Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A few have appeared on 'the toastrack' as well - not optimal given how bad our parking problem is, but at least it looks like we're getting a CPZ in a few months time when it will go away. Given our parking woes, I suspect anyone picking up a Zipcar is going to spend a fortune in hire charges as they try to find a parking spot for it in our neck of the woods - plenty of residents spend 45mins - 1hr looking for any space anywhere within the free parking area on most weekdays.

The introduction of a CPZ won't make any difference as you can drop a flex zipcar anywhere in the flex zone, aside from some housing estates which are marked on the app. I've used these cars a few times and found it great: going out when I know I want to drink, so driving there in a zip car and getting a bus home for example.Having access to them made a recent period without our usual car, easily manageable. It is, of course, not as cheap as a bus but its so much cheaper than a taxi. I find it more convenient and flexible than a "by the hour, return to the bay" hire. If there were more of them and the rates settled into something combining the two schemes (ie they were more practical for a longer hire) then I might consider ditching the car altogether (thereby freeing up a parking space).


I can understand why people who have cars are annoyed by these cars appearing on their streets as I know that parking can be tricky but you might be equally annoyed at your neighbours who have a car all to themselves. At least the zip cars are available to anyone who wants to use them. It feels like a better use of limited resources (ie street parking space) than a community where each household insists on having it's own car. This scenario clearly only works when not everyone has a car. Feels hard to make the case that private car owners should have priority over something with wider community benefit.


Ditto! 2 have suddenly appeared in Zenoria St. Finding a park in our street is tricky at the best of times and with two babies to load into a car it is not feasible to park in another street, nor is using a zip car. (At 10-15 minutes to load/unload the car with seats & children.... almost ?6 and we haven't even gone anywhere!



Eh? It's ?7 per hour.



Of course I am aware that young families are not their target market).



Personally have found their Golfs and Fiestas are great for family trips. Granted, easier once the kids are old enough to get in and out by themselves, but that could be said of, well, everything in life. Waiting for the day that the Flex model expands further south and west - so far the zone is so small, I can adequately make most of those trips on public transport or bike. But places like the M25 belt, Richmond Park, Wimbledon Common, Kew Gardens etc. are easier by car, and hiring a regular Zip for a whole day is kind of pricey.

  • 2 months later...

V51 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm a zipcar user and as far as I know, it still

> is and always has been the case that we have to

> leave the cars in the designated parking bay.

> Perhaps the person has hired the car with ganxorent for a long.

> period and is just parking there as though it were

> their own car? And then they hired a different

> vehicle?



Yeap it is like this. I always use it to leave the car park there. In the bay



V517 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Zipcar car rental is in other coutries too? I think it is a good way to rent a car like sirent.. that nowadays its getting popular and popular all over the world.




I guess apart from Uk there is also the option in Ireland or not yet? Anyway, each country has its own platform nowadays. In spain where Im from there's at least 6 or 7 at the top.

I'm a user of zipcar for over 8 years and a local resident. I don't see why I can't park the flex car close to where I live, I pay the same as anyone else as a resident in Southwark. The car is taxed, insured and has mot. I once owned a car but wasn't being used often enough. London transport is great but not always reliable and can never replace my need occasionally transport myself and things more effectively. If a CPZ was introduced and a zipcar bay wasn't close by I'd end up buying another car to park in the same spot.
Been using Zipcar for 10 months now. I no longer have a car left in our street and walk/bus short distances thereby causing less pollution. I can understand that those living in very crowded streets may find it a pain if parking is taken up by these cars but hopefully as take-up of Zipcar increases, there should be less cars on the road. I do have a quibble though, the bay on the corner of Barry and Underhill is poorly marked and as a result, there is often a non-Zipcar parked there. Needs re-marking.
  • 5 months later...
  • 1 year later...

KaiShin Wrote:

"I paid, but had to drive a very old and broken car"


Really? I am very suprised. All the zip cars I've used have been very new.


Btw I would highly reccomend Zip Car Flex for getting to Heathrow. You can drop the car off in the short stay car park at T5. Rarely costs more than ?20 even including their ?5 Heathrow fee.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...