Parking at Lammas Land Car Park

[John Taylor]

As usual this weekend, the Lammas Land car park was full and overflowing
with people having to park on grass verges and causing obstruction.

As usual all of the disabled spaces (except for one) were unused.

Converting the never used disabled spaces back to normal spaces would
help the situation considerably.

What do we need to do to demonstrate to the council that these disabled
spaces are not needed ?

In the mean time, what are our options ?
Can we park in the unused disabled spaces, or are we likely to get a
ticket ? Surely it would be better to park here than obstructing the car
park by parking outside spaces.

JohnT

[Alan Jones]

"John Taylor" <jo...@nospam.jtresponse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m1j55i$jmb$1...@dont-email.me...

If anyone can park in the unused disabled spaces when others are full,
presumably they will also fill and there will be none available for the next
visitor, disabled or otherwise.

For some disabled drivers, the option to park half a mile away and walk back
may not be possible, so it means giving up and driving home. For able-bodied
drivers and passengers this could mean parking elsewhere and walking for 15
minutes, but is that too much to ask?

On the suggestion that there are too many spaces allocated to disabled badge
holders, I would hope that the council does get information (from parking
enforcement?) about how many spaces are in use at peak times.

If there is never a time when all of the disabled bays are occupied, then
perhaps a few could be re-designated, but are they monitored frequently
enough to be sure?

The opposite should also apply: if there are more than very occasional times
when all the bays are full, then more bays should be allocated to disabled
badge holders (Note the hysteresis to save paint).

I think that something like this is happening, because Cambridge's provision
of parking for disabled visitors seems generally well-balanced.

Alan Jones

[Ian Jackson]

In article <m1j55i$jmb$1...@dont-email.me>,

John Taylor <jo...@nospam.jtresponse.co.uk> wrote:
>As usual this weekend, the Lammas Land car park was full and overflowing
>with people having to park on grass verges and causing obstruction.

These people don't `have' to park on grass verges. Many (perhaps
most) of them could choose some other mode of transport, or, finding
the area full, could park further away and walk.

There is not enough space in Cambridge for everyone who wants to drive
their car into the city to be able to do so. I think people parking
on grass verges and causing obstructions are selfish. They should be
ticketed and/or have their cars towed away.

>As usual all of the disabled spaces (except for one) were unused.
>
>Converting the never used disabled spaces back to normal spaces would
>help the situation considerably.

`Considerably' ? Really ? I doubt that it would make a significant
dent, given the usual kind of ratio between disabled and normal
spaces.

Also, paradoxically, providing more parking can make a situation like
this worse. If one main restraint on people trying to drive to Lammas
Land is the lack of parking, then more parking means more people and,
statistically, greater variation in the number of people on any
particular day - so the bad days will become worse.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/

[Roland Perry]

In message <59b%v.523848$3F6.1...@fx02.am4>, at 16:15:29 on Tue, 14
Oct 2014, Alan Jones <ajn...@exospan.com> remarked:

>On the suggestion that there are too many spaces allocated to disabled badge
>holders, I would hope that the council does get information (from parking
>enforcement?) about how many spaces are in use at peak times.
>
>If there is never a time when all of the disabled bays are occupied, then
>perhaps a few could be re-designated, but are they monitored frequently
>enough to be sure?
>
>The opposite should also apply: if there are more than very occasional times
>when all the bays are full, then more bays should be allocated to disabled
>badge holders (Note the hysteresis to save paint).
>
>I think that something like this is happening, because Cambridge's provision
>of parking for disabled visitors seems generally well-balanced.

Hands up anyone who has ever seen more then two or three cars parked on
the reserved-for-disabled ground floor of QAT.

I fully agree that there should be provision, but sometimes it seems to
be overkill.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <1gr*Ba...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 16:25:33 on Tue,
14 Oct 2014, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:

>>As usual this weekend, the Lammas Land car park was full and overflowing
>>with people having to park on grass verges and causing obstruction.
>
>These people don't `have' to park on grass verges. Many (perhaps
>most) of them could choose some other mode of transport, or, finding
>the area full, could park further away and walk.

Is there still parking along the Barton Rd edge of Lammas Land?

As an [ex-]resident of Newnham Croft, I always thought it a little odd
that people would drive to it at all.
--
Roland Perry

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <m1j55i$jmb$1...@dont-email.me>, jo...@nospam.jtresponse.co.uk (John

Taylor) wrote:

> In the mean time, what are our options ?
> Can we park in the unused disabled spaces, or are we likely to get a
> ticket ? Surely it would be better to park here than obstructing the
> car park by parking outside spaces.

Walk or cycle there? Or get a bus and walk? Disabled spaces are for people
who cannot avail themselves of those options.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Alan]

I'm guessing he might be carrying things that need a car. Hint, there is
a canoe club across the brook.

I think his point is one I agree with. Disabled spaces are critical, but
not so many that they are usually less than half occupied by the people
that need them, when there is a general shortage of parking.

--
Alan

Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Sarah Cooper]

In article <m1j55i$jmb$1...@dont-email.me>, jo...@nospam.jtresponse.co.uk
(John Taylor) wrote:

>

I have had the misfortune to be in need of a blue badge. A lot of people
seem to think that we're lazy, or could walk if we needed to. Whilst this
may be the case for a tiny proportion of blue badge holders it is not the
general case [point 1].

[point 2]In my experience the number of disabled bays is usually very
carefully calculated - clearly, why have 4 disabled bays when you can fit
in 6 ordinary ones, especially if money can be made out of them either
directly (parking revenue) or indirectly - local businesses.

point 3. Many blue badge holders simply cannot get out of a car in a
narrow space or simply can't walk un/aided more than 3 paces - I was one
of them. I have missed several medical appointments (some involving
injections that allowed me to walk.....just like you can now - unaided;
bliss isn't it?) because I simply couldn't park in a disabled bay close
enough to where I needed to be, or some able-bodied bastards were hogging
the space "waiting for someone" and ignoring me when I produced my blue
badge, then told me "go and park in that space down there, there's plenty
of room". Don't you think I would have done if I'd been able to?!!!

point 4 Unless you actually monitor the area 24/7 *how do you know that
all spaces are not needed at some point?* I've pulled into one space of an
otherwise empty line and come back 10 minutes later and disabled vehicles
are circling looking for a space. This is what annoys the hell out of me
with able bodied people thinking "I'll only be 10 minutes". It's like
litter - somebody sees an ordinary car, and a few spaces and thinks, "well
he has, I will, there's space". If there are 6 like minded selfish
bastards it means that a disabled vehicle can't park for an hour, not to
mention missed appointments, medication or even just the simple relief of
maybe going out for the day somewhere different.

So no, these spaces should be kept for those that truly need them. Imagine
organising a day out with people willing to actually help you physically
get there and there is just no way you can either park, or get out of the
vehicle.

Have I made my point? People like you should take the hint about parking
capacity and take the bus or cycle if it's that bad BECAUSE LUCKILY YOU
HAVE A CHOICE.....if you are particularly unlucky, maybe the day will come
when you don't.

--
SCoop

[Bill]

In message <memo.2014101...@a.cix.co.uk>, Sarah Cooper
<coope...@cix.co.uk> writes

>point 4 Unless you actually monitor the area 24/7 *how do you know that
>all spaces are not needed at some point?* I've pulled into one space of an
>otherwise empty line and come back 10 minutes later and disabled vehicles
>are circling looking for a space. This is what annoys the hell out of me
>with able bodied people thinking "I'll only be 10 minutes". It's like
>litter - somebody sees an ordinary car, and a few spaces and thinks, "well
>he has, I will, there's space". If there are 6 like minded selfish
>bastards it means that a disabled vehicle can't park for an hour, not to
>mention missed appointments, medication or even just the simple relief of
>maybe going out for the day somewhere different.
>
>So no, these spaces should be kept for those that truly need them. Imagine
>organising a day out with people willing to actually help you physically
>get there and there is just no way you can either park, or get out of the
>vehicle.
>
>Have I made my point? People like you should take the hint about parking
>capacity and take the bus or cycle if it's that bad BECAUSE LUCKILY YOU
>HAVE A CHOICE.....if you are particularly unlucky, maybe the day will come
>when you don't.
>

A good friend of mine used to manage a number of service areas and they
had the problem of the "I will only be 10 minutes" parker. One of his
methods to keep them clear was for one of the security staff to park in
a disabled bay in their private car and then clamp it for the duration
of their shift! He said that although it tied up a disabled bay it did
keep able bodied people out of all the others! An old dodge, but an
effective one.
--
Bill

[Alan Jones]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> on Tuesday, October 14, 2014 4:30 PM
remarked

I rather assumed that the ground floor of QAT was allocated with Kelsey
Kerridge gym/Parkside pools in mind, where there are disability squads
training and competing. Perhaps you haven't been there when they are in?

As the car park is controlled by tickets on entry, and disabled badge
holders have a concession, it would not be too difficult for the council to
monitor the peak usage of the disabled provision. I have seen it very full
on swimming Gala Days, and I would be surprised if there was enough
provision for a wheelchair basketball tournament.

Alan Jones

[Ian Jackson]

In article <op.xnqes4wh72n0pf@alan>, Alan <es....@ourmailbox.org.uk> wrote:
>I'm guessing he might be carrying things that need a car. Hint, there is
>a canoe club across the brook.

Perhaps then there should be a reserved spaces system for canoe club
members, or something. Or perhaps the canoes could be kept in the
clubhouse - I have no idea, not having really looked round there for a
while. (And you can get a canoe on a bike trailer fairly easily.)

But anyway this supposition about canoes is speculation. I would have
thought the OP would have mentioned it if they'd had an actual reason
for needing to drive to Lammas Land.

>I think his point is one I agree with. Disabled spaces are critical, but
>not so many that they are usually less than half occupied by the people
>that need them, when there is a general shortage of parking.

Disabled people are likely to turn up in `lumps', because (just like
any other people) they tend to know, and socialise and do activities
with, rather more with people like themselves. So the fact (if true)
that the spaces are usually less than half used tells us very little.
What we would need to know is how often they are full or nearly so,
which is a much harder question to answer.

I guess the Council may once upon a time have had people who monitored
the usage of disabled vs. other parking bays, and similar kinds of
thing but they have probably been cut. Nowadays there's probably a
manual which says how many disabled spaces to put in.

[Alan Braggins]

In article <8Zm*E8...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson wrote:
>In article <op.xnqes4wh72n0pf@alan>, Alan <es....@ourmailbox.org.uk> wrote:
>>I'm guessing he might be carrying things that need a car. Hint, there is
>>a canoe club across the brook.
>
>Perhaps then there should be a reserved spaces system for canoe club
>members, or something. Or perhaps the canoes could be kept in the
>clubhouse - I have no idea, not having really looked round there for a
>while.

There are canoes in the clubhouse, but not enough space for all members
to keep all their canoes there all the time. (At least that was the
situation when I was a member years ago - the building hasn't grown,
so unless membership is much smaller, it's still the case.)

> (And you can get a canoe on a bike trailer fairly easily.)

Hmm. I've seen photos of canoes on bike trailers, so I know it's possible,
but none of them were being used in anything like Cambridge traffic.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <slrnm3vep...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

If you mean you can't filter when towing a canoe, well, yes,
obviously. But you can't filter while driving a car either.

[Patrick Gosling]

In article <slrnm3vep...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>There are canoes in the clubhouse, but not enough space for all members
>to keep all their canoes there all the time. (At least that was the
>situation when I was a member years ago - the building hasn't grown,
>so unless membership is much smaller, it's still the case.)

In fact, I'm pretty sure the building _has_ grown sometime in the
last couple of years ... (there was quite a bit of work done on it).

That doesn't necessarily negate your point, of course.

-patrick.

[Alan Braggins]

In article <kbh*Kn...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson wrote:
>In article <slrnm3vep...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>In article <8Zm*E8...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> (And you can get a canoe on a bike trailer fairly easily.)
>>
>>Hmm. I've seen photos of canoes on bike trailers, so I know it's possible,
>>but none of them were being used in anything like Cambridge traffic.
>
>If you mean you can't filter when towing a canoe, well, yes,
>obviously. But you can't filter while driving a car either.

I was more worried about the chances of someone turning through a low
and unexpectedly long trailer. (And the inability to filter and the extra
length for anyone else to overtake you meaning that you might actually
hold up other traffic in ways that bikes without trailers longer than
they are generally don't.)

[tim.....]

"Alan Jones" <ajn...@exospan.com> wrote in message
news:59b%v.523848$3F6.1...@fx02.am4...

> "John Taylor" <jo...@nospam.jtresponse.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:m1j55i$jmb$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> As usual this weekend, the Lammas Land car park was full and overflowing
>> with people having to park on grass verges and causing obstruction.
>>
>> As usual all of the disabled spaces (except for one) were unused.
>>
>> Converting the never used disabled spaces back to normal spaces would
>> help the situation considerably.
>>
>> What do we need to do to demonstrate to the council that these disabled
>> spaces are not needed ?
>>
>> In the mean time, what are our options ?
>> Can we park in the unused disabled spaces, or are we likely to get a
>> ticket ? Surely it would be better to park here than obstructing the car
>> park by parking outside spaces.
>>
>> JohnT
>
> If anyone can park in the unused disabled spaces when others are full,
> presumably they will also fill and there will be none available for the
> next visitor, disabled or otherwise.
>
> For some disabled drivers, the option to park half a mile away and walk
> back may not be possible, so it means giving up and driving home. For
> able-bodied drivers and passengers this could mean parking elsewhere and
> walking for 15 minutes, but is that too much to ask?
>
> On the suggestion that there are too many spaces allocated to disabled
> badge holders, I would hope that the council does get information (from
> parking enforcement?) about how many spaces are in use at peak times.

I doubt very much that any part of this loop exists

let along the full thing

tim

[Tim Ward]

On 18/10/2014 12:33, tim..... wrote:
>
>> On the suggestion that there are too many spaces allocated to disabled
>> badge holders, I would hope that the council does get information
>> (from parking enforcement?) about how many spaces are in use at peak
>> times.
>
> I doubt very much that any part of this loop exists

When councillors ask for such data it usually appears. Within hours if
it already exists, or months if it needs to be collected from scratch.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[al.gra...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 18, 2014 3:22:12 PM UTC+1, Tim Ward wrote:
> When councillors ask for such data it usually appears. Within hours if
> it already exists, or months if it needs to be collected from scratch.

Why is Lammas Land car park not covered by CCTV? The argument
from a crime prevention / personal safety point of view is surely
at least as strong as for many places which are covered, say,
Arbury court car park. And if by reviewing the footage you were
able to better understand usage and reallocate spaces to increase
revenue, it might even pay for itself.

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <a5d00e82-e738-4bcb...@googlegroups.com>,

Cost on a car park remote from services, I expect.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Malcolm G]

how much restriction is there on what councils can use the CCTV data
for? (if a sign is put up saying CCTV for crime prevention / personal
safety would the council be allowed to use it for that)

[Roland Perry]

In message <_Uo1w.448333$Kk6.1...@fx22.am4>, at 09:35:06 on Tue, 21
Oct 2014, Malcolm G <malcolm-new...@delete.jobstream.com>
remarked:

>>> When councillors ask for such data it usually appears. Within hours if
>>> it already exists, or months if it needs to be collected from scratch.
>>
>> Why is Lammas Land car park not covered by CCTV? The argument
>> from a crime prevention / personal safety point of view is surely
>> at least as strong as for many places which are covered, say,
>> Arbury court car park. And if by reviewing the footage you were
>> able to better understand usage and reallocate spaces to increase
>> revenue, it might even pay for itself.
>
>how much restriction is there on what councils can use the CCTV data
>for? (if a sign is put up saying CCTV for crime prevention / personal
>safety would the council be allowed to use it for that)

In practice they can put up CCTV for almost anything. There's some been
installed in the past year on a Pelican Crossing near me, and the sign
says something like "for traffic management".

I'm not sure what aspect of traffic management they mean, although
replacing it with a crossing[1] that didn't have the characteristic of
almost all the pedestrians crossing on red through gaps in the traffic,
followed by cars stopped at the lights and no pedestrians in sight,
would probably help everyone's blood pressure.

If you need "crime" as an excuse, then isn't unauthorised parking in a
disabled bay a crime, so the CCTV could be used to monitor how often
that happened. Let alone cars being broken into.

[1] A properly set up Puffin for example, although these seem as rare as
hen's teeth (to keep with the bird names).
--
Roland Perry

[Malcolm G]

On 21/10/2014 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <_Uo1w.448333$Kk6.1...@fx22.am4>, at 09:35:06 on Tue, 21
> Oct 2014, Malcolm G <malcolm-new...@delete.jobstream.com>
> remarked:
>>>> When councillors ask for such data it usually appears. Within hours if
>>>> it already exists, or months if it needs to be collected from scratch.
>>>
>>> Why is Lammas Land car park not covered by CCTV? The argument
>>> from a crime prevention / personal safety point of view is surely
>>> at least as strong as for many places which are covered, say,
>>> Arbury court car park. And if by reviewing the footage you were
>>> able to better understand usage and reallocate spaces to increase
>>> revenue, it might even pay for itself.
>>
>> how much restriction is there on what councils can use the CCTV data
>> for? (if a sign is put up saying CCTV for crime prevention / personal
>> safety would the council be allowed to use it for that)
>
> In practice they can put up CCTV for almost anything. There's some been
> installed in the past year on a Pelican Crossing near me, and the sign
> says something like "for traffic management".

Badly phrased on my part.
If the sign says "CCTV for crime prevention / personal safety" would
they be allowed to use the images to see when/how much the disabled vs
other provision was used?

[Alan]

Well I suspect the easiest way to increase revenue would be to charge for
use of the car park in the first place.

[Roland Perry]

In message <D1q1w.733946$7b1.1...@fx01.am4>, at 10:52:34 on Tue, 21

Oct 2014, Malcolm G <malcolm-new...@delete.jobstream.com>
remarked:

>>> how much restriction is there on what councils can use the CCTV data
>>> for? (if a sign is put up saying CCTV for crime prevention / personal
>>> safety would the council be allowed to use it for that)
>>
>> In practice they can put up CCTV for almost anything. There's some been
>> installed in the past year on a Pelican Crossing near me, and the sign
>> says something like "for traffic management".
>
>Badly phrased on my part.
>If the sign says "CCTV for crime prevention / personal safety" would
>they be allowed to use the images to see when/how much the disabled vs
>other provision was used?

I don't see why not. Restrictions on CCTV are in place for the
protection of privacy and counting the number of cars doesn't infringe
that. The sign warns people that CCTV might, differently, be used to
identify individuals (who are involved in activities coming under the
crime prevention and personal safety umbrella).
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:52:34 +0100, Malcolm G put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Yes.

Such a sign, if it has any legal significance at all (and it may well be
nothing more than a courtesy anyway), only has significance insofar as it
addresses uses which fall within the remit of data protection and
associated issues. Monitoring how full a set of spaces get isn't in any way
sensitive data, so it wouldn't need to be declared.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on smartphones: http://goodge.eu/an
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk

[algra...@googlemail.com]

On Monday, October 20, 2014 9:57:02 PM UTC+1, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> Cost on a car park remote from services, I expect.

Remote from what services? It's right next door to council buildings
i.e. the kiosk and toilet block for the pool.

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <88ab393a-872d-4b9a...@googlegroups.com>,

where's the nearest electricity sub-station and when telecomms
infrastructure is there?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Roland Perry]

In message <aqGdnYEEbdiHVtXJ...@giganews.com>, at 04:32:10
on Thu, 23 Oct 2014, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:

>> > Cost on a car park remote from services, I expect.
>>
>> Remote from what services? It's right next door to council buildings
>> i.e. the kiosk and toilet block for the pool.
>
>where's the nearest electricity sub-station and when telecomms
>infrastructure is there?

Aren't a lot of the City's CCTV cameras wireless, and why would they
need more power than a street light.
--
Roland Perry

[Espen H. Koht]

In article <+OPWxivY...@perry.co.uk>,

They are indeed, and no they wouldn't.

Espen

[tony sayer]

In article <ehk20-97939F....@nnrp.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Espen H. Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> scribeth thus

Might need a few watts for pan, tilt and focus and window demisting and
window wiper etc...

--
Tony Sayer