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.

>> We'll see...

> I don't know how you think you're going to prove yourself right on that.
> You can't, because you're wrong.

Then you won't have any difficulty naming that village.

And even if you can, it is completely irrelevant to PLOWCUNT'S STREET.

>>> 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?

> You can do that if there IS a car-park and if it is within walking
> distance.

And if there is such a village, of course it is possible to add a carpark
like that.

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

> I didn't.

>>>>>> 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.

> Is it *not* a "No", then?

> Have you ever been to England?

None of your business and irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
we have had google street view for more than a decade now.

>>>>> 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.

> You avoided the question. The only reasonable interpretation of that is
> that you have never been to England.

Only for fools like you.

> That's OK. There's no shame in it.

It isnt about shame.

> I've never been to Australia.

Thank christ for that.

> But I don't argue that I am familiar with Australian urban morphology.
> That'smainly because I'm not.

But are too stupid to use google street view when
discussing that is feasible parking wise.

It has in fact covered almost all of Australia and the UK.

>>>> 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.

> There are such places in English villages.

But with a VILLAGE it will always be possible to add a carpark within
walking distance if something needs to be done about parking.

> 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).

But since it is a VILLAGE, it will always be possible to add a carpark
within walking distance if something needs to be done about parking.

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

No point in ignoring that, it won't go away.

>>>>>>> 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.
>
> How do you say you know that?

I get real radical and use street view.

> There are several car-parks in the village.

So your village is irrelevant to what is possible with PLOWCUNT'S STREET..

> I admit straightaway that I would not want to have to walk to and from
> any of them in order to park a car. But then, I don't need to. My house
> has a driveway and a garage (as do many others in the area, though
> certainly not all of them.

So your house is irrelevant to what is being discussed
and so is your village.

>>>>> 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.

> If the car-park were a half-mile away from the house,

That isnt a village.

> would that be within "walking distance" in anything but a purely
> technical sense?

>>> 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 you think that most houses in the UK are bungalows,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

> you are in a dream world of your own.
>
> It does, however, explain some of what you write.

Pathetic.

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

Chase that up for yourself.

> <checks the cupboard for popcorn>

Pathetic, as you always are when you have got done like a fucking dinner..

>>>>> 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.

> Not at all.

Fraid so.

> The road STILL doesn't belong to the occupants of the nearest house.

Irrelevant to what is possible with parking.

>>>>> 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.
>
> Principle is never irrelevant.

More of your mindless bullshit.

>>>>> 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.
>
> You don't "get" sarcasm, do you?

Even more pathetic than you usually manage.