Parking (Code of Practice) Bill - What Should Be In The New Code of Practice?

DoaM

I still believe his appointment there was a mistake by an intern processing the cabinet reshuffle paperwork ... Teresa wrote down ... Boris Johnson - FO ... and the intern mistook that for Foreign Office.

badparker

If parking bays within a carpark are not of a appropriate size (ideally an updated and current standard size relevant for modern vehicles and consider the uprising trend of SUV style vehicles of the last decade) and if not (for older pre existing carparks) then parking over 2 bays be permitted to allow safe and easy access to vehicle for all persons without causing injury or damage to users property - for example elderly but not blue badge to being able to get children out of baby seats as well as from the rear seats of 2 door vehicles.

kidstaxi

Remove all ambiguity in the COP.


For example, do not use the word "should". Instead, use "shall", "must" etc. This removes the idea that a PPC can hide behind "it says we should, but we don't want to do that".


The same applies for other such words where a different meaning can be made.


Cheers,
Kidstaxi

peter_the_piper

kidstaxi wrote: »

Remove all ambiguity in the COP

Having seen one code of practice

Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner .
It needs to be rules set in stone, with no ambiguity.

Norman_Castle

badparker wrote: »

If parking bays within a carpark are not of a appropriate size (ideally an updated and current standard size relevant for modern vehicles and consider the uprising trend of SUV style vehicles of the last decade) and if not (for older pre existing carparks) then parking over 2 bays be permitted to allow safe and easy access to vehicle for all persons without causing injury or damage to users property - for example elderly but not blue badge to being able to get children out of baby seats as well as from the rear seats of 2 door vehicles.

OK, as long as they pay for two spaces. Maybe there should be oversize spaces, priced accordingly, for people with oversized vehicles.

Coupon-mad

I can't stand parents bleating about needing wide bays (she says, speaking as a mum of 4 now young adults).

I drove my kids around in a people carrier when they were all under 8 years old and you do NOT need a wider bay like some 'special' person! There is a sense of entitlement now, that has evolved since Supermarkets introduced the POINTLESS AND STUPID Parent & Child bays that make people think they have a right to park in a 'big girls bay'.

Umkomaas

There is a sense of entitlement now, that has evolved since Supermarkets introduced the POINTLESS AND STUPID Parent & Child bays that make people think they have a right to park in a 'big girls bay'.

Even worse, that sense of entitlement sees some just drive automatically into disabled bays, positioned even nearer the entrance foyer. Shameless!

Coupon-mad

Yes indeed, what possesses parents to feel so entitled as to *need* a special bay? It's all because they believe they *can* because the Supermarkets mislead them with that unnecessary 'provision' which is (as we know) nothing more than a gimmick to entice shoppers.

NeilCr

The_Deep wrote: »

I hate smilies Neil, you will no doubt have noticed that I rarely, if ever, use them Humour was frowned upon in the Foreign Office.

Sometimes I wonder if it is frowned upon in this forum too

Did you miss my "But, more seriously" follow up to the sentence you quoted

"Refrains from smilies even though this isn't the Foreign Office"

Coupon-mad

NeilCr wrote: »

Humour was frowned upon in the Foreign Office.

Sometimes I wonder if it is frowned upon in this forum too.

LOL, see this is why I find forums amusing...the meeting of minds, disagreements and quirky humour never ceases to make me laugh!