Parking: thinking logically, are those of us with drives (and who use them) the biggest CFs of all?!

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

I love a good parking thread as much as anybody, but as I was reading the one the other day (by the man with the upset wife), it got me thinking.

As we all know, nobody has any more right to use the space on the public road in front of their own house than any other driver of a taxed and insured vehicle does. As we always affirm with one MN accord, if you want your own guaranteed space, you have to buy or rent a house with a drive.

HOWEVER, by having a drive, that then means that nobody else is legally allowed to park in front of it. Therefore, the upshot is that a potential parking space on the public road effectively ends up being reserved exclusively for your household's sole use (apart from by moving traffic passing across it). Added to which, it's an unwritten rule (never challenged AFAIK) that, if there are no yellow lines or white H-marks there, YOU can park across it as you're only potentially blocking yourself/your own household in.

Ergo, you've bagged yourself the legal right to your own exclusively reserved parking space on the public road, just because of the layout of your property and the fact that the building itself is set back sufficiently from the road - whether you park in that space, use it for access or both; or indeed if you don't have a car or any driving visitors and so it remains permanently empty and reserved for your exclusive (non)-use. If you hadn't had a property sized and laid out in such a way to allow off-road parking (and possibly paid a one-off fee to the council to drop the kerb), there would have been another parking space (maybe two) on the road available for anybody and everybody to use - first come, first served.

Is this fair? Is it those of us with drives who are actually the biggest, most selfish CFs of all - all the while congratulating ourselves for being self-sufficient and considerate by not territorially taking up a space on the road like those without drives?!?!

The dropped kerb for a single drive isn't big enough for more than a very small car to park. So putting in drives increases the amount of parking.

At my parents house the space that isn't really big enough to park a car gives access for up to 6 cars (just one address other houses only have room for 3 or 4). Where I live one dropped kerb is wide enough for two cars to park but gives access to parking for about 12 houses each with two spaces plus extra room for visitors.

What is cheeky is how many people have drives but never use them and clog up the road instead.

I've heard of several local 'initiatives' where the council seem to think that, if they deliberately ban drives on new developments, it will suddenly make people able to go everywhere by walking, bike or public transport

That's exactly their thinking and nope, it never works out. Idiots.

He has the same size drive as us but has an absolutely massive motor home parked on it, meaning he parks his other 3 cars all over the road

Some relatives of mine used to park their caravan permanently on the road to the side of their house. They did live in a cul-de-sac, but their's was the first house, so everybody else had to get past it on the way in to or out of their houses, plus of course it took away two parking spaces in a small close. At least a motorhome is an actual vehicle, which has had to be taxed - a caravan is effectively just a trailer, which has no legal right to be on the public road (parked or moving) unless attached to a vehicle.

*their's

Not sure how that apostrophe crept in....

My road is a nightmare for parking. Every house has a drive with space for at least one car, but there are still loads parked all down one side. When we bought our house there was space for 1 car on the drive plus a front garden, we paved over the garden and created space for 3 cars. We both park on the drive, and my parents fit their car on the drive when they visit or do childcare. So no, we’re not adding to the problem as the 1 space created by not having a dropped curb is compensated by us not parking 2/3 cars on the road.
Most households run 2 or more cars, any taken off the road for parking has to be a good thing? Public transport should be encouraged, as should more eco friendly transport methods. But that is going to take a huge infastructure and society change.

Most households run 2 or more cars
There are 38.7 M cars in the UK and 27.6 M households, so no, most don't.

I can also see problems when houses are turned into flats By developers . So where you had say 2 cars for the entire house you now have 6 if there are 6 flats with no extra parking space, plus all the visitors.

Most households run 2 or more cars - There are 38.7 M cars in the UK and 27.6 M households, so no, most don't.

I think it's more that if a household has 1 car, it's likely to have 2 or more - if it "needs" any at all, then chances are local public transport is poor, so it'll need 2 or 3 depending on how many people live there.

Whereas plenty of homes don't have a car at all (i.e. flats etc in city centres with good public transport).

All the other taxes and duties paid by motorists far outweigh the costs of road maintenance. It's not just road fund licence (car tax), it's fuel duties, VAT on fuel, VAT on car sales, VAT on car repairs, tolls, insurance premium tax.

Insurances is not a tax or duty - it's a (somewhat incomplete) way to ensure not all of the costs of car crime and misadventure are carried by the general public.

There is no good reason to think VAT on car sales, repairs or fuel should be focused solely on roads and drivers. VAT is a general taxation intended to fund all areas of government. VAT on theme parks doesn't go towards making public land available for theme park use, VAT on pets doesn't give you somewhere to store them at government expense. VAT helps fund all sorts of things that make our society run smoothly, it is not intended to underwrite upkeep costs of the item that is purchased.

And the cost of vehicle ownership that isn't funded by vehicle owners is far higher than simply road maintenance. Traffic enforcement, health costs, opportunity costs are also carried by the state or general public and then there's environmental pollution that we currently don't even try to fully contain.

Of course, there are benefits to a sound vehicle network. I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that car ownership is currently subsidized and parking on road is part of that.

Insurances is not a tax or duty

Kazzy said insurance premium TAX, not insurance!

I'm just pointing out that car ownership is currently subsidized

But although households have their own private cars, surely the travel network in general and its direct link to the country's economy is, overall, a national concern? Considering that the majority of people in the country own or at least regularly use a car, it's not really a case of the many subsidising the privileged elite.

It's a bit like the state school system in that sending your children to school is 'subsidised', but it's paid for centrally according to your income/means. The majority of adults have children at one time or another and those who never do still rely in their later years on being served by those children once they've grown up, educated and qualified in all different areas.

I can't believe that, if nobody had private cars, the economy overall would be richer for it.

Having said that, I realise that the mid-term plan is to eradicate (or at least discourage) private car ownership completely and that the system will, before too long, be that you call a driverless car to come and take you somewhere and then it goes on to it's next job after it's dropped you off - basically Uber but without the driver.

Then, we won't need to worry about parking in streets or on drives at all, as they'll all be stored tightly-packed in car warehouses with three inches between them and extracted by robot lifts. We might even see multitudes of households converting their drives into front gardens! For good or bad, it will mean that any sense of part-ownership of the road network will end and we will treat the roads as areas that we use by permission, if that makes sense.

However, as we've said with the electric-car revolution, the structures of charging will change, but taxes and contributions will still be very much payable in one way or another. For example, although with Uber, a large part of the price you pay goes towards the driver earning their livelihood, I doubt that the price for using a driverless taxi will be any cheaper.

25% of the population don't own a car and yes it is a privilege to won a car and hold a driving licence - just because its the majority doesn't mean that its right that there is shortfall of over £9 billion to fund the system. Perhaps if the tax was in proportion to the cost of the roads then people would use the car more sparingly and campaign to have effective other transport

Considering that the majority of people in the country own or at least regularly use a car, it's not really a case of the many subsidising the privileged elite.

No. But it is a matter of those without cars subsidising those with cars. And those who park on the street being subsidised to a greater extent than those who don't.

I'm not claiming the state shouldn't be concerned with the road network. far from it. It's a critical part of our economy and needs sound investment. But, in general, especially in cities where parking is hardest, our economy would be as better off with more public transport use and less private car use. Private car ownership is not a public good (unlike education) and the economic arguments for subsidizing it for individuals do not hold the way economic arguments for subsidizing education so.

25% of the population don't own a car and yes it is a privilege to won a car and hold a driving licence - just because its the majority doesn't mean that its right that there is shortfall of over £9 billion to fund the system. Perhaps if the tax was in proportion to the cost of the roads then people would use the car more sparingly and campaign to have effective other transport

I've not seen any figures - how does the £9bn break down? Surely it can't be pinpointed that that level of accuracy as to how much of the road system costs are only incurred by private vehicles? I'd have thought that a very disproportionate large amount of road (and bridge) repairs would result from the many massive heavy lorries that every single one of us depend on to live the lives we do, whether we personally drive or not.

No. But it is a matter of those without cars subsidising those with cars. And those who park on the street being subsidised to a greater extent than those who don't.

Ignoring the selfish people who have permanently empty perfectly usable drives but still park on the road, I'd have thought that those parking on the road are less likely to have bigger, more expensive houses of the kind that tend to come with drives. Therefore, that means we have a system of the better-off subsidising the less well-off, which is basically how our society is (theoretically) intended to work in many ways anyway, isn't it - NHS, state education, income tax based on earnings, higher council tax for more expensive houses?

Obviously, this isn't so clearly the case for central London and other big cities, but residents there are disproportionately less likely to own cars anyway. Nobody would expect only 25% of Londoners but as many as 25% of people in the Highlands not to own cars, would they?

Private car ownership is not a public good (unlike education) and the economic arguments for subsidizing it for individuals do not hold the way economic arguments for subsidizing education so.

Also, I know that it isn't the case for the majority of car users, but to a huge amount of disabled people, having a private car isn't just a handy preference but rather their only practical means of being able to travel anywhere at all.

Street my parents live on the cars are parked on the road and it’s so densely packed that a perfectly normal two way road becomes unusable at times, allowing only one car to travel very carefully down the road and hope you don’t encounter a car coming from the opposite direction. Then there’s a stand off and the person who loses their nerve first has to reverse back up the road!

So no I don’t think getting rid of drives would solve parking problems.

Therefore, that means we have a system of the better-off subsidising the less well-off, NHS, state education, income tax based on earnings, higher council tax for more expensive houses.

The people doing the most subsidising are those without any car at all - who are normally the less well off. If there is no public argument for greater car ownership, underwriting some of the cost is poor policy - the unintended consequence is that more people drive cars than otherwise would to the detriment of the country as a whole. The argument that we should redistribute wealth is one I'd support, but that redistributed wealth should either go on things that are a public good or give people free choice (or, at least, freer) on what to spend it on, not only be available to subsidise driving.

Also, I know that it isn't the case for the majority of car users, but to a huge amount of disabled people, having a private car isn't just a handy preference but rather their only practical means of being able to travel anywhere at all.

Well, that could be a great group to deliberately subsidise. Subsidising every car owner by allowing them all to park on the street for free means that it is harder for disabled people to access that subsidy in a useful way.

I've not seen any figures - how does the £9bn break down?

Well the links are on the thread, indeed they are old and fuel tax frozen for 8 years meaning it’s under what the real figures would be

I can't believe that, if nobody had private cars, the economy overall would be richer for it

Outside of big conurbations public transport is so shite that a lot of people would have to get new jobs if car ownership became unaffordable. And people in rural areas probably wouldn't be able to get to work at all.

To get to any town other than the one I live in would require two buses or bus/train and a journey I can do by road in 40 minutes for a cost of approx £4 return in fuel would require me to allow at least 90 minutes and cost £15. (And as our first bus isn't till after 8am and the last one leaves the station at 5.30pm, I wouldn't even be able to use the bus if I was full-time!)

Cheap, comprehensive and efficient public transport is the key to reducing car use imo and the only of achieving that is by massive public subsidy.

Who said the economy would be richer if nobody owned private cars? I was talking about stopping subsidising car ownership, not banning it.

If we stopped subsidies on road etc many people wouldn’t be able to afford private car ownership and it would become only for the rich

Many, not all but many disabled use bicycles as a rolling walker rather than cars, as they are easier to manoeuvre. That’s what needs to be subsidised
www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jan/02/cambridge-disabled-people-cycling-rolling-walking-stick
Where cycling infrastructure is in place it’s used for mobility rather than a car

I have a double garage used by two cars. The entry space would only be enough for one car. And due to the position it would not be a safe space to allow a car to be parked (think just around a bend).

I have a driveway but I have double yellow lines in front of my house. So I can feel doubly virtuous that I'm not taking up a space on the street, but I'm not preventing anyone else parking on the street either!

I live by a school in a road there is limited parking. Had a double drive built at great expense, live by a junction, so have double yellow lines coving half of it and a white H bar covering the rest.
Repeatedly get people parking across it and receive abuse for wanting to get on and off my driveway! 🤷‍♀️
Yellow lines, H-bars and Junctions mean shit, people are just lazy cunts!!