Parking Fine ... so that's alright ... for the Councils!

[streaky]

Millions in parking fines issued

More than £3m in parking fines was handed out in one UK street in a year, a Channel 4 News online survey has revealed.

www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=3724

Read it and weep - Streaky

[Philbes]

FRom the report - "Local councils have defended the charges saying that parking law enforcement is needed to keep the streets clear and the traffic flowing".

So the schemes aren't working then? If they were there would be a low level of fines.

[turbobloke]

Philbes said:

FRom the report - "Local councils have defended the charges saying that parking law enforcement is needed to keep the streets clear and the traffic flowing".

So the schemes aren't working then? If they were there would be a low level of fines.

good point, though Councillors won't understand it (deliberately)

Bl00dy lentil munching sandalista pinkogreen fascist councils

[puffpuff]

turbobloke said:

Philbes said:

FRom the report - "Local councils have defended the charges saying that parking law enforcement is needed to keep the streets clear and the traffic flowing".

So the schemes aren't working then? If they were there would be a low level of fines.

good point, though Councillors won't understand it (deliberately)

Bl00dy lentil munching sandalista pinkogreen fascist councils

As PH's resident councillor (though in a rural district that doesn't enforce on-street parking regulations) can I just ask what you'd prefer - gridlocked streets or an attempt by local authorities to keep them clear?

As for your description of councils - yup, I'd say that was pretty accurate...

[herewego]

I'm not sure we should be too concerned. I think we should only be concerned about invalid parking fines rather than all fines. It's clear many people abuse the parking rules and just accept the fines. I think it was Gordon Ramsay said he gets ten or twenty tickets a day. If the people who pay don't care why should we?

[turbobloke]

puffpuff said:

turbobloke said:

Philbes said:

FRom the report - "Local councils have defended the charges saying that parking law enforcement is needed to keep the streets clear and the traffic flowing".

So the schemes aren't working then? If they were there would be a low level of fines.

good point, though Councillors won't understand it (deliberately)

Bl00dy lentil munching sandalista pinkogreen fascist councils

As PH's resident councillor (though in a rural district that doesn't enforce on-street parking regulations) can I just ask what you'd prefer - gridlocked streets or an attempt by local authorities to keep them clear?

Attempts to keep the roads clear?! Translation: seeing if you can find drivers and explaining the situation, getting them to move before issuing a ticket. If not possible, and if there is a genuine safety or traffic flow problem, then get the car moved and ticket the thing.

Reality? Letting private contractors loose who will send 'operatives' chasing targets to wait in hiding for the split second a vehicle is left, even within the permitted waiting or dropping off times. A ticketed car is still (not) causing the obstruction for which it was (not) ticketed in the first place

puffpuff said:

As for your description of councils - yup, I'd say that was pretty accurate...

Like PH, the ABD membership includes a few councillors too, and they share our view as well.

[jasandjules]

We should care because otherwise these schemes will roll further and further and further. Soon most of the towns will be double yellow lines, and you can bet they will find the money to pay for wardens..... Odd that.. Shame they can't find the money to pay for the police to actually do something.

[puffpuff]

turbobloke said:

puffpuff said:

turbobloke said:

Philbes said:

FRom the report - "Local councils have defended the charges saying that parking law enforcement is needed to keep the streets clear and the traffic flowing".

So the schemes aren't working then? If they were there would be a low level of fines.

good point, though Councillors won't understand it (deliberately)

Bl00dy lentil munching sandalista pinkogreen fascist councils

As PH's resident councillor (though in a rural district that doesn't enforce on-street parking regulations) can I just ask what you'd prefer - gridlocked streets or an attempt by local authorities to keep them clear?

Attempts to keep the roads clear?! Translation: seeing if you can find drivers and explaining the situation, getting them to move before issuing a ticket. If not possible, and if there is a genuine safety or traffic flow problem, then get the car moved and ticket the thing.

Reality? Letting private contractors loose who will send 'operatives' chasing targets to wait in hiding for the split second a vehicle is left, even within the permitted waiting or dropping off times. A ticketed car is still (not) causing the obstruction for which it was (not) ticketed in the first place

puffpuff said:

As for your description of councils - yup, I'd say that was pretty accurate...

Like PH, the ABD membership includes a few councillors too, and they share our view as well.

If that really is reality, it shouldn't be permitted. As the contractors are employed by the council it should be possible to get the contract details (under the Freedom of Information Act) to see what conditions apply to the issuing of tickets and if targets have been set.

With many councillors (including me) due for re-election next May that's a damn good campaigning issue.

Where I live (pop. 11,000 with 3.5 million visitors a year, all of whom arrive by road) congestion caused by irresponsible on-street parking is a major problem. It's not helped by high charges in car parks so locals avoid them by parking in the street. BTW, I'm a member of the opposition - I didn't agree this stuff.

It's all down to unsustainable council budgets though some might argue that council tax rises are being kept low (less than 3% p.a. here) partly dur to subsidies from parking fees which total £2.1 million a year.

Sorry, starting to get boring now - time for a lie down....

[herewego]

turbobloke said:

puffpuff said:

turbobloke said:

Philbes said:

FRom the report - "Local councils have defended the charges saying that parking law enforcement is needed to keep the streets clear and the traffic flowing".

So the schemes aren't working then? If they were there would be a low level of fines.

good point, though Councillors won't understand it (deliberately)

Bl00dy lentil munching sandalista pinkogreen fascist councils

As PH's resident councillor (though in a rural district that doesn't enforce on-street parking regulations) can I just ask what you'd prefer - gridlocked streets or an attempt by local authorities to keep them clear?

Attempts to keep the roads clear?! Translation: seeing if you can find drivers and explaining the situation, getting them to move before issuing a ticket. If not possible, and if there is a genuine safety or traffic flow problem, then get the car moved and ticket the thing.

Reality? Letting private contractors loose who will send 'operatives' chasing targets to wait in hiding for the split second a vehicle is left, even within the permitted waiting or dropping off times. A ticketed car is still (not) causing the obstruction for which it was (not) ticketed in the first place

puffpuff said:

As for your description of councils - yup, I'd say that was pretty accurate...

Like PH, the ABD membership includes a few councillors too, and they share our view as well.

There can be more than just obstruction involved. A lot of schemes are about fair parking. In other words allowing parking for a short time to allow other people a chance to visit the area too. Otherwise some people will park there all day and the rest will be excluded. If you didn't fine people for overstays you'd have to man it all day asking people to move on. Then it would cost the council a lot of money.

[puffpuff]

jasandjules said:

We should care because otherwise these schemes will roll further and further and further. Soon most of the towns will be double yellow lines, and you can bet they will find the money to pay for wardens..... Odd that.. Shame they can't find the money to pay for the police to actually do something.

In some areas the police are not the enforcing authority for on-street parking regulations, local authorities are. I'm not sure whether you'd prefer police to be issuing parking tickets or be employed to catch real criminals. I know what I prefer.

I hate double yellow lines, I hate CCTV, I hate signs that say 'No dog fouling' and 'No Litter' etc. etc. but all the time people behave selfishly with so little though for others these things are necessary.

[bigdods]

Luckily where I live pop 11,000 we still have free town centre parking in he market square plus lots of on street parking in the high street. Recently they even redesigned the car park to add more spaces. There was an attempt by the county to impose parking charges which was switfly kicked into touch by the local council and a lot of letter writing from the locals.

[turbobloke]

herewego said:

There can be more than just obstruction involved. A lot of schemes are about fair parking. In other words allowing parking for a short time to allow other people a chance to visit the area too. Otherwise some people will park there all day and the rest will be excluded. If you didn't fine people for overstays you'd have to man it all day asking people to move on. Then it would cost the council a lot of money.

Perlease, fair this and inclusion that, nulabiaspeak isn't necessary or helpful. It's just plausible denial for failing policy anyway, just an excuse for not providing enough parking spaces in the first place. Within a certain town size range: if people want to shop, that keeps a town alive economically, if a council effectively stops or sharply reduces car parking then the town dies, it's happened before and it's happening now. You can't carry medium sized shopping on a carcinogen emitting bus that goes nowhere near where you want to start and stop.

[herewego]

turbobloke said:

herewego said:

There can be more than just obstruction involved. A lot of schemes are about fair parking. In other words allowing parking for a short time to allow other people a chance to visit the area too. Otherwise some people will park there all day and the rest will be excluded. If you didn't fine people for overstays you'd have to man it all day asking people to move on. Then it would cost the council a lot of money.

Perlease, fair this and inclusion that, nulabiaspeak isn't necessary or helpful. It's just plausible denial for failing policy anyway, just an excuse for not providing enough parking spaces in the first place. Within a certain town size range: if people want to shop, that keeps a town alive economically, if a council effectively stops or sharply reduces car parking then the town dies, it's happened before and it's happening now. You can't carry medium sized shopping on a carcinogen emitting bus that goes nowhere near where you want to start and stop.

Setting and enforcing parking times is a way of providing additional parking spaces. Of course you probably prefer that the plebs houses are flattened to make way for the 4x4s.

[tvrgit]

turbobloke said:

herewego said:

There can be more than just obstruction involved. A lot of schemes are about fair parking. In other words allowing parking for a short time to allow other people a chance to visit the area too. Otherwise some people will park there all day and the rest will be excluded. If you didn't fine people for overstays you'd have to man it all day asking people to move on. Then it would cost the council a lot of money.

Perlease, fair this and inclusion that, nulabiaspeak isn't necessary or helpful. It's just plausible denial for failing policy anyway, just an excuse for not providing enough parking spaces in the first place. Within a certain town size range: if people want to shop, that keeps a town alive economically, if a council effectively stops or sharply reduces car parking then the town dies, it's happened before and it's happening now. You can't carry medium sized shopping on a carcinogen emitting bus that goes nowhere near where you want to start and stop.

Aye, true, but on the other hand, most people want to park right outside where they want to go, they don't want to walk any distance at all. Now you can't have 50 spaces on the bit of road outside, say, Marks and Sparks and none next door - it doesn't work like that - they have to be spread out. Nevertheless, the spaces nearest to Marks and Sparks will still be the most popular and the ones people will head for.

Unfortunately, if you don't have any parking controls at all, then you will find that the parking spaces in front of Marks and Sparks are full by 8:00 am, and those cars stay there all day, because they belong to employees. You need the controls to promote a turnover of spaces for customers. Every parking study in an unregulated town cenre finds the same thing. So you end up with the town centre full of cars that are there first (employees arriving before the shops open) and customers can't get parked.

So the next step is that you can provide loads of parking AROUND a town centre but still people will want to park IN the town centre because they cannot be bothered to walk. If the shop doors were wide enough they wouldn't want to get out of the car at all. So they drive around, past all the cars that are parked all day, before they give up.

So if "people want to shop, to keep a town alive economically", then the first step is to make sure that it's the SHOPPERS and not the EMPLOYEES who are able to park in the most convenient spaces... And you can only solve that problem, through regulation of any existing on-street parking to ensure turnover of spaces.

I think that's what "a fair system" was meant to infer.

[TVR keith]

"spokeswoman for Edinburgh City Council defended the high volume of tickets in George Street.

She said: "We have to make sure there is a high turnover for traders in the area.

More likely to result in a high turnover OF traders in the area if people can't park to use the shops I would have thought

[tvrgit]

TVR keith said:

"spokeswoman for Edinburgh City Council defended the high volume of tickets in George Street.

She said: "We have to make sure there is a high turnover for traders in the area.

More likely to result in a high turnover OF traders in the area if people can't park to use the shops I would have thought

There's a balance - see my post above.

Yep over-enthusiastic enforcement can undo any benefits to traders.

[turbobloke]

herewego said:

turbobloke said:

herewego said:

There can be more than just obstruction involved. A lot of schemes are about fair parking. In other words allowing parking for a short time to allow other people a chance to visit the area too. Otherwise some people will park there all day and the rest will be excluded. If you didn't fine people for overstays you'd have to man it all day asking people to move on. Then it would cost the council a lot of money.

Perlease, fair this and inclusion that, nulabiaspeak isn't necessary or helpful. It's just plausible denial for failing policy anyway, just an excuse for not providing enough parking spaces in the first place. Within a certain town size range: if people want to shop, that keeps a town alive economically, if a council effectively stops or sharply reduces car parking then the town dies, it's happened before and it's happening now. You can't carry medium sized shopping on a carcinogen emitting bus that goes nowhere near where you want to start and stop.

Setting and enforcing parking times is a way of providing additional parking spaces. Of course you probably prefer that the plebs houses are flattened to make way for the 4x4s.

I'd prefer a sensible rational comment to reply to but hey, no worries. Setting and enforcing parking times should be about all sorts of things but it isn't it;s about enforcing 'modal shift' and other synthetic modern-left claptrap like inclusion and social justice.

Individual responsibility, freedom of choice and natural justice have stood the test of time. Unlike BLiar's cutesie phrases that say one thing but have 'will not do as advertised but note that oppressive control freakery is a mandatory extra' in the small print, these principles will be around long after Tony and his Cronies are laughed at by future generations for their foolishness and wrong-minded social meddling.

As to parking: on-street, free and lots of it. Even more at roof height and underground, sorted, nice. Paid for already. from the £40 billion out of £46 billion in annual motoring taxes and duties that WE pay to subsidise poetry lessons for left handed trombonists and for public sector non-jobs with megapensions. It's only fair

[Rob_the_Sparky]

Well having done a delivery round into London a few years ago (before congestion charging) I can be certain that some schemes are clearly only for making money. In my example deliveries had to be made to central London offices (in Westminster). The council provides absolutely no where for delivery vehicles to park, then employes a remarkably large number of wardens to collect the fines that are completely unavoidable.

There was no way anyone one was going to stop delivering so the coucil were raking it in, guaranteed endless income. Don't you love it.

Rob

[turbobloke]

Rob_the_Sparky said:

Well having done a delivery round into London a few years ago (before congestion charging) I can be certain that some schemes are clearly only for making money. In my example deliveries had to be made to central London offices (in Westminster). The council provides absolutely no where for delivery vehicles to park, then employes a remarkably large number of wardens to collect the fines that are completely unavoidable.

There was no way anyone one was going to stop delivering so the coucil were raking it in, guaranteed endless income. Don't you love it.

Rob

I seem to remember Westminster is one of the biggest - if not THE biggest - parking revenue collectors in the capital, raking in £millions from people who, as you say, have no option.

[streaky]

Pouring petrol on the fire here, but ... one wonders how much of the money raked in goes towards topping up the officials' pension schemes and how much more they will need to ensure council officials can retire in the comfort that Gordon Brown has denied to those in private pension schemes - Streaky