kford

In inner Melbourne, Australia, residents get parking permits for free, paid for by the non-residents who pay-and-display for a maximum of two hours. Too logical for the UK, I suspect.

Free then. That would never happen. Ho-hum.

Sainsbury's, whose car park is never full in the week, could set aside the section nearest to DKH as a paying park-and-ride for those who bother residents near the station. Not ideal, but better than a CPZ which would push the problem further into ED.

alachlan, that's council parking policy.

(td)

Hey, here's an idea: if you want a space right outside your house, allow residents to buy one. You'll have a painted bay, like a disabled or doctor's bay, and you'll pay ?200 for its upkeep. We'll make do with the free spaces elsewhere.

Blinder666 speaks for me, thank you. And yes, James, several peopls have asked for a CPZ, yet several more have said no.

One of the problems with CPZ is that the permit-buying resident suddenly EXPECTS to get a space outside their home; witness the incident near gentile Wandsworth Common where someone was murdered over a parking space.

Correctamundo, Wino.

Make sure it's squirrel proof.

South East Crouch End, They Say

I Bet This Is Lounged Soon

Budgens' Lighting Is Far Too Bright

Interesting, CWLA; exactly the same thing happened to my work colleague in Lib-Dem Kingston. Must be a proven technique.

Couldn't Afford To Buy Here Now

????, when you find this 'survey', tell me. I live in Hansler, so would be right in the firing line too.

I'm with ???? and LozzyLoz. No CPZ in SE22. And I live just off the busy part of LL. The only parking probs I see are on Saturdays, when the CPZ wouldn't be in operation. And why should the residents pay to solve any perceived weekday parking issues? I smell a ruse to skim money off ED residents. Support this at your peril.

I read with interest that figures released this week suggest that over half the motorists convicted of speed camera offences in London (150000+) simply haven't paid up; I would suggest that these are the people in unregistered, uninsured, untaxed and unMOT'd who cause most accidents. Speed cameras would not stop these people, evidently.

And residents' permits wouldn't be fair - you'd just be paying for a problem caused by others, unless the permits were free for residents of that street, as they are in Australia.

The last - disputable - point is the thrust of their argument, which is a shame because we're vunerable road users too, and, I hope you agree, on stretches like Harleyford Street around the Oval, it's treacherous for us bikers to filter on the inside. I used to do marketing work for TfL; they are very anti-bike, even though the latest generation of full-licence bikers are, by and large, a careful bunch who just want to avoid having to cram onto public transport. This could work in TfL's favour, especially in Tube-lite south London. I fear the administrator's Lounge button...

TfL agrees that bikers can share some bus lanes. We're not all couriers! (I cycle too)

I'm not talking about GATSOs, I'm talking about average speed cameras, set over an entire road. You're dead right with the last point LL.

Torben Pieknik Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If > you don't speed you don't get caught. So don't > speed. Correct, but average speed cameras will trap the safe law-abiding driver who inadvertently strays above the limit while trying to keep their eyes on the road and not on the speedometer. If you drive, you could find yourself one of them.

My bug bear is with average speed cameras, not fixed position ones. If you're caught by a fixed one, I agree, you're a dangerous driver. And his figure about speed being the biggest cause are incorrect. DfT suggests a figure of 5%.

Your figures are just about reducing SPEED, which cameras obviously do. My argument, based on the DfT's own figures, is that the problem lies in areas other than speed, which cameras are incapable of dealing with. On the subject of SafeSpeed.org, here's an article referring to the owner of that website you dismissed as 'for petrolheads' by the editor of the Observer, the last publication you'd expect to be endorsing such a site: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,6903,1530242,00.html The second paragraph is very relevent. I find it incredible that the DfT tells road users to Think!, yet you're proposing a device which encourages us to do exactly the opposite.