Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Traffic Wardens
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 21 2009, 04:13 PM
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=10604
Why won't the council admit they have made a mistake instead of desperately trying to justify the expense of so many wardens?
We have gone from the sublime (no wardens at all and a free for all) to the ridiculous (wardens walking round in packs and one round every corner).
Can I suggest that say 10 Wardens could do the job just as well as 20 in a small town like Newbury?
Posted by: GMR Jul 21 2009, 06:06 PM
Why won't the council admit they have made a mistake instead of desperately trying to justify the expense of so many wardens?
We have gone from the sublime (no wardens at all and a free for all) to the ridiculous (wardens walking round in packs and one round every corner).
Can I suggest that say 10 Wardens could do the job just as well as 20 in a small town like Newbury?
The council need the money.
Posted by: Iommi Jul 21 2009, 07:42 PM
It's disgrace... The Council want to fine people!!!
The Councillor in charge of the scheme, David Betts (Con, Purley) said, “The number of tickets has increased monthly, and I'm looking to increase it further with each passing month.”
...that shows the council in good light and what a welcome visitors to Newbury will receive!!!
Posted by: GMR Jul 21 2009, 07:56 PM
The Councillor in charge of the scheme, David Betts (Con, Purley) said, “The number of tickets has increased monthly, and I'm looking to increase it further with each passing month.”
...that shows the council in good light and what a welcome visitors to Newbury will receive!!!
Wasn't that the whole point? To make money. When they first started the council were worried that they weren't making any money.
Posted by: Iommi Jul 21 2009, 08:39 PM
Of course, but the ethical point is to make money out of parking charges and the traffic wardens are there to make sure people don't cheat, but for a councillor to spout that he wishes to make money out of fining people is sick and mean!
West Berkshire Council are sick.
Posted by: GMR Jul 21 2009, 08:45 PM
West Berkshire Council are sick.
You won't get any arguments from me.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 21 2009, 09:54 PM
Or me!
Posted by: Bloggo Jul 22 2009, 08:01 AM
I've got a good idea that the Council bosses might want to consider as it will save them (us) money.
As a great many of the Council staff "work from home" and will surely not actually spend 7 hours a day doing council work which we are paying them for perhaps they can be asked to carry out the role of traffic warden.
After all how many of them do you see walking around Newbury during the day.
That way they can save the wages of the traffic wardens and ensure that the Council tax payers of Newbury are getting value for money.
Posted by: Andrea Jul 22 2009, 08:01 AM
It's a disgrace. I couldn't believe the Councillor said that! I remember when a member of the forum (can't remember who, sorry!) got two tickets outside their own house because their parking pass had run out the day before and they didn't have a chance to renew it yet.
The council need to cut down the number of parking wardens to level out the costs. And not ticket people just to make quotas, they need to ticket geniune offenders and give warnings to innocent people who really didn't know. And the fact that they made that person move their car when they were just trying to pick up a table is ridiculous! I thought Newbury was trying to help businesses! The council are using OUR money in the first place for the traffic wardens, now they're trying to get us to pay for them again with fines.
I've got an idea, why doesn't the council let west berkshire residents make the decisions for a month, see how that goes. 
Posted by: JeffG Jul 22 2009, 09:12 AM
Remind me - when is the Council next up for re-election?
Posted by: GMR Jul 22 2009, 09:16 AM
Yes, and I am sure the new lot will get rid of the traffic wardens; I don't think
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 22 2009, 09:30 AM
If the Liberal Democrats have an ounce of sense they will make the reduction of the number of traffic wardens to a level where they are not a burden on the over taxed members of West Berkshire an election pledge.
They will then walk the election. I know literally scores of lifelong tory voters that wil NEVER vote for this incompetent and morally bankrupt council again.
Posted by: GMR Jul 22 2009, 09:38 AM
They will then walk the election. I know literally scores of lifelong tory voters that wil NEVER vote for this incompetent and morally bankrupt council again.
Since when has any politician had sense? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Posted by: dannyboy Jul 22 2009, 12:53 PM
I can't see what the fuss is about - park legally & buy a ticket when required & you won't get a parking ticket.
I was parked outside the Botan yesterday. You have half an hour there. When I got back after 20 mins, a car which had been there when I arrived was getting a ticket. Warden said it had been there 3 hours.
Posted by: GMR Jul 22 2009, 01:00 PM
I was parked outside the Botan yesterday. You have half an hour there. When I got back after 20 mins, a car which had been there when I arrived was getting a ticket. Warden said it had been there 3 hours.
I think it is about their objective and the moral aspect of it. The council’s objective wasn’t to stop bad parking but to make money. The first couple of weeks they didn’t make any money and were very annoyed/ upset; i.e. nobody was breaking the law. As I see it they should have been delighted that their traffic warden weren’t doing anything as it meant that the law was being observed. But, no, they weren’t happy as they wanted to make money. They’ve got their foot in both camps; one hoping that people will break the law and the other hoping that when they do break the law they are caught. Which means money in council pockets. It is unethical.
Posted by: Iommi Jul 22 2009, 01:36 PM
It is the attitude that I resent, install new parking restrictions and hope to fine more people, it is mean spirited and I resent the tone in his quote. It does nothing to make Newbury more attractive in my view. I feel what made Newbury a nice 'quiet' place to live is being eroded by this Tory administration and the previous Lib Dem one.
I have voted both and both are the same, indeed, I'd say the Lib Dems are even more rubbish than this rubbish.
Posted by: GMR Jul 22 2009, 03:09 PM
So... which rubbish will you be voting for next time around?
Posted by: dannyboy Jul 22 2009, 04:59 PM
so err, you are saying that suddenly lots of people are breaking the law & parking illegally? If someone parked in front of one of the cycle racks, preventing its use, wouldn't you want the driver ticketed?
Posted by: Iommi Jul 22 2009, 05:18 PM
I don't think you read GMR's post properly as he doesn't seem to say that at all.
The Councillor, in my view, has just shown his true colours. He (they) are just simple 'scalpers'.
Posted by: GMR Jul 22 2009, 06:15 PM
Of course not. The point I was trying to make was about their objectives? Was it to make money or stop illegal parking? When it was reported they were losing money on the project (not catching a lot of illegal parking’s) they were upset. To me they should have been delighted that they had achieved their objective to rid our town of illegal parkers/ people breaking the law (even if it meant that their traffic wardens were doing bugger all). But, no, their objective in creating so many traffic wardens was to make money out of their adventure, not to stop a crime. That was/ is immoral. Putting it another way; they were delighted people were breaking the law because it meant they were making money.
It is all about ones objectives; theirs were immoral.
Posted by: GMR Jul 22 2009, 06:15 PM
The Councillor, in my view, has just shown his true colours. He (they) are just simple 'scalpers'.
Exactly.
Posted by: hamster Jul 22 2009, 07:25 PM
"Mr Betts also admitted that one in seven tickets issued by the parking wardens had been overturned on appeal. Since they started patrols, 2697 fines have been issued, but 397 of them had been cancelled after drivers complained about the fines."
And how much did this cost in admin and support staff - more than the original tickets no doubt?
Posted by: GMR Jul 22 2009, 07:45 PM
And how much did this cost in admin and support staff - more than the original tickets no doubt?
I believe - but I am not 100% sure - that traffic wardens are on a bonus. That means, they, themselves, are praying for crimes to be committed so that they can earn there money.
Posted by: Newbury Expat Jul 23 2009, 12:06 AM
Never been a particular fan of traffic wardens for the reasons posted. It's not that I am against parking enforcement (I'm all for it when some scally parks his GTi in a disabled space) but the 'intent' of flooding the streets with the Yellow Peril is not right.
It's an earner for the council.
Similar to me as speed cameras. It's claimed to be there for safetly and maybe that was the original intent, but more and more it's a source of revenue so the intent has shifted from safety to revenue. Just my take - maybe should leave the cameras issue to the rants section 
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 23 2009, 08:51 AM
They wanted to make money but have misjudged the number of illegally parked cars so have been proven incorrect in their estimations. In employment law I believe that all employees are on probation for 6 months and can be dismissed at any time up until the end of that 6 months. As this scheme has been mis-managed may I suggest that the Council accept this and reduce the number of Wardens (if it is not too late already) from say 20 to 10 so that the incumbent members (or stakeholders) of West Berkshire Deistrict Council get value for money and a service they deserve.
****Incumbent members (or stakeholders) = You, me and Average Joe that pay their council tax. I Just thought I'd put it in a language that the counciller cretins understand.
Posted by: Johngreybeard Jul 23 2009, 09:34 AM
I have just joined so that I can take part in this debate. The basic problem is that people don't read the signs when they park but just assume that they can park anywhere they like irrespective of local residents or rules (shades of the 'bollards' issue!). This is more typical of how society is now rather than the fault of the council. Previously when the police managed the parking controls there was only one traffic warden for the town and basically no enforcement! Perhaps 20 wardens will prove too many but if they do make people more aware then I will suppport the scheme. I have a controlled bay outside my house and am always amazed how many 'parkers' look shocked when I point out the signs and the restrictions before hurriedly moving elsewhere.
Posted by: GMR Jul 23 2009, 09:55 AM
It's an earner for the council.
Similar to me as speed cameras. It's claimed to be there for safetly and maybe that was the original intent, but more and more it's a source of revenue so the intent has shifted from safety to revenue. Just my take - maybe should leave the cameras issue to the rants section
That is another one; speed camera’s. Their main objective is to make money first and then catch speeders. But to make money they must hope that people break the law. It is morally wrong.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 23 2009, 10:04 AM
I think you will find that you are in the 5% of people that support the scheme. I thought we lived ina democracy. Why can't local people have a say on things that affect their every day lives? We live in a digital age. West Berkshire Council is despised by the majority of hard working normal people. Viva La Revolution.
Posted by: Johngreybeard Jul 23 2009, 10:16 AM
Posted by: Johngreybeard Jul 23 2009, 10:21 AM
Perhaps I am but you haven't contradicted my point that people DO NOT read the signage. You talk about living in a Democracy well I have been in comtact, since the original scheme began, with my local ward member about my views - have you? Local people can make a difference but is a forum the right place!
Posted by: Andrea Jul 23 2009, 11:06 AM
I do agree with you, John, although our main point for complaining is because of what David Betts said. We are angry because they are planning to ticket more people in the coming months to even out the costs. His exact words were “The number of tickets has increased monthly, and I'm looking to increase it further with each passing month.”
I for one support parking enforcement but not like this. I refuse to support anything where they're opening planning on increasing the amount of tickets given.
I understand your point of view... I would hate to live somewhere near town where people would park to go shopping or to go to work.
Posted by: Johngreybeard Jul 23 2009, 11:08 AM
I for one support parking enforcement but not like this. I refuse to support anything where they're opening planning on increasing the amount of tickets given.
I understand your point of view... I would hate to live somewhere near town where people would park to go shopping or to go to work.
Posted by: Johngreybeard Jul 23 2009, 11:13 AM
I take your point but when you consider the amount of money that, in my opinion, is being wasted on trying to turn Newbury into another Reading or Basingstoke, which is the better use of our money! Did no one explain to the Council 'bigwigs' that the area around Parkway has a high watertable and that dewatering systems are notoriously poor when proposing an UNDERGROUND car park?
Posted by: Andrea Jul 23 2009, 11:15 AM
I don't dispute the fact that West Berkshire Council are wasting money in other areas as well. But the fact is we're complaining about them wasting money with the parking enforcement. We shouldn't just turn a blind eye to it.
It's like saying "Oh look, he's flushing money down the toilet, let's ignore him though and concentrate on that person over there who's burning money"
Posted by: GMR Jul 23 2009, 11:24 AM
If not forums like this where else? Sadly there is nowhere in Newbury to voice your opinions. I've been to the council forums at WBC and they are controlled and you can't really have your say. And those places are mainly dominated by councillors and such. Forums are the future and the only way an individual can voice their concerns. Yes, you could write to the papers but they can only take so many letters and you really can't have a proper debate as you do here.
There are other local forums like Newburynutters that allow you to have your say, but that is it.
Posted by: GMR Jul 23 2009, 11:25 AM
Duplicated post 
Posted by: alexh Jul 23 2009, 12:39 PM
The difficulties in parking now have put me off shopping in Newbury, I shop on the retail park or out of town. I mean really what does Newbury have that I cant get on the retail park or beyond. I think there are more and more people who are just put off by the hassle of roadworks, traffic and parking.
Posted by: GMR Jul 23 2009, 01:45 PM
I think that is another good point; traffic wardens, not enough places to park, attitudes etc will push people away from Newbury and on to other more consumer friendly places. In the end Newbury town centre will miss out.
Posted by: Andrea Jul 23 2009, 01:51 PM
I'm with you there. The only time I go into town is when I go in when on my lunch and I can walk in. Even then it's a rare occurance. I don't like having to dodge road works, buses, and people asking for surveys/money.
The only time I don't go to the retail park is when it's the weekend and it takes longer to park/leave then it does to do your actual shopping... I just stay at home on those days
Posted by: Strafin Jul 23 2009, 03:00 PM
If you pay road tax you should be able to park on the public road, unless there are yellow lines. That's how easy it could and should be in my opinion.
Posted by: JeffG Jul 23 2009, 03:01 PM
JohnGB - just a small point, but when you reply to a post, it's best to add your comments in the same reply (below the [/quote] line), then you don't get double posts.
Posted by: Johngreybeard Jul 23 2009, 03:30 PM
Posted by: GMR Jul 23 2009, 03:32 PM
Is this a new forum sport.... just to quote the previous poster and nothing else
Posted by: Johngreybeard Jul 23 2009, 03:37 PM
Thanks I will remember that in future.
Posted by: Andrea Jul 23 2009, 03:39 PM
I disagree. I feel bad for people who live in streets within walking distance into town. people park there all the time which makes it impossible for people who actually live there to park in front of their own house. Perhaps you've never lived in an area where people would park in front of your house so they can go somewhere else? I used to live on a street where there was a church at the end. Sundays were a nightmare. My dad would leave for 10 minutes to go get the paper, when he got back, there would be no where to park. It's an inconvenience and I'm glad I didn't have to deal with it on a daily basis as I'm sure John has to.
I find it extremely rude for people to park in front of other people's homes.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 23 2009, 03:46 PM
I don't see parking outside your house as a right, and I think it's outrageous that you would expect to. If it's that important then live somewhere with a driveway. If you lived that close to the town that it only took ten minutes to go get a paper why didn't your dad just walk there? Or go before church?
Posted by: Andrea Jul 23 2009, 03:59 PM
The closest place to get the paper would have taken 20-30 minutes to walk there and 20-30 minutes to walk back, that's fine for some people but when you're going to get the paper while breakfast is being made, you dont' want to take an hour. And as church people began arriving at 6:30, I think the last thing you want to do on a sunday is wake up early just so you can park in front of your house when you get back from getting the paper.
You're views are selfish. My boyfriend and I have been looking for a house to buy for the last 6 months and one of our requirements is having a drive. We're having a lot of difficulty finding the right house as everything in our budget either doesn't have a drive or needs so much repair work that we can't afford it in the end. It's not as simple as you make it out!
how about mums who go out for their shopping in their car with their child and return to find there's no where to park in front of her own home and are forced to park far away from their home? They'd have to make several trips to and from their house with their child to get all the shopping in.
How about the elderly? Many of them drive because walking long distances is difficult.
Stop thinking about what's convenient for you and think about who you may be inconveniencing.
Posted by: RogerC Jul 23 2009, 04:27 PM
I simply do not understand why the Council are so determined to drive people away from the town - surely the response to free parking on Thursdays has shown how trade has been buoyed up. Instead of announcing yet more draconian ticket chasing, it would be better to scrap the scheme entirely (saving the hard-pressed local tax-payer money) and concentrate on making the town centre a more attractive place to shop without the constant thought of parking fines. Imagine, too, better footfall will encourage take up of retail units in the much vaunted new developments.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 23 2009, 04:31 PM
I don't know where to start. If you want a drive, buy a house with one, if you can't find the ideal house for your budget either spend more money, accept that you'll have to do some work on it, or re assess your other requirements. Secondly, people arriving for church so much so that they're blocking the road at 6:30 am? Sorry frankly I don't believe you. Your point about mothers and their children is kind of valid, but there are ways around it. You said that to park outside someones house is selfish and inconvenient, but unless you solely use public car parks that is impossible so massivley inconvenient for everybody. I think you need to realise that just because you want a permanent space outside your house doesn't mean you should automatically get one, where did you get such a sense of entitlement? The roads are for everybody, they are supplied by the government to be shared and everyone on them (so long as they are legal) have paid to use them.
Posted by: dannyboy Jul 23 2009, 04:35 PM
Because parking anarchy would be the result. Residents close to the town centre want to be abe to park ouside their own houses. Not too much to ask is it? As most of the towns car parks are now pay on exit, the only people being ticketed are those trying to avoid paying to park, those who park illegally & where they should not.
Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jul 23 2009, 05:09 PM
Seems to work in Gt Bedwyn - not a yellow line to be seen, never mind a warden. Perhaps we should all move there
Posted by: Iommi Jul 23 2009, 06:34 PM
While I agree, we all would like to park outside or near to our house, it isn't a right. One doesn't own the land in front of their house. In any case, this is besides the point of the thread; provided one is parked legally, there is nothing a traffic warden can legitimately do to prevent someone parking in front of someone else's house.
If parking near to one's house is important then sadly, one will have to spend more money for it buy buying one with a drive (dropped kerb) or away from the town. I see complaining about the lack of parking in a town house akin to moving to the countryside and complaining about the smell. It goes with the territory.
I sympathise with town dwellers, but at the end of the day, people have a legitimate right to use a public right of way. I will always attempt to avoid parking in front of someone's house, but sometimes it is unavoidable.
Posted by: GMR Jul 23 2009, 06:37 PM
It works there because nobody lives there
Posted by: GMR Jul 23 2009, 06:38 PM
It works there because nobody lives there
Posted by: Iommi Jul 23 2009, 06:39 PM
Yes, we heard you the first time!
Posted by: GMR Jul 23 2009, 07:14 PM
The saying goes; if it is worth saying then it is worth repeating. Granted, I don't think they had what I said in mind when they created that little ditty
Posted by: Strafin Jul 23 2009, 07:20 PM
Slightly off the topic but still related to illegal parking....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201637/Uniformed-police-officer-filmed-using-bolt-cutters-bid-remove-parking-clamp.html
Posted by: GMR Jul 23 2009, 07:45 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201637/Uniformed-police-officer-filmed-using-bolt-cutters-bid-remove-parking-clamp.html
Interesting; those clampers are a public nuisance. Obviously the officer was going to a crime therefore shouldn't have been clamped.
Those clampers are worse than traffic wardens.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 23 2009, 08:34 PM
Those clampers are worse than traffic wardens.
I agree that clampers are scumbags, but how would they know it was a police car? It was unmarked. And even so, they still shouldn't park illegally, unless it's an emergency.
Posted by: user23 Jul 23 2009, 08:42 PM
I feel sorry for you, perhaps this an Internet forum is not the right place for you if you are this intolerant?
Posted by: GMR Jul 23 2009, 08:45 PM
I don't disagree with you that maybe the police officer was in the wrong - to a point. However, I don't like the work ethos of those clamper people and also what the charge, which is daylight robbery.
Posted by: Andrea Jul 24 2009, 07:43 AM
I never said they blocked the road at 6:30. Go back and read my post and actually pay attention. I said they BEGAN arriving at 6:30... by 8am our road would be blocked. And as my parents house was only 4 houses down from the church, the road outside my parents home would be blocked by 7:00-7:30. Who wants to get up before 8am on a Sunday, specially my father who worked monday-saturday (and even sometimes Sunday) running his own business.
I do understand that the roads are for everyone's use, but as a CONSIDERATE road user, I find it rude to park in front of other peoples homes to go into town to shop or go to work. I would only do that as a last resort (ie. No parking available in the car park - which has never happened to me).
Don't put words into my mouth. I never said it was illegal to park there (although in many roads around Newbury now, it is) or that it was everyone's right to park in front of their own home, I just said that it was rude to do so. I only asked that you think about the people you may be inconveniencing.
You make it out like it's so easy, it really isn't. We're first time buyers and can't just 'spend more money'. We have a very tight budget and we're trying our hardest to find the perfect house to start with. For our budget we can really only afford a small house closer in to town, if we had the choice (money) then we would live in the country side where a drive really isn't that important. I don't know how old you are or if you remember when you purchased your first home, but it's stressful and extremely difficult when you have a budget.
Posted by: Simon Jul 24 2009, 07:58 AM
I agree with Andrea here.
If you live out of town on an estate then, yeah parking in front of someones house is fair game as most people will have their own drive anyway. If you live near town, then its likely you wont have a drive to park your car and it is unfair for people to even park in the street if all they are doing is going into town. Those people doing that should use the car parks like everyone else.
Strafin, your comment about paying road tax should entitle you to park where you want it just plain stupid, as that would mean that we would be able to park in public carparks for free too or park up at the side of the road actually in town outside the shops i wanted to use.
We pay road tax to maintain the roads WE use, it doesnt mean we own them.
People should have a right to park outside their house in my opinion
Posted by: Bloggo Jul 24 2009, 08:08 AM
If you live out of town on an estate then, yeah parking in front of someones house is fair game as most people will have their own drive anyway. If you live near town, then its likely you wont have a drive to park your car and it is unfair for people to even park in the street if all they are doing is going into town. Those people doing that should use the car parks like everyone else.
Strafin, your comment about paying road tax should entitle you to park where you want it just plain stupid, as that would mean that we would be able to park in public carparks for free too or park up at the side of the road actually in town outside the shops i wanted to use.
We pay road tax to maintain the roads WE use, it doesnt mean we own them.
People should have a right to park outside their house in my opinion
Bit of a contradiction here with your last two lines.
This is simple, you own the house not the road or the pavement in front of it and although it would be nice to leave the space vacant for the home owner to use it isn't always possible and the home owner should not expect it any differently.
There are resident parking schemes which allow residents to have priority over other drivers providing they pay. This seems to work.
Posted by: Simon Jul 24 2009, 08:14 AM
This is simple, you own the house not the road or the pavement in front of it and although it would be nice to leave the space vacant for the home owner to use it isn't always possible and the home owner should not expect it any differently.
There are resident parking schemes which allow residents to have priority over other drivers providing they pay. This seems to work.
Thats what i was trying to get at Bloggo, i didnt mean to park right outside their house but at least in the same street. I agree with the reseidents schemes, I was dis-agreeing with people parking in those streets as a way of free parking to shop in town.
Posted by: Bloggo Jul 24 2009, 08:25 AM
I think people would rather find a free parking space over one you have to pay for.
Also people will park where it is convenient to do so whether or not they have to pay.
Human nature!!!!
Posted by: Andrea Jul 24 2009, 08:32 AM
Also people will park where it is convenient to do so whether or not they have to pay.
Human nature!!!!
Do you know how much it is to pay for a space? Just curious
I disagree with your second point though, people would rather not pay for parking then pay the ridiculous parking fees that Newbury has. I used to work with someone who would park a 10 minute walk away from his work (in a residential street - for free) rather then using the car park right beside the building. I can't quite remember, but I think it costs £9 to park for the entire day! The council need to bring that cost down... it's causing more problems then it is solving any!
Posted by: Bloggo Jul 24 2009, 08:38 AM
I disagree with your second point though, people would rather not pay for parking then pay the ridiculous parking fees that Newbury has. I used to work with someone who would park a 10 minute walk away from his work (in a residential street - for free) rather then using the car park right beside the building. I can't quite remember, but I think it costs £9 to park for the entire day! The council need to bring that cost down... it's causing more problems then it is solving any!
No I don't know how much it costs but I have a feeling it is not exorbitant for local residents.
Yeh, on second thoughts maybe you're right about my second point.
Also I agree about parking charges. They are far to high for parking for a second rate shopping experience.
Posted by: dannyboy Jul 24 2009, 09:29 AM
It is a right if you have paid for a residents parking permit. Residents who have paid annually for a permit wouldn't be too impressed if out of towners filled all the spaces & nothing was done about it. Obviously the Traffic Wardens are not patrolling streets with no yellow lines / parking bays. What they are doing is looking after the rights of residents who have paid for parking.
I have been parking in Newbury for 15 years & have never paid to park & have never had a ticket.
Posted by: Darren Jul 24 2009, 10:09 AM
Annual fee of £25 for residential parking per vehicle, maximum of 2 per houshold. Book of 5 vistor permits avaiable for £2.50.
It was introduced round here a few years ago and has made a huge impact. Parking is avaiable to residents most of the time now and parking on pavements, corners etc. has been stopped too. It's enforced regularly too.
Even though I have a drive, it gets a huge thumbs-up from me.
Posted by: Andrea Jul 24 2009, 10:15 AM
It was introduced round here a few years ago and has made a huge impact. Parking is avaiable to residents most of the time now and parking on pavements, corners etc. has been stopped too. It's enforced regularly too.
Even though I have a drive, it gets a huge thumbs-up from me.
Thanks Darren, that sounds totally reasonable to me. More areas should enforce this.
Posted by: Iommi Jul 24 2009, 10:31 AM
I understand that a residents parking is for an area, not necessarily outside your house, but anyway, I said provided a car is parked legally.
Some of the problem is actually caused by the councils policy on the cost of town parking, but that isn't all of it. Some people whose car is precious won't use a car park because of potential door damage. Notwithstanding policy on car parking space allocation on new developments and the fact many of Newbury's streets were built before cars were a 'problem'.
That's one of the problems of course, is the availability of spaces for visitors, friends, doctors, social workers, etc. Local residents can end-up being' hoist upon their own petards'.
Posted by: GMR Jul 24 2009, 10:53 AM
I heard that that can also cause constipation.
Posted by: minnie Jul 24 2009, 11:10 AM
I recently recieved a parking ticket in Bartholomew Street - I had inadvertently parked in an (unmarked) loading bay. The small road signage is very confusing and the council have removed "loading only" white road markings. I never usually park in Bartholomew Street and when I queried this with the Council they were sympathetic but still enforced my ticket. I have lived in Newbury for over 25 years and I work in Andover - this has put me off visiting Newbury (I only really go in to use the banks) and will now go to Thatcham which although costs a little more in fuel does have the advantage of free parking. What a shame that shoppers in Newbury are again being put off visiting by over zealous parking attendants. Again, the shopkeepers are up against it. As a retailer myself I sympathise - can the Council not see that they are killing the town by this aggressive enforcement of parking tickets?
Posted by: Bloggo Jul 24 2009, 11:10 AM
No, it's OK if you wiggle it around a bit. So I'm told
Posted by: GMR Jul 24 2009, 12:03 PM
Posted by: dannyboy Jul 24 2009, 12:28 PM
The road markings were removed because the loading bay only applies Monday - Friday. The parking attendants are not 'over zealous' , they are doing their jobs.
And why do people never blame themselves? Did you check the road signs before leaving your car? If I was parking , as you said you were, in a location I'd never parked before I certainly would check that it was okay to do so. This thread is begining to start like the bollards thread - people need to accept responsibility for their actions.
If all you came to Newbury to do was banking, you are no loss to the town's retailers.
Posted by: Branston Pickle Jul 24 2009, 12:47 PM
Are you still allowed free parking at Sainsbury's for a couple of hours?
Posted by: Iommi Jul 24 2009, 12:56 PM
...so there!
Posted by: dannyboy Jul 24 2009, 01:09 PM
yes -
Posted by: Strafin Jul 24 2009, 02:19 PM
Isn't that just if you're a customer though? As for the resdent parking schemes I disagree strongly with them but if they are in place they should be adhered to, and if you're paying for the privelege, then you should be able to park in whatever space that permit allows. If it isn't tough, everyone else is in the same boat. I have never personally exerienced people parking in my road to go to town for the day, maybe it hapens while I'm at work. When I was a rep I used to park in all sorts of residential areas, normally because I was in unfamiliar places and had to park without prior knowledge of all the restrictions that are put on town centre parking.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 24 2009, 02:22 PM
I also received a ticket last month for parking in a resident bay, on mill lane. I have parked there many times (my cousin lives on Bone Lane), and so did not feel the need to go investigating whether or not the restrictions had changed. As there are no road makings I think it is a little unfair. Northbrook street has no yeloe lines on it, so prior to 10am why wouldn't people assume they were ok to stop? Seems almost like entrapment to me.
Posted by: Andy Jul 24 2009, 03:00 PM
There are no yellow lines, but there is a warning of this as you enter the road. Additionally thare are "No waiting" signs on just about every post on both sides of the road, so no excuse really.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 24 2009, 03:16 PM
I disagree because it's not standard, if a town wanted all it's roundabouts to be give way to traffic entering (like in france for example), and put signs everywhere, it would still attract massive criticism because it's not in line with everywhere else. If there are no road markings then it's not as per the highway code. I just think it would be better if the road was marked, like EVERYWHERE else.
Posted by: JeffG Jul 24 2009, 04:00 PM
No, anyone is allowed to park in Sainsbury's car park for up to two hours (I think that's the time limit, though I've never been there that long) without paying, whether customer or not.
If you want to park longer, you buy a pay and display ticket. I think that's refunded in store if you're shopping there as well.
That's unless it's all changed - I haven't bothered to read the signs lately. In fact one of the "parking enforcers" once said to me that a good trick is to park free for two hours, come back, buy a ticket for the rest of the time you want, then get it refunded in store
Posted by: Andy Jul 24 2009, 05:54 PM
Is is now standard as the law changed to allow controlled zones to have double yellow line status without the actual lines being in place, as stated in the Highway Code...
238
You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – see 'Information signs' and 'Road markings'. Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs.
Posted by: Biker1 Jul 24 2009, 06:33 PM
I'll tell you what's a pain.
All that day-long parking at the bottom of Newtown Road (Before the roundabout going into town)
That causes much more of an obstruction problem than some of the parking on this thread that is being ticketed!!
Parking on both sides of the road here means that cars have to brake and wait for the remaining single line of traffic that can get through the gap.
Wast of time, money, petrol and the environment. 
Posted by: JeffG Jul 24 2009, 07:26 PM
238
You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – see 'Information signs' and 'Road markings'. Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs.
I don't see how you draw your inference from that paragraph. It clearly just says you can't park on yellow lines during the times shown, either on nearby plates or on zone entry signs.
Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jul 24 2009, 07:48 PM
All that day-long parking at the bottom of Newtown Road (Before the roundabout going into town)
That causes much more of an obstruction problem than some of the parking on this thread that is being ticketed!!
Parking on both sides of the road here means that cars have to brake and wait for the remaining single line of traffic that can get through the gap.
Wast of time, money, petrol and the environment.
To say nothing of the delay when a bus comes along and calls at the bus stop
Posted by: Andy Jul 24 2009, 08:00 PM
238
[b](or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone)[b]
[/quote]
Simply because the Zone Entry signs are at either end of Northbrook Street clearly stating you are entering a Controlled Parking Zone thereby stating "No Parking" which is backed up by the numerous "No waiting at any time" signs.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 24 2009, 08:50 PM
[b](or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone)[b]
Simply because the Zone Entry signs are at either end of Northbrook Street clearly stating you are entering a Controlled Parking Zone thereby stating "No Parking" which is backed up by the numerous "No waiting at any time" signs.
I'm not disagreeing in any way that the zone is controlled, or that it is wrong to not have the lines the there, I am just saying that I have never seen this system anywhere else and I think the spirit of the zone is mean at best. Incidentally, there are also parking bays outlined at the top of Newtown Road which are half on the road and half on the pavement, but there are no other markings, so should you park on the roadside and risk a ticket for being outside of a bay, or park on the pavement and get done for that? Or I guess a third option, don't park, Newbury doesn't like cars.
Posted by: JeffG Jul 24 2009, 09:03 PM
And I was just going on what anyone reading the Highway Code who doesn't know Northbrook Street, Newbury would infer from reading it. It's pretty plain English and doesn't cover the case you describe.
(I hope we're not going off-topic here)
Posted by: Uncle Jul 25 2009, 11:23 AM
I"m sure most people who get ticketed,deserve it....parking on - bus-stops - taxi-ranks- double yellows - but, HEY...lets really f**k this council up.....ALL PARK LEGALLY till they have to sack all but a couple of the greenbacks[Alans ok,hes my mate].....2 months of NIL TICKETS and heads will ROLL,ok?
Posted by: JeffG Jul 25 2009, 02:18 PM
Yes, but you need to get that message across to the others, unfortunately. Everyone on this forum is already 100% law-abiding and never ever parks in the wrong place
Posted by: cuckoo Jul 25 2009, 03:41 PM
All that day-long parking at the bottom of Newtown Road (Before the roundabout going into town)
That causes much more of an obstruction problem than some of the parking on this thread that is being ticketed!!
Parking on both sides of the road here means that cars have to brake and wait for the remaining single line of traffic that can get through the gap.
Wast of time, money, petrol and the environment.
Posted by: cuckoo Jul 25 2009, 03:43 PM
could not agree more accident waiting to happen
Posted by: lordtup Jul 25 2009, 05:47 PM
They will then walk the election. I know literally scores of lifelong tory voters that wil NEVER vote for this incompetent and morally bankrupt council again.
In all honesty is there a genuine council anywhere in this country ? Maybe we should pose this as an open question.
Personally I think they are all cretins,but maybe I'm biased
Posted by: Andrea Jul 26 2009, 12:22 PM
Sorry Uncle, that just makes far too much sense
Newbury would never understand it!
Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jul 26 2009, 01:10 PM
They've been particulary active today (Sunday) as returning from the jolly little waterways festival, I saw at least ten cars with fixed penalty notices attached to the windscreens in the coach park by the library. Either chancers or people who didn't realise that the area is for coaches and other permit holders seven days a week, I suppose. Whatever, an expensive trip into town for those unfortunates.
Posted by: GMR Jul 26 2009, 03:27 PM
Another car just missed being embedded on a bollard. And the only reason for that was the driver dithered.
Posted by: Iommi Jul 26 2009, 07:08 PM
Yes and the council laugh all the way to the bank. They must feel sooooo proud.
Posted by: spartacus Jul 26 2009, 07:54 PM
Hi. Thought I’d join this thread… and this forum… just to dispel a few of the urban myths being spouted forth.....
We have gone from the sublime (no wardens at all and a free for all) to the ridiculous (wardens walking round in packs and one round every corner).
Can I suggest that say 10 Wardens could do the job just as well as 20 in a small town like Newbury?
Firstly, although this forum may be Newbury-centric, West Berkshire Council covers the whole of ..urmm....... West Berkshire! So the ’20 wardens’ patrol Hungerford, Theale, Thatcham and all points in between – not JUST Newbury.. They also cover all the off-street car parks. And of course some of the ‘20’ will be on shiftwork or on leave so probably never an occasion when ‘all 20’ are on duty.
The ‘20’ number is no longer relevant either, as the numbers have dwindled since the new members of the team took post...... Try 14 or 15 (not sure of exact number but some of the guys just didn’t cut the mustard apparently)
The ‘sublime’ was when the police were in charge of parking enforcement. They employed ONE traffic warden covering the WHOLE of West Berkshire!! Hardly surprising that people were taking the mick. And hardly surprising that people have noticed a difference when the council took over. One semi-efficient police traffic warden was suddenly multiplied by 2,000%!!
Another point is that the council were forced into this position. Like virtually every council across the country they have found that the local police no longer have the resources to deal with ‘parking’ as a priority. So do they accept anarchy .....or do they attempt to put measures in place to stop people parking where they like? (I think Maidenhead tried the accept anarchy rule for a few months before bringing in their own wardens as the town gridlocked several times). Councils have little real choice in this anymore as the police have effectively withdrawn their services.
GMR and TallDark have commented about this ‘money making’ council venture. Again, this is being done because the police had given up..... and I don’t think there’s a council in the entire country which makes money from on-street parking enforcement. The money comes from the off-street car parks. City centre councils can have a good stab at making it profitable after a couple of years. But that’s because their roads are congested and every bit of parking space is covered by a restriction so their wardens don’t have to go too far to get a few tickets. WBC is more semi-rural and if you think outside of Newbury town centre, it’s bound to be more costly to patrol.
It’s a loading bay Monday to Friday. On Saturday you can park there and THAT’s why the road marking has been removed. Contradiction. And if the same type of loading bay was operating in Thatcham you would have got a ticket there too! It’s only free to park if you obey the restrictions.... You have to read the signs!!
The Council applied to the DfT to allow a system of ‘double yellow line’ restrictions to be brought into the pedestrian town centre so that the new cobbled surface (which cost a bomb) wouldn’t have to be spoilt be applying yellow paint everywhere. DfT gave approval and this system is in use in quite a few towns across the country. (Generally in pedestrian zones like ours)
These bays allow vehicles to park half on/half off the pavement. There’s no restrictions on these bays... you can’t get done for parking illegally by parking outside the bays. The POLICE COULD do you for obstruction though.....
All that day-long parking at the bottom of Newtown Road (Before the roundabout going into town)
That causes much more of an obstruction problem than some of the parking on this thread that is being ticketed!!
Phew!!
Sorry about the above lengthy post....... Some posters won’t read it and so the myths will continue I s’pose...... But I’ve got it off my chest.......
Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jul 26 2009, 08:13 PM
Firstly, although this forum may be Newbury-centric, West Berkshire Council covers the whole of ..urmm....... West Berkshire! So the ’20 wardens’ patrol Hungerford, Theale, Thatcham and all points in between – not JUST Newbury.. They also cover all the off-street car parks. And of course some of the ‘20’ will be on shiftwork or on leave so probably never an occasion when ‘all 20’ are on duty.
The ‘20’ number is no longer relevant either, as the numbers have dwindled since the new members of the team took post...... Try 14 or 15 (not sure of exact number but some of the guys just didn’t cut the mustard apparently)
The ‘sublime’ was when the police were in charge of parking enforcement. They employed ONE traffic warden covering the WHOLE of West Berkshire!! Hardly surprising that people were taking the mick. And hardly surprising that people have noticed a difference when the council took over. One semi-efficient police traffic warden was suddenly multiplied by 2,000%!!
Another point is that the council were forced into this position. Like virtually every council across the country they have found that the local police no longer have the resources to deal with ‘parking’ as a priority. So do they accept anarchy .....or do they attempt to put measures in place to stop people parking where they like? (I think Maidenhead tried the accept anarchy rule for a few months before bringing in their own wardens as the town gridlocked several times). Councils have little real choice in this anymore as the police have effectively withdrawn their services.
GMR and TallDark have commented about this ‘money making’ council venture. Again, this is being done because the police had given up..... and I don’t think there’s a council in the entire country which makes money from on-street parking enforcement. The money comes from the off-street car parks. City centre councils can have a good stab at making it profitable after a couple of years. But that’s because their roads are congested and every bit of parking space is covered by a restriction so their wardens don’t have to go too far to get a few tickets. WBC is more semi-rural and if you think outside of Newbury town centre, it’s bound to be more costly to patrol.
It’s a loading bay Monday to Friday. On Saturday you can park there and THAT’s why the road marking has been removed. Contradiction. And if the same type of loading bay was operating in Thatcham you would have got a ticket there too! It’s only free to park if you obey the restrictions.... You have to read the signs!!
The Council applied to the DfT to allow a system of ‘double yellow line’ restrictions to be brought into the pedestrian town centre so that the new cobbled surface (which cost a bomb) wouldn’t have to be spoilt be applying yellow paint everywhere. DfT gave approval and this system is in use in quite a few towns across the country. (Generally in pedestrian zones like ours)
These bays allow vehicles to park half on/half off the pavement. There’s no restrictions on these bays... you can’t get done for parking illegally by parking outside the bays. The POLICE COULD do you for obstruction though.....
A little birdie tells me that the council are going to be making the yellow lines slightly longer here in the next couple of months.
Phew!!
Sorry about the above lengthy post....... Some posters won’t read it and so the myths will continue I s’pose...... But I’ve got it off my chest.......
Welcome aboard, Spartacus.
Posted by: JeffG Jul 26 2009, 08:39 PM
Yes, me too. And note, I didn't quote a megabyte of text that I'd just read anyway. (Sorry, one of my favourite peeves.
)Posted by: GMR Jul 26 2009, 09:30 PM
Firstly, although this forum may be Newbury-centric, West Berkshire Council covers the whole of ..urmm....... West Berkshire! So the ’20 wardens’ patrol Hungerford, Theale, Thatcham and all points in between – not JUST Newbury.. They also cover all the off-street car parks. And of course some of the ‘20’ will be on shiftwork or on leave so probably never an occasion when ‘all 20’ are on duty.
The ‘20’ number is no longer relevant either, as the numbers have dwindled since the new members of the team took post...... Try 14 or 15 (not sure of exact number but some of the guys just didn’t cut the mustard apparently)
The ‘sublime’ was when the police were in charge of parking enforcement. They employed ONE traffic warden covering the WHOLE of West Berkshire!! Hardly surprising that people were taking the mick. And hardly surprising that people have noticed a difference when the council took over. One semi-efficient police traffic warden was suddenly multiplied by 2,000%!!
Another point is that the council were forced into this position. Like virtually every council across the country they have found that the local police no longer have the resources to deal with ‘parking’ as a priority. So do they accept anarchy .....or do they attempt to put measures in place to stop people parking where they like? (I think Maidenhead tried the accept anarchy rule for a few months before bringing in their own wardens as the town gridlocked several times). Councils have little real choice in this anymore as the police have effectively withdrawn their services.
GMR and TallDark have commented about this ‘money making’ council venture. Again, this is being done because the police had given up..... and I don’t think there’s a council in the entire country which makes money from on-street parking enforcement. The money comes from the off-street car parks. City centre councils can have a good stab at making it profitable after a couple of years. But that’s because their roads are congested and every bit of parking space is covered by a restriction so their wardens don’t have to go too far to get a few tickets. WBC is more semi-rural and if you think outside of Newbury town centre, it’s bound to be more costly to patrol.
It’s a loading bay Monday to Friday. On Saturday you can park there and THAT’s why the road marking has been removed. Contradiction. And if the same type of loading bay was operating in Thatcham you would have got a ticket there too! It’s only free to park if you obey the restrictions.... You have to read the signs!!
The Council applied to the DfT to allow a system of ‘double yellow line’ restrictions to be brought into the pedestrian town centre so that the new cobbled surface (which cost a bomb) wouldn’t have to be spoilt be applying yellow paint everywhere. DfT gave approval and this system is in use in quite a few towns across the country. (Generally in pedestrian zones like ours)
These bays allow vehicles to park half on/half off the pavement. There’s no restrictions on these bays... you can’t get done for parking illegally by parking outside the bays. The POLICE COULD do you for obstruction though.....
A little birdie tells me that the council are going to be making the yellow lines slightly longer here in the next couple of months.
Phew!!
Sorry about the above lengthy post....... Some posters won’t read it and so the myths will continue I s’pose...... But I’ve got it off my chest.......
Hi and welcome spartacus.
"No, I am Spartacus."
"Sorry, he is Spartacus."
You make some good points; food for thought and will keep some members going for awhile
We need another master debater on here
Posted by: GMR Jul 26 2009, 09:30 PM
)Then you won't be to happy with me then
Posted by: Strafin Jul 26 2009, 10:04 PM
The police, when in control of parking enforcement had at least three wardens at one time not too long ago. I knew two of the personally. They also hired an ex tory councillor not long before they stopped, I do not know if he was in addition to, or instead of the others.I also don't know if the zones differed as the police are Thames Valley and the council West Berkshire.
Posted by: spartacus Jul 26 2009, 11:30 PM
OK... depends what you call 'not too long ago'. I'll clarify my post SLIGHTLY then. The West Berkshire Local Police Area of the Berkshire West Basic Command Unit (funnily enough it's the same area as WBC) has been 'policed' by ONE traffic warden for approx the last 12 months.... He was seconded in from Thatcham to patrol Newbury and so has not been able to patrol anywhere else during this time.....
Posted by: JeffG Jul 27 2009, 12:46 AM
I assumed you were trying to wind me up
. If not, why do it? 
Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jul 27 2009, 06:16 AM
Oh? What's your source? lol
Posted by: J C Jul 27 2009, 07:45 AM
Did anyone see the feature on BBC breakfast on Saturday morning? It seems that councils across the country are increasngly seeing seeing parking enforcement as a money making scheme instead of enhancement to the local area.
Councils are not allowed to set targets of how many tickets need to be issued however in a lot of areas this is happening and is forcing wardens to ticket cars which have not parked illegally for fear of losing their job, and this is reported as the case in the article on the Newburytoday website.
Posted by: GMR Jul 27 2009, 01:13 PM
. If not, why do it? To be honest I read downwards and then I reply - before getting to the bottom - so i didn't see your reply until I had already posted. If I would have saw your post before hand I wouldn't have wished to upset you and would have gone to all the trouble and deleted the irrelevant pieces.
Posted by: Chestnuttrish Jul 27 2009, 05:36 PM
my thoughts are that it is a fair system if people get fined parking illegally, and people will have to take more time to read the bays properly, I admit they seem to be designed to catch people out.
But generally car parking for people in town for workers and shoppers is hard.
The council "staff" have their own car park, why is that, why can't the rate payers park there as well.
How much do they pay for this not very much I expect, good salaries, good pensions, an easy working week, and car parking, nice work if you can get it.................
Posted by: GMR Jul 27 2009, 06:10 PM
But generally car parking for people in town for workers and shoppers is hard.
The council "staff" have their own car park, why is that, why can't the rate payers park there as well.
How much do they pay for this not very much I expect, good salaries, good pensions, an easy working week, and car parking, nice work if you can get it.................
Like MP's who get perks this is the council's perks.
Posted by: user23 Jul 27 2009, 06:22 PM
Posted by: Chestnuttrish Jul 27 2009, 07:02 PM
no I won't be applying for a job there, i don't work, I am one of those wondering round the town with special brew in my hand, and one in my back pocket, i let the tax payer do this for me, i had a job for a couple of months once, so i paid my taxes and deserve this.
No leave me the deserving scrouger, and let the council staff have all their perks, they must be doing a good job..
p.s Forgot to mention the air con, and generous sickie pay, sorry very generous sick pay.
Posted by: Andrea Jul 28 2009, 07:06 AM
But generally car parking for people in town for workers and shoppers is hard.
The council "staff" have their own car park, why is that, why can't the rate payers park there as well.
How much do they pay for this not very much I expect, good salaries, good pensions, an easy working week, and car parking, nice work if you can get it.................
just a quick note... council staff have a very hard time getting a parking permit (for staff who started after september 2007 or something). They have to live a certain distance away before even being considered for the free parking or they have to do a car share.
Although I do agree with you. The council are also trying to encourage the staff to be more 'green' and to cycle into work, take the bus or walk. There are a lot of people that work there that live close by and drive into work anyway. The council should charge their staff a weekly/monthly/yearly charge for the privalege to park in that massive car park. I bet that'd convince some people to get off their a$$ and travel into work a healthier way.
Posted by: JeffG Jul 28 2009, 08:48 AM
Didn't the Government (this one or the last one) introduce taxing a company parking space as a "benefit in kind"? Or is my memory deceiving me?
Posted by: Strafin Jul 28 2009, 08:57 AM
To be honest if free parking is a perk of working for the council, I don't really have a problem with that. All companies are able to offer something to their employees as a little bonus, and the council just happens to have control of a lot of parking spaces.
Posted by: GMR Jul 28 2009, 09:52 AM
My daughter parks in town free because of where she works and no she doesn't work for the council.
Posted by: Chestnuttrish Jul 28 2009, 11:19 AM
The point is that we are talking about the fact that the council are closing in on the public, more and more streets are being metered or have restricted parking, and I am just saying that imagine that if you work for a small company in Newbury that does not have parking facilites, working 9 - 5 hair dressers, cafe and restraunts staff etc , where do you park , and how do you afford it, and why should the council staff have this perk, it is after all rate payers money, or have you forgotten this.
Suppose all the council staff had to pay the same car parking rates and their car park was a open to the rate payer , there would be a riot.
I just want a fairer system, for shoppers and workers alike.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 28 2009, 11:32 AM
Those are good points. I am a bit open minded on the issue at the moment but when you make me think of how restricted we are in terms of parking it does wind me up.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 29 2009, 09:45 AM
I note this morning on walking to work that the Retailers in Bartholomew Street have put warning signs in their windows explaining that 30 mins is the maximum time you are allowed to park outside their shops.
It must be beacuse the actual signage is so clearly understood!
Posted by: dannyboy Jul 29 2009, 10:41 AM
It must be beacuse the actual signage is so clearly understood!
It could be that the retailers don't want the spaces taken up by someone going off for a long while. I seem to remember on another board that trade at that end of town depended on people being able to park outside the shop, pop in & then go.
Posted by: Chestnuttrish Jul 29 2009, 12:13 PM
It must be beacuse the actual signage is so clearly understood!
I think it is the signage, the bays in Bart. Street are easy to misunderstand unless you really study them.
I am forever warning people, well some people, depends what their cars are or if they are male or female.
Posted by: spartacus Jul 29 2009, 07:02 PM
The signs DO have a little piccie of a chap pushing a wheelbarrow (loading) together with the times and a Mon-Fri.... and a large 'P' (parking) together with the times and a Sat.. That alone should make you do a double-take to check the sign and see if you've understood it...
Some people just don't want to take responsibility for their own actions... it's always someone else's fault.. Too much rush rush...
Posted by: Pringles Jul 29 2009, 07:57 PM
It is all about ones objectives; theirs were immoral.
Posted by: Pringles Jul 29 2009, 08:07 PM
It's ok to stop illegal parking. Yes I agree some people take the micky. However, I would like to mention that I got a ticket for parking in Craven Road. I disputed the ticket because there was no sign to say that I couldn't park during the lunch hour. However, when I went back, there was a sign that had not been there when I originally parked. It was orange and obvious. It was NOT there when I parked and got the ticket. Couldn't prove it so had to pay the fine.
Secondly, I heard about a disabled lady who got a ticket due to misunderstanding the system. Not cheap either. She made a mistake. The warden could have given a warning.
They have definitely used the taxpayers money inefficiently here. Signs could be a little clearer. Parking is difficult at the moment. Shoppers are going elsewhere. My question is, when they have scared everyone off to other towns to shop, how long will it take for them to come back when all the building is complete and parking is back to normal. Pls don't tell me there is plenty of parking because there isn't. The roads are a mess in Newbury. There is nothing for the kids to do during the holidays unless you have money. The money could have been placed much more efficiently. Agreed, reduce the number of wardens and put the rest of the money to other things.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 29 2009, 08:17 PM
I agree, it is all non standard stuff, Newbury's roads are not designed in the spirit, or the letter of the highway code. I know you should always be checking but this town is a nightmare and will be avoided.
Posted by: spartacus Jul 29 2009, 08:58 PM
How spooky is THAT??! So they take down signs, hide around the corner, give you a ticket, then wait for you to go before whipping the signs up again?? Must be fun seeing motorists coming back, looking at the signs and scratching their heads.....
Are you sure Dom Joly's not one of the wardens.....
Posted by: spartacus Jul 29 2009, 09:04 PM
Misunderstood what system? If she was disabled and had a Blue Badge she would be exempt from pretty much everything. She could park for 3 hours on double yellows, for as long she likes in parking bays, doesn't have to pay at pay and displays... Suggest she should have become familiar with the workings of the Blue badge and then she could run riot.....
Posted by: JeffG Jul 29 2009, 09:18 PM
How could you not prove it? There must be a record somewhere of when the sign was put up on somebody's job sheet, and you know when you parked there. Even if they didn't believe the time you said but had the record of when the sign was put up, there would be enough reasonable doubt to have the ticket cancelled. Or is it the "balance of probabilities" for a parking offence (I'm not a lawyer)? It would make an interesting case
Posted by: GMR Jul 29 2009, 09:19 PM
Are you sure Dom Joly's not one of the wardens.....
ONE OF THE WARDENS!? I would have thought he was playing all of them
Posted by: spartacus Jul 29 2009, 09:33 PM
My relatives live round Westfields. The orange signs saying no parking 12 till 1pm (or something like that) were put up around March of this year. Some in Rockingham Road and Craven Road.... There were a few changes around then including new permit parking in Russell which stopped people using the road all day and disappearing off to Northcroft leisure centre or wherever they went.
My aunt likes them because it means she can get home quickly at lunchtime and park up near the house without someone (presumably Pringles)taking her space.
I still think the Dom Joly idea is better though....
Posted by: JeffG Jul 29 2009, 09:40 PM
Why would people park in Russell Road to go to the leisure centre? When I had a dog (up till September last year) I often parked at the bottom of Goldwell Park opposite the leisure centre. There were no restrictions/charges in the car park there. Or have the council realised since then that they were missing a trick?
Posted by: spartacus Jul 29 2009, 09:52 PM
Posted by: blackdog Jul 30 2009, 12:40 AM
Yep. You now have to pay to use the car park in Goldwell (apart from a few bays that give 2 hours free). Across the road in Northcroft I think it is 3 hours free.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 30 2009, 02:52 PM
What happened to Pringles happens all the time. The thing is, everyone on here who is saying park legally and you'll never get a ticket are missing the point about this. The wardens, the council, and the police will ALL stitch you up if they can, and whe it happens to you, no-one will believe you and you'll be forced to pay the fine no matter how unfair you think it is.
Posted by: theoneandonly Jul 30 2009, 04:28 PM
Does anyone take into account the feelings of the CEO'S? I feel they are doing a great job! not only patrolling the streets but helping people when needed. I have witnessed on several occasions one particular man given assistants to people ( not sure of his name but he is quite short, big built with glasses.) I have also witnessed people being so rude and shouting at them that im ashamed to think that people like that live in our town. To all the people saying that its a waste of tax payers money surley you would prefer these 13 or so people working rather than claiming benifits, and actually doing something productive. Why shouldnt people breaking the rules get punished? I also remember rightly that there was a period of time that they were out warning people.
All together they should keep up the good work!!!!!
Posted by: Strafin Jul 30 2009, 07:07 PM
All together they should keep up the good work!!!!!
I think I saw that one the other day having a go at drivers who were turning into West Street, ignoring or misunderstanding the temporary red light set up there. If he had done that to tme I'd shout back too, it's not his place. Also I think everyone should abuse and bully them as much as possible, that way they might resign, stop being a burden on the taxpayer and go and do something worthwhile.
Posted by: spartacus Jul 30 2009, 07:33 PM
can the Council not see that they are killing the town by this aggressive enforcement of parking tickets?
Posted by: JeffG Jul 30 2009, 08:54 PM
The red light has nothing to do with traffic turning into West Street. It's past the junction and is to control one-way traffic in Northbrook Street. I've always ignored it when turning right.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 30 2009, 09:39 PM
I don't know what the legal position is, but there is a big sign that says "when red light shows wait here" that is well before West Street. Presumably you have to go on the wrong side of the road to turn down there unless you are the first car in the queue.
Posted by: GMR Jul 30 2009, 09:44 PM
JeffG is right. That red light is for Northbrook street so if you want to turn into West Street you can do so whatever the lights say.
I've even seen cars do this while there have been traffic wardens and police by the red lights and nobody battered an eyelid... but then again, and as we have been shown, even if it was a criminal offence they are usually preoccupied with deeper thoughts
Posted by: Strafin Jul 30 2009, 09:53 PM
But it's not for you or Jeff to decide what the light is for, the sign to stop is all the way back by Scoffers. You stop at the sign not at the light, otherise the Robin Hood roundabout would REALLY be a challenge!
Posted by: GMR Jul 30 2009, 10:13 PM
It seems - going by the traffic - it is not for anybody to decide as they do it anyway
Posted by: JeffG Jul 30 2009, 10:28 PM
You're probably right (after all). But who notices big signs?
When I've been that way, there has been no queue and no traffic coming the other way. Of course I would give way to oncoming traffic if there was any. But surely during pedestrian hours, only buses would be affected, wouldn't they?
Posted by: GMR Jul 30 2009, 10:46 PM
When I've been that way, there has been no queue and no traffic coming the other way. Of course I would give way to oncoming traffic if there was any. But surely during pedestrian hours, only buses would be affected, wouldn't they?
Why would buses be affected? They don't go down West Street.
Posted by: theoneandonly Jul 31 2009, 02:36 PM
But isnt that part of their jobs to be partrolling the streets the make them safer as well. like when they give tickets to people parked on yellow lines. the whole point of yellow lines is that its dangerous to park there. As for you saying that you would shout at them to make them resign, thats terrible! how could you do that to people of our society. All i can say is at least they are out working trying to provide for their familes if they have one.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 31 2009, 03:04 PM
No it's not part of their job! And as for trying to provide for their families, so are drug dealers, burglars and chuggers, and I hold them all in the same regard.
Posted by: GMR Jul 31 2009, 03:41 PM
That is an interesting way lof looking at it.
Posted by: dannyboy Jul 31 2009, 04:51 PM
You forgot Politicians & Local Councillors
Posted by: dannyboy Jul 31 2009, 06:28 PM
The article in the NWN is laughable.
Some Shops - one I think
Brian Burgess' quote that motorists "they look at the sign and the only thing they see on it is '30 minutes'. They don't bother to read the rest of the sign which clearly states this only applies to Saturdays" has to be one of the daftest to have appeared in the NWN for a while. . Quality Journalism there!!
I can't see what the NRA wants - the Traffic Wardens to turn a blind eye? let people stop for 2hrs?
If the bays unrestricted the NRA would be the first to complain - with town centre workers filling them from 8am - 5pm ( no shoppers using them then eh? ) and what about deliveries? There is no other access to some of the shops in the road, so I'd guess the bays are pretty important if you own a shop down there.
The idea behind such parking is that they enable you to park - pop into a shop & move on - surely what Bart Street needs, as for some people those shops are too far from the town centre.
Some people.......
Posted by: JeffG Jul 31 2009, 07:36 PM
Stick. Wrong end of.
I meant only buses going up and down Northbrook Street would be affected by the temporary lights during pedestrian hours. Hence no opposing traffic coming through and no queue (because everyone turning into West Street felt the lights didn't apply to them).
Posted by: GMR Jul 31 2009, 07:47 PM
I meant only buses going up and down Northbrook Street would be affected by the temporary lights during pedestrian hours. Hence no opposing traffic coming through and no queue (because everyone turning into West Street felt the lights didn't apply to them).
ok
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)