The Weekly Gripe

Gripes the News
The Soapbox
Gripes in the pipes
*

Hospital car parking should be free

57 comments  Add a comment

Why do hospitals and such places charge to park cars?  Sometimes it is just not helpful at all.  For example if someone is ill and needs treatment at the hospital or accident and emergency etc., if at all possible I will not call an ambulance unless it is a life threatening condition.  There are far more deserving cases so if you can get to a hospital yourself then you should.  The issue is hospital parking and the fact that they charge.

I recently had someone staying with me who was not feeling at all well, so I telephoned the out of hours doctor and was told to take the patient to the out of hours doctors surgery.  I helped the patient into the car and drove to the place I had been told to take her.  Upon arrival I drove to the entrance and a large barrier automatically raised itself as I approached.  A small yellow sign on the left (too small actually), caught my eye as I passed through.  Unfortunately I saw it too late and had no idea what it said.

A London ambulance However, once I got inside the grounds I discovered it was going to cost me to get out of the car park again!  As it happens the doctor that my friend saw referred her to the local hospital.  When I got there and drove into the car park, guess what?

That's right, I had to pay to park yet again!  I was fortunate enough to have plenty of spare pound coins in my pocket that day, although I could think of better ways to spend them than in a hospital car park!

Do I now have to ask the question "can I afford to take you to hospital?" next time there's an accident or someone needs to see a doctor?  Of course not, but I really do resent having to pay for hospital parking.

I think that it is fair enough for visitors to have to pay, but surely not the patients and the people who take them to hospital.  After all, if you take someone there by car then you've saved the tax payer the cost of an ambulance.  That ambulance is the available for someone who really needs it.

By: Mr Angry


Leave a comment

First Prev Page 1 of 4 Next Last

Matt

Matt

I disagree. Parking should be free for all, not just patients. I shouldn't have to decide if I can afford to visit my relatives when they're unwell. It's outrageous.
Matt
20th Apr 17 23:35

!

1
Melksham

Melksham

The RUH in Bath actively discourage car drivers, suggesting that public transport is better! I'm not putting my c.80 year old mum on a 2 hour bus ride when I can drive her there in 30 minutes.
Melksham
30th Oct 11 08:32

!

1
Tourer

Tourer

I agree my Hospital car parking used to be free. It was great. I never paid any town centre parking and i could park there all day. But now it costs a fortune so i catch the bus and i am a long way off getting my free Bus Pass. Any ideas?
Tourer
8th Sep 11 18:30

!

-3
Fred E

Fred E

The point about the ABS is that it is thought having the ABS changes driver behaviour. When ABS was new cars with the technology were driven by aggressive drivers who drove too close to the car in front thinking they can stop in no distance at all with the latest super duper equipment.
Do cyclists with helmets cycle faster because they feel protected? Car drivers drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets.
Wearing seatbelts is very different. They are a well proven technology.
Whenever you research something you will find something that makes a big difference is easy to show - such as wearing seatbelts.
Something that may make a slight difference like wearing a helmet is very difficult to prove which is why you have lots of different studies from all over the world with conflicting results.
If the results were conclusive the government would act to make them compulsory.
Can anyone tell me why anti-cycling people are so much pro helemt? Is it because they don't like the thought of cyclists whizzing along in the open air enjoying themselves?
Fred E
29th Jul 11 11:57

!

10
Youthful Griper

Youthful Griper

Surely marginal improvement to safety is better than no improvement at all?

You say the research into ABS related accidents was old. Newer cars have much better technology than they used to.

ESP+ (Electronic Stability Control) which improves traction when a skid is likely by automatically applying brakes individually to control the car in such an event.

EBA (Emergency Brake Assist) which works by the car detecting when the driver is about to execute an emergency brake and will apply maximum brake pressure if it feels the driver isn't doing so.

Surely these technologies have helped save lives, or at the very least, help lessen the amount of fatal injuries occurred in accidents.

Cycling technology hasn't evolved or advanced over time; cyclists are still exposed and if they feel put out by having to wear a helmet or additional safety gear to make them more visible and safe then so be it. I never had qualms over wearing a helmet when I was a kid out riding my bikes.

Oh and you'll be pleased to hear that I'm reducing my carbon footprint too. No, I'm not taking up cyling. I produce over 1,000,000 grams of CO2 a year by commuting alone in my Corsa, my new car due in a couple of weeks will reduce this figure to around 900,000. Never let it be said I'm not doing something to reduce my carbon output. I best ask Ford to see if they do branded helmets for my passengers.

It's a car drivers responsibility, by law, to ensure their passengers are safe by wearing seatbelts. It should be a cyclists responsibility, by law, to ensure they are as safe as they can be by wearing a helmet and any other protective gear available - as is the case with motorcyclists. Unless you're going to tell me that there's research to say wearing seatbelts isn't as safe as has been made out?
Youthful Griper
29th Jul 11 11:39

!

7
Fred E

Fred E

I was once cycling along a quiet road when a hatchback with booming bass box shot past me. Then they slammed their brakes on and wound the passenger window down. The kid inside shouted get a f**ki** helmet on and then they shot off with a screech and the usual wheelspin. I was left speechless. I could never really understand their motive. Surely my safety wasn't their primary concern.
Fred E
29th Jul 11 10:32

!

2
Fred E

Fred E

Mike you obviously have the internet look up abs research yourself. I am sure you'll want to criticise it which is why I helped you stating it was a bit old.
I must have stated the reason why cyclists mix well with pedestrians many times over. It's to do with mass and speed. A bicycle only adds 10kg to the weight of someone. Cyclists can't cycle very quickly in comparison to motor vehicles.
Cyclists in the road=lots of dead and seriously injured cyclists.
Cyclists on pavement=minor injuries to pedestrians and cyclists.
Obviously you will say that a dead cyclist is good because cyclists aren't important and aren't real human beings etc etc
Pedestrians do not wander down the middle of the road but they will wander all over cycle paths. Pedestrians won't cross the road when they hear the noise of a car engine but they'll just step out into the road when a cyclist is riding along. Pedestrians by their actions show they have no fear of cyclists. The statistics show they are right to have no fear of cyclists.
Fred E
29th Jul 11 10:17

!

0
Milly Molly Mandy

Milly Molly Mandy

Fred E the stupid nonce on a pushbike..............
Milly Molly Mandy
29th Jul 11 09:30

!

-4
MikeP

MikeP

"Did you know that cars with ABS were more likely to be involved in accidents? Old research now."
More likely to be involved in accidents than what? Army Lorries? There are more cars with ABS than without, so it's blindingly obvious. What is the source of the research?

If you wish to get people on your side, instead of quoting the same drivel over and over again and asking questions, why don't you actually come up with an argument that might validate some of your contentions. Why don't you give some answers?

You can't, can you? Quite simply because there is none.

Why do you continuously labour the same points again in topics where it is barely even relevant? We know that you think it is acceptable for adults to cycle on pavements, breaking the law, and injuring and inconveniencing pedestrians, but you consistently fail to explain why this should be allowed. You then resort to posting the same spurious drivel under other topics.

There is a thread somewhere about TalkTalk being the worst ISP. No doubt you can somehow blame that on little green men who want cyclists to wear helmets.

Perhaps if the paparazzi who pursued Princess Diana had been cyclists not wearing helmets she would still be alive. Can you somehow blame famine in Africa or the US debt crisis on the anti-cycling brigade? Come on, let's hear it!
MikeP
29th Jul 11 07:25

!

2
MikeP

MikeP

Carrot, as you may see by the comma at the end of my posting, I was going to add more but hit 'enter' too soon in a sort of premature ejaculation of anger at this buffoon Fred E.

Ineffably dreary is probably a kind description. It's a repetitive diatribe of the same regurgitated illogical nonsense all the time, I haven't seen him put forward one valid argument in defence of his point of view, probably because there isn't one.

"Cycling helmets are very thin". Yes Fred, and I would imagine that is because they know how thick your cranium is.
MikeP
29th Jul 11 06:57

!

-10
Fred E

Fred E

Did you know that cars with ABS were more likely to be involved in accidents? Old research now.
Drivers drive closer to cyclists who wear helmets. Do cyclists cycle differently wearing a helmet?
Should pedestrians wear helmets? Should occupants of cars were helmets?
Why does the law state you have to wear seat belts? Why does the law say motorcyclists must wear a helmet but not cyclists.
Cycling helmets are very thin and don't offer much protection but may stop minor grazes.
If there was good evidence of a safety improvement they would be made mandatory.
You can trawl through all the research but the bottom line is that if they improve safety it is very marginal. Cycling countries like Holland and Denmark most defintely have a very low rate of helmet wearing. Making helmets mandatory decreases cycling rates. Anti cycling groups always want cyclists to wear helmets - not sure if they want to stop people cycling or want to be able to knock cyclists off and not injure them.
Fred E
28th Jul 11 22:52

!

-2
Youthful Griper

Youthful Griper

FredE - were you about to burst into a Linda Ronstadt/Aaron Neville rendition? Youthful Griper doesn't know much, but I know I love you. Do you Fred? Do you?

I stand corrected on your first point. The majority of staff base where I am are made up of nurses, medical is surprisingly lower down. You got me on that one.

Yes, smoking isn't permitted on hospital grounds. It doesn't stop people doing it though. Ever tried telling a patient or visitor that they shouldn't be smoking on hospital grounds? It doesn't go down well. It's a pointless law. Nobody abides by it and those who try and enforce it, who aren't officers of the law, are looked at like scum and usually get some verbal abuse into the bargain.

I know the health benefits of cycling as do others; people choose to ignore it because they prefer the convenience and comfort of their own cars, except die hard cyclists of course. You're telling me that cyclists are better protected without a helmet than wearing one? I can't grasp that one.
Youthful Griper
28th Jul 11 22:32

!

10
Fred E

Fred E

Thanks Mike. I just like to hope that one day everyone will be as clever as me and realise that I was right all the time.
Fred E
28th Jul 11 22:06

!

-9
Carrot

Carrot

Mike P - we are often at loggerheads but if you add ineffably dreary to the post below then we are in complete agreement for once.
Carrot
28th Jul 11 22:05

!

-1
MikeP

MikeP

Fred E: you are patronising, arrogant, and ignorant. That's quite a combination. Not to mention dogmatic, thick skinned,
MikeP
28th Jul 11 21:58

!

14

First Prev Page 1 of 4 Next Last

FEATURES

Gripes the News
Gripes in the pipes
The Soapbox
spinner