Streetscape Improvements

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Aug 2010, 12:57

From today's EN:

New slabs fail to pave the way for praise

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 09 Aug 2010, 13:25

There really is no pleasing some people.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Aug 2010, 14:23

I haven't inspected it that carefully but it looks a lot better than what we had before although, sadly, it has already been disfigured by chewing gum. (What happened to that chewing gum tax by the way?). I'm particularly pleased with what they have done at the corner of Regent Street. I don't know if the bike stand will be used much but it, along with the stepped section, has effectively solved the problem of cars being parked there.

I'm sure it was a pain for the traders while the work was going on but you would think they might show a bit of gratitude.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 09 Aug 2010, 14:53

The builders were telling me that they had to return to the Regent Street corner because the new works were not effective in stopping cars parking on the 'pavement'. The Council re-designed the area and instructed the builders to undo their previous work so that the safety problem with cars parking on the 'pavement' would be eliminated.

rmolehusband · Post by **rmolehusband** » 09 Aug 2010, 15:14

Pal of Porty wrote:...so that the safety problem with cars parking on the 'pavement' would be eliminated.

Could they not sort out the whole length of Regent and Marlborough streets? These streets are no-go areas for prams, buggies and wheelchairs due to the inconsiderate and selfish use of the pavement for parking cars.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Aug 2010, 15:19

It is a problem but, realistically, where would owners park their cars? It's worth remembering that those people who live in these streets and have prams and buggies are the same people who are parking on the pavement. That's why they don't make a complaint about the situation and that's why the police don't do anything about it.

rmolehusband · Post by **rmolehusband** » 09 Aug 2010, 16:09

Bob Jefferson wrote:It is a problem but, realistically, where would owners park their cars?

Obstructing a public road with your personal property (i.e. parking your car) causes enough problems, have a look at Brighton Place by way of an example but, as you suggest, people have to park their cars somewhere. (myself included)

I do feel, however, that we have to draw a line at motorists annexing the pavement as well. In my opinion there is already too much of our public space given over to the car without letting it have the pavement as well. Anyway, if we let cars park on the pavement where will the cyclists go?

And what makes cars special anyway? I'd like a sailing dingy, but don't have room for it in my garden. Should I be allowed to keep it on the pavement outside my house? Maybe I could site a 20ft container out there to keep it in.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Aug 2010, 17:08

The reason why cars park half on the pavement on the streets in question, and indeed in my own street, is to leave a passage wide enough for a vehicle to pass through. If you were to insist that cars should not park at all on the pavement then you could only have parking on one side of the road and that would effectively halve the number of parking spaces. So the question remains, where else would the surplus cars be parked? I'm not saying it's right, but that's the way it is and there doesn't appear to be an obvious answer.

rmolehusband · Post by **rmolehusband** » 09 Aug 2010, 17:54

I appreciate why it's done, and I sympathise, but as you yourself suggest, it's "not right" and the fact that there is no alternative parking should not make it acceptable.

Over the years our national obsession with cars has marginalised pedestrians and cyclists to the extent that on many of our residential streets the pavement is the only safe place left. Now your suggesting that we turn these pavements into a car park because there's nowhere else for the cars to go.

What's next, once the road is full and the pavement full? I've seen people cruising Marlborough street looking for a spot so it's safe to assume that, even using the pavement, sometimes there are no spaces. In this case, since there is no alternative, should we maybe allow the car to be parked in Straighton Park?

What if I'm in a hurry and want to go the the off licence, but there's nowhere to park. Can I invoke the law of no alternative and just bump up between the bus stop and the shop formerly known as Klaze? There's plenty room.

What about my (sadly hypothetical) dingy? If I moved into you street and wanted to keep a dingy on the pavement outside my house would you object? If so, what's the difference between my dingy and your car?

You may, with some justification, suggest I'm being ridiculous but ask yourself where you would draw the line? For me, the line is limiting cars to the large amount of roadway already provided for their use, is that too much to ask?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Aug 2010, 19:13

I don't think it's helpful to categorise people as car drivers, cyclists, pedestrians etc. We are all pedestrians, most of us are car drivers and many of us are cyclists. I'm certainly all three. What I would say is that, as a community, we tolerate the current situation because it is largely in our communal interest. If that were not the case, then there would be complaints and the police would enforce the law.

Personally, I would find living in Marlborough Street very difficult because of the parking issue. I know that some people often have problems just getting a pram out of their doors and onto the street. But where are these people parking their car? On the pavement like everyone else.

With unlimited funds, perhaps you could create a huge multi-storey underground car park. But in the real world? Answers on a postcard.