You really couldn't make it up...

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 12:44:45 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

If you (not you in particular - anyone) can't park a car off road - on
land entirely within your control - at home, you ought not to be allowed
to keep one at that address.

It was the only thing Doug consistently got right.

I too agree entirely with Doug on this.

All five of my London properties have at least one off road car
parking space, two have garages in addition to off road parking, and
the other three have private bicycle sheds in addition to off road car
parking.

It would create a market for garaging space (those who have garaging
space haven't acquired its use free of charge either) and it would clear
streets for moving traffic and parking whilst away from home instead of
letting local residents pre-empt it..

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 11:57:34 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 20/07/2013 10:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 00:59:35 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/07/2013 17:31, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:56:53 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/07/2013 14:30, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:18:54 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/07/2013 07:41, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:35:33 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/07/2013 19:14, Tosspot wrote:
On 18/07/13 11:35, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2013 02:03, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

Police Car...?

OK...

Just for the kids, I'll throw in the word "unlawfully".

I stand by my answer.

So you insist that I will - or anyone - see a police car being driven
along the footway more frequently than we will see a bicycle being
ridden along it, do you?

Just to clarify, I meant Planet Earth, not your obviously-other world.

Well, if it's any help. I saw 4 being driven on a pavement tonight.

I have driven my car on the footway several times today.

Cars being illegally driven onto, and parked, on the footway by
criminals is a chronic problem in parts of London.
http://goo.gl/maps/HKNEy

On the map display, it asks: "Is something missing"?

The answer is; "Yes, the so-called criminals referred to by the previous
poster".

That's because they have left the scene of their crime. The evidence
remains.

Clare, who works in Central London says that cyclists on the footway
is a chronic problem also. However, I have scoured Google Streetview
on the area around Kingsway, where Clare works, but have not found one
example to show you. I did find this, where cyclists are actively
encouraged to ride on the footway:
http://goo.gl/maps/oDsyV

You don't need a weatherman...

Let's be clear about this.

In any circumstance where it is lawful and acceptable to drive a motor
car on a footway, it is equally legal and acceptable for a bicycle to be
used in the same way.

Thus, any vehicle can cross a footway for access to off-road land,
including a private dwelling, or a space which looks as though it
physically forms part of the footway but has, in fact, been reserved for
parking, of whatever sort of vehicle. There may be other, equally
lawful, circumstances.

What I am referring to is the footway being used as the route for part
of a journey, other than the very beginning or the very end of it. And
you and others *know* that.

Oh - so it is OK to drive on the footway so long as it is to park on
(and obstruct) the footway?

It is OK wherever it is not an offence to park on (part of) the footway.
As you are well aware, there are places where LA signage indicates that
parking on part of the width is not only allowed, but in some cases,
encouraged by the painting of parking bays.

This is admittedly usually in locations where the footway shows signs of
once having had part of its width under cultivation.

I am, of course, only concerned about motorists driving on, parking on
and obstructing parts of the footway where this is not permitted.

In my experience it is a far far bigger problem than cyclists on the
footway, who scare people more often than cause real harm.

It would be difficult to attribute *any* harm at all to cars parked on,
or partly on, the footway, with the possible (and oft-cited) cracking of
flagstones (do many places still use flagstones? There are certainly
none hereabouts).

That does not mean that I condone or recommend the practice.

OK - your attitude to driving along to obstruct by parking on the
footway is very similar to my attitude to cycling along the footway.

While I don't condone or recommend the practice, I find it difficult
to attribute any harm in it so long as the cyclist shows due respect
to legitimate footway users.

Yes, but most cyclists *don't*.

I have far more concern with motor vehicles on the footway. Not only
do they damage the footway, they cause significant obstacles to
certain groups of legitimate footway users - parents with buggies, the
disabled, the elderly, couples or groups wanting to chat and walk side
by side, etc, etc, etc...

Your difficulty is that except in London, it isn't usually illegal.

London is where I live 95% of my life. It is where my experience of
footway parking comes from. It is where my concern is based.

OTOH, if drivers were in the habit of travelling along the footway as a
normal part of their journey, I would condemn that. And to the
negligible extent that any drivers might be in that habit, I do so now
without hesitation, just as I know you will condemn cyclists doing the
same thing..

Still waiting.

As I said, I do not condone the practice. But neither do I think that
cyclists using the footway with consideration for other footway users
do much harm.

On Saturday, 20 July 2013 13:55:35 UTC+1, wrote:
On Saturday, 20 July 2013 11:11:05 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:

It is far easier and safer for almost anyone to negotiate a relatively
smooth stationary vehicle parked partly or even wholly on a pavement, than
it is to negotiate an obscenity screaming, slobbering, smelly oaf on a
moving bike (with lots of sticky out bits) that may approach from any
direction .

Jim, if my post pointing out the dangers of pavement parking to blind people is "hysteria", then what is this?

I've been for a 30 mile ride to the beach for a swim, and you've still not come up with an answer for my return.

On 20/07/2013 18:16, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 20/07/2013 17:06, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

It is far easier and safer for almost anyone to negotiate a
relatively smooth stationary vehicle parked partly or even wholly on
a pavement, than it is to negotiate an obscenity screaming,
slobbering, smelly oaf on a moving bike (with lots of sticky out
bits) that may approach from any direction .

Here's a tip. Reduce the number of bottles you buy in your weekly
shop. You would be able to walk in a straighter line and the cyclist
will be able to find a way round you more easily. It's even possible
that you stop imagining things.

Tell that to all the OAPs that suffer broken hips and worse when they
are
hit by these bicycle weapons.

There is a far greater threat when walking anywhere. Motor vehicles.

Thanks to JNugent:-

That does *not* mean that I condone or recommend cyclists from
ignoring
traffic regulations, merely that I point out that there is little harm
which
actually flows from it in reality, even if there is plenty in the weird
imaginations of some.

That's a silly forgery.

At least I gave you the credit.

A stationary car can do no harm to anyone (unless it's on top of them).

I didn't say "stationary motor vehicles represent the far greater threat to
pedestrians". I said that "motor vehicles represent the far greater threat
to pedestrians". Is there a factual error?

There is an error in ignoring the correct context, which was the topic
of stationary motor vehicles (with a later comparison between such
stationary vehicles and moving bicycles).

On 20/07/2013 18:49, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 13:53:54 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 20/07/2013 13:46, wrote:

On Saturday, 20 July 2013 11:55:46 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

It would be difficult to attribute *any* harm at all to cars parked on,
or partly on, the footway, though it's easy enough to react with
hysteria, as you are doing.

Concern for others isn't one of your strong points, is it.

Here's a deal if you want it: don't be such a drama queen, and I won't
(have to) point out that you're a drama queen.

There are many reasons why flagstones are disappearing, but parking on
them is not one of them.

Actually, it is.

You missed out a "not" in there.

Flagstones are disappearing because of their cost compared with asphalt.

Flagstones last considerably longer than tarmac, if not destroyed by
footway parking, and would therefore be considerably cheaper if it
were not for the thoughtless and selfish behaviour of a minority of
motorists.
http://goo.gl/maps/LyVaE

Rubbish. The flagstones in the street where I was brought up were
undamaged when Liverpool City Council dug them up and put them into
storage to await reallocation as adornment of "prestige" city centre
redevelopments. As it happens, the unsightly asphalt with which they
were replaced is still in good condition 35 years later, but looks
completely out of place in a late Victorian terraced street. Such
locations should have been allowed to retain the cracks for further
generations of children to avoid (and convenient hopscotch pitches).

On 20/07/2013 19:01, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 11:57:34 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 20/07/2013 10:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 00:59:35 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/07/2013 17:31, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:56:53 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/07/2013 14:30, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:18:54 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/07/2013 07:41, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:35:33 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/07/2013 19:14, Tosspot wrote:
On 18/07/13 11:35, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2013 02:03, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

Police Car...?

OK...

Just for the kids, I'll throw in the word "unlawfully".

I stand by my answer.

So you insist that I will - or anyone - see a police car being driven
along the footway more frequently than we will see a bicycle being
ridden along it, do you?

Just to clarify, I meant Planet Earth, not your obviously-other world.

Well, if it's any help. I saw 4 being driven on a pavement tonight.

I have driven my car on the footway several times today.

Cars being illegally driven onto, and parked, on the footway by
criminals is a chronic problem in parts of London.
http://goo.gl/maps/HKNEy

On the map display, it asks: "Is something missing"?

The answer is; "Yes, the so-called criminals referred to by the previous
poster".

That's because they have left the scene of their crime. The evidence
remains.

Clare, who works in Central London says that cyclists on the footway
is a chronic problem also. However, I have scoured Google Streetview
on the area around Kingsway, where Clare works, but have not found one
example to show you. I did find this, where cyclists are actively
encouraged to ride on the footway:
http://goo.gl/maps/oDsyV

You don't need a weatherman...

Let's be clear about this.

In any circumstance where it is lawful and acceptable to drive a motor
car on a footway, it is equally legal and acceptable for a bicycle to be
used in the same way.

Thus, any vehicle can cross a footway for access to off-road land,
including a private dwelling, or a space which looks as though it
physically forms part of the footway but has, in fact, been reserved for
parking, of whatever sort of vehicle. There may be other, equally
lawful, circumstances.

What I am referring to is the footway being used as the route for part
of a journey, other than the very beginning or the very end of it. And
you and others *know* that.

Oh - so it is OK to drive on the footway so long as it is to park on
(and obstruct) the footway?

It is OK wherever it is not an offence to park on (part of) the footway.
As you are well aware, there are places where LA signage indicates that
parking on part of the width is not only allowed, but in some cases,
encouraged by the painting of parking bays.

This is admittedly usually in locations where the footway shows signs of
once having had part of its width under cultivation.

I am, of course, only concerned about motorists driving on, parking on
and obstructing parts of the footway where this is not permitted.

In my experience it is a far far bigger problem than cyclists on the
footway, who scare people more often than cause real harm.

It would be difficult to attribute *any* harm at all to cars parked on,
or partly on, the footway, with the possible (and oft-cited) cracking of
flagstones (do many places still use flagstones? There are certainly
none hereabouts).

That does not mean that I condone or recommend the practice.

OK - your attitude to driving along to obstruct by parking on the
footway is very similar to my attitude to cycling along the footway.

While I don't condone or recommend the practice, I find it difficult
to attribute any harm in it so long as the cyclist shows due respect
to legitimate footway users.

Yes, but most cyclists *don't*.

I have far more concern with motor vehicles on the footway. Not only
do they damage the footway, they cause significant obstacles to
certain groups of legitimate footway users - parents with buggies, the
disabled, the elderly, couples or groups wanting to chat and walk side
by side, etc, etc, etc...

Your difficulty is that except in London, it isn't usually illegal.

London is where I live 95% of my life. It is where my experience of
footway parking comes from. It is where my concern is based.

OTOH, if drivers were in the habit of travelling along the footway as a
normal part of their journey, I would condemn that. And to the
negligible extent that any drivers might be in that habit, I do so now
without hesitation, just as I know you will condemn cyclists doing the
same thing..

Still waiting.

As I said, I do not condone the practice. But neither do I think that
cyclists using the footway with consideration for other footway users
do much harm.

The owners of illegal firearms taking adequately careful and considerate
aim on discharge of their weapons don't do much harm either.

But...

On Sunday, 21 July 2013 01:03:23 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 20/07/2013 18:49, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 13:53:54 +0100, JNugent

wrote:



On 20/07/2013 13:46, wrote:



On Saturday, 20 July 2013 11:55:46 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:



It would be difficult to attribute *any* harm at all to cars parked on,

or partly on, the footway, though it's easy enough to react with

hysteria, as you are doing.



Concern for others isn't one of your strong points, is it.



Here's a deal if you want it: don't be such a drama queen, and I won't

(have to) point out that you're a drama queen.



There are many reasons why flagstones are disappearing, but parking on

them is not one of them.



Actually, it is.



You missed out a "not" in there.



Flagstones are disappearing because of their cost compared with asphalt.



Flagstones last considerably longer than tarmac, if not destroyed by

footway parking, and would therefore be considerably cheaper if it

were not for the thoughtless and selfish behaviour of a minority of

motorists.

http://goo.gl/maps/LyVaE



Rubbish. The flagstones in the street where I was brought up were

undamaged when Liverpool City Council dug them up and put them into

storage to await reallocation as adornment of "prestige" city centre

redevelopments. As it happens, the unsightly asphalt with which they

were replaced is still in good condition 35 years later, but looks

completely out of place in a late Victorian terraced street. Such

locations should have been allowed to retain the cracks for further

generations of children to avoid (and convenient hopscotch pitches).

I believe they pinched the york-stone to save it getting pinched.

On 21/07/2013 03:07, thirty-six wrote:

On Sunday, 21 July 2013 01:03:23 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 20/07/2013 18:49, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 20/07/2013 13:46, wrote:
On Saturday, 20 July 2013 11:55:46 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

It would be difficult to attribute *any* harm at all to cars parked on,
or partly on, the footway, though it's easy enough to react with
hysteria, as you are doing.

Concern for others isn't one of your strong points, is it.

Here's a deal if you want it: don't be such a drama queen, and I won't
(have to) point out that you're a drama queen.

There are many reasons why flagstones are disappearing, but parking on
them is not one of them.

Actually, it is.

You missed out a "not" in there.

Flagstones are disappearing because of their cost compared with asphalt.

Flagstones last considerably longer than tarmac, if not destroyed by
footway parking, and would therefore be considerably cheaper if it
were not for the thoughtless and selfish behaviour of a minority of
motorists.
http://goo.gl/maps/LyVaE

Rubbish. The flagstones in the street where I was brought up were
undamaged when Liverpool City Council dug them up and put them into
storage to await reallocation as adornment of "prestige" city centre
redevelopments. As it happens, the unsightly asphalt with which they
were replaced is still in good condition 35 years later, but looks
completely out of place in a late Victorian terraced street. Such
locations should have been allowed to retain the cracks for further
generations of children to avoid (and convenient hopscotch pitches).

I believe they pinched the york-stone to save it getting pinched.

I don't know what "york-stone" is, but suspect that it is the sort of
cheap composition paving flag used for patios, footpaths around the side
of semi-detached houses, etc.

The flagstones purloined by Liverpool City Council from whole terraced
streets was genuine hewn solid stone, at least 75 years old in situ at
the time, laid down by the builders who built those privately-owned
streets (certainly not by the council) and in as near perfect condition
as you could possibly expect, despite four or five generations of use.

One can only imagine the depravity of the council official who, having
identified the quality and value of the street furniture in those
locations, wrote a report to the relevant committee recommending that
the stones be removed (as though they were the property of the council,
which they were not).

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:29:44 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

One can only imagine the depravity of the council official who, having
identified the quality and value of the street furniture in those
locations, wrote a report to the relevant committee recommending that
the stones be removed (as though they were the property of the council,
which they were not).

Have you reported the theft to the police?

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 00:59:13 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

There is an error in ignoring the correct context, which was the topic
of stationary motor vehicles (with a later comparison between such
stationary vehicles and moving bicycles).

How do the stationary motor vehicles materialise on the footway?