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.