Attitude to 'No Overnight' Signs

[Firefox]

Definitely, I would have moved too. Most of our wilding has been done in France, but some here. That's why I've joined this forum. I want to think that people are happy with us being there or I'm not really happy myself.​

The thing is that some NIMBY 1/2 a mile down the road will complain to the authorities about you being in a layby. It's not that they aren't "happy" - how could it even affect them 1/2 a mile away??

It's simply they regard it as their patch, they are professional complainers, probably retired and nothing better to do all day than peep out of their curtains and take the dog for a walk, notebook and camera in hand. I don't see why we should bow down to this kind of idiot, and do whatever they command to suit their small little lives.

 

[richardstubbs]

The thing is that some NIMBY 1/2 a mile down the road will complain to the authorities about you being in a layby. It's not that they aren't "happy" - how could it even affect them 1/2 a mile away??

It's simply they regard it as their patch, they are professional complainers, probably retired and nothing better to do all day than peep out of their curtains and take the dog for a walk, notebook and camera in hand. I don't see why we should bow down to this kind of idiot, and do whatever they command to suit their small little lives.

True enough, but there's nothing to be done about that. I've even seen it happen on official 'Aires de stationnement camping-cars' in France. It's envy I guess. But I don't expect that the police generally act on that kind of complaint either - I'm sure they get as bored as the rest of us with professional complainers.

What I meant about the forum is that it's about places where people have stopped and not had hassle. That seems good to me - we're getting our 5 month old baby used to motorhoming on campsites first, but once we decide to go wilding I want places I know are OK. In the absence of 'aires' this seems like a good way.

Richard.

 

[Smaug]

The thing is that some NIMBY 1/2 a mile down the road will complain to the authorities about you being in a layby. It's not that they aren't "happy" - how could it even affect them 1/2 a mile away??

It's simply they regard it as their patch, they are professional complainers, probably retired and nothing better to do all day than peep out of their curtains and take the dog for a walk, notebook and camera in hand. I don't see why we should bow down to this kind of idiot, and do whatever they command to suit their small little lives.

oooh, nice rant, but there was no-one "1/2 a mile down the road".

This was a remote moorland lane, it had to be the landowner complaining after spotting us on his way home from the club or lodge. Jo public would not have the clout to get us moved, but someone who owned half a moor could - he may even have been a local magistrate, who knows, but aunty Vera in her bungalow would simply be ignored if she complained about a van parked in a lay-by.

It also happened in the mid 80's, the kids mentioned have kids of their own these days & borrow the current van for their holidays.

 

[richardstubbs]

...he may even have been a local magistrate...

Might have been the copper on his way to work :idea:

 

[Wooie1958]

the kids mentioned have kids of their own these days & borrow the current van for their holidays.

I`m lucky in that respect my van is over 3,500 Kgs so my kids " Can`t " borrow ours .............................................. LOL

The lad only just misses the date and the daughter is a couple of years over .

 

[landyrubbertramp]

The thing is that some NIMBY 1/2 a mile down the road will complain to the authorities about you being in a layby. It's not that they aren't "happy" - how could it even affect them 1/2 a mile away??

It's simply they regard it as their patch, they are professional complainers, probably retired and nothing better to do all day than peep out of their curtains and take the dog for a walk, notebook and camera in hand. I don't see why we should bow down to this kind of idiot, and do whatever they command to suit their small little lives.

correct firefox and very well put and the same ppl that don't clean up after their dog types. i think we need to draw a distinction here, parking on private land is a massive difference from a council car park or layby, private property is a mine field so i wouldnot park on private property for that reason im talking re council laybys etc, some ppl have mention that they abide by signs by responsible councls, yet if thier is a sigh that not leagal how is that responsible of the council to try and miss lead ppl on purpose with just an illegal no parking sign, we need to wake up a smell the coffee me thinks, councils are the problem we are where we are so re parking in this country thay duck and dive and no not only show no intrest in the problem of parking they have took negaivtive action to try and not deal with it. if i was a retailer and sold a washing machine that i knew was ilegal trading standards and the law would be broughtupon the retailer yet the council can practivly systematically break the law re parking and to top it off some members think that's resposable???????

 

[Firefox]

Glad you liked my rant Smaug I wasn't referring to any particular incident - just the general case.

As Richard says, if you have a young baby there are other considerations when selecting a place, but as single person or like minded couple will have more freedom in where they stay.

In my defence I will say that I don't park outside peoples houses or where I'll obviously be in the way. I've only got knocked on twice in 20 years of wilding and/or sleeping in cars in all kinds of places, so I think I'm doing most things right, or just very lucky! There's no defence against the professional NIMBY complaint though, whether in a van, car, tent, or even just passing through. That's when you have to stand your ground!

 

[Jean Genie]

Glad you liked my rant Smaug I wasn't referring to any particular incident - just the general case.

As Richard says, if you have a young baby there are other considerations when selecting a place, but as single person or like minded couple will have more freedom in where they stay.

In my defence I will say that I don't park outside peoples houses or where I'll obviously be in the way. I've only got knocked on twice in 20 years of wilding and/or sleeping in cars in all kinds of places, so I think I'm doing most things right, or just very lucky! There's no defence against the professional NIMBY complaint though, whether in a van, car, tent, or even just passing through. That's when you have to stand your ground!

Farmers who want badger culls may think protestors against said cull are akin to nimbys?

I do not think the cull should happen, but it may be something for you to consider?

These laws are generally not to stop us having a night here and there, more to stop "travellers" landing en masse and trashing places, or protestors upsetting their pristine little baskets.

That's my personal take on it anyway.

 

[Firefox]

I agree with your general point, Derek, but not sure farmers think the same way as a NIMBY with regard to badger cull.

Farmers have some legitimate point to make about their livelyhood (if they believe the evidence in favour, which I don't) whereas NIMBYs will complain just because they can. Otherwise - agreed.

 

[1807truckman]

Only once had a knock on the door, we were parked on some rough ground near the entrance to Levant Mine in Cornwall and at 7:30am a National Trust warden knocked on the door to tell us we couldn't park there overnight, amused us no end since we'd been there since 7:00pm the night before and were just having a cup of tea before moving off, he said can't you see the sign, the sign was on the gate that led to the Mine, we had parked on the opposite side of the road.
We usually use common sense where signs are concerned.

 

[sagart]

Oddest I ever had was in the Peak District when a couple suggested my wife and I moved further up the road to a different layby.
We had previosly rejected it as immediately opposite someone's house so I mentioned that.
"Oh" they said,"that's our house, but we have that view all the time"....half an hour after we did moved they came across to the van with a dozen eggs...
Not sure if was a subtle way of discouraging us by making us feel guilty!

 

[Skatts]

Personally ,we wouldnt stop anywhere where we felt we were not wanted ( any kind of sign) Regardless of the legalities .
You always get some jobsworth ,miscreant ,who believes that they are well within their rights and in fact doing society a favour by damaging your van in some way ,in order to 'teach you a lesson'or punish you and make you see the error of your ways.

 

[Smaug]

Oddest I ever had was in the Peak District when a couple suggested my wife and I moved further up the road to a different layby.
We had previosly rejected it as immediately opposite someone's house so I mentioned that.
"Oh" they said,"that's our house, but we have that view all the time"....half an hour after we did moved they came across to the van with a dozen eggs...
Not sure if was a subtle way of discouraging us by making us feel guilty!

More likely that they, like most country folk enjoy company as they don't get too much of it. Quite the opposite of city folk & estate dwellers who yearn for peace & quiet. There is also the extra potential security of you occupying the lay-by rather than a ne'r-do-well.

Personally ,we wouldnt stop anywhere where we felt we were not wanted ( any kind of sign) Regardless of the legalities .
You always get some jobsworth ,miscreant ,who believes that they are well within their rights and in fact doing society a favour by damaging your van in some way ,in order to 'teach you a lesson'or punish you and make you see the error of your ways.

While I understand your fears, "ALWAYS" is a bit strong. It hasn't happened to me yet in 20 odd years of wildcamping around the UK. In fact, the only case I remember of it happening to someone on the forum was when parked outside their own house & a neighbour damaged the van. So, provided you are in a "wild" place rather than on a popular seafront (for example) I would say the risk is insignificant.

 

[jakekelly]

I 'm of the opinion that as the vehicle is legally on the road eg tax &insured etc.then i can stop anywhere on a public road provided the vehicle does not contravine any laws by doing so , let common sense prevail, I've used carparks, laybys , harbour walls,pub & hotel carparks , any where I feel I need to stop for whatever reason and never been asked to move, if I was stopped for the night and was approached by a person in authority , my reply is I have stopped here to rest as I'M very tired and not safe to drive on,as soon as I feel it is safe for me to drive I will . now how long I decide to "OVERNIGHT"is up to me it may be 3 hrs or could be 6 hrs may even be 10 hrs. but be restassured as soon as I feel well enough to drive I will.
any private place eg pub or hotel carpark before having a meal & drink, common sense tells you to ask if it will be ok to over night in the carpark . & never been refused if i was refused I would just move to the next one simples! conclusion who decides what is overnight?:sleep-027::camper::shag::shag: Do what you want & move on,leave nothing behind, people have better things to do with life (whats left of it )enjoy and wish your approachee (newly made up word ) a good day & a better one tommorow ::: while really thinking hope you trip and fall in that pile of crap ,twist your ankle, your vehicle has a flatire & no spare 3 miles from home & it starts rain , & sorry my mobile fone battery is flat I'll need to sit here for a while so the engine can charge the battery. HAVE A NICE DAY!(night):rabbit::rabbit::lol-053::wave: THATS my ATTITUDE

 

[maureenandtom]

One of the problems is that councils have no shame in erecting signs which have no legal backing. Sometimes, as below, they will tell you, seemingly proudly, that they erect signs which they have no intention of enforcing.

They sometimes proudly tell you, as above, that they are erected as a deterrent and have no other purpose. They are immune to criticism that this is misleading; that motorist should see a roadsign and know it to be binding. The question "How is the motorist to know which bind him and which do not?" has never yet been answered.

However, if you - as some have done - dispute such signs with the council, then there is not universal support for your actions. Some will tell you that you must let well alone because of the fear that the council will do something even worse than erect misleading signs.

We need to universally oppose misleading signs.

Anyone receiving a parking ticket anywhere in the North Yorks Council area should use that email above, dispute the penalty and make them prove that the sign they use to justify the penalty is one which does have legal backing - that you have no way of knowing which is advice and which binds you. That the council's email makes all signs suspect.

Edit: Whether this would make an appeal successful I don't know so this is not legal advice but appeals in large numbers would be a sure sign to authority that their signage must be clear and accurate - this sign is binding or this sign is advisory.

 

[Wooie1958]

If there`s a sign up then we will not park there and especially overnight.

As sure as Eggs are Eggs there`s always " One " probably the Local Know It All that will confront you saying " Did you not see the sign ? " etc. etc. etc.

It`s happened to us before ( admittedly a while back ) but, you see the person coming towards you, they stop, look at the sign then look at you, look at the
sign again and then start marching towards you.

When we go away in the van we want as much as possible to enjoy it and feel relaxed especially if we intend to stay the night there.

Have a nice evening meal and then relax by watching some telly / wife does some needlework / have a wander round or just watch the world go by.

The last thing i want is to then start explaining myself to someone that it`s nothing to do with what we are doing there.

 

[John H]

I agree with those who say that they wouldn't park where they are not wanted. What is the point in ending up with a brick though the window?

As for Council's being deceptive if they put up NO Overnighting signs without TROs to back them up, well what is wrong with a Council (or anybody else) putting up a sign saying they don't want something? If you put up a sign saying "Beware of the Dog" and you don't haver one, you won't get prosecuted for trying to deter burglars. I'd far rather that there were signs meant to discourage that we can make our own judgements about than we forced Council's into a position where they are more likely to establish TROs and enforce penalties. Seems common sense to me.

 

[maureenandtom]

I agree with those who say that they wouldn't park where they are not wanted. What is the point in ending up with a brick though the window?

As for Council's being deceptive if they put up NO Overnighting signs without TROs to back them up, well what is wrong with a Council (or anybody else) putting up a sign saying they don't want something? If you put up a sign saying "Beware of the Dog" and you don't haver one, you won't get prosecuted for trying to deter burglars. I'd far rather that there were signs meant to discourage that we can make our own judgements about than we forced Council's into a position where they are more likely to establish TROs and enforce penalties. Seems common sense to me.

I think there is a world of difference between a householder putting up a Beware of the Dog sign which is advisory, and is clear that it is advisory, and a misleading council sign giving all the appearance of being mandatory. John, you are an ex-councillor and you and I will never agree on this. Of course you want the freedom to mislead. We should not have to make our own judgements - we should know that the sign is binding or it is not binding; we should not have to decide.

Wooie, you have put your finger precisely on the spot. Both you and the person glancing at a council erected road sign are justified in thinking that it is mandatory. He is justified if he thinks you are a ne'er do well law-breaker.

My opinion, which I will continue to have, is that so long as we allow councils to mislead then we will have councils allowed to mislead. And, maybe it won't stop at traffic rules. We all must have heard of councils using anit-terror legislation inappropriately. You let them get away with such things at our peril. Not only your own - our's.

There is a famous saying, but not famous enough for me to remember who said it, that for evil to flourish it is only necessary that good men do nothing. Too many of us do nothing

 

[Smaug]

Bricks thro windows & busybodies pointing out signs? Well, the bricks are pretty alarming, but has it actually ever happened to anyone & where? Busybodies? very unlikely at a wild spot as I said before.

I repeat; every location has to be judged in it's own right. No Overnighting on a busy town promenade IS likely to be backed up by a TRO & warden action or vigilante behaviour so should be avoided, a lonely Forestry Commission picnic site isn't, so I would happily ignore the signs. Just two, fairly extreme, examples of how I judge overnight spots.

It amazes me that people need blanket rules rather than making a reasoned judgement for themselves - but who am I to criticise, as long as you are happy, I shall be too.

 

[Deleted member 37170]

I agree with those who say that they wouldn't park where they are not wanted. What is the point in ending up with a brick though the window?

As for Council's being deceptive if they put up NO Overnighting signs without TROs to back them up, well what is wrong with a Council (or anybody else) putting up a sign saying they don't want something? If you put up a sign saying "Beware of the Dog" and you don't haver one, you won't get prosecuted for trying to deter burglars. I'd far rather that there were signs meant to discourage that we can make our own judgements about than we forced Council's into a position where they are more likely to establish TROs and enforce penalties. Seems common sense to me.

It's most likely common sense to you because you have none!!!

To compare a "Beware of the dog" sign to a Council backed publicly funded 'no legality' sign "No overnight Camping" just shows me that you are a truly missed member of Dave Sutch's political party.