Parking on Pavements (DfT consultation Sept 2020)

[LSWR Cavalier]

Cycled through Sheffield some years ago, been through both by train

 

[biko]

I suppose if you can do a P&R for a destination you can do it for an origin, but with many places in the UK being rather hillier than the Netherlands bicycles aren't likely to often be the answer. But really the carrot needs to come before the stick.

To be honest, it might well be worth, in places like the bit of Lancaster I referred to above, purchasing a few of the houses, knocking them down and creating residents' car parks, possibly on two levels (ground and an underground level). Compulsory purchase would be difficult because it would cause a massive fuss, but these are typically areas of very low house prices (outside London at least) for the place concerned, so if you offered people well over the odds it still wouldn't cost much and they may well sell voluntarily. You could also mark bays up one side of the road and have everything one way, and that should provide enough space for at least one car per household.

Bicycles are just an example and indeed something which would work in the Netherlands. The idea isn't specially to use the bicycle or whatever mode to go from home to mobility hub, but to use it from mobility hub to destination or railway station. In the UK, I would maybe focus on shared scooters or mopeds instead of bicycles and mainly look at giving the hubs a good bus service to the town centre and station.

I forgot to add that the idea of the hubs is also to provide other services, such as a post office or corner shop, making it really the central focus point in a neighbourhood. So the goal is making other modes as attractive as possible, reducing the need for parking and car trips and also to provide an alternative space to park. If one really needs a car but doesn't have one, just take the shared car at the hub. The concept is quite flexible, so you could also just have a central parking space, but the idea is it will work better if you have alternatives.

 

[PeterC]

That requires the transit to exist.

An hourly bus service from about 8am to 5pm does not constitute adequate "transit".

That is "high frequency" by my local standards

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is "high frequency" by my local standards

It's high frequency by rural standards, indeed. But it is not going to get city dwellers (who are the problem here; there is no great parking issue in rural locations, and if there is just buy a bit of farmer's field and build a car park) to give up their cars.

Getting people out of cars is going to require a bare minimum of 4 or even 6 buses per hour in order to replicate the "I can go when I want" feeling of a car and to ease connections.

 

[PeterC]

It's high frequency by rural standards, indeed. But it is not going to get city dwellers (who are the problem here; there is no great parking issue in rural locations, and if there is just buy a bit of farmer's field and build a car park) to give up their cars.

Getting people out of cars is going to require a bare minimum of 4 or even 6 buses per hour in order to replicate the "I can go when I want" feeling of a car and to ease connections.

There are plenty of houses without their own parking in villages too.

 

[bramling]

There are plenty of houses without their own parking in villages too.

Yes rural locations can, if anything, be worse as you can end up with an isolated car on an otherwise unbroken section of fast road, blind corners, etc.

Not that any of this *should* be a problem, but in the real world it can be. I’ve seen more near misses in rural areas than in built up ones.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are plenty of houses without their own parking in villages too.

There are, but it causes less of a problem, and as noted in rural villages building a car park on a nearby field is nowhere near as difficult a problem.

Yes rural locations can, if anything, be worse as you can end up with an isolated car on an otherwise unbroken section of fast road, blind corners, etc.

Not that any of this *should* be a problem, but in the real world it can be. I’ve seen more near misses in rural areas than in built up ones.

Yes, though that tends to have less to do with pavements.

 

[bramling]

There are, but it causes less of a problem, and as noted in rural villages building a car park on a nearby field is nowhere near as difficult a problem.



Yes, though that tends to have less to do with pavements.

Agreed, however such rural locations are where there’s a definite safety advantage in trying to get the car parked off the road if practicable. All the more so because sections of road with no pavement (and possible high banks immediately at both sides of the road) make it extremely unsafe to park elsewhere and walk to the required location.

As I say, I’ve seen quite a lot of nasty incidents in rural areas where someone has come round a bend to find a parked car in the road, or someone has gone to drive round a parked car without checking their mirrors whilst someone behind was doing an overtake. In these situations safety has to come before placating those who like the sight of bare pavements. I’m well aware that the root of a lot of this is bad driving, however we are where we are, bad driving isn’t going to go away no matter how some people on here whinge about car drivers!

Indeed, I suspect that a good proportion of pavement parking isn’t selfish “I’m lazy and can’t be bothered to walk”, but actually considerate “I’ve had a bad experience and don’t wish for an accident to happen”. After all, mounting the kerb isn’t exactly good for their car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, I suspect that a good proportion of pavement parking isn’t selfish “I’m lazy and can’t be bothered to walk”, but actually considerate “I’ve had a bad experience and don’t wish for an accident to happen”. After all, mounting the kerb isn’t exactly good for their car.

May well be true, but I suspect most of it is actually being considerate, but only considering people in the same role as you are when you do it, i.e. "I'll park a bit on the pavement then other cars can fit through more easily" without thinking about pedestrians and wheelchair users, as at the time of doing it you are neither so it may not spring to mind. So you could probably call it being "absent-mindedly considerate" or somesuch. Those most against it on here are the non-drivers, so they think only of the role of pedestrian, cyclist, wheelchair user or whatever because that is the familiar role.

The other is probably just following what others in the same location have done. Rarely will a narrowish, older residential street (where most of it happens) have no cars parked on it at all, so the trend to do it will have been set potentially many, many years ago, because there has been no point over the past something like 30-40 or more years when there were not several cars pavement-parked on it, so when you arrive you just follow convention.

 

[bramling]

May well be true, but I suspect most of it is actually being considerate, but only considering people in the same role as you are when you do it, i.e. "I'll park a bit on the pavement then other cars can fit through more easily" without thinking about pedestrians and wheelchair users, as at the time of doing it you are neither so it may not spring to mind. So you could probably call it being "absent-mindedly considerate" or somesuch. Those most against it on here are the non-drivers, so they think only of the role of pedestrian, cyclist, wheelchair user or whatever because that is the familiar role.

The other is probably just following what others in the same location have done. Rarely will a narrowish, older residential street (where most of it happens) have no cars parked on it at all, so the trend to do it will have been set potentially many, many years ago, because there has been no point over the past something like 30-40 or more years when there were not several cars pavement-parked on it, so when you arrive you just follow convention.

I think this sums it up rather well. A perhaps misguided (in some settings) attempt to be considerate, or simply doing what everyone else does. Not the evil wicked selfish intentions some here attempt to make it into.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

There is a lot to be said for not thinking or considering, but for simply obeying the law: parking on the road

Pavements are for people

 

[bramling]

There is a lot to be said for not thinking or considering, but for simply obeying the law: parking on the road

Pavements are for people

There’s even more to be said for not being a contributory factor towards a potential accident, even if that accident may be caused by someone else’s misjudgement or error.

If going down the line of “pavements are for people” then there’s also the risk that an attitude then develops that “roads are for vehicles”. There’s plenty of occasions when people walk on roads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a lot to be said for not thinking or considering, but for simply obeying the law: parking on the road

It is not presently illegal to park on the pavement outside London, hence this whole debate which is about whether, and if so how, that should change. So pavement parkers are obeying the law.

 

[sheff1]

It is not presently illegal to park on the pavement outside London, hence this whole debate which is about whether, and if so how, that should change. So pavement parkers are obeying the law.

Indeed. The RAC adviice is:

"Outside of London, we advise people to use common sense when faced with no other option but to park on the pavement.

If you are parking along a narrow road, where parking wholly on the road would stop other cars, and particularly emergency vehicles, from getting through, then it is a sensible option to park partially on a pavement, providing there are no parking restrictions and providing you are not blocking a wheelchair user or pram from using the pavement.

If there are restrictions, or your parking would cause wheelchair users or people with prams to have to walk into the road, then you should find somewhere else to park."

This is exactly what people do on the road whcih runs past my house (apparently I am not allowed to say "my road" for brevity). For some reason people following the recommended sensible option seems to upset some posters.

 

[AM9]

Indeed. The RAC adviice is:

"Outside of London, we advise people to use common sense when faced with no other option but to park on the pavement.

If you are parking along a narrow road, where parking wholly on the road would stop other cars, and particularly emergency vehicles, from getting through, then it is a sensible option to park partially on a pavement, providing there are no parking restrictions and providing you are not blocking a wheelchair user or pram from using the pavement.

If there are restrictions, or your parking would cause wheelchair users or people with prams to have to walk into the road, then you should find somewhere else to park."

This is exactly what people do on the road whcih runs past my house (apparently I am not allowed to say "my road" for brevity). For some reason people following the recommended sensible option seems to upset some posters.

If every pavement parker did obey the RAC's advice, there would be few complaints from pedestrians and of course wheelchair users. However, despite years of pleading/explaining etc. by motoring organisations as well as those who care for wheelchair users, there is still a significant amount of irresponsible parking, - the usual response being that they had no choice. Well, the RAC advice (as posted above) clearly says: "If there are restrictions, or your parking would cause wheelchair users or people with prams to have to walk into the road, then you should find somewhere else to park.".
That is why the matter is now up for consultation. As so many motorists won't respond to a reasonable request, the inference is that maybe they need the encouragement of the law to respect the welfare of others less fortunate than themselves. Time will tell as the consultation proceeds.

 

[bramling]

If every pavement parker did obey the RAC's advice, there would be few complaints from pedestrians and of course wheelchair users. However, despite years of pleading/explaining etc. by motoring organisations as well as those who care for wheelchair users, there is still a significant amount of irresponsible parking, - the usual response being that they had no choice. Well, the RAC advice (as posted above) clearly says: "If there are restrictions, or your parking would cause wheelchair users or people with prams to have to walk into the road, then you should find somewhere else to park.".
That is why the matter is now up for consultation. As so many motorists won't respond to a reasonable request, the inference is that maybe they need the encouragement of the law to respect the welfare of others less fortunate than themselves. Time will tell as the consultation proceeds.

The RAC’s guidance seems pretty spot on to me. So changing the law to reflect it would be fine with me.

 

[ExRes]

I'm wondering what's going to happen in the wonderful world of electric only vehicles, unless a very light removable battery is invented then where are people to charge their cars other than in the road outside their home, if indeed they actually have a road available. Not only would the roads themselves be logjammed but on narrow(er) roads so would the pavements thanks to both cars and electric cables, those with sight restrictions would be battling with both blocked and booby trapped pavements, does this consultation actually consider this as a potential problem?

 

[AM9]

I'm wondering what's going to happen in the wonderful world of electric only vehicles, unless a very light removable battery is invented then where are people to charge their cars other than in the road outside their home, if indeed they actually have a road available. Not only would the roads themselves be logjammed but on narrow(er) roads so would the pavements thanks to both cars and electric cables, those with sight restrictions would be battling with both blocked and booby trapped pavements, does this consultation actually consider this as a potential problem?

In areas where few homes have private off-street parking, I expect there to be kerbside provision made. Ideally, that would be kerb-edge posts that would have the benefit of not only avoiding cables across the footpath, but also preventing pavement parking. Where practical, there would also be wired communal parking bays. The size of the problem is however being exaggerated because:
1) the increase in ownership/leasing isn't a step function of the deadline as availability alone wouldn't be able to effect that.
2) the increase in wired spaces in shopping, employment and leisure locations will allow owners to charge their vehicles at their destinations.
3) the type(s) of charging facilities available will become part of the decision of when to switch to EVs and even where to live if that is under consideration, i.e. just another lifestyle decision.

It is not presently illegal to park on the pavement outside London, hence this whole debate which is about whether, and if so how, that should change. So pavement parkers are obeying the law.

Only if they aren't obstructing the passage of pedestrians and those using wheelchairs, (including their being able to pass others). The whole purpose of the consultation is precisely because the trust for drivers to park with consideration for all legal pavement users has been serially abused by a significant proportion of them. The law as intended clearly isn't working well enough.

 

[miami]

And when they need to carry stuff?

Stop outside, empty car, then go park car (no free garaging means plenty of space for short stay <1 hour drop offs for deliveries)

the usual response being that they had no choice

If somebody is literally holding a gun to a head

The only time I've seen problems with someone parking inconsiderately when they had no choice (an ambulance attending a 999 call for example), it's drivers complaining they they are being blocked. Funny how there's "no choice" but to block pedestrians for convienience, but blocking drivers while saving lives is a no-no.