see if
>> I can find out what the law says about using the highway for storing
>> things other than motorcars. Providing you're not causing an
>> obstruction I wonder what you can do? You can store a skip (maybe
>> subject to a licence) but what else? I have a vision of someone
>> "storing" a shed on the road instead of a car and keeping bikes in
>> it:)


> Ah. Probably not on. From the Highways Act 1980:


> "If, without lawful authority or excuse -


> (c) a person deposits any thing whatsoever on a highway to the
> interruption of any user of the highway, or,


> he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3
> on the standard scale."


> But, then again, if a car (which qualifies as "any thing whatsoever")
> doesn't cause "interruption of any user", why should a shed of the
> same dimensions?


"Lawful authority or excuse"?

I expect there must be some case law on it.
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sun, 08 May 2005 14:43:05 +0100, Not Responding
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>But, then again, if a car (which qualifies as "any thing whatsoever")
>doesn't cause "interruption of any user", why should a shed of the same
>dimensions?


Yes, interesting point. Builders' materials and temporary structures
(e.g. scaffolding) are apparently subject to licence, skips apparently
are regulated by permit in a lot of places (not sure if that is
universal).

Kensington & Chelsea quotes:

* Highways Act 1980 (sections 169, 172, 173 and 184);
* GLC General Powers Act 1970 (sections 1 and 5);
* Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976; and
* Highways Act 1980 (sections 137, 170 and 171);

I wonder what would happen if one were to "store" a horse at the side
of the road?

Anyway, I have been told that the owner of any car stationary on any
highway can be prosecuted for causing an obstruction, regardless of
the legality of their parking space. So I think it's quite possibly
just a matter of a long-established practice whereby the law turns a
blind eye to it.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
N

Not Responding

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>
> I wonder what would happen if one were to "store" a horse at the side
> of the road?
>


Not so much stored as "parked"; there's a pub I pass on my commute that
quite often has a horse tied to the lamppost outside!
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Not
Responding ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Not Responding wrote:
>
>>
>> You've triggered my curiosity; I'm now going off to google to see if
>> I can find out what the law says about using the highway for storing
>> things other than motorcars. Providing you're not causing an
>> obstruction I wonder what you can do? You can store a skip (maybe
>> subject to a licence) but what else? I have a vision of someone
>> "storing" a shed on the road instead of a car and keeping bikes in
>> it:)

>
> Ah. Probably not on. From the Highways Act 1980:
>
> "If, without lawful authority or excuse -
> ...
> (c) a person deposits any thing whatsoever on a highway to the
> interruption of any user of the highway, or,
> ...
> he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3
> on the standard scale."
>
> But, then again, if a car (which qualifies as "any thing whatsoever")
> doesn't cause "interruption of any user", why should a shed of the
> same dimensions?


It's an interesting question. Suppose you parked a box trailer on the
highway in front of your house permanently, to keep your bikes in, I
wonder how the authorities would respond? What if it were an old (but
MOTed, taxed and third-party insured) transit van? Would the fact that
it actually had an engine automatically make it tolerable?

If it were deemed intolerable to park a van in this way, how frequently
would it have to be moved before it was deemed tolerable? I think if
you pushed it to a test case you could probably demonstrate that /all/
on-street parking is illegal - designated spaces or no.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; in faecibus sapiens rheum propagabit
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Not Responding <[email protected]> wrote:


>> But, then again, if a car (which qualifies as "any thing whatsoever")
>> doesn't cause "interruption of any user", why should a shed of the
>> same dimensions?


> Yes, interesting point. Builders' materials and temporary structures
> (e.g. scaffolding) are apparently subject to licence, skips apparently
> are regulated by permit in a lot of places (not sure if that is
> universal).


> Kensington & Chelsea quotes:
> * Highways Act 1980 (sections 169, 172, 173 and 184);
> * GLC General Powers Act 1970 (sections 1 and 5);
> * Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976; and
> * Highways Act 1980 (sections 137, 170 and 171);
> I wonder what would happen if one were to "store" a horse at the side
> of the road?


I have no idea of the current answer to that, but when I were a lad in
Liverpool, the coal merchant who lived down the street (the street we lived
in) "parked" his house-and-cart out in the street for years. We thought it
unmarkable.

> Anyway, I have been told that the owner of any car stationary on any
> highway can be prosecuted for causing an obstruction, regardless of
> the legality of their parking space. So I think it's quite possibly
> just a matter of a long-established practice whereby the law turns a
> blind eye to it.


More than that if there is a meter and/or a "P" sign, surely?
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:

> JNugent ('[email protected]') wrote:


>> I explained my terms and use the word "garaging" as a term of art for
>> "at home parking". Why wrote "at home parking" every time, when
>> "garaging" is so easily distinguishable from "(any old) parking"?


> I see a car parked obstructively on the street. What difference does
> it make to me whether the owner lives close by or not? It's still
> parked on the street.


<sigh>

If residents were not allowed to keep a car without an off-street garaging
space in which it was kept, there wouldn't *be* so many cars "parked
obstructively on the street".

If you are using the word "obstructively" in its everyday sense (eg, parked
so close to another vehicle as to leave insufficient space to get a fire
engine through, or making it impossible to turn any larger vehicle on a
corner), the fewer cars on street, the better, surely?
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:

> ('[email protected]') wrote:


>> That's nothing to do with the issue. But widening the question well
>> beyond the scope of the thread, bikes have their own severe
>> limitations which render them unsuitable for the real world everyday
>> requirements of most people, no matter how useful they undoubtedly
>> are to a minority for everyday transport for commuting and to a
>> larger minority for leisure and exercise. There is nothing wrong
>> with riding a bike, and I have never claimed that there is. Let's
>> just not run away with the idea that you can run your teenage child
>> and their possessions 175 miles to university and back by bike (for
>> instance)


> As it happens I recently had to transport my niece 400 miles to
> University with all her possessions. I hired a Renault Laguna. I
> actually hired it because apart from the comfort the cost of running
> the Laguna down to Devon and back - including the hire charge - was
> less than the fuel cost of taking my 4x4, but it does demonstrate that
> you don't need to actually own a car to do that sort of run once in a
> while.


Absolutely correct. I don't disagree with a word of it.

But you still need to be able to park at the other end, whether the car is
owned or hired.