son hit neighbours car

RacyRed

elvis86 wrote: »

But if, like my parents, you live on a narrow residential street, there may not necessarily be anywhere better to park a few yards away? And if there is, there will no doubt be other people competing for the same spot. In fact, as every street on my parents' estate is just as narrow, and the rest of the village is mainly Victorian terraces with no off-street parking, you'd have to drive a mile or so to find anywhere where parking entirely in the road was practical (you'd probably end up parking in a field!).

Sorry if it sounds tough, but your parents right to convenience does not outweigh the same rights for other users of the street.

And presumably, if he parked entirely in the road, leaving a narrow gap between his car and the opposite kerb/a car parked on the other side of the road, he should also expect his car to be hit by another motorist struggling to get through?:cool:

Yes. That is the risk you take when parking in a narrow street. I don't see why that is so difficult to accept. If people park inconsiderately then I'm sorry, but they have to accept the risk of damage.

Although the guy in question has 5 cars, a lot of people with just one car (and no driveway), and most households with 2 cars (where they can only fit one on their driveway) will face the same problem, so even that isn't necessarily relevant.

5 cars is pretty excessive where parking is known to be a problem. What is to stop him arranging off street parking somewhere else? Oh, it might cost him - horror of horrors.

Whilst I'm not advocating completely blocking the pavement on a busy road, I think that on quiet residential streets, parking half on the pavement really isn't such a despicably selfish thing to do.

I'm afraid I do think it is very selfish. And I live in a narrow street with parking problems. People park in the road, leave the pavements clear for pedestrians and accept that they have what is effectively a very slow single track down the middle of the road for driving in. It works when the majority of people are considerate.

If you had the choice of:

a) parking entirely in the road, leaving the pavement clear but effectively blocking your entire street for vehicles

Are there any roads really that narrow? If so they should be no parking zones.

b) parking half on the pavement, leaving (admittedly reduced) space for folk to walk

No. pedestrians have a right to use the pavement, cars do not.

or

c) parking a mile away from your house in a field

which would you choose?

C. But then I took parking requirements into account when choosing my home. I'm not selfish enough to think my convenience is more important than other people's safety. A mile is hardly an unwalkable distance!

[Deleted User]

Is the road wide enough that your neighbour could park the car normally?
i.e. is it 'unnecessarily' parked on the pavement?

Mids_Costcutter

elvis86 wrote: »

But if, like my parents, you live on a narrow residential street, there may not necessarily be anywhere better to park a few yards away? And if there is, there will no doubt be other people competing for the same spot. In fact, as every street on my parents' estate is just as narrow, and the rest of the village is mainly Victorian terraces with no off-street parking, you'd have to drive a mile or so to find anywhere where parking entirely in the road was practical (you'd probably end up parking in a field!).



And presumably, if he parked entirely in the road, leaving a narrow gap between his car and the opposite kerb/a car parked on the other side of the road, he should also expect his car to be hit by another motorist struggling to get through?:cool:

Although the guy in question has 5 cars, a lot of people with just one car (and no driveway), and most households with 2 cars (where they can only fit one on their driveway) will face the same problem, so even that isn't necessarily relevant.

Whilst I'm not advocating completely blocking the pavement on a busy road, I think that on quiet residential streets, parking half on the pavement really isn't such a despicably selfish thing to do.

If you had the choice of:

a) parking entirely in the road, leaving the pavement clear but effectively blocking your entire street for vehicles

b) parking half on the pavement, leaving (admittedly reduced) space for folk to walk

or

c) parking a mile away from your house in a field

which would you choose?

Aren't you assuming that your local authority should provide somewhere for motor vehicles to park in the highway? It's not a role of local government and not the purpose of the highway. Isn't option (a) often chosen not because it would entirely block the street but because of a perception that their vehicle would be safer parked on the pavement.

We should also remember that most pavements aren't designed to carry the weight of motor vehicles constantly and the damage caused is something we all have to pay for.

elvis86

RacyRed wrote: »

Sorry if it sounds tough, but your parents right to convenience does not outweigh the same rights for other users of the street.

Yes, because my parents are the only people in their street with cars. And Dad drives a monster truck and mum's runaround is a stretch hummer, so they're a bvgger to park..:cool:

RacyRed wrote: »

Are there any roads really that narrow? If so they should be no parking zones.

I think you'll find that a lot of roads on residential estates aren't wide enough to accomodate a parked car each side and still allow traffic to pass through the middle, even slowly. If we make them all no parking zones, where are people expected to park their cars?

RacyRed wrote: »

C. But then I took parking requirements into account when choosing my home. I'm not selfish enough to think my convenience is more important than other people's safety. A mile is hardly an unwalkable distance!

Ah, they should park a mile away from their houses. Of course. Now I think you're just being a bit silly. I don't know many people who park their car a mile away from their house, but maybe that's just me..:cool:

elvis86

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

Aren't you assuming that your local authority should provide somewhere for motor vehicles to park in the highway? It's not a role of local government and not the purpose of the highway. Isn't option (a) often chosen not because it would entirely block the street but because of a perception that their vehicle would be safer parked on the pavement.

We should also remember that most pavements aren't designed to carry the weight of motor vehicles constantly and the damage caused is something we all have to pay for.

I love how people are so quick to get on their high horses! I suppose you all park your cars on pay and display car parks 3 miles from home and catch a bus to the car park each morning..?:D

In an ideal world, perhaps planning laws would prohibit construction of homes without designated off-road parking, and these laws would be universally applied retrospectively, so that every other house in the thousands of rows of terraces in this country were knocked down and replaced by driveways. Unfortunately, until that happens, people will want to park their cars outside their homes.

It often escapes a lot of people, but motorists are taxpayers too, and they pay significant amounts of tax purely because of the fact that they are motorists. Is it not unreasonable to expect that we should be able to park our cars somewhere?

RacyRed

elvis86 wrote: »

Ah, they should park a mile away from their houses. Of course. Now I think you're just being a bit silly. I don't know many people who park their car a mile away from their house, but maybe that's just me..:cool:

Seriously? Then I'm guessing you have never lived in a congested city like London then.

What you really don't seem to understand is that we are considering the SAFETY of children, the elderly, the disabled, mums with pushchares, wheelchair users versus the convenience of motorists who park on the pavement.

Leaving just enough space for someone to walk past your car means that all of the other people I mentioned are forced into the flow of traffic on a narrow street to get past badly parked cars.

Do you really think a life is less important than a bashed wing mirror?

elvis86

RacyRed wrote: »

Seriously? Then I'm guessing you have never lived in a congested city like London then.

What you really don't seem to understand is that we are considering the SAFETY of children, the elderly, the disabled, mums with pushchares, wheelchair users versus the convenience of motorists who park on the pavement.

Leaving just enough space for someone to walk past your car means that all of the other people I mentioned are forced into the flow of traffic on a narrow street to get past badly parked cars.

Do you really think a life is less important than a bashed wing mirror?

As the OP allows her 6 year old to play in the street on his scooter unsupervised, I assumed that we were talking about a residential street here, not a main thoroughfare into a busy city? OP, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but then don't be suprised if folk query whether allowing a 6 year old to play in the street alone is such a good idea..:cool:

Parking entirely on the pavement of a busy road thus causing pedestrians into the busy flow of traffic is completely different to parking half on the pavement in a cul-de-sac, leaving (admittedly reduced) room for pedestrians to pass.

RacyRed

elvis86 wrote: »

In an ideal world, perhaps planning laws would prohibit construction of homes without designated off-road parking, and these laws would be universally applied retrospectively, so that every other house in the thousands of rows of terraces in this country were knocked down and replaced by driveways. Unfortunately, until that happens, people will want to park their cars outside their homes.

It often escapes a lot of people, but motorists are taxpayers too, and they pay significant amounts of tax purely because of the fact that they are motorists. Is it not unreasonable to expect that we should be able to park our cars somewhere?

Oh get real. Most victorian terraced houses have yards that can be converted for parking. Most areas have garages or parking spaces for rent within a reasonable distance.

The majority of motorists don't park on pavements thank goodness. That is a fact that is often overlooked by those who think their right to park where they like is sacrosanct.

Pavement parking is selfish. Full Stop.

sassyblue

elvis86 wrote: »

As the OP allows her 6 year old to play in the street on his scooter unsupervised, I assumed that we were talking about a residential street here, not a main thoroughfare into a busy city? OP, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but then don't be suprised if folk query whether allowing a 6 year old to play in the street alone is such a good idea..:cool:

Oh G*d here we go.... The OP said her son was going a few doors down to see his friend.

Can the assumers and judgementalists leave this forum please? You're all wrecking a really nice place, can nobody ask advice without the thread turning into a b*tchfest?

newcook

drivers parking on pavements is a bugbear of mine too! On the road I work on there are a couple of cars that only leave enough room for pedestrians to squeeze through – many times my bag/elbow has knocked the wing mirror and in winter I would imagine that the zips on my coat have possibly scratched the paneling – this is the fault of the driver for leaving very little room for pedestrians. The driver can go whistle if they think I am going to pay for damage caused by their inconsideration.

In OP’s case, the damage should be covered by the driver – he shouldn’t have been parked on the pavement in the first place. If he cant park on his drive because he has so many cars that is his own fault and own choice.

As for those making digs at OP letting her son be out un-supervised, he was on his way to play at his friends house a couple of doors down – Im sure that most of you played out with your friends/neighbours unsupervised when you were 6 or 7?!