Parking on Pavements (DfT consultation Sept 2020)

[Meerkat]

Kei cars are very inpracticle for long distance driving.

practical as second cars, and thirty years ago families used to go long distance in Escorts which were the size of current Fiestas.

I know several people who live in a tower block and own cars.

I am not sure you, like many posters here, understand the pressures of real people. You and others have no practical solutions for the modern world. You seem to want to decide who may own a car based on their social stays. Live in a terraced house? You may not have a car.

Perhaps we could sign up for a car and have one assigned in 7 years. Hang on, they tried that in East Germany......................

Am I not a real person? A person who chose a smaller home so I could live fairly near town and still have a parking space - compromise. Terraced housing can have cars, but they might not all be allowed one, certainly not two, or they may need to be smaller.

Being in one of the more sparsely populated regions I'm very strongly opposed to the notion that people should have to move out to large towns and cities to find work. That can be disastrous for communities. Incidentally, the workplace I mentioned is where it is due to UK and EU grants, it is in a rural location by design, not accident!

If you live somewhere sparsely populated then there should be space to provide parking, though it may not be right outside your house.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

It's only the anti-car posters who are saying that here. Meanwhile the car drivers without off-road parking accept that they won't always be able to park outside their house. They do need to park somewhere though, and sometimes those roads are just too narrow, so you get pavement parking. Where are they supposed to go?

As for getting digs in Llanberis, why on earth would someone do that when they've a perfectly decent house within driving distance? And as for not taking the job, why would someone do that if the alternative is being on the dole? It's not an outrageous commute, it's about 25 miles each way.

What if pedestrians took the same self-centred view and just banged into your car with their heavy shopping every time it narrowed the pavement too much to walk by without contortion, or walked up and over the roof, or simply walked all the way in the road, delaying traffic.

As an aside, it is perfectly legal for a pedestrian to walk in the road, even if it slows traffic. So long as they don't deliberately obstruct traffic eg by sitting down. Aside from motorways (technically roads defined under The Special roads Act 1930). Pedestrians have an absolute right to use the highway. Drivers require a licence, which can be revoked if mis-used.

Further, in Japan, it is, or was, a requirement to prove that you had somewhere to legally park you car, at either end, before you could buy one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Further, in Japan, it is, or was, a requirement to prove that you had somewhere to legally park you car, at either end, before you could buy one.

The problem with this kind of policy is that it's very difficult to move to it without seriously disadvantaging some people. Is Japan a renting culture? Much easier there where you can move easily.

For one example, if you look at Lancaster, it's primarily tightly-packed terraces with almost no houses having off street parking at all - must be well below 20%. Are they to be banned from owning cars?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The problem with this kind of policy is that it's very difficult to move to it without seriously disadvantaging some people. Is Japan a renting culture? Much easier there where you can move easily.

For one example, if you look at Lancaster, it's primarily tightly-packed terraces with almost no houses having off street parking at all - must be well below 20%. Are they to be banned from owning cars?

I'm not proposing to ban anyone from owning cars. Rather I was responding to the suggestion that it is some kind of draconian measure only suggested by anti-car zealots which requires people to have somewhere to park their precious tin box without potentially seriously inconveniencing other, legitimate, highway users. In law, no-one has priority over any other road user. Not a lorry driver bullying a smaller vehicle driver by changing lanes on top of them, nor a car parker effectively bullying a pedestrian by denying them safe passage along the footway.

 

[AM9]

It’s noticeable you always seem to manipulate things that you personally find disagreeable into people being selfish or self-entitled. Has it ever occurred to you that you may engage in activities which others find similarly disagreeable?

From this thread on the prospect of obstructive parking on pavements, it would seem that I am not the only one who feels that it is both unfair to disadvantage pedestrians and arises out of a selfish attitude. I can undertand your irritation that not everybody has the same self-interests as you. If the commons sub-committee see such behaviour as unacceptable, it would seem that there is at last a general trend in the UK to deal such flagrant disregard to the law of obstructing the public highway. London dealt with it over 45 years ago and it didn't result in a total collapse of traffic turmoil.

*Most* people will park on a pavement because in the particular situation they consider it the most sensible thing to do. They may even be being *considerate* in that it helps traffic flow better by avoiding blocking the road, whilst still allowing sufficient room for pavement users. Perhaps I’m picking up the wrong end of the stick, however I’m getting a distinct impression that you wish to see tightening up not for any practical reason but as a way of getting at people who you dislike, in the same way we’ve seen how you seem to despite those who dare to commute using a season ticket.

Yes maybe you have picked-up the wrong end of the stick. Your "Most" people doesn't seem to be the same as my understanding of the words, as obstructing the highway is not uncommon almost wherever I go, from Hampshire where I lived for 17 years, and now when visiting other parts of Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Essex. How "considerate" in real terms, you may be in your parking on pavements, I'll probably never know, but lets assume that by pedestrian standards you are, then it will be unfortunate if the law is tightened up because of the many that aren't. I really don't have anything against motorists per se (speaking as one myself), but by their actions, many do seem to think that their self-granted 'rights' trump everbody elses.

 

[AndrewE]

As long as i am not 17? Which I was at the time.
I suppose I could have walked the 5 miles to the pub i was working in. Mind you i did live in the countryside. I could have got a horse! Poor effort really.

Surely bicycles were available in your youth? That looks a perfect match to me: young person, fit and active, 20 minutes journey at the most, why would you insist on being able to drive it?
At that time (or maybe a decade earlier) my dad was cycling 7 miles to Aylesbury to catch a works bus and back each day - coming home he had to climb Tring Hill too. I cycled about 5 miles to and from my first summer holiday job with no adverse consequences...

 

[Red Onion]

If you have two spaces then you have to adapt, just as all the people with only one car do, or those who live in flats with no parking. You either have to move work or house, or use public transport.



I propose they don’t. Dense terrace housing is public transport territory. If the current owners can’t deal with that then they need to move and let people who will have access to housing near public transport. You don’t live in a tower block if you have a car, why should you live in a terraced house and expect to park?

Btw I am a long long way from anti car, but it isn’t an automatic right - there are compromises.

I’m always curious to what compromises I have, I have asked these at a public transport forum to blank answers.

My partner and I are both emergency service workers based at two separate bases, but both approximately 15 miles from base on average. Our start times vary between 4-9am for a dayshift, 12-5pm for a lateshift and 6-11pm for a nightshift. Finish times are 2-7pm for a dayshift, 10pm-5am for a lateshift and 5-8am for a nightshift.

I have no train service, a taxi (one way) is over £40 and bus services going to work don’t start till 6am and cease at 8pm, coming back they don’t start till 8am and cease at 9pm. As of the start of April, I lose ALL direct bus services and would instead be stuck with a 2 hour one way trip with even more restrictions on travel time.

Cycling takes 3 hours if the path is dry. Quadruple if it’s wet as not useable. Walking...do you need an answer.

We live in a first floor flat as it’s what we can afford. With one parking space.

How do we adapt? I’m genuinely interested. Everyone has an answer but nobody shares it...

 

[Ianno87]

I’m always curious to what compromises I have, I have asked these at a public transport forum to blank answers.

My partner and I are both emergency service workers based at two separate bases, but both approximately 15 miles from base on average. Our start times vary between 4-9am for a dayshift, 12-5pm for a lateshift and 6-11pm for a nightshift. Finish times are 2-7pm for a dayshift, 10pm-5am for a lateshift and 5-8am for a nightshift.

I have no train service, a taxi (one way) is over £40 and bus services going to work don’t start till 6am and cease at 8pm, coming back they don’t start till 8am and cease at 9pm. As of the start of April, I lose ALL direct bus services and would instead be stuck with a 2 hour one way trip with even more restrictions on travel time.

Cycling takes 3 hours if the path is dry. Quadruple if it’s wet as not useable. Walking...do you need an answer.

We live in a first floor flat as it’s what we can afford. With one parking space.

How do we adapt? I’m genuinely interested. Everyone has an answer but nobody shares it...

Then where there is limited road space, there needs to be a clear adaptation of parking policy to prioritise spaces for those with a genuine need for a car and to keep it in close proximity to one's dwelling, such as yourselves.

 

[mmh]

Then where there is limited road space, there needs to be a clear adaptation of parking policy to prioritise spaces for those with a genuine need for a car and to keep it in close proximity to one's dwelling, such as yourselves.

But in an area with no public transport it's likely that near everyone has a "genuine" need for a car, so you're back at square one.

I'm very wary of any "solution" which increases bureaucracy or uses subjective language - who determines what is a genuine need and by whose criteria? And if all that's happening is the allocation of parking spaces, the problem isn't magicked away, it's actually made worse. The cars still exist, there are just fewer places to park as there are empty reserved spaces.

 

[mmh]

London dealt with it over 45 years ago and it didn't result in a total collapse of traffic turmoil.

London didn't really deal with it though. It legislated. In many areas pavement parking is explicitly permitted via signage. In others pavement parking still occurs. Legislation is pointless if it has no effect or isn't enforced.

 

[Meerkat]

I’m always curious to what compromises I have, I have asked these at a public transport forum to blank answers.

My partner and I are both emergency service workers based at two separate bases, but both approximately 15 miles from base on average. Our start times vary between 4-9am for a dayshift, 12-5pm for a lateshift and 6-11pm for a nightshift. Finish times are 2-7pm for a dayshift, 10pm-5am for a lateshift and 5-8am for a nightshift.

I have no train service, a taxi (one way) is over £40 and bus services going to work don’t start till 6am and cease at 8pm, coming back they don’t start till 8am and cease at 9pm. As of the start of April, I lose ALL direct bus services and would instead be stuck with a 2 hour one way trip with even more restrictions on travel time.

Cycling takes 3 hours if the path is dry. Quadruple if it’s wet as not useable. Walking...do you need an answer.

We live in a first floor flat as it’s what we can afford. With one parking space.

How do we adapt? I’m genuinely interested. Everyone has an answer but nobody shares it...

The same way as people who can’t even afford a flat with a parking space.
People don’t take jobs that are four hours away - they get a nearer home or a job they can get to in their circumstances.
But it is irrelevant unless you are currently parking on the pavement in a way that can’t be made official.
For transition in areas where cars are blocking pavements you CPZ the area, charge for residents permits, then don’t automatically replace them when new people move in - maybe one per household etc.

 

[AM9]

London didn't really deal with it though. It legislated. In many areas pavement parking is explicitly permitted via signage. In others pavement parking still occurs. Legislation is pointless if it has no effect or isn't enforced.

Legislating underpins the enforcement and it needs that to change behaviour. There are plenty of aggressive driving issues in London, but irresponsible pavement parking is far less frequent in the GLA area than elsewhere as a proportion of the total amount of on street parking. Permitted pavement parking is sanctioned where the pedestrians right of way is not unduly obstructed by vehicles. Where it is allowed is a decision for the LA, not the irresponsible motorist.

 

[mmh]

Surely bicycles were available in your youth? That looks a perfect match to me: young person, fit and active, 20 minutes journey at the most, why would you insist on being able to drive it?
At that time (or maybe a decade earlier) my dad was cycling 7 miles to Aylesbury to catch a works bus and back each day - coming home he had to climb Tring Hill too. I cycled about 5 miles to and from my first summer holiday job with no adverse consequences...

I also worked in a bar at a similar age and at a similar distance. I didn't cycle (the household had a bike) because unlit twisting hilly 60mph roads aren't welcoming, and I didn't want to arrive sweaty, smelly and knackered. Or wet. Who wants a 5 mile bike ride at midnight after a full day's work?

 

[mmh]

The same way as people who can’t even afford a flat with a parking space.
People don’t take jobs that are four hours away - they get a nearer home or a job they can get to in their circumstances.
But it is irrelevant unless you are currently parking on the pavement in a way that can’t be made official.
For transition in areas where cars are blocking pavements you CPZ the area, charge for residents permits, then don’t automatically replace them when new people move in - maybe one per household etc.

I'm beginning to suspect there's an element here with very limited experience of living outside large urban areas. 15 miles is not an excessive distance to travel to work. (If it were, why on earth are we building HS2?) I'd rather the emergency services were staffed - if the posters give up their job (to do what instead, and where?) who will take their place? Someone else who might live further away.

It seems a huge leap that we make it hard for the emergency services to get and keep staff in the north of Scotland from some people parking on the pavement in St Albans.

 

[Meerkat]

So should people be allowed to speed if they work too far from home to get there easily, or break any other laws that protect other people?
If you aren’t blocking the pavement it can be formalised, if you are then you are selfish and need to stop.

 

[mmh]

So should people be allowed to speed if they work too far from home to get there easily, or break any other laws that protect other people?
If you aren’t blocking the pavement it can be formalised, if you are then you are selfish and need to stop.

That's quite ludicrous whataboutery. Speeding is completely irrelevant to this thread.

"Formalised" is a nice euphemism for bureaucracy. If it's not causing a problem, and you're going to allow it in an area, what is the benefit of formalising it? My council tax is high enough and my council services thin enough already.

 

[Meerkat]

That's quite ludicrous whataboutery. Speeding is completely irrelevant to this thread.

"Formalised" is a nice euphemism for bureaucracy. If it's not causing a problem, and you're going to allow it in an area, what is the benefit of formalising it? My council tax is high enough and my council services thin enough already.

You formalise areas because you are making them exceptions so that you can ban parking on the pavements everywhere else. Of course most people who park on pavements say it isn’t a problem..... in their opinion.
Get strict on parking then gradually people will use cars less and those who insist on having lots of cars will have to live in appropriate houses leaving the dense housing for those who want to live in dense housing that is efficient for public transport

 

[Bletchleyite]

Get strict on parking then gradually people will use cars less and those who insist on having lots of cars will have to live in appropriate houses leaving the dense housing for those who want to live in dense housing that is efficient for public transport

I think you mistyped "then only the rich will be allowed cars". Is that right in your mind? Not in mine.

 

[AndrewE]

I think you mistyped "then only the rich will be allowed cars". Is that right in your mind? Not in mine.

I can't see the quoted text "Get strict on parking then gradually people will use cars less and those who insist on having lots of cars will have to live in appropriate houses leaving the dense housing for those who want to live in dense housing that is efficient for public transport" in any of my posts.
However you are right that there is massive and unacceptable inequality in the UK, and public transport is mostly woefully inadequate. Putting both right would go some way to allowing people to live where they could get to work reasonably practicably. Otherwise your suggestion would fit in with my sentiments though; you cut your coat according to the cloth you have available.

 

[GB]

Get strict on parking then gradually people will use cars less and those who insist on having lots of cars will have to live in appropriate houses leaving the dense housing for those who want to live in dense housing that is efficient for public transport

Not sure why you are focusing on "dense housing". Look at any new build estate (even in the sticks) and you are lucky if you have space for two cars...and yes that maybe appropriate for the next few years, but as kids in households grow older, or parents grow older there will be need to park another car somewhere...whether that be through people visiting the property or the kids growing up and needing their own transport.

You say people should move or get different jobs...easy type that on a keyboard but when house prices continue to rise and jobs are increasingly hard to come by its not all that easy is it. I swear some people on here live in their own little bubble.

I am not for one minute suggesting its ok to completely block a pavement, but if there is enough room to get a mum with her pram past or someone in a wheel chair then I don't see much of a problem, particularly when the only alternative is to park completely on the street and hinder other traffic including council and emergency services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't see the quoted text "Get strict on parking then gradually people will use cars less and those who insist on having lots of cars will have to live in appropriate houses leaving the dense housing for those who want to live in dense housing that is efficient for public transport" in any of my posts.

That's weird. I've removed the attribution - maybe I've found an intermittent bug in the forum there!

 

[Ianno87]

But in an area with no public transport it's likely that near everyone has a "genuine" need for a car, so you're back at square one.

I'm very wary of any "solution" which increases bureaucracy or uses subjective language - who determines what is a genuine need and by whose criteria? And if all that's happening is the allocation of parking spaces, the problem isn't magicked away, it's actually made worse. The cars still exist, there are just fewer places to park as there are empty reserved spaces.

No, if suddenly the car is less convenient (As it's not right outside the door 24/7), you'll be less incentivised to own one in the first place.

 

[jmh59]

Parking round our way takes the biscuit. We often get cars up on the pavement parked opposite cars parked equally so. One does it first, then the opposite neighbour does same to avoid blocking the road. But... every house here has a drive that can take at least 3 cars plus the garage - park on your damn drives! We have areas where there is no way a fire engine would get through, and empty drives. This attitude needs squashing and a ban would do so, provided it takes into account those areas where there simply is nowhere to park and finds a way to accommodate them. You can't ban cars and can't restrict people otherwise to have one small car etc.

 

[bramling]

Parking round our way takes the biscuit. We often get cars up on the pavement parked opposite cars parked equally so. One does it first, then the opposite neighbour does same to avoid blocking the road. But... every house here has a drive that can take at least 3 cars plus the garage - park on your damn drives! We have areas where there is no way a fire engine would get through, and empty drives. This attitude needs squashing and a ban would do so, provided it takes into account those areas where there simply is nowhere to park and finds a way to accommodate them. You can't ban cars and can't restrict people otherwise to have one small car etc.

Powers to implement a ban in particular problem areas would solve this problem, rather than a blanket ban.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Powers to implement a ban in particular problem areas would solve this problem, rather than a blanket ban.

Those powers already exist, e.g.:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.028...4!1sxcBhNMXVHHElk2YWkHdXlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

(Google image in Loughton, MK showing "no pavement parking" signs)

 

[bramling]

Those powers already exist, e.g.:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.028...4!1sxcBhNMXVHHElk2YWkHdXlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

(Google image in Loughton, MK showing "no pavement parking" signs)

Problem solved then. Naturally this may introduce a conflict as presumably such restrictions would only be imposed if a problem was brought to the attention of a local council - which may not be the case if it's local residents doing it. However in that situation if most people are happy then what's the problem? Naturally if a pavement is being obstructed to the extent that people can't physically get through then that's a different matter entirely.

I really think this whole thing is a solution looking for a problem, and is being used as such by some with their own agenda.

 

[Ianno87]

Problem solved then. Naturally this may introduce a conflict as presumably such restrictions would only be imposed if a problem was brought to the attention of a local council - which may not be the case if it's local residents doing it. However in that situation if most people are happy then what's the problem?

But that's the problem *most* people are happy - not necessarily everybody.

Especially people who find navigating pavement obstacles difficult (the elderly, wheelchair users etc); should their (not always well-heard) voice be shouted over just by force of numbers?

EDIT: Again referring to Cambridge (Example: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.1...4!1srgpBRf7RqFAyVpr61IaYlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), there are streets off Mill Road with marked pavement parking, and even that is challenging to negotiate (pushing a pram regularly is a small taster of what it's like). Never mind when it's bin day and the street is basically impassible to some users....

 

[jmh59]

I really think this whole thing is a solution looking for a problem, and is being used as such by some with their own agenda.

It does feel that way but I suspect They think it easier to ban generally and allow where necessary, rather than allow generally and ban where necessary. Enforcement is an issue in any case. Everyone on our street had a letter from a PCSO stating that parking close to the junction would result in a ticket and causing an obstruction on the pavement similarly so. The pavements were clear for just a month - people actually used their drives! No other action was taken even where cars were parked wholly on the pavement with no way to even squeeze past.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I really think this whole thing is a solution looking for a problem, and is being used as such by some with their own agenda.

There are certainly people on here who are using it to push an anti-car agenda. This is not the way to do that, because in most cases it's poorer people who live in Victorian small-house terrace estates without off-road parking, so such a move would be regressive. It should be done purely for the purpose of ensuring safe access for those in wheelchairs and with reasonable prams. (Noting that a 3-across megabuggy is not a "reasonable pram"[1] - I would use a standard 2-across one, which will be about the same as a large electric wheelchair, as the reference).

[1] Other designs exist if you have triplets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does feel that way but I suspect They think it easier to ban generally and allow where necessary, rather than allow generally and ban where necessary. Enforcement is an issue in any case. Everyone on our street had a letter from a PCSO stating that parking close to the junction would result in a ticket and causing an obstruction on the pavement similarly so. The pavements were clear for just a month - people actually used their drives! No other action was taken even where cars were parked wholly on the pavement with no way to even squeeze past.

I just can't understand why if you have a driveway you wouldn't use it. A garage I do understand, they're often too small. Maybe we should give people grants to have unsuitable free standing garages demolished and replaced with a non-covered porously-surfaced parking space? Would help against flooding, too.