Re: Legality of chaining Bicycles to footway apparatus

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

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

>That's 50 houses on each side of the street, each house about 15" wide.
^^^

YA Noddy & ICMFP.


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

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

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Not Responding <[email protected]>typed


> ....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.

Not alltogether surprising. Sometimes my legs give out after a certain
distance (variable, in range 10-60 metres). If I have a short distance
to walk, I might do it quite fast and can avoid traffic etc. If the
distance is greater, I might not be able to do it at all, or be a slow,
wobbly liability at the end.

Sometimes, it's safer for me to play 'chicken'...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[dave]

Paul D wrote:
> On Sun, 8 May 2005 20:13:08 +0100, "JNugent" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Paul D wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"PeterE" <peter@xyz_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?

Just a little of topic.

What are the rules on Motorbike ownership in the UK?
What I mean specifically is... the costs involved in having one on the
road...MOT and other compulsory taxes and more to the point.. the
parking laws. Here in Melbourne you can park on the footpath if it
doesnt couse an obstruction; a very enlighted system that presumably
applies to pushbikes and is not in the slightest abused.. Other
australian cities are not that obliging.. but only Sydney is as congested.

And I was thinking that you would be close to nuts to drive a car in the
UK, the pushy is clearly the way to go.. with the motorbike for long
trips. When I was there last the traffic in a car drove me insane..
no way would I do that daily. So motorcycle instead.. but what are the
parking rules?

Dave

 

[JNugent]

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.

 

[JNugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> 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

The extracts above are from two separate examples.

 

[Paul D]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:47:22 +0100, "JNugent" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>That sounds like very upmarket terraced housing. Typically, in the sort of
>area where I was brought up (inner-city Liverpool, Manchester, etc)

It may well count as up market there, but it doesn't in the parts of London I'm
familiar with.

>> 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,
>
>Nonsense.
>
>They can't all be parking there in the first place, so a smaller number
>would be "deprived" (nice emotive word - full marks) of parking.

They are deprived of the oportunity to park. At the moment, any householder who
has a car has the same chance of parking it at the end of the day. Bann on
street parking by householders and they are depriced of that oportunity.
>
>> 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.
>
>Oh do come off it.

Nothing to come off. He was talking about off street parking. There wouldn't be
room for off street parking for even 50 cars per street, so, as I said, how many
you can park on the street is irrelevant.

Unless you'd like to come up and survey the borough of Kensington and Chelsea,
or Hammersmith and Fulham, and point out where the off street parking is.

>> So:
>> Results for J Nugent
>> Sums: 3/10
>> English Comprehension: 1/10
>> Overall: Could do better. In fact, could do MUCH better.
>
>It made you feel so much better for contriving that, didn't it?

Well, your arithmetic was abysmal, and your comprehension was wanting, so I feel
it was justified.

Credit where it's due though. Your spelling and punctuation were acceptable.

 

[JNugent]

Paul D wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Paul D wrote:
>>> "PeterE" <peter@xyz_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'.

That sounds like very upmarket terraced housing. Typically, in the sort of
area where I was brought up (inner-city Liverpool, Manchester, etc),
terraced house plots are little more than 15' wide (if wider at all - and
there are still street corner protection issues, meaning that not every
frointage can be counted into the practical total). So, there isn't usually
enough kerbside space to keep one car per house in the street, and often, a
row of cars on each side of the street will leave such a narrow channel that
a fire-engine could not pass (which, IMHO, is the ultimate definition of
unreasonable obstruction).

>>> 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,

Nonsense.

They can't all be parking there in the first place, so a smaller number
would be "deprived" (nice emotive word - full marks) of 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.

Oh do come off it.

The total number of "potential" vehicles (in the exeptionally far-fetched
scenario you raise) has nothing to do with the amount of off-street parking
that moight be provided. What can be provided can be provided. Price will
ration it (and may tempt some into releasing a little more land from
alternative uses), but no-one, not even on the wildest extremes of your side
of this, is arguing that 400 spaces would either be available or needed for
every street of 100 houses.

> So:
> Results for J Nugent
> Sums: 3/10
> English Comprehension: 1/10
> Overall: Could do better. In fact, could do MUCH better.

It made you feel so much better for contriving that, didn't it?

 

[JNugent]

dave wrote:

> Just a little of topic.

> What are the rules on Motorbike ownership in the UK?

There are no rules.

Anyone can own one.

> What I mean specifically is... the costs involved in having one on the
> road...MOT and other compulsory taxes and more to the point.. the
> parking laws. Here in Melbourne you can park on the footpath if it
> doesnt couse an obstruction; a very enlighted system that presumably
> applies to pushbikes and is not in the slightest abused.. Other
> australian cities are not that obliging.. but only Sydney is as
> congested.

OK. On the specifics, I don't know, but I'f be surprised if leaving a
motor-bike on the footway is lawful i the UK, except for roads with very
wide footways where the local council specifically allows parking on the
footway (there are such places).

> And I was thinking that you would be close to nuts to drive a car in
> the UK, the pushy is clearly the way to go.. with the motorbike for
> long trips.

The UK is not all like London, though.

> When I was there last the traffic in a car drove me
> insane.. no way would I do that daily. So motorcycle instead.. but
> what are the parking rules?

Parking - surprisingly liberal, I think. I don't ride a motor-bike, so don't
go hunting for the facilities, but motor-bikes seem to be relatively
well-treated on the UK's roads. Their riders don't have to pay either the
Dartford (Thames) Crossing tolls or the London "Congestion" Charge, for
instance, and there are free parking facilities (on-street) in London (if
I'm wrong on that, someone will post a correction).

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:47:22 +0100, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>So, there isn't usually
>enough kerbside space to keep one car per house in the street, and often, a
>row of cars on each side of the street will leave such a narrow channel that
>a fire-engine could not pass (which, IMHO, is the ultimate definition of
>unreasonable obstruction).

But it's not your problem. Your house is not in that street, and the
fire brigade are perfectly capable of having a parking restriction
enforced if they consider it a pressing problem.

In reality, having driven removal vans along such streets, the
perception is worse than the reality. The major effect of this
narrowing is to slow through-traffic down. This is usually considered
a benefit.


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

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