The below article was taken from Brighton's Argus newspaper.
Personally, i have the upmost respect for the perpertrators, and perhaps we'll see more of this behaviour in other areas...
Opinions???
---------------------------------------
Guerrilla war on parking charges
by Miriam Wells
Frustrated motorists are defacing signs displaying parking restrictions Frustrated drivers are resorting to guerrilla tactics to avoid heavy parking charges.
Armed with a spray can or marker pen, motorists are defacing signs displaying parking restrictions to leave their parked vehicles free from the risk of penalty notices in Brighton and Hove.
By law, parking attendants can only issue tickets if the parking restrictions are clearly visible.
If a motorist makes the sign nearest their car unreadable, they cannot be given a ticket.
Brighton and Hove City Council condemned the vandalism, prevalent in the Seven Dials area, and warned that culprits would be prosecuted.
The Argus found a vandalised sign at the end of Compton Avenue, near the railway station, at 3pm on Friday. Information stating the parking spaces were for permit holders only had been blacked out.
Philip Anthony, who lives opposite the obscured sign, said it was little wonder motorists were resorting to desperate measures in order to park their cars.
The sixth-form teacher said: "I have lived here for almost two years and I still can't get a parking permit from the council.
"The parking regulations are outrageous.
"Luckily, I have a parking space at my work nearby and I leave my car there most of the time.
"But at the weekend when I have to leave my car here I have to remember to come back every two hours to move it."
Mr Anthony, 52, said the council must respond to residents' growing anger.
He said: "The council needs to see that people are unhappy and change the regulations, at least by allowing more residents to have permits or longer stays."
Mr Anthony stopped short of praising the law-breaking tactics of the sign-sprayer but said: "I understand his frustration. If it makes the council take notice then all power to him."
A council spokeswoman said: "If the signs are missing or obscured then the restriction cannot be enforced but, of course, to spray over a sign is criminal damage and if the culprit is caught, he will face prosecution by the council.
"It is a selfish way to dodge parking charges and causes problems for other law-abiding road users as well as forming part of the quarter of a million pounds which graffiti removal costs the city taxpayer every year."
----------------------------------------------
|
its not criminal damage if you have not damaged the signs
use of a water based paint for instance would probably come off when it rains, would be intersted to see them "prove" it caused damage
|
|
Lady Badger's parking problem is finding the way backward.
|
|
|
|
I noticed in the London Standard paper that Islington is now calling a halt to clamping operations. It is widely expected that clamping may well die out Local authorities have come to realise that it is pointless to claim that clamping is done to ease traffic problems whilst the car remains in situ for hours waiting to be released.
Islington went as far as to say that they were wrong and motorists were right! Almost fell off my chair when I read that one!
|
|
It seems that you will be given one hours grace if you overstay a parking meter. During this time you will get a fixed penalty. After an hour then instead of being clamped your car will be removed to a car pound. So it will cost even more money than a clamp! What a good response to motorists complaints that clamping a car only extends the period the offending car can be seen parked illegally.
|
|
Observation in City/Westminster suggests towaway used way below the hour. Apart from genuine but v rare hard luck anyone overstaying an hour is taking the mick and frankly has it coming to them.
|
I wonder how many of the people who resort to these tactics complain vociferously when they're inconvenienced by others who have parked illegally.
Yes, clamping has become a bit of a racket in places but when carried out properly I think it has it's place as it's a better deterrent than a simple fine. Yes, clamped vehicles are left in situ for a time but on the other hand how many more vehciles would be blocking up the roads if the clampers weren't present at all? IMO clamping and removal is a valid form of enforcement in certain situations albeit one which needs to be managed properly.
Sadly, all of this enforcement is required for one reason only - namely, because a certain section of the population believe they are above the law and that rules most of us accept shouldn't apply to them. They ignore the rules and then whinge loud when they're caught, often claiming that the authorities should be leaving them alone and persuing other people for what they claim are 'more serious' issues. How many of these same people whine when others park illegally or selfishly outside their homes, schools, businesses etc.? I'm sorry but they can't have their cake and eat it. The only reason we are all facing the prospect of new network of digital cameras which calculate average speeds over a distance is because so many people insist on breaking the speed limit. They currently complain about how unfair it is that we have large bright yellow cameras by the side of the road accompanied by signs and road markings so how much more are they going to complain when these are phased out in favour of the newer technology?
IMO the people who deface signs, damage cameras etc. are selfish morons and if they are allowed to succeed in their actions the only result will be more chaos for everyone and yet more enforcement. By all means ensure that the regulations are applied correctly and fairly but don't go down the route of law breaking to evade enforcement as this only makes matters worse for everyone.
|
Clamp them ! If they're parked illegally and/or obstructing others - clamp them !
I drive into London and various other town & city centres frequently. I park there, sometimes for 10 minutes and sometimes for 10 hours.
And how many times have I been clamped ? Absolutely none.
If people didn't recklessly speed, then we wouldn't get cameras (I know, I know, you don't recklessly speed you know when its safe to travel at a gazillion miles an hour and anyway cameras are dangerous because you're not capable of driving at a set speed and looking at your speedo without driving into ditches)
If idiots didn't park ridiculously, then clamping would never have got off the ground.
If its parked stupidly or illegally clamp it immediately - it might not solve the issue that time, but that will be one less person likely to do it again. And when you've got time, get a truck round there and remove the vehicle.
|
I agree that there are too many thoughtless drivers on our roads. However we are talking about parking - the way forward.
Cars and vans are a necessity of life for most people. What is really needed is a road system that is capable of meeting demand. Alongside that we need adequate places to leave our cars. Unfortunately the road system has not expanded to meet demand and car parking has been reduced or made very expensive in many popular areas. Both have been compounded by the rapid growth of population in the South East and due to a house price escalation many people are now living further away from where they work.
May be we are looking at the problem from the wrong way round. Perhaps more of the money raised in motoring taxes should be used to tackle the root cause of the problem as listed above. There will always be people who do not want to abide by sensible rules that are good for the majority of the population, so a punishment has to be found that is just in the eyes of the many and punative to the few. Getting the balance right is not easy.
|
|
The problem is that tackling 'the root of the problem' is impractical. You can't carry on building roads and car parks to accommodate more and more cars, it's simply impractical and would cost billions which would have to come out of taxes somewhere along the line.
|
|
There aren?t going to be more and more cars. Not unless we start driving two at a time.
|
Well now Volvoman and Mark has vented their spleens a little bit of balance.
Northampton town centre is dieing. There are many reasons for this but one if them is wildly overzealous parking wardens. Park an inch over the white line, ticket, put your disabled permit photo up, ticket it should be the other way up, permit claimed to be not clearly visible, ticket etc etc etc.
The council has now admitted that this was all deliberate policy to generate cash, nothing to do with traffic flow and it has backfired on them dreadfully as shoppers have abandoned the town centre and so businesses are leaving too so less rates.
They have now formed a task force to try and reverse this trend and hopefully this will include fair play for motorists.
|
To be fair I wasn't being biased Thommo as I said all such schemes should be properly and fairly managed.
The scheme you cite is an example of one that wasn't being properly run, should be changed and, according to what you say, is being. Unless I've missed something, this end seems to have been achieved without motorists defacing signage or breaking the law etc. If there is abuse of the system deal with that abuse don't add to it.
|
>>To be fair I wasn't being biased ...
I was. Clamp them all.
|
I can't see how Northampton ton centre is dying. Firstly there are quite a lot of short term places for street parking, then there are a lot of back streets, and then there are quite a few car parks.
My solicitors and accountants are both in Northampton, so I do get there quite a bit. Although I haven't been there for two or three weeks so it could have had a dramatic and recent change.
And as it happens, I like Northampton because it has such a varied city centre with many more little shops (i.e. not part of a chain) than seems to be normal these days.
And I suspect that "The council has now admitted..." is not so much the council saying "we admit that...." as someone drawing a conclusion that suits them from other things that they have said - kind of one of those "have you stopped beating your wife?" type situations.
|
I read an article last year that gave the figures that showed how in recent years,many shops in Oxford city centre have reduced turnover directly related to the councils anti-car polcies (£2 an hour car park).I beleive that the latest plans for re-developing the west-gate centre will do away with the car park.
My wife and I never go to Oxford.We prefer the MK centre even though its further away.Easy to get to,far cheaper and easier to park.
|
|
|
I know plenty of people who own more than one car and the reason is usually not necessity but choice. Unless you're going to restrict/remove personal choice in some way, people are likely to want more cars. I've yet to see any figures which show that the number of cars on our roads is declining but car ownership in itself isn't a problem necessarily. The extent to which cars cause parking and/or congestion problems depends on how, when and how often they're used. If enough people decide to use their cars more of the time and choose to be selfish to boot by parking inconsiderately etc. congestion will increase even if the numbers remain static or even fall. The evidence of the last few decades as demonstrated during school run times would seem to indciate that the majority of people prefer to use their cars even when some if not many of those journeys (e.g. very short) could easily be avoided or undertaken by other means.
|
|
|
Sorry about the multiple posts but I wanted to avoid being timed out.
Big Bad Dave - My wife is from Eastern Europe. 10 years ago the prospect of her or anyone in her family owning a car there was pretty remote. Today her sister and BIL have 2. Many of her old friends now own cars and as their standard of living within the EU increases so will car ownership. The once empty roads will fill up and parking will become an increasing problem in areas which weren't built to accommodate it. The demand will then be for more roads and places to park.
Unless we become less affluent my belief is that people will want more cars. Add to this the fact that the population is growing and people are living longer.
As I said before, how much cars affect the environment will depend on how they're used but the more they're used the greater the congestion they cause and therefore, the greater the demand to build yet more roads.
IMO the cheapest and best way around this problem is for people to be more responsible about how they use their cars.
|
You can have many, many cars but you can only drive one at a time. I can?t be precise and I may have dreamt it but I?m sure I read that there is a car on the road for every person with a license, which to me is a saturation point.
I?m not convinced affluence is related to car ownership. Here in Poland there is 19% unemployment and the economy is on it?s knees yet there a re plenty of new and nearly new cars on the road. It?s not what you earn, it?s how you prioritise the spending of it. I suspect even if the UK became less affluent, the second car would remain on the drive and the kids? private education would go. Is your wife Czech?
|
Sure, as an individual you can have many cars but only drive one. You can also however decide to drive everywhere or use alternatives where they are practical. The outcome of this decision will largely determine how much congestion the car you're driving causes.
Of course, if you have a family and own several cars your partner and kids are also likely to be using them at some time or another just because they're there.
Furthermore, driving cars isn't the only cause of congestion, parking them is a big factor. Unless you have private off road space for several cars, simply parking them them will generate congestion and if we all did that there'd be chaos. Then of course there's the argument that the more cars you own the more you tend to use them if only to keep them working properly and justify the expense involved.
Is my wife a Czech? Nearly but not quite :)
|
|
|
|
