Re: Legality of chaining Bicycles to footway apparatus



J

JNugent

Guest
Jon Senior wrote:

> JNugent wrote:


[heavily trimmed:]

>> 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.


> I would agree, but that is not universal. Many people have no off-
> street parking at all.


But my example *does* have it. It is actually quite common.

>> 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.


> Train! Most universities are in major cities and one can drive to the
> nearest station before journeying across. But that's an aside.


Then let's not start getting sidetracked with that aside.

>> 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.


>> 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.


> How can the resident parker be considered selfish here. There is no
> off-street parking for him to use.


....but there *is* (see above).

> Should he be denied a car because
> his neighbour's parents wish to visit several times per year.


Eh?

>> Is the visiting parent being selfish? Of course not. Unless they can
>> park, their journey is wasted.


> Unless they use an alternative form of transport. My parents rapidly
> learnt that visiting me in Sheffield was far easier if they drove to
> Meadowhall shopping centre (With its parking for thousands!) and took
> the tram into the city. Unique in having such a well-oiled system
> maybe, but not unique in Britain. On the occasions that they did
> drive to the door, they had to compete with the residents, and other
> visitors (High student population!) for space. Quite a fair system in
> fact.


I can see your point.

>> 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.


> Equally, you could make journey's end-parking unlawful. Then you would
> know that the cars belonged either to legitimate residents or to
> law-breakers.


The difficulty with that alternative approach is that it bold down to a
"no-go" area policy. You cannot go to <insert names of streets> in a car
because you are not allowed to park there.

It's much easier (and, I and others would argue, fairer) to organise the
solution around enforced off-street parking at the home of the driver.

BTW, it is possible to rent a parking space or a garage (look at the
situation in certain parts of inner West London).

If the market for such things were stimulated in more residential areas, it
would start a supply. People are very inventive when they need to be.

> The thought experiment doesn't really clarify anything other than your
> personal level of access to and dependence upon private off-street
> parking. This is a luxury that is not even close to being universal,
> so to propose a legal system based upon it would be more than a
> little selfish.


Why?

One has to pay for it (it isn't handed out free, and it even leads to a
higher council tax), so why not see some benefit from it?

>> 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.


> If the system were national, it could be administered along with
> driver & car licencing. There would still be some level of
> falsification but no more than already exists in the current system.
> The information could be included on the tax disc allowing a glance
> to verify the legitimacy of the parking. :)


Subject to compliance.

> All of which is entertaining, but immaterial to your original
> objection to the parking of cycles on the road. To return to the
> example of my current residence; There are four bikes locked up in
> the stairwell and a fifth lives in a neighbour's flat. There is a
> moped stored in the "garden" behind the stairwell. If everyone in the
> stairwell owned a car (AFAIK, no-one here does!) we would require a
> total of six parking spaces outside the property. To move the bikes
> outside to a cycle parking space would require less car-length than
> one Volvo. On purely selfish grounds we cyclists would be
> considerable more desirable to other car-owners than if we were car-
> owners ourselves.


> Just as I would hope that the owner of off-street parking used it for
> their car, I choose to keep my bike off the street (This is also a
> security issue!). And just as you expect to be able to park your car
> at the end of a journey, I expect to be able to park my bike. The
> difference is that if all six of us travel to the same location,
> independantly of one-another, we still take up less room than if we
> squeezed into the two cars that would be required otherwise.


You seem to think that I have some objection to people cycling.

I have no such objection.
 
S

Simon Brooke

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

> 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?


Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Which is why the present taxation
regime for motor vehicles is woefully inadequate - I would strongly
favour road pricing, but in its absence toll zones in congested areas
see a good second best.

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

;; 99% of browsers can't run ActiveX controls. Unfortunately
;; 99% of users are using the 1% of browsers that can...
[seen on /. 08:04:02]
 
B

Brimstone

Guest
JNugent wrote:

> You seem to think that I have some objection to people cycling.
>
> I have no such objection.


Have you thought about taking it up yourself?
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent wrote:


>> You seem to think that I have some objection to people cycling.
>> I have no such objection.


> Have you thought about taking it up yourself?


I have cycled in the past (I only got rid of my last bike a few years ago),
and I have been thinking of taking it up again.

But only for exercise. It'd be bugger-all use to me as a serious means of
transport for anywhere I need to go (paper shop maybe, but I don't often go
out to the local shop for a paper).
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
JNugent wrote:
> 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.


I would disagree that it was "extreme". It is the logical, fair
conclusion of the universal right to the highway.

> 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.


A fantastic idea. The consequential reduction in RTA would be
phenominal... think of the children... if we can save just one life...
etc. ;-)

> 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.


Your residential area may vary! Where I live, 30m of roadside equates to
at least 6 separate residences. That is a very conservative estimate
based on my current property, previous ones have been higher. Off-street
parking is not available to most in the centre of the city and is
limited in number. While I would love to see a reduction in the number
of cars in the city, I'm not sure quite how well your proposition would
go down.

> 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.


A form of self-regulation at work.

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


And I agree with him, but the system is toll based. Would you consider
the toll to cross the Forth Road bridge (Or any similar high-maintenance
road structures) to be a fine?

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


I am at the end of the vector but can see no reason for being in the
middle. The problem is that your proposed system would penalise the
locals in favour of visitors where current ones work the other way
around. This is no fairer. A fair system would be a free-for-all on
parking or a moratorium on parking. I don't see any middle ground
between these two points that doesn't effectively penalise one group or
the other.

>>trans: the use of legalese to obfuscate plain English.

>
> More accurately: "a phrase which has a meaning which is more than the
> consituent words suggest". One can also think of it as as jargon or an
> abbreviation.


Jargon does have to be accepted by the group in which it is used rather
than forced upon them... at least if you expect to be understood.

> I don't agree.


Quelle surprise! ;-)

> 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.


I would agree, but that is not universal. Many people have no off-street
parking at all. From my experience, off-street parking is limited to
small towns, villages and suburbs. Those of us that live in cities have
no such luxury. Would you deny cars to all those people? (I would... but
for different reasons!).

> 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.


Train! Most universities are in major cities and one can drive to the
nearest station before journeying across. But that's an aside.

> 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.
>
> 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.


How can the resident parker be considered selfish here. There is no
off-street parking for him to use. Should he be denied a car because his
neighbour's parents wish to visit several times per year.

> Is the visiting parent being selfish? Of course not. Unless they can park,
> their journey is wasted.


Unless they use an alternative form of transport. My parents rapidly
learnt that visiting me in Sheffield was far easier if they drove to
Meadowhall shopping centre (With its parking for thousands!) and took
the tram into the city. Unique in having such a well-oiled system maybe,
but not unique in Britain. On the occasions that they did drive to the
door, they had to compete with the residents, and other visitors (High
student population!) for space. Quite a fair system in fact.

> 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.


Equally, you could make journey's end-parking unlawful. Then you would
know that the cars belonged either to legitimate residents or to
law-breakers.

The thought experiment doesn't really clarify anything other than your
personal level of access to and dependence upon private off-street
parking. This is a luxury that is not even close to being universal, so
to propose a legal system based upon it would be more than a little selfish.

> 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.


If the system were national, it could be administered along with driver
& car licencing. There would still be some level of falsification but no
more than already exists in the current system. The information could be
included on the tax disc allowing a glance to verify the legitimacy of
the parking. :)

All of which is entertaining, but immaterial to your original objection
to the parking of cycles on the road. To return to the example of my
current residence; There are four bikes locked up in the stairwell and a
fifth lives in a neighbour's flat. There is a moped stored in the
"garden" behind the stairwell. If everyone in the stairwell owned a car
(AFAIK, no-one here does!) we would require a total of six parking
spaces outside the property. To move the bikes outside to a cycle
parking space would require less car-length than one Volvo. On purely
selfish grounds we cyclists would be considerable more desirable to
other car-owners than if we were car-owners ourselves.

Just as I would hope that the owner of off-street parking used it for
their car, I choose to keep my bike off the street (This is also a
security issue!). And just as you expect to be able to park your car at
the end of a journey, I expect to be able to park my bike. The
difference is that if all six of us travel to the same location,
independantly of one-another, we still take up less room than if we
squeezed into the two cars that would be required otherwise.

Jon
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sun, 8 May 2005 16:01:14 +0100, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> 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?


I have been told that, legally or no, in a marked bay or no, any
stationary vehicle can be said to be causing an obstruction. I know
of no exceptions, though they may exist. This rule is rarely
enforced.


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, 8 May 2005 16:03:56 +0100, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]co.uk>:

>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".


There would be benefits from such a wholesale reduction in the number
of cars on the roads - in this (relatively affluent) area about a
third of houses have no possibility of off-street parking - but I
don't think any Government would be willing to take responsibility for
the resultant upheaval in the housing market.

I also don't think many local authorities would consider it worth
subjecting residents to such inconvenience just so that non-residents
can drive through residential streets at greater speed.


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

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

Jon Senior

Guest
JNugent wrote:
> [heavily trimmed:]


Including many points directly relevant to what you subsequently posted.
I'll bring them up again where appropriate. :)

> But my example *does* have it. It is actually quite common.


<quote> 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.
<quote>

I would draw your attention to the line "there is no off-street
parking." In the preceding paragraph you did mention off-street parking,
but I read this to be a separate example.

And again... in my experience it is not "quite common" at all. Edinburgh
(My current residence) has almost no off-street parking through most of
the city. Driveways and garages are limited to some sub-urban areas.
There is are some carparks near me where it is possible to purchase one
of a limited number of parking permits but one of these is the local
Homebase so numbers are obviously small.

Sheffield (My previous residence) is similar. There was a greater
proportion of driveways than Edinburgh, but in the residential parts of
the city centre they were notable by their absence. Sheffield largely
consists of terraced houses which keeps the population density down and
is also largely poor which probably has some effect. Edinburgh consists
largely of tenement flats which have leads to a huge population density.
It is not difficult to put off-street parking here... it's impossible.

> ...but there *is* (see above).


I looked... I didn't find it. If the owner was selfishly occupying
roadspace when there was somewhere else to put his car then I'd be
inclined to agree.

>>Should he be denied a car because
>>his neighbour's parents wish to visit several times per year.

>
> Eh?


In your example, he has nowhere to park his car off-street. Consequently
he should not be allowed to own a car because his doing so prevents his
neighbour's parents from parking theirs several times a year.

> The difficulty with that alternative approach is that it bold down to a
> "no-go" area policy. You cannot go to <insert names of streets> in a car
> because you are not allowed to park there.


The alternative is that there are some areas that you are not allowed to
live in if you own a car.

> It's much easier (and, I and others would argue, fairer) to organise the
> solution around enforced off-street parking at the home of the driver.


If that is an option. IME the places where parking is most contested are
those places where off-street parking is severly limited. I've never
seen the owners of off-street parking use the road preferentially.

> BTW, it is possible to rent a parking space or a garage (look at the
> situation in certain parts of inner West London).


And how close to the home would that be. In many places you would be
looking at a considerable distance from home to parking place. I'd
approve in that it would discourage the use of cars, but I don't see it
as being a particularly good solution.

> If the market for such things were stimulated in more residential areas, it
> would start a supply. People are very inventive when they need to be.


Almost all the buildings on my street are over 150 years old. Some are
older. Without knocking down some historical architecture it'd be hard
to do anything other than that which the residents are already doing...
namely, buying smaller cars. The Smart car has taken off here quite well
it seems.

> Why?


Because it says "You can only own a car if you live out of the city".

> One has to pay for it (it isn't handed out free, and it even leads to a
> higher council tax), so why not see some benefit from it?


I see a great many benefits, but my aims are different to yours and I
can see easier ways of achieving them. ;-)

> Subject to compliance.


As the current system, and any system would be. It would be easier to
tag onto an existing infrastructure than to create a new locally
administered one.

> You seem to think that I have some objection to people cycling.
>
> I have no such objection.


****
John B said:

This is what we do when out as a family or group.
if I'm on the trice It will go into a parking place and the other
bikes will lean against it and be locked up, particularly in towns
like Alresford, Stockbridge or Bishops Waltham, with their wide
market streets The aggro and dirty looks from some motorists is
unbelievable - or rather its true to form.

To which you replied:

Unbelievable.

Or should I say "true to form"?
****

In your second post to this thread on the subject of parking bikes on
the road (as one would a car). It does seem to show a certain disregard
for cycling. Perhaps you didn't mean to suggest that it is lawful and
selfless to park a car on the road, but to occupy the same space with
bikes is. If that is so, feel free to use this space to elaborate:



..

Jon
 
P

PeterE

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I have been told that, legally or no, in a marked bay or no, any
> stationary vehicle can be said to be causing an obstruction. I know
> of no exceptions, though they may exist. This rule is rarely
> enforced.


Presumably this only applies if it actually *is* causing an obstruction.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the
defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" -
Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman.
 
P

PeterE

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 8 May 2005 16:03:56 +0100, "JNugent"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> 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".

>
> There would be benefits from such a wholesale reduction in the number
> of cars on the roads - in this (relatively affluent) area about a
> third of houses have no possibility of off-street parking - but I
> don't think any Government would be willing to take responsibility for
> the resultant upheaval in the housing market.


I suspect that through various means - for example, bringing off-street
garages back into use - the number of houses totally deprived of parking
spaces would be relatively small.

> I also don't think many local authorities would consider it worth
> subjecting residents to such inconvenience just so that non-residents
> can drive through residential streets at greater speed.


It would not prevent visitors of various kinds parking on the roadway.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the
defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" -
Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman.
 
P

Paul D

Guest
On Sun, 8 May 2005 19:31:25 +0100, "PeterE" <[email protected]_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:

>I suspect that through various means - for example, bringing off-street
>garages back into use - the number of houses totally deprived of parking
>spaces would be relatively small.


There are many, many streets in London which are terraces of four story
buildings with a flat on each floor (and not a garage or drive in the entire
street)

For a typical street with 100 houses, that's 400 flats.

Even if they were in single occupancy, you'd need 400 garages. There just are
not that number of garage spaces available.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Jon Senior wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> [heavily trimmed:]


> Including many points directly relevant to what you subsequently
> posted. I'll bring them up again where appropriate. :)


OK.

>> But my example *does* have it. It is actually quite common.


> <quote> 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.
> <quote>


You are quoting the wrong case.

Here is the correct one:

"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".

> I would draw your attention to the line "there is no off-street
> parking." In the preceding paragraph you did mention off-street
> parking, but I read this to be a separate example.


It *was* a separate example. It is also the only one of the two which
mentions a driver who is a resident.

But never mind, let's not turn a misunderstanding into a failure to
communicate.

Here are my two examples, verbatim, again:

START:
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.

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.

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.
END.

> And again... in my experience it is not "quite common" at all.
> Edinburgh (My current residence) has almost no off-street parking
> through most of the city. Driveways and garages are limited to some
> sub-urban areas. There is are some carparks near me where it is
> possible to purchase one of a limited number of parking permits but
> one of these is the local Homebase so numbers are obviously small.


Make it a worthwhile business to provide private parking spaces and they
will be brought forth.

> Sheffield (My previous residence) is similar. There was a greater
> proportion of driveways than Edinburgh, but in the residential parts
> of the city centre they were notable by their absence. Sheffield
> largely consists of terraced houses which keeps the population
> density down and is also largely poor which probably has some effect.
> Edinburgh consists largely of tenement flats which have leads to a
> huge population density. It is not difficult to put off-street
> parking here... it's impossible.


>> ...but there *is* (see above).


> I looked... I didn't find it. If the owner was selfishly occupying
> roadspace when there was somewhere else to put his car then I'd be
> inclined to agree.


That is exactly what I wrote (see above).

Rest of response ignored as obviously based on incorrect premise.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Paul D wrote:

> "PeterE" <[email protected]_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:


>> I suspect that through various means - for example, bringing off-
>> street garages back into use - the number of houses totally deprived
>> of parking spaces would be relatively small.


> There are many, many streets in London which are terraces of four
> story buildings with a flat on each floor (and not a garage or drive
> in the entire street)


> For a typical street with 100 houses, that's 400 flats.


That's 50 houses on each side of the street, each house about 15" wide.
That's about 750 feet of kerbside, multplied by two.

> Even if they were in single occupancy, you'd need 400 garages. There
> just are not that number of garage spaces available.


Can you *fit* 400 cars along 750 feet of kerbside?
 
N

Not Responding

Guest
JNugent wrote:
> Paul D wrote:
>
>
>>"PeterE" <[email protected]_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>>>I suspect that through various means - for example, bringing off-
>>>street garages back into use - the number of houses totally deprived
>>>of parking spaces would be relatively small.

>
>
>>There are many, many streets in London which are terraces of four
>>story buildings with a flat on each floor (and not a garage or drive
>>in the entire street)

>
>
>>For a typical street with 100 houses, that's 400 flats.

>
>
> That's 50 houses on each side of the street, each house about 15" wide.
> That's about 750 feet of kerbside, multplied by two.
>
>
>>Even if they were in single occupancy, you'd need 400 garages. There
>>just are not that number of garage spaces available.

>
>
> Can you *fit* 400 cars along 750 feet of kerbside?
>


Of course not[1].

That's why some people (those who choose car travel) face such chronic
parking problems. There are 3 ways ahead from here.

1. Continue the current communist style rationing by queuing. Well, it's
one way but if people were happy with it there wouldn't be so much
complaining. The downside of this approach is that the community
effectively subsidises drivers yet, despite this, an unsatisfactory
service results.

2. Ration by price. Charge for parking. After all, the taxpayer has paid
for all these expensive roads - let them see some return. The upside
of price rationing is that non-essential users soon choose not to pay;
thus freeing up space who choose to drive.

3. Build more parking. But how? Development land costs millions per acre
- drivers will end up paying anyway.

[1] Back to the original thread; you could ,however ,easily fit 400
bikes in.
 
P

Paul D

Guest
On Sun, 8 May 2005 20:13:08 +0100, "JNugent" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Paul D wrote:
>
>> "PeterE" <[email protected]_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>
>>> I suspect that through various means - for example, bringing off-
>>> street garages back into use - the number of houses totally deprived
>>> of parking spaces would be relatively small.

>
>> There are many, many streets in London which are terraces of four
>> story buildings with a flat on each floor (and not a garage or drive
>> in the entire street)

>
>> For a typical street with 100 houses, that's 400 flats.

>
>That's 50 houses on each side of the street, each house about 15" wide.
>That's about 750 feet of kerbside, multplied by two.


Well, they may be where you live, but the streets I'm thinking of it's more like
25'.

>> Even if they were in single occupancy, you'd need 400 garages. There
>> just are not that number of garage spaces available.

>
>Can you *fit* 400 cars along 750 feet of kerbside?


Well, just ignoring for a moment the fact that your answer is out by a factor of
2 (good job you showed the working, I'll give you 3/10), if you would now
transfer your attention to what was said, you'll see that the person to whom I
was responding was talking about the number of houses "deprived of parking" if
there was NO on street parking, i.e. How many you can park on the street is
irrelevant. He was talking about how much paking could be made available OFF
street.

So:

Results for J Nugent

Sums: 3/10
English Comprehension: 1/10

Overall: Could do better. In fact, could do MUCH better.
 
N

Nathaniel Porter

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> 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
>


They are also often a pain in the **** for motorists to - railings
significantly hinder visibility, and pelican /puffin crossings[1] cause far
more delays (to both pedestrians and vehicular traffic) than either zebra
crossings or slowing down a little bit to give peds who wish to cross more
time to do so ever could.
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
JNugent wrote:
> It *was* a separate example. It is also the only one of the two which
> mentions a driver who is a resident.


OK. But my point was relating to the second one. See below.

> But never mind, let's not turn a misunderstanding into a failure to
> communicate.
>
> Here are my two examples, verbatim, again:
>
> START:
> 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.


Example 1: Yes. This behaviour is selfish. It is also not something I
have ever witnessed.

> 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.
>
> 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.


If this is no longer the same resident parker as in the previous example
(ie. "there is no off-street parking") then no it is not. If you grant
him the right to own a car, then you must accept that it has to be
parked. To deny him a car so that visitors to his area are able to park
is ludicrous.

Alternatively, if it is the same resident as in the first example (Seems
strange but never mind), then as previously discussed his behaviour is
selfish, regardless of any students who's parents wish to visit.

> Is the visiting parent being selfish? Of course not. Unless they can park,
> their journey is wasted.
> END.


And at the end of their return journey. If (due to a lack of off-street
parking) they are not allowed to own a car, then they could never have
made the journey in the first place.

> Make it a worthwhile business to provide private parking spaces and they
> will be brought forth.


If there is space to do so. Without the destruction of historic
buildings (and subsequently a great many homes) or the removal of local
facilities (Swimming pool, Homebase) it would not be possible to build
above ground parking within any "reasonable" distance of my property.
The only solution would be underground. You'd have to make the charges
pretty steep to encourage someone to dig a carpark in granite bedrock
underneath listed buildings!

Fundamentally this city, and many others, were not built around a high
level of car ownership. I see a reduction in the number of cars on the
roads (parked or otherwise) as a good thing, but I would choose to start
by limiting licencing to the witless and thus encouraging only those who
had the necessary skills to become safe drivers.

> That is exactly what I wrote (see above).
>
> Rest of response ignored as obviously based on incorrect premise.


OK. So your "solution" involves the removal of car ownership from that
proportion of the population who's current location cannot support
off-street parking, while allowing those who have driveways and garages
the right to park wherever they choose. This is not a "fair" system. If
you are going to limit car ownership, why not do so on the grounds of
ability to make good and safe use of it rather than on the requirement
for far-sighted town planning by the Victorians?

If you genuinely believe that off-street parking could be usefully
introduced wherever there was a need, I suggest you take a little tour
of the residential city centres in this country and work out exactly
where you would put them. Your solution would be more likely to lead to
an exodus to rural areas where there was space to store cars and thus
longer journeys as these people then commuted back into the cities to
park their cars outside their old properties while they worked.

Jon
 
JNugent wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.


Do they have CPZ schemes where the resident (student) cannot purchase
visitor permits (typically in half or whole day units for a pound or
two each then? (provided they can get up early enough to get to the
council offices in working hours :)

best wishes
james
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sun, 8 May 2005 19:28:48 +0100, "PeterE"
<[email protected]_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> I have been told that, legally or no, in a marked bay or no, any
>> stationary vehicle can be said to be causing an obstruction. I know
>> of no exceptions, though they may exist. This rule is rarely
>> enforced.


>Presumably this only applies if it actually *is* causing an obstruction.


In what way would a stationary vehicle on the carriageway not be
causing an obstruction? I know from personal experience that the fact
the obstruction would not exist without the aid of another vehicle
placed subsequently is no defence.


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, 8 May 2005 19:31:25 +0100, "PeterE"
<[email protected]_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>> 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".


>> There would be benefits from such a wholesale reduction in the number
>> of cars on the roads - in this (relatively affluent) area about a
>> third of houses have no possibility of off-street parking - but I
>> don't think any Government would be willing to take responsibility for
>> the resultant upheaval in the housing market.


>I suspect that through various means - for example, bringing off-street
>garages back into use - the number of houses totally deprived of parking
>spaces would be relatively small.


This assumes that the garages were not sold off years ago for building
land. No land exists for this use around here.

>> I also don't think many local authorities would consider it worth
>> subjecting residents to such inconvenience just so that non-residents
>> can drive through residential streets at greater speed.


>It would not prevent visitors of various kinds parking on the roadway.


So the measure should exist solely to make life difficult for those
who actually live there? That'll be popular. Good luck in your
attempt to have this adopted as policy by one of the major parties.


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

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