parking ticket on LL, ?120 ...

[SeanMacGabhann]

which they will no doubt charge for!!! It's just a money-ma....

oh no wait.. I'm on your side BN5 (tu)

[Brendan]

I do think that a resident?s parking scheme would be sensible in ED but at the same time it galls me as it will be another charge and there are many people who depend on their cars for their livelihoods. These people already pay council tax, road tax, tax on the petrol they use, congestion charge and indirect taxes every time they use a parking garage, service their car get it MOTed etc.

So yeah let?s bring in a residents parking scheme and bung another few million at the council so that some incompetent, local government, lifers can outsource the enforcement to a corrupt private company and then maybe get the management consultants in for a spot of restructuring or think up some other financial black hole to justify their jobs.

[gerritsmith]

I remember coming out of the Co-Op pharmacy on LL at five minutes past four and went across the road to see all the cars in the parking bays had tickets on them including mine. There was no sign of the traffic warden and made me think how efficient they were to issue 4 to 5 tickets in such a short time. Next day I happen to be there at 4 pm and saw a traffic warden hiding round the corner taking down details of all the cars parked in that bay ready to stick the tickets on the windscreen all at once.

That is unfair.

I wish the council would be as enthusiastic & efficient in their other activities

[*Bob*]

Why is it unfair?

If the car owners had turned-up before 4 and shifted their cars they wouldn't have got ticketed - even if the warden and taken taken their details down at 2pm and hid in a bush for two hours waiting for the clock to turn 4. Hardly rocket science, is it?

Parking attendants are not responsible for the enthusiasm and efficiency of the the council in other areas. Their job is, in fact, to put tickets on cars which infringe parking regs.

[pk]

gotta agree with Bob - it's not unfair - the guys are doing their jobs and if a restriction comes in to place at 4 would it not make sense to be in that area to enforce it?

[Brendan]

Yeah that isn't really unfair. It's anal but not stictly unfair.

[????]

Well said Brendan

[*Bob*]

The fact is that (for some reason) half the population seem to treat parking regs as rules which are bendable, or that there is an unspoken 10%+/- allowance for error, that it's a game all about not getting caught and what you can get away with. I was only five minutes late. My wheel was only just over the line. I only got out for a minute to post a letter. The dog ate my homework, sir.

I can accept that some people have fallen foul of rogue attendants (hello ????) and so have a justifiably coloured view of them, but (along with whoever it was earlier in this massive whinge-fest of a thread) I would like to speak-out on behalf of all the other numerous people who, incredibly, find it possible to drive in London every day for ten years and never get a ticket - unless it's deserved. Sheer good fortune, or following the rules..?? Hmmmmm

[????]

*Bob* I have paid my 2 legitimate parking tickets without a quibble (both were just a few minutes over but rules is rules)...20+ years driving in London....but it doesn't even vaguely work on any degree of commonsense/pargmmatism now..and, if we have expanded restrictions in SE22 you mark my words this Forum will be full of this sort of rant...it may well need it's own section

[SeanMacGabhann]

it'll make fascinating reading I'm sure

It would appear that, as far as voters and consumers go, we want much more efficient councils and employess in areas which suit us

As employees ourselves however, all the evidence points to us not being the most efficient crew ever....

[*Bob*]

I salute the anality of the parking attendants.

If we had a bit more anality in other areas, perhaps trains would leave on time, tradesmen would arrive at an agreed time etc

Q. What is the difference between anality and efficiency?

A. When it suits

[SeanMacGabhann]

ones on VHS and ones on Betamax?

[Brendan]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> As employees ourselves however, all the evidence

> points to us not being the most efficient crew

> ever....

whatever are you suggesting?

[bignumber5]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> it will be another charge and there are many

> people who depend on their cars for their

> livelihoods.

True, but then it does always have the advantage that it makes people address whether or not they really need a car. Or gives them the option of paying it and then having a decent whinge about how costs are always targetted towards the private motorist, possibly on some sort of local online forum... ;-)

[Brendan]

There are plenty of people in London who do really need a car. Be it for their job or because they have kids and or elderly people to care for. It is easy for us to bang on about the benefits of walking, air pollution and Ken?s buses but for some people not having a car is just not an option.

[*Bob*]

Estate Agents?

[Brendan]

I said "people"

[SeanMacGabhann]

If it were just those people brendan the roads would be sweet

[Brendan]

Yeah and nice and quiet for me.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Sorry, Brendan, but I think your post was bollocks. Cars are only just over a 100 years old. We managed quite well without them for several millenia.

I speak as a car owner and don't have many qualms about having one. But specious arguments about 'needing' a car just don't wash. (Though I concede that a few jobs may nowadays rely on one).

[Just to temper this post, I've had a couple of glasses of wine - normally I admire and respect you B]

[bignumber5]

But then we'd surely be discussing the price of horse-shoes? ;-)

[SimonM]

>>Sorry, Brendan, but I think your post was bollocks. Cars are only just over a 100 years old. We managed quite well >>without them for several millenia.

>>I speak as a car owner and don't have many qualms about having one. But specious arguments about 'needing' a car just >>don't wash.

Right then. On that argument we can do without modern fripperies like general anaesthesia too....

[Cassius]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> Sorry, Brendan, but I think your post was

> bollocks. Cars are only just over a 100 years old.

> We managed quite well without them for several

> millenia.

Would you like to tell me how say a carpet fitter will be able to do his job without a van, or a plumber, or a decorator?

We did manage without cars for several millennia, but people tended to live and work within a very small area - even the next town was considered to be a long way away. Their families were often only a couple of roads or perhaps miles away - things have changed irrevocably since then.

>

>

[lozzyloz]

Would you like to tell me how say a carpet fitter will be able to do his job without a van, or a plumber, or a decorator?

Horse and cart?

[*Bob*]

Driving instructors?