just had a court summons!

[TiG]

Ah, sometimes I wonder when people will give up shadow boxing. I mean your shadow will still be there dodging your left jab, then the right uppercut.

Saracen is just like this, he just uses a different weapon. He's like fighting your own shadow, clear concise and dangerous. Step one foot outside the argument and you will find yourself defending your posts. You can't win an argument with Saracen (to be fair he doesn't chose arguments he doesn't know how to at least draw)

However if you don't get worked up and to be fair Santa you've done a damn fine job, not many people retain concise, well written and lengthy retorts.

I can see both sides of the coin and raise my hat to both of you.

TiG

[Saracen]

Inconsiderate parking can lead to danger for others. I imagine that maintaining a road network and sustaining the standard of other shared facilities is a rolling programme of works; a bit like painting the Forth Bridge. As soon as you get to the end, you have to start again and you would have to do it within the constraint of your budget and in order of assessed priority. Now, the invading Roman legions couldn't maintain a highway to perfection all of the time despite the utter dedication of their workforce and limitless materials (and they didn't have to worry about parking, lighting, signs, pavements, hedgerows, kerbs, electrical cables, rubbish collection, grass cutting and court appearances), so it's reasonable to assume the Council will be behind on some jobs but ahead on others. The jobs on which they are behind appear to be a field day for the unscrupulous who would exploit it as an opportunity.

I don't think people should be looking to take this advantage.

Goldy Looking Chain had a song something like "Guns don't kill people, rappers do". Well, the Council provide facilities and it is the misuse of those facilities that could end up with people being killed. The trigger is being pulled by the abuser not the Council. Even if there is an argument (that I don't accept) that the Council is loading the gun, the actual crime would not take place if the gun isn't fired. Guilty, m'lud.

But if, as per your toddler scenario, it's so dangerous, then the council owes to duty to fix it, and if it's so dangerous that people are putting toddler's lives at risk, as per your example, then it's incumbent on the council to take such a serious safety threat seriously and prioritise such a dangerous situation. You can't have it both ways, Santa.

We don't disagree about whether parking in some places is responsible or not, Santa. As for G4Zs particular spot, I've no idea whether it's dangerous to toddlers or not. But this isn't just about responsible, or otherwise, parking. In fact, that's not what I've been on about since the start. It's about what's legal, and about imposing fines on people for breaking laws when they didn't break laws. And about those appeal stats, which are a travesty.

It's not just me that feels this way, Santa. The way in which parking enforcement is used has led to :-

- discussions in Parliament
- discussions with ministers
- news items on the BBC
- representations from the Department of Transport to some councils
- objections from the IAM
- the AA to say that some councils practices are "bad and unfair in dealing with people and have used civil enforcement as a revenue generator rather than parking control measure."

and that's just what I found in a few minutes of looking.

Nor is it piddling amounts. There's one example I found of a bus lane that isn't legally marked, and the council has levied >£350,000 of fines on that one location. Well, perhaps if they'd marked it properly, there wouldn't have been tens of thousands of people mistaking it for somewhere they thought they could go, and getting fined for it.

We aren't talking about a handful of isolated cases where councils just didn't get around to touching up a line. We're talking about some very widespread practices.

And I have to wonder - given that councils get to keep the revenue, they have a vested interest in getting people ticketed. It's not right that the very people that are responsible for maintaining signs and lines, and getting it very wrong so much of the time, are the very people that benefit from their "mistake", and gaining revenue from it ..... and then turning down appeals that blatantly should not have been turned down.

There is a problem with the system, and it needs fixing. Then, not only would your favourite toddler be safer, but restrictions would be legally marked and therefore enforceable.

There's going to be several different types of drivers falling foul of restrictions, in my opinion :-

1) people that will deliberately park there anyway, even if lines and signs are right, because they'll take a chance.

2) people that make a mistake and park there, even if the lines and signs are right.

3) people that would not park there if the lines and signs were clear and coherent, and legal

For class 1), it makes no difference to whether they park there, but it does make a difference whether they can be done and fined when caught. These are likely to be the first people that will play the game and wriggle out of loopholes if there are any. So don't give them any. Keep the signs and lines legal.

For class 2), again, legal signs and lines means you can legitimately enforce restrictions, and as it was accidental, that fine is likely to make them more careful in future.

But for class 3), if the signs and lines aren't clear, the result may well be that they do something they wouldn't dream of doing if the restriction was clear.

So, for class 3), and probably class 2), keeping the signs and lines legal should reduce the incidence of parking in restricted areas and hence enhance your toddler's safety. With the ignorant ones in class 1), it won't change their behaviour either way, and they deserve to get fined, not to get away with it via a "technicality".

What's the objective, Santa - affect parking (and driving) habits, or raising revenue? Because if the objective is effective parking controls, keeping signs and lines legal is a much better strategy in preventing people parking there. If the objective is collecting fines, then it requires that people park there in order to do it.

It's all very well councils collecting millions of pounds in illegal fines (though the backlash is mounting and people are starting to demand the illegal fines they've paid back, and if they can prove it, some are prepared to take councils to court to get it, and with that evidence, they will win), but for councils to collect those fines, they can only do it AFTER the illegal (and perhaps irresponsible) parking has taken place. Better, surely, to do everything they can to prevent it happening, rather than to collect fines afterwards. Unless, of course, the revenue is more important to them than your toddler's safety?

[santa claus]

------

Another good post Saracen and I thank you for it.

I propose TiG's post as an honourable conclusion with the exchange ending in a points draw as awarded by an impartial referee .

Ah, sometimes I wonder when people will give up shadow boxing. I mean your shadow will still be there dodging your left jab, then the right uppercut.

Saracen is just like this, he just uses a different weapon. He's like fighting your own shadow, clear concise and dangerous. Step one foot outside the argument and you will find yourself defending your posts. You can't win an argument with Saracen (to be fair he doesn't chose arguments he doesn't know how to at least draw)

However if you don't get worked up and to be fair Santa you've done a damn fine job, not many people retain concise, well written and lengthy retorts.

I can see both sides of the coin and raise my hat to both of you.

TiG

[Saracen]

I have no objection to a 'points draw'. We're clearly never going to entirely agree on this.

Just one thing. I'd refer you to the last quote, and my last line, in post 174. Gotcha.

[G4Z]

Wow this thread had legs...

[Saracen]

Wow this thread had legs...

Flippin' good job it doesn't have wheels, or knowing you, it'd be parked illegally somewhere. Or is it irresponsibly.

[santa claus]

Wow this thread had legs...

Yep, an' Saracen is throwin' punches after the final bell. The crowd are all shouting "Git!"



Turned out to be good fun eh Guys?

[Saracen]

Always is, Santa. Always is. It's not the first subject we've disagreed on, and probably won't be the last, but at least I know where to come if I want a challenge.