| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Parking ticket in resident's bay! | |
| Posted by: | Matthew Barnard | |
| Date/Time: | 30/03/11 22:37:00 |
| Will said : "The point of CPZ is that everyone gets a fair shot at the limited available parking space." Yes I agree. In fact it's why I responded. Because it is not then logical to criticise a wide vehicle which doesnt "limit the available parking space". Obviously Will dislikes wide vehicles on principle. Fine, I respect his views, but I was just pointing out that it is not logical to say that a wide vehicle necessarily limits parking space. If he doesnt like them or want them, then just say so. It is disingenuous to dress this up as limiting parking space for other CPZ users. Will says "We are talking about measures to dis-incentivise large vehicles." He might be. We are talking about whether it is right that someone with a large vehicle should receive a parking ticket. Is is antisocial? Does it obstruct other vehicles? Is it a danger for the emergency services? These are perhpas some of the relevant questions. Will says "Large means long or wide Matthew." Yes it does. But in terms of taking up available residents parking space it's not the same. I can draw a diagram if that's easier. Will said "Both long and wide cars are inappropriate for urban and sub-urban environments. Look what happens on South Parade when a bus is trying to get past a parked car like Chris's." I agree. In fact that was exactly the point I was making. That's why I questioned whether the width of his vehicle obstructed or potentially obstructed other road users. I couldnt judge from the evidence whether it did or not. I prefer to judge on the facts, not on prejudices. I cant judge on the facts given. Will said "Who mentioned pollution?" Ermm I did. Just making the point that antisocial behaviour from vehicles extends beyond their size. If you want to "disincentivise" vehicles for one reason, then it is only right that you consider "disincentivising" them for other (perhaps more important) ones. |