Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'

Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
Have you ever been to Leatherhead High Street?
They don't behave as you imagine.
It's pedestrianised isn't it?
Not any more. 'They' pedestrianised it, but then decided to let motor vehicles in for significant parts of the day, after having removed all road markings, kerbs etc.
So it _is_ pedestrianised, for most of the working day anyway. They've opened it again in the evenings, to try and get some life back into the town, after it completely died with no through traffic, but haven't provided adequately for parking?

You do talk bollocks.

When - certainly not in the above paragraph. It is a fair summary of the situation.

1: There is no through traffic, because any traffic actually trying to get anywhere goes along the through roads parallel to the High Street.

By "through traffic" they meant traffic access to the street - ro keep its heart beating. There nothing more desolate and depressing than a deserted street, especially as is was so vibrant before.

2: 'haven't provided adequately' apart from the bloody huge great multi-storey car-park less than 100yds from the high street

"Adequate" for the anti-car lobby, maybe, but obviously not adequate for those who are expected to use it. If it was "adequate" there would be no parking problems. Is the multi-story free?

3: It's a damn strange concept of 'pedestrianised' that allows unrestricted motor vehicles access

"Unrestricted"? Any vehicle, any time of the day? Cars are no longer banned during the core day?

4: It's not just evenings, it's part of the afternoon and all day on Sunday

So there /isn't/ unrestricted motor access then, or did you forget Mon-Sat, mornings and the other part of the afternoon?

(when most of the shops aren't open so the 'through traffic stopping on a whim to buy a pint of milk is a doubly crap excuse).

Is is what people want - or does no-one do it?

The Sisnbury's (which is open) has lifts direct from every floor of the multi-storey into the shop, and refunds the parking charge for customers, so don't start talking crap about that.

So the car-park isn't free then to non-Sainsbury customers.

So motorists aren't really equal partners are they. That is one of the fundamental requirements of a working system - all users have equal priorities - no discrimination.

Eh? There are no restrictions.

Yes. When peds can use the streets motorists can.

Let's get this straight - not stopping motorists parking wherever they like is unfairly penalising them?

I'm not really talking about parking, I'm talking about street use. But obviously if people want to shop they'll need to park.

Letting them do what they like is not making them equal to pedestrians?

They can't "do what they like", they can't drive down the street at 11:00 am to shop.

So you're saying putting in some parking restrictions would liberate the motorist?

No, you said that. Parking restrictions are only necessary if other measures are wrong. There's no parking restrictions in one of my favourite towns - mainly beacause the more than adequate car park is free.

Wow, your brain must be addled.

Yes - I'm exasperated by your refusal to see common sense. Your prejudices have got the better of your senses - it seems.

Please explain very, very slowly why not restricting parking in any way whatsoever is discriminating against motorists.

The fact that they /need/ restricting - in a small town like that speaks volumes of the history with regards to the treatment of motorists - and car use.

So now they've got the worst of both worlds. A street designed as a pedestrian only street, but with cars allowed access at certaain times - but without proper account taken for their parking needs etc.

Listen you silly prat - there are car parks all over the place.

So why is there a problem?

There's a multi-storey car-park no more than 100yds from any point on the previously pedestrianised bit. There's a flat car-park at one end. There are private car-parks which are open to the public at weekends which back onto the High St.

Are any of them free?

They need to design it for "all mode" use, and abolish the time restrictions and provide ample and convenient parking.

There is ample and convenient parking. I don't know why you've seized on that when it's so irrelevant.

Are motorists finding it necessary not to use the car parks?

Presumably you advocate knocking down all the buildings to make way for this new design and yet more parking?

No - that would be absurd. Keep it simple. Try /free/ car parks.

I'm sure you know that though.

Of course not. I know you're completely ignorant of what you're talking about. There is ample parking, it's a narrow street that does not work with cars and pedestrians (hence the conflicts) and the through traffic argument is complete rubbish.

I've quoted from what other residents have said - there is obviously a divide in the town. Have motorists been persecuted there in the past?

You _could_ knock down the remaining buildings to make it wide enough for cars to use and provide space for pedestrians, but I struggle to understand how that's going to improve the town centre.

Why? Is there not a street there now?

I've just seen on the BBC, that it was recently voted as one of the worst town centres in the country. One voter saying "an example of cheap and thoughtless pedestrianisation taking the heart out of a whole town".

Actually, it was bull-dozing (literally - they just drew a line and demolished the existing roads and buildings) the through-road to speed the poor hard-done-by motorists in the early 70's that destroyed the town centre.

Funny, I hear it was vibrant until it was pedestrianised.

They even put the new road at a constant gradient, so the perpendicular roads don't join because they are at a different level (several meters higher in places). Now we have a town centre that's isolated from most of the town by a wide fast road.

And from Hansard "Leatherhead pedestrianised the whole high street; since then the centre has virtually died. Indeed, the council is now looking at ways of bringing cars back into it."

The 'since then' is rubbish, as noted above. Bringing cars back into it is exactly what we've been discussing - they have simply let cars drive into a pedestrianised area, without any restrictions, and it simply doesn't work.

It's not likely too is it. For the stated reasons. It's a street designed for peds only. Motorists are tolerated for limited hours. Hardly complying with the "shared space" philosophy is it.

That's the whole point of the last few postings.

Yes. Equal treatment, not occasional concessions.

--
Matt B
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Law-abiding majority is a myth
    ... If it was "adequate" there would be no parking problems. ... So what you're saying is that it's not good enough merely to apply no restriction at all to motorists, you have to actually subsidise them. ... Parking restrictions are needed where it is unsafe to park, or where it blocks or obstructs other users. ... It is not common sense to allow unrestricted parking in a street that is too narrow to allow parking and pedestrians and motor vehicles to pass and re-pass. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Law-abiding majority is a myth
    ... be no parking problems. ... restriction at all to motorists, you have to actually subsidise them. ... Cars are no longer ... of motorists showed they weren't given equal status with pedestrians. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Britain bad for road deaths.
    ... this is the reason that pedestrians still cause accidents. ... "You must avoid the cars, we'd rather you were not dead but faultless" ... cyclists and motorists) need to play their ...
    (uk.transport)
  • Re: Law-abiding majority is a myth
    ... Have you ever been to Leatherhead High Street? ... provided adequately for parking? ... but with cars allowed access at certaain ... not work with cars and pedestrians and the ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: DR Brat
    ... That's probably why the TO folks don't ... > stop for your folks at a crosswalk. ... signs that say "Stop for pedestrians in crosswalk". ... however, give them traffic tickets, especially parking tickets. ...
    (rec.crafts.textiles.needlework)