Drivers and their problems

Crazy driving, tinted glass... wild assumption but perhaps there may be more than one vehicle with these numberplates in circulation?

That's the pub/hotel I stay at when I visit my folks, they do a great breakfast.

As brooksby says Clevedon isn't huge and even though they are 77 and 81 (I think) they can walk and cycle anywhere they need to go. They certainly wouldn't drive to that pub as they live in the next street. Oh, and they don't own a car.

Clevedon parking is terrible though as locals know there are no parking wardens so they are used to parking wherever they like.

Like the reversing driver who hit a dog which fell / jumped off a quad bike.  Running over pets is probably the one thing that would attract general condemnation.  Apparently not everyone though...

Love the bit where the mum says she thinks all fines should be cancelled to help with the cost of living crisis (even though she can afford to drive to McDonald's...).

Obviously accessibility and equality are important, but I don't think the answer is that every shop and cafe needs a disabled parking space outside its front door.

For one thing, what about all the disabled people who can't drive? Only 55% of disabled adults hold driving licences, compared to 83% of non-disabled adults. [source]. Yes some of those non-licence holders no doubt rely heavily on other people driving them around, but in the case highlighted that would not help (they would still be dependent on their career's availability). 

I would suggest better and more accessible public transport - why does this person feel unable to use the bus service that still stops on Milsom Street? What about improving the "uneven" pavements so they are easier to use?

Furthermore, I don't know Bath well, but is the individual seriously saying there are no parking spaces within their walking distance of any cafe? The article mentions disabled parking on Quiet Street and New Bond Street, both of which have cafes on them. There's also a Broad Street Car Park which appears to have a short passage leading out onto Milsom Street (albeit not free parking). Or anywhere else in Bath? Maybe I'm cynical too, but it certainly seems to me like this person is using their disability as an excuse to throw a hissy fit about having their routine disrupted slightly. 

But if you put in an LTN then someone will immediately scream "pollution"!  I know people adapt to what is and it's only 'change' that we worry about but stuff like this grinds my gears.  It's apparently acceptable to have an entire city choking for years but if you make a small change for the better in one place and round the corner from there the nasty numbers go up...  Also said numbers may well come down in a month or two as drivers adapt.

Strangely it isn't all the people actually putting out that pollution who get it in the neck either.

David9694 wrote:

Ambulances 'should get out of the way of school run drivers'

It was a stupid place to put the ambulance hub in the first place! You would struggle to find a location that is is more difficult to reach the main roads and the majority of the town's population.

The £1.2million site, in a converted warehouse, was opened in 2013 is may be replaced: "Two new ambulance stations could be built in Shropshire as part of plans to replace ageing buildings." [Jan 2022]

Despite the headline, ambulances are far less of a risk to the 2,500+ kids (and staff) attending the local schools than the many car drivers who are too selfish and impatient to drive safely. Residents and councillors have been calling for parking restrictions and speed reduction measures for a long time but the council has repeatedly dragged its heels.

I'd say there is an issue.  It's just that it's not new.  Whenever change is mooted those who are already ignored or marginalised get worried.  The little that they have may be lost and the makeshifts they've found will become impossible.  They've good reason for this.

This shouldn't be confused with the majority / the priveledged - those who've been quite content to let everyone else fight over scraps - suddenly coming out with selective concern.

All speculation of course but if you have a disability you will likely find it more difficult to get on and off a bus.  You may find it difficult to access the bus in the first place.  You've got to get to the stop (possibly an assault course for some).  If in a wheelchair or in poor health you might get much colder waiting around.  If it doesn't turn up (hardly uncommon) it's harder or impossible to get to another stop and harder to return home.

We all should be aware that despite legislation access to our public spaces is still difficult or impossible for some.  Plus for those with limited mobility, visual issues etc. crossing roads is even less pleasant and convenient.

The difficult part is how to provide very good alternatives for the vast majority (perfectly health drivers) AND reduce driving convenience for them without making things impossible for those with disabilities.  They are a small minority - but more numerous than current transport cyclists!

I do know this can be done and in a way that is much more enabling for more people than currently.  However it cannot be done without making changes which will make it less convenient to drive and park than it currently is.  Unfortunately demand from those without disabilities in that category will always swamp and disadvantage those who "need" a vehicle...

Is that why "Rufford Ford"?  People just trying to help out with "footfall"?

David9694 wrote:

Pub only accessible on foot or by boat,
 

Not true, I have cycled there.

brooksby wrote:

Aren't there studies that show how much traders overestimate how many of their customers came by car and parked right outside / near their premises...

No it's well known that pedestrianised areas rapidly turn into ghost towns and all the shops go out of business.

David9694 wrote:

Ambulances 'should get out of the way of school run drivers' 

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/local-hubs/shrewsbury/meole-brace/20...

Several schoolchildren have been hit by cars in the area.

So - none hit by ambulances.

Although the ambulance service has no recorded incidents of its vehicles being involved in a collision with a pedestrian in three years, parents are concerned about the traffic chaos caused by cars having to mount pavements to let paramedics drive through on blue lights and sirens.

Did I miss a memo?  I don't remember anything telling me that I had to drive my car onto the pavement to get out of the way?

OnYerBike wrote:

Maybe I'm cynical too, but it certainly seems to me like this person is using their disability as an excuse to throw a hissy fit about having their routine disrupted slightly. 

I suspect the crux of this matter is exactly as you state. Possibly one of those people wealthy enough to lunch regularly at The Ivy, yet too tight to pay for parking.

What this person needs to do is consider buying a mobility scooter. They would then have the freedom to negotiate Bath's unevenly paved pedestrianised areas independently.

David9694 wrote:

It will need to generate some money to cover the installation costs of all those cameras and deal with all the many queries this will generate.

I'd suggest the approach taken by Parking Eye on this. 

What's your betting on "traders call on Mayor to delay CAZ because reasons" before D-Day? 

They may well do, but I think the right to have air that's not over the legal pollution limits is more important than traders running old vehicles. The majority of vehicles (80% IIRC) won't be affected by the CAZ as they are sufficiently 'clean'. I know there's some fuss about the Portway being included as that will 'catch' vehicles that aren't heading towards the centre, but the air quality along the Portway is particularly dire.

that's why every shopping centre ever built has the access road right through the middle of the shops and parking spaces right outside. Because people love shopping around cars...

wait, hang on....

hawkinspeter wrote:

David9694 wrote:

It will need to generate some money to cover the installation costs of all those cameras and deal with all the many queries this will generate.

I'd suggest the approach taken by Parking Eye on this. 

What's your betting on "traders call on Mayor to delay CAZ because reasons" before D-Day? 

They may well do, but I think the right to have air that's not over the legal pollution limits is more important than traders running old vehicles. The majority of vehicles (80% IIRC) won't be affected by the CAZ as they are sufficiently 'clean'. I know there's some fuss about the Portway being included as that will 'catch' vehicles that aren't heading towards the centre, but the air quality along the Portway is particularly dire.

Isn't there a lot of fuss about how they moved the line over the Cumberland Basin, too, so that cars coming from south Bristol over the basin and then along the Portway toward the motorway will all be charged.  Means, I suspect, an increase in traffic using the A369 to get to the motorway...

brooksby wrote:

Isn't there a lot of fuss about how they moved the line over the Cumberland Basin, too, so that cars coming from south Bristol over the basin and then along the Portway toward the motorway will all be charged.  Means, I suspect, an increase in traffic using the A369 to get to the motorway...

Yeah, I was thinking of the Cumberland Basin when I wrote the Portway. There's also some concerns about when the Plimsoll Bridge is in use and vehicles are diverted into Bristol.

I'd much rather they just covered the whole of Bristol - why should we continue to put up with health issues caused by old, polluting vehicles?

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Isn't there a lot of fuss about how they moved the line over the Cumberland Basin, too, so that cars coming from south Bristol over the basin and then along the Portway toward the motorway will all be charged.  Means, I suspect, an increase in traffic using the A369 to get to the motorway...

Yeah, I was thinking of the Cumberland Basin when I wrote the Portway. There's also some concerns about when the Plimsoll Bridge is in use and vehicles are diverted into Bristol.

I'd much rather they just covered the whole of Bristol - why should we continue to put up with health issues caused by old, polluting vehicles?

This. Well of course, Bristol City Council doesn't actually cover the whole of Bristol, but... 

hawkinspeter wrote:

David9694 wrote:

Bristol Clean Air Zone drivers to be given six week 'offer' to avoid fines

The  "trial system" gives you 7 days to pay the fee, after which it turns into the much bigger fine.

The long term intention is that you have to pay in advance - perhaps the admin is simpler that way? 

Expect the usual driver bullshit on this soon. I'll say it again, you could hand-write "Petrol £1.30 a litre: this way⛽️" on a bit of old cardboard and drivers would know about it. 

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-clean-air-zone-d...

It bugs me that this has taken so long to get implemented. Bristol's air pollution has been above legal limits for years now and the CAZ has been kicked down the road until now which is particularly bad timing in terms of the cost-of-living crisis and recession. There's lots of accusations that the CAZ is just a money generator which to be fair, it is, but in reality motorists have been getting away with dumping polluted air around the city and not paying for the privilege.

I wonder how Bristol City Council will keep all the clean air in?   

Yes, but as I have discovered when putting this forward to people, they just say "Yeah, well that's not [insert town/city/village] here"