Nicepix Posted June 13, 2019 Author Share Posted June 13, 2019 Latest statement from the FFCC: "In any case on the national level it is urgent to obtain a clarification of the rules of station in the highway code, so that the assembly of communes is held to the same constraints. And it must be considered an obligation to provide areas for motorhomes with homogeneous and identical operation everywhere. We did it for the people of travel. It can be envisaged for the 500,000 users of French recreational vehicles and all the tourists, foreigners who visit our country." They are pushing members of the parliament to clarify whether Maires can issue prohibition notices aimed excursively at users of motorhomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aandy Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 "And it must be considered an obligation to provide areas for motorhomes with homogeneous and identical operation everywhere." There are two ways that could be achieved. By removing charges and restrictions where they currently apply, or by imposing them where they do not. I don't know how government works in France, but I have a pretty good idea which the authorities in the UK would opt for if it were their problem. The old adage "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Cup Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 I was just wondering if the authorities could get around this by banning or charging vehicles over 3.5 tons, or even say 2.5t, or 5 metres or so, on the basis that these vehicles would not fit marked out bays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicepix Posted June 14, 2019 Author Share Posted June 14, 2019 aandy - 2019-06-14 9:54 AM "And it must be considered an obligation to provide areas for motorhomes with homogeneous and identical operation everywhere." There are two ways that could be achieved. By removing charges and restrictions where they currently apply, or by imposing them where they do not. I don't know how government works in France, but I have a pretty good idea which the authorities in the UK would opt for if it were their problem. The old adage "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind. I understand where you are coming from. The thing is that at the moment there are too many grey areas being exploited by more and more communes and private companies to fleece camping-car users. For example; lorry drivers sleep in cabs in public car parks but aren't charged to park whereas those in camping-cars have to in many areas. Some communes provide free parking for cars with public toilets on site, but charge camping-car users for parking with no free facilities. The main aim of this campaign is to define whether local Maires have the legal right to discriminate against camping-car users by placing the signs banning camping cars from parking overnight except in paid areas. There seems to be an agreement that camping-car users will readily pay for services such as EHU, water and waste water / toilet disposal, but not for parking if parking is free to other types of vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicepix Posted June 15, 2019 Author Share Posted June 15, 2019 Just to add something to the last post I forgot last night; The other discrepancy regards paying for services is that these services and the price of them is so variable. EHUs, Wi-Fi & water prices on some aires are ridiculous and some now charge for toilet disposal. The comment about the travelling people's sites is interesting too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aandy Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 Nicepix - 2019-06-15 6:29 AM Just to add something to the last post I forgot last night; The other discrepancy regards paying for services is that these services and the price of them is so variable. EHUs, Wi-Fi & water prices on some aires are ridiculous and some now charge for toilet disposal. The comment about the travelling people's sites is interesting too. My concern would be that if pressed too hard the local authorities might decide it is not worth the cost and effort of making any facility available for motorhomes and we all lose out. It is certainly illogical to charge motorhome users on those areas where HGV drivers park for free, but otherwise I can see some justification, albeit slim, for treating us differently from cars simply because we use the areas for a different purpose. As to the practical aspects of maintaining a differential charging regime while avoiding the issue of discrimination (which I have to say I consider a spurious argument in any event) as someone else has already mentioned, our vehicles are heavier than cars and invariably take up more space, so a weight limit could be introduced in those areas not used by/suitable for HGVs, or a requirement to park wholly within a car-sized bay (as in many UK car parks). So far as the variation in costs is concerned, it seems reasonable that the providers should set them at whatever level they consider appropriate, reflecting the cost of the provision and factors such as the value in increased trade for local businesses that our presence generates. A small village with only a baker, for example, will get next to nothing from our visits, whereas a larger one with a range of shops and perhaps tourist attractions is likely to benefit more. With such a diverse range of factors that determine our benefit (or detriment) to the local communities it wouldn't be difficult to argue that a uniform approach is unrealistic. As a regular user of aires, I am amazed and grateful that so many excellent sites are provided at little or no cost to the user. I'd far rather put up with a few anomalies and inconsistencies than risk losing them altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicepix Posted June 15, 2019 Author Share Posted June 15, 2019 "My concern would be that if pressed too hard the local authorities might decide it is not worth the cost and effort of making any facility available for motorhomes and we all lose out" That is the point about the reference to the travelling community sites. The French government passed a law to the effect that towns above a certain population level had to provide a site for itinerants with certain levels of amenities. These sites are heavily subsidised and it could be argued that the town gains little and loses lots as a result of hosting this type of site. The French Camping Association is asking that similar rules should apply to camping car users. You make the point about camping cars being heavier than cars. Under French law a camping car under 3,5t is regarded as a car for all intents and purposes. So to legally be able to discriminate means changing the law. This is the point of the actions brought against individual communes who independently and illegally enforce discrimination against camping cars. Regards the value of camping car users to local economies you only have to look at the example of Moulismes. Up to last year the site was well used by camping cars and caravans along with HGVs and cars. Then they 'improved' the site making it virtually impossible to park a car and caravan let alone a HGV and created a specific compound for camping cars that have to park there at a fee. Even for brief stop overs. Lorries can park at the road side, as can cars and caravans, but camping cars have to park in the paying aire. As a result of these 'improvements' the local restaurant and epicerie are turning over a fraction of their previous trade as the number of camping cars and caravan users has dwindled from 20 - 30 per lunch time and overnight to an average of 5 per night with hardly any paying to stop over for lunch . These are the only two businesses in the commune which has a mere 400 residents. These two businesses will probably fold this year and thus the 400 inhabitants will lose the contributions of business rates these businesses currently provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aandy Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 Nicepix - 2019-06-15 10:45 AM You make the point about camping cars being heavier than cars. Under French law a camping car under 3,5t is regarded as a car for all intents and purposes. So to legally be able to discriminate means changing the law. This is the point of the actions brought against individual communes who independently and illegally enforce discrimination against camping cars. Regards the value of camping car users to local economies you only have to look at the example of Moulismes. Up to last year the site was well used by camping cars and caravans along with HGVs and cars. Then they 'improved' the site making it virtually impossible to park a car and caravan let alone a HGV and created a specific compound for camping cars that have to park there at a fee. Even for brief stop overs. Lorries can park at the road side, as can cars and caravans, but camping cars have to park in the paying aire. As a result of these 'improvements' the local restaurant and epicerie are turning over a fraction of their previous trade as the number of camping cars and caravan users has dwindled from 20 - 30 per lunch time and overnight to an average of 5 per night with hardly any paying to stop over for lunch . These are the only two businesses in the commune which has a mere 400 residents. These two businesses will probably fold this year and thus the 400 inhabitants will lose the contributions of business rates these businesses currently provide. It would be interesting to see the court ruling referred to in your initial post, but I suspect it rested on the non-conformity of the signs rather than any question of discrimination. Discrimination in itself is not unlawful and generally becomes so only where it is directed at a group or individual having a protected characteristic. I'd be very surprised if owning a motorhome is considered under any statutory provision to be a protected characteristic. It could be argued that disadvantaging one group against another is irrational, which could be grounds for challenge, but the differences in weight, size, and usage would almost certainly be sufficient to defeat such a challenge I would also question the assertion that motorhomes are to be regarded as cars for all purposes. Again, it would be interesting to see the relevant legal provision, but if that is what it says it would appear to outlaw the use of height barriers, which I've seen in many French car parks, since they differentiate between vehicles within the same class. What you say about Mouslimes may well be true and may be an argument for reinstating the previous parking regime at that particular location, but it does not make a case for a universal approach to the provision of aires or services. In another location, where there is no local commerce, provision of a free aire would represent a net cost to the community. As I said previously, with such a range of factors across different locations it is difficult to see any sound argument for universality, at least so long as the responsibility rests with local communities. Each one must surely be able to take account of its own particular needs and circumstances. While I am happy to take advantage of free aires where they exist, I have no objection to paying for services or for parking. I imagine, however that there is something of a cultural issue here, in that we in the UK are far more accustomed to paying to park than are the French. Either way, I just hope that the law of unintended consequences does not come into play, with local authorities deciding that an aire is just too much bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 aandy - 2019-06-14 8:54 AM "And it must be considered an obligation to provide areas for motorhomes with homogeneous and identical operation everywhere." There are two ways that could be achieved. By removing charges and restrictions where they currently apply, or by imposing them where they do not. I don't know how government works in France, but I have a pretty good idea which the authorities in the UK would opt for if it were their problem. The old adage "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind. UK authorities would impose charges of £25 quid a night minimum to park up, just as they already do on motorway service areas. Any other parking area would have "no overnight parking" signs to satisfy the British obsession with banning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 aandy - 2019-06-15 1:05 PM While I am happy to take advantage of free aires where they exist, I have no objection to paying for services or for parking. I imagine, however that there is something of a cultural issue here, in that we in the UK are far more accustomed to paying to park than are the French. Either way, I just hope that the law of unintended consequences does not come into play, with local authorities deciding that an aire is just too much bother. Ah i've just read this after posting and yes you are absolutely spot on with the 'cultural' point! A few years ago in Austria i drove into a small town to buy some postage stamps. The only parking areas were metered but there was a vacant spot so i parked up. Next issue was trying to figure why the damn machine wasn't taking any coin. A lady saw me looking puzzled, came over and in perfect English asked if she could help. I told her i was trying to pay to park. She looked at me in utter bewilderment as she told me, "you pay nothing for the first hour....that's free". You only pay for time after. So guess what? I went to have a meal and few espressos at a restaurant......where initially i was only going to buy some postage stamps! I still remember the name of the town....Wengen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david lloyd Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 aandy - although you make some very good sense in your arguments - and I also would be more than happy to pay a reasonable charge for the provision of Aires/services - I think your last comment regarding cultural differences is the key. The French have long enjoyed such privileges and it is reasonable for them to argue the case that starting to charge for them now is discriminating against them as a group. For decades it has been part of their lifestyle and one thing you can say about the French is that they do not take such things lying down - unlike ourselves who will moan and grumble a bit but, ultimately, accept higher charges or simply no provision for parking in towns at all. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicepix Posted June 15, 2019 Author Share Posted June 15, 2019 aandy - 2019-06-15 2:05 PM Nicepix - 2019-06-15 10:45 AM You make the point about camping cars being heavier than cars. Under French law a camping car under 3,5t is regarded as a car for all intents and purposes. So to legally be able to discriminate means changing the law. This is the point of the actions brought against individual communes who independently and illegally enforce discrimination against camping cars. Regards the value of camping car users to local economies you only have to look at the example of Moulismes. Up to last year the site was well used by camping cars and caravans along with HGVs and cars. Then they 'improved' the site making it virtually impossible to park a car and caravan let alone a HGV and created a specific compound for camping cars that have to park there at a fee. Even for brief stop overs. Lorries can park at the road side, as can cars and caravans, but camping cars have to park in the paying aire. As a result of these 'improvements' the local restaurant and epicerie are turning over a fraction of their previous trade as the number of camping cars and caravan users has dwindled from 20 - 30 per lunch time and overnight to an average of 5 per night with hardly any paying to stop over for lunch . These are the only two businesses in the commune which has a mere 400 residents. These two businesses will probably fold this year and thus the 400 inhabitants will lose the contributions of business rates these businesses currently provide. It would be interesting to see the court ruling referred to in your initial post, but I suspect it rested on the non-conformity of the signs rather than any question of discrimination. Discrimination in itself is not unlawful and generally becomes so only where it is directed at a group or individual having a protected characteristic. I'd be very surprised if owning a motorhome is considered under any statutory provision to be a protected characteristic. It could be argued that disadvantaging one group against another is irrational, which could be grounds for challenge, but the differences in weight, size, and usage would almost certainly be sufficient to defeat such a challenge I would also question the assertion that motorhomes are to be regarded as cars for all purposes. Again, it would be interesting to see the relevant legal provision, but if that is what it says it would appear to outlaw the use of height barriers, which I've seen in many French car parks, since they differentiate between vehicles within the same class. What you say about Mouslimes may well be true and may be an argument for reinstating the previous parking regime at that particular location, but it does not make a case for a universal approach to the provision of aires or services. In another location, where there is no local commerce, provision of a free aire would represent a net cost to the community. As I said previously, with such a range of factors across different locations it is difficult to see any sound argument for universality, at least so long as the responsibility rests with local communities. Each one must surely be able to take account of its own particular needs and circumstances. While I am happy to take advantage of free aires where they exist, I have no objection to paying for services or for parking. I imagine, however that there is something of a cultural issue here, in that we in the UK are far more accustomed to paying to park than are the French. Either way, I just hope that the law of unintended consequences does not come into play, with local authorities deciding that an aire is just too much bother. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://www.camping-car.com/actus-des-aires/24721-camping-car-la-flotte-en-re-condamnee-pour-ses-interdictions-de-stationner&prev=search Discrimination was mentioned in the court's ruling. Discrimination does not have to be against persons with protected characteristics. You might be getting mistaken with the Human Right's laws. The signs are not lawful in respect that they do not conform with the Code de la Route. However Maires are allowed to make laws much the same as councils in the UK can make by-laws. The court ruled that these local by-laws are unlawful, but the court cannot force every Maire to rescind their local by-laws so each one has to be taken to court on an individual basis. This is why the Camper's Federation are asking French MPs to consider changing the law. Camping Cars under 3,5t are regarded as voitures, or cars for all intents and purposes; speed limits, parking, no requirement for the bi-annual pollution test, etc, etc https://www.lemondeducampingcar.fr/pratique/reglementation/tout-savoir-sur-la-rglementation-du-camping-car/151754 https://www.lemondeducampingcar.fr/pratique/reglementation/camping-cars-stationner-ou-camper-quelle-diffrence/59595 I am not suggesting that we should expect free services. But when, as in a recent trip, we are asked to pay to park on the same ground that car drivers can park on free of charge then something needs to be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aandy Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 Nicepix - 2019-06-15 9:25 PM https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://www.camping-car.com/actus-des-aires/24721-camping-car-la-flotte-en-re-condamnee-pour-ses-interdictions-de-stationner&prev=search Discrimination was mentioned in the court's ruling. Discrimination does not have to be against persons with protected characteristics. You might be getting mistaken with the Human Right's laws. The signs are not lawful in respect that they do not conform with the Code de la Route. However Maires are allowed to make laws much the same as councils in the UK can make by-laws. The court ruled that these local by-laws are unlawful, but the court cannot force every Maire to rescind their local by-laws so each one has to be taken to court on an individual basis. This is why the Camper's Federation are asking French MPs to consider changing the law. Camping Cars under 3,5t are regarded as voitures, or cars for all intents and purposes; speed limits, parking, no requirement for the bi-annual pollution test, etc, etc https://www.lemondeducampingcar.fr/pratique/reglementation/tout-savoir-sur-la-rglementation-du-camping-car/151754 https://www.lemondeducampingcar.fr/pratique/reglementation/camping-cars-stationner-ou-camper-quelle-diffrence/59595 I am not suggesting that we should expect free services. But when, as in a recent trip, we are asked to pay to park on the same ground that car drivers can park on free of charge then something needs to be changed. I don't doubt that the question of discrimination was mentioned in the ruling, and as it formed one part of the case under consideration it would pretty much have to be. That is very different from it being the basis for the decision, however, and it is not at all clear from the article you provided exactly what the decision was based on. I take your point about the HRA, but the fact remains that discrimination is not unlawful unless it is manifestly unfair or unreasonable. In my view, it could be argued that it is reasonable to differentiate between vehicles of the same class on the basis of use, weight, and size, all of which differ from a car parked unattended overnight. The other links you provided make interesting reading. I have not studied them in detail, and my French is such that I am reliant to some degree on Google translate. However, two points that stand out are that the reference to motorhomes being treated as cars says explicitly that restrictions can still be imposed on the basis of size and weight, and that stipulations on parking in the Code de la Route are concerned solely with the public road, which may of course exclude many aires or car parks. In short, it would seem quite possible that all a mairie has to do is to re-word the restrictions so that they apply to any vehicle over a certain weight or length. That would then have the practical effect of excluding motorhomes without explicitly singling them out. Either way, my intention in responding to your post was not to get into a debate about the finer points of French law, but to voice my concern that the sort of action the Federation are embarking on could very easily backfire on them and have a very different outcome from the one they are seeking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicepix Posted June 16, 2019 Author Share Posted June 16, 2019 aandy - 2019-06-16 12:16 AM Nicepix - 2019-06-15 9:25 PM https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://www.camping-car.com/actus-des-aires/24721-camping-car-la-flotte-en-re-condamnee-pour-ses-interdictions-de-stationner&prev=search Discrimination was mentioned in the court's ruling. Discrimination does not have to be against persons with protected characteristics. You might be getting mistaken with the Human Right's laws. The signs are not lawful in respect that they do not conform with the Code de la Route. However Maires are allowed to make laws much the same as councils in the UK can make by-laws. The court ruled that these local by-laws are unlawful, but the court cannot force every Maire to rescind their local by-laws so each one has to be taken to court on an individual basis. This is why the Camper's Federation are asking French MPs to consider changing the law. Camping Cars under 3,5t are regarded as voitures, or cars for all intents and purposes; speed limits, parking, no requirement for the bi-annual pollution test, etc, etc https://www.lemondeducampingcar.fr/pratique/reglementation/tout-savoir-sur-la-rglementation-du-camping-car/151754 https://www.lemondeducampingcar.fr/pratique/reglementation/camping-cars-stationner-ou-camper-quelle-diffrence/59595 I am not suggesting that we should expect free services. But when, as in a recent trip, we are asked to pay to park on the same ground that car drivers can park on free of charge then something needs to be changed. I don't doubt that the question of discrimination was mentioned in the ruling, and as it formed one part of the case under consideration it would pretty much have to be. That is very different from it being the basis for the decision, however, and it is not at all clear from the article you provided exactly what the decision was based on. I take your point about the HRA, but the fact remains that discrimination is not unlawful unless it is manifestly unfair or unreasonable. In my view, it could be argued that it is reasonable to differentiate between vehicles of the same class on the basis of use, weight, and size, all of which differ from a car parked unattended overnight. The other links you provided make interesting reading. I have not studied them in detail, and my French is such that I am reliant to some degree on Google translate. However, two points that stand out are that the reference to motorhomes being treated as cars says explicitly that restrictions can still be imposed on the basis of size and weight, and that stipulations on parking in the Code de la Route are concerned solely with the public road, which may of course exclude many aires or car parks. In short, it would seem quite possible that all a mairie has to do is to re-word the restrictions so that they apply to any vehicle over a certain weight or length. That would then have the practical effect of excluding motorhomes without explicitly singling them out. Either way, my intention in responding to your post was not to get into a debate about the finer points of French law, but to voice my concern that the sort of action the Federation are embarking on could very easily backfire on them and have a very different outcome from the one they are seeking. Regards your points on size and weight; what about delivery trucks? Coaches? At Moulismes coaches turn up and 30 or 40 people get out, use the toilets, picnic tables or have a stroll around the lake. Some pop across the road for a snack if the timetable allows. Then the coach drives off and no payment has been made. If you or I turned up in our motorhome we would be obliged to pay at least €5 if we wanted to stop the wheels. Lorry drivers sleep in their cabs. They park for nothing. On a short break in Correze recently we had to pay €5,50 to park on a chemin where cars, vans mini buses and lorries parked free. There were no free services or picnic tables, but those using the sports centre had toilets and picnic tables provided free of charge. In another place we declined to stay and pay €8 to park in an open space no different from the free car park nearby. A third place had two sections to the car park, none with any free services, but the one defined for camping-cars cost €4,50 to park even for a minute. The other for cars, vans, etc was free for as long as they wanted. Anglers parked up and fished all night without paying or being required to pay. There is an understanding that if you sleep in your camping-car without placing tables, chairs, awning etc outside then you are parking, not camping. Just as a lorry driver is in his sleeper cab. The local regulations prohibiting only camping-cars from parking is discriminatory whichever way you look at it. And that is the root of this dispute. That is why the Maire of one small town also was forced to remove height barriers from the municipal car park after the Poitiers Court ruled against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aandy Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 Nicepix - 2019-06-16 7:41 PM Regards your points on size and weight; what about delivery trucks? Coaches? At Moulismes coaches turn up and 30 or 40 people get out, use the toilets, picnic tables or have a stroll around the lake. Some pop across the road for a snack if the timetable allows. Then the coach drives off and no payment has been made. If you or I turned up in our motorhome we would be obliged to pay at least €5 if we wanted to stop the wheels. Lorry drivers sleep in their cabs. They park for nothing. On a short break in Correze recently we had to pay €5,50 to park on a chemin where cars, vans mini buses and lorries parked free. There were no free services or picnic tables, but those using the sports centre had toilets and picnic tables provided free of charge. In another place we declined to stay and pay €8 to park in an open space no different from the free car park nearby. A third place had two sections to the car park, none with any free services, but the one defined for camping-cars cost €4,50 to park even for a minute. The other for cars, vans, etc was free for as long as they wanted. Anglers parked up and fished all night without paying or being required to pay. There is an understanding that if you sleep in your camping-car without placing tables, chairs, awning etc outside then you are parking, not camping. Just as a lorry driver is in his sleeper cab. The local regulations prohibiting only camping-cars from parking is discriminatory whichever way you look at it. And that is the root of this dispute. That is why the Maire of one small town also was forced to remove height barriers from the municipal car park after the Poitiers Court ruled against him. I said very early on in the discussion that it seemed irrational to charge or restrict motorhome users on areas where HGV drivers were permitted to overnight for free, and I imagine that particular practice might well be open to challenge. That is why my more recent comments on the "discrimination" issue focussed explicitly on the question of differential treatment between vehicles of the same class. As I also said, however, discrimination is not unlawful in itself. It only becomes so if the particular discriminatory act at issue is expressly prohibited by law or is wholly unreasonable. In UK law the test of reasonableness sets the bar high. Essentially, the decision has to be such that no reasonable person being in possession of all the facts could have reached it. That the judge hearing the case would have decided differently on the same facts does not constitute grounds to overturn it. I suspect French law will be similar. Imposing on motorhomes restrictions from which both larger and smaller vehicles being used in the same manner and for the same purpose are free may well be deemed irrational. Imposing restrictions on all vehicles that exceed a specified weight or height, or that are being used for a particular purpose may well not. A further point that comes to mind is the remit of the mairies in protecting local trade or the character of the locality. You have already cited an example where businesses had lost trade because of the withdrawal of motorhome parking, but retention of that same facility could, in other circumstance, have a detrimental impact on local business by taking trade from campsites. Overnight parking of cars or HGVs, even with the drivers sleeping in them, will not have the same impact. It may be that that is in itself permissible grounds on which to differentiate. Logically, if it is within the remit of the mairies to spend public money providing facilities to attract trade, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it is also within their remit to prohibit an activity that may damage it. Much as I find the subject interesting, there is little to be gained in you and I trying to second guess the French courts. To be clear, I am not saying that the discrimination discussed here is lawful, only that I can see how it might reasonably be argued that it is. However, if I use a parking space to sleep in a motorhome overnight I am deriving a benefit from it that someone who merely parks a car in it does not. Regardless that the cost of providing that space to me is the same as providing it to the car driver, it's value to me is greater and I have no objection to paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicepix Posted June 18, 2019 Author Share Posted June 18, 2019 Not everyone parks up at a destination they wish to stay in. Sometimes the stop over is just part of the journey to the destination so you don't need facilities or services. On that basis sleeping in your motorhome overnight is exactly the same as a car driver or lorry driver sleeping in their vehicles. Picnics are a big part of French life. At lunch times you will see many people picnicking at roadside aires. At some of those aires car drivers and commercial vehicle drivers can park free and use the picnic tables, whereas camping-car users are forced to park in a special 'camping car aire' at a cost whether they need services or not. We are not EHU dependent and can go 3 or 4 days without the need to empty and refill. When we do I have no objection to paying for such services. What I and the body representing French camping-car owners object to is authorities specifically discriminating against camping-car users by forcing them to pay for parking when other vehicles can park free. The part that you seem unable to understand is that under French law there is no such vehicle as a camping-car. In law as long as it is under 3,5t it is a voiture, or car in English. So on that basis alone nobody should be able to make laws or by-laws discriminating against camping-cars. If you cannot understand that then do a search using Google Translate. There is plenty of information to support this out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 Nicepix - 2019-06-18 7:27 AM Not everyone parks up at a destination they wish to stay in. Sometimes the stop over is just part of the journey to the destination..... Picnics are a big part of French life. At lunch times you will see many people picnicking at roadside aires. At some of those aires car drivers and commercial vehicle drivers can park free and use the picnic tables, whereas camping-car users are forced to park in a special 'camping car aire' at a cost whether they need services or not.... If you are making a short refreshment stop, surely you can just park somewhere for that purpose, for example in one of the many picnic stops in roadside laybyes, the same as other vehicles. I have toured in France extensively over many years and I have never encountered a picnic area where camping cars (specifically) were forbidden or had to pay while other vehicles didn't. Arguing that camping cars need to use Aires where they have to pay to enter simpy to make a lunchtime refreshment stop doesn't make sense to me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aandy Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 Nicepix - 2019-06-18 7:27 AM The part that you seem unable to understand is that under French law there is no such vehicle as a camping-car. In law as long as it is under 3,5t it is a voiture, or car in English. So on that basis alone nobody should be able to make laws or by-laws discriminating against camping-cars. If you cannot understand that then do a search using Google Translate. There is plenty of information to support this out there. Rather condescending, particularly from someone who seems unable to understand (or determined to ignore) pretty much every point I have raised. I understand that point perfectly, but I also understand the passage in one of the texts that you yourself provided in support of that very point, where it says that does not prohibit differentiation on the basis of size or weight. I would not be so rude as to suggest that you are unable to understand that point, though I am left wondering why you keep baldly reasserting a point that is so obviously inconsistent with it. When I first responded to this thread I thought I was getting into a reasoned discussion on an issue that interests me. From the manner of your responses, however, that is obviously not the case. I have explained in what I like to think is a reasoned manner why I do not think the "discrimination" issue is as simple or clear cut as you seem to think, but as you appear determined to stick to your simplistic opinion no matter what, with no consideration of any of the substantive points I have raised, I see no point in continuing to engage further. I'm off to France tomorrow, where I will be happy to pay for whatever services I use, whether that be emptying, taking water, or parking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david lloyd Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 Well that's a relief. Perhaps nicepix will keep us all informed of progress though as, quite apart from the subtleties of the arguments it will be interesting to hear the outcome of the FCC's attempts to keep the camping car lifestyle as freely available to us all if possible. David PS the opening comment by nicepix on the OP says "First post so be kind to me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.