residents parking signage... not official?, Notice left on car - but I can park there ? Options

[SurreyNorthern]

Hi all

Contentious subject no doubt...

I parked HERE

Where the silver car is, in front of the red car.

Assuming the link works, the sign on the wall to the right of the red vehicle says Residents PArking Only. There is no other signage around.

There are no marked bays, there are no lines... apart from the odd disabled bay (as on left). Clearly I won't be parking on a disabled bay.

It should be noted that I regularly see cars parked on the right in that fashion -so aside from part parking on kerb - any real reason I can't park there?

The road (Raleigh Ct), is listed as being maintained by Spelthorne.

Thanks.

[Advertisement]

[southpaw82]

Is it a private road?

Were you parked on the pavement?

[The Rookie]

Nothing there to suggest it’s a private road, so it looks to me like the sign is just ‘advisory’.

[SurreyNorthern]

Is it a private road?

Were you parked on the pavement?

No signage anywhere to suggest its a private road.. the entire road down to there IS Raleigh Court, including the 'dead end' bit.


I was parked the same way as the others on the image -half on, half off.

[Ocelot]

Looks like it's ok to park there to me. No bays, only a sign which looks like it's there to discourage non-residents parking, unless there is another sign detailing the terms.

[southpaw82]

So what does "The road (Raleigh Ct), is listed as being maintained by Spelthorne." mean?

Parking like that could get you a ticket for obstruction.

[Churchmouse]

Parking like that could get you a ticket for obstruction.

Unless e's a resident, apparently...

--Churchmouse

[notmeatloaf]

Don't know why everyone is parking on the pavement, it does my nut in as a parent with a three year old who likes cycling to find cars blocking the pavement when there is plenty of space on the road.

Other than narking me off/"obstruction" then ignoring the sign is not an issue itself.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 22:19

[Fredd]

So you're pissed because cars are parking on the pavement when they shouldn't because it's stopping your kid cycling on the pavement when they shouldn't?

[peterguk]

So what does "The road (Raleigh Ct), is listed as being maintained by Spelthorne." mean?

Presumably Spelthorne Borough Council

Contentious subject no doubt...

Are you a resident?

[ford poplar]

Any child under 10 yo can legally cycle on the pavement.
Any driver with less than 4 wheels on the Carriageway is an 'obstruction' and could be simply towed away by the Police.

[Fredd]

Any child under 10 yo can legally cycle on the pavement.

No, they can't. However they're below the age of criminal responsibility and so can't be prosecuted, which is where this myth originates.

[The Rookie]

So what does "The road (Raleigh Ct), is listed as being maintained by Spelthorne." mean?

Presumably Spelthorne Borough Council

Being in a borough doesn’t make it maintainable at the public expense, what the OP needs to check is what the local highways authority think it’s status is.

[notmeatloaf]

Any child under 10 yo can legally cycle on the pavement.

No, they can't. However they're below the age of criminal responsibility and so can't be prosecuted, which is where this myth originates.

For fairly obvious reasons a three year old who is still practicing to steer and brake shouldn't cycle on busy roads! Idiotic suggestion.

No doubt you would want her joining the other tubby kids ferried by car even though they live a five minute walk away.

[The Rookie]

Any child under 10 yo can legally cycle on the pavement.

No, they can't. However they're below the age of criminal responsibility and so can't be prosecuted, which is where this myth originates.

For fairly obvious reasons a three year old who is still practicing to steer and brake shouldn't cycle on busy roads! Idiotic suggestion.

And what has that to do with your assertion it was legal? Its not, simple fact, get over it! Not that Fredd made any suggestion at all, idiotic or otherwise.

Whether it should be is a different argument, you thinking it should be doesn't make it so.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 - 13:02

[SurreyNorthern]

So what does "The road (Raleigh Ct), is listed as being maintained by Spelthorne." mean?

Presumably Spelthorne Borough Council

Contentious subject no doubt...

Are you a resident?

Indeed for reference I was looking at the following Maintained at public expense

Not a resident of the road in question... but travel daily into London from Staines station. Ordinarily I park on the long stretch of Raleigh Court - on road - and not in that spot I posted.

More a question of the 'legality' of the sign.

Any child under 10 yo can legally cycle on the pavement.

No, they can't. However they're below the age of criminal responsibility and so can't be prosecuted, which is where this myth originates.

For fairly obvious reasons a three year old who is still practicing to steer and brake shouldn't cycle on busy roads! Idiotic suggestion.

No doubt you would want her joining the other tubby kids ferried by car even though they live a five minute walk away.

I know this cycling question is a bit off topic, but I'll chip in - if a kid is that poor at cycling, they shouldn't be on the path and should be practicing in a playground/park.... (irrespective of the parking debate)

[facade]

If people are putting notices on your car, don't park there

A colleagues wife tried ignoring the polite notes, and he had to go to her car that night with a set of valve cores and a pump so they could get it home again.

[The Rookie]

Presumably the criminal damage was reported to the Police?

[facade]

Doubt it. If it was I don't think that there were many arrests made.

I was actually surprised that the hoodie wearing perpetrator didn't go back a few days later in the night and take the valve cores out of the car parked on the drive or paint "peedo" across the windscreen (we aren't too good at spelling round here)



The sensible point being not to antagonise people when you have left valuable property at their mercy.

[notmeatloaf]

And what has that to do with your assertion it was legal? Its not, simple fact, get over it! Not that Fredd made any suggestion at all, idiotic or otherwise.

Whether it should be is a different argument, you thinking it should be doesn't make it so.

I appreciate you have problems understanding technical terms Simon but I never said it was legal. I said it was a stupid idea to cycle on the road.

But hey we can give it a try, I'll cycle behind at 6mph and I'm sure the queue of traffic behind will be appreciative I'm sticking to the letter of the law.