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.
> 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.