having had to push my wife round in a wheelchair last year and having to go onto the road to get round inconsiderate drivers im the first to say fine those that disobey
pavements for pedestrians
roads for cars
but hey---
its a poor likkle child that at any minute might roll the window down and run off into the tundra of greater london
maybe the child should have been strapped into the trunk?
just a thought?
|
Wheelchairs have wheels - to the road with it my good man.
Leave the pavements for dog poop and beggars.
|
Connie
From what you say it appears that the contravention is against The Havering (Waiting and Loading Restriction) (Special Parking Area) (No. 1) Order 1994 which I cannot pull up on the box. The offence is actually one of NO WAITING (not stopping or parking) if there was a yellow line as the line covers the area from the centre of the road to the pavement boundary.
If you are near Council HQ then you may consider visiting and asking to see the Order to see what, if any, exemptiopns there are.
Nevertheless I would still consider an appeal. There is plenty on the box to lead you through the process.
dvd
|
I really do wonder what planet all these 'holier than thou' posters are on. According to their way of thinking, the OP has committed the most heinous of offences which deserves to be punished with the full weight of the law. I'd love to get to know some of these posters, as it must be an absolute joy to be in the company of such august and wonderful people. Just imagine being with someone who never ever makes a mistake, even under pressure and who lives their lives in such a thoughtful and careful way that they never ever inconvenience or annoy anybody.
Connie was faced with a simple choice. Either have her child continue to travel without being safely restrained, or pull up on a pavement for the briefest of periods probably without inconveniencing anybody. She made, in the eyes of the Council, the wrong choice (or in the eyes of the Council's accountants, the right choice). How many parents, when noticing that their chld had managed to break free of their restraints, would carry on driving to find somewhere 'safe' to pull over? I know that I'd stop immediately. I'm afraid that I take the view that my child's safety is far more important than making bellboy's missus wait for a couple of minutes, or making Joe Bloggs pause a while before he can get round my parked vehicle.
I'm getting sick and tired of the 'adhere to the rules, no matter how petty' society that we seem to be drifting towards. It is a society that has nothing to do with making the world a better, safer place and everything to do with making as much money out of ordinary, (normally) law-abiding people. These are the very people that the authorities generally rely on for help and, if they are not careful, these same authorities will be losing an awful lot of the goodwill that gets them this help in the first place.
The OP's case is, I think, very similar to that of those who have been fined for going through red traffic lights while making room for emergency service vehicles to pass. Petty dik-tats have been allowed to obfuscate common sense and compassion.
Unfortunately, I have not the foggiest notion about how to effectively combat this. Any thoughts?
|
... Petty dik-tats have been allowed to obfuscate common sense and compassion...
Tend to agree, but were you sat in a fines office, you might conclude everyone thinks their case is a special one.
The problem for the OP might be the adjudicator thinking: "Oh no, not yet another yummy mummy playing the 'loose child' card."
I know there have been problems with drivers causing obstructions while taking a mobile phone call.
Driver thinks he is doing the right thing by stopping, but it is only the lesser of two evils.
I don't know the road where the OP stopped, but I can't help thinking that had she taken the grave risk of driving another, say, 100m, she could have pulled into a side street where enforcement is far more lax.
|
Tend to agree but were you sat in a fines office you might conclude everyone thinks their case is a special one. The problem for the OP might be the adjudicator thinking: "Oh no not yet another yummy mummy playing the 'loose child' card."
I don't know the road where the OP stopped but I can't help thinking that had she taken the grave risk of driving another say 100m she could have pulled into a side street where enforcement is far more lax.
That's a fair point, I suppose. They should really build some flexibility into these laws though. What would be wrong with allowing a two-minute period of 'grace' to let people do exactly what the OP was doing? I take the point entirely about the side road, but the OP was probably panicked by little Johnny's sudden Houdini act and her only thought was to get him strapped back in as soon as possible.
These laws do not allow for humans to be human. They presume that we are all machines and would seem more at home on Skaro or perhaps Mondas. I'm in no way suggesting that the law allows us a free for all, just that a little common sense is applied in all cases. The majority of people will then feel less like leaving their wallets open, ready for when the authorities come knocking...
|
|
She did NOT stop on the road,she stopped on the pavement!!!
|
She stopped PARTLY on the pavement. For TWO whole minutes. TWO minutes. What is your (or anybody else's) problem with that? And where, in either of my posts have I ever stated that she did not stop on the pavement?
Obviously, jc2, I don't know you from Adam and I apolgise if that this offends you, but your post puts an image across of you as being one of the above-mentioned 'holier-than-thou' posters who believes that the most minor of transgressions should be punished severely.
We are getting to the stage now where any mistakes, or momentary lapses are punished without any thought being given to extenuating circumstances. Stopping to ensure your child's safety should not incur a fine unless on a Red Route which we all know about anyway.
I ask again - where has the common sense and compassion gone?
Edited by Badwolf {P} on 06/09/2009 at 10:45
|
where has the common sense and compassion gone?
Good question Badwolf. They're Tatcher's children.
|
Its seems some are assuming that only two wheels are on the kerb.
However it could be that everything was on the kerb other than the the two wheels that were still on the road
Sorry but still no sympathy from me
Nothing to do with thatcher or anybody else its basic common sense pavements are for people with shoes on
Too many people have their own selfish "why me"? attitudes in what was once great britain.
Maybe posters journey wasnt even necessary,there is a war on you know
|
|
Compassion? Its a fixed penalty for goodness sake: exactly what is needed for a "minor transgression". Far too much automatic driving up onto footpaths. So automatic, that pedestrians apparently become invisible during the process.
|
www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycod...9
Highway code: 145
You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
If, in your opinion as a driver and a concerned parent, this constituted an emergency,
then you have an additional defence.
I doubt that anyone is in a position to contradict you.
|
What about changing the cd"s in the player under the passenger seat if the wife filled it up with mantovani and i want the who?,surely thats an emergancy to get them changed straight away especially since jeremy vine has just come on the radio and its a whole hour before the world at one is on?
MA LUD?
|
She stopped PARTLY on the pavement. For TWO whole minutes. TWO minutes. What is your (or anybody else's) problem with that?
I guess that's no different from saying; what's the problem with going 2MPH over the speed limit? The only reason people don't get done for that is because of the uncertainty of accuracy of the equipment.
It's a black and white thing. The time period isn't relevant.
And apart from the possible hazard to pedestrians, the pavement could be damaged by a vehicle driving on it.
|
I guess that's no different from saying; what's the problem with going 2MPH over the speed limit? The only reason people don't get done for that is because of the uncertainty of accuracy of the equipment.
But that's partly the point - you'd hope there'd be a human being there, not a piece of equipment, who might say - ok, you were 2mph over, but you were late for your mum's funeral (or whatever) so I'm going to let you off this time with a warning.
|
|
|
I don't know the road where the OP stopped but I can't help thinking that had she taken the grave risk of driving another say 100m she could have pulled into a side street where enforcement is far more lax.
And in that 100m she could have had an RTC where her child was shot out the car?
Lets get real, Connie was foremost thinking of the safety of her child, something most of us
would do!
IMO from what Connie has posted, she was also thinking of other road users, by making sure traffic flow wasnt unduly affected.
I admit the above is conjecture based on Connies posting, and without seeing the road concerned NONE of us can be sure if she did the right thing, BUT isnt safety the one thing we should put above all else?
|
|
|
|
Connie was faced with a simple choice. Either have her child continue to travel without being safely restrained or pull up on a pavement for the briefest of periods probably without inconveniencing anybody.
That's not correct. She had a 3rd choice, which was to stop in the roadway.
Edited by Bill Payer on 06/09/2009 at 11:59
|
That's not correct. She had a 3rd choice which was to stop in the roadway.
Trouble is Connie didn't pop out with her tape measure (remember to carry with you at all times to satisfy the BR kangaroo court) to check the width of the road or the pavement, more importantly we don't know how busy the road or the pavement were at the time.
It may have been the case that the road was fast moving and heavily trafficked and maybe Connie didn't want to risk partially blocking the road, and it may well have been a quiet road with a busy pavement, we'll never know.
Pop back to the scene of the crime Con there's a dear and take all measurements and count the traffic and pedestrian flow for the learned counsel would you..;)
Ever more reclusive and i wonder why (formerly disgusted)...of Tunbridge Wells.
|
gordonbennet are you sid? in the brilliant spoof of Sidney Lumet's 1957 courtroom drama, Twelve Angry Men, where Sid and Hancock spin out jury duty to make the most of their 30 bob a day
;-)
|
gordonbennet are you sid?
No but i wouldn't have minded swapping places with him a few times..;)
Gone for ever those characters, and took common sense with 'em.
|
|
|
|
I really hate traffic enforcement by camera.
Remember when they said they were installing CCTV for our safety? To cut down on serious crime and disorder?
Instead they're using it to punish minor infractions by easy to track people (i.e. motorists) out of all proportion to the offence.
At least with a traffic warden or police officer you could explain any extenuating circumstances.
|
At least with a traffic warden or police officer you could explain any extenuating circumstances. true,like sorry for mounting the pavement and driving over your foot?
|
...n the brilliant spoof of Sidney Lumet's 1957 courtroom drama, Twelve Angry Men...
Surely that film is mis-titled?
There were only eleven angry men - the twelfth juror was all care and compassion and anything but angry.
|
|
Linik below takes you to the Romford and Havering Post and to a story about the doubtful legality of the Smart camera cars being used for the CCTV ticketing described by OP:
tinyurl.com/nd5l23
|
Everything needs to be looked at and judged on its merits. A camera enforcement system does not do that, the ticket/prosecution becomes automatic.
There was a degree of danger to the child, in that they were no longer properly strapped in.
How wide was the pavement; was anyone inconvenienced; was there any danger caused; is it an area where there are often problems of this sort; is there an old people's home/school nearby; etc
How wide was the road; would there have been an obstruction caused by stopping wholly in the road, that could have been alleviated by temp use of the pavement (which let's face it Local Authorities seem happy enough to use in other circumstances); was it dangerous to stop wholly in the road.
There's a difference between someone selfishly partially/wholly parking their car on a pavement, blocking it and then causing pushchairs/wheelchairs etc to have to use the road (which happens near me when I want to take my 18 month old out)...than someone stopping partially on a pavement to prevent obstruction of the road, for a very short period of time. Who knows, the pavement could have been 3 cars wide.
Maybe Connie exercised some common sense, but got hit by some inflexible council camera system that pays no homage to common sense? Some of you have pre judged it without knowing all the facts.
|
WP - I completly agree with you
I work for my local authority and it saddens me that all the good work we do is overshadowed by stuff like this. Yes, there are a lot of reasons for pursuing parking with such zeal but the negative impact it creates carries a much greater cost.
DVD gives great advice as ever, I would certainly appeal in your case. You may well meet with some sympathy even if the let off letter is sternly worded about not doing it again.
I have no connection to parking services this is just my 2p
|
Very interesting link optimist. Also interesting to see that the Smart Camera cars cost £25,000 EACH! Pricey for a plastic box with a web-cam on the roof.
|
Unfortunately as a revenue generator a good investment.
|
Depending on the validity of Optimist's link, posted @1133!
|
Unfortunately as a revenue generator a good investment. >>
You could not choose a better location for rich pickings than:.... This was in Havering, Parkstone Av ... >>
A search on t'internet will show that the houses here sell for £2million.
"There is some variety in the types of property, however the vast majority are substantially large detached homes on plots of land of at least half an acre. The roads in the area are wide and lined with mature trees. "
Parkstone Avenue is wide enough for four cars abreast.
Some juicy bits from Optimist's link:
...
Opponent of the Smart car, Cllr Barbara Matthews of the Residents' Association - who once likened the cars to bounty hunters - said of the ruling: "If it gets the council working properly then it's a good thing."
The Havering flotilla, made up of two £25,000 Smart cars and three motorbikes has targeted thousands of motorists pulling in millions of pounds since it was first piloted in June 2007.
It has quickly become the scourge of motorists with the council accused of unfairly targeting residential streets where people had parked unchallenged for years, as well as transport pick-up and drop-off points.
Unlike traditional traffic wardens, PCNs are not posted on the vehicle at the time but mailed directly to the motorist leading to cases of 'stacking', where drivers, after being unknowingly and repeatedly targeted, are suddenly stung with an influx of fines.
Ian Jansen, co-founder of protest website Angry of Havering and co-owner of Romford Mini Cabs, said: "We originally started Angry as a protest against the sneaky tactics used by the Smart car, getting our drivers as they picked up passengers. ...
....
Edited by jbif on 06/09/2009 at 16:02
|
|
|
|
|
I really do wonder what planet all these 'holier than thou' posters are on.
I haven't replied on this thread yet, BW, but that requires and answer... and the answer is out there where your fellow drivers seem incapable of parking with due consideration for others... have a look around and you'll see loads of examples of insconsiderate and dangerous parking...
As an example I've just come back from Welshpool and whilst there I was forced to walk on the road because a driver decided to double park on the pavement (yes, really, alongside another car which was already parked on there!!) and in a car park the other side of town a young couple decided to park in a disabled bay whilst there were loads of spaces not 20 yards away (and no, they didn't have a blue badge!)...
Whilst that sort of thing goes on, and if you walk into your local town you are bound to see variants of those and plenty of other examples of inconsiderate and dangerous parking, there are many of us that will keep banging on about it... and just maybe some will get the message and we will see more people think before they park...
As for the OP, I can see why she did what she did, its difficult not knowing exactly where it happenned to judge whether it was better to mount the kerb or not, but if it was just for two minutes to strpa the kid back in I hope she appeals and common sense prevails...
Edited by b308 on 06/09/2009 at 17:37
|
>> I really do wonder what planet all these 'holier than thou' posters are on. I haven't replied on this thread yet BW but that requires and answer... and the answer is out there where your fellow drivers seem incapable of parking with due consideration for others... have a look around and you'll see loads of examples of insconsiderate and dangerous parking...
I have never once promoted the idea of dangerous of selfsh parking, and neither would I. Such parking annoys the bejesus out of me, and all fair and reasonable methods should be used to combat it.
However, the OP did not park. She (to use a phrase from another thread) pulled up on the pavement for two minutes to avert further danger to her child. It is this that I am defending, and will continue to do so until I am blue in the face. I am also railling against the likes of Nortones2 who seem hell bent of fining people for the slightest of minor trangressions no matter what the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
