I somewhat regret posting the topic now - I fear I might have come across as suggesting that people should be able to park wherever they like, which definitely wasn't the intention. But I'll plough on...
al78 wrote:Yes. People who park on bends and reducing the width of the road by half causing conflict between opposing traffic are a pain in the arse
I you are referring to the first photo in the newspaper article, I disagree that those cars are reducing the width of the road by half. As for encouraging violence, I'm surprised that you think it is OK to post something like that. Perhaps you were joking, but I don't find joking about assault funny at all.
al78 wrote:As for yellow lines on a high street, I can see why that would be justified. Parking in an urban area reduces the width of the road forcing negotiation between opposing traffic and reducing the capacity of the road. It also makes it more hazardous for pedestrians crossing the road, and cyclists using the road who have to worry about careless cockwombles throwing doors open without looking. If drivers put two wheels on the pavement, that causes damage to the pavement which someone (the local residents through taxes) has to pay to get repaired.
I agree with most of your points here, but just to be clear, I didn't ever say anything about parking
on the pavement - I was talking about parking on the road
next to the pavement, not on it.
For the part about the width of the road - I mentioned in the earlier post that the road is equally wide further along, where parking is encouraged with marked bays, and cyclist / pedestrian traffic is greater. So I find the discrepancy strange.
rob114 wrote:The Daily Record photo shows a road sign indicating the the road is a Clearway. No parking is allowed on a Clearway, except in marked parking places or bays,, similar to signage on a Dual Carriageway. The sign has the same meaning as double yellow lines.
The second photo - yes. However I'm referring to the first photo, which I think is taken in a completely different location.
AyrshireAlps wrote:In answer to the greater question, it's time for a bigger infrastructure discussion on this. Public transport is the oft trotted out solution, but without massive subsidies and a massive increase in the amount of (empty) buses on the road, it's not happening.
The cat is out of the bag, traipsing up a hill is popular, which is brilliant - I hope all these new walkers keep it going, learn and improve and enjoy the mountains as we all do. The only way - as we all do - to get around is by car, even when car sharing is acceptable again, there will still be too many cars for the limited parking available. More parking and infrastructure is the only answer I can see.
I agree. Although I currently use a car heavily, I would support a bigger tax on cars (or fuel, or mileage over a certain limit) to fund better transport and fare subsidies. At the moment, it is much easier and cheaper for most people to use a car over public transport, and mass behaviour is unlikely to change until the difference becomes less.
More parking would also be welcome, if the increase in numbers is sustained.
weedavie wrote:
You've just got to get out of a car mindset. About five years ago I proved to myself that I wasn't safe to do a two hour drive, a seven hour walk and a two hour return drive safely. Since then I've used public transport and bike to reach a considerable number of Southern Munros, including ones as unlikely as Carn Bhac and Beinn a' Chlachair. The only real disaster was Schiehallion on a short miserable winter's day.
It's a bit trickier, it's certainly more expensive but it's fun and it's greener. Over the years, well before the current crisis, it's amused me the attitude of this discussion group to parking. Echoing the Dead Kennedys, it's Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death.
I generally agree - again, to facilitate this, I'd like to see a reduction in the disparity in convenience and (especially) cost between driving and using public transport.
We currently have a rough 2-hour limit for the maximum distance we will travel for a day trip. That's not because of safety, but it does help cover that side too. My partner and I are also always both in the car, which means we can swap if one of us feels tired.
The green comparison depends. For a single person, it's greener in almost all cases to use public transport. For a family of four, it can be greener to all use one car than use public transport. For a couple, public transport is usually greener but the difference is not always enormous - it depends on the mode of transport, type of car, how often a new is purchased and the relative distances travelled between the public transport route and the driving route.