Clamping

Mullie

I was driving to work today and noticed a car clamped in Charleland Court. It was parked on the path. I recall from the last committee newsletter that there was to be a trial period where path clamping would not happen. Does anyone know if this trial is over?
I'm sure the clamping victim won't be too happy, surely the clampers should give a warning that they're back up and running.
Has anyone noticed that the only time they seem to clamp is sometime between 12am and 7am? The whole idea behind the clamping is to make the streets safer for children by ensuring line of sight. What kids are out playing at that time?

PS: It wasn't me!

mikedragon32

You don't think parking on the path is dangerous? Why should a warning be given? Whoever parked up on the path must know that it is wrong to do so, and therefore shouldn't be surprised when they get clamped for doing it.

I'm not sure what the court is like but in the Wood you have folks parking up on the pavement meaning that pedestrians have to walk on the road and pure muppets parking across the ramps onto the pavements, blocking prams and wheelchairs from being able to get up onto the path at the allocated points. Clamping is looking like a necessary evil.

Mullie

mikedragon32 wrote: »

You don't think parking on the path is dangerous? Why should a warning be given? QUOTE]

Parking on the path can be dangerous yeah, but there was a letter in the Court stating that clamping was not being performed for a 'trial period'. Somewhere in the region of 3 months I think.
Surely they can't start clamping again without giving a warning that clamping is again being enforced?
Saying that, who knows, there may have been a warning. But I doubt it!

Sounds like the situation in the Wood is worse, its very rarely that you'd see anyone on the path in the Court.

eigrod

Hopefully he/she will get a penalty point also because it is an offence to drive on a footway.

RosieJoe

Mullie wrote: »

mikedragon32 wrote: »

You don't think parking on the path is dangerous? Why should a warning be given? QUOTE]

Parking on the path can be dangerous yeah, but there was a letter in the Court stating that clamping was not being performed for a 'trial period'. Somewhere in the region of 3 months I think.
Surely they can't start clamping again without giving a warning that clamping is again being enforced?
Saying that, who knows, there may have been a warning. But I doubt it!

Sounds like the situation in the Wood is worse, its very rarely that you'd see anyone on the path in the Court.

The fact that they said that no clamping will take place for 3 months (or whatever the time period was) then once this period is over it means that clamping will resume!

wingding

It's about time they started clamping. People thinking they can do whatever they want. I agree, how can someone think it's ok to park on a footpath, whether there's kids around or not it's illegal...

cuddlycavies

wingding wrote: »

It's about time they started clamping. People thinking they can do whatever they want. I agree, how can someone think it's ok to park on a footpath, whether there's kids around or not it's illegal...

Yep. Clamp away. And while they're at it, they should lift the car in the court that some joker thought was ok to jack up without a wheel and leave for a week. It has no axle stands and if pushed, would fall off the jack on to some kid if they decided to play with it.

MrsA

Well done to them, I just wish they could come over and sort out The Grove as well.

M

greydiamond

Saw one today, not sure if its the same one the OP is talking about. Just at the entrance to the Court, a silver car. Parked on the road, but the front wheel was just over the yellow line. Was there really a need to clamp it?

LMC

Mullie wrote: »

I was driving to work today and noticed a car clamped in Charleland Court. It was parked on the path. I recall from the last committee newsletter that there was to be a trial period where path clamping would not happen. Does anyone know if this trial is over?
I'm sure the clamping victim won't be too happy, surely the clampers should give a warning that they're back up and running.
Has anyone noticed that the only time they seem to clamp is sometime between 12am and 7am? The whole idea behind the clamping is to make the streets safer for children by ensuring line of sight. What kids are out playing at that time?

PS: It wasn't me!

Mullie, it was agreed to stop clamping to see how it went. And your right he does only clamp between 12 & 6am!!! This was brought up too, obviously someone forgot to tell Mr Clamper.

And before we get attacked we did agree with clamping cars on paths and yellow lines!!!

ADK

Yes I am also in the Wood and frequently have to walk onto the road with my buggy as there are cars parked across the path. It just seems wrong, just because a person won't walk a few extra steps to a spot across the road from their house. Also the parking on corners, when there are perfectly good other spots available. I would say clampers are a necessary evil

The Yipper

Mullie wrote: »

The whole idea behind the clamping is to make the streets safer for children by ensuring line of sight. What kids are out playing at that time? QUOTE]

Just a thought, but I'm assuming that the reason behind clamping in this instance is not just to protect kids. Imagine you or I were coming home from the boozer one night, a little bit on the drunker side of sober; you come across a car parked on the footpath and have to divert to the road. As luck would have it, a car rounds a corner at the same time, and you end up on your arse having come off second best to a mechanically propelled fuel powered hunk of steel on wheels.
Alternatively, you slip while stepping (unnecesserally) off the kerb and break something. Now, which of the following do you go after?
1. the management company
2. the car driver (if applicable)
3. yourself (for being drunk)
4. the guy who parked illegally on the footpath and forced you onto the road.

I suppose the alternative is

to walk over the car

, but that just wouldn't be very clever, and i'm in NO WAY condoning that sort of behaviour.

I say bring back clamping for every parking infringment

And they're my thoughts....for the record!

cuddlycavies

No. 3. Dont be staggering around the estate, drunk.

ciaran67

Mullie wrote: »

hunk of steel on wheels.

You've seen me on my bike then, shucks.

mikedragon32

The Yipper wrote: »

Mullie wrote: »

The whole idea behind the clamping is to make the streets safer for children by ensuring line of sight. What kids are out playing at that time? QUOTE]

Just a thought, but I'm assuming that the reason behind clamping in this instance is not just to protect kids. Imagine you or I were coming home from the boozer one night, a little bit on the drunker side of sober; you come across a car parked on the footpath and have to divert to the road. As luck would have it, a car rounds a corner at the same time, and you end up on your arse having come off second best to a mechanically propelled fuel powered hunk of steel on wheels.
Alternatively, you slip while stepping (unnecesserally) off the kerb and break something. Now, which of the following do you go after?
1. the management company
2. the car driver (if applicable)
3. yourself (for being drunk)
4. the guy who parked illegally on the footpath and forced you onto the road.

I suppose the alternative is

to walk over the car

, but that just wouldn't be very clever, and i'm in NO WAY condoning that sort of behaviour.

I say bring back clamping for every parking infringment

And they're my thoughts....for the record!

The driver of the vehicle that hits you is liable, however, the fact that you were drunk would be contributory to the incident and would be factored in to any award made.

The owner of the illegally parked car could be liable for having caused the hazard and the mgt co for failing to prevent the illegal parking of the car, but that is stretching it.

But to be honest, if you were so drunk that you can't negotiate the tiny kerbs we have in Charlesland and fail to be aware of vehicles approaching, you'd really have nobody to blame but yourself!

JanneG

The Yipper wrote: »

Mullie wrote: »

The whole idea behind the clamping is to make the streets safer for children by ensuring line of sight. What kids are out playing at that time? QUOTE]

Just a thought, but I'm assuming that the reason behind clamping in this instance is not just to protect kids. Imagine you or I were coming home from the boozer one night, a little bit on the drunker side of sober; you come across a car parked on the footpath and have to divert to the road. As luck would have it, a car rounds a corner at the same time, and you end up on your arse having come off second best to a mechanically propelled fuel powered hunk of steel on wheels.
Alternatively, you slip while stepping (unnecesserally) off the kerb and break something. Now, which of the following do you go after?
1. the management company
2. the car driver (if applicable)
3. yourself (for being drunk)
4. the guy who parked illegally on the footpath and forced you onto the road.

I suppose the alternative is

to walk over the car

, but that just wouldn't be very clever, and i'm in NO WAY condoning that sort of behaviour.

I say bring back clamping for every parking infringment

And they're my thoughts....for the record!

5. Walk in to the parked car, get bruised, take the reg and report them for a hit and run?! :P

Mullie

The Yipper wrote: »

I say bring back clamping for every parking infringment

I completely agree, it drives me nuts too. I was just getting at the fact that no-one was alerted to the fact they were back clamping again. Who knows, it may have been an 'emergency' situation and the person wouldn't normally do it and thought 'since the clampers are off I'll do it this once'. Who knows.

Anyway, if Ronan O'Gara happens to park on the path I'll be sure to walk into his car and settle for a few rugby tickets!

eigrod

I'm sure wheelchair users & parents pushing buggies just love these diamonds who park on footpaths also.