A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pavement parking to be banned?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 9th 19, 11:18 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Mason[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default Pavement parking to be banned?

QUOTE:

"Pavement parking in London has been an offence since 1974 and attracts a £70 fine.

Mrs Greenwood added: ‘The Government’s inaction has left communities blighted by unsightly and obstructive pavement parking and individuals ***afraid or unable to leave their homes*** (EMPHASIS MINE) or safely navigate the streets.’

She said a public awareness campaign is needed to educate people on the negative impacts of pavement parking.

Huw Merriman, MP for Bexhill-on-Sea, said the town, which was visited by the panel, is in a state of parking chaos, especially for the elderly.

He said: ‘I’m afraid we have parking anarchy here because people believe they can get away with anything.’ "
END QUOTE.

**APPLAUSE**

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html
Ads
  #2  
Old September 9th 19, 12:34 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,467
Default Pavement parking to be banned?

On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:

"Pavement parking in London has been an offence since 1974 and attracts a £70 fine.

Mrs Greenwood added: ‘The Government’s inaction has left communities blighted by unsightly and obstructive pavement parking and individuals ***afraid or unable to leave their homes*** (EMPHASIS MINE) or safely navigate the streets.’

She said a public awareness campaign is needed to educate people on the negative impacts of pavement parking.

Huw Merriman, MP for Bexhill-on-Sea, said the town, which was visited by the panel, is in a state of parking chaos, especially for the elderly.

He said: ‘I’m afraid we have parking anarchy here because people believe they can get away with anything.’ "
END QUOTE.

**APPLAUSE**

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html


Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist?

Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of bicycles to
street furniture and other property adjoing footways?
  #3  
Old September 10th 19, 12:27 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,730
Default Pavement parking to be banned?

On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html


Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist?


I often leave my bike at home and use the pavement. Sometimes I also
stand still on it.

Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of bicycles to
street furniture and other property adjoing footways?


Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's usuall
better to deal with bigger problems first.
  #4  
Old September 10th 19, 12:41 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,467
Default Pavement parking to be banned?

On 10/09/2019 00:27, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html


Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist?


I often leave my bike at home and use the pavement. Sometimes I also
stand still on it.


How interesting (sigh).

So whereabout is the mention of the cyclist which makes it an on-topic post?

Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of bicycles
to street furniture and other property adjoing footways?


Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's usuall
better to deal with bigger problems first.


Are things only a problem if they impact me, then?

I ask that because I also never have problems with cars parked on the
footway - but that doesn't mean that I either approve of that or oppose
moves to prevent it.

But for reasons of your own (I wonder what they could be?), you think
it's alright to block footways with parked or semi-abandoned bikes, but
(apparently) not cars.

Sensible people, on the other hand, oppose obstruction of the footway
with *anything*, including cars, vans and bicycles. And not always -
probably not even usually - because they are personally adversely affected.

  #5  
Old September 10th 19, 10:36 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,730
Default Pavement parking to be banned?

On 10/09/2019 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 00:27, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html



Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist?


I often leave my bike at home and use the pavement. Sometimes I also
stand still on it.


How interesting (sigh).

So whereabout is the mention of the cyclist which makes it an on-topic
post?


Some members of the group (including you) frequently claim that stories
about a person that is not actually cycling are on topic for a cycling
group. Cos they're a cyclist, innit.

Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of bicycles
to street furniture and other property adjoing footways?


Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's
usuall better to deal with bigger problems first.


Are things only a problem if they impact me, then?


That is frequently the way things work.

Do you ever walk anywhere? It's an easy to question to answer but you
always swerve away.

I ask that because I also never have problems with cars parked on the
footway - but that doesn't mean that I either approve of that or oppose
moves to prevent it.


Do you ever walk anywhere?

But for reasons of your own (I wonder what they could be?), you think
it's alright to block footways with parked or semi-abandoned bikes, but
(apparently) not cars.


First rule of a social group:
One says they prefer apples to pears. The response is "oh, so you hate
oranges."
Sensible people, on the other hand, oppose obstruction of the footway
with *anything*, including cars, vans and bicycles. And not always -
probably not even usually - because they are personally adversely affected.


Sensible people try to solve the biggest problems first.
  #6  
Old September 10th 19, 11:04 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,467
Default Pavement parking to be banned?

On 10/09/2019 10:36, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/09/2019 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 00:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html

Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist?

I often leave my bike at home and use the pavement. Sometimes I also
stand still on it.


How interesting (sigh).
So whereabout is the mention of the cyclist which makes it an on-topic
post?


Some members of the group (including you) frequently claim that stories
about a person that is not actually cycling are on topic for a cycling
group. Cos they're a cyclist, innit.


Posts about cyclists and cycling in a cycling NG are on topic. Posts
about other things, which do not involve cycling, bicycles or cyclists
are not in topic.

Even you should be able to understand that. But you imply that you don't.

Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of bicycles
to street furniture and other property adjoing footways?

Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's
usuall better to deal with bigger problems first.


Are things only a problem if they impact me, then?


That is frequently the way things work.


Maybe for you. Not for me. For me, it's principle first. I don't
actually expect you to comprehend that. In fact, I confidently expect
you not to understand it.

Do you ever walk anywhere? It's an easy to question to answer but you
always swerve away.


Why does it matter?

As it happens, I don't often travel to anywhere significant on foot
because I live in a village. Foot journeys are local and primarily for
exercise (or part of a holiday, exercised elsewhere, naturally). I very
rarely travel by publictransport, though. Life isn't like that here.

I ask that because I also never have problems with cars parked on the
footway - but that doesn't mean that I either approve of that or
oppose moves to prevent it.


Do you ever walk anywhere?


That has nothing to do with the subject or with you and you raise it
purely as a diversion, but see above anyway.

And reflect on today's word: principle (not that it means much to you).

But for reasons of your own (I wonder what they could be?), you think
it's alright to block footways with parked or semi-abandoned bikes,
but (apparently) not cars.


First rule of a social group:
One says they prefer apples to pears. The response is "oh, so you hate
oranges."


You think it's alright to block footways with bicycles and the evidence
for that is that you don't see the need for addressing it. Or at least,
so you say.

Sensible people, on the other hand, oppose obstruction of the footway
with *anything*, including cars, vans and bicycles. And not always -
probably not even usually - because they are personally adversely
affected.


Sensible people try to solve the biggest problems first.


And devious people like to pretend that other peoples' problems are too
minor to ever be addressed.

  #7  
Old September 10th 19, 12:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,730
Default Pavement parking to be banned?

On 10/09/2019 11:04, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 10:36, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2019 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 00:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html


Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist?

I often leave my bike at home and use the pavement. Sometimes I also
stand still on it.

How interesting (sigh).
So whereabout is the mention of the cyclist which makes it an
on-topic post?


Some members of the group (including you) frequently claim that
stories about a person that is not actually cycling are on topic for a
cycling group. Cos they're a cyclist, innit.


Posts about cyclists and cycling in a cycling NG are on topic. Posts
about other things, which do not involve cycling, bicycles or cyclists
are not in topic.

Even you should be able to understand that. But you imply that you don't.


A lot of posts about drug dealers, burglaries, assorted assaults, etc
come into that category. You need to make your mind up.

Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of
bicycles to street furniture and other property adjoing footways?

Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's
usuall better to deal with bigger problems first.

Are things only a problem if they impact me, then?


That is frequently the way things work.


Maybe for you. Not for me. For me, it's principle first. I don't
actually expect you to comprehend that. In fact, I confidently expect
you not to understand it.


1000 pedestrians hurt by drivers every day is a principle you have a lot
of trouble with.

Do you ever walk anywhere? It's an easy to question to answer but you
always swerve away.


Why does it matter?

As it happens, I don't often travel to anywhere significant on foot
because I live in a village. Foot journeys are local and primarily for
exercise (or part of a holiday, exercised elsewhere, naturally). I very
rarely travel by publictransport, though. Life isn't like that here.


Then most of the time you are looking at the world through a windscreen.
You attempt to put your self forward as the "pedestrian's friend". The
over used, over abused word 'hypocrite' comes to mind.

I ask that because I also never have problems with cars parked on the
footway - but that doesn't mean that I either approve of that or
oppose moves to prevent it.


Do you ever walk anywhere?


That has nothing to do with the subject or with you and you raise it
purely as a diversion, but see above anyway.


It is necessary to establish your qualifications.

And reflect on today's word: principle (not that it means much to you).


You think the things I experience when out walking don't count. Because
I am a "cyclist". See above.

But for reasons of your own (I wonder what they could be?), you think
it's alright to block footways with parked or semi-abandoned bikes,
but (apparently) not cars.


First rule of a social group:
One says they prefer apples to pears. The response is "oh, so you hate
oranges."


You think it's alright to block footways with bicycles and the evidence
for that is that you don't see the need for addressing it. Or at least,
so you say.


There are some concepts you really struggle with.
  #8  
Old September 10th 19, 02:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,467
Default Pavement parking to be banned?

On 10/09/2019 12:19, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2019 11:04, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 10:36, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2019 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 00:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html



Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist?

I often leave my bike at home and use the pavement. Sometimes I
also stand still on it.

How interesting (sigh).
So whereabout is the mention of the cyclist which makes it an
on-topic post?

Some members of the group (including you) frequently claim that
stories about a person that is not actually cycling are on topic for
a cycling group. Cos they're a cyclist, innit.


Posts about cyclists and cycling in a cycling NG are on topic. Posts
about other things, which do not involve cycling, bicycles or cyclists
are not in topic.

Even you should be able to understand that. But you imply that you don't.


A lot of posts about drug dealers, burglaries, assorted assaults, etc
come into that category. You need to make your mind up.


If they involve bicycles, cyclists or cycling, they are on-topic.

Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of
bicycles to street furniture and other property adjoing footways?

Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's
usuall better to deal with bigger problems first.

Are things only a problem if they impact me, then?

That is frequently the way things work.


Maybe for you. Not for me. For me, it's principle first. I don't
actually expect you to comprehend that. In fact, I confidently expect
you not to understand it.


1000 pedestrians hurt by drivers every day is a principle you have a lot
of trouble with.


That isn't a principle. You need a dictionary and the ability to read
and understand its contents.

Do you ever walk anywhere? It's an easy to question to answer but you
always swerve away.


Why does it matter?


As it happens, I don't often travel to anywhere significant on foot
because I live in a village. Foot journeys are local and primarily for
exercise (or part of a holiday, exercised elsewhere, naturally). I
very rarely travel by publictransport, though. Life isn't like that here.


Then most of the time you are looking at the world through a windscreen.


That's ridiculous. Even a TIR HGV driver or USA trucker doing interstate
deliveries doesn't do that.

You attempt to put your self forward as the "pedestrian's friend". The
over used, over abused word 'hypocrite' comes to mind.


I am a pedestrian. We all are, at least most of the time.

I ask that because I also never have problems with cars parked on
the footway - but that doesn't mean that I either approve of that or
oppose moves to prevent it.

Do you ever walk anywhere?


That has nothing to do with the subject or with you and you raise it
purely as a diversion, but see above anyway.


It is necessary to establish your qualifications.


Qualifications?

Q: What qualifications does one need to be a pedestrian?

A: The same qualifications as are needed to be a cyclist.

That is: none whatsoever.

And reflect on today's word: principle (not that it means much to you).


You think the things I experience when out walking don't count. Because
I am a "cyclist". See above.


No, I don't think that, because I dont actually believe you when you
claim that cyclists cause no problems for pedestrians. You are well
aware that they do cause problems for pedestrians in more than one way.
But... your stance does not permit you to admit that which you and
everyone else know to be true. You usually attempt to counter this
problem with a combination of disingenuity and dishonesty. To be fair,
you aren't the only one to do so. Cycling seems to have that effect on
(some) people.

But for reasons of your own (I wonder what they could be?), you
think it's alright to block footways with parked or semi-abandoned
bikes, but (apparently) not cars.


First rule of a social group:
One says they prefer apples to pears. The response is "oh, so you
hate oranges."


You think it's alright to block footways with bicycles and the
evidence for that is that you don't see the need for addressing it. Or
at least, so you say.


There are some concepts you really struggle with.


Support for self-centred lawbreaking is one of them. I don't know you
can rationalise it. I couldn't. But you do manage it.

  #9  
Old September 10th 19, 06:01 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,730
Default Pavement parking to be banned?

On 10/09/2019 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 12:19, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2019 11:04, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 10:36, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2019 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 00:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html




Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist?


....

A lot of posts about drug dealers, burglaries, assorted assaults,
etc come into that category. You need to make your mind up.


If they involve bicycles, cyclists or cycling, they are on-topic.


Below you say I am a cyclist even when I am walking. My response to your
question above is therefore relevant and on topic. Had you used the word
'bicycles' (given the subject was 'cars') that would have been a
different matter.

Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining
of bicycles to street furniture and other property
adjoing footways?

Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem?
It's usuall better to deal with bigger problems first.

Are things only a problem if they impact me, then?

That is frequently the way things work.

Maybe for you. Not for me. For me, it's principle first. I don't
actually expect you to comprehend that. In fact, I confidently
expect you not to understand it.


1000 pedestrians hurt by drivers every day is a principle you have
a lot of trouble with.


That isn't a principle. You need a dictionary and the ability to read
and understand its contents.


Your technique of swallting things away and dwelling on the
meaning of a word is long established. (The figure I gave happens to be
wrong. It is 100 a day but it doesn't change the argument.)

Do you ever walk anywhere? It's an easy to question to answer
but you always swerve away.

Why does it matter?


As it happens, I don't often travel to anywhere significant on
foot because I live in a village. Foot journeys are local and
primarily for exercise (or part of a holiday, exercised
elsewhere, naturally). I very rarely travel by publictransport,
though. Life isn't like that here.


Then most of the time you are looking at the world through a
windscreen.


That's ridiculous. Even a TIR HGV driver or USA trucker doing
interstate deliveries doesn't do that.


Apart from a minority that have other applicable experience, it is not
ridiculous. Please explain how experience of road conditions are gained
in various modes without using those modes. (Perhaps it comes from posts
"in this very newsgroup"?)

You attempt to put your self forward as the "pedestrian's friend".
The over used, over abused word 'hypocrite' comes to mind.


I am a pedestrian. We all are, at least most of the time.


Official figures show it is negligible.

I ask that because I also never have problems with cars
parked on the footway - but that doesn't mean that I either
approve of that or oppose moves to prevent it.

Do you ever walk anywhere?

That has nothing to do with the subject or with you and you raise
it purely as a diversion, but see above anyway.


It is necessary to establish your qualifications.


Qualifications?

Q: What qualifications does one need to be a pedestrian?

A: The same qualifications as are needed to be a cyclist.

That is: none whatsoever.


You missed the full stop after 'qualifications'. I was not trying to
find out whether you are permitted to travel on foot in public places.

You think the things I experience when out walking don't count.
Because I am a "cyclist". See above.


No, I don't think that, because I dont actually believe you when you
claim that cyclists cause no problems for pedestrians. You are well
aware that they do cause problems for pedestrians in more than one
way. But... your stance does not permit you to admit that which you
and everyone else know to be true. You usually attempt to counter
this problem with a combination of disingenuity and dishonesty. To be
fair, you aren't the only one to do so. Cycling seems to have that
effect on (some) people.


You start the paragraph with the word 'no' then spend the rest of it
explaining that my experience doesn't count because I am a cyclist.

But for reasons of your own (I wonder what they could be?),
you think it's alright to block footways with parked or
semi-abandoned bikes, but (apparently) not cars.


First rule of a social group: One says they prefer apples to
pears. The response is "oh, so you hate oranges."


You think it's alright to block footways with bicycles and the
evidence for that is that you don't see the need for addressing
it. Or at least, so you say.


There are some concepts you really struggle with.


Support for self-centred lawbreaking is one of them. I don't know you
can rationalise it. I couldn't. But you do manage it.


It's very easy to have a perspective against the harm caused by drivers.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"HELP US PUT a stop to pavement parking" Doug[_3_] UK 54 March 7th 10 07:58 PM
Pavement cyclists targeted again but not pavement motorists. Doug[_3_] UK 44 October 30th 09 07:31 AM
W 2 W Parking ColinS UK 1 September 5th 06 09:43 PM
DISC Parking Dave A Australia 5 December 9th 05 07:43 AM
Pavement Parking [Not Responding] UK 3 January 21st 04 01:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.