UKC

I'm seeing a trend towards damning all camper van use in the climbing context. Its this because vans are now popular country wide? Its not just climbers who share a love for the outdoors and want a bit of comfort when they visit it

I use mine for family holidays and climbing trips. I'm too old for camping in wet fields but I usually base myself at a campsite so I can use the facilities (although it hardly seems worth the £20 to have a shower and a shit!

If the complaints are that the vans clog up car parks and make too much of a statement in road side parking how am I supposed to get to the cliff from the campsite? Should I ride my bike or tow another car with me?

I am not taking a position here. I'm just a bit confused why vans are suddenly now unacceptable.

Because parking is pretty limited in most climbing spots, and a badly parked sprinter van takes up the equivalent of three car spaces. Even more annoying when it's people going on some sort of "adventure" up Mount Peak Snowden and they park next to the Cromlech for three days, shit under Ultimate Retro Party and throw litter in the river.

What makes you think they are deemed unacceptable. I think all the criticism of van dwellars has been aimed at the iresponsible ones. 

Well its seems that we can't park anywhere near the crag anymore. Any mention of climbing on Portland seems to be met with outright hostility to anyone driving onto the island. This is I grant you, partly because of inconsiderate sprinter van owners clogging up the car parks but actually in reality the car parks are always full on a sunny day. This I'm sure goes for other venues. Whether I'm in a van or a car I get the standard letter from the locals venting about my parking on the public highway regardless of whether I'm creating a nuisance.. We used to campaign for the right to wander. Now we seem to be campaigning for everyone to have a veto on how we use the countryside. Its locals barring access exactly as the landowners used to.

So perhaps I am make a point. All this invective against campers is unhelpful. Yes we should all be considerate but no - the angry man on Portland can't be allowed to ban visitors by claiming that one or two over nighters in car parks ruin it for everyone. They really don't.

There seems to be a marked increase in van use (climbers or otherwise) and the environment outside campsites cannot cope with increased numbers. This makes life just that bit worse for everyone.  Van responsibly out there !

Never fair to generalise all participants in any activity. We often roughly convert our short wheel base transit for a few days and take off. The van is no longer than an estate and we plan where all the toilets are. We sometimes park wild and sometimes use campsites. I've not seen many Sprinters parked in ways described but maybe the venues I visit are different. Vans can be used responsibly.

We are aware that there is a growing dislike of vans so now more than ever we must behave well.

Yes there is, but the vast majority are VW Campers which are no bigger than anyone else's car. Its already an offence to take up more than one space in a car park. It doesn't need all of this scapegoating. After all anyone who decides not to take a van takes up a car parking space in whatever car they decide to bring instead. What makes you think that there is a absolute limit to the number of camper vans but not of cars.

Eh ? 

The crux of the issue, I think, is that people don't have a problem with those who use their vans and access the outdoors in a responsible manner.

Those who park in passing places for days on end, shit in questionable places and litter do not fall into that category. As do those who occupy 'prime' parking spots for days on end to the detriment of day visitors. Did you see the Peak this summer? Abject chaos, everywhere. I had to go off-road into the ditch on the verge near Plantation to let someone past because of the parking stupidity. And it applies to cars and vans — though car drivers don't tend to need to shit in questionable places.

ok I get that but I have experienced the other end where the the local do-gooder climbers write letters to anyone who dares park near a crag just in case they might have bad thoughts. And that chimed with the other thread where no sin was actually committed but the UKC anvil of right thinking came down on the OP just in case he dared even possibly transgressing against the rules of 'good' campering.

He did, in fairness, say he wanted to van camp in Cheddar Gorge in the OP. Which is patently a stupid idea and is bound to get people's backs up even if it was an innocent misunderstanding. I can't think of many worse crags in this country to camp under; can you?

but he didn't actually camp in cheddar did he! And I didn't actually park on Portland inconsiderately. But the Angry Man on portland still labels me as part of the problem. When actually its the shouters that are curtailing our rights to visit the countryside and that should be resisted just as we resisted the landowners claiming rights over the footpaths. Its particularly sad that the shouters are mostly climbers.

Q-"What makes you think that there is a absolute limit to the number of camper vans"?

A- "the turd limit of the verge"?

The inconsiderate parking, shit in bushes, rubbish, general anti-social behavior, etc. is easy to pin on people sleeping in their specific vehicles. If someone in a car threw some rubbish on the floor, you wouldn't be able to pin it on them for reasons of having a car, as loads of people have cars. Stealth camping vans, on the other hand, have only really become such a huge thing in the past couple of years. That means when someone in a van does misbehave, it's bound to that vanlife image in the observers consciousness. 

People sleeping in vans and caravans is rife on the streets of Bristol and it started to make cycling through certain areas a lot more dangerous, as the already strained parking was at breaking point and vans were parked across corners, making it virtually impossible to negotiate some junctions safely (as you can't see anything). 

No problem with people using campervans at designated campsites or even getting a bit of shuteye in a layby to split a long journey up but there is something about going somewhere (especially national parks or other areas with loads of available camping facilities), with pre-meditated plans to sleep in your vehicle in laybys and carparks, that gets on my nerves a bit. 

A lot of what I've seen it develop in to is not so much having a utility vehicle that can be used for camping convenience as much as it is a lifestyle choice to live in an area you can't afford for free or avoid paying for campsites. A more transient #vanlife lifestyle would be admirable but it's not really attainable in our country and it's not what 99% of people are doing. They have their group parkup next to a nice park or something, they have their gym membership where they have their showers and they have their jobs. In recent years it has even become an aspiration for people to do up a van to live in so they can live this 'adventurous' lifestyle.      

It also irks me that #vanlifers incessantly project an adventurous lifestyle across social media platforms when in fact driving to your final destination and sleeping in a carpark is the complete opposite of adventurous. They also never show the reality or downsides, just non-stop f*cking sunsets. 

I accept that what I've said will attract a lot of dislikes but it was a nice vent. 

He originally said he wanted to camp in the gorge, and people immediately went off it. It's not great, but it's hardly surprising?

it does come over as somewhat intolerant.

This would go some way to solving the problem. They have a shorter wheelbase than Sprinters.

I'll get my coat.

Indeed it is not great, but it also emboldens and entitles those who want to deny us the right to access the crags. Yes they are  a limited resource, but it can't be left so that only those rich or lucky enough to live in these beautiful places who can enjoy them. If we don't defend our rights to visit crags we will loose those rights.

I suspect a large part of the antagonism stems from the difference between the Instagram van life and the shitting behind a wall which, strangely, doesn't get the same likes and reposts.  

I think the same thing has happened to road side camping. Low key, leave no trace campers who have traditionally not caused many issues are now outnumbered, or at least more lumped together with, irresponsible campers.

Lose! Lose! FFS. You can't loose a crag...

It's just not playing the game, is it. It's like cracking open a 12 pack of Carling you bought at a Tesco in Swansea on the bench outside the St. Govan's. 

its that right? I have not noticed any "Low key, leave no trace campers" making such complaints. Have I not been reading the threads closely enough?

Actually the instagram ready nature of campering is for the most part exactly correct. My camper is more often parked (considerately) on the Quayside than on the the roadside outside a crag. I suspect therefore that this baying as an element of jealousy to it and a good measure of British damnation of those who seek to be different or dare to be successful.

But until there isn't a significant number (minority or majority, it's irrelevant) of idiots being idiots, the reaction will remain so. I can guarantee it.

I don't think many people have a generic dislike of vans; the current problems are a result of the current trend. A few years ago, when there were less vans and less idiots being idiots, there was no problem.

No one (climber) is trying to deny anyone the right to access the crags. They're almost certainly and very understandably pissed off that people are taking liberties in their local areas. The solution is for people to stop taking liberties.

a mysterious corollary but I enjoyed it!

What I mean is that it's a bit anti-social in nature, isn't it. It's taking liberties and using facilities that weren't intended to be used in that way and not really paying much back into the communities where you're staying (obviously that's a big generalisation; I'm sure lots of people in their vans do go to the pub and spend money in shops etc). 

I don't want everyone to be the same but if everyone was living this van life, campsites would be out of business, public toilets would be wrecked, local pubs and restaurants would have a marked decline in sales, and every layby and carpark would be rammed full of these massive beasts. 

How old are you?

As to your general question: there's been an explosion in the number of people doing it, and that can create a nuisance.

You can on Mam Tor!

The whole notion of "stealth" camping is half the problem. 

If van life people  behaved like most caravanners and traditional motorhome owners  and used the designated sites rather than trying to dodge paying, keeping under the radar / off the grid  and pitching up in places which are eminently unsuitable, their image ( and that of people who've been quietly getting by in the game for years) wouldn't have been tarnished to such a degree.

Whenever I go out I try and pick up rubbish, I would say pretty much all of this littering is from day visitors in cars.  Trying to lay all the problems of litter and problem parking at the door of van dwellers is ridiculous.

I find this anti van vibe quite unsettling, feels like something the Daily Mail would push.

I think the Cheddar Gorge thread was because campervanning in the gorge and then going climbing could affect access in a sensitive area - a bit like parking in the campervan in an urban street on Portland.

The recent problems with vans have to do with too many people doing the van thing in an obtrusive way. Instead of trying to remain undetected and being considerate of others houses, right to park etc there have been too many people behaving inconsiderately. 

I feel the best solution for the most over used spots would be for a system of 'aires' like is found in Italy where people can pay a small fee, like a fiver per vehicle to stop in a dedicated car space and have a poo in a sanitary way.

One or 2 vans or people sleeping in cars in Glen Shiel in winter is not a problem to anyone, whereas 30 plus people down the side of Honister pass having fires on the verges, shitting next to the stream and leaving lots of litter, as I saw last August is less ok. So it's more to do with considerate behaviour than vans being a problem per se.

Not all of these van problem behaviours will be to do with climbers of course, but promoting the #vanlife on instagram doesn't help people to do the van thing quietly and just get on with it.

Van users seem to be portrayed as either crusties living on the edge of society or middle class types with expensive vans ‘living the dream on insta’

I guess it depends on the narrative that is being pushed, and the particular prejudice being expressed.

Van dwellers didn’t burn Bamford moor or The Roaches, they don’t leave tons of rubbish after group picnic /barbecues on the beach etc.

These are the issues that concern me.

People are barking up the wrong tree if they think getting rid of van dwellers will improve the environment.

that's the attitude though its it. extrapolating from a few idiots to the logical extreme where everyone has to live in a van and shit behind walls is ridiculous, except that is what all this hoo harr is about.

99% of campers are considerate and do not crap behind hedge and the remaining 1% do not  actually care what you do or say. All that is achieved is that many good campers get abused. 

But you're talking about a lifestyle that has grown exponentially in the past few years. You only have to look at the National Parks this summer and how aggravated it was getting locals. If it continues to grow as it has, it is simply not sustainable, no matter how considerate you are.  

If fewer people drove vans c02 emissions etc. would reduce so the emvironment would be better?

I see it more as a matter of education. 

people moving from climbing walls to outdoor crags  have a few gaps in their knowledge about how to carry on. For them to cease to be a problem, someone has to set them straight.

Similarly with the great numbers of people who moved from pac kage holidays to campervan ownership: there are lessons they need to learn about how to fit in with the normal code of conduct that people have been abiding by for years. Uppermost among these items on the code should be something along the lines of:

"you should not expect to be entitled to pull up anywhere and sleep there. Most caravanners wouldn't do this and  a motorhome is just a car /caravan combo with fewer wheels."

Did they find out who burned Bamford Moor? I missed that!

I’m sure people who live in a van have a far smaller carbon footprint than people who live in houses.

I spent most of 2018 and 2019 living in my van on and off, for work and play, but always climbing, mountaineering, or other outdoorsy things in outdoorsy areas. I've always been super considerate as a camper and if I was even noticed, I didn't suffer any adverse reaction to any of the places I stayed (or if I did, no one mentioned anything).

Park sensibly, don't leave a mess, don't block access etc etc. If you are basically being a decent driver and not causing any problems for anyone, then the complaining crowd can carry on moaning online whilst you actually go climbing. Sometimes a minority who shout loudly get more attention than they deserve?

Grow up ! Van life and crag access are totally seperable life choices.   Both can be done responsibly. Or not.

Yes, this.

Another one is - "if it wouldn't be acceptable to put a tent up next to your car and sleep in it in a given location, it's not acceptable to sleep there in a van either".  OK, putting a tent up next to your car in a layby would be a bit weird and perhaps have an excessive risk of being run over while asleep, but I more mean "would it upset anyone if you did".

I'd except from that people who are living in a van because they have lost their home and are left with no choice, i.e. they are people who otherwise (if they didn't have the car or van) *would* have to put a tent up in that location, i.e. they are homeless, not choosing van life as a lifestyle.  When you have a choice, things are very different from people who don't have a choice.  If you are choosing van life as a lifestyle, you need to consider others in how you do it.

So parking on residential streets and in public car parks in areas of natural beauty are out, really, unless that car park has a specific provision (as, if I recall rightly, the one by the station in Betws y Coed does, to use one example).

Another reasonable judgement of where it'd be OK to park up would be whether you tend to see articulated lorries parked up overnight at that location.  A layby on the A5 in Northamptonshire, probably yes.  A layby at a viewpoint in an AONB, probably no.  But like with the lorry drivers (and wild campers) - "pitch late, strike early".

I think that most people camping in vans have houses they live in too.   I could be wrong though.

Can I offset my CO2 emissions by not having kids?

No.

Why?

Not so much off set them, but you can massively reduce the emissions which you are ultimately responsible for (as well as many other environmental impacts).

People are sleeping in vans in cities?! Is this long-term accomodation, or people visiting the cities, or have high house prices forced this on people?

A little of both. The house and rent prices in bristol are very high and some can't afford it at all. Some want to live in areas they can't afford to and for some people it's just a lifestyle choice. 

It's got a bit like squatting in that there are people doing it through necessity (poverty sometimes, addiction often) and other white middle class kids who are doing it through choice.

The #vanlife scene is an annual cycle of buying a shell van in late summer, doing it up as quick as you can before it gets cold, working as much as you can through the winter and saving, then going on your gap yaaaaaa.

I think you misread my post. I didn't say don't have a campervan / stealth van / road side camping. I was saying previously most of the above was done discreetly and responsibly, but now that is frequently not the case 

Doesn't feel like all these vans are about to get converted back to commercial vehicles... interesting problem for stakeholders to manage over the coming years.

This thread reminds me of a BBC documentary from a few years ago about people driving their supercars around Knightsbridge. Every summer a load of guys from the middle east (and elsewhere) pitch up with their custom vehicles and cause a legitimate nuisance for anyone living locally by revving them loudly at night, blocking traffic, parking illegally outside Harrods etc etc. The entire documentary was building these guys up to be the privileged tossers one would expect them to be, but when it was their turn to be interviewed they couldn't have come across better, they were genuinely mortified they had been causing a problem & very apologetic! They just lacked the self awareness that comes with age and a more normal upbringing.

The final interview was with a particularly crusty elderly resident, who conceded that while he had written extensively to his MP to complain, he hadn't yet politely asked them to keep it down himself...

Shock and horror, an elderly person decided not to directly confront people substantially younger than himself...  

Lets be honest, its covid thats the problem here. Everywhere has got mega busy since going outdoors hiking etc has been one of the only activities for people to do during this period. Hence the Peak getting rammed with vehicles, everyone coming in separate cars to meet too. The vans are just an easy target.

I wouldn't be sure of that at all. I think it likely that there are just as many people living in houses with net zero emissions as there are people living in vans as their sole accommodation.

I think half the problem is the lack of stealth. If you're going to do it, then do it.. don't go posting on Facebook groups with thousands of members asking if it'd be ok to park in spot x, y or z. If you're not comfortable with your potential parking spot's suitability and you need an ok from society then it's not a good parking spot. Not only that, you then a) tell the whole world about this potential spot and create a new honeypot, b) potentially create more #vanlifers and so make more problems and c) receive ire from people who would never had known that you'd spent the night at spot x, y or z. Don't share it on social media after either, no one cares if you saw a nice sunrise.

By that shoddy reasoning we can all do whatever we like and blame our parents for our emissions

More realistically we need young, fit people to keep the wheels of our society turning.  You cannot rely on other people to have children AND blame them for doing so.

Agreed. You have to take in to account the longevity of a house over a van too. My house at 250 years old probably had very little to zero carbon emissions in it's construction, I very much doubt that the same could be said for a 2014 plate Transit. Likewise, my house will still be standing in another 250 years, the van's material will have been reprocessed countless times in that same time frame at huge carbon cost each go.

It'd be an interesting read, if some boffin worked out the annual carbon cost of both dwellings and I suspect it might be closer than most realise.  

I think that reasoning is shoddy; obviously once you are a fait accompli it is possible to mitigate the damage that your parents have done by creating you.

Yes, but given that the planet needs fewer people to be sustainable and most people probably want to have children, there is a selflessness in those who forego doing so - it allows others to do so sustainably.

How do you get to the crag/shops etc?

Surely living in your vehicle is much lower emissions than having a house and a vehicle to get around. Plus, it's not like vans have gas boilers for central heating.

Excellent summary

Your vehicle that you live in would get what.. 30mpg average? Maybe a tad more.. maybe a tad less? My car does 60mpg average. I also have to go shopping less often because my house has more storage than a van. 

In the instance of your question, what mileage does a van dweller do per annum compared to a house/car owner? Most van lifers I see travel all over the UK, whereas my climbing barely ever exceeds 30 miles away, most days no more than 15-20. I'm not saying a house or van is better for the environment, I'm saying that it's not as clear cut as van lifers might imagine. Like I said, it'd be an interesting read if someone took the time out to calculate it all and did a comparison

Depends. A person living in a campervan as sole accommodation is not the typical profile of a campervan owner, so it seems reasonable to be equally selective of home owners for the purposes of making a comparison.

With a modern build, or a build retrofitted with thermal efficiency improvements, it is quite possible to have a house with net zero carbon emissions, coupled with an EV for transport.

I don't think there are any campervan owners living the dream in an electric vehicle powered by renewables, at least not yet.

How about the US solution: Winnebago towing a huge 4x4 pickup.

It's a bit more nuanced than that.

People who own campervans are less likely to travel abroad for their holidays. And when they do go abroad (usually with passengers), their CO2 emissions are likely to be much smaller.

e.g. last year, we went to Switzerland with 4 people in a van. Total transport CO2 emissions were approximately 0.63 tonnes (0.16 tonnes each).

Had we flown then used a hire car, that would have increased to about 1.28 tonnes (0.32 tonnes each).

It's not just the house vs the van, it's all the other stuff that goes with the house, everything counts, the fridge freezer, washing machine, furniture etc etc. 

People in houses own far more stuff, and all that stuff comes at a cost to the environment. 

I would be happy to see a legal requirement for all campervans to carry at least a Porta Potti, however much their owners like the idea of stealth/ being a free spirit/ having a free ride. That way there would be no excuse for crapping in laybys . If you don't like  the idea of carrying turds around in the same place you eat and sleep, you shouldn't have gone down the campervan route.

Size is no excuse; my Nissan Vanette was probably one of the smallest campers ever made but it had a perfectly useable Porta Potti tucked in a cabinet under the sink.

A significant number of campervan/motorhome toilets are never used.

Making a toilet a requirement in a van wouldn't solve people crapping by lay-bys any more than making bins a requirement in cars would stop all littering.

The problem is that there is a significant minority of people in all aspects of life who are unable to behave responsibly. This is the same whether you are looking at van owners/car drivers/cyclists/climbers/walkers/mountain bikers/dog owners etc etc.

I don't have a toilet in my van. I have never been for a nature poo when staying in my van.

I would also try to never park inconsiderately, never stay close to someone's house, try to never leave any trace, don't make loud noises, aim to arrive late/leave early etc.

Having a toilet in the van would mean there was absolutely no justification for crapping in a layby..

having no toilet means they can say there was no option/ it was an emergency.

Yes, that's why I talked about longevity. A sofa in my house will probably outlast an entire van.. as will the fridge freezer, kitchen table etc! Even if they outlive their useful life as purchased then they'll be reconditioned where possible, especially so with furniture. 

What happens when your van dweller decides they've out grown it, and want a proper place to sleep at night? They get a house and join the rest of us in those carbon expensive luxuries...

You can keep on bringing up individual items, but as I pointed out I wasn't saying either was better/worse and the point I was making was that it'd be an interesting exercise to compare the two scientifically, it seems largely pointless  

It's difficult to do because it's easy to be selective about the kind of things you compare. What about the carbon footprint of the supply chain required to manufacture a van cheaply and at scale? The various appliances in a house, the typical lifestyle of the owners? A diesel powered van from the 70s versus the owners of a Passivehaus with a Nissan Leaf powered by middle class smugness?

I would argue that there is never a justification and that having a toilet or not doesn't change that.

The consensus is, in the west, that the birth rate is too low.  It’s not too many people being born but that they all live too long.

So while it’s very easy to not have children, and try and make those that do feel guilty, it’s much harder to come up with palatable solutions for the actual problem.

And if you’ve (or whoever it was who said they should get carbon credit for lack of kids) genuinely not had kids in order to save the world, then you’ve misunderstood.

Yes that’s why I’ve never had a bash! You’d have to make many assumptions on both sides, which anyone reading would pick holes in depending on their stance. 
A largely pointless exercise in any case as any van dweller will long term end up living in a house and so having to ‘spend’ all the carbon a household did already years earlier.

This thread is like reading the mail online comments section. Unbelievable stuff. 

Barring draconian enforcement, which isn't going to happen for multiple reasons, not least cost and practicality, education and good practice is the only way forward on this as the genie out of the bottle now. 

There are good places and bad places to park a van and sleep in. Just because this summer has seen an increase in the bad is no reason to attack those who do no harm. If campsites didn't cost 15 quid a night I might be more tempted to use one. 

It's also highly likely that once people are allowed to go abroad again van usage will decrease a bit, so all the Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells letter writers can relax a bit! 

How about increasing immigration then?

This trend of using "do gooder' as an insult is puzzling. Surely doing good is by definition a good thing. Would you prefer parking your van next to nelson mandela or 'do badders' such as harold shipman or boris?

I can't see why it's unbelievable that every now and then UKC aligns itself with mainstream UK society and the readership of our most popular media sources. 

You might not like it but it doesn't happen all that often so you needn't lose sleep about it.

I think that the presence of a toilet nearby would/ or should make people less inclined to shit in a layby.

Since you can't reasonably expect the councils to provide toilets in every layby, you should,as a part of camper van ownership, be prepared to make your own arrangements and anti- social ones are not the ideal.

I don't understand your point here. You could estimate the carbon footprint of living in a van or house many different ways using many different estimates or assumptions, but surely a significant period of living one lifestyle or the other will have an impact year by year, regardless of if you later switch to the other. Maybe van life is substantially less carbon intensive than house life, maybe it isn't. But if it is, why would a decade or two of doing it be wiped out by later moving into a house?

Hasn't 'do gooder' always been used in this way? Normally aimed at people who are regarded as somewhat self-righteous without having much actual positive impact on the world. I don't think it's a recent trend, I think it's what the term was invented for. And I don't imagine it's been used very often to describe a man like Nelson Mandela! Whether you asked his supporters or his enemies, I think they'd all agree he was much more than a 'do gooder'.

Surely you're conflating two largely separate problems here. A consensus that the birth rate is too low doesn't seem to have much to do with climate change.

Climate change is a problem that's exacerbated by a growing population and a lower birth rate is a genuine contribution to reducing that problem.

Separately, a lower birth rate causes economic problems. Partly because we need to support a growing elderly population and partly because we've developed an economic system that demands constant growth.

So if people are skipping children to partially mitigate climate problems, that doesn't necessarily mean they've misunderstood, they might just be weighing up those two problems differently to you.

I never said it would Be ‘wiped out’. I was making the point that few to none of those currently dwelling in their vans will live to die in them. So you may well use less carbon in ‘building’ your van home, but if you then go on to furnish a house too then you’ll perhaps have a slightly larger overall carbon spend. You’ll have bought a van fridge, and then a house fridge. A van bed, then a house bed. Obviously this would also need to take in to account replacing some items, which may occur depending on how long you live in your van/house. How many times do you replace a van mattress compared to a house one? How many times do you replace a van fridge vs a house fridge? Do you wear the flooring faster in a van than in a house?
I’m not arguing for either side, as I’ve repeatedly said it’d be a fascinating study to read about. I’m all for being as sustainable as possible.. it matters not if it’s on four wheels or foundations. 

Yeah, I can see that argument and I can certainly see that a particularly low-impact house-dweller might beat a high-impact van-dweller. But I think most of the impacts of most forms of van living or house living will accrue over time rather than being one-offs. Hardly any of the "stuff" in a van or a house will last an entire lifetime, so I find it hard to imagine that van "stuff" could turn over at such an accelerated rate compared to house "stuff" to outweigh the vastly greater volume of "stuff" in most houses.

With regards to the specific issue of crapping, can the human craps be bagged and dropped into dog poo bins?

legit question - (aside from all the practicalities and not dealing with the actual problem) - is there an issue of mixing human crap with dog? 

No. This was tried on an experimental basis and led to an increase in people crapping on the pavement and pissing on lampposts.

No, the incineration process used in disposing of dog crap is slightly different to that of human. Catastrophe would ensue. 

That doesn't solve the problem of an aging, unhealthy and consumerist population with an unreasonable expectation that society will pay for their desire to exceed their natural lifespan.

The carbon footprint of people living full time in vans vs houses is a funny one. All of the experience of full-time vanlifers in this country that I have had is them often having some kind of support network in permanent accommodation, where they can have a shower, spend time watching tv, charge their devices, socialise when the weather is rank or it's dark at 4pm, etc.

A few I've seen even have electrical hookups going into houses. 

These people choosing to live in their vans in towns do not contribute towards council tax, which provides the services they expect to receive for free. Street cleaning, road maintenance, emergency services, etc. 

There's a lot of people that live in boats around Bristol but they generally pay a mooring fee.

Why do van dwellers believe they can exist outside contributing to a system which they benefit from? It seems to go back to this 'I've paid for the van so I shouldn't have to pay for anything else' mentality that you see with their approach to camping. 

That seems to have changed, it's now huge 4x4 pickup being used as the tractor unit for huge articulated motorhome.

Not me, I hung mine neatly on an overhanging branch.

Commendably civic minded of you!

So what would you have them do? I'm not aware of any mechanism for making voluntary contributions into the Council Tax pot. You seem to be criticising them for a system they didn't create. They're not in control of tax law and they're not dodging any taxes by not paying a tax that doesn't apply to them at all. If they were carefully jumping through hoops, using technicalities to avoid becoming subject to Council Tax, I would agree that it was morally questionable. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Unless they're actually parking in a single spot for 11 months of the year, which doesn't strike me as very common, the law simply doesn't expect them to pay.

I could certainly see an argument that the system is somewhat inequitable and should be changed, but trying to extract contributions to a localised part of the tax system from people who tend to move around a lot is inevitably going to be rather complex. But until such a change perhaps gets made, it doesn't seem fair to me to criticise them for obeying the current system.

I the “good old days” society could at least exact payment by branding them New Age travellers and sending the SPG round to smash up their vans.

Perhaps this is one of the freedoms we’ll be taking back in a couple of weeks.

Be very careful with that mentality, where it leads is animosity against anyone that doesn't pay council tax, such as students and people on benefits. I live in Nottingham and follow the local news pages, locals bitch about this *constantly* and it has formed real animosity with real tangible harm.

I see you worked out I wasn’t being serious.

It's hard to know with some of the responses here lately, apologies. It's a sad state of affairs when parody and reality converge.

I don't think you can compare really. When I'm talking about people living out of their vehicles in cities, I'm specifically talking about people who are choosing the lifestyle in order to save money so they can have longer holidays. As Neil has said, this isn't an attack on the poor. As I've already said, #vanlifers save money but the bill is always ultimately picked up by someone else. We have a duty as a society to pick up the bill for people who are unfortunately forced into this lifestyle but not the ones who are choosing it. 

An interesting thing happened with the first lockdown where a site outside Bristol was set up for people who lived fulltime in their vehicles that was free and fully facilitated. It seemed to work really well for the #vanlifers and they all had their nice little seating areas and potted plants and all looked after the site really well. Unfortunately it seemed to be mostly the people living in their vans through choice who ended up at the site. The addicts and essentially homeless seemed to still be in their dilapidated caravans and vans under the motorway bridges. I would fully support these kind of free facilities for the folks who fall through the cracks if it could be correctly managed to target the correct group. Unfortunately (as you often see with getting people off the streets) it isn't always as simple as 'if you build it, they will come'.   

From my perspective as long as people actually buy a van thats a rationally sensible size for cragging, so not to big for country lane driving and parking then thats fine. Obviously clean up after yourself too if that even needs saying.

There does seem to be a bit of a trend towards massive vans at the moment, such as a LWB sprinter for two people that has a tiled kitchen and Jacuzzi type setup.  Got to be honest, I think that behaviour falls into the same category as the person who buys a Dodge Ram to go and pick the kids up from school. Ie - we just dont give a sh!t about anything attitude when it comes to the environment and sharing the planet with other people.

So just leave things tidy and keep the carbon footprint as low as possible and everyone should have a happy planet to share and live on....

I genuinely don't understand why some seem to have a full 600mm deep kitchen cabinet setup, leaving no space for toilet and shower facilities *in a Sprinter*.