More parking trouble.

  • olduser's Avatar
    Fund on BBC News today:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdeln2ly1z0o

    Clearly the machine software is not fit for purpose but it's a nice little earner.
  • 16 Replies

  • Drivingforfun's Avatar
    I saw the bit about a parking operator losing in court and having to pay the winner's travel expenses

    Would a parking fine incurred as a result of an error due to a faulty machine be deemed as a legitimate expense?? Could they bring that to court?

    It could go on and on endlessly 😆
  • olduser's Avatar
    It really a case of shocking bad software design.

    The system holds list of car no's that are in the car park.

    The machine has to do the following;

    After confirming the cash entered, move to collecting reg num
    On entering the first chr/num of reg num, the system can check, is there a car with that entered part of the reg in the car park?
    If yes, proceed with next chr/num if no, advise user an error.
    repeat until full reg num is entered, guide user to yes or no choice.
    If transaction is complete (Yes) or has transaction failed (No).
    On Yes print ticket.
    On No cancel, transaction, return money, print a cancel ticket, add details to 'failed transaction list' flag cars in car park list the nearest reg num to that entered should leave very soon, and ask do you wish to try again?

    If Yes start whole process again.

    If No or no response after timed period, watch for car leaving car park.
    If the car does leave the park within a (reasonable) pre set time, no fine.
    Like any car leaving the park it well be removed from the 'In park list'.

    The notes above are similar to what the first thoughts would yield, these are then discussed with the client, with lots of, what if questions.
    Next this is turned into an algorithm or flow chart, this should show up any logical flaws, this cycle is repeated until the client is happy.

    Now is the time to start planning the software building stage.
    Build, and test, and correct repeat until no further errors.

    It's a long slow process, and time cost money, hence the urge to cut corners.
  • NMNeil's Avatar
    As you may know Scotland has banned parking on the pavement and there have been plans in the works for a few years to make this ban nationwide for the UK.
    I stumbled upon the proposed legislation.
    " A Bill to remove exemptions from requirements to provide access or services to a person who is accompanied by an assistance dog; to make the undertaking of disability equality training in relation to assistance dogs a condition of holding a licence to drive a taxi or private hire vehicle; to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on pavements and footpaths; and for connected purposes."
    https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3722
    So not a hope in hell of it being passed as it's tied in with anti dog proposals, making it a non starter.
    And I though politicians here in the US were underhanded.
  • olduser's Avatar
    In principal, I am against parking on or partially on pavements though I must admit if I arrive in a street where everyone is parked on the pavement, I do the same. (herd instinct?)

    I know the argument goes, it's enabling the flow of traffic in the street but why and at what cost?
    Doe's forcing pedestrians to walk on the road help them flow?
  • NMNeil's Avatar
    @olduser It's part of the entitlement mentality that the section of road or pavement outside your house belongs to you and woe betide anyone who says you can't park your car(s) there. And of course in their mind it's perfectly acceptable to put cones or other obstacles on the road to reserve 'their' parking spot.
    It's going to get nasty as those drivers who now can't park on the pavement outside their house anymore will park on the road outside someone else's house who will have the same entitlement mentality about 'their' parking spot.
    Maybe Tokyo has the right idea, you can't buy a car unless you can show you have somewhere off the road to park the car and if a car is parked on the street after 3am it's towed.
    https://www.reinventingparking.org/2...-rule-has.html
  • olduser's Avatar
    I can understand the logic in the UK.
    Property occupiers pay rates (taxes) to the Local Authority, part of that is to maintain roads, this reinforces the householders belief that he/she has a degree of ownership in the road outside their house.

    However, there is almost an obsession in this country that we must keep traffic moving, the car is king, this leads into parking on the footpaths to not obstruct the road.
    One other factor is, parking alongside a footpath increases the chances of damaging the pretty wheels on the kerb.

    I can see how restricting car ownership in Japan would work.
    There are lot of people in a small space, and Japanese have a built in community spirit. (they are not overly preoccupied with self, they are willing to sacrifice for the good of the community)
  • NMNeil's Avatar
    I don't think the Tokyo model would work in the UK so an alternative would be to cap how many cars can be registered in the UK at any one time. So say they set the cap at 20 million, if you want to buy a new car after the 20 million is reached you have to put your name on a waiting list until the number drops below 20 million and you're top of the list. This would only apply to new cars sold or used cars which are imported, but as natural attrition takes hold, AKA rust and more cars are scrapped only then would it start to work. So a very gradual process.
    Of course there would have to be safeguards to stop people or companies putting their name on the list with the intent to 'sell' that spot on the list.
  • olduser's Avatar
    The other way would be to stop expending the road system!
  • olduser's Avatar
    They must have been reading that famous book, 'How to destroy a city centre without bombs'😄

    We are told the motivation is to avoid congestion but congestion is self regulating, and also minimises speeding without expensive policing.
    They are also misunderstanding how a live policeman walking an area deters crime, and gathers intelligence.
    Whilst a policeman in a car is soon gone, and sees very little anyway.
    Last edited by olduser; 24-03-25 at 11:21.
  • Santa's Avatar
    congestion is self regulating

    Congestion is bad. Bad for drivers, who get frustrated and take risks. Bad for pedestrians who have to breathe the fumes emitted from idling engines. Bad for anyone who lives nearby.

    Far better to improve public transport and make car ownership unnecessary.
  • Rolebama's Avatar
    I firmly believe that congestion will never be sorted by any government in the UK. Similarly there will never be a cap on the number of cars. Simple reason being that they rely too heavily on the fuel and vehicle taxes. We have been inundated with cameras because they are cheaper than an efficient police force. I think I paid around £25 for my Driving Test. Turn up, drive safely for half an hour, answer a few questions on the Highway Code, and identify a few road signs. Now we have hazard perception, written test, oral test and if you're good, a driving test. I don't know how much that all costs now, but it is not £25, or an equivalent. More and more money goes into the kitty, and what do we get back? Undriveable roads and delays in our daily lives.
  • olduser's Avatar
    Agreed, congestion will not be sorted by any government because creating new roads (to relieve congestion) just encourages more traffic.

    When we were young, I car symbolised freedom, and to an extent this was true because there were very few cars, in the cars of the day, long journeys were a major undertaking, and few could afford to buy or run a car.
    Unless you lived in the country, work, and shops were near home, and there was reasonable public transport, cycles or walking if you were not close to work or shops.

    Injuries, and deaths were proportionally quite high, I think due to the public not being exposed to vehicles therefore had not learned to lookout for them, and the vehicles themselves were not very safe, poor tyres, brakes, steering, and suspensions, safety was low in the designers list of requirements.
    This was tempered to some degree by lack of speed, most vehicles had a short or troublesome life if driven fast, they fell to bits.

    As the demand for cars increased, hire purchase became acceptable, and driven by the image of freedom, as a toy for big boys, and status symbol, prices fell due to the benefits of mass production.

    Mass production = high capital input = the need to create a demand.
    So today, we use a car because it's less trouble than putting a coat on when we need to go around the corner, and now the shops have been able to move out of town because shopping is another excuse to have a ride in our new toy, we can work miles from home, another chance to use, and justify our toy.
    We no longer wonder if it will start, or will it get there, in fact very few know how the go pedal makes it go or what actually happens when they jump on the stop pedal?

    I always think of Toad of Toad Hall, when thinking of people, (including me) and cars.

    As to taxation, and cars, governments need money, everyone complains about direct taxation, almost everyone has a car in their life so it seems logical to shift some of the taxation onto cars.

    As the number of cars increase, it becomes even more important that everyone understands and follows the rules, well at least try to achieve this but this is in conflict with the freedom image.

    I have to go three times per week into Sunderland along the main route from the west, just about every junction has a roundabout, put there to avoid congestion.
    I have to start the journey back around 4 - 5PM, the journey back consists of queuing to get onto a roundabout, as we leave that roundabout we join the queue for the next one.

    One way or another, this has to end, we cannot go on increasing the number of vehicles running around at random on the roads.
    Building more roads has not solved the problem in the USA, and they have plenty of space which the UK doe's not have.

    Before you ask, no I don't know the answer.

    In controlling where we we are, I still think the most effective deterrent, is the warning, guidance chat with a trained traffic police officer at the road side.
    The NIP/points system is too easy, and is used as a status symbol.

    Reading comments about having a probationary period (with appropriate plates) for new drivers, sparks off the thought for a deterrence for traffic offences, rather than a short ban (which makes many people unemployed) why not have stick on, R plates (Rule breaker) to be displayed for a set time?
    With ANPR cameras now on police cars, it would be easy to police.
  • TC1474's Avatar
    In principal, I am against parking on or partially on pavements though I must admit if I arrive in a street where everyone is parked on the pavement, I do the same. (herd instinct?)

    I know the argument goes, it's enabling the flow of traffic in the street but why and at what cost?
    Doe's forcing pedestrians to walk on the road help them flow?

    As soon as you stop and park on the road or the pavement, you commit an offence.

    It has always been deemed illegal to park on the road as well as the pavement.

    It is deemed unnecessary obstruction in the first instance and if the owner/driver refuses to remove the vehicle or they continue to obstruct it becomes wilful obstruction which then becomes an arrestable offence.

    The press have made great play about new legislation on a number of issues, but in most cases the law has already been in place and I was booking them back in the 70's and throughout my 30 years, with about 30% being arrested and vehicles being removed and impounded.

    So the issue is nothing new. It is simply the fact that legal enforcement turns a blind eye in most cases and it is those who are inconsiderate as to where they park that tend to suffer the consequences, such as preventing disabled or people pushing wheelchairs to pass by on the pavement and are forced into the road, or where other traffic is unable to pass safely or it causes major congestion or inconvenience.

    Favourite is when they park and the Fire or Ambulance service have to push the vehicle out of the road and then the owner complains of damage to said vehicle and they are told to go away and end up being booked for their inconsiderate parking.

    That happens a lot even now.
  • NMNeil's Avatar

    Favourite is when they park and the Fire or Ambulance service have to push the vehicle out of the road and then the owner complains of damage to said vehicle and they are told to go away and end up being booked for their inconsiderate parking.

    That happens a lot even now.
    And despite all the warnings and news articles some still believe that parking restrictions don't apply to them.