Jon Senior wrote:
> 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:
>> 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.
Perhaps you do not often venture into suburbia. Such behaviour is so common
as to be unremarkable there.
>> 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.
You are veering off-course again, even after being reminded that the two
(separate and unrelated) examples only have one "resident parker" (the
gentleman in the first example). The second case is about a non-resident
would-be parker.
But never mind; you did make your view on the first example clear: "This
behaviour is selfish".
> Alternatively, if it is the same resident as in the first example
It isn't. How could it be? The driver concerned is posited in a different
town from the one in which they live. I know some areas suffer from parking
problems, but having to park having to park in a different town would be
unusual.
This example was about reasonable parking at journey's end - in a
residential area.
> (Seems strange but never mind), then as previously discussed his
> behaviour is selfish, regardless of any students who's parents wish
> to visit.
I don't think you have grasped both the scenarios; you seem intent on mixing
them up.
>> Is the visiting parent being selfish? Of course not. Unless they can
>> park, their journey is wasted.
> 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.
Not an issue, as it is not what was given in the example. If you prefer, let
us take as a given that they have a double garage and a driveway for five
other vehicles at home; all well and good, but they still need to be able to
park elsewhere (at journey's end) to make car use meaningful.
>> Make it a worthwhile business to provide private parking spaces and
>> they will be brought forth.
> If there is space to do so.
It happens in Mayfair and Knightsbridge, despite the high value of land
there. Not necessarily adjacent to the driver's home, but in the area. At a
price, of course. And don't forget that those with off-road parking have
acquired it at a price (and that they get taxed on the facility).
> 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!
Maybe not. Most city centres still have car-parks.
> 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.
And you would never countenance limiting the right to keep a vehicle on the
highway? Not even in double-yellow areas? OTOH, if you do agree with
limiting the right to keep a car on the street in a street with yellow lines
(and it's hard to see how you can't), why not elsewhere where road-space is
scarce? It's not as though the proposition is novel, is it? If you live in a
road with double yellows (still less double reds), you simply cannot park
outside your house - maybe not for a long way from your house.
> 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.
Not on yellow lines, not on red lines and not obstructively. And
incidentally, I would not prevent those without off-street facilities from
driving or owning a vehicle, only from keeping the vehicle on the street.
They could hire, they could borrow, they could own and park elsewhere (as a
good many already do); they could drive someone else's vehicle for a living
(perhaps even a bus or a lorry). They could do a lot of things; they just
wouldn't be able to keep a car permanently on the street.
> This is not a "fair" system.
It is at least as "fair" as allowing effective ownership of stretches of
taxpayer-funded highway by the residents of adjacent property, and arguably
much more fair than that.
> If you are going to limit car ownership,
Who said that?
Anyone can own a car. A five-year old can own a car. A disqualified driver
can own a car. A convicted prison inmate can own a car. A foreigner resident
in his own country can own a UK-registered car and it can be kept in this
country even if he isn't allowed entry.
All I would limit would be the "right" to leave a car on the highway outside
the user's home.
> 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?
Because (among several other things) it would involve unreasonable and
totally impossible value-judgment by officialdom.
> 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.
For some (a minority), it would cause that. So might a heap of other "push"
factors fund in inner-ciy areas. It happens now.
