Forum topic: How not to park!

The photograph below was taken by David March in Waterfall...

How not to park indeed, though not a surprise. In my view this is not selfishness personified, but simply a demonstration of driver entitlement created and fostered by a century of treating drivers as a favoured class largely funded by the general tax payer, given ever-more space/priority to a point which is close to an urban crisis of space to be followed by a later, but similar, non-urban crisis. All of which has allowed, encouraged even, damage to the health of tens of thousands every year.

Which is not to say that road vehicles are not a very useful and adaptable servant, but is to say a significant proportion of the journeys made in cars would be better - in terms of the public good as a whole - made in another way. Thus:

- kids would be better walking/cycling to school than being driven,

- probably most people in Britain are under exercised and cycling and walking are excellent exercise,

- there is no reason why a good slice of general taxation supporting drivers would be better spent on supporting public transport,

- motorways should be funded by tolls not the general tax payer, and

- in urban areas in particular road rules should serve each category of traveller (drivers, bikers, walkers) equally.

And much else besides to shape our attitudes to a more equal, more logical, heathier, and more sustainable future.

But more of that on another day; this was ritten hurriedly against a tight deadline.

These shocking pictures (car accidents caused by speeding on residential roads) would not be possible in Holland. There, the norm is that residential areas are for access only and the roads are designed accordingly (eg lots of cul de sacs / closed to all but cycles). So the concept of through drivers rat running through a residential area simply doesn't seem to exist, and these areas are safe for cycling and children's play.

This is why the Waltham Forest Mini Holland plans to create 'villages' of residential streets which are designed to discourage through drivers, mainly by closing a number of roads to motor traffic (while residents still have access). If our own Mini Holland is going to mean anything, the Quieter Neighbourhoods scheme needs to think more radically and do likewise.

Here's one we prepared earlier

Picking up on Clare's contribution above what she's describing as standard in The Netherlands are Quieter Neighbourhoods (QN) as described in the Mini-Holland bid document. Had the Council stuck to that definition rather than encourage the residents of each separate QN to make their own choices when consultation on implementation started we would have had an identical position here.

The Council's opening page of the Lakes Estate QN presentation went this way:

What a QN is not:
- a 20mph speed limit area;

with similar statements about other facets of the The Netherlands model.

Of course some QNs will have chosen/recommended 20mph limits, but some have not.

I think the 20 mph speed limit is largely a formality and the physical changes to the streets are much more important - filtered permeability, tight corners, speed cushions, etc. If they just stick a 20 mph sign ( the cheapest option ) probably nothing will really change.

To true Tom, but I was dealing with Enfield Council's approach to the idea of QNs, and its lack of determination to stand up for real change. You need the idea and the courage first, working out how it's best achieved comes afterwards.

As for the calming tools they are many and varied, and depend on the choice of outcome; in the case of the Netherlands the outcome is 'Shared Space' so, in that example, cushions wouldn't be appropriate.