Sometimes we're our own worst enemies!

[Northerner]

I’ve been moved to start this thread by what I consider to be a very unpleasant post on the ‘Call to Arms’ thread so, at the risk of making myself even more unpopular, I’m going into the ‘home truths’ department!

First of all, objection to motorhomes isn’t just in the U.K. Because of height barriers I recently gave up trying to find somewhere to park in Sète on the Med and it’s the same along huge stretches of that coast.

Why do the French do this? Why are they turning away the (imagined!) millions of Euro in income from all of us motorhomers and why is it happening in other countries and in cities all over Europe?

But first of all, and this is something that a few members of this forum seem unable to do, let’s try to look at this problem from a point of view other than our own selfish needs.

Let’s start with this, and I quote: ‘Fat greedy councillors who own campsites’. There is no evidence whatsoever that these objections come primarily from site owners. My opinion is that campsite owners couldn’t care less about the tiny number of motorhomers who wild camp. We really are an incredibly small number as compared to those who prefer to use sites, and site owners know that the kind of people who will spend the night on a car park are not the ones who will suddenly decide to use a site just because the car park is no longer available. The camp site argument is a total red herring!

But in the spirit of trying to see things from a point of view other than our own, what is wrong with campsite owners suggesting that the council should not allow free overnight parking for motorhomes and even caravans? If you opened a campsite and the council charges you tens of thousands of pounds in business rates, you have to spend a fortune on insurance and the other costs, and then the council decided to allow people to overnight for nothing on a large car park near to your site, wouldn’t you feel aggrieved? So just as you are allowed to protest to the council about its policies, so are campsite owners, and why should anyone feel that in doing so, they are being unreasonable? But as I said, I put this in just as an example of how some people feel that only their views matter because I really do believe that campsite owners couldn’t care less about a few motorhomers who won’t use their sites.

People talk about ‘their rights’ and ‘being discriminated against’. What about the rights of the people and businesses in Scarborough? These are the ones represented by councillors, not motorhomers who come for a day or so, spend virtually nothing and mount campaigns because they haven’t been allowed free parking all night! And isn’t it a reasonable assumption that people who are too mean to spend a few pounds on a local CL are not the ones who will be flashing their cash all over the town?

If you were a councillor and you had a choice of your car parks being filled with families in cars who will eat in restaurants, visit the attractions and spend a lot of money, or motorhomers who arrive with all their own facilities, eat and sleep in the ‘vans, which would you choose, remembering that, as a councillor, your loyalties must be to those who elected you?

And before you all start claiming that you spend a lot of money in these places, perhaps a tiny number of you do but my experience of most motorhomers, especially those who always wild camp, is that their prime ambition is to go away and only spend money on diesel fuel!

But I now get back to the original question, which is: Why are we being turned away from towns and cities all over Europe? One of the first and obvious reasons is that giving anyone cart blanche to overnight on public cars will guarantee an invasion of travellers. There is no anti-traveller agenda or racism here, it’s simply a fact. They have to go somewhere and if the car parks are available they’ll clog up our towns and cities. The French have learned this to their cost, which is why there is a proliferation of height barriers all over the place.

The second is that our contribution to the local economy, as compared to people who arrive in cars, use restaurants and campsites is absolutely miniscule. Scarborough, as an example, has a tourist income of over £450 million pounds a year. How much of that do you think the tiny number of ‘wild camping’ motorhomers contribute? Next to nothing is the real truth!

So what’s the answer? The first thing to do is to stop the silly accusations about council corruption and ‘fat councillors who own camp sites' and to try to see things from the point of view of the residents and businesses of Scarborough or any other town with similar policies.

The second thing to do is to accept that, if we wish to park overnight in town centres we should be prepared to pay a modest cost towards the upkeep of the car parks or we should be prepared to drive into the countryside and really wild camp away from anyone else.

Continuing to assert that, because we’ve spent a few bob on a motorhome, we have the God-given right to park them just wherever we like without let or hindrance is selfish, does not take into account the wishes of the general population and simply shows the public that we are mean and care only for our own conveniences and wallets. Should tent campers be allowed to pitch in the local parks? Should anyone be allowed to park just anywhere?

The ‘Call to Arms’ thread is typical of the attitude of many motorhomers. A man saw a notice and completely misinterpreted it. He came on this forum absolutely ranting about persecution from councils and his rights to park anywhere etc. and accused the council of banning all motorhome parking on its 60 car parks. As a result of this other members have sent emails to the council protesting about this gross infringement on our liberty.

But guess what? Because another member took the trouble to drive to the car park and read the notice properly, we now know that it actually gives intention of banning just overnight parking on 15 car parks! So some councillor or chief executive is going to receive a load of emails, castigating him for something that isn’t going to happen. And we wonder why we’re not flavour of the month!

I'd love to see councils opening aires, or at least allowing us to overnight on car parks at a modest cost, but we need to go about it in a civilised, polite and sensible manner, which doesn't include insulting councillors and stating that they all own camp sites and have a vested interest. Their main interest is their constituents who elect them

 

[whitevanwoman]

I’ve been moved to start this thread by what I consider to be a very unpleasant post on the ‘Call to Arms’ thread so, at the risk of making myself even more unpopular, I’m going into the ‘home truths’ department!

First of all, objection to motorhomes isn’t just in the U.K. Because of height barriers I recently gave up trying to find somewhere to park in Sète on the Med and it’s the same along huge stretches of that coast.

Why do the French do this? Why are they turning away the (imagined!) millions of Euro in income from all of us motorhomers and why is it happening in other countries and in cities all over Europe?

But first of all, and this is something that a few members of this forum seem unable to do, let’s try to look at this problem from a point of view other than our own selfish needs.

Let’s start with this, and I quote: ‘Fat greedy councillors who own campsites’. There is no evidence whatsoever that these objections come primarily from site owners. My opinion is that campsite owners couldn’t care less about the tiny number of motorhomers who wild camp. We really are an incredibly small number as compared to those who prefer to use sites, and site owners know that the kind of people who will spend the night on a car park are not the ones who will suddenly decide to use a site just because the car park is no longer available. The camp site argument is a total red herring!

But in the spirit of trying to see things from a point of view other than our own, what is wrong with campsite owners suggesting that the council should not allow free overnight parking for motorhomes and even caravans? If you opened a campsite and the council charges you tens of thousands of pounds in business rates, you have to spend a fortune on insurance and the other costs, and then the council decided to allow people to overnight for nothing on a large car park near to your site, wouldn’t you feel aggrieved? So just as you are allowed to protest to the council about its policies, so are campsite owners, and why should anyone feel that in doing so, they are being unreasonable? But as I said, I put this in just as an example of how some people feel that only their views matter because I really do believe that campsite owners couldn’t care less about a few motorhomers who won’t use their sites.

People talk about ‘their rights’ and ‘being discriminated against’. What about the rights of the people and businesses in Scarborough? These are the ones represented by councillors, not motorhomers who come for a day or so, spend virtually nothing and mount campaigns because they haven’t been allowed free parking all night! And isn’t it a reasonable assumption that people who are too mean to spend a few pounds on a local CL are not the ones who will be flashing their cash all over the town?

If you were a councillor and you had a choice of your car parks being filled with families in cars who will eat in restaurants, visit the attractions and spend a lot of money, or motorhomers who arrive with all their own facilities, eat and sleep in the ‘vans, which would you choose, remembering that, as a councillor, your loyalties must be to those who elected you?

And before you all start claiming that you spend a lot of money in these places, perhaps a tiny number of you do but my experience of most motorhomers, especially those who always wild camp, is that their prime ambition is to go away and only spend money on diesel fuel!

But I now get back to the original question, which is: Why are we being turned away from towns and cities all over Europe? One of the first and obvious reasons is that giving anyone cart blanche to overnight on public cars will guarantee an invasion of travellers. There is no anti-traveller agenda or racism here, it’s simply a fact. They have to go somewhere and if the car parks are available they’ll clog up our towns and cities. The French have learned this to their cost, which is why there is a proliferation of height barriers all over the place.

The second is that our contribution to the local economy, as compared to people who arrive in cars, use restaurants and campsites is absolutely miniscule. Scarborough, as an example, has a tourist income of over £450 million pounds a year. How much of that do you think the tiny number of ‘wild camping’ motorhomers contribute? Next to nothing is the real truth!

So what’s the answer? The first thing to do is to stop the silly accusations about council corruption and ‘fat councillors who own camp sites' and to try to see things from the point of view of the residents and businesses of Scarborough or any other town with similar policies.

The second thing to do is to accept that, if we wish to park overnight in town centres we should be prepared to pay a modest cost towards the upkeep of the car parks or we should be prepared to drive into the countryside and really wild camp away from anyone else.

Continuing to assert that, because we’ve spent a few bob on a motorhome, we have the God-given right to park them just wherever we like without let or hindrance is selfish, does not take into account the wishes of the general population and simply shows the public that we are mean and care only for our own conveniences and wallets. Should tent campers be allowed to pitch in the local parks? Should anyone be allowed to park just anywhere?

The ‘Call to Arms’ thread is typical of the attitude of many motorhomers. A man saw a notice and completely misinterpreted it. He came on this forum absolutely ranting about persecution from councils and his rights to park anywhere etc. and accused the council of banning all motorhome parking on its 60 car parks. As a result of this other members have sent emails to the council protesting about this gross infringement on our liberty.

But guess what? Because another member took the trouble to drive to the car park and read the notice properly, we now know that it actually gives intention of banning just overnight parking on 15 car parks! So some councillor or chief executive is going to receive a load of emails, castigating him for something that isn’t going to happen. And we wonder why we’re not flavour of the month!

I'd love to see councils opening aires, or at least allowing us to overnight on car parks at a modest cost, but we need to go about it in a civilised, polite and sensible manner, which doesn't include insulting councillors and stating that they all own camp sites and have a vested interest. Their main interest is their constituents who elect them

I never thought I'd be saying this, but I actually agree with the vast majority of what you say here Northerner :cheers:

 

[maingate]

You are also a wee bit guilty of jumping in a bit too quickly.

You should have realised by now that although this is a wildcamping site, only a very small minority on here never use sites of some description. Many members also travel in Europe and (rightly) feel aggrieved at the British attitude to motorhomes and campervans.

You will notice that I took no part in the debate on Scarborough and would not with that place or any other similar seaside resort. They are not my cup of tea, although I have had the odd overnighter in Whitby and Scarborough in wintertime (you will never see me there in summer).

I will however sympathise with others that they seem incapable of coming up with a half decent solution to motorhomes, considering that they had the potential help of Maureen and Tom in this matter. The Council would have been starting with a clean slate and could have imposed conditions and charges to suit themselves without spending large sums of money. Their answer seems to be ill thought out when it could just as easily been more rewarding to us and them. I doubt if they will see any £10 notes for a car park stopover.

 

[Rubbertramp]

I’ve been moved to start this thread by what I consider to be a very unpleasant post on the ‘Call to Arms’ thread so, at the risk of making myself even more unpopular, I’m going into the ‘home truths’ department!

First of all, objection to motorhomes isn’t just in the U.K. Because of height barriers I recently gave up trying to find somewhere to park in Sète on the Med and it’s the same along huge stretches of that coast.

Why do the French do this? Why are they turning away the (imagined!) millions of Euro in income from all of us motorhomers and why is it happening in other countries and in cities all over Europe?

But first of all, and this is something that a few members of this forum seem unable to do, let’s try to look at this problem from a point of view other than our own selfish needs.

Let’s start with this, and I quote: ‘Fat greedy councillors who own campsites’.

I too would like to say that I agree with a lot of what you have said but feel I have to point out a little bit of hypocrisy in that you have considered comments in one post on one thread to be unpleasant, indeed you have attacked the poster and described his post as vile, where in another thread you have liked a post which is (in my opinion) far more distasteful ( for which the poster has apologised by the way)

It cost Basildon council millions to get rid of the from Dale Farm. A week later and they were back again. Bloody vermin is what they are.
Like
Northerner, masie, ragnarok and 2 others like this.

I do think a little re-reading of your own stuff and some forethought could help before aggressively attacking another member for airing their prejudices

 

[bopper]

I have to agree with northener on most of his comments, but for two points that I would like to add:

1/ I have had to find insurance and in particular 'Road fund licence" (Tax) on my vehicle. This tax and insurance allows me to park anywhere that does not obstruct the public highway or contravene the road traffic act. My vehicle is the same as a long wheelbase / hightop van that is used by thousands upon thousands of white vanmen all over the country. I do not see any difference between me parking in a public car park and white vanman. Every car park in the country has these vans parked overnight, so just what is the difference between a commercial vehicle being parked on a public car park overnight and me doing the same but staying with mine. The difference must be that I am a camper; so who is it that doesn't like campers? These are the prejudiced ones that most people who wildcamp ask to back off and leave us alone. Apart from staying in the van there is no difference, yet by their actions, they are shutting out commercial vehicles as well.

2/ To say that we are a small minority is defeatist talk. Many small minorities in the past have been trodden on and gone under. Some have rallied together and pressed home good points that have been taken up and things have changed. My email to the Scarborough council received a reply from them stating that this week they are going to revise the £10 per night parking charge. I hope that they will, for many of us would gladly pay a reasonable fee to stay overnight.

I am of the firm belief that, as you say, the travelling community have caused these problems for us. I see the answer to this as organisations such as ours should be working together with the powers that be to assist them in getting these bad apples out of the barrel.

 

[Firefox]

To Northerner, I do support the local economy when I wild camp, especially if it is a rural one. I make a point of using local shops and pubs because they are important to the local community and our passing trade helps them too. From what I've seen at both formal and informal meets most other members of this forum do likewise.

If you run a rural shop taking small amounts like £100 a day and a couple of motorhomers drop by and spend £15 each, that £30 will be a useful boost to your cashflow. To keep on suggesting motorhomers spend next to nothing is wrong, and to be honest, insulting to those of us who do try to do our bit.

Otherwise you make some fair points. Councilors are elected by local people and their concerns are important, but councils have to take the whole community into account and that can include a sometimes fragile tourist economy.

 

[Northerner]

To Northerner, I do support the local economy when I wild camp, especially if it is a rural one. I make a point of using local shops and pubs because they are important to the local community and our passing trade helps them too. From what I've seen at both formal and informal meets most other members of this forum do likewise.

If you run a rural shop taking small amounts like £100 a day and a couple of motorhomers drop by and spend £15 each, that £30 will be a useful boost to your cashflow. To keep on suggesting motorhomers spend next to nothing is wrong, and to be honest, insulting to those of us who do try to do our bit.

Otherwise you make some fair points. Councilors are elected by local people and their concerns are important, but councils have to take the whole community into account and that can include a sometimes fragile tourist economy.

If you read my post carefully nowhere did I say that all motorhomers don't spend money. I know that some do and I also know that there are many whose ambition is to go away for weeks on end and spend on nothing but diesel and fuel. This was posted by the member who started the 'Call to arms' thread where he castigates the council for its attitude to motorhomers:

'Its true, I spend very little where ever I visit. Thats the whole idea of a motorhome. I hate being vulnerable to rubbish restaurants/B&B's over priced campsites that are charging £15-20 per night to park in a field. Why would I want to do that when I don't have to? I believe my motorhome is a sound investment that allows me freedom to travel, cook my own food that I know I love! To shower in a shower I know is clean, sleep in a bed that I know is comfortable and clean. It gives me independence from business.'

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! But it's the silly rhetoric. Over-priced camp sites (translation, any sites that costs him money) rubbish restaurants (translation, any restaurant that costs money). I like the bit about campsites that charge £15-20 to park in a field. Really, I thought that they were called CLs and were from about five or six pounds? Every campsite that I've used for £15-20 gives me EHU, nice shower blocks and other facilities. But of course the problem is that they still cost money!

So yes, many people will eat in restaurants, cafes and pubs and many will shop locally, but a whole lot of people load up with food and fuel from the supermarket before setting off and spend next to nothing. Funnily enough it's often those who are the most vociferous in their demands for free parking in the towns that they don't contribute one penny to!

 

[Firefox]

Some people will make strange comments and be different, but I do have the advantage of meeting in real life (on 20+ occasions) many of the members of this forum (and another wild camping forum) and they do mostly spend quite a bit of money in local pubs and shops when they are wild camping. I've actually seen them do it! Even at places like Ribblehead or Helwith where we are not using the pub car park as a base, the facilities are still well patronised.

So my statement is based on real life observation of members of this forum and another forum, not just on what I read or have surmised.

What other people do when they are wild camping, I can't say because I wasn't there.

 

[Northerner]

Some people will make strange comments and be different, but I do have the advantage of meeting in real life (on 20+ occasions) many of the members of this forum (and another wild camping forum) and they do mostly spend quite a bit of money in local pubs and shops when they are wild camping. I've actually seen them do it! Even at places like Ribblehead or Helwith where we are not using the pub car park as a base, the facilities are still well patronised.

So my statement is based on real life observation of members of this forum and another forum, not just on what I read or have surmised.

What other people do when they are wild camping, I can't say because I wasn't there.

But isn't that what happens on rallies and meets? People don't sit in their 'vans on their own but get together in the pub. I go on rallies with an organisation I'm a member of and we arrange a night at the local but I have to say that the majority come fully loaded with food and only top up on essentials at the local shop, bread and milk for instance. However, I suspect that if they're on their own and not on a rally then there is far less chance of them patronising the local boozer.

Anyway, let's agree to agree. I know that there are motorhomers who will spend some money locally but I'm sure that you also know that there are many who won't, as illustrated by one of our own members in the post above!

But can I make one thing clear. I have no objection to anyone going away and not spending any money. If that makes them happy then it's great. But what I do object to is the same people moaning about local authorities which won't build aires so they can stay for nothing in a community to which they have contributed nothing!

 

[maingate]

You seem to forget that some members love motorhoming but have no choice but to do it on a tight budget. Especially as the last few years have been difficult for many. I know it is not intentional on your part but many of your comments only antagonise other members. I am referring to your many comments about them not spending money. Perhaps they have none to spend. This forum is a broad Church and is fairly representative of the public.

 

[Deleted member 967]

in red.

1/ I have had to find insurance and in particular 'Road fund licence" (Tax) on my vehicle. This tax and insurance allows me to park anywhere that does not obstruct the public highway or contravene the road traffic act. My vehicle is the same as a long wheelbase / hightop van that is used by thousands upon thousands of white vanmen all over the country. I do not see any difference between me parking in a public car park and white vanman. Every car park in the country has these vans parked overnight, so just what is the difference between a commercial vehicle being parked on a public car park overnight and me doing the same but staying with mine. The difference must be that I am a camper; so who is it that doesn't like campers? These are the prejudiced ones that most people who wildcamp ask to back off and leave us alone. Apart from staying in the van there is no difference, yet by their actions, they are shutting out commercial vehicles as well.

Paying road tax and insurance does not convey any rights to station your vehicle anywhere on a public road. That is obstruction and is against the law. Custom and practice has grown up that stationing a vehicle in certain locations is acceptable so the law is not pursued. You do not have a right to stop your vehicle on any public road. Car parks are private land and it is up to the owners to decide who can use them.

Your vehicle is a caravan. Just because it is self propelled does not make it anything else. It is set up for human habitation not just for the carriage of passengers and/or goods, therefore it is not a goods or passenger carrying vehicle. The law was made in 1960 that caravans should use caravan sites with a few well documented exemptions. Wild camping is not one of those exemptions. So you have no rights to occupy your caravan for human habitation, anywhere other than a caravan site. Again custom and practice has allowed some relaxation of this use but it is not a right.

I am of the firm belief that, as you say, the travelling community have caused these problems for us. I see the answer to this as organisations such as ours should be working together with the powers that be to assist them in getting these bad apples out of the barrel.

The 1960 Act was not primarily aimed at the travelling community, it caught up all caravan users. It was designed to prevent the wholesale destruction of beauty spots by people camping on them after the restrictions of war time in the UK, and despoiling the site by lighting fires, dumping rubbish and human excrement. It did have provision for sites to be built containing facilities but interpretation turned these into commercial caravan sites with all singing and dancing facilities.

The travelling community have been defying these requirements since then as their right. Does that seem a familiar cry?

In France it was the motorhoming community clubs, getting the manufacturers and traders of Camping Cars to put pressure on the authorities to provide informal facilities for those who travelled in Camping Cars. In the UK we have exerted no such pressure as we all want to be individuals. Our clubs are commercial organisations looking after their own commercial interests.

Napoleonic laws made the authorities provide water and a stopping place for travellers. That was not just "ethnic" travellers but all travellers. They set up Aire des Gens for the "ethnic" travellers in all populations over a certain size. Later they made Aire de Camping Cars for the others. Wild parking wasn't banned there either.

In the UK a law making authorities provide sites for travellers resulted in councils setting up caravan sites. However they attached condition to their use that prevented the travelling community using them, such rules as no commercial vehicles and winter closures. They obeyed the letter of the law but not the spirit unlike the French.
Later law modified these requirements for sites limiting them to all year round ethic travellers sites, so the councils leased these original sites to commercial operators. The new sites were then designed by councils to make travellers gave up the nomadic lifestyle. Now even that law has been removed and the ethnic travellers are having to fight to provide sites for themselves. There is a shortage of sites for the ethnic travelling community.

Local authorities have the interests of the lease holder of their caravan sites to consider so they are less interested in providing facilities that would compete against these sites, never mind commercial site operators.

We all enjoy the nomadic lifestyle, so why so much in-fighting between those of us who travel, whether be it for leisure or employment or as a traditional way of life.

John

 

[Northerner]

You seem to forget that some members love motorhoming but have no choice but to do it on a tight budget. Especially as the last few years have been difficult for many. I know it is not intentional on your part but many of your comments only antagonise other members. I am referring to your many comments about them not spending money. Perhaps they have none to spend. This forum is a broad Church and is fairly representative of the public.

I really do despair. Did you read the last paragraph of my post just above yours? I think it's great that people motorhome on a tight budget and it's better that they follow the hobby in their way than not at all. What is annoying though is the constant denigration of things that they don't want to spend money on, so you get 'rubbish restaurants, 'over-priced' camp sites. How do they know that they're over-priced? Camp sites charge whatever the market rate is and have to match competition but for some folk, if something is out of their price, it must be a rip-off or over-priced! I just wish that they could say " I really don't want to spend money on camp-sites". No one is going to argue with that but why do they feel the need to constantly imply that those of us who do use sites occasionally are some kind of gullible idiots who are prepared to pay through the nose?

 

[John H]

But what I do object to is the same people moaning about local authorities which won't build aires so they can stay for nothing in a community to which they have contributed nothing!

I think you have got this the wrong way round. I am not aware of many people complaining about councils not building aires (although if they did build them it would be nice!) but there are lots of people complaining that we are being turned off car parks at night when nobody else would be using that space. And if these Councils were more amenable to us it would be they who were getting something for nothing, not us - for the simple reason that some of us would do our shopping in that area (we, like many others, always make a point of giving something back to a local community if we stay there).

 

[maingate]

I believe that I have tried to put up a rational, non-aggressive conversation with you and you still go on the attack (as you do with anyone who has a different opinion to yours). This will be the last time I enter into any dialogue with you on here as I hate wasting my time with someone who refuses to listen to any other point of view.

 

[Northerner]

I believe that I have tried to put up a rational, non-aggressive conversation with you and you still go on the attack (as you do with anyone who has a different opinion to yours). This will be the last time I enter into any dialogue with you on here as I hate wasting my time with someone who refuses to listen to any other point of view.

Well that's rich! This is what I said in the last paragraph of the post immediately above yours:

'But can I make one thing clear. I have no objection to anyone going away and not spending any money. If that makes them happy then it's great. But what I do object to is the same people moaning about local authorities which won't build aires so they can stay for nothing in a community to which they have contributed nothing!'


You then posted this:

"You seem to forget that some members love motorhoming but have no choice but to do it on a tight budget. Especially as the last few years have been difficult for many."

And you wonder why I despair? You don't appear to have read the post properly and yet you have the nerve to come along, yet again, complaining about what I'm saying.

And as for your 'rational, non-aggressive confrontation let me remind you what you also said:

'I know it is not intentional on your part but many of your comments only antagonise other members'

Why did you feel the need to make that comment? Is that what you consider rational non-aggressive conversation?

Anyway, I can't tell you how delighted I am that you won't be conversing with me any more. You don't appear to even read my posts properly and your method of having a non-confrontational conversation is to tell someone how their posts antagonise others!

But once more, a thread has degenerated because you, and one or two others like you, because of the odd disagreement in the past, would rather make personal attacks on someone than discuss the subject of the thread.

Goodbye.

 

[Canalsman]

You seem to forget that some members love motorhoming but have no choice but to do it on a tight budget. Especially as the last few years have been difficult for many. I know it is not intentional on your part but many of your comments only antagonise other members. I am referring to your many comments about them not spending money. Perhaps they have none to spend. This forum is a broad Church and is fairly representative of the public.

I am one such who has a very limited budget, and I am careful how I spend it.

I would rather fuel the 'van and use it, and enjoy it, than see it parked outside the house.

To do that, in the main food and drink HAS to be purchased where it's cheapest, and that means supermarkets.

I do not use campsites, not because of budgetary considerations. I prefer the freedom of parking where I choose, whilst being considerate of others and obeying any posted restrictions. I will not be using council car parks at £10 a night.

Any funds that are spare I use in local pubs, because I believe that these are vital to the local community and they are often under threat, particularly in more remote places.

 

[big tom]

Contradiction

These two statements conflict unless you are saying yes wild camp but no where near a camp site.(1)My opinion is that campsite owners couldn’t care less about the tiny number of motorhomers who wild camp.(2) If you opened a campsite and the council charges you tens of thousands of pounds in business rates, you have to spend a fortune on insurance and the other costs, and then the council decided to allow people to overnight for nothing on a large car park near to your site, wouldn’t you feel aggrieved.

I’ve been moved to start this thread by what I consider to be a very unpleasant post on the ‘Call to Arms’ thread so, at the risk of making myself even more unpopular, I’m going into the ‘home truths’ department!

First of all, objection to motorhomes isn’t just in the U.K. Because of height barriers I recently gave up trying to find somewhere to park in Sète on the Med and it’s the same along huge stretches of that coast.

Why do the French do this? Why are they turning away the (imagined!) millions of Euro in income from all of us motorhomers and why is it happening in other countries and in cities all over Europe?

But first of all, and this is something that a few members of this forum seem unable to do, let’s try to look at this problem from a point of view other than our own selfish needs.

Let’s start with this, and I quote: ‘Fat greedy councillors who own campsites’. There is no evidence whatsoever that these objections come primarily from site owners. My opinion is that campsite owners couldn’t care less about the tiny number of motorhomers who wild camp. We really are an incredibly small number as compared to those who prefer to use sites, and site owners know that the kind of people who will spend the night on a car park are not the ones who will suddenly decide to use a site just because the car park is no longer available. The camp site argument is a total red herring!

But in the spirit of trying to see things from a point of view other than our own, what is wrong with campsite owners suggesting that the council should not allow free overnight parking for motorhomes and even caravans? If you opened a campsite and the council charges you tens of thousands of pounds in business rates, you have to spend a fortune on insurance and the other costs, and then the council decided to allow people to overnight for nothing on a large car park near to your site, wouldn’t you feel aggrieved? So just as you are allowed to protest to the council about its policies, so are campsite owners, and why should anyone feel that in doing so, they are being unreasonable? But as I said, I put this in just as an example of how some people feel that only their views matter because I really do believe that campsite owners couldn’t care less about a few motorhomers who won’t use their sites.

People talk about ‘their rights’ and ‘being discriminated against’. What about the rights of the people and businesses in Scarborough? These are the ones represented by councillors, not motorhomers who come for a day or so, spend virtually nothing and mount campaigns because they haven’t been allowed free parking all night! And isn’t it a reasonable assumption that people who are too mean to spend a few pounds on a local CL are not the ones who will be flashing their cash all over the town?

If you were a councillor and you had a choice of your car parks being filled with families in cars who will eat in restaurants, visit the attractions and spend a lot of money, or motorhomers who arrive with all their own facilities, eat and sleep in the ‘vans, which would you choose, remembering that, as a councillor, your loyalties must be to those who elected you?

And before you all start claiming that you spend a lot of money in these places, perhaps a tiny number of you do but my experience of most motorhomers, especially those who always wild camp, is that their prime ambition is to go away and only spend money on diesel fuel!

But I now get back to the original question, which is: Why are we being turned away from towns and cities all over Europe? One of the first and obvious reasons is that giving anyone cart blanche to overnight on public cars will guarantee an invasion of travellers. There is no anti-traveller agenda or racism here, it’s simply a fact. They have to go somewhere and if the car parks are available they’ll clog up our towns and cities. The French have learned this to their cost, which is why there is a proliferation of height barriers all over the place.

The second is that our contribution to the local economy, as compared to people who arrive in cars, use restaurants and campsites is absolutely miniscule. Scarborough, as an example, has a tourist income of over £450 million pounds a year. How much of that do you think the tiny number of ‘wild camping’ motorhomers contribute? Next to nothing is the real truth!

So what’s the answer? The first thing to do is to stop the silly accusations about council corruption and ‘fat councillors who own camp sites' and to try to see things from the point of view of the residents and businesses of Scarborough or any other town with similar policies.

The second thing to do is to accept that, if we wish to park overnight in town centres we should be prepared to pay a modest cost towards the upkeep of the car parks or we should be prepared to drive into the countryside and really wild camp away from anyone else.

Continuing to assert that, because we’ve spent a few bob on a motorhome, we have the God-given right to park them just wherever we like without let or hindrance is selfish, does not take into account the wishes of the general population and simply shows the public that we are mean and care only for our own conveniences and wallets. Should tent campers be allowed to pitch in the local parks? Should anyone be allowed to park just anywhere?

The ‘Call to Arms’ thread is typical of the attitude of many motorhomers. A man saw a notice and completely misinterpreted it. He came on this forum absolutely ranting about persecution from councils and his rights to park anywhere etc. and accused the council of banning all motorhome parking on its 60 car parks. As a result of this other members have sent emails to the council protesting about this gross infringement on our liberty.

But guess what? Because another member took the trouble to drive to the car park and read the notice properly, we now know that it actually gives intention of banning just overnight parking on 15 car parks! So some councillor or chief executive is going to receive a load of emails, castigating him for something that isn’t going to happen. And we wonder why we’re not flavour of the month!

I'd love to see councils opening aires, or at least allowing us to overnight on car parks at a modest cost, but we need to go about it in a civilised, polite and sensible manner, which doesn't include insulting councillors and stating that they all own camp sites and have a vested interest. Their main interest is their constituents who elect them[/QUOTE]

 

[maureenandtom]

Charging for Aires. It's my view that free Aires will pretty soon be a thing of the past. I posted something about my last French trip in another thread. We've lived through a golden age of motor caravanning.

Another member returned from France only a few days ago and reported to us that she'd stayed at 12 Aires - 5 of them chargeable.

Yet another member asserted that the majority of French Aires are free. No stats to back that up of course, there never are, but it could be true. Perhaps overall, French Aires are still free. But that's not my experience.

My preference is for sea, sand and sun. My favoured French spots are coastal and, you know, my impression is that we have to wild camp like we used to do all the time or, increasingly, we have to pay for Aires in touristy attractive spots. Inland spots are possibly, even probably, still free but not so many in places where I want to go.

From the top of my memory. Cap d'Agde was ten Euros three or four years ago. Quite nearby, Balaruc, was six Euros a couple of years ago. Over on the Atlantic coast, Anglet was six Euros, Capbreton was the same, Ondres about the same (five I think). These three just last year - or the year before maybe. Just over the Spanish border San Sebastian was a few Euros - can't remember exactly how much, five or six maybe. St Gilles, La Rochelle - all where I want to go there are more and more Aires charging. A free one in these popular spots is getting to be a rarity.

(My favourite, favourite, favourite place in all the world has started charging 3 Euros but luckily there is another Aire only 4 or 5 km away still free. That's the last free one anywhere around there and after that, it's back to proper wilding again or pay what the council want.)

I haven't often paid. But now and again I have and when I have, I've not grudged it, though I do avoid it. The last only two or three weeks ago and I reported it in a thread somewhere. Probably the Scarborough Traders one.

Now, I'm not for one moment suggesting that Cap d'Agde and Scarborough or Blackpool are anywhere near equally attractive but Scarborough and Blackpool are what we've got and there's plenty of us who do want to go to both places.

Once I gently suggested that it was a little hypocritical to pay willingly in France but not in Scarborough and I got the expected response. I still think Scarborough has got the price wrong; we've been told they're reviewing the amount. So why aren't we enthusiastically encouraging them? Why such condemnation for them when they're doing, almost, what almost all of us say this is what we have wanted.

I do so want to know.

 

[Viktor]

Good thread starting post Northerner...there is our view and there is 'their' view (the people you mention in your post)....probably the truth is somewhere in between....some of us (motorhome and campervan owners in general) and some travellers (not all) are always going to cause the rest of us problems with selfish attitudes and a free for all attitude....I guess all we can do is to be seen to act responsibly by being curteous and perhaps lifting other litter that doesn't belong to us so that members of the public who are not motorhome owners see most of us in good light.

I noticed that at one of our arranged meets an amount of money was raised for a good cause.....we should consider being more aggressive in our promotion and try and get more coverage in local papers for such actions.....that would probably do a great deal of good in the public view.

 

[Canalsman]

I noticed that at one of our arranged meets an amount of money was raised for a good cause.....we should consider being more aggressive in our promotion and try and get more coverage in local papers for such actions.....that would probably do a great deal of good in the public view.

Good idea