Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Parking Meter Bangs : how to soive the probelm?

3
 
On 24 Nov 2011 at 11:52am Nigel Jones wrote:
I see Lewes fireworks fun is making the national news again today. ( See for example BBC and Daily Mail websites) with Councils and Police spokesmen complaining that 14 parking meters have been destroyed or damaged by firework explosions since September - and warning of the danger to life and limb not to mention the cost .
Repairing the damage so far apparently costs £20,000.
I have a solution: Why not build a multi-storey car park in an obvious place : on the existing large car park at the bottom of North Street. The area is pretty ugly already and so it would not deface a beauty spot, and it would solve our parking problems at a stroke, re-employ the blue meanies as attendants rather than amateur Gestapo snitches and save a whole lot of aggro all round.
If they can build a shiny new and pretty useless Police station in the same area I am sure that funds can be found for an NCB even in these tough times - it would bring much needed business into the town too. Has this idea ever been suggested?
2
 
On 24 Nov 2011 at 12:49pm Coop wrote:
NO mate. Parking has never been mentioned on this forum. Nor has politics
1
 
On 24 Nov 2011 at 2:18pm use local wrote:
many times but it's too sensible to actually happen
4
11
On 24 Nov 2011 at 3:10pm Alfresco wrote:
Why not just ban fireworks and shut down the Lewes trouble making celebrations.
These childish antics are past their sell by date.
7
 
On 24 Nov 2011 at 3:43pm bastian wrote:
no one is going to shop the darlings who blow up parking meters because frankly most adults think it highly amusing, after all, it's only a childish prank, better than a cats bum.
like the idea of a multi storey carpark on that site...we will not hold our breath for it to happen.
 
 
On 24 Nov 2011 at 4:26pm Clifford wrote:
Why not build an underground car park on the Phoenix site?
 
 
On 24 Nov 2011 at 4:29pm bastian wrote:
er..flood..
actually it could prevent flooding if it was used as a sump
has anyone ever thought of that?
4
 
On 24 Nov 2011 at 7:12pm KENDO CASTER wrote:
If anyone wants some blue Rookies, just ask, ive got some left over from the 5th.
Put them to good use.
 
 
On 24 Nov 2011 at 7:52pm Clifford wrote:
bastian - I was being ironic.
 
 
On 24 Nov 2011 at 11:59pm Boom wrote:
How many you got Kendo?
3
 
On 25 Nov 2011 at 12:12am Bonfire Boye wrote:
80-odd blue-uns spare here too...
 
3
On 25 Nov 2011 at 1:07am Dave wrote:
Best assigned to the bin they are bad news and should not be used in the street
1
 
On 25 Nov 2011 at 2:13am Plod's Dad wrote:
How many Lewes people would shop the meter bangers, even if they knew who they were? Not many, I should think. I doubt £500 will do it. People have told ESCC what they think of the parking scheme, but just been ignored.
The multi-storey is a good idea Nigel. Ridiculous to see so much central Lewes land used as one-level car parks, some of them still as planned by the Luftwaffe.
 
 
On 25 Nov 2011 at 9:19am TUNNEL PIRATE wrote:
YARGH!
Dig for freedom!!
1
 
On 25 Nov 2011 at 10:46am A parking tax payer wrote:
I think most people are agreed that the CPZ is nothing to do with stopping congestion. There was never a problem beforehand and I fully support fining people who park on yellow lines/double park. Therefore, since it is not to stop congestion it can only be a tax imposed by the council. Unfortunately it is an incredibly inefficient tax, probably the most inefficient tax devised by humanity. To collect it we have to pay for these machines, numerous people to walk the streets looking very bored, innumerable appeals and paperwork. To add to this it encourages people to move their cars when they don't want to. If you want an example of an efficient tax look at duty on petrol - it costs practically nothing to collect. I don't know how much money is actually available to spend after the costs - anyone know? - but I'll bet it would be the equivalent of about 0.1p on a litre of petrol. No ESCC, you should cut the communities (and your) losses on this and get rid of the scheme. There might be a decent bit of scrap metal freed up as well.
1
 
On 25 Nov 2011 at 1:38pm Merlin Milner wrote:
It might have been helpful if ESCC had insured the meters when they started the scheme. LDC used to under the old scheme when the the Police ran (sic) the on-street and LDC the car parks. Now we end up paying for the damage when this could have been lessened with a bit of forethought by ESCC.
FYI Tunbridge Wells insure their meters with a £200 excess.
 
 
On 25 Nov 2011 at 2:19pm ADT wrote:
A Parking Tax Payer - Quite right, agree totally.
1
 
On 25 Nov 2011 at 3:21pm Decent Citizen wrote:
Take the meters away. Allow people to buy upfront from outlets.Am I right in thinking Brighton does something like that?One can buy in advance bus tickets,why not parking?Oh well,just a thought.
2
 
On 25 Nov 2011 at 10:08pm The Super K wrote:
Blame fireworks and ban them!!!!
The pics in the sun newspaper didnt show any blast looked more like it had been pushed over hit by a vehicle..... but any excuse for the authorities to have a pop at the fireworks and bonfire night..... Pathetic!!!!
 
 
On 25 Nov 2011 at 10:14pm Cliffe Hanger wrote:
@Merlin Milner. Not sure how insuring the meters would help. The premium per meter would equal the expected loss across all the meters divided by the number of meters, plus a bit more so that the insurance company makes a profit.
If you own one meter, then insuring against its destruction makes sense. If you own many meters, then it does not,
 
 
On 26 Nov 2011 at 3:14am Fairmeadow wrote:
I don't think any prudent insurance company would agree to insure ESCC's Lewes meters, given the "popularity" of the scheme with those it persecutes. At any price.
1
 
On 26 Nov 2011 at 10:57am Southover Queen wrote:
I realise this is a deeply unpopular POV, but I don't mind the res park scheme. I think there would be a huge problem with commuters parking in town if there were no restrictions, and no resident would dare move their car ever again because they'd never be able to find a space - that's how it is in parts of London where they've resisted parking controls. The blunt truth is that we have far more cars than our little streets can accommodate and even more people wanting to park their cars in our streets if they could.

The lesson the M25 taught us is that motorists want to use their cars and the easier/cheaper you make it for them to do that the more they'll use them. Similarly if you don't prioritise parking in a small town like ours people will exploit it and those of us who need to park near to our homes will suffer. I just don't know what the alternative is: I am sure it isn't suspending all restrictions though.
 
 
On 27 Nov 2011 at 2:21am Dave wrote:
I dont agree with what you say but I am really glad to read a view that supports the parking scheme as I dont think I have ever seen one before and it has always baffled me that we have this incredibly unpopular parking scheme.
Did you vote for it Southover Queeen?
 
 
On 27 Nov 2011 at 10:43am Southover Queen wrote:
No I didn't, Dave. And I'm not necessarily supporting the status quo either, but I genuinely don't know what the alternative is. There has to be some way of controlling who parks where, otherwise there will be chaos, and if you have controlled parking then you need people to police it.

Everyone on here rants on about the parking scheme, but no-one comes up with any workable alternatives. I'd just like to hear what those might be - with the caveat that building multi-storey car parks are clearly not a viable option!
 
 
On 27 Nov 2011 at 11:44pm Driver wrote:
There's surely a number of ways of reducing the over-bearing money-grabbing inflexibility of he current scheme. For instance, many London boroughs overcome the problem of all-day commuters or football fans jamming-up parking areas by controlling just one hour a day; that is far easier and cheaper to control, and hence is also far far cheaper to own a permit for. This sort of scheme could be staggered around the town to provide a full-time job for one or two wardens, who could take care of the whole scheme at very low cost. Just for starters, like...
 
 
On 28 Nov 2011 at 8:57am Southover Queen wrote:
Good idea Driver. Outside the main pressure points in town I can see exactly how that would work.
 
 
On 28 Nov 2011 at 3:19pm Driver wrote:
Yes, it could be an excellent scheme.
The public only have to learn / remember to check which hour is controlled; many personal visitors and shoppers are taken completely out of the control mechanism; the number of 'blue meanies' is drastically reduced, and the overall costs involved will be massively reduced.
All perfectly good reasons why ESCC will never adopt it...
 
 
On 28 Nov 2011 at 5:08pm Merlin Milner wrote:
At the beginning of the scheme the expected loss for meter vandalism (per meter) would have been similar to that LDC paid for their insurance. Obviously now it is too late. Many other councils insure meters, such as Tunbridge Wells, because it is worth it.
 
 
On 28 Nov 2011 at 11:40pm Webbo wrote:
Why didn't LDC insure them Merlin?


8 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

The Gardeners Arms Lewes 115:132
The Gardeners Arms Lewes

QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
I like the walk along the ouse to Hamsey church, the view from the top of the Castle, Pells pool, the antique shops and boot fair, the lion in the window of the 15c bookshop, keere street
BrixtonBelle