Residents 'shocked' to be fined for parking on pavements outside homes

[AcousticallyChallenged]

49 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

It also says on 'Restricted Streets'. Whatever than means

On that page, it says:

The problem is, if you bring in a new rule, you’ll just get everything being bought meeting that new rule.

6m? The Seville (Ducato/Boxer/Relay) vans are 5.998m in LWB guise.

5.5m? There are some saloons, albeit high end, longer than that. The MWB Seville vans are just below 5.5m. Still big hefty vans. Under 2t unladen too  

Weight? You can get low payload versions for weight restrictions.

The motorhome issue could be solved by offering proper parking somewhere

[joebean]

This is the age-old issue about things that become problems and the reaction of authority to the problem. It’s easier, in policy terms at least, to react by some sort of prohibition. It’s much more difficult to react by finding a solution. This requires thinking and subsequent action and maybe, investment. Given that Authorities are just collections of people and people generally find the easiest thing most convenient, it’s no surprise that lazy regulation and prohibition orders are the favoured route, despite not really solving anything. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by joebean

[Roxanne]

1 minute ago, joebean said:

This is the age-old issue about things that become problems and the reaction of authority to the problem. It’s easier, in policy terms at least, to react by some sort of prohibition. It’s much more difficult to react by finding a solution. This requires thinking and subsequent action and, maybe investment. Given that Authorities are just collections of people and people generally find the easiest route most convenient, it’s no surprise that lazy regulation and prohibition orders are the favoured route, despite not really solving anything. 

You’re so right. The government take huge sums of money from these motorhomes and vans in road tax and for that they have the right to be on the road. If they are too big or too heavy to be on the roads then an alternative should be provided. 

Part of the reluctance to take action is the media hype of ‘gypsies and pikeys’ so now, many people have a fear of anyone who might want to spend their down time in a van. There needs to be a hearts and minds campaign to overcome this. While they are thought of as ‘the enemy’ and while the owners know and feel this, the less likely that a that solution will be found.

Thats why DBC are missing a trick here. They have the space and It could be a positive move. Long term parking with charges and short term overnight stays with charges and facilities - water and grey and black dumping points. 

If motorhome owners felt they were welcomed instead of hated they would be more likely to use the facilities. 

Jeez, this works perfectly well all over Europe and brings in far more revenue to the local authority and local businesses than it costs to instal  why on earth can’t we just do it here?

When Peel a Marina was being built I spoke to the commissioners to suggest putting in overnight parking for vans with electric points, water and dumping, and shower cabins. It would have cost hardly anything as the works were already being done for the Marina. It would have brought in a lot of money to the town. It was turned down because a female commissioner said that ‘we don’t want pikeys in Peel’. That’s what we are dealing with. Regardless of the fact that most of these owners are in receipt of government and private pensions and have money to spend in the town and are willing to spend it.

It’s short sighted and it’s wrong. 

[P.K.]

In the defence of the authorities, for want of a better word, you should always do the easy things first in fixing a problem. Because if you don't and the more difficult options end up an expensive failure then you're going to look really really stupid. No shortage of those on the IOM!

Missed opportunities are a different thing entirely. If someone in Peel actually said  ‘We don’t want pikeys in Peel’ then I think they're on really dodgy ground. However everyone can understand the sentiment. 

In these straightened times projects need a proper costing and SWOT to make sure anything is worthwhile.

Unfotunately throw " heritage" into the mix and things get really really tricky...

[La Colombe]

8 minutes ago, P.K. said:

In these straightened times projects need a proper costing and SWOT to make sure anything is worthwhile.

Yeah, not like the good old days when everything was bent. 

[doc.fixit]

Thought you said SWAT, although, might work.😄

[joebean]

10 hours ago, Roxanne said:

You’re so right. The government take huge sums of money from these motorhomes and vans in road tax and for that they have the right to be on the road. If they are too big or too heavy to be on the roads then an alternative should be provided. 

Part of the reluctance to take action is the media hype of ‘gypsies and pikeys’ so now, many people have a fear of anyone who might want to spend their down time in a van. There needs to be a hearts and minds campaign to overcome this. While they are thought of as ‘the enemy’ and while the owners know and feel this, the less likely that a that solution will be found.

Thats why DBC are missing a trick here. They have the space and It could be a positive move. Long term parking with charges and short term overnight stays with charges and facilities - water and grey and black dumping points. 

If motorhome owners felt they were welcomed instead of hated they would be more likely to use the facilities. 

Jeez, this works perfectly well all over Europe and brings in far more revenue to the local authority and local businesses than it costs to instal  why on earth can’t we just do it here?

When Peel a Marina was being built I spoke to the commissioners to suggest putting in overnight parking for vans with electric points, water and dumping, and shower cabins. It would have cost hardly anything as the works were already being done for the Marina. It would have brought in a lot of money to the town. It was turned down because a female commissioner said that ‘we don’t want pikeys in Peel’. That’s what we are dealing with. Regardless of the fact that most of these owners are in receipt of government and private pensions and have money to spend in the town and are willing to spend it.

It’s short sighted and it’s wrong. 

Motorhomes, typically, represent a considerable investment and owners are likely to have the income to buy, tax, insure and maintain them. They will have self-contained facilities and, as you say, only need basic grey water and toilet cassette emptying facilities with appropriate parking to attract owners to spend more of their money in the area where facilities are provided. Of course, the waters become a bit muddied with owners of converted vans but, generally if you provide decent facilities you get decent behaviour in return. Government and local authorities here seem, instead, interested in only stifling motorhoming and ostracising owners. Ok, motorhomes are not the be all and end all but it does reflect a tendency here we don’t seem able to alter. 
We have an arbitrary 500,000 figure plucked out of nowhere which has now been presented as a visitor target. In typical fashion our Government cannot pull together to turn arbitrary into ambitious and is intent on flailing around with half-hearted regulation, making itself look foolish and doing nothing positive for anyone. It’s what we do. Can becomes can’t. Flourish becomes failure. Dull becomes duller. 

[Happier diner]

23 hours ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

On that page, it says:

The problem is, if you bring in a new rule, you’ll just get everything being bought meeting that new rule.

6m? The Seville (Ducato/Boxer/Relay) vans are 5.998m in LWB guise. That's over 5.5m no no issue

5.5m? There are some saloons, albeit high end, longer than that. The MWB Seville vans are just below 5.5m. Still big hefty vans. Under 2t unladen too  Motor Cars would be excluded. Vans under 5.5m are not an issue unless the owner has a vast collection of street sheds

Weight? You can get low payload versions for weight restrictions. Payload is irrelevant as its unladed weight

The motorhome issue could be solved by offering proper parking somewhere Yes it could. At cost though

Interesting. Yes there will need to be some clarifications. However your issues could easily be addressed/

 

[AcousticallyChallenged]

On 6/22/2023 at 7:29 AM, Happier diner said:

Interesting. Yes there will need to be some clarifications. However your issues could easily be addressed/

 

But where does this magic 5.5m figure come from? Something like the below is still bloody big to be parked in a small street. Meets the 5.5m requirement though. And light enough to be a 'dual-purpose' vehicle.

Plus, plenty of big vans have M (passenger vehicle) type approval, so what distinguishes a motor car and a van?

On 6/22/2023 at 7:29 AM, Happier diner said:

Payload is irrelevant as its unladed weight

What do you define the unladen weight as the limit then? You'd be surprised how light the big vans are, less unladen weight means more payload. As exemplified by the above being under 2 tonnes empty.

[WTF]

4 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

But where does this magic 5.5m figure come from? Something like the below is still bloody big to be parked in a small street. Meets the 5.5m requirement though. And light enough to be a 'dual-purpose' vehicle.

Plus, plenty of big vans have M (passenger vehicle) type approval, so what distinguishes a motor car and a van?

What do you define the unladen weight as the limit then? You'd be surprised how light the big vans are, less unladen weight means more payload. As exemplified by the above being under 2 tonnes empty.

rangerovers weigh more than  some vans ,and not much shorter,  maybe they should be banned too.

[Happier diner]

12 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

But where does this magic 5.5m figure come from? Something like the below is still bloody big to be parked in a small street. Meets the 5.5m requirement though. And light enough to be a 'dual-purpose' vehicle.

Plus, plenty of big vans have M (passenger vehicle) type approval, so what distinguishes a motor car and a van?

What do you define the unladen weight as the limit then? You'd be surprised how light the big vans are, less unladen weight means more payload. As exemplified by the above being under 2 tonnes empty.

Unladen weight is quoted on the VIN plate. It is sometimes termed mass in running order.

5.5m ducatos are like rocking horse shit so it's not an issue. 

A range rover is a car. Those that have them generally have one.....and a van. Ban the van.

I think that sole traders that have small vans that they use a car as well should not be banned. It the folk that bring their work van home and, along with their 2 cars take up a selfish amount of space. 

[AcousticallyChallenged]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

Unladen weight is quoted on the VIN plate. It is sometimes termed mass in running order.

I asked what do you draw the line as for the unladen weight?

Not what it is.

As I pointed out, even big vans are under 2t empty. Well below a modern SUV. (A modern range rover is about 2.7t unladen for example)

If you do it on weight and category, plenty of pickups would fall foul too.

Plus, what legally counts as a passenger vehicle? Some big vans will be type approved as passenger vehicles (M vs N type approval), rather than commercial. So you'd just keep an eye out for one of those that's thus exempt.

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

5.5m ducatos are like rocking horse shit so it's not an issue. 

Are they? MWB vans aren't exactly uncommon. A sprinter SWB is similar length, the tall versions of the short ones look almost comical. Plus, plenty of Boxers and Relays about too.

Renault masters and their stablemates also come in around that length in MWB form.

By restricting a particular category, you just incentivise people to buy the ones that are as big as they can get away with. And if you can't go longer, you can go taller, or wider.

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

I think that sole traders that have small vans that they use a car as well should not be banned. It the folk that bring their work van home and, along with their 2 cars take up a selfish amount of space. 

You can request the DOI investigate bringing parking permits into your area if parking is such an issue.

With the cost of rent combined with lacking public transport, some households now have >3 cars with reasonable excuse. Extra cars are going to take up a lot more parking space than an extra foot of van.

If they pay their road tax, then they've as much entitlement to park anywhere as anyone else. We've had cars left outside for months on end, but again, it's a public road. If we cared enough, we'd write to the commissioners.

[2112]

The petition against the DOIs proposed banning of vehicles over a certain height and length, which encompasses Motorhomes and Caravans along with some motor vehicles, from residential areas, has gathered over 2000 signatures. What’s the betting that this petition will give the politicos the frighteners, and they won’t have the bottle to vote in the proposed legislation. 

[newaccount]

6 minutes ago, 2112 said:

The petition against the DOIs proposed banning of vehicles over a certain height and length, which encompasses Motorhomes and Caravans along with some motor vehicles, from residential areas, has gathered over 2000 signatures. What’s the betting that this petition will give the politicos the frighteners, and they won’t have the bottle to vote in the proposed legislation. 

 

A very small number when compared to the total population.  Just saying.

Furthremore. such petitions can be signed by anyone, no matter where their location.

[Banker]

1 hour ago, newaccount said:

 

A very small number when compared to the total population.  Just saying.

Furthremore. such petitions can be signed by anyone, no matter where their location.

Yes a bit like the DBC bins petition when lots didn’t reside in Douglas or probably even exist