Friday, October 24, 2008
Medway Messenger
Verging on causing even more mayhem
IT IS good to see that Medway Council is taking action against people who park on the grass verges in Beechings Way (Medway Messenger, October 20).
Sadly, though, I think the council has gone about it all the wrong way; instead of getting to grips with the problem at its source, it has chosen merely to impose fines upon residents who feel they have no alternative.
The problem in Beechings Way, and more substantially across other parts of Twydall, is that as the number of cars per household has risen, the parking provision has not, and there was bound to be a point where residents were forced to take such action.
That’s not to say all cars are parked on the verges because there are parking issues: Some residents have been known to park on them when there are several places to park in the road.
However, most do park on the grass because they cannot park in the road and by forcing them to not park on the verges will make then park in surrounding roads, setting off a vicious circle.
I think Medway Council needs to stop and think logically before it imposes this action across the borough. The number of cars per household isn’t going to decrease, and without providing extra parking provision, all the council will succeed in doing is to cause mayhem, raising a bit more money and ultimately angering a lot of residents.
Alan Collins
Goudhurst Road,
Twydall, Gillingham
336 views | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Although I fully accept the argument, the question that arises has to be: how? And, for that matter: where? How and where can all these extra vehicles be accommodated?
I do wish people wouldn’t acquire more vehicles than they already have provision for, unless they are prepared to either (a) sacrifice their gardens for off-road parking; (b) rent garaging elsewhere nearby (and there is plenty of that avilable, I notice on my travels), or (c) move to a property with the required parking provision.
Instead of the near-universal infinite selfishness of “I want, but you’re going to have to suffer for it” attitude that we encounter these days, it would be so much better if people were to take responsibility for their own actions, just for a change.
Just to illustrate the point: under no circumstances would acquire a road vehicle unless I had first made proper provision for it. I’m not interested in arguments about being “unrealistic” or any other such garbage, as some try to make. It wouldn’t have happened in the days of horses, so why is personal responsibility so much rarer today than it was in earlier times?
Personally, I’d shove all traffic underground anyway, where it belongs, and clear the surface of the planet. I don’t want this dangerous, filthy and primitive junk buzzing around in my vicinity. Think three-dimensionally!
October 24th, 2008 at 18:02That’s not likely to happen though John.
The council should do what people want. If the people of Twydall want to park on the grass verges (and to be honest, you can’t use them for anything else) then they might as well be allowed to.
This council is very bizarre on parking. I dislike that Smart Camera Car that breaks the rules and also snaps people when they, or (as I’ve heard) when they dont, break the rules.
October 26th, 2008 at 22:53Oh, agreed that it won’t happen; but it should. That’s my point. At least until teleports replace this antiquated junk on the roads (still running on wheels! How medieval is that?) something will have to be done anyway about the escalating vehicle use.
It’s not just their numbers, but the length of time people spend in them which is really ridiculous nowadays. Hardly anyone is prepared to walk even to the local shops down the road these days.
Two-dimensional thinking will no longer suffice, no matter how anyone might try to ’spin’ it.
October 27th, 2008 at 02:27I can see where you’re coming from.
And for a 3D view on traffic, have a look at this nice idea from the 60s. How’s that for getting cars off the road?!
I agree wiht your second point, I often walk to the local Tesco rather than driving to the larger Tesco which is a bit further away.
I assume you are not a driver then John. A cyclist perhaps, or is that too medieval for you?
November 6th, 2008 at 01:29Yes, I myself have proposed an underground “Chatham bypass” running east-west, if the required (enormous) level of funding were to become available, which it isn’t at the moment.
I am not a driver, and never have been. I would never have a polluting vehicle for a start, as a matter of personal principle. It’s nineteenth-century technology anyway, and as for having to carry fuel with one…
I am pointing to one possible way forward in my forthcoming novel (vaguely like a cross between Charlie’s Angels, Thunderbirds and The X-Files) which should be ready to offer to potential publishers sometime next year. The “White Queen” and the Angel Flyers produce no pollution and carry no fuel…
November 12th, 2008 at 11:24Excellent! I’d love to read your book! Will it be serialised on your site?
“Chatham bypass”? Where from and to? I’m intrigued!
November 17th, 2008 at 01:14I shall be posting the first couple of chapters on one of my sites, complete with the illustrations for those chapters and the main picture (which I think everyone will appreciate when they see it). I am hoping that someone will publish the complete story (with options for at least two further volumes, if they want) so that perhaps I might get some payment.
It is genuinely a very good story, as it happens, and of course completely “family friendly”, as one would expect from me. I’m just surprised that I of all people came up with it(!)
November 17th, 2008 at 17:13Oh, and my Chatham bypass would have overcome the notorious problem stretch from New Road to Luton Arches, if it had been possible to have this.
November 17th, 2008 at 17:15“It is genuinely a very good story”.
Well, you were hardly goign to say it was rubbish now, were you?
Haha
Good luck with it!
November 18th, 2008 at 18:38