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.

> You actually could not be more wrong.

We'll see...

> There are a lot of villages all over the UK with Victorian terraced
> property as either the dominant or a major housing form.

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

> How can you not know that?

How can you ignore the bit about walking to a car park ?

>>>> 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.
>
> OK. So that's a "No".

There you go again, face down in the mud, as always.

>>> You haven't been to this village.

>> You don't know that either

> Yes, I do. This village is in... er... England: one of the places you
> haven't been to.

You don't know that last.

>> and even if I hadn't, I do know
>> that no village has enough streets where no driveway is
>> possible now and it isnt possible to walk to where cars
>> can be parked, or it wouldn't be a village, it would be a town.

> Believe what you want to believe.

Know what I know and can see from the Street View.

> But even you must have heard of agricultural workers, miners, etc and
> their cottages.

Those are irrelevant when discussing places WHERE
IT ISNT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY.

>> And your village is completely irrelevant to the plowcunt's street
>> anyway.
>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> But it is a village.

But doesn't have lots of adjacent streets where there is no
possibility of a driveway or a carpark within walking distance.

>>> See my question a few lines above.
>> See my response to that.
>>
>>>> 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.

>> Pathetic.

> I dare say that some people who can't easily find a convenient and free
> space agree with you.

Pathetic.

>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>> Almost all houses in the UK are multi-storey.

>> Bullshit.

> What? :-)

Pathetic.

>>> If not, they are universally described as bungalows.
>> There are plenty of those.
>
> Are there?

Corse there are.

>>> The place I was describing has two-storey terraced houses each with
>>> three bedrooms (or fewer if one has been converted into a bathroom -
>>> which does happen). Very large mansion housing tends to have more
>>> controllable open air space, including the ability to create a
>>> hard-standing. Not always, but it hardly matters since we are not
>>> talking about such housing.

>> Irrelevant to the fact that there are lots of streets with no space
>> between the houses and no front yard at all, where it isnt possible
>> to have a driveway.

> There are a lot of such places. In cities, towns and villages.

Duh, so it was stupid of you to rabbit on about driveways.

>>> It is not clear to me that Mr Plowman lives in a mansion, though he
>>> might do for all the information that I have (and it's none of my
>>> business).
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>> See, that was my response to that para.
>>
>>>>> Cheaper, certainly (around 250 miles from London).
>
>>>> So irrelevant to the street the plowcunt has a victorian house in.
>>>>
>>>>> But the principle is the same.
>
>>>> The principle is irrelevant. What we are discussing is what is
>>>> possible with those streets.
>>
>>> The same things are possible, including the use of double-yellow lines.

>> BUT NOT DRIVEWAYS.

> Quite so. Has anyone claimed otherwise?

You rabbitted on about that accident would not have happened if the cars
were parked on driveways. Pity that that isnt possible for so many streets.