Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Cudzoziemiec on 31 August, 2020, 06:53:36 pm
-
HMG have launched a consultation into possible options for banning pavement parking in England.
Consultation asking whether a change of existing pavement parking legislation should occur.
We are proposing 3 options:
Improving the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process, under which local authorities can already prohibit pavement parking.
A legislative change to allow local authorities with civil parking enforcement powers to enforce against ‘unnecessary obstruction of the pavement’.
A legislative change to introduce a London-style pavement parking prohibition throughout England.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/managing-pavement-parking
Apparently Scotland passed legislation last year.
Living Streets say:
“Pavement parking forces people with wheelchairs, buggies and those living with sight loss into the road and into oncoming traffic.
“We’re regularly contacted at Living Streets by disabled and older people who feel trapped in their homes because there isn’t enough room on the pavement for wheelchairs or mobility scooters. This has impacted more people during the pandemic with blocked pavements affecting everyone’s ability to physically distance.
“A green and sustainable recovery from Covid-19 relies on our streets being clear and safe. It’s time we follow the lead set by London and Scotland and kick pavement parking to – and off – the kerb for good.”
https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/news-and-blog/press-media/govt-opens-consultation-into-pavement-parking-in-england
Auto Express says:
Motorists living in narrow streets often park on the pavement so that large vehicles, such as ambulances and fire engines, can get through. However, the Transport Select Committee raised concerns in a report last year that the practice puts pedestrians in danger by forcing them to step into the road and leaves vulnerable people, such as the elderly and the disabled, feeling trapped in their homes.
Now, the DfT has responded to the committee’s report by saying it will hold a consultation into the matter, with a view to possibly introducing an offence of ‘obstructive pavement parking’ or ‘unnecessary obstruction’. Specific changes to Transport Regulation Orders - which enable authorities to limit or prohibit the movement of traffic - may also be made.
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/103126/ban-drivers-from-parking-on-pavements-mps-say
I say:
If pavement parking is banned and if councils follow their own rules, this will lead to a lot of older, narrow streets which currently have parking on both sides, only having parking on one side. Apparently the standard width of a parking space in UK is 1.8m. A lot of residential streets are less than 5.4m kerb to kerb. Could lead to interesting consequences.
-
This has been launched in light of the legal action my friends crowdfunded for. I worry it'll get sensible answers which will then be ignored.
When will we realise driving and parking are privileges not rights and should not come at the expense of safe pedestrian access.
-
Are you sure it's in response to that legal action? I thought it was as a result of the 2017 inquiry:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/pavement-parking-17-19/
Which just makes it all the more likely the result will be either nice words or at best, something which allows but neither compels nor helps local authorities to take action.
-
Both. The legal action was after the inquiry and findings and then "nothing". UKGov hadn't yet "run out of time" but the legal threat was "the court will scowl at you if you don't make some progress soon". It's all interlinked.
-
One thing the news reports miss out is that while it’s banned by default in London, there are plenty of streets with signposted pavement parking, and many more where the council turns a blind eye, especially in the outer boroughs.
I’d expect very little to change in practice.
-
Many London Councils do nothing about it, even when it happens in areas where it's not specifically allowed.
This is one good example I go running past regularly: https://goo.gl/maps/19xqvSbuNvU2fBjm9
If one car starts it off by parking with two wheels on the pavement as they think they must be allowed to to keep the road clear, then lots of others will follow. But some days they'll all be parked with no wheels on the pavement.
It's badly designed anyway, that whole section needs ripping out and the pavement made nice and wide again, but then again there's little point as further down that road the pavement is really thin even where none of it has been give up to parking.
-
Many London Councils do nothing about it, even when it happens in areas where it's not specifically allowed.
This is one good example I go running past regularly: https://goo.gl/maps/19xqvSbuNvU2fBjm9
That’s on the current version of my commute. I’m coming to realise it can be an unpleasant stretch of road sometimes, now that it’s getting busier.
On the way up, there are one or two nasty pinch points / pedestrian refuges and the hazard of drivers overtaking parked cars on the way towards you. It’s downhill for them and they don’t want to lose their momentum for a mere cyclist. One day last week I had to wait - I had right of way! - while a continuous stream of cars overtook in my lane. A runner stopped to commiserate and make “WTF” faces as they went by.
On the way down it’s bad surfaces, those pinch points, parked cars, people going too fast. I end up going faster than I’d like to feel comfortable taking the lane. Which is wrong.
On the way up, Google indicates a possible route through Froebel College grounds but I haven’t tried it.
-
Both. The legal action was after the inquiry and findings and then "nothing". UKGov hadn't yet "run out of time" but the legal threat was "the court will scowl at you if you don't make some progress soon". It's all interlinked.
Ta. Clear.
-
One thing the news reports miss out is that while it’s banned by default in London, there are plenty of streets with signposted pavement parking, and many more where the council turns a blind eye, especially in the outer boroughs.
I’d expect very little to change in practice.
Yes, that's the kind of thing I had in mind by "not following their own guidelines".
-
I’d think that there will be targeted enforcement, for where blocked pavements and those hindered by them intersect.
-
Many London Councils do nothing about it, even when it happens in areas where it's not specifically allowed.
This is one good example I go running past regularly: https://goo.gl/maps/19xqvSbuNvU2fBjm9
That’s on the current version of my commute. I’m coming to realise it can be an unpleasant stretch of road sometimes, now that it’s getting busier.
On the way up, there are one or two nasty pinch points / pedestrian refuges and the hazard of drivers overtaking parked cars on the way towards you. It’s downhill for them and they don’t want to lose their momentum for a mere cyclist. One day last week I had to wait - I had right of way! - while a continuous stream of cars overtook in my lane. A runner stopped to commiserate and make “WTF” faces as they went by.
On the way down it’s bad surfaces, those pinch points, parked cars, people going too fast. I end up going faster than I’d like to feel comfortable taking the lane. Which is wrong.
On the way up, Google indicates a possible route through Froebel College grounds but I haven’t tried it.
It'll get worse by the end of this week as Ibstock Place (the private school at the bottom) are back on Thursday (I think) and a huge number of children there get dropped off by car.
The road through Froebel College grounds had been closed at one point, not sure if it's back open yet.
If you really wanted to avoid the bulk of Clarence Lane then I'd duck through the estate (Highcliffe Drive, Sherfield Gardens) on to Danebury Avenue. That has a lot less through traffic as you can't get through to Priory Lane by car (but you can by bike, without needing to slow down). Coming back it should be much nicer too and you'd join Clarence Lane near the top where most of the cars will be queueing anyway.
Roehampton Lane is going to be a lot busier from tomorrow too as a whole load of Low Traffic Neighbourhood stuff comes into force at midnight tonight. The council are trying to stop a lot of rat-running through Dover House and the bit of West Putney just East of Putney Park Lane, and push the cars back onto the main/trunk roads.
-
It seems very London-centric but that may just be the contributors to this thread. These problems exist all over the country.
I am incredulous they are even ‘considering’ the ban. It shouldn’t be happening in the first place. The road I live on is very wide, but visitors and tradesmen STILL park in the pavement. Ingrained stupidity?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It seems very London-centric but that may just be the contributors to this thread. These problems exist all over the country.
I am incredulous they are even ‘considering’ the ban. It shouldn’t be happening in the first place. The road I live on is very wide, but visitors and tradesmen STILL park in the pavement. Ingrained stupidity?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They probably find it easier to drive up the kerb rather than get the wheels precisely aligned with it in the road. Lazy incompetence.
-
If you really wanted to avoid the bulk of Clarence Lane then I'd duck through the estate (Highcliffe Drive, Sherfield Gardens) on to Danebury Avenue.
I'll try that later, thanks.
Roehampton Lane is going to be a lot busier from tomorrow too as a whole load of Low Traffic Neighbourhood stuff comes into force at midnight tonight. The council are trying to stop a lot of rat-running through Dover House and the bit of West Putney just East of Putney Park Lane, and push the cars back onto the main/trunk roads.
I go through Queen Mary's and cut through some of those streets on my way to Putney Bridge.
-
Isn't it already unlawful to obstruct the pavement? As far as my limited reading tells me, they just plan to bump enforcement from the police (they might do something if the offenders tweet their intention to park on a pavement) to the civil authorities (they'll be round to deal with it in a week or two).
It just seems incredible we need to consult about whether it should be possible that people can safely walk from (a) to (b).
If you can't park on the road without blocking that road, there's no parking.
-
One thing the news reports miss out is that while it’s banned by default in London, there are plenty of streets with signposted pavement parking, and many more where the council turns a blind eye, especially in the outer boroughs.
I’d expect very little to change in practice.
But in order to mark bays for pavdmeng parking tge space needs to be assessed to ensure enough space remains for pavement users. It also keeps cars from leaving to little room as the bays should be clearly defined. Long term the solution should be to move the kerb inwards to maintain a set pavement width, with cars kept below the pavement level.
-
There are a few streets around here (Forest Hill, SE London) where the council has sanctioned pavement parking and marked the pavements accordingly.
In practice these markings are largely ignored, and drivers park their cars much further onto the pavement than they should, in some instances not leaving enough space between their car and the adjacent property to fit a pram or wheelchair.
-
I’d think that there will be targeted enforcement, for where blocked pavements and those hindered by them intersect.
*Hunts for the flying pig emoji*
Coming from London where pavement parking has been banned as long as I can remember it was a shock to me to find it was acceptable practice elsewhere. I feel like the rest of the country has left it too late to deal with this as the numbers of cars already parking on the pavement will need to go somewhere. It should have been sorted before it got to this point.
Of course, this is one of many problems whose root cause is too many people and not enough homes, leading to unaffordable accommodation, and adult children not leaving home, so a house might have 4 drivers living there all needing somewhere to store their property.
Personally I think the rules should be parking on your own property only Why are cars special in that public space should be devoted to the storage of private property? Nothing else has such a privilege. Can I put a bike storage locker in the street outside my home? No, why not? smaller than a car and stores the transport for more than one person.
We need to move away from the mindset of cars being essential and that parking must be available, many people can't afford to own a car or can't drive these people are massively inconvenienced by pavement parking by others. Well we are all inconvenienced by it, but some of us can choose not to walk.
And so pavement parking may be another factor in the Askern need for children to be driven to school.
-
There are a few streets around here (Forest Hill, SE London) where the council has sanctioned pavement parking and marked the pavements accordingly.
In practice these markings are largely ignored, and drivers park their cars much further onto the pavement than they should, in some instances not leaving enough space between their car and the adjacent property to fit a pram or wheelchair.
Should be done for illegal parking. Ticketed or even towed away.
-
Isn't it already unlawful to obstruct the pavement?
Yes, but obstruction is hard to define. If I can pass it is not an obstruction, but if somebody with a double wide pushchair comes along then it is one. At a local granny home the electric buggy users complained to a PCSO who was giving them a talk. He came up with the BS answer "if there is a metre of clearance we will do nothing". I would have asked - "since everybody knows it is illegal to drive on the footway, how do they get there? Fork lift or crane perhaps?".
We just know that even if a new law is introduced it will not be enforced. Even a near neighbour who is a traffic cop often uses the footway for parking.
-
Yes, but obstruction is hard to define.
Exactly why I was against option 2, which is not really a change from the current legislation as obstructing the pavement is covered by obstructing the road.
Has anyone been charged with that for blocking the pavement, or is it only use to charge cyclists for riding on the road'obstructing motor vehicles from rushing to the next queue?
-
Chris Boardman’s Twitter thread about this was interesting.
Most of the arguments against tightening up on it boiled down to ‘but where else am I supposed to park my car(s)?’
I felt like asking them if it would be ok for someone without a garden to buy some patio furniture and put it on the pavement. After all, where else are they supposed to put it?
-
Isn't it already unlawful to obstruct the pavement?
I expect that requires someone to be obstructed, go to court, prove it and prove that it was this specific vehicle which was obstructing the pavement. All very retro-active, personalised and improbable.
-
One thing the news reports miss out is that while it’s banned by default in London, there are plenty of streets with signposted pavement parking, and many more where the council turns a blind eye, especially in the outer boroughs.
I’d expect very little to change in practice.
But in order to mark bays for pavdmeng parking tge space needs to be assessed to ensure enough space remains for pavement users. It also keeps cars from leaving to little room as the bays should be clearly defined. Long term the solution should be to move the kerb inwards to maintain a set pavement width, with cars kept below the pavement level.
Sounds reasonable. A very narrow (or otherwise unusable) pavement can be worse than none.
Mind you, I can think of a few streets where even that is likely to result in the impossibility of parking on at least one side if not both, which obviously creates all sorts of backlash. Quite easy to foresee that in some cases pavements will be removed instead.
-
Isn't it already unlawful to obstruct the pavement?
I expect that requires someone to be obstructed, go to court, prove it and prove that it was this specific vehicle which was obstructing the pavement. All very retro-active, personalised and improbable.
When we had issues on the corner by our house, the police did talk to the owner of the main perpetrator of said parking horrors and I believe he received an FPN as a encouragement to park elsewhere than on the pavement by a narrow t-junction. That said, I don't think anyone could really construct an argument that it wasn't obviously dangerous, though probably more so to other drivers than pedestrians (who equally were forced to walk out into a blind junction).
We should just bite the bullet though – people need to think of their parking needs in the same way as they think about many bedroom they need. Yes, that comes at a cost, but that's life. If you need an additional bedroom for your kids, you don't simply extend your house onto the pavement outside.
-
It might be a step forward if we could address its endemic nature. I occasionally park a hired minibus outside our house, on the road, because there's room and still significantly more than half the road width available. But people still park small cars on the pavement in the same spot, obstructing buggies etc.
-
I think they're more worried about losing a wing mirror than anything else. That seems to be case on a road near us, they could park on the road and leave one lane, but they block the pavement to leave 1.5 lanes.
The other habit, further down the road, is drivers using the pavement outside their garages to store their cars like it's their driveway, forcing any pedestrians off the curb and into the road to go around them. Once they know they can get away with something, it becomes habitual.
We walked through a fairly careworn estate the other day, cars were everywhere. Every pavement, every bit of green space, had been turned over to parking. It was basically a grubby car park.
-
If you need an additional bedroom for your kids, you don't simply extend your house onto the pavement outside.
With further "relaxation" of planning processes...
-
I think they're more worried about losing a wing mirror than anything else. That seems to be case on a road near us, they could park on the road and leave one lane, but they block the pavement to leave 1.5 lanes.
One of my least favourite markers of shithole surburbia is perfectly wide streets were everyone still parks two wheels up (https://www.google.com/maps/@52.2617658,-0.8928782,3a,75y,92.33h,76.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smMaxJDxXAfoSemOY_9INhg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) to keep the road clear for mostly imaginary traffic.
Interestingly clicking around that particular hole, narrower streets seem to have less pavement parking, and it seems to be contagious by street - either everyone does or no one does.
-
There's an entire fucking lorry parked (unnecessarily) on the pavement in that one.
-
If you need an additional bedroom for your kids, you don't simply extend your house onto the pavement outside.
With further "relaxation" of planning processes...
I could do with a home office, maybe I should set a shed up on the road/ pavement outside my house.
-
One thing the news reports miss out is that while it’s banned by default in London, there are plenty of streets with signposted pavement parking, and many more where the council turns a blind eye, especially in the outer boroughs.
I’d expect very little to change in practice.
But in order to mark bays for pavdmeng parking tge space needs to be assessed to ensure enough space remains for pavement users. It also keeps cars from leaving to little room as the bays should be clearly defined. Long term the solution should be to move the kerb inwards to maintain a set pavement width, with cars kept below the pavement level.
Sounds reasonable. A very narrow (or otherwise unusable) pavement can be worse than none.
Mind you, I can think of a few streets where even that is likely to result in the impossibility of parking on at least one side if not both, which obviously creates all sorts of backlash. Quite easy to foresee that in some cases pavements will be removed instead.
I'm having trouble inferring tone here.
I do not advocate very narrow pavements. The process is;
1) define minimum width of pavement
2) determine if re assigning space in excess of this increases parking
3) Mark bays on pavement showing extent of parking allowed
4) adjust kerb to bring in line with alliwed parking
Currently allowing cats to park as far on our of the road as individual drivers decide is the worst as it reduces space on the pavement and on the road.
My road is the worst as it is less than 3 cars wide, my side has full parking occupancy, the other side has single yellow line. This implies that parking on the other side is allowed at certain times, but is not possible without blocking the road, therefore pavement parking is implied as correct.
But cars parked block talmost he entire pavement or prevent the bin let/ fire engine driving through the road, they can't leave enough space for both large vehicles and pedestrians.
-
Now I'm confused. When you say "move the kerb inwards" do you mean towards the centre of the road or towards the boundaries?
-
Digging up pavements and/or realigning kerbs has happened precisely nowhere in London AFAICT, except maybe occasionally as part of a larger public realm scheme. It is extremely expensive.
Assuming the law passes either:
- Bays will be painted on/straddling the pavement.
- No bays will be marked; drivers will continue to park as they have; the council won’t do anything about it.
- No bays will be marked; drivers will successfully be repelled via rigorous enforcement into either parking in the carriageway or parking elsewhere.
Those are your options.
-
The backlash has started: Parents could be hit with £70 fine if they park on pavements during school run
'Areas are likely to become even more congested as parents battle to find a space to park' (https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/parents-could-hit-70-fine-4475270)
-
The backlash has started: Parents could be hit with £70 fine if they park on pavements during school run
'Areas are likely to become even more congested as parents battle to find a space to park' (https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/parents-could-hit-70-fine-4475270)
Cry me a river
If there weren't so many cars on the pavement, then maybe the kiddies could walk on them from very slightly further away.
I live near a (small, rural) school and am constantly appalled at the shockingly poor driving & parking. Completely blocking a junction is considered entirely acceptable. I've even had an argument with one parent who insisted that they weren't parked because they were still in the car and so 'waiting'. My point was that their car was on my driveway; I didn't really care about the technical status.
-
Digging up pavements and/or realigning kerbs has happened precisely nowhere in London AFAICT, except maybe occasionally as part of a larger public realm scheme. It is extremely expensive.
Assuming the law passes either:
- Bays will be painted on/straddling the pavement.
- No bays will be marked; drivers will continue to park as they have; the council won’t do anything about it.
- No bays will be marked; drivers will successfully be repelled via rigorous enforcement into either parking in the carriageway or parking elsewhere.
Those are your options.
Yes it is expensive, but we have grade separation of mirror vehicles and people for a reason, and removal of that should only be a temporary solution.
Potentially this could happen when the road is next resurfaced. A kerb between parking bays and pavement also prevents cars stealing more of the pavement than intended
-
Yes it is expensive, but we have grade separation of mirror vehicles and people for a reason, and removal of that should only be a temporary solution.
Temporary solutions have a habit of sticking around for a very long time.
I'm talking about what's likely to happen rather than what should happen.
Potentially this could happen when the road is next resurfaced. A kerb between parking bays and pavement also prevents cars stealing more of the pavement than intended
Moving the kerb means digging up the foundations and probably repositioning / relevelling utilities. It's an order of magnitude harder than resurfacing.