Government Response to overnight stops.

handyman · June 28, 2009

I have found the skinfints cause just as much trouble abroad........height barriers and 'no motorhomes' signs

As far as I see, when there is anything left thats not restricted, then its location goes round the skinflint bongo drum network, and then loads of them appear.

This then means the local area then bans them (and therefore us) from parking anywhere in certain areas

June 28, 2009

handyman - 2009-06-28 4:47 PM

I have found the skinfints cause just as much trouble abroad........height barriers and 'no motorhomes' signs

As far as I see, when there is anything left thats not restricted, then its location goes round the skinflint bongo drum network, and then loads of them appear.

This then means the local area then bans them (and therefore us) from parking anywhere in certain areas

I have to wonder why you persist with the term 'skin flint'? How can anyone who spends the amount of cash that most of us do, both on our vans and on using, them be called this?

If you don't like 'free' or paid for 'non site' overnighting just don't use it but please stop having digs at those of us who do prefer to use our vans as they were designed - to tour feely without let or hindrance and not to be herded into controlled packs every night.

This is our right not to use sites just as much as it is your right to only use sites and none of us will ever call you a wimp or lacking in imagination or even a herd follower for using sites so let's cut out the unhelpful name calling shall we?

Thanks.

Andy_C · June 28, 2009

SAS - 2009-06-28 1:21 AM

I can`t see why it`s not allowed at park & rides. If Canterbury can do it why can`t other places? However I think there should be a maximum time limit of 48 hours on it. http://www.motorcaravanning.com/travel/uk_aires.htm We parked at Dover Rd for 2 nights last year and it was perfect. The only thing that annoyed me was that some people seemed to be emptying toilet waste irresponsibly.

A few more listed here: http://www.ukmotorhomes.net/ukaires.shtml ;-)

AndyC

Andy_C · June 28, 2009

W3526602 - 2009-06-28 7:53 AM

Hi,

I have long thought that EVERY town should have a couple of acres available for overnight arrivals.

A couple of acres might be a bit over the top, and it's probably not necessary in *every* town!

However Hull and Folkestone both allow motorhomes to stay overnight in their truck parks (you even get an electric hookup at Hull) so it should certainly be possible elsewhere.

AndyC

handyman · June 28, 2009

Tracker - 2009-06-28 5:20 PM

handyman - 2009-06-28 4:47 PM

I have found the skinfints cause just as much trouble abroad........height barriers and 'no motorhomes' signs

As far as I see, when there is anything left thats not restricted, then its location goes round the skinflint bongo drum network, and then loads of them appear.

This then means the local area then bans them (and therefore us) from parking anywhere in certain areas

I have to wonder why you persist with the term 'skin flint'? How can anyone who spends the amount of cash that most of us do, both on our vans and on using, them be called this?

If you don't like 'free' or paid for 'non site' overnighting just don't use it but please stop having digs at those of us who do prefer to use our vans as they were designed - to tour feely without let or hindrance and not to be herded into controlled packs every night.

This is our right not to use sites just as much as it is your right to only use sites and none of us will ever call you a wimp or lacking in imagination or even a herd follower for using sites so let's cut out the unhelpful name calling shall we?

Thanks.

What shall I call your type then?

'Freecampers'.............if so, then change 'skinflint' to 'freecampers' so I dont upset anyone (lol)

JayM · June 28, 2009

You just don't get it.. do you!!!

What part of .."I don't care how much I pay for my overnight stay" don't you understand?

As I tried to explain earlier.. all I want to do is be able to stop overnight,or have the ability to stop in a car park in a town or whatever to be able to spend my hard earned SKINFLINT bucks.

I have used sites but they are either, too far from a town or shut by the time I arrive late at night.

Do you get it now?

I do hope so. Please,please do not call us skinflints or any other name by that nature.

Happy driving John & Mary

yeti · June 28, 2009

TIREDNESS KILLS-we just want somewhere to rest en route.

handyman · June 28, 2009

J&M,

fully understand........but the problem is when these facilities are made available, then the 'freecampers' then use them for a 2 week holiday on the med coast!

Long journey late arrival overnights can only be motorway type service stop places, due to the free 2 week holiday types

Do you get it?

Brian Kirby · June 28, 2009

Well, the poo seems to be well and truly airborne now, so before anyone switches on the fan, may I just ask this?

Why does it so much matter whether some folk prefer stopovers with no facilities at lower prices, and others prefer stopovers with full facilities and correspondingly higher prices? I do not much like the "aires" I have encountered to date, because they seem to me little better than carparks with poor security, and I prefer to be surrounded by greenery and to have showers and toilets that someone else cleans. However, I do not resent those who use aires, in fact I rather encourage them, because they leave more space on campsites for me! That they pay less does not bother me: they get less in exchange, and that seems fair and proper.

What I have resented, on the few aires I have used, is the totally inconsiderate sods who turn up late at night (with totally unnecessary "caution, vehicle reversing" announcements), because there is nothing to prevent them doing so, and disturb all those who have just settled down for the night, and those other inconsiderate sods who think it acceptable to depart at some time before sparrowfart, and further disturb those whose sleep was disturbed by the first lot the night before!

If you like driving on 5/6 hours sleep, and consider this safe, and an advantage worth saving a few pounds to achieve, then good luck to you, but I so much prefer campsites where someone locks the gate at around 22:00, and only opens it again at around 07:00. I then get not only the showers and toilet cleaned, but undisturbed rest, which I think well worth the extra cost, and the inconsiderate sods just go and annoy someone else. However, each to his/her own! :-)

June 28, 2009

Fair enough Brian - I agree with all that you say about those arrogant inconsiderate and noisy sods who are so hell bent on their own brand of fun that they are unable to see, or care about, anyone else's perspective.

A few slices of bread on their van roof at night when there are gulls or crows about in the morning is a nice bit of revenge - just park well away from them!

June 28, 2009

handyman - 2009-06-28 6:56 PM

What shall I call your type then?

'Freecampers'.............if so, then change 'skinflint' to 'freecampers' so I dont upset anyone (lol)

I was unaware that I am a type - but I still don't understand why you continue insulting anyone who does not conform to your own thoughts on camping?

So what if someone did choose to spend two weeks on a Motorway service area or a vacant piece of waste land on the Med - how does that affect you, tucked up on your nice site?

There is no right or wrong - just different - why can't you understand and accept this?

handyman · June 29, 2009

That vacant piece of wasteland then gets a height barrier, then the 'freecampers' go somewhere else, then that area gets a parking restriction, and so on and so on.

Its not my fault that this is the way it is, it just is, but what it does create is a situation where i cant park my van in certain areas without getting a ticket, and this isnt my fault

This is why i cant accept this, can you accept this *-) (lol)

handyman · June 29, 2009

I have already asked what to call this group of people, with no responce, so I presumed 'freecampers' was ok

yeti · June 29, 2009

Why is it only here that we have this problem? Other countries accept it and in fact embrace the concept.

I think it is because we are still very class conscious of a class structure. Despite 'freedom to roam' the landowning lobby is still very strong here and supported by politicians of any persuasion(usually a freebie of sorts).

GJH · June 29, 2009

yeti - 2009-06-29 8:05 AM

Why is it only here that we have this problem? Other countries accept it and in fact embrace the concept.
I think it is because we are still very class conscious of a class structure. Despite 'freedom to roam' the landowning lobby is still very strong here and supported by politicians of any persuasion(usually a freebie of sorts).

From what I've been able to find it partially appears to go back to the 1950s when the fact that people camped where they liked led to the Caravan Sites & Control of Development Act being passed in 1960. Whether that was as a result of any "class" bias I don't know. However, I would comment that I have titled friends who camp in both caravans and tents.

Another factor is that significant amounts of the car parking provision in this country date from post war resconstruction and post slum clearance reconstruction in the 1950s to 1970s period. At that time use of motorhomes was much less (did it exist in the 1950s?), cars were generally smaller and provision was based on the needs of commuters and shoppers.

Many councils, of course, have suffered from the activities of "travellers" leaving litter and causing problems and haven't seen the other, positive, side of the coin which responsible motorhome owners present. I'm convinced that if we responsible motorhome owners can present positive evidence to authorities regarding economic benefits then I believe we will persuade some to provide more facilities.

Only a couple of weeks ago I received an update from North Somerset Council with details of more car parks where motorhomes than there were previously, including two which allow overnight stays. As authorities come on board in that manner then word will go around the grapevine and, hopefully, a domino effect will result.

Graham

handyman · June 29, 2009

yeti - 2009-06-29 8:05 AM

Why is it only here that we have this problem? Other countries accept it and in fact embrace the concept.
I think it is because we are still very class conscious of a class structure. Despite 'freedom to roam' the landowning lobby is still very strong here and supported by politicians of any persuasion(usually a freebie of sorts).

Wrong, we have had problems with 'no motorhome' signs, and height barriers mainly on the med coast in France, and in Italy so far, and lack of parking spaces big enough here in the UK.

Brian Kirby · June 29, 2009

handyman - 2009-06-29 8:34 AM
yeti - 2009-06-29 8:05 AM Why is it only here that we have this problem? Other countries accept it and in fact embrace the concept. I think it is because we are still very class conscious of a class structure. Despite 'freedom to roam' the landowning lobby is still very strong here and supported by politicians of any persuasion(usually a freebie of sorts).
Wrong, we have had problems with 'no motorhome' signs, and height barriers mainly on the med coast in France, and in Italy so far, and lack of parking spaces big enough here in the UK.

Another appeal for clarity, because I am again confused. Is handyman's objection to the existence/use of "aires", or is it only to wild camping - which I understand to be camping where there is no official provision? I don't want to get bogged down in all the finer points about camping with an owner's permission, or using laybys: just not camping on a site, or on an aire (stellplatz, aree di sosta etc).

As I see it, aires etc are merely minimal facility motorhome stopover sites, so could be considered as campsites for the purpose of this discussion.

If handyman is objecting to off site camping, then, except where this is legal, I tend to agree with him. It tends to become an unwelcome imposition. If, however, he is objecting to those aires etc, that are officially provided for motorhome stopovers, then I think he is being completely unreasonable.

However, I think he possibly misunderstands the origins of the objections. In many French seaside locations, motorhomes could be parked freely until a few years back. Growing numbers of motorhomes, with owners looking for free parking places, resulted in relatively large numbers of vans congregating in these locations, often to the detriment of the environment and to the disadvantage of other visitors to/residents of the locations.

There are a number of examples around Normandy, Brittany and along the Mediterranean coast where, as seen by local residents, motorhomes reached plague proportions and local councils moved to ban them from their preferred haunts.

Many motorhomers think this unreasonable, but if one goes to see an attractive little fishing port, with its sea views, and all one can actually see is a solid wall of white boxes along the harbour wall, taking up all the available parking space, making access difficult for fisher folk, and blocking everyone else's view, one begins to have more sympathy with the banners than the selfish and inconsiderate motorhomers.

None of you, of course, are those selfish and inconsiderate individuals, notwithstanding which undoubted truth, it is that brigade of "sod you, I'm all right Jack" motorhomers who have spoiled the game for, and reduced the freedoms of, sensitive and considerate souls like us. As motorhome numbers rise, the "couldn't care less" brigade will increase with them, and so will the restrictions that follow in their wake. Sadly, I think this is inevitable, and I cannot see how it can be stopped, other than by the imposition of general parking restrictions.

France is an interesting case, because in France, as in UK, a motorhome is classed as a car. There is a general presumption that a vehicle may be parked overnight on a public road in France, provided it does not cause nuisance, and it is not in an area where parking is specifically controlled or prohibited. However, to be parked it much have only its wheels in contact with the ground, and no awnings, tables, chairs etc must be deployed outside it, otherwise its occupants are camping, which is not allowed on public roads.

Some local authorities, in trying to reduce the motorhome plague, have sought to restrict parking of motorhomes, while allowing cars to park. The French government has now ruled that such restrictions are discriminatory, and an abuse of local powers. Nevertheless, not all the notices have gone, and not all Police Municipale officers turn a blind eye. This was particularly true along the Cote d'Azur, where hoards of motorhomers apparently congregated to rub shoulders with the rich and the famous (though Gawd knows why they want to!), and the rich and famous got p*ssed off with the white boxes outside their drives and complained to their (often rich and famous) Mayors. The present result is much greater general parking restriction along the Cote, presumably on the basis that if you don't have a chauffeur to toodle off with your car while you attend to your haircut/manicure, you must be an impoverished gawper who should be shooed away as quickly as possible. Elsewhere things are more relaxed.

In UK, I think the resistance is fed mainly by the density of our population, which means that people generally are far more aware of, and concerned about, potentially detrimental changes to their immediate environment, coupled with, for similar reasons, a far greater intolerance of the "gentlemen of the road". It approaches paranoia in some areas, but seeing the aftermath of a travellers encampment after they have left/been evicted, I have great sympathy with the paranoid. Scotland is different, but has a far lower population density, so the odd motorhome discreetly tucked into the landscape (but can you really do this?), apparently causes less outcry.

Brian Kirby · June 29, 2009