"HELP US PUT a stop to pavement parking"
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: The motorway
Next: which age group are dangerous?
From: BrianW on 6 Mar 2010 13:12 On 6 Mar, 06:49, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 5 Mar, 18:03, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > >news:c14ff8d8-307b-46b2-ba08-af22bd5529c8(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > > > On 5 Mar, 14:49, NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote: > > >> On 5 Mar, 13:38, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > >> > Better still, only buy a car if you have somewhere to put it when it > > >> > is not in use, instead of cluttering public spaces. > > > >> I'd go along with that however I live in the country and except for > > >> the high summer season I can always find somewhere to leave it. Those > > >> like yourself, who are unfortunate, for whatever reasons, to live in a > > >> big city may feel somewhat different. > > > > Despite living in a city I have a front garden with a space which I > > > used to use for parking > > > So you've concreted over an area intended for growing plants? Hardly > > environmentally friendly is it Doug? > > Thanks for highlighting yet another problem caused by car users, there > are so many! Yes indeed such concreting encourages flooding and is > environmentally unfriendly. Fortunately for me only a portion of my > garden is concreted and the rest is earth with plants. Hey Doug, Could you just point out where in this pic the concreted over part is? http://www.flickr.com/photos/8737107(a)N04/3742474477/sizes/o/ Is it the bit where the bike is parked?
From: The Medway Handyman on 6 Mar 2010 15:10 Zaz wrote: > On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:40:36 +0000, "The Medway Handyman" > <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> I think this clearly shows what a complete fuckwit you and your >> phycolist bum chums are. >> >> 90% of 28 million is 2.8 million. > > Err, are you sure about that? Err, no :-) But you know what I mean... -- Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
From: alan.holmes on 6 Mar 2010 16:55 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message news:xMedncsZ1sy7HAzWnZ2dnUVZ7rednZ2d(a)pipex.net... > Ret. wrote: >> Doug wrote: >>> On 5 Mar, 14:49, NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote: >>>> On 5 Mar, 13:38, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Better still, only buy a car if you have somewhere to put it when it >>>>> is not in use, instead of cluttering public spaces. >>>> >>>> I'd go along with that however I live in the country and except for >>>> the high summer season I can always find somewhere to leave it. Those >>>> like yourself, who are unfortunate, for whatever reasons, to live in >>>> a big city may feel somewhat different. >>>> >>> Despite living in a city I have a front garden with a space which I >>> used to use for parking >>>> >>>> In view of the amount that motorists contribute I feel steps should >>>> be taken to provide adequate parking simply because if you constrain >>>> car ownership and use you breed discontent and cut off a valuable >>>> revenue stream, cars generate bundles of cash, you need it to fund >>>> your lifestyle. >>>> >>> What motorists contribute is offset by all the harm they cause and I >>> don't need them to fund me. If there was a price I could put on the >>> inconvenience and danger they cause me it would be considerable. >> >> What you consistently fail to address, Doug, is that today's society can >> only operate with the ready availability of personal transport. > >> If all existing car owners were required to park on the road rather than >> partially on the pavement, then fire-engines and ambulances would be >> unable to get anywhere near half the homes in the country. > > Yes, but requiring people to park cars on the road would be an odd law to > pass. It wopuld be more logical to ban the practice (at one's home, at any > rate). > > As for the needs of the emergency services, the parking of vehicles so as > to effectively prevent attendance at emergencies should be a simple and > straightforward offence - no ifs, buts or excuses. I would never (genuine > emergencies excepted) leave a car in a position whch caused such > obstruction. Would you? > > The fact is, if one hasn't got somewhere of one's own to park a car at > home, one should not expect the rest of the citizenry to provide it FOC, > often out of scarce, limited, resources with alternative uses - like > letting fire-appliances and ambulances get to emergencies. > >> Because of today's mobile society, many people have to travel miles to >> get to work and, despite claims to the contrary, public transport is >> wholly unable to fulfill that need. > > All true. It still doesn't mean that facilities should be provided to some > driver (but not to others) FOC. Cars and their running cost money. Parking > (at home) costs money. > >> What do you think would happen to the economy if everyone who did not >> have an off-road parking space had to get rid of their cars? > > The economy would get a huge boost as they all sought accommodation with > garages? You have a very strange attitude about garages, are you not aware that it is essential to fill your garage with essential and valuable stuff which others may look upon as rubbish, but it not. But it leaves no room for unnecessary stuff like cars. Alan
From: FrengaX on 6 Mar 2010 17:33 On Mar 6, 10:20 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > So if every car was parked on roads and pavements that would be about > > > 100 per mile on average but more in urban areas and less in rural. In > > > London it must be closer to 1000 per mile parked on roads and > > > pavements. Nasty eh? > > > 100 per mile? A nuke us 5280 feet. That means one car per 5 feet 3 > > inches. I think your own maths is way out. Try applying some > > reasonable thought before making ridiculous pronouncements. > > Pot kettle. How so? It wasn't I suggesting 1000 cars per mile (typos aside), which gives about a third of a car length per car(!), it was you. > > 25million cars not in use/246988 miles = 101.219 cars per mile. I didn't dispute that figure, academic as it is (as they are not all parked on the street).
From: Doug on 7 Mar 2010 03:02
On 6 Mar, 22:33, FrengaX <hnkjqr...(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: > On Mar 6, 10:20 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > > > So if every car was parked on roads and pavements that would be about > > > > 100 per mile on average but more in urban areas and less in rural. In > > > > London it must be closer to 1000 per mile parked on roads and > > > > pavements. Nasty eh? > > > > 100 per mile? A nuke us 5280 feet. That means one car per 5 feet 3 > > > inches. I think your own maths is way out. Try applying some > > > reasonable thought before making ridiculous pronouncements. > > > Pot kettle. > > How so? It wasn't I suggesting 1000 cars per mile (typos aside), > which gives about a third of a car length per car(!), it was you. > Duh! Cars park on both sides of the road and there are 1609 metres per mile. > > > > 25million cars not in use/246988 miles = 101.219 cars per mile. > > I didn't dispute that figure, academic as it is (as they are not all > parked on the street). > Duh! I wrote 'roads AND pavements'. -- Car Free Cities http://www.carfree.com/ Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution to the vexing problem of urban automobiles. |