Height Barriers. Let's get together on them.
I have started a discussion on discrimination of height barriers going under General Discussion. Probably the wrong place because the amount of pro discrimination posts makes me think that the old antipathy against our style of touring still exists in The
Club.
Without re-writing my original post there-go and join in the debate- basically I am willing to coordinate an action to have these barriers removed or at least opened for MHs. If you are interested, contact me at enquiries@youdrive.co & look at this page
http://bit.ly/18HAdBz for more on it.
Do join in on the other discussion though.
Comments
-
Can't understand why this is not a bigger issue with motorhome owners. I accept that limits on overnight parking can be reasonable but I object to being unable to stop in safe and legal parking areas in whole council areas because of these height barriers. Traveling 20 or 30 miles on a coast road looking for somewhere to stop to make lunch in not uncommon. I have found that the only places that seem to accept motothome access are supermarkets, which certainly lacks something in ambiance.
0 -
Over-height barriers stop caravans and motorhomes. That is often one of the main reasons for their usage I suspect. It is not, in general, targetted against motorhomes parking as such I suspect although many car parks are not laid out as to make parking of many motorhomes practical. It is often utilised to stop misuse of car parks by travellers and those wild camping. If it was easy to prevent or resolve such abuse by other means I doubt that they would be employed.
2 -
This is an ancient thread. I thought it rang bells!
Another one resurrected somehow.
0 -
If everyone respected parking areas for what they are intended, then height barriers or any other parking restrictions would not be needed, but rather than any chance of a reducing the a amount of height barriers,the increase in inconsiderate "Parking/Camping?"will only see an increase, no matter what is hoped for
0 -
I think this subject died a death long ago. I could be wrong, in which case I apologise, but I have a feeling the OP got a bit carried away in his posting.
0 -
I think you are right TW.....
The "page" the OP refers to does not seem to exist.....
Having seen the lengths my local council and business parks have gone to to prevent unwanted "invasions" , and the entrance to the local leisure centre has been fortified with anti tank (or caravan) barriers and looks like a D day beach, I would say there is zero chance of councils removing many height barriers, quite the opposite sadly....
0 -
yes, its a shame (but the way of things here, im afraid) as i (and many other MHers, im sure) would happily pay to park in a decent car park, with decent marked MH spaces, in order to visit towns.
however, we dont seem to be able to 'shift' those that abuse parking charges/regulations without some lengthy court/legal process, total madness.....just get plod to move them (anyone, not just travellers) on.
really not that difficult.
perhaps now we are untangling ourselves from the morass of ridiculous EU HR laws, we might finally come to our senses.
0 -
I think this is the page the OP refers to http://kspeat.wixsite.com/driversunion/height-barriers-lincolnshire
David
0 -
.just get plod to move them.... on.
I agree with your scentiments BB, but moving them on only means transferring the problem to someone else.
The UK needs a fundamentally different approach to these invasions.
I don't know what the answer is and neither I suspect does the government......
0 -
further to the above, we went to Bath on Wednesday and decided to jse the P&R at Newbridge to avoid taking the car into town (what these car parks are trying to acheive?)...
i noticed that there are height barriers set at 2m.....
so, any MHer wishing to visit Bath on their travels, cant pay and make use of a facility thats designed to keep traffic out of the city....? how odd.
so, the message from Bath council (or whoever) is, if you have a MH, take your van into town and try and park it on the street somewhere, or book in at a campsite, or go and visit somewhere else.
none are very friendly when cash would firstly be spent on parking, then perhaps on lunch, then on any attractions and a bit of shopping...
obviously, forward thinking places like Bath dont need the business
1 -
We also stayed at Bath last week but stopped on a campsite next to a Park and Ride...which was very convenient!
We moved on to Oxford where the P & R (Redbridge) had bays for MHs at £5 for 24 hours. This too was directly next to a campsite.
Quite a pleasant surprise for the UK
1 -
Sounds like Bath Marina campsite.
however convenient it is for hopping into town during your stay, its not convenient for day visitors passing through, wanting a glimpse of the wonderful Georgian city....perhaps, say, 5-10 MH bays in a seperate area minus the barrier....too small a space to interest the travelling fraternity but of real use to thise MHers who just want to (pay to) Park and Ride like everyone else.....
0 -
Yes, of course BB that's why I mentioned the Oxford P & R dedicated parking.
However I do think, like Motorway service stations, that MHs and Caravans are at the very bottom of any priority list and I can't see it changing.
Of all the places that people visit on leisure and site seeing activities there is virtually never specialised parking except for coaches, and woe betide any MH that dares to encroach in that hallowed space.
PS. Never face the wind
1 -
1
-
This is a great read but the OP is dated
22 October 2013.
So no progress in just about 4 years. If only there was a club where members owned caravans and motorhomes and could be heard as a collective voice............. woken up now 😉.
0 -
i just dont understand why French town and village aires arent over run with travellers....
generally, theres not a soul about.....ive never seen anyone on an aire (with or without barriers) that shouldnt be there....
yes, some in touristy areas are often very busy, but the simple rules of price and duration of stay seem to govern their use effectively.
why should it be different here?
is it because those found to be breaching those said rules are dealt with efficiently?
0
