Sharrowvale Parking Scheme - new thread

[Fletvictus]

Please be specific, Tony, as to which comments are breaches of manners here. Are they worse or less bad than being called a "moaner"?

[Fletvictus]

With regard to your last comment, if the people who wanted the scheme are in such a tiny minority, as you suggest, surely Parking Services would have been been sat twiddling there thumbs for the last few weeks as opposed to being inundated with requests for permits to a point where they can't deal with it and the start date has to put back as a result!

 

If we had all refused on mass to "pay and dispay" then the council would have no choice but to back down.

 

Did majority rise up on mass to object? No, because the majority support it.

 

Or does that simply make the majority apathetic fools? Maybe in your eyes. I personally have more respect for the silent majorities opinion.

 

Here we go again with the false claim that inaction or silence equals support.

 

No, people who oppose the scheme have to get permits and pay for tickets, because otherwise they will have to pay fines which most of them can't afford or would prefer not to pay, for no benefit. The council would just issue and enforce as many fines as necessary, unless there really were an overwhelming campaign of civil disobedience organised, and that hasn't happened.

 

The claim isn't that there is an overwhelming majority of angry people ready and willing to take action. The situation appears to be that there are substantial numbers of people who don't want this scheme and are having it imposed upon them for your benefit, the benefit of some of your neighbours, and for the benefit of the council. Few of those who don't want the scheme are likely to be angry enough about it to take the major step of civil disobedience.

[Buble Fan]

Dear oh dear, we really are getting wound up aren't we Fletvictus?

 

Its just the parking of a car we're talking about here. Some of your comments really show that you are getting things out of perspective. No-one is going to shoot you if you don't get a permit and hence get a parking fine. Even if you don't pay the fine, the worst that can happen is the bailiffs take your car. How does that equate to being shot? Capital punishment was abolished decades ago as I understand it - other than for treason.

 

And Litotes - what's all this about machines not working - or working when they shouldn't be? The only thing I've heard is that on the first day (Monday October 1st) the "Not In Use" signs were taken off and the machines were switched on. This took part of the day to be completed. When have they been not working? And when have they been working when they shouldn't have been?

[mc55]

erm, did anyone see my post about having a skip within the permit zone ? Do I need to get special permission to have it in one of the bays, or can I go ahead as before and just order it. Sorry if this seems a stupid Q, but I'm just not sure.

[mc55]

OK, so the visitor passes have arrived. Can anyone help me with what happens if we go away (holiday) and the car without the residents permit is left behind - do we have to hang, say, 4 days worth of permits in the car ?

 

I'm more than a little worried about security of the house and especially the car if I'm advertising that I'm away as well. What do people in other areas do?

 

I was coming round to the fact that I'd have to use a visitor pass to park when I get home and had planned to coincide my arrival with the depature of the builder, so we could share a permit a day, but guess what ... they are not transferrable ??? How mad is that ?

[Fletvictus]

Its just the parking of a car we're talking about here. Some of your comments really show that you are getting things out of perspective. No-one is going to shoot you if you don't get a permit and hence get a parking fine. Even if you don't pay the fine, the worst that can happen is the bailiffs take your car. How does that equate to being shot? Capital punishment was abolished decades ago as I understand it - other than for treason.

 

In your eagerness to pick on part of my post in isolation, presumably in order to win some sort of point in your own view, you conveniently ignore the later parts of my posts that directly deal with the point you made. Just in case this was a genuine oversight on your part, rather than a deliberate deception (logically, both are possible, obviously, and only you can know which is the true situation), I'll say it again. Nothing will happen to me if at any point I knuckle under and accept what has been imposed on me. However, if I try to live as I did before, I will have money and roperty taken from me by force, and if I try to resist having the fruits of my labour taken from me by force, I will be met with greater force. That's the way the real world works, Buble Fan.

 

Dear oh dear, we really are getting wound up aren't we Fletvictus?

 

Wound up. no. Angry, yes.

 

If you lack sufficient empathy or understanding to grasp that people might get angry at having your pet scheme imposed upon them by force, and that anger is compounded when combined with frustration at facing a hugely difficult (if not impossible) task in trying to resist the imposition, then there is little hope for you.

[Fletvictus]

I just thought of a way to try to help ppz and Buble Fan to overcome their apparent empathy deficiency and understand why some people might be angry about this situation.

 

What they need to do is try to imagine they were posting to a thread a year or so ago, trying to explain why they were so unhappy about the problems they were experiencing with daytime parking near their homes and arguing for a parking scheme. Suppose they had called for one and had been told the council would not impose one, and they knew that was because it did not fit in with the council's ideological priorities.

 

Then a couple of commuter parkers came on to the thread and started crowing about the refusal of the council to act, saying they'd personally lobbied the council not to act, and calling them moaning ranters for responding, and telling them they'd just have to accept the situation because there are more commuter parkers than residents.

 

If they were to successfully imagine how they would feel and how they would respond, and recognise that is roughly how the victims of this scheme might feel on here, they might be getting close to that appreciation of others' feelings that is so important in human society.

[Buble Fan]

Yes Fletvictus I am fully aware of how the real world works. It's for the benefit of the majority that various laws etc are implemented. The system will never please everybody all the time but in general most people prefer civilised society to the alternative.

 

BTW it's NOT my pet scheme, - I'm just capable of taking a balanced view and I see that the Council HAS consulted and HAS made changes to the scheme as a result of the consultation. The fact that the Council began the consultation process in the first place shows that there must have been a very significant demand from residents.

 

You on the other hand refuse to accept that because the consultation is not a ballot, the scheme should still proceed. As Planner1 has said, the method of consultation is common across all (or at least most) Local Authorities.

 

And as for appreciating other people's feelings, - take a look at your own postings .... and reflect.

[Buble Fan]

erm, did anyone see my post about having a skip within the permit zone ? Do I need to get special permission to have it in one of the bays, or can I go ahead as before and just order it. Sorry if this seems a stupid Q, but I'm just not sure.

 

I think the Skip Company have to get a Licence from the Council to put a skip on the street and their charge for the hire normally takes account of the licence fee. If you go to http://www.sheffield.gov.uk and do a search on "skip licence" it brings up a link to "policy document for skips on the Highway". This gives details.

 

A skip is not of course a motor vehicle and so is not affected by the parking permit scheme. Hope this helps.

[Fletvictus]

Yes Fletvictus I am fully aware of how the real world works.

 

Then in effect you admit that your ignoring my qualifying comments and seeking to score a cheap point based upon taking one small part of my comments and ignoring the rest (that dealt with precisely the point you sought to ridicule me for missing), was not done through lack of understanding. Presumably it wasn't an oversight, because you haven't apologised. That leaves, logically, only the possibility that you were being deliberately disingenuous. Shame on you.

 

It's for the benefit of the majority that various laws etc are implemented. The system will never please everybody all the time but in general most people prefer civilised society to the alternative.

 

If you are claiming the support of the majority, then the onus is upon you to prove that the majority supports your position - for what that would be worth anyway. A bogus "consultation" that gets more objections than support and then counts non-repliers as supporters, does not pass muster.

 

And in a civilised society, one would expect people to seek ways to solve their problems that don't involve dumping on others. It would appear the advocates of the parking scheme do not abide by this, as they are more than happy to solve their own problems by inflicting the problems - and additional unwanted restrictions on other people's parking in their own roads , on others.

 

BTW it's NOT my pet scheme,

 

You chose to wade in and support it, and criticise objectors using terms such as "ranting" and "moaners". Looks like you are pretty attached to it to me.

 

- I'm just capable of taking a balanced view and I see that the Council HAS consulted and HAS made changes to the scheme as a result of the consultation. The fact that the Council began the consultation process in the first place shows that there must have been a very significant demand from residents.

 

Funny how your "balanced view" conflicts with the majority on my road - as proven by the petition.

 

You on the other hand refuse to accept that because the consultation is not a ballot, the scheme should still proceed. As Planner1 has said, the method of consultation is common across all (or at least most) Local Authorities.

 

I have produced clear evidence that the "consultation" was not effective, for my own road (the only one I have surveyed). If the "consultation" is in respect of changes to other people's quality of life in their own residential side roads, then the council should seek more carefully to assess the views of the people affected, and such schemes should not be imposed against the strongly held feeling of any of those affected merely (supposedly) for the convenience of another group of people.

 

And as for appreciating other people's feelings, - take a look at your own postings .... and reflect.

 

As I said above, if I'm pushed, I push back. If you push me, or support those who push me, you will have to take your chances. As a matter of fact, I've been pretty temperate, albeit robust, in my responses here, by the standards of internet discussion in general.