The BAD PARKING thread [vol4]
Discussion
Sticks. said:
Just too lazy to find a proper place to park then. Don't want to impede traffic but happy to impede wheelchair users and children in buggies.
When did a person in a wheelchair lose their right to use the pavement the same as everyone else? And just for someone's convenience?
In Stuart's photo, absolutely no need, purely selfish.
I think a buggie could get past without any issue, even a double, it's only a bit of grass.When did a person in a wheelchair lose their right to use the pavement the same as everyone else? And just for someone's convenience?
In Stuart's photo, absolutely no need, purely selfish.
It's not just "someone's" convenience, it's potentially every road user.
Yes, it's not ideal, but I don't see why delaying 1 person by short amount of time is worse than potentially delaying every vehicle by what is probably a short-moderate time (assuming people slow down for a tighter gap or have to wait for oncoming traffic to pass).
If, for example, it was hindering 98 pedestrians a day and only 2 cars, then I'd argue the opposite, but, to me, it makes sense to park in the least disruptive way, considering all users. It's not like a wheelchair user is prevented from continuing their journey.
Strudul said:
I don't think people park on the pavement cos they are lazy, it's to minimise impeding traffic and the likelihood of their car being scraped by another vehicle.
As such, they've benefited 100% of people using that road, and 98.1% of people are still able to use that bit of pavement.
Is it really that much a crime to cause a minor inconvenience to a minority who lose 5 seconds of their life crossing over or going round despite benefiting everyone else?
The road looks wide enough for the car to be fully on the road and still not impede traffic.As such, they've benefited 100% of people using that road, and 98.1% of people are still able to use that bit of pavement.
Is it really that much a crime to cause a minor inconvenience to a minority who lose 5 seconds of their life crossing over or going round despite benefiting everyone else?
Strudel, a few points.
In this instance it’s isn’t just a bit of grass. In this weather it’s a soft muddy bit of ground which is easy to sink in. During summer, no problem. At the moment it’s like the Somme.
As someone else pointed out, there’s a long line of cars who’d parked correctly in bays. She’d parked on double yellow lines on a section of road which is plenty wide enough to make it unnecessary to park on the pavement.
It’s also just near the entrance to a popular park where plenty of pushchairs etc go. The gap on the pavement wasn’t wide enough for a single pushchair.
In short, she’d parked on the pavement making it easier for 0% of vehicles and difficult for around 10% of pavement users. Not because she is lazy but because she is unthinking.
As an amateur psychiatrist I’d suggest her over the top reaction was because she knew she was a bit of a t
t
In this instance it’s isn’t just a bit of grass. In this weather it’s a soft muddy bit of ground which is easy to sink in. During summer, no problem. At the moment it’s like the Somme.
As someone else pointed out, there’s a long line of cars who’d parked correctly in bays. She’d parked on double yellow lines on a section of road which is plenty wide enough to make it unnecessary to park on the pavement.
It’s also just near the entrance to a popular park where plenty of pushchairs etc go. The gap on the pavement wasn’t wide enough for a single pushchair.
In short, she’d parked on the pavement making it easier for 0% of vehicles and difficult for around 10% of pavement users. Not because she is lazy but because she is unthinking.
As an amateur psychiatrist I’d suggest her over the top reaction was because she knew she was a bit of a t
tEdited by stuartmmcfc on Monday 7th December 08:34
Strudul said:
I don't think people park on the pavement cos they are lazy, it's to minimise impeding traffic and the likelihood of their car being scraped by another vehicle.
As such, they've benefited 100% of people using that road, and 98.1% of people are still able to use that bit of pavement.
Is it really that much a crime to cause a minor inconvenience to a minority who lose 5 seconds of their life crossing over or going round despite benefiting everyone else?
Never thought anyone would be stupid enough to defend that parking. As such, they've benefited 100% of people using that road, and 98.1% of people are still able to use that bit of pavement.
Is it really that much a crime to cause a minor inconvenience to a minority who lose 5 seconds of their life crossing over or going round despite benefiting everyone else?
Live and learn.
Edited by LetsTryAgain on Monday 7th December 10:34
SkodaIan said:
You have to apply Audi School Run Mum logic to the situation:
'It says "School Keep Clear" on the road, so if I park completely on the pavement I'm not on the markings so its ok'
The photo did make me think of a school near me though, which has a marked drop-off / parking bay inside "School Keep Clear" markings on the road. It's definitely not a bus stop but does beg the question what the "Keep Clear" markings are meant to mean. Do they mean that you're not allowed to double park, which isn't allowed anyway, or does it actually mean you're not allowed to park in the bay which the council will have spent a fair amount of money building in the first place.
Hello neighbour!!'It says "School Keep Clear" on the road, so if I park completely on the pavement I'm not on the markings so its ok'
The photo did make me think of a school near me though, which has a marked drop-off / parking bay inside "School Keep Clear" markings on the road. It's definitely not a bus stop but does beg the question what the "Keep Clear" markings are meant to mean. Do they mean that you're not allowed to double park, which isn't allowed anyway, or does it actually mean you're not allowed to park in the bay which the council will have spent a fair amount of money building in the first place.
Tommo87 said:
DoubleD said:
I personally don't think that vandalism is the answer.
What is a shame, is that given years to contemplate the problem, you still don’t have a better answer, other than ignoring it and waiting for someone else to do something.LetsTryAgain said:
Strudul said:
I don't think people park on the pavement cos they are lazy, it's to minimise impeding traffic and the likelihood of their car being scraped by another vehicle.
As such, they've benefited 100% of people using that road, and 98.1% of people are still able to use that bit of pavement.
Is it really that much a crime to cause a minor inconvenience to a minority who lose 5 seconds of their life crossing over or going round despite benefiting everyone else?
Never thought anyone would be stupid enough to defend that parking. As such, they've benefited 100% of people using that road, and 98.1% of people are still able to use that bit of pavement.
Is it really that much a crime to cause a minor inconvenience to a minority who lose 5 seconds of their life crossing over or going round despite benefiting everyone else?
Live and learn.
Edited by LetsTryAgain on Monday 7th December 10:34
That clearly explains why he doesn’t understand.
I detest parking on the pavement, but I have to admit I'm forced to do it occasionally. I drive a Royal Mail van and have to empty post boxes. We need to park near the box and within sight of the van at all times, sometimes the options are park on the pavement or block the road. Sometimes I'll block the road, but occasionally if there's a wide pavement I'll park partially on it so as to keep traffic flowing, I'll only do it if it still leaves at least a metre of pavement free and I know it's wrong. I've spoken to my manager about it and he insists it's the best option. Police have had a word in the past when I've blocked the road and suggested I do as the other guys do and park partially on the pavement as it's the lesser of two evils. We managed to get the council to put in a loading bay at one of the worst sites but more often than not it gets used by car drivers 'just nipping in for a minute'and we end up having to double park alongside them. From the highway code point of view I should park at the nearest legal spot and walk or drive several times round the one way system till a space comes up but I'd be subject to disciplinary proceedings for failing on time slots and / or security issues.
Strudul said:
I think a buggie could get past without any issue, even a double, it's only a bit of grass.
It's not just "someone's" convenience, it's potentially every road user.
Yes, it's not ideal, but I don't see why delaying 1 person by short amount of time is worse than potentially delaying every vehicle by what is probably a short-moderate time (assuming people slow down for a tighter gap or have to wait for oncoming traffic to pass).
If, for example, it was hindering 98 pedestrians a day and only 2 cars, then I'd argue the opposite, but, to me, it makes sense to park in the least disruptive way, considering all users. It's not like a wheelchair user is prevented from continuing their journey.
So instead of the 1 person being inconvenienved being the wheelchair user (plus however many other users of the pavement that can't now get past) how about it being the person who should have parked correctly. Either by taking a bit more time to park sensibly in that spot, or if that spot isn't suitable due to causing an obstruction park elsewhere and walk a bit further. It's not just "someone's" convenience, it's potentially every road user.
Yes, it's not ideal, but I don't see why delaying 1 person by short amount of time is worse than potentially delaying every vehicle by what is probably a short-moderate time (assuming people slow down for a tighter gap or have to wait for oncoming traffic to pass).
If, for example, it was hindering 98 pedestrians a day and only 2 cars, then I'd argue the opposite, but, to me, it makes sense to park in the least disruptive way, considering all users. It's not like a wheelchair user is prevented from continuing their journey.
stuartmmcfc said:
Strudel, a few points.
In this instance it’s isn’t just a bit of grass. In this weather it’s a soft muddy bit of ground which is easy to sink in. During summer, no problem. At the moment it’s like the Somme.
As someone else pointed out, there’s a long line of cars who’d parked correctly in bays. She’d parked on double yellow lines on a section of road which is plenty wide enough to make it unnecessary to park on the pavement.
It’s also just near the entrance to a popular park where plenty of pushchairs etc go. The gap on the pavement wasn’t wide enough for a single pushchair.
In short, she’d parked on the pavement making it easier for 0% of vehicles and difficult for around 10% of pavement users. Not because she is lazy but because she is unthinking.
As an amateur psychiatrist I’d suggest her over the top reaction was because she knew she was a bit of a tt
Still not sure a pushchair would sink in soft mud.In this instance it’s isn’t just a bit of grass. In this weather it’s a soft muddy bit of ground which is easy to sink in. During summer, no problem. At the moment it’s like the Somme.
As someone else pointed out, there’s a long line of cars who’d parked correctly in bays. She’d parked on double yellow lines on a section of road which is plenty wide enough to make it unnecessary to park on the pavement.
It’s also just near the entrance to a popular park where plenty of pushchairs etc go. The gap on the pavement wasn’t wide enough for a single pushchair.
In short, she’d parked on the pavement making it easier for 0% of vehicles and difficult for around 10% of pavement users. Not because she is lazy but because she is unthinking.
As an amateur psychiatrist I’d suggest her over the top reaction was because she knew she was a bit of a t
tI'm guessing all the bays are taken. Didn't spot the double yellows for all the dirt.
Looks like there is a car parked opposite such that if they were to be parked completely in the road, only 1 car would be able to get past at a time? Can't see what is happening further down to know if there was potentially a better spot 2 metres down the road or they were stuck with the only possible remaining spot on the street.
Strudul said:
stuartmmcfc said:
Strudel, a few points.
In this instance it’s isn’t just a bit of grass. In this weather it’s a soft muddy bit of ground which is easy to sink in. During summer, no problem. At the moment it’s like the Somme.
As someone else pointed out, there’s a long line of cars who’d parked correctly in bays. She’d parked on double yellow lines on a section of road which is plenty wide enough to make it unnecessary to park on the pavement.
It’s also just near the entrance to a popular park where plenty of pushchairs etc go. The gap on the pavement wasn’t wide enough for a single pushchair.
In short, she’d parked on the pavement making it easier for 0% of vehicles and difficult for around 10% of pavement users. Not because she is lazy but because she is unthinking.
As an amateur psychiatrist I’d suggest her over the top reaction was because she knew she was a bit of a tt
Still not sure a pushchair would sink in soft mud.In this instance it’s isn’t just a bit of grass. In this weather it’s a soft muddy bit of ground which is easy to sink in. During summer, no problem. At the moment it’s like the Somme.
As someone else pointed out, there’s a long line of cars who’d parked correctly in bays. She’d parked on double yellow lines on a section of road which is plenty wide enough to make it unnecessary to park on the pavement.
It’s also just near the entrance to a popular park where plenty of pushchairs etc go. The gap on the pavement wasn’t wide enough for a single pushchair.
In short, she’d parked on the pavement making it easier for 0% of vehicles and difficult for around 10% of pavement users. Not because she is lazy but because she is unthinking.
As an amateur psychiatrist I’d suggest her over the top reaction was because she knew she was a bit of a t
tI'm guessing all the bays are taken. Didn't spot the double yellows for all the dirt.
Looks like there is a car parked opposite such that if they were to be parked completely in the road, only 1 car would be able to get past at a time? Can't see what is happening further down to know if there was potentially a better spot 2 metres down the road or they were stuck with the only possible remaining spot on the street.
I think where I differ is that being able to park as close to where you're going is a given, then using the pavement because it's not a good place and you risk getting your car scratched.
People who can't be bothered to walk a little inconveniencing people who'd live to be able to.
It is endemic though. When a neighbour's son was learning to drive the instructor would usually park part on the pavement.
People who can't be bothered to walk a little inconveniencing people who'd live to be able to.
It is endemic though. When a neighbour's son was learning to drive the instructor would usually park part on the pavement.
Strudul said:
I think a buggie could get past without any issue, even a double, it's only a bit of grass.
It's not just "someone's" convenience, it's potentially every road user.
Yes, it's not ideal, but I don't see why delaying 1 person by short amount of time is worse than potentially delaying every vehicle by what is probably a short-moderate time (assuming people slow down for a tighter gap or have to wait for oncoming traffic to pass).
If, for example, it was hindering 98 pedestrians a day and only 2 cars, then I'd argue the opposite, but, to me, it makes sense to park in the least disruptive way, considering all users. It's not like a wheelchair user is prevented from continuing their journey.
sIt's not just "someone's" convenience, it's potentially every road user.
Yes, it's not ideal, but I don't see why delaying 1 person by short amount of time is worse than potentially delaying every vehicle by what is probably a short-moderate time (assuming people slow down for a tighter gap or have to wait for oncoming traffic to pass).
If, for example, it was hindering 98 pedestrians a day and only 2 cars, then I'd argue the opposite, but, to me, it makes sense to park in the least disruptive way, considering all users. It's not like a wheelchair user is prevented from continuing their journey.
tting all over the rights of the minority to suit the convenience of the majority is, mercifully, not how we do things here. Even if the obnoxious young woman did park like that to avoid impeding traffic (she didn't) she could have parked elsewhere and walked, on accounts of her having the good fortune to be in the majority who have that option; I don't recall the OP mentioning that she was a mermaid?It is laziness and entitlement, borne out in her unpleasant reaction when the consequences of her actions were pointed out; in short she's a
.stickleback123 said:
stting all over the rights of the minority to suit the convenience of the majority is, mercifully, not how we do things here. Even if the obnoxious young woman did park like that to avoid impeding traffic (she didn't) she could have parked elsewhere and walked, on accounts of her having the good fortune to be in the majority who have that option; I don't recall the OP mentioning that she was a mermaid?
It is laziness and entitlement, borne out in her unpleasant reaction when the consequences of her actions were pointed out; in short she's a.
I just can't think of a time when I've felt so inconvenienced by someone parking on the pavement causing me to walk round / cross over for it to be remotely noteworthy.tting all over the rights of the minority to suit the convenience of the majority is, mercifully, not how we do things here. Even if the obnoxious young woman did park like that to avoid impeding traffic (she didn't) she could have parked elsewhere and walked, on accounts of her having the good fortune to be in the majority who have that option; I don't recall the OP mentioning that she was a mermaid?It is laziness and entitlement, borne out in her unpleasant reaction when the consequences of her actions were pointed out; in short she's a
.However, when people have blocked / restricted the road, you could be waiting for a fair while to get past, which is arguably more annoying.
That being said, I feel bad holding up traffic unnecessarily using zebra / pelican crossings, so maybe i just have some weird car-worshipping mentality.
Strudul said:
stickleback123 said:
stting all over the rights of the minority to suit the convenience of the majority is, mercifully, not how we do things here. Even if the obnoxious young woman did park like that to avoid impeding traffic (she didn't) she could have parked elsewhere and walked, on accounts of her having the good fortune to be in the majority who have that option; I don't recall the OP mentioning that she was a mermaid?
It is laziness and entitlement, borne out in her unpleasant reaction when the consequences of her actions were pointed out; in short she's a.
I just can't think of a time when I've felt so inconvenienced by someone parking on the pavement causing me to walk round / cross over for it to be remotely noteworthy.tting all over the rights of the minority to suit the convenience of the majority is, mercifully, not how we do things here. Even if the obnoxious young woman did park like that to avoid impeding traffic (she didn't) she could have parked elsewhere and walked, on accounts of her having the good fortune to be in the majority who have that option; I don't recall the OP mentioning that she was a mermaid?It is laziness and entitlement, borne out in her unpleasant reaction when the consequences of her actions were pointed out; in short she's a
.However, when people have blocked / restricted the road, you could be waiting for a fair while to get past, which is arguably more annoying.
That being said, I feel bad holding up traffic unnecessarily using zebra / pelican crossings, so maybe i just have some weird car-worshipping mentality.
k off.I'm really not getting how you're defending any of this.
Bluedot said:
Strudul said:
stickleback123 said:
stting all over the rights of the minority to suit the convenience of the majority is, mercifully, not how we do things here. Even if the obnoxious young woman did park like that to avoid impeding traffic (she didn't) she could have parked elsewhere and walked, on accounts of her having the good fortune to be in the majority who have that option; I don't recall the OP mentioning that she was a mermaid?
It is laziness and entitlement, borne out in her unpleasant reaction when the consequences of her actions were pointed out; in short she's a.
I just can't think of a time when I've felt so inconvenienced by someone parking on the pavement causing me to walk round / cross over for it to be remotely noteworthy.tting all over the rights of the minority to suit the convenience of the majority is, mercifully, not how we do things here. Even if the obnoxious young woman did park like that to avoid impeding traffic (she didn't) she could have parked elsewhere and walked, on accounts of her having the good fortune to be in the majority who have that option; I don't recall the OP mentioning that she was a mermaid?It is laziness and entitlement, borne out in her unpleasant reaction when the consequences of her actions were pointed out; in short she's a
.However, when people have blocked / restricted the road, you could be waiting for a fair while to get past, which is arguably more annoying.
That being said, I feel bad holding up traffic unnecessarily using zebra / pelican crossings, so maybe i just have some weird car-worshipping mentality.
k off.I'm really not getting how you're defending any of this.
Strudul said:
I just can't think of a time when I've felt so inconvenienced by someone parking on the pavement
And there it is a nutshell. If you were ever in a situation I’m in then you’d understand.Incidentally, there wasn’t another car parked opposite, they’re double yellow lines and a bus stop. It’s just driving past.
I also remember what a pain it was getting a pushchairs wheels covered in mud when either you got home or had to put it in the car.
Edited by stuartmmcfc on Monday 7th December 13:50
stuartmmcfc said:
And there it is a nutshell. If you were ever in a situation I’m in then you’d understand.
Incidentally, there wasn’t another car parked opposite, they’re double yellow lines and a bus stop.
I also remember what a pain it was getting a pushchairs wheels covered in mud when either you got home or had to put it in the car.
Out of curiosity then, what did you have to do to continue on your journey?Incidentally, there wasn’t another car parked opposite, they’re double yellow lines and a bus stop.
I also remember what a pain it was getting a pushchairs wheels covered in mud when either you got home or had to put it in the car.
Ah, the white car opposite wasn't parked up? If there wasn't another car there then I'd be inclined to agree it's unnecessary to be on the pavement as there is plenty of room for flow of traffic in both directions.
(In case it wasn't obvious to anyone, i'm not defending the attitude of the driver)
stuartmmcfc said:
Luckily she hadn’t left the car. She was still fiddling with her make up. After swearing at me she realised that in fact she was blocking the pavement and moved on
I imagine that you were angry with her, human nature would mean that she would respond in the same way. I guess it's a way of defence for humans.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff