Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'

Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Matt the Berk wrote:

Ha ha.

Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
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.

It wasn't deserted.

It was by many contemporary accounts.

It had pedestrians walking about substantially free of the risk of serious injury.

Ah, but not enough of them to sustain the local businesses - which were closing down according to many accounts I've read.

It had children who were allowed to let go of their parent's hand.

But could not sustain the businesses. Why not go for a solution, as found in many similar sized towns elsewhere, which not only frees children, and their parents, from fear of traffic, but can /also/ allow legitimate motor traffic to travel freely.

It had blind people who could navigate themselves (very relevant because Leatherhead is the former site of a RNIB school and has an unusually high proportion of blind residents) and wheel-chair users who could move around the street with ease.

Groups representing the blind and partially sighted have been sceptical about "shared space" in the past, especially as one of its tenets is the value of eye contact in interactions. But at a recent conference a representative from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association "stressed his growing interest in the potential of Shared Space and the opportunity to create more universally accessible environments"

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?

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. I have never seen the car-park full.

You won't if it isn't where it's required, or is too expensive, or deemed undesirable for some other reason.

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?

At certain times there is unrestricted access, yes.

So it /is/ restricted at others - like I suspected. Hardly a policy to inspire harmony. Imagine the outcry if another sector of society was only allowed to use the streets "out of hours".

If you think it relevant that at other times of day motor vehicles are not permitted you are way dumber than I thought.

I think you've twigged now, and are being stubborn, but I'll say it again. Trust and respect are key to the philosophy working effectively. Allowing certain groups only at certain times helps with neither of those. Those who are treated as outcasts will react in a variety of ways. Some will resent being treated as inferior citizens.

Do you actually think the parent of a small child will say "oh well, my child would have been safe from traffic if we were here four hours ago, so I'll let them run free amongst the cars that are here now"?

No, certainly not. I think most parents would appreciate the safe and secure environment that allowing fair and equal access to all would guarantee - all of the time.

Does the pedestrian say "Although this car is now forcing me out of the way that's fine because if I'd been here at this time yesterday it wouldn't have done so"?

Not in shared space schemes, no, because that is not what happens.

If so, you really should be locked up, for your own safety.

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.

You were talking about parking. You said not restricting the parking of motorists showed they weren't given equal status with pedestrians.

I never. Pedestrians don't park. I said of parking: "haven't provided adequately for parking?", "but without proper account taken for their parking needs", "they need to... provide ample and convenient parking" and "If it was "adequate" there would be no parking problems".

No, you said that. Parking restrictions are only necessary if other measures are wrong.

Parking restrictions are needed where it is unsafe to park, or where it blocks or obstructs other users.

Only if it is likely that parking will occur much in such places. If appropriate measures, that instil a strong community spirit, are in place, such extra rules are superfluous.

Unless you're going to define "where other measures are wrong" as including anywhere where there are existing buildings, you are talking rubbish.

Eh?

I agree, if we demolish the whole country and put completely flat unobstructed tarmac absolutely everywhere, there will be little need of parking restrictions.

You've lost it again - why would we need to demolish anything? Did I ever mention demolition? Do you park across your neighbours entrance? (I'll assume you don't) do you not because it is illegal, or because of mutual respect? Would you welcome a big sign say "Mr Smith - DO NOT PARK ACROSS THIS ENTRANCE"???

Meanwhile, on planet Earth, you are talking unmitigated crap again.

Think it through - again.

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.

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.

No, not if you have no true sense of community spirit. However, there is another way!

The motorists park anyway, the motorists squeeze through aggressively and the pedestrians become unable to pass and re-pass safely and are obliged (at risk of serious injury) to cower and give way.

Only where the values are all wrong. Can't you see, that if they are bestowed with the right and the power, they will use it. Have you ever noticed how the roles are reversed at zebra crossing? Many a pedestrian would get himself killed rather than give way to an errant motorist - the pedestrian asserts his legal right to cross - come what may. Where priorities are unclear motorists are cautious(think broken traffic lights), where motorists are given priority (or de-facto priority) they will assert it. So think about it - we give them all the tarmac between the kerbs, on that tarmac they have priority whilst not crossing any white lines, if they have green lights they have priority, they /always/ have priority over pedestrians - that have been taught that from a very early age.

Now think about what it /could/ be like if they /never/ (yes _never_, rather than usually) had priority. Hint: you, as a pedestrian, _never_ have priority over other pedestrians - result the strong give-way to the weak.

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.

More crap. Are you honestly advocating demolishing every street that is too narrow to allow pavements and unlimited parking bays and through traffic?

No, I've never for one minute suggested demolishing anything - ever.

It seems you are, and then you're accusing me of a refusal to see common sense?

Provide adequate and desirable parking - off-street, if necessary, and the problem will be solved.

There isn't physically space for what you advocate.

What about where the current unused car parks are?

You would require the demolition of just about every town centre more than about 30 years old.

Stop it.

It was actually this sort of change that wrecked the town centre in the first place.

What did they demolish when they pedestrianised it?

I've already explained that - it was pandering to the motorist that destroyed the centre.

It's not what the contemporary reports say.

Listen you silly prat - there are car parks all over the place.
So why is there a problem?

Because despite the car-parks all over the place irresponsible motorists still choose to park in dangerous and inconvenient locations.

That tells me all I need to know - about the car parks.

They do this despite your assurance that when freed from restriction every motorist becomes a model member of society, considerate of all and never doing anything remotely inconsiderate or dangerous.

How can you say that - it has never, and by the sounds of it, is unlikely _ever_ to happen in anti-car towns such as yours.

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.

But you've said we need to allow full-time unrestricted vehicle access,

Yes.

unrestricted parking

Yes, and free, but not necessarily in the streets themselves.

and plenty of space for pedestrians.

No. Which of the two words "shared" or "space" do you not understand?

That physically does not fit between the frontages of the buildings. The motorists park anyway, and the cars force their way through.

You've decided they need to park there not me. Give them fresh, accessible, free, clean, safe, handy car parks, and equal unrestricted access to the streets. Remove the lines, signals and signs. Put the odd flower pot, bench, tree, market stall in the street. Encourage pedestrians to treat motorists as equals. When you've done all that and they still park obstructively - tow them.

Car parks aren't free. Land in Surrey is not free. What you actually want is yet more subsidy of motorists by tax-payers.

Nor are hospitals, schools, libraries, police, or firemen free, but they are funded from our taxes to provide fair and equitable services for all citizens. Think of it not as a subsidy, but as part of the cost of a community spirited integrated society.

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?

Not that is wide enough to do what you say is obviously necessary.

Perhaps not to fulfil your perverse interpretation of what I said.

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.

You've also heard differently (I just told you).

Are you sure that your recollection isn't tainted by prejudice and preconception.

I've heard that wearing a foil hat will protect you from orbital mind-control rays.

Not from me.

Doesn't make it true.

Trust me ;-)

--
Matt B
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Police refuse to chase bike thieves
    ... into a shop for 5 mins (outside a takeaway or video shop would be a good ... example) and the nearest car park space is about that amount of walking ... Is it right to let those people get away with illegal parking ... give unscrupulous motorists an inch in this regard, ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Law-abiding majority is a myth
    ... If it was "adequate" there would be no parking problems. ... volumes of the history with regards to the treatment of motorists - and car use. ... it's a narrow street that does not work with cars and pedestrians and the through traffic argument is complete rubbish. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Police refuse to chase bike thieves
    ... How about the possibility that people parking illegally have just popped ... example) and the nearest car park space is about that amount of walking ... give unscrupulous motorists an inch in this regard, ... interested in the revenue for the council and it's subcontractors. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Advance stop lines
    ... pavement, thereby obstructing the passage of pedestrians, cyclists and ... motorists. ... The last thing I'd want to do is park half on/half off the kerb. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)