Jon Senior wrote:
> JNugent 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"?
> Tip: When commenting on the correct use of English, it is well worth
> double checking for typos (The error is left as an exercise for the
> reader).
Yes, I see it.
My excuse: The "i" and the "o" are adjacent (and I've done the same thing in
the word "anti" below).
>> 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.
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. 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.
> There would have to be some exemption for deliveries, but since the
> parking attendents would no longer have to worry about issuing
> tickets to "normal" cars, they would have time to monitor deliveries
> for any sign of abuse.
> > There are societies
>> which do not allow it. Perhaps (especially in places like London),
>> we should be considering trying the same approach. It might work
>> much better as an anto-congestion measure than fining people who
>> have business in Central London, and it might well ease congestion
>> in the suburbs as well as on the capital's roads in general.
> 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.
Well, except for bus and taxi-drivers.
>> 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".
> 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.
>> We certainly have garaging facilities ("off-street parking" if you
>> prefer the estate-agent's term) for all our vehicles.
>>> [1] From OED complete edition:
>> [snipped incomplete definition - and respectfully suggest that the
>> PP looks up the phrase "term of art"]
> "Term of art":
> http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/tutorials/definitions/term_art.html
> (First hit).
> 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.
> To explain why your concept of garaging is meaningless I offer the
> following:
> 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.
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.
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.
