|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Tony DragonTony Dragon Date: Feb 18, 2008 14:10
Copied from uk.transport.london
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7251333.stm
Brutal but effective. If Brent and Harrow council really did attempt
to contact the offending residents - and did so at least more than
once - then I approve! Cars driving over pavements, in particular
paving slabs, really do mash them up.
Whether the councils are charging too much for installing the proper
ramp access across the pavement does come into this whole issue, but
if they are just passing on the legitimate costs of so doing then
that's fair enough.
The article says Brent has done this in 33 locations, whilst no
figures are provided for Harrow. I expect the counter argument to
anyone suggesting that this action has further damaged the pavement is
that the pavement was so damaged in the first place it makes little
difference, as the council were going to have to fix it up anyway. It
will certainly make for an effective deterrent.
|
| Show full article (1.98Kb) |
|
| | 28 Comments |
|
|
Author: AboAbo Date: Feb 18, 2008 23:21
Tony Dragon wrote:
> Copied from uk.transport.london
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7251333.stm
>
> Brutal but effective. If Brent and Harrow council really did attempt
> to contact the offending residents - and did so at least more than
> once - then I approve! Cars driving over pavements, in particular
> paving slabs, really do mash them up.
>
> Whether the councils are charging too much for installing the proper
> ramp access across the pavement does come into this whole issue
|
| Show full article (0.99Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: DougDoug Date: Feb 19, 2008 01:16
On 18 Feb, 22:10, "Tony Dragon" btinternet.com> wrote:> Copied from uk.transport.london
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7251333.stm
>
> Brutal but effective. If Brent and Harrow council really did attempt
> to contact the offending residents - and did so at least more than
> once - then I approve! Cars driving over pavements, in particular
> paving slabs, really do mash them up.
> As well as weing illegal.
>
> Whether the councils are charging too much for installing the proper
> ramp access across the pavement does come into this whole issue, but
> if they are just passing on the legitimate costs of so doing then
> that's fair enough.
>
> The article says Brent has done this in 33 locations, whilst no
> figures are provided for Harrow. I expect the counter argument to
> anyone suggesting that this action has further damaged the pavement is ...
|
| Show full article (2.55Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ®i©ardo®i©ardo Date: Feb 19, 2008 01:38
Doug wrote:
> On 18 Feb, 22:10, "Tony Dragon" btinternet.com> wrote:>> Copied from uk.transport.london
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7251333.stm
>>
>> Brutal but effective. If Brent and Harrow council really did attempt
>> to contact the offending residents - and did so at least more than
>> once - then I approve! Cars driving over pavements, in particular
>> paving slabs, really do mash them up.
>> > As well as weing illegal.
>> Whether the councils are charging too much for installing the proper
>> ramp access across the pavement does come into this whole issue, but
>> if they are just passing on the legitimate costs of so doing then
>> that's fair enough.
>>
>> The article says Brent has done this in 33 locations, whilst no
>> figures are provided for Harrow. I expect the counter argument to
>> anyone suggesting that this action has further damaged the pavement is ...
|
| Show full article (2.71Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PeterTPeterT Date: Feb 19, 2008 14:03
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:16:15 -0800 (PST), Doug riseup.net>
wrote:
>The problem, as I see it, is that the council's are actively
>encouraging 24/7 street garaging by banning cars from driveways. This
>can't be good. But no doubt the councils are dominated by motorists
>anyway and for them this is not a problem, only for peds and cyclists
>who have to put up with it.
Where do you park the car you drive Duhng?
--
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.
PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mark HewittMark Hewitt Date: Feb 20, 2008 00:11
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that the council's are actively
> encouraging 24/7 street garaging by banning cars from driveways.
Quite. I think we can all agree then that having a car on the drive and off
the road is better than it obstructing the road.
> This
> can't be good. But no doubt the councils are dominated by motorists
> anyway and for them this is not a problem, only for peds and cyclists
> who have to put up with it.
That doesn't make sense. Motorists want their cars off the road too,
otherwise why would they be illegally making driveways? The councils should
assist them then we have the rarest of situations, the peds, cyclists and
motorists all benefit (I know that won't compute for you ;-) )
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ConorConor Date: Feb 20, 2008 05:44
>
>>
>> The problem, as I see it, is that the council's are actively
>> encouraging 24/7 street garaging by banning cars from driveways.
>
> Quite. I think we can all agree then that having a car on the drive and off
> the road is better than it obstructing the road.
>
Not really. The one thing these driveways do is remove on street
parking 24/7/365 so someone wanting to park on a street such as mine
which is empty during the day would find it hard to find somewhere to
park.
--
Conor
As a Brit I'd like to thank the Americans for their help in the war
against terror because if they'd not funded the IRA for 30 years, we
wouldn't know how to deal with terrorists.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mark HewittMark Hewitt Date: Feb 22, 2008 01:06
>>
>>>
>>> The problem, as I see it, is that the council's are actively
>>> encouraging 24/7 street garaging by banning cars from driveways.
>>
>> Quite. I think we can all agree then that having a car on the drive and
>> off
>> the road is better than it obstructing the road.
>>
> Not really. The one thing these driveways do is remove on street
> parking 24/7/365 so someone wanting to park on a street such as mine
> which is empty during the day would find it hard to find somewhere to
> park.
Why? I don't see any conflict between on street parking and on drive
parking. Outside my house I can park on the road or in my drive. If I'm in
the drive then someone could park outside my house, if they so desired.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Feb 22, 2008 01:23
Mark Hewitt ("Mark Hewitt" here.com>) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:
>> Not really. The one thing these driveways do is remove on street
>> parking 24/7/365 so someone wanting to park on a street such as mine
>> which is empty during the day would find it hard to find somewhere to
>> park.
> Why? I don't see any conflict between on street parking and on drive
> parking. Outside my house I can park on the road or in my drive. If I'm
> in the drive then someone could park outside my house, if they so
> desired.
Across your drive?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ConorConor Date: Feb 22, 2008 04:56
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:06:01 +0000, Mark Hewitt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The problem, as...
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
|
|
