Block the Pavement, Complain About a Ticket..

On 18/03/2016 08:40, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 17/03/2016 17:23, John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 17:10:03 UTC, John Smith wrote:

Never in the field of human transportation, has so much
self-entitlement, been expressed by so many, with such little
justification.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12196891/Couple-shocked-to-receive-ticket-for-parking-on-their-driveway.html

And apparently they can park on the pavement without ever driving
on/along it - a miracle.

Of course. Haven't you seen 'Back to the Future V'? The cars elevate and
then come back down on the pavement, without actually having driven on
them.

Didn't that slobbering spastic David Lang try to claim that they don't
drive on the pavement?

Has someone gutted that stupid **** with a lock knife yet?

See?

You're feeling better already.

Try a triple Drambuie next if you can afford it.

Yes, I've been on just that since 9 PM your time last night.

I know.

On 18/03/2016 12:31, JNugent wrote:

Mind you, on the subject of Glug's mention of "self-entitlement", he
must also be referring to the arrogant habit of many London cyclists who
apparently see nothing wrong with leaving their bikes on the footway,
chained to street furniture or even to (as well as often on) private
property in the form of railings, etc.


As opposed to arrogant motorists abandoning their cars on the public
highway. Restricting the flow of other traffic and increasing the
dangers for children by blocking clear views of the road and pavement.

Some occupants have had to resort to displaying signs asking cyclists
not to leave their machines on private property and not to attach them
to the building - when no-one in their right mind could possibly imagine
that it *is* permissible or acceptable to thus abandon a bike.


This problem car abandoning problem is so bad authorities not only
regularly sign and paint roadways to prevent it happening but they even
have to employ an army of inspectors to catch offenders. some offenders
then moan and complain when they are rightful fined for their selfish
and dangerous behaviour.


It's nice to see that Glug appreciates the arrogance of those cyclists.


Yeah right.

On Saturday, 19 March 2016 10:03:59 UTC, Nick wrote:

This problem car abandoning problem is so bad authorities not only
regularly sign and paint roadways to prevent it happening but they even
have to employ an army of inspectors to catch offenders. some offenders
then moan and complain when they are rightful fined for their selfish
and dangerous behaviour.

All 28000000 of them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/car...st-decade.html

On 19/03/2016 10:03, Nick wrote:

On 18/03/2016 12:31, JNugent wrote:

Mind you, on the subject of Glug's mention of "self-entitlement", he
must also be referring to the arrogant habit of many London cyclists who
apparently see nothing wrong with leaving their bikes on the footway,
chained to street furniture or even to (as well as often on) private
property in the form of railings, etc.

As opposed to arrogant motorists abandoning their cars on the public
highway. Restricting the flow of other traffic and increasing the
dangers for children by blocking clear views of the road and pavement.

No-one sensible is supportive of obstructive parking. I agree that easy
access, good vision and adequate vision splays are important safety
requirements, just as much in residential locations as in city-centre
streets.

Some occupants have had to resort to displaying signs asking cyclists
not to leave their machines on private property and not to attach them
to the building - when no-one in their right mind could possibly imagine
that it *is* permissible or acceptable to thus abandon a bike.

This problem car abandoning problem is so bad authorities not only
regularly sign and paint roadways to prevent it happening but they even
have to employ an army of inspectors to catch offenders. some offenders
then moan and complain when they are rightful fined for their selfish
and dangerous behaviour.

On-highway parking control is perfectly acceptable and even welcome - as
long as it is done in order to prevent and reduce obstruction and to
improve traffic flow. It is not so acceptable where it is done in order
to raise revenue for councils and it is not acceptable at all where it
is done simply to prevent access to particular towns or areas within
them. I'm sure you agree 100% with that.

It's nice to see that Glug appreciates the arrogance of those cyclists.

Yeah right.

Quite so.

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:36:45 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

On-highway parking control is perfectly acceptable and even welcome - as
long as it is done in order to prevent and reduce obstruction and to
improve traffic flow. It is not so acceptable where it is done in order
to raise revenue for councils and it is not acceptable at all where it
is done simply to prevent access to particular towns or areas within
them. I'm sure you agree 100% with that.

If that is the case, you will agree that parking control is "perfectly acceptable and even welcome" on the entire highway network. I have yet to see a car parked on the highway which is not causing an obstruction.

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 8:25:28 PM UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:

If that is the case, you will agree that parking control is "perfectly acceptable and even welcome" on the entire highway network. I have yet to see a car parked on the highway which is not causing an obstruction.

This may be the one subject JNugent and I agree on.
Short term on street PARKING is fine.
On street GARAGING where a householder believes the section of public highway adjacent to their property is reserved for their personal use is not.

On 19/03/2016 20:25, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:36:45 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

On-highway parking control is perfectly acceptable and even welcome - as
long as it is done in order to prevent and reduce obstruction and to
improve traffic flow. It is not so acceptable where it is done in order
to raise revenue for councils and it is not acceptable at all where it
is done simply to prevent access to particular towns or areas within
them. I'm sure you agree 100% with that.

If that is the case, you will agree that parking control is "perfectly acceptable and even welcome" on the entire highway network. I have yet to see a car parked on the highway which is not causing an obstruction.

A. Please do not treat a usenet post dashed off in 45 seconds as a full
and authoritative statement of the law. It isn't intended to be that. If
all posts had to be that writing them would become unacceptably tedious,
as I'm sure you'd agree.

B. Please mentally insert and read the words "unreasonable" or
"unreasonably" wherever it is required by the context.

On 19/03/2016 21:21, Simon Jester wrote:

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 8:25:28 PM UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:

If that is the case, you will agree that parking control is "perfectly acceptable and even welcome" on the entire highway network. I have yet to see a car parked on the highway which is not causing an obstruction.

This may be the one subject JNugent and I agree on.
Short term on street PARKING is fine.
On street GARAGING where a householder believes the section of public highway adjacent to their property is reserved for their personal use is not.

That wasn't the subject of my posts (so far) in this thread, but I am
happy to support that sentiment. Doug Bollen took the same line and I
was happy to also agree with him on it.