Parking on pavements MEGATHREAD

[Cyclone 10]

Then there were remarks made (myself included, although just in jest) about seeking revenge by playing pranks, which progressed to damaging property, which is also an illegal offence and out of order.

 

Those remarks started on page 1, you didn't post your contribution until mid page 2...

I think you give yourself entirely too much credit for attracting other people to the thread, and for intelligence if you think that people who don't like the (not at all joke like) posts advocating various forms of criminal damage are trolls.

[willman 10]

well i'm about to report at least two cars loacl to me for parking on the grass verge.

last year the councile "re-instated" the verge with topsoil, grass seed and 2 of the houses planted trees in a manner that suggested they were ticked off witht the neighbours parking cars on the verge.

the "nice" neighbours have moved on and the grass verges are now a pigsty again.

 

today is the day for a written complaint after i've complained verbally.

 

and before anyone asks. no i don't have anything better to do.

[zoboz111 10]

i hate this! when i pick my son up from school, often a car or van is parked over the path completely blocking it off. So i have walk on the road with my pram and my older son to get around it, i think its rude knowing people are coming from school with there kids and forcing them to walk on the road at such a busy time of day.

[scoop 10]

On the contrary you seem to be suggesting that criminal damage is acceptable, so I think questioning morals is perfectly valid.

I don't condone parking on the pavement, but criminal damage is more serious, as Tony pointed out earlier the consequences imposed by the law are significantly greater.

 

I'm still not clear on your answer, do two wrongs make a right, or don't they?

 

I have never suggested that crminal damage is acceptable. If I have please point out where and I will delete the post as it is not a view that I hold.

 

If you are to push me to answer your question about two wrongs making a right I would say that that I don't condone either offence of obstructing the pavement (thus putting pedestrian safety at risk) or criminal damage to property by someone who has been angered by the first offence.

 

I'd also say that I personally feel that the first offence is the most serious, and I would expect anyone who values human life over property to feel the same. However I understand that this is not the case in law, but then the law is very often an ass, isn't it.

 

Now perhaps you will answer my point of why you have felt the need (twice in this thread now) of why you have felt it acceptable and necessary to atribute views to me that I have not expressed,and why you have felt the need to question my upbringing?

[wwcrazy 10]

Right now there is a bus shelter being erected outside Meersbrook Garage. The pavement there isn't very wide and I bet the shelter blocks the whole pavement. Won't be getting a pram/wheelchair past that.

[Pseudonym 10]

...'tis a wise man that mocks a man, 'tis the mocked man that mocks the mocker.

'Tis a foolish man that jeers at the ways of others

...in fields where he himself doth lack perfection!

 

OK, enough repartee... Back to the subject now...

[Cyclone 10]

I have never suggested that crminal damage is acceptable. If I have please point out where and I will delete the post as it is not a view that I hold.

 

If you are to push me to answer your question about two wrongs making a right I would say that that I don't condone either offence of obstructing the pavement (thus putting pedestrian safety at risk) or criminal damage to property by someone who has been angered by the first offence.

 

I'd also say that I personally feel that the first offence is the most serious, and I would expect anyone who values human life over property to feel the same. However I understand that this is not the case in law, but then the law is very often an ass, isn't it.

 

Now perhaps you will answer my point of why you have felt the need (twice in this thread now) of why you have felt it acceptable and necessary to atribute views to me that I have not expressed,and why you have felt the need to question my upbringing?

 

I haven't, you persist in reading things into my posts that aren't there.

It actually seems that we are in agreement, neither of us condone obstructing a pavement and neither of us condone criminal damage.

The only thing I'm not clear on now is why you felt that you had to make an attack on my posts after I made the point (which you apparently agree with) about two wrongs not making a right...

 

A lot of people posting (at least on page 1) seem to have some very odd views about how two wrongs make a right. It's pretty much vigilantism, although of a rather cowardly sort, they don't confront the person parking on the pavement, merely commit criminal damage against their property.

Says a lot about the morals of those posters I think.

I've noticed Cyclone on a previous threads about this topic, that you don't condmn the action of parking on the pavement

Actually I didn't mention it at all, so I definitely wasn't condoning it, rather I was talking about the people who were advocating a more serious crime in response

but are always quick to condemn people who make comments about accidently scratching with pushchairs etc.

Disingenous reference to 'accidentally' there, unless you honestly believe that people were saying they'd genuinely have an accident, in which case you're gullible.

 

The simple facts are, that if these drivers parked more consideratly in the first place, then the pedestrians wouldn't feel so angered that they wanted to get revenge.

Maybe I was wrong, but this comes across as you trying to justify revenge as acceptable since it's caused by anger.

 

I actually think this thread says more about the morals of drivers who think it's right to force pedestrians out into the road for their own convenience.

No, there are no drivers of that sort posting, so it says nothing about them.

There are people who were talking about committing criminal damage, and that reflects on their morals and self control, no one elses.

[robwillow 10]

Hi,

 

Just before I pay up I thought it would be worth puting this to the forum.

 

I parked my motorcycle on Portobello Street between the church and Regent Court. I parked near where the bikes go on the pavement. I got a ticket with "01 - parked in a resticted street during prescribed hours" - £30 please.

 

Two questions:

Can they do that?

 

Where can I park, is it ok on pavement where it is not a restricted street? (assuming it's not really in the way).

 

Rob.

[Pooch_1 10]

Was it an obstruction to disabled people in wheelchairs, or to mothers pushing baby buggies etc?

[BasilRathbon 10]

Hi,

 

Just before I pay up I thought it would be worth puting this to the forum.

 

I parked my motorcycle on Portobello Street between the church and Regent Court. I parked near where the bikes go on the pavement. I got a ticket with "01 - parked in a resticted street during prescribed hours" - £30 please.

 

Two questions:

Can they do that?

 

They just did.

 

Where can I park, is it ok on pavement where it is not a restricted street? (assuming it's not really in the way).

 

Rob.

 

Well, you wouldn't drive on the pavement, so what makes you think you can park on it?

Have you heard of something called "The Highway Code"?

[robwillow 10]

You say they just did. That's not quite known yet is it? If I just pay up we won't find out. What I mean is is it right that they can give me a fine for that when it was not on the actual road.

 

As for the highway code gybe, all very interesting but are you saying you know it to be wrong to park on the pavement or just having a pop? It seems to be quite common place to put motorbikes in quiet bits of the pavement. Riding it on the pavement is another issue, I would have to ride along a restricted street to get it where it was (it's a bike lane during the day). But I could have done that before the restricted hours.

 

No, it was not in the way of anyone. The bike parking facilities on the same street stick out more than my scooter did. I parked it in a "dead bit" of the street if you see what I mean, where the space is not used much.

 

Rob.

[Cyclone 10]

Hi,

 

Just before I pay up I thought it would be worth puting this to the forum.

 

I parked my motorcycle on Portobello Street between the church and Regent Court. I parked near where the bikes go on the pavement. I got a ticket with "01 - parked in a resticted street during prescribed hours" - £30 please.

 

Two questions:

Can they do that?

 

Where can I park, is it ok on pavement where it is not a restricted street? (assuming it's not really in the way).

 

Rob.

 

From what I understand the council cannot legally ticket a vehicle that is not on the highway. Only the police can do anything about it if it's causing an obstruction.