On 24/04/2022 07:28 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was an accident in my road on Monday. About 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yards on from the end (T-junction)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Merc SUV driven by a young woman claims to have swerved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid a cat. All other vehicles involved parked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It first hit the rear side of a BMW, scraped all along it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and broke off the front wheel and suspension. Next hit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Golf behind itpushing the rear well onto the pavement over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a high kerb. The Golf in turn hit a 911 and pushed that into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the car behind. At some point the Merc spun sideways and hit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a car parked on the other side. Merc spewed out oil onto the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> road. No serious injury to driver or passenger in the Merc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Police and emergency services soon at the scene. Driver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently sober.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claimed to be observing the speed limit which is 20 mph.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If all the "victim" cars had been parked on their owners'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driveways, they probably wouldn't have been damaged. ;-)
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  You'd have to re-design this part of London, then. Built
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before cars.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But the road is the bit that belongs to the public at
>>>>>>>>>>>> large... yes?

>>>>>>>>>>>  Irrelevant to whether it is possible to have driveways there
>>>>>>>>>>> now.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Probably true.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> They don't even have front yards, the front door is directly
>>>>>>>>>>> off the footpath.
>
>>>>>>>>>> I am... er... familiar with that housing type.
>>>>>>>>>> I've seen it a few times before.
>
>>>>>>>>>  So it was silly to rabbit on about how it wouldn't
>>>>>>>>> have happened if they had been parked in driveways.
>
>>>>>>>> Why?

>>>>>>>  Because there is no way to have a driveway with those
>>>>>>> Victorian multi story strips of houses with not even a front
>>>>>>> yard where the front door opens directly onto the footpath.
>
>>>>>>>> I have never seen the street in question and had no information
>>>>>>>> on the housing form.
>>>>>>>> In the case of terraced housing and even other forms, such as
>>>>>>>> flats and even semi-detached, parking on-street is not always
>>>>>>>> allowed (some such housing has double yellow lines outside).
>>>>>>>> There is no prescriptive right to park outside and there is a
>>>>>>>> school of thought to the effect that all vehicles should be
>>>>>>>> garaged off street at the home of the owner and/or user, with
>>>>>>>> street parking only allowed at the far end of any journey.

>>>>>>> All irrelevant to the fact that with victorian terraces, there
>>>>>>> is no way to have a driveway,
>
>>>>>> In that case, no way to keep a motor vehicle, except at the
>>>>>> expense of others.

>>>>>  There is no viable alternative. Hardly viable to tell
>>>>> the owners of the houses that they can't have a car.
>
>>>> But they can if they can find some off-street parking for it.

>>>  Just not feasible when the streets close to their house are all like
>>> that.
>
>> It depends.
>
> Nope.
>
>> There *is* a private sector for renting out garages.
>
> But no way to add enough garages close to those houses for that now.

That does not affect the principle involved: the road does not belong to
the residents any more than the road outside my house belongs to me (of
course it doesn't).

> Clearly not economic to demolish an entire block of
> those very expensive houses and replace them with
> say a massive great multistory carpark now.
>
>> The  principle exists but obviously provision is not evenly spread.
>
> In fact nothing even remotely like enough of them
> with those streets where there is no front yard at all.

Doesn't invalidate the principle: the road belongs to everyone.

>> If I needed to (I don't), I could easily rent a garage in this village.
>
> But that village doesn't have streets of terrace houses with no
> front yards at all.

How do you know?

AAMOF, there *are* such houses in this village which is hundreds of
years old. There are even some terraced houses that do not front the
road at all.
>
>> This one sounds a little startling, but in certain urban areas, there
>> was, some years ago, during the reign of terror of John Prescott at
>> Transport, a government scheme called "Pathfinders", wherein some
>> streets of low-value terraced housing were to be CPd and demolished,
>> in order to provide batches of off-street parking for the houses which
>> had not been demolished. Sort of thinning out the herd to provide space.
>
> Yes, but those streets of massive great multistory Victorian very expensive
> terrace mansions with no front yards at all are nothing like that.

Did you read the post to which you were responding? It seems not,
otherwise you would have seen the next bit:

>> I'm talking about unimproved houses worth probably about £12,000 -
>> £15,000 at the time. I know because a relative owned one of them. He
>> wasn't bothered about it and was even looking forward to the move, but
>> many others were opposed and the government eventually dropped the
>> scheme (after blighting the areas concerned for some years).
>
> Nothing like what we are discussing.

Cheaper, certainly (around 250 miles from London).

But the principle is the same.

[ ... ]

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was an accident in my road on Monday. About 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yards on from the end (T-junction)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Merc SUV driven by a young woman claims to have swerved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid a cat. All other vehicles involved parked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It first hit the rear side of a BMW, scraped all along it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and broke off the front wheel and suspension. Next hit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Golf behind itpushing the rear well onto the pavement over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a high kerb. The Golf in turn hit a 911 and pushed that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the car behind. At some point the Merc spun sideways and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a car parked on the other side. Merc spewed out oil onto
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> road. No serious injury to driver or passenger in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Police and emergency services soon at the scene. Driver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently sober.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claimed to be observing the speed limit which is 20 mph..
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If all the "victim" cars had been parked on their owners'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driveways, they probably wouldn't have been damaged. ;-)
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd have to re-design this part of London, then. Built
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before cars.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the road is the bit that belongs to the public at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> large... yes?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to whether it is possible to have driveways there
>>>>>>>>>>>> now.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Probably true.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't even have front yards, the front door is directly
>>>>>>>>>>>> off the footpath.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am... er... familiar with that housing type.
>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen it a few times before.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> So it was silly to rabbit on about how it wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>> have happened if they had been parked in driveways.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
>>>>>>>> Because there is no way to have a driveway with those
>>>>>>>> Victorian multi story strips of houses with not even a front
>>>>>>>> yard where the front door opens directly onto the footpath.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I have never seen the street in question and had no information
>>>>>>>>> on the housing form.
>>>>>>>>> In the case of terraced housing and even other forms, such as
>>>>>>>>> flats and even semi-detached, parking on-street is not always
>>>>>>>>> allowed (some such housing has double yellow lines outside).
>>>>>>>>> There is no prescriptive right to park outside and there is a
>>>>>>>>> school of thought to the effect that all vehicles should be
>>>>>>>>> garaged off street at the home of the owner and/or user, with
>>>>>>>>> street parking only allowed at the far end of any journey.
>
>>>>>>>> All irrelevant to the fact that with victorian terraces, there is
>>>>>>>> no way to have a driveway,
>>
>>>>>>> In that case, no way to keep a motor vehicle, except at the
>>>>>>> expense of others.
>
>>>>>> There is no viable alternative. Hardly viable to tell
>>>>>> the owners of the houses that they can't have a car.
>>
>>>>> But they can if they can find some off-street parking for it.
>
>>>> Just not feasible when the streets close to their house are all like
>>>> that.
>>
>>> It depends.
>> Nope.
>>
>>> There *is* a private sector for renting out garages.

>> But no way to add enough garages close to those houses for that now.

> That does not affect the principle involved:

There is no relevant principle.

> the road does not belong to the residents any more than the road outside
> my house belongs to me (of course it doesn't).

Irrelevant to what is viable with those blocks of terraces with
no front yards at all which were built long before there were
any cars at all and which didn't even have stables for horses.

>> Clearly not economic to demolish an entire block of
>> those very expensive houses and replace them with
>> say a massive great multistory carpark now.

>>> The principle exists but obviously provision is not evenly spread.

>> In fact nothing even remotely like enough of them
>> with those streets where there is no front yard at all.

> Doesn't invalidate the principle: the road belongs to everyone.

See above.

>>> If I needed to (I don't), I could easily rent a garage in this village.

>> But that village doesn't have streets of terrace houses with no
>> front yards at all.

> How do you know?

No such village. If it had lots of adjacent streets with multi story
terraces with
no front yards at all, built before there were any cars at all, it
wouldn't be a village.

> AAMOF, there *are* such houses in this village which is hundreds of
> years old. There are even some terraced houses that do not front the
> road at all.

But no lots of adjacent streets like that or it wouldn't be a village.

A village with some houses like that can have car
parking within easy walking distance of the houses.

>>> This one sounds a little startling, but in certain urban areas, there
>>> was, some years ago, during the reign of terror of John Prescott at
>>> Transport, a government scheme called "Pathfinders", wherein some
>>> streets of low-value terraced housing were to be CPd and demolished,
>>> in order to provide batches of off-street parking for the houses which
>>> had not been demolished. Sort of thinning out the herd to provide
>>> space.

>> Yes, but those streets of massive great multistory Victorian very
>> expensive
>> terrace mansions with no front yards at all are nothing like that.

> Did you read the post to which you were responding?

Of course I did. Not possible to decide to respond to one
without reading it and deciding to respond to that one.

> It seems not, otherwise you would have seen the next bit:

I did read that bit. It isn't relevant to what was being discussed,
lots of adjacent streets all with massive great multistory victorian
terraces houses with no front yards, built before cars were invented.

On 22/04/2022 16:21, soup wrote:
> On 22/04/2022 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> BTW, every single parked car which was hit had paid for resident parking.
>
>
> And how would that be ?
> Remember no taxes/excise duties are hypothecated in the UK

Two I can think of are. TV license and National Insurance, the latter
claimed to be but in reality may not.

A third may the levy for RTAs paid by drivers, but uncertain if the cash
goes directly to the NHS Trust or Treasury.

On 25/04/2022 10:24 am, Fredxx wrote:

> On 22/04/2022 16:21, soup wrote:
>> On 22/04/2022 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>>> BTW, every single parked car which was hit had paid for resident
>>> parking.
>
>> And how would that be ?
>> Remember no taxes/excise duties are hypothecated in the UK
>
> Two I can think of are. TV license and National Insurance, the latter
> claimed to be but in reality may not.
>
> A third may the levy for RTAs paid by drivers, but uncertain if the cash
> goes directly to the NHS Trust or Treasury.

Another claimed hypothecation is the so-called "Green Levy" charged upon
domestic fuel bills (allegedly used to pay for things such as domestic
insulation and other such initiatives). It's a swingeing proportion of
the final bill, too.

It's unfair to challenge Mr. Plowman's claim of the payment for
"resident parking". I am sure he is right in that it is charged (and
usually paid. The charge usually *is* made as part of such schemes,
though in reality, the charge is simply a relatively small contribution
to the cost of administering of the scheme and nowhere near the true
economic cost and/or value of the parking spaces.

If the parking spaces were correctly valued - especially in Inner and
Central London - they might be reserved for "residents" at certain times
of day but charged for at meter rates for whatever number of hours per
day meters operate within the relevant borough. That is, the price would
be equal to the opportunity cost of the lost revenue from public parking.

On 25/04/2022 10:24, Fredxx wrote:
> On 22/04/2022 16:21, soup wrote:
>> On 22/04/2022 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, every single parked car which was hit had paid for resident
>>> parking.
>>
>>
>> And how would that be ?
>> Remember no taxes/excise duties are hypothecated in the UK
>
> Two I can think of are. TV license and National Insurance, the latter
> claimed to be but in reality may not.
>
> A third may the levy for RTAs paid by drivers, but uncertain if the cash
> goes directly to the NHS Trust or Treasury.

The apprenticeship levy is another hypothecated tax - although contrary
to the prima facie evidence here not hypothecated /solely/ to making
Adam's life more interesting.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 24/04/2022 09:23 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was an accident in my road on Monday. About 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yards on from the end (T-junction)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Merc SUV driven by a young woman claims to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> swerved to avoid a cat. All other vehicles involved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It first hit the rear side of a BMW, scraped all along
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and broke off the front wheel and suspension. Next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Golf behind itpushing the rear well onto the pavement over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a high kerb. The Golf in turn hit a 911 and pushed that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the car behind. At some point the Merc spun sideways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and hit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a car parked on the other side. Merc spewed out oil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onto the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> road. No serious injury to driver or passenger in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Police and emergency services soon at the scene. Driver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently sober.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claimed to be observing the speed limit which is 20 mph.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If all the "victim" cars had been parked on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners' driveways, they probably wouldn't have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> damaged. ;-)
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  You'd have to re-design this part of London, then. Built
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before cars.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the road is the bit that belongs to the public at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large... yes?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Irrelevant to whether it is possible to have driveways
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there now.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably true.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't even have front yards, the front door is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly off the footpath.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am... er... familiar with that housing type.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen it a few times before.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>  So it was silly to rabbit on about how it wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>> have happened if they had been parked in driveways.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
>>>>>>>>>  Because there is no way to have a driveway with those
>>>>>>>>> Victorian multi story strips of houses with not even a front
>>>>>>>>> yard where the front door opens directly onto the footpath.
>
>>>>>>>>>> I have never seen the street in question and had no
>>>>>>>>>> information on the housing form.
>>>>>>>>>> In the case of terraced housing and even other forms, such as
>>>>>>>>>> flats and even semi-detached, parking on-street is not always
>>>>>>>>>> allowed (some such housing has double yellow lines outside).
>>>>>>>>>> There is no prescriptive right to park outside and there is a
>>>>>>>>>> school of thought to the effect that all vehicles should be
>>>>>>>>>> garaged off street at the home of the owner and/or user, with
>>>>>>>>>> street parking only allowed at the far end of any journey.
>
>>>>>>>>> All irrelevant to the fact that with victorian terraces, there
>>>>>>>>> is no way to have a driveway,
>
>>>>>>>> In that case, no way to keep a motor vehicle, except at the
>>>>>>>> expense of others.
>
>>>>>>>  There is no viable alternative. Hardly viable to tell
>>>>>>> the owners of the houses that they can't have a car.
>
>>>>>> But they can if they can find some off-street parking for it.
>
>>>>>  Just not feasible when the streets close to their house are all
>>>>> like that.
>
>>>> It depends.

>>>  Nope.
>
>>>> There *is* a private sector for renting out garages.
>
>>>  But no way to add enough garages close to those houses for that now.
>
>> That does not affect the principle involved:
>> the road does not belong to the residents any more than the road
>> outside my house belongs to me (of course it doesn't).
>
> Irrelevant to what is viable with those blocks of terraces with
> no front yards at all which were built long before there were
> any cars at all and which didn't even have stables for horses.
>
>>> Clearly not economic to demolish an entire block of
>>> those very expensive houses and replace them with
>>> say a massive great multistory carpark now.
>
>>>> The  principle exists but obviously provision is not evenly spread.
>
>>>  In fact nothing even remotely like enough of them
>>> with those streets where there is no front yard at all.
>
>> Doesn't invalidate the principle: the road belongs to everyone.
>
> See above.
>
>>>> If I needed to (I don't), I could easily rent a garage in this village.
>
>>>  But that village doesn't have streets of terrace houses with no
>>> front yards at all.
>
>> How do you know?
>
> No such village. If it had lots of adjacent streets with multi story
> terraces with no front yards at all, built before there were any cars
> at all, it wouldn't be a village.

Have you ever actually been to England? You haven't been to this village.

>> AAMOF, there *are* such houses in this village which is hundreds of
>> years old. There are even some terraced houses that do not front the
>> road at all.
>
> But no lots of adjacent streets like that or it wouldn't be a village.

See my question a few lines above.
>
> A village with some houses like that can have car
> parking within easy walking distance of the houses.

Maybe. Maybe not. "Easy walking distance" is a concept upon which there
would be great variation in definition.

>>>> This one sounds a little startling, but in certain urban areas,
>>>> there was, some years ago, during the reign of terror of John
>>>> Prescott at Transport, a government scheme called "Pathfinders",
>>>> wherein some streets of low-value terraced housing were to be CPd
>>>> and demolished, in order to provide batches of off-street parking
>>>> for the houses which had not been demolished. Sort of thinning out
>>>> the herd to provide space.
>
>>>  Yes, but those streets of massive great multistory Victorian very
>>> expensive terrace mansions with no front yards at all are nothing like
>>> that.
>
>> Did you read the post to which you were responding?
>
> Of course I did. Not possible to decide to respond to one
> without reading it and deciding to respond to that one.
>
>> It seems not, otherwise you would have seen the next bit:
>
> I did read that bit. It isn't relevant to what was being discussed,
> lots of adjacent streets all with massive great multistory victorian
> terraces houses with no front yards, built before cars were invented.

On 25/04/2022 12:17, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/04/2022 09:23 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
<snip>

>> No such village. If it had lots of adjacent streets with multi story
>> terraces with no front yards at all, built before there were any cars
>> at all, it wouldn't be a village.
>
> Have you ever actually been to England? You haven't been to this village.

You are not obliged to have an idiot.

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was an accident in my road on Monday. About 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yards on from the end (T-junction)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Merc SUV driven by a young woman claims to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> swerved to avoid a cat. All other vehicles involved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It first hit the rear side of a BMW, scraped all along
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and broke off the front wheel and suspension. Next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Golf behind itpushing the rear well onto the pavement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a high kerb. The Golf in turn hit a 911 and pushed that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the car behind. At some point the Merc spun sideways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and hit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a car parked on the other side. Merc spewed out oil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onto the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> road. No serious injury to driver or passenger in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Police and emergency services soon at the scene. Driver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently sober.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claimed to be observing the speed limit which is 20 mph.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If all the "victim" cars had been parked on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners' driveways, they probably wouldn't have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> damaged. ;-)
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd have to re-design this part of London, then. Built
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before cars.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the road is the bit that belongs to the public at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large... yes?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to whether it is possible to have driveways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there now.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably true.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't even have front yards, the front door is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly off the footpath.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am... er... familiar with that housing type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen it a few times before.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So it was silly to rabbit on about how it wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> have happened if they had been parked in driveways.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because there is no way to have a driveway with those
>>>>>>>>>> Victorian multi story strips of houses with not even a front
>>>>>>>>>> yard where the front door opens directly onto the footpath.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have never seen the street in question and had no
>>>>>>>>>>> information on the housing form.
>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of terraced housing and even other forms, such as
>>>>>>>>>>> flats and even semi-detached, parking on-street is not always
>>>>>>>>>>> allowed (some such housing has double yellow lines outside).
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no prescriptive right to park outside and there is a
>>>>>>>>>>> school of thought to the effect that all vehicles should be
>>>>>>>>>>> garaged off street at the home of the owner and/or user, with
>>>>>>>>>>> street parking only allowed at the far end of any journey.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> All irrelevant to the fact that with victorian terraces, there
>>>>>>>>>> is no way to have a driveway,
>>
>>>>>>>>> In that case, no way to keep a motor vehicle, except at the
>>>>>>>>> expense of others.
>>
>>>>>>>> There is no viable alternative. Hardly viable to tell
>>>>>>>> the owners of the houses that they can't have a car.
>>
>>>>>>> But they can if they can find some off-street parking for it.
>>
>>>>>> Just not feasible when the streets close to their house are all
>>>>>> like that.
>>
>>>>> It depends.
>
>>>> Nope.
>>
>>>>> There *is* a private sector for renting out garages.
>>
>>>> But no way to add enough garages close to those houses for that now.
>>
>>> That does not affect the principle involved:
>>> the road does not belong to the residents any more than the road
>>> outside my house belongs to me (of course it doesn't).
>> Irrelevant to what is viable with those blocks of terraces with
>> no front yards at all which were built long before there were
>> any cars at all and which didn't even have stables for horses.
>>
>>>> Clearly not economic to demolish an entire block of
>>>> those very expensive houses and replace them with
>>>> say a massive great multistory carpark now.
>>
>>>>> The principle exists but obviously provision is not evenly spread..
>>
>>>> In fact nothing even remotely like enough of them
>>>> with those streets where there is no front yard at all.
>>
>>> Doesn't invalidate the principle: the road belongs to everyone.
>> See above.
>>
>>>>> If I needed to (I don't), I could easily rent a garage in this
>>>>> village.
>>
>>>> But that village doesn't have streets of terrace houses with no
>>>> front yards at all.
>>
>>> How do you know?
>> No such village. If it had lots of adjacent streets with multi story
>> terraces with no front yards at all, built before there were any cars
>> at all, it wouldn't be a village.

> Have you ever actually been to England?

Irrelevant. We have had this funky system called Google Street View
for more than a decade now and for at least century now, have had
that other funky system called movies and later video.

> You haven't been to this village.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 21:08:47 +1000, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> On 25/04/2022 10:24 am, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 22/04/2022 16:21, soup wrote:
>>> On 22/04/2022 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>
>>>> BTW, every single parked car which was hit had paid for resident
>>>> parking.
>>
>>> And how would that be ?
>>> Remember no taxes/excise duties are hypothecated in the UK
>> Two I can think of are. TV license and National Insurance, the latter
>> claimed to be but in reality may not.
>> A third may the levy for RTAs paid by drivers, but uncertain if the
>> cash goes directly to the NHS Trust or Treasury.
>
> Another claimed hypothecation is the so-called "Green Levy" charged upon
> domestic fuel bills (allegedly used to pay for things such as domestic
> insulation and other such initiatives). It's a swingeing proportion of
> the final bill, too.
>
> It's unfair to challenge Mr. Plowman's claim of the payment for
> "resident parking". I am sure he is right in that it is charged (and
> usually paid. The charge usually *is* made as part of such schemes,
> though in reality, the charge is simply a relatively small contribution
> to the cost of administering of the scheme and nowhere near the true
> economic cost and/or value of the parking spaces.
>
> If the parking spaces were correctly valued - especially in Inner and
> Central London - they might be reserved for "residents" at certain times
> of day but charged for at meter rates for whatever number of hours per
> day meters operate within the relevant borough. That is, the price would
> be equal to the opportunity cost of the lost revenue from public parking.

It isn't feasible to charge the normal rate of parking for
those houses where it isn't possible to have a driveway.

On 25/04/2022 06:49 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 25/04/2022 10:24 am, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 22/04/2022 16:21, soup wrote:
>>>> On 22/04/2022 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>>>>> BTW, every single parked car which was hit had paid for resident
>>>>> parking.
>
>>>> And how would that be ?
>>>> Remember no taxes/excise duties are hypothecated in the UK
>>>  Two I can think of are. TV license and National Insurance, the
>>> latter claimed to be but in reality may not.
>>>  A third may the levy for RTAs paid by drivers, but uncertain if the
>>> cash goes directly to the NHS Trust or Treasury.
>
>> Another claimed hypothecation is the so-called "Green Levy" charged
>> upon domestic fuel bills (allegedly used to pay for things such as
>> domestic insulation and other such initiatives). It's a swingeing
>> proportion of the final bill, too.
>
>> It's unfair to challenge Mr. Plowman's claim of the payment for
>> "resident parking". I am sure he is right in that it is charged (and
>> usually paid). The charge usually *is* made as part of such schemes,
>> though in reality, the charge is simply a relatively small
>> contribution to the cost of administering of the scheme and nowhere
>> near the true economic cost and/or value of the parking spaces.
>
>> If the parking spaces were correctly valued - especially in Inner and
>> Central London - they might be reserved for "residents" at certain
>> times of day but charged for at meter rates for whatever number of
>> hours per day meters operate within the relevant borough. That is, the
>> price would be equal to the opportunity cost of the lost revenue from
>> public parking.
>
> It isn't feasible to charge the normal rate of parking for
> those houses where it isn't possible to have a driveway.

Go on then... why isn't it "feasible"?

All the council would have to do is cease dishing out the permits and
when the current ones run out, residents would have to pay whatever the
going rate is for metered or ticketed parking.

Perfectly feasible.

Perhaps you meant "unfair".

On 25/04/2022 06:47 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was an accident in my road on Monday. About 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yards on from the end (T-junction). A Merc SUV driven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a young woman claims to have swerved to avoid a cat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All other vehicles involved parked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It first hit the rear side of a BMW, scraped all along
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and broke off the front wheel and suspension. Next hit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Golf behind it pushing the rear well onto the pavement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over a high kerb. The Golf in turn hit a 911 and pushed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that into the car behind. At some point the Merc spun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sideways and hit a car parked on the other side. Merc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spewed out oil onto the road. No serious injury to driver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or passenger in the Merc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Police and emergency services soon at the scene.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Driver apparently sober.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claimed to be observing the speed limit which is 20 mph.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If all the "victim" cars had been parked on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners' driveways, they probably wouldn't have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> damaged. ;-)
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  You'd have to re-design this part of London, then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Built before cars.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the road is the bit that belongs to the public at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large... yes?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Irrelevant to whether it is possible to have driveways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there now.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably true.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't even have front yards, the front door is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly off the footpath.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am... er... familiar with that housing type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen it a few times before.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  So it was silly to rabbit on about how it wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have happened if they had been parked in driveways.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>  Because there is no way to have a driveway with those
>>>>>>>>>>> Victorian multi story strips of houses with not even a front
>>>>>>>>>>> yard where the front door opens directly onto the footpath.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never seen the street in question and had no
>>>>>>>>>>>> information on the housing form.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of terraced housing and even other forms, such
>>>>>>>>>>>> as flats and even semi-detached, parking on-street is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> always allowed (some such housing has double yellow lines
>>>>>>>>>>>> outside).
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no prescriptive right to park outside and there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a school of thought to the effect that all vehicles should
>>>>>>>>>>>> be garaged off street at the home of the owner and/or user,
>>>>>>>>>>>> with street parking only allowed at the far end of any journey.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> All irrelevant to the fact that with victorian terraces,
>>>>>>>>>>> there is no way to have a driveway,
>
>>>>>>>>>> In that case, no way to keep a motor vehicle, except at the
>>>>>>>>>> expense of others.
>
>>>>>>>>>  There is no viable alternative. Hardly viable to tell
>>>>>>>>> the owners of the houses that they can't have a car.
>
>>>>>>>> But they can if they can find some off-street parking for it.
>
>>>>>>>  Just not feasible when the streets close to their house are all
>>>>>>> like that.
>
>>>>>> It depends.
>
>>>>>  Nope.
>
>>>>>> There *is* a private sector for renting out garages.
>
>>>>>  But no way to add enough garages close to those houses for that now.
>
>>>> That does not affect the principle involved:
>>>> the road does not belong to the residents any more than the road
>>>> outside my house belongs to me (of course it doesn't).
>>>  Irrelevant to what is viable with those blocks of terraces with
>>> no front yards at all which were built long before there were
>>> any cars at all and which didn't even have stables for horses.
>
>>>>> Clearly not economic to demolish an entire block of
>>>>> those very expensive houses and replace them with
>>>>> say a massive great multistory carpark now.
>
>>>>>> The  principle exists but obviously provision is not evenly spread.
>
>>>>>  In fact nothing even remotely like enough of them
>>>>> with those streets where there is no front yard at all.
>
>>>> Doesn't invalidate the principle: the road belongs to everyone.
>>>  See above.
>
>>>>>> If I needed to (I don't), I could easily rent a garage in this
>>>>>> village.
>
>>>>>  But that village doesn't have streets of terrace houses with no
>>>>> front yards at all.
>
>>>> How do you know?

>>>  No such village.

You actually could not be more wrong. There are a lot of villages all
over the UK with Victorian terraced property as either the dominant or a
major housing form.

How can you not know that?

>>> If it had lots of adjacent streets with multi story
>>> terraces with no front yards at all, built before there were any cars
>>> at all, it wouldn't be a village.
>
>> Have you ever actually been to England?
>
> Irrelevant. We have had this funky system called Google Street View
> for more than a decade now and for at least century now, have had
> that other funky system called movies and later video.

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> On 25/04/2022 10:24 am, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 22/04/2022 16:21, soup wrote:
>>>>> On 22/04/2022 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>>>>>> BTW, every single parked car which was hit had paid for resident
>>>>>> parking.

>>>>> And how would that be ?
>>>>> Remember no taxes/excise duties are hypothecated in the UK
>>>> Two I can think of are. TV license and National Insurance, the
>>>> latter claimed to be but in reality may not.
>>>> A third may the levy for RTAs paid by drivers, but uncertain if the
>>>> cash goes directly to the NHS Trust or Treasury.
>>
>>> Another claimed hypothecation is the so-called "Green Levy" charged
>>> upon domestic fuel bills (allegedly used to pay for things such as
>>> domestic insulation and other such initiatives). It's a swingeing
>>> proportion of the final bill, too.
>>
>>> It's unfair to challenge Mr. Plowman's claim of the payment for
>>> "resident parking". I am sure he is right in that it is charged (and
>>> usually paid). The charge usually *is* made as part of such schemes,
>>> though in reality, the charge is simply a relatively small
>>> contribution to the cost of administering of the scheme and nowhere
>>> near the true economic cost and/or value of the parking spaces.
>>
>>> If the parking spaces were correctly valued - especially in Inner and
>>> Central London - they might be reserved for "residents" at certain
>>> times of day but charged for at meter rates for whatever number of
>>> hours per day meters operate within the relevant borough. That is, the
>>> price would be equal to the opportunity cost of the lost revenue from
>>> public parking.

>> It isn't feasible to charge the normal rate of parking for
>> those houses where it isn't possible to have a driveway.

> Go on then... why isn't it "feasible"?

Stupidly expensive for those who have no way of having a driveway.

> All the council would have to do is cease dishing out the permits and
> when the current ones run out, residents would have to pay whatever the
> going rate is for metered or ticketed parking.

> Perfectly feasible.

Pity about what the rate payers would do to a council that stupid.

> Perhaps you meant "unfair".

Nope.

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was an accident in my road on Monday. About 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yards on from the end (T-junction). A Merc SUV driven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a young woman claims to have swerved to avoid a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All other vehicles involved parked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It first hit the rear side of a BMW, scraped all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along it and broke off the front wheel and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspension. Next hit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Golf behind it pushing the rear well onto the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pavement over a high kerb. The Golf in turn hit a 911
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pushed that into the car behind. At some point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Merc spun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sideways and hit a car parked on the other side. Merc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spewed out oil onto the road. No serious injury to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or passenger in the Merc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Police and emergency services soon at the scene.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Driver apparently sober.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claimed to be observing the speed limit which is 20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mph.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If all the "victim" cars had been parked on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners' driveways, they probably wouldn't have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> damaged. ;-)
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd have to re-design this part of London, then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Built before cars.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the road is the bit that belongs to the public at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large... yes?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to whether it is possible to have driveways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there now.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably true.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't even have front yards, the front door is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly off the footpath.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am... er... familiar with that housing type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen it a few times before.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it was silly to rabbit on about how it wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have happened if they had been parked in driveways.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there is no way to have a driveway with those
>>>>>>>>>>>> Victorian multi story strips of houses with not even a front
>>>>>>>>>>>> yard where the front door opens directly onto the footpath.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never seen the street in question and had no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> information on the housing form.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of terraced housing and even other forms, such
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as flats and even semi-detached, parking on-street is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> always allowed (some such housing has double yellow lines
>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no prescriptive right to park outside and there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a school of thought to the effect that all vehicles should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be garaged off street at the home of the owner and/or user,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with street parking only allowed at the far end of any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> journey.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All irrelevant to the fact that with victorian terraces,
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no way to have a driveway,
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In that case, no way to keep a motor vehicle, except at the
>>>>>>>>>>> expense of others.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no viable alternative. Hardly viable to tell
>>>>>>>>>> the owners of the houses that they can't have a car.
>>
>>>>>>>>> But they can if they can find some off-street parking for it.
>>
>>>>>>>> Just not feasible when the streets close to their house are all
>>>>>>>> like that.
>>
>>>>>>> It depends.
>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>
>>>>>>> There *is* a private sector for renting out garages.
>>
>>>>>> But no way to add enough garages close to those houses for that
>>>>>> now.
>>
>>>>> That does not affect the principle involved:
>>>>> the road does not belong to the residents any more than the road
>>>>> outside my house belongs to me (of course it doesn't).

>>>> Irrelevant to what is viable with those blocks of terraces with
>>>> no front yards at all which were built long before there were
>>>> any cars at all and which didn't even have stables for horses.
>>
>>>>>> Clearly not economic to demolish an entire block of
>>>>>> those very expensive houses and replace them with
>>>>>> say a massive great multistory carpark now.
>>
>>>>>>> The principle exists but obviously provision is not evenly spread.
>>
>>>>>> In fact nothing even remotely like enough of them
>>>>>> with those streets where there is no front yard at all.
>>
>>>>> Doesn't invalidate the principle: the road belongs to everyone.
>>>> See above.
>>
>>>>>>> If I needed to (I don't), I could easily rent a garage in this
>>>>>>> village.
>>
>>>>>> But that village doesn't have streets of terrace houses with no
>>>>>> front yards at all.
>>
>>>>> How do you know?
>
>>>> No such village.

In article <op.1k66wranbyq249@pvr2.lan>,
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
> there is a car park.

our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
>> there is a car park.

> our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.

So you have more than one carpark off to the side of that road,
close to where there is no way for the houses to have a driveway.

Hardly rocket science.

Name the village and I will mark up the google map to show where to do
that.

And don't try claiming that the planning authoritys wouldnt allow it,
we are discussing what is feasible, not what some stupid planners
are too stupid to allow;

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 21:52:44 +0100, charles wrote:

> In article <op.1k66wranbyq249@pvr2.lan>,
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
>> there is a car park.
>
> our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.

Sounds like Long Melford.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote
> charles wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
>>> there is a car park.

>> our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.

> Sounds like Long Melford.

There is very little of that where a driveway isn't possible and any
village is completely irrelevant to the plowcunt's street anyway.
It is in the center of by far the biggest city in the entire country.

On 25/04/2022 09:10 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>> On 25/04/2022 10:24 am, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>> On 22/04/2022 16:21, soup wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/04/2022 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>>>>>>> BTW, every single parked car which was hit had paid for resident
>>>>>>> parking.
>
>>>>>> And how would that be ?
>>>>>> Remember no taxes/excise duties are hypothecated in the UK
>>>>>  Two I can think of are. TV license and National Insurance, the
>>>>> latter claimed to be but in reality may not.
>>>>>  A third may the levy for RTAs paid by drivers, but uncertain if
>>>>> the cash goes directly to the NHS Trust or Treasury.
>>>
>>>> Another claimed hypothecation is the so-called "Green Levy" charged
>>>> upon domestic fuel bills (allegedly used to pay for things such as
>>>> domestic insulation and other such initiatives). It's a swingeing
>>>> proportion of the final bill, too.
>>>
>>>> It's unfair to challenge Mr. Plowman's claim of the payment for
>>>> "resident parking". I am sure he is right in that it is charged (and
>>>> usually paid). The charge usually *is* made as part of such schemes,
>>>> though in reality, the charge is simply a relatively small
>>>> contribution to the cost of administering of the scheme and nowhere
>>>> near the true economic cost and/or value of the parking spaces.
>>>
>>>> If the parking spaces were correctly valued - especially in Inner
>>>> and Central London - they might be reserved for "residents" at
>>>> certain times of day but charged for at meter rates for whatever
>>>> number of hours per day meters operate within the relevant borough.
>>>> That is, the price would be equal to the opportunity cost of the
>>>> lost revenue from public parking.
>
>>>  It isn't feasible to charge the normal rate of parking for
>>> those houses where it isn't possible to have a driveway.
>
>> Go on then... why isn't it "feasible"?
>
> Stupidly expensive for those who have no way of having a driveway.

You said it isn't feasible.

Please address the question of feasibility.

Because, as I had said...

>> All the council would have to do is cease dishing out the permits and
>> when the current ones run out, residents would have to pay whatever
>> the going rate is for metered or ticketed parking.
>> Perfectly feasible.
>
> Pity about what the rate payers would do to a council that stupid.

What about those who have to pay (in various ways) for the parking space
provided for nothing (or very little) to specific people who don't own
the space any more than any other citizen does? Is it just their job to
shell out whilst the resident's job is to receive the benefit of it?

>> Perhaps you meant "unfair".

> Nope.

If it isn't unfair to scrap these schemes, there's nothing to worry about.

On 25/04/2022 09:23 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was an accident in my road on Monday. About
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 50 yards on from the end (T-junction). A Merc SUV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driven by a young woman claims to have swerved to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid a cat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All other vehicles involved parked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It first hit the rear side of a BMW, scraped all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along it and broke off the front wheel and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspension. Next hit the Golf behind it pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rear well onto the pavement over a high kerb.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Golf in turn hit a 911 and pushed that into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the car behind. At some point the Merc spun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sideways and hit a car parked on the other side. Merc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spewed out oil onto the road. No serious injury to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver or passenger in the Merc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Police and emergency services soon at the scene.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Driver apparently sober.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claimed to be observing the speed limit which is 20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mph.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If all the "victim" cars had been parked on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners' driveways, they probably wouldn't have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> damaged. ;-)
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  You'd have to re-design this part of London, then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Built before cars.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the road is the bit that belongs to the public at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large... yes?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Irrelevant to whether it is possible to have driveways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there now.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably true.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't even have front yards, the front door is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly off the footpath.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am... er... familiar with that housing type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen it a few times before.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  So it was silly to rabbit on about how it wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have happened if they had been parked in driveways.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Because there is no way to have a driveway with those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Victorian multi story strips of houses with not even a front
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yard where the front door opens directly onto the footpath.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never seen the street in question and had no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information on the housing form.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of terraced housing and even other forms, such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as flats and even semi-detached, parking on-street is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always allowed (some such housing has double yellow lines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no prescriptive right to park outside and there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a school of thought to the effect that all vehicles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be garaged off street at the home of the owner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and/or user, with street parking only allowed at the far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of any journey.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All irrelevant to the fact that with victorian terraces,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no way to have a driveway,
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case, no way to keep a motor vehicle, except at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> expense of others.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>  There is no viable alternative. Hardly viable to tell
>>>>>>>>>>> the owners of the houses that they can't have a car.
>
>>>>>>>>>> But they can if they can find some off-street parking for it.
>
>>>>>>>>>  Just not feasible when the streets close to their house are
>>>>>>>>> all like that.
>
>>>>>>>> It depends.
>>>>>>>> There *is* a private sector for renting out garages.
>
>>>>>>>  But no way to add enough garages close to those houses for that
>>>>>>> now.
>
>>>>>> That does not affect the principle involved:
>>>>>> the road does not belong to the residents any more than the road
>>>>>> outside my house belongs to me (of course it doesn't).
>
>>>>>  Irrelevant to what is viable with those blocks of terraces with
>>>>> no front yards at all which were built long before there were
>>>>> any cars at all and which didn't even have stables for horses.
>
>>>>>>> Clearly not economic to demolish an entire block of
>>>>>>> those very expensive houses and replace them with
>>>>>>> say a massive great multistory carpark now.
>
>>>>>>>> The  principle exists but obviously provision is not evenly spread.
>
>>>>>>>  In fact nothing even remotely like enough of them
>>>>>>> with those streets where there is no front yard at all.
>
>>>>>> Doesn't invalidate the principle: the road belongs to everyone.
>>>>>  See above.
>
>>>>>>>> If I needed to (I don't), I could easily rent a garage in this
>>>>>>>> village.
>
>>>>>>>  But that village doesn't have streets of terrace houses with no
>>>>>>> front yards at all.
>
>>>>>> How do you know?
>
>>>>>  No such village.
>
>> You actually could not be more wrong.
>
> We'll see...

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 10:24 am, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/04/2022 16:21, soup wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/04/2022 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>>>>>>>> BTW, every single parked car which was hit had paid for resident
>>>>>>>> parking.
>>
>>>>>>> And how would that be ?
>>>>>>> Remember no taxes/excise duties are hypothecated in the UK
>>>>>> Two I can think of are. TV license and National Insurance, the
>>>>>> latter claimed to be but in reality may not.
>>>>>> A third may the levy for RTAs paid by drivers, but uncertain if
>>>>>> the cash goes directly to the NHS Trust or Treasury.
>>>>
>>>>> Another claimed hypothecation is the so-called "Green Levy" charged
>>>>> upon domestic fuel bills (allegedly used to pay for things such as
>>>>> domestic insulation and other such initiatives). It's a swingeing
>>>>> proportion of the final bill, too.
>>>>
>>>>> It's unfair to challenge Mr. Plowman's claim of the payment for
>>>>> "resident parking". I am sure he is right in that it is charged (and
>>>>> usually paid). The charge usually *is* made as part of such schemes,
>>>>> though in reality, the charge is simply a relatively small
>>>>> contribution to the cost of administering of the scheme and nowhere
>>>>> near the true economic cost and/or value of the parking spaces.
>>>>
>>>>> If the parking spaces were correctly valued - especially in Inner
>>>>> and Central London - they might be reserved for "residents" at
>>>>> certain times of day but charged for at meter rates for whatever
>>>>> number of hours per day meters operate within the relevant borough.
>>>>> That is, the price would be equal to the opportunity cost of the
>>>>> lost revenue from public parking.
>>
>>>> It isn't feasible to charge the normal rate of parking for
>>>> those houses where it isn't possible to have a driveway.
>>
>>> Go on then... why isn't it "feasible"?

>> Stupidly expensive for those who have no way of having a driveway.

> You said it isn't feasible.

And it isn't for the reason I rubbed your nose in.

> Please address the question of feasibility.

I did.

> Because, as I had said...

>>> All the council would have to do is cease dishing out the permits and
>>> when the current ones run out, residents would have to pay whatever
>>> the going rate is for metered or ticketed parking.

>>> Perfectly feasible.

>> Pity about what the rate payers would do to a council that stupid.

> What about those who have to pay (in various ways) for the parking space
> provided for nothing (or very little) to specific people who don't own
> the space any more than any other citizen does?

There are FAR fewer of those who would be pissed off enough
to sack the council and replace them with a council with a clue.

> Is it just their job to shell out whilst the resident's job is to
> receive the benefit of it?

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

>>> Perhaps you meant "unfair".

>> Nope.

> If it isn't unfair to scrap these schemes, there's nothing to worry
> about.

Even sillier than you usually manage with council elections.

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was an accident in my road on Monday. About
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 50 yards on from the end (T-junction). A Merc SUV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driven by a young woman claims to have swerved to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid a cat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All other vehicles involved parked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It first hit the rear side of a BMW, scraped all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along it and broke off the front wheel and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspension. Next hit the Golf behind it pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rear well onto the pavement over a high kerb.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Golf in turn hit a 911 and pushed that into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> car behind. At some point the Merc spun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sideways and hit a car parked on the other side.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spewed out oil onto the road. No serious injury to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver or passenger in the Merc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Police and emergency services soon at the scene.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Driver apparently sober.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claimed to be observing the speed limit which is 20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mph.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If all the "victim" cars had been parked on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners' driveways, they probably wouldn't have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> damaged. ;-)
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd have to re-design this part of London, then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Built before cars.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the road is the bit that belongs to the public at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large... yes?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to whether it is possible to have driveways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there now.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably true.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't even have front yards, the front door is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly off the footpath.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am... er... familiar with that housing type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen it a few times before.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it was silly to rabbit on about how it wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have happened if they had been parked in driveways.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there is no way to have a driveway with those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Victorian multi story strips of houses with not even a front
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yard where the front door opens directly onto the footpath.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never seen the street in question and had no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information on the housing form.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of terraced housing and even other forms, such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as flats and even semi-detached, parking on-street is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always allowed (some such housing has double yellow lines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no prescriptive right to park outside and there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a school of thought to the effect that all vehicles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be garaged off street at the home of the owner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and/or user, with street parking only allowed at the far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of any journey.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All irrelevant to the fact that with victorian terraces,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no way to have a driveway,
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case, no way to keep a motor vehicle, except at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expense of others.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no viable alternative. Hardly viable to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>> the owners of the houses that they can't have a car.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But they can if they can find some off-street parking for it..
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just not feasible when the streets close to their house are
>>>>>>>>>> all like that.
>>
>>>>>>>>> It depends.
>>>>>>>>> There *is* a private sector for renting out garages.
>>
>>>>>>>> But no way to add enough garages close to those houses for that
>>>>>>>> now.
>>
>>>>>>> That does not affect the principle involved:
>>>>>>> the road does not belong to the residents any more than the road
>>>>>>> outside my house belongs to me (of course it doesn't).
>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant to what is viable with those blocks of terraces with
>>>>>> no front yards at all which were built long before there were
>>>>>> any cars at all and which didn't even have stables for horses.
>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly not economic to demolish an entire block of
>>>>>>>> those very expensive houses and replace them with
>>>>>>>> say a massive great multistory carpark now.
>>
>>>>>>>>> The principle exists but obviously provision is not evenly
>>>>>>>>> spread.
>>
>>>>>>>> In fact nothing even remotely like enough of them
>>>>>>>> with those streets where there is no front yard at all.
>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't invalidate the principle: the road belongs to everyone.
>>>>>> See above.
>>
>>>>>>>>> If I needed to (I don't), I could easily rent a garage in this
>>>>>>>>> village.
>>
>>>>>>>> But that village doesn't have streets of terrace houses with no
>>>>>>>> front yards at all.
>>
>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>
>>>>>> No such village.
>>
>>> You actually could not be more wrong.

On 25/04/2022 23:27, Rod Speed wrote:
> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote
>> charles wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
>>>> there is a car park.
>
>>> our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.
>
>> Sounds like Long Melford.
>
> There is very little of that where a driveway isn't possible and any
> village is completely irrelevant to the plowcunt's street anyway.
> It is in the center of by far the biggest city in the entire country.

That would be Birmingham. In the UK a place can only have city status if
that has been granted by the Crown. There are two cities in the Greater
London Area, The City of London, one of the UK's smallest cities, and
the much larger City of Westminster. The Greater London area may be
described by many as a city, by virtue of its size, but it does not have
city status.

--
Colin Bignell

On 26/04/2022 02:33, JNugent wrote:
>
> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a noticeable
> feature of almost every village where the housing form is predominantly
> the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).

I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK

Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.

The term really seems to refer to a an older style rural small building
constructed in the local vernacular style.

--
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.”

Herbert Spencer

Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote
>>> charles wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
>>>>> there is a car park.
>>
>>>> our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.
>>
>>> Sounds like Long Melford.
>> There is very little of that where a driveway isn't possible and any
>> village is completely irrelevant to the plowcunt's street anyway.
>> It is in the center of by far the biggest city in the entire country.

> That would be Birmingham.

Nope. the only sensible measure is population.

> In the UK a place can only have city status if that has been granted by
> the Crown.

Mindless legalistic nit picking.

> There are two cities in the Greater London Area,

More mindless legalistic nit picking.

> The City of London, one of the UK's smallest cities, and the much larger
> City of Westminster.

More mindless legalistic nit picking.

> The Greater London area may be described by many as a city, by virtue of
> its size, but it does not have city status.

More mindless legalistic nit picking.

On 26/04/2022 10:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 02:33, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a noticeable
>> feature of almost every village where the housing form is
>> predominantly the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).
>
> I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK
>
> Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.
>
> The term really seems to refer to a an older style rural small building
> constructed in the local vernacular style.
>

As the industrial revolution got going the term was often applied to any
/relatively/ small home for labourers, factory workers etc. Much of
London's East End was built as "workers' cottages". Other examples
include the many "miners' cottages".

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid