Parking Rant – almost resulted in me kicking a car

I moved my car from where it was parked on the street and someone rushed out of their house, got in their car, drove it forwards 6ft to where mine was, then went back inside.

wtf?

I’ve done that when I’ve had to park illegally (too close to the junction) and they were a visitor to the area. Got to rush out and move it so that the chinese takeaway visitors dont pinch the space and leave me parked too close to the junction all bloody night. Of course I should just park 300 yards away but when you’re unloading 3 bikes, a TV and some clothes you generally want to be near your front door!

Of course I should just park 300 yards away but when you’re unloading 3 bikes, a TV and some clothes you generally want to be near your front door!

Park illegally* to unload the car, then move it to 300yds away to leave it?

*Maybe not illegally, as unloading is different to parking.

True, you can load and unload on double yellows for example. Typically 5 minutes for a car but areas do differ. It’s not 5 minutes total but you need to be seen loading or unloading every 5 minutes. Each time you’re seen, they restart the clock!

You can also board and alight passangers on double yellows.

HoratioHufnagel -what I dont get is people who assume a spot is theres on a public right of way etc. Crackers. Almost as though your spoiling their god-given routine. Get a grip!

I fully get your point with the angled parking but your car then is sticking out into the highway, some twonk is going to hit one of them and you are going to be in the wrong as incorrectly parked NOT having a GO i see your problem

you can load and unload on double yellows

Unless they’re ‘no loading’.

You can also board and alight passangers on double yellows

Unless they’re ‘no stopping’.

flyingmonkeycorps, unless the council has painted lines indictating use I really do think people can chose to park how they want without a parking nazi putting a sign on their car. Imagine a guest visits and finds a sign on their car- I’d be really embarrised. If it really is an issue I would approach your local council about getting lines drawn up/planning permission. Again, no offence but as its not ‘formal’ I think its alittle petty to expect everyone to conform- its currently first come first park-basis IMO. Again, no offence or anger meant mate.

HoratioHufnagel -what I dont get is people who assume a spot is theres on a public right of way etc. Crackers. Almost as though your spoiling their god-given routine. Get a grip!

With you on this one. I have known someone call the police to report a car obstructing his drive. It wasn’t at all, it was just a neighbours car parked in ‘his’ space ie the bit of road outside his house but not blocking him at all. He was like Frank Doberman, steam coming out of his ears and everything. He had convinced himself that this guy was doing it just to wind him up and told me if I didn’t get it moved he’d smash it up and it would all be my fault!

Utter madness.

Miketually, if they’re no loading, it’s not the double yellow lines you look at but the double kerb blips, they reflect the loading restriction.

Hora – nah we didn’t put the sign in the end, we thought it was a bit rude. It’s not the first time this particular car has done it though, and you’re right – there’s not really anything we can do. I’d be tempted to have a quiet word if I saw the driver, but as has been said they’re not *really* doing anything wrong – it’s just galling that 99% of the drivers on the street (it’s a long road, there can’t be far off half a mile of the same type of parking) manage to park sensibly and considerately, but 1% think they’re above that, forcing people down the road. Now I don’t mind parking a few houses down, no problem with it at all, but of course then I’m taking someone else’s space, and so on and so forth.

Hence the rant 🙂

you could always ask the local authority if they could line the area for echelon parking. You still wouldn’t be able to do anything if anyone ignored it (unless the authority backs it up with an order) but then at least the intention would be clear. If the traffic manager says no, you could always look to an area committe to fund it.

http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/%5B/url%5D

If you like the note at the start of this thread, then the above website will keep you amused for *hours*.

My dads response to people moaning that there is no where for their kids to ride their motorbikes, – if you don’t have a field, don’t buy a cow. Same here I reckon. I can just hear it though but, but , but, but etc . tough

There is a guy I work with who thinks that if you don’t have a garage or a drive, the should come around with a mobile car crusher and dispose of your “obstruction”.

Before anyone asks, no, I don’t work with Tandem J!

people are ars** and irresponsible! once when I lived in a cul de sac with typical awful parking someone actually blocked me in! I parked in cul de sac forward facing and they parked directly behind me, no way of getting out! I left snotty message on car about dialling 999 if they ever needed help since I was a copper I couldn’t get to work due to their shi** parking and hence not to block me in again! It never happened.

Needless to say when we went house hunting to buy and they say what are your criteria, response “garage and driveway”, “anything else, number of rooms, south facing garden”?

“nope garage and driveway” to store 5 bikes, 2 motorbikes, 3 snowboards and other paraphenalia!!

I can’t understand why you guys who are complaining about not being able to park outside your houses, didn’t you foresee the problem before you bought it. Last time I bought a house, I looked at some houses & immediately dismissed them because of the parking set up. Ok you may be cheaper for this set up, but don’t complain about it, you know what you are letting yourselves in for when you bought the place.

Pavement parking is illegal in some areas but not in others but is always wrong morally.

Sorry – don’t agree. Sometimes it is morally acceptable, even sensible.

At the end of our road, the road narrows to basically wide enough for 2.75 cars to fit (approx….)

The houses on one side face direct on to the pavement. If they park on the road leaving the pavement free, you can’t get 2 cars down the road. But that doesn’t stop people who barely cut their speed to mount the kerb on the other side as they weave past oncoming cars because they’re too arrogant to wait. Kids have been hit by these cars going to and from school – thankfully thus far no serious injuries – but there by the grace of god only.

So sensibly the residents opt to partly block one pavement and leave the road free for two cars to pass each other. If the twunts mounting the kerb the other side didn’t, they wouldn’t need to – but they don’t.

Still morally wrong to park partly on the pavement?

The other jon – IMO yes it is still wrong in the circumstances you describe. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Pavements are for pedestrians not cars. The answer in that circumstance is to put barriers on the pavements to stop the cars mounting them or make the kerbs higher.

Parking cars on the pavements damages them as they are not built to take the weight leaving uneven pavements.

I don’t disagree completely – actually I only gave you part of the story to make the point, but really there is no black and white here. The residents group, the PTA (there’s a school on the road hence lots of pedestrian traffic at rush hour making it worse) and others have all been lobbying the council to do something, and we had an open evening just before christmas where we could talk to the planners about it and see what they could do.

There are 3 solutions.

1 leave as is and keep your fingers crossed. On a show of hands (and it was admitted on the night it’s not a democratic process, but opinion of those interested enough to turn up was one factor in the decision process). That was least favourite.

2 make the road one way. But to do so would cause the loss of a well used bus route to town with the next best alternative route to come back up the road more than 2 miles longer.

3 make the road no parking. But 25 houses would lose space to park outside their houses. This was the favourite, as being the best and cheapest solution for the whole, but of course royally shafts those who live in thse houses. And caused some interesting slanging matches between ‘friends’ who were voting for their ‘friends’ to lose parking rights…… Like I said, democracy it wasn’t.

Your suggestion of bollards was a no-go. Because bollards can’t be mounted on the pavement edge (unstable, and cars swerve to avoid them even though they aren’t actually going to hit them making them even more likely to hit oncoming cars in the ares where the road may just be wide enough), they’d have to be mounted about 9″ inside the pavement edge, which makes the pavement too narrow for wheelchairs, prams, etc….

My suggestion of a time limited one way or no parking was also discarded, mainly for the same reason as the problem first occurs – because people ignore it (I was only dropping off, honest… / it’s only just gone 8’o clock…..)

It’s a real conundrum, so much so that the county uses it as a classic interview question for their road planners.

Sounds interesting Jon – and as you say a real conundrum I don’t really see why bollards and barriers can’t be done on the kerb edge – thats what is done on a couple of streets near me but then I haven’t seen the street in question. I would still always give preference to people over cars. There are many streets around me where with cars parked on one side there is not enough room for two cars to pass and people just about managed.

Sounds like one for a bit of creative thinking.

if you suss it, I’ve got the name of the council planner, he’d be glad of the idea.

Could parking bays be put in? Is the road plus the pavements wide enough 2 pavements wide enough plus a parked car plus a car each way? even in some stretches? set out parking bays with no parking stretches for cars to pass each other?

There will be an answer of some sort – it just needs to be thought of.