Jump to content

Recommended Posts

One of my neighbours suggested I start a thread to highlight some very thoughtless parking by a very unpleasant man. It may not be clear on the photo, but this motorist took up two parking spaces when he could easily have moved his car forward and left enough space behind him. When I politely pointed this out to him, he became really quite aggressive. Oh dear.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/193605-yourparkingsucks/
Share on other sites

Dear Inbound, notwithstanding your guide to parallel parking, there was not enough room behind. I?m sorry if the photograph gave you this impression. You can gain a better idea of the space by looking at the kerb stones. Enough for a Smart car perhaps, but not much else.

edcam, no need for that; I?m sure Inbound was trying to be helpful.

Our road often has no free parking spaces, but loads of big almost-gaps. It drives me mad. People should park up reasonably but not oppressively close to the next car along, or if a massive gap at the time, use their imagination as to placing themselves in the least obstructive position to allow the maximum number of cars to park later.

"front wheel is angled outwards " is this really good advice ? Particularly in narrow roads where much squeezing past of vehicles goes on .


The trouble with assumed poor parking is that it needs to be witnessed while taking place .Otherwise who knows what the state of play was when the car was left and what changes in car positioning have taken place .

My car sometimes looks as though I need a space big enough for a double decker. However, this usually occurs when I have parked in a tight spot (I drive a small car), then a couple of 4x4s park, then move and are replaced by small cars. Suddenly there are ?nearly spaces? around.

"front wheel is angled outwards" isn't the correct procedure...the first manoeuvre should be to reverse back as far as you can go, with your wheels straight, to give you the most amount of room at the front, then you are in a better position to pull out.

Parking with your wheels angled outwards is dangerous.

Balderdash! If you were on a hill then it would prevent the car from rolling off if the handbrake was to fail. The object of leaving then angled is to allow to pull out without having to manoeuvre back and forth to gain the space need to turn the wheel outwards in a really tight space.

Less of the balderdash ,Inbound .


THe Highway Code has this to say about parking

Parking (rules 239 to 247)

Rule 239

Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the road as parking places, wherever possible. If you have to stop on the roadside:


do not park facing against the traffic flow

stop as close as you can to the side

do not stop too close to a vehicle displaying a Blue Badge: remember, the occupant may need more room to get in or out

you MUST switch off the engine, headlights and fog lights

you MUST apply the handbrake before leaving the vehicle

you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic

it is safer for your passengers (especially children) to get out of the vehicle on the side next to the kerb

put all valuables out of sight and make sure your vehicle is secure

lock your vehicle.


It used to be a practice to leave a car in reverse gear when parked on a hill in the belief that this would counteract movement if the handbrake failed .I've no idea if this would work in practice ,but might be worth a go .

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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


> It used to be a practice to leave a car in reverse

> gear when parked on a hill in the belief that this

> would counteract movement if the handbrake failed

> .I've no idea if this would work in practice ,but

> might be worth a go .


Wow yes - that's what I was taught a long time ago.

Inbound Wrote:

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

> Balderdash! If you were on a hill then it would

> prevent the car from rolling off if the handbrake

> was to fail. The object of leaving then angled is

> to allow to pull out without having to manoeuvre

> back and forth to gain the space need to turn the

> wheel outwards in a really tight space.



I thought we were talking about trying to get in and out of a tight parking space?


'wheels facing outwards' might help on the rare occasion that you are on a hill AND your handbrake fails but for the common 'driving out of a tight spot', reversing back into the remaining space, however small, requires the wheels to be straight. If you left the wheels pointing at an angle and tried this, you would just move closer to the kerb.

A good driving instructor would tell you 'for the benefit of moving off again, finish parking with your wheels straight'.


It's not Balderdash, it's parallel parking.

JohnL Wrote:

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

> intexasatthe moment Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > It used to be a practice to leave a car in

> reverse

> > gear when parked on a hill in the belief that

> this

> > would counteract movement if the handbrake

> failed

> > .I've no idea if this would work in practice

> ,but

> > might be worth a go .

>

> Wow yes - that's what I was taught a long time

> ago.



I always do that!

I was told that originally too, then later I was advised it's better to leave it in top gear. Can't remember why any more though. Less likely to slip out of gear, perhaps?


Anyone else forget by the time they get back in?


ETA: maybe it's top gear when you park facing uphill?

Michael Mcintyre parking on double yellows outside his kid's school. Didn't deserve an attack by the moped gang but still a pretty wonker thing to do. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/michael-mcintyre-robbed-by-moped-thieves-in-london-while-waiting-to-pick-children-up-from-school-a3855266.html

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...