Easiest way to move a car with the handbrake on?

listermint

alias no.9 wrote: »

If they were unallocated, is it fair to say that nobody ever paid €10k for a space making it clearly different to the situation the op described? No doubt, everyone living there understood how things worked too.

There was no sign to say if they were or were not allocated, so to a new resident its not very clear what to be doing.

Im just saying its not as black and white as you are making out to be fair.

Anan1

listermint wrote: »

just to clear this up, I lived in an apartment in Cabinteely. All spaces had a number on them. The underground had a gate system. But none of the spaces were 'allocated' despite being numbered.

And there were no signs to indicate either if there was or not allocated spaces.

His point remains valid, though - if one doesn't know that one has the right to park there then one doesn't.

listermint

Anan1 wrote: »

His point remains valid, though - if one doesn't know that one has the right to park there then one doesn't.

As you know by now everything has to be displayed clearly.

So i dont think its valid. Thats what signs are designed for, you clearly require them when clamping is concerned. If a space is not marked as private then surely its just a space like any other?

keithclancy

listermint wrote: »

As you know by now everything has to be displayed clearly.

So i dont think its valid. Thats what signs are designed for, you clearly require them when clamping is concerned. If a space is not marked as private then surely its just a space like any other?

Heh .... the old .. Theres no sign excuse.
Myself I don't chance it, don't want to come back to a clamped car, I'll always check with someone in a complex car park that i'm unfamiliar with.

Some people are pure psychos, came back one day and some guy had dumped engine oil all over my car, he had no legal right/ownership but ffs that didn't matter

listermint

keithclancy wrote: »

Heh .... the old .. Theres no sign excuse.
Myself I don't chance it, don't want to come back to a clamped car, I'll always check with someone in a complex car park that i'm unfamiliar with.

Some people are pure psychos, came back one day and some guy had dumped engine oil all over my car, he had no legal right/ownership but ffs that didn't matter

Im not using it as 'an excuse'

just saying its not as black and white as some posters would have you make out. so i wish people would stop saying it is.

There are many circumstances so when presented with anything you must take a look at all angles. Its what any sane person would do.

keithclancy

listermint wrote: »

Im not using it as 'an excuse'

just saying its not as black and white as some posters would have you make out. so i wish people would stop saying it is.

There are many circumstances so when presented with anything you must take a look at all angles. Its what any sane person would do.

I'm saying it doesn't matter, if you come back and someones taken a dump on your roof, poured brake fluid all over it or whatever you have absolutely zero come back unless you saw them do it.

Thats all.
Technically your right
In real life I don't chance it.

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

We know that the OP paid 10 grand for their space

We know that other people are regularly parking in it

What do you suggest? That everyone be forced to put biscuit tins under the wheels of the offending cars and shove them out of the way? Fvck that - people have a right to have their private property respected. All you consaw wavers need to realize that you're not fighting some abstract powah, you're p1ssing on the rights of real people - people like the OP.Towing is much more efficient in the sense that it gets rid of the obstruction, but it's far too slow to deter short-term bad parking. It's also expensive, and generally impossible in underground/multi-storey car parks (not enough height).

The times I would recommend an angle grinder to people is when someone was unfairly clamped because of the clamping company's "****-up" and save themselves the hassle of months of appeals only to be told "please **** off". (especially if it was a cowboy organization posing as a legitimate business, such as say APCOA).

Sure why doesn't the OP just slash the person's tyres anyway? Same deterrent in terms of expense and inconvenience to the illegal parker.

listermint

keithclancy wrote: »

I'm saying it doesn't matter, if you come back and someones taken a dump on your roof, poured brake fluid all over it or whatever you have absolutely zero come back unless you saw them do it.

Thats all.
Technically your right
In real life I don't chance it.

Ah the 'oul dump on the roof' its a classic

Anan1

listermint wrote: »

If a space is not marked as private then surely its just a space like any other?

No, not in a private car park. If you don't know that you're allowed to park there then assume that you're not.

listermint wrote: »

Im not using it as 'an excuse'

It sounds like you are, TBH. You're putting the onus on the parking space owner to defend their space, which IMO is wrong.

Stark wrote: »

The times I would recommend an angle grinder to people is when someone was unfairly clamped because of the clamping company's "****-up" and save themselves the hassle of months of appeals only to be told "please **** off". (especially if it was a cowboy organization posing as a legitimate business, such as say APCOA).

That's you - many people automatically take the side of the person clamped, with no concern for the victim. A simple test of a person's attitudes is whether they'd support regulated clamping with a fully independent appeals process.

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

His point remains valid, though - if one doesn't know that one has the right to park there then one doesn't.

If you are going to have clamping in effect, you have to have clear signage to indicate that that is the case and where it is and isn't okay to park.

I suppose you'd defend these guys: http://www.eveshamobserver.co.uk/2012/02/21/news-Clamper-jailed-for-defrauding-motorists-30733.html with "Sure if they couldn't see the signs on the high walls, they shouldn't have parked there".

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

If you are going to have clamping in effect, you have to have clear signage to indicate that that is the case and where it is and isn't okay to park.

Of course, the system has to be transparent and fair to everyone.

Stark wrote: »

I suppose you'd defend these guys: http://www.eveshamobserver.co.uk/2012/02/21/news-Clamper-jailed-for-defrauding-motorists-30733.html with "Sure if they couldn't see the signs on the high walls, they shouldn't have parked there".

Why do you suppose that?

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

It sounds like you are, TBH. You're putting the onus on the parking space owner to defend their space, which IMO is wrong.That's you - many people automatically take the side of the person clamped, with no concern for the victim. A simple test of a person's attitudes is whether they'd support regulated clamping with a fully independent appeals process.

Personally I'd have no problem with that. But we're some way away from that in Ireland and several of the companies operating here behave no better than many who were jailed in Britain based on my experiences.

listermint

Anan1 wrote: »

It sounds like you are, TBH. You're putting the onus on the parking space owner to defend their space, which IMO is wrong.That's you - many people automatically take the side of the person clamped, with no concern for the victim. A simple test of a person's attitudes is whether they'd support regulated clamping with a fully independent appeals process.

You use terms like 'defend' and victim.

This is core the the problem, Everything that you say is typical of anti community. What ever happened to having a quick word with someone rather than jumping on the defensive of 'rights' all the time.

Clamping is an offensive action, Its unnecessary. I think youll find 99% of people are actually reasonable. We need to ditch attitudes such as yours where developments are concerned if we are ever to get back to some form of normal residential society.

You'd prefer to promote the over the fence attitude. Its just not on.

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

Personally I'd have no problem with that. But we're some way away from that in Ireland and several of the companies operating here behave no better than many who were jailed in Britain based on my experiences.

That's why we need regulated clamping, with an independent appeals process. I'm going to ask you again to explain this:

Stark wrote: »

I suppose you'd defend these guys: http://www.eveshamobserver.co.uk/2012/02/21/news-Clamper-jailed-for-defrauding-motorists-30733.html with "Sure if they couldn't see the signs on the high walls, they shouldn't have parked there".

@ listermint - When did taking someone else's space become pro-community? It's offensive, it's anti-community, and people have a right to be protected from it. You can dress this up whatever way you want, but the whole point of this thread is that some people think it's ok to just take over the OP's private space for days. Do you think it's ok? Do you think the OP should just suck it up and maybe leave a nice note? Because that's how it's sounding.

listermint

Anan1 wrote: »

@ listermint - When did taking someone else's space become pro-community? It's offensive, it's anti-community, and people have a right to be protected from it. You can dress this up whatever way you want, but the whole point of this thread is that some people think it's ok to just take over the OP's private space for days. Do you think it's ok? Do you think the OP should just suck it up and maybe leave a nice note? Because that's how it's sounding.

Speaking to the vehicles owner is the best approach.

'Hi sorry you are parking in my spot. I paid alot of cash for it when i moved in'

I think you'll find this is a better approach.

Your the one using terms such as 'defend' 'protect' 'victim'. Far from being amusing its quite sad that there are people with this sort of attitude banging around these days.

Ridiculous siege mentality, how do you cope day to day if this is the type of worries you have?


Often the best approach is the civil explanatory one. People arent evil.

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm going to ask you again to explain this:

It's the "if they were unclear, they shouldn't have parked there" attitude. It should be the clamper's responsibility to make it clear if certain spaces are allocated spaces or not. If they're leaving spaces unmarked and preying on visitors' ignorance to make their money, then they're no better than thugs. I had to park under the YMCA gym the other week. Signs up saying "clamping in operation" and numbered spaces but no indication of which spaces it was okay for me as a gym user to park in. Had no idea if I would come back to find my car tampered with or not.

listermint wrote:

Speaking to the vehicles owner is the best approach.

'Hi sorry you are parking in my spot. I paid alot of cash for it when i moved in'

I think you'll find this is a better approach.

Your the one using terms such as 'defend' 'protect' 'victim'. Far from being amusing its quite sad that there are people with this sort of attitude banging around these days.

Ridiculous siege mentality, how do you cope day to day if this is the type of worries you have?


Often the best approach is the civil explanatory one. People arent evil.

Tbh, a lot of people are ***** and will require harsher action than simply a word in the ear. But people should also be wary of using a tiger to catch a mouse.

listermint

Stark wrote: »

It's the "if they were unclear, they shouldn't have parked there" attitude. It should be the clamper's responsibility to make it clear if certain spaces are allocated spaces or not. If they're leaving spaces unmarked and preying on visitors' ignorance, then they're no better than thugs.



Tbh, a lot of people are ***** and will require harsher action than simply a word in the ear. But people should also be wary of using a tiger to catch a mouse.

i dont believe he is refering to clampers in this instance, its in relation to un monitored spaces in a complex with no signage to indicated anything.

Anan1

listermint wrote: »

Speaking to the vehicles owner is the best approach.

'Hi sorry you are parking in my spot. I paid alot of cash for it when i moved in'

I think you'll find this is a better approach.

Your the one using terms such as 'defend' 'protect' 'victim'. Far from being amusing its quite sad that there are people with this sort of attitude banging around these days.

Ridiculous siege mentality, how do you cope day to day if this is the type of worries you have?


Often the best approach is the civil explanatory one. People arent evil.

In principle I actually like your attitude, but I just don't think that it'll work in anything but the closest of closed communities. Many modern apartment blocks have hundreds of units, and people don't see an empty space as belonging to an actual person with their own life, priorities, obligations etc. The offenders move around from space to space, and they simply don't think about the effect they're having on others. Your way just won't work with these people.

Stark

listermint wrote: »

i dont believe he is refering to clampers in this instance, its in relation to un monitored spaces in a complex with no signage to indicated anything.

Well in that case, the first step should definitely be to get some sort of signs/markings up to indicate which spaces are owned by apartment owners before starting with clamping.

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

It's the "if they were unclear, they shouldn't have parked there" attitude.

I was referring to the moral angle there. When clamping is involved then everything has to be crystal clear, properly signposted, etc etc. The only people being clamped should be those who knowingly broke the rules.

Stark

Okay but that's not what you actually said.

Anan1 wrote:

His point remains valid, though - if one doesn't know that one has the right to park there then one doesn't.

"Doesn't know" is not the same as "knowingly". This attitude which is quite pervasive in Ireland is part of the reason why unregulated clampers are allowed operate with impunity and why innocent people may have to resort to angle grinders to regain control of their property.

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

Okay but that's not what you actually said.



"Doesn't know" is not the same as "knowingly". This attitude which is quite pervasive in Ireland is part of the reason why unregulated clampers are allowed operate with impunity and why innocent people may have to resort to angle grinders to regain control of their property.

I'll give you a simple example. If a car park has a sign at the entrance saying 'Private residents parking only' then for a visitor to just take a space without ensuring that it's a guest space/that it belongs to the person that they're visiting is IMO wrong. If you don't know that you've a right to park there then you don't.

However, if you're going to enforce clamping then you have to cross every t and dot every i. The idea needs to be to deter people by making the consequences clear rather than to catch people. If you know you'll get caught then you most likely won't take the p1ss.

Discodog

The OP should send a recorded delivery letter to the management company making it clear that he will hold them responsible for any time that he is unable to park. He should charge them the cost of alternative parking plus an additional amount to cover his inconvenience per day & deduct this from his management fees.

Pataman

Put 3/4 roofing nails under each tyre. He wont park there again

savagecabbages

Discodog wrote: »

The OP should send a recorded delivery letter to the management company making it clear that he will hold them responsible for any time that he is unable to park. He should charge them the cost of alternative parking plus an additional amount to cover his inconvenience per day & deduct this from his management fees.

+1
I'd be more inclined to blame the management company who the OP is paying money to in order for them to maintain his/her space. They allow this to happen repeatedly, and the OP isn't getting the use of the space which has been paid for.

alias no.9

savagecabbages wrote: »

+1
I'd be more inclined to blame the management company who the OP is paying money to in order for them to maintain his/her space. They allow this to happen repeatedly, and the OP isn't getting the use of the space which has been paid for.

The management company may or may not have done their job regarding signage and access control, but one thing they definitely didn't do was park the god damned car there. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Why the need to always pass the buck and blame someone else?

savagecabbages

I'm not passing the buck to anyone, but if I was paying someone money to do a job, and they failed utterly to do it, I'd be pretty annoyed with them...

What do you expect the OP to do? Put a note on the guys car asking him to be more responsible in future?

Tragedy

Eh, damaging his car in any way was never(and imho is never) an option. Parking like a prick doesn't excuse damaging his property!

It's a gated underground car park with I'd estimate ~150 spaces, plenty of private parking signs underground.

As for community spirit, it's a split development with terraced townhouses and apartment blocks. The only visitor parking is in front of the townhouses where every 2nd or 3rd spot is unnumbered and for visitor parking (as per the development plan and planning permission).

When we first moved in 3 years ago, I used to park on the road across from the houses (no double yellows or parking issues back then, and my brother took the spot underground). Even though I was the only car that would park on a 210m stretch of road and always parked carefully so as to not ever inconvenience people, I would regularly get notes on my windscreen telling me not to park there from residents of the houses.
So I started leaving the car at my parents most of the time and occasionally parking in visitor spots so as to not offend their delicate sensibilities.

I started getting more vitriolic notes telling me that the visitor spots were not visitor spots, they were spots for the houses (despite being unnumbered, despite on the planning application being visitor parking for all).

Then I started getting notes that made me think if I kept parking my car in visitor spots, it was a question of when and not if it might get damaged.

So please, don't lecture me about closed community, community spirit, or people having rights to my parking spot All I want to do is park my car in my spot, nothing more.

Buffman

Sounds like a right pain to be putting up with OP.

As for the

Easiest way to move a car with the handbrake on?

I'd have to say using one of these would probably be the easiest way.

carbon nanotube

johnos1984 wrote: »

Whatever you do I'd like pictures and a video.

Maybe even a picture of how it is now

in bangkok crowded multi storey parks, the cars are literally left in neutral..

push cars around at will

crazy.