Parking on Pavements (DfT consultation Sept 2020)

[Bletchleyite]

There really should be more effort put into getting hire cars at stations - I reckon a lot of people would be interested in a Fiat 500 waiting as the train comes in, so you can pootle round the area without the long drive.

I certainly think there's room for the likes of Trainline to have a simple checkbox of "I'd like a Fiat 500 EV to be waiting, fully charged, for me when I arrive, and dropped off at the booked station/train time on my return". You'd probably need to add some additional information on your account (e.g. a driving licence copy) but once set up it would be as easy as that. Include full collision damage waiver etc, access being via a code on a touchpad, and with that remove all the classic customer unfriendly faffs that car hire companies like imposing.

Make it that easy and you may well sell more train journeys - hiring a car is, as I said, a massive faff.

(FWIW I've never tried but I reckon I'd probably fit a classic Mini - the steering wheel is pretty much horizontal as per a lorry, let alone a van!)

 

[lyndhurst25]

On my street, two-wheels-on two-wheels-off pavement parking is the accepted norm. Luckily we have wide pavements and doing this causes no more obstruction than the trees that are planted at regular intervals. Forcing everyone to park strictly on the road would be counterproductive as it would make the road so narrow that it would discourage people from reversing onto their driveways, leading to more cars on the street. Sure, the council could put up signs and mark out bays allowing pavement parking but there are a lot of roads like mine that would need doing and it would likely cost a small fortune.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On my street, two-wheels-on two-wheels-off pavement parking is the accepted norm. Luckily we have wide pavements and doing this causes no more obstruction than the trees that are planted at regular intervals. Forcing everyone to park strictly on the road would be counterproductive as it would make the road so narrow that it would discourage people from reversing onto their driveways, leading to more cars on the street. Sure, the council could put up signs and mark out bays allowing pavement parking but there are a lot of roads like mine that would need doing and it would likely cost a small fortune.

It would certainly strike me that your street is one where a line could be marked along the pavement allowing it. It wouldn't cost that much in the scheme of things; there are more roads where it's either not OK or not necessary than where it is.

 

[lyndhurst25]

It would certainly strike me that your street is one where a line could be marked along the pavement allowing it. It wouldn't cost that much in the scheme of things; there are more roads where it's either not OK or not necessary than where it is.

And in an ideal world that is what the local council would do. But what if they say that they haven't got the money for the signs and road markings? Or that it would be too much trouble to assess every street in the borough? What if they'd rather have the income from issuing parking fines? What is there is an anti-car zealot on on the council or who lives on the street who objects?

Local councils have had no qualms about destroying town centre trade with overzealous parking restrictions and enforcement. I doubt that they'd be too bothered about annoying a few residents on a suburban street.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And in an ideal world that is what the local council would do. But what if they say that they haven't got the money for the signs and road markings? Or that it would be too much trouble to assess every street in the borough? What if they'd rather have the income from issuing parking fines? What is there is an anti-car zealot on on the council or who lives on the street who objects?

And this is why I think that needs to be part of the legislation, i.e. that:

1. An easy process for requesting an exception
2. Councils MUST judge exceptions on fixed criteria - it can only be refused if a reference electric wheelchair cannot fit past the parked cars AND if the pavement is required to access properties (as there are plenty that "go nowhere" such as by me) - no opinions, consultations etc - if one person applies for it and it fits those criteria it MUST be marked
3. Councils MUST mark bays before the deadline as a statutory duty

 

[py_megapixel]

Councils MUST judge exceptions on fixed criteria - it can only be refused if a reference electric wheelchair cannot fit past the parked cars AND if the pavement is required to access properties (as there are plenty that "go nowhere" such as by me) - no opinions, consultations etc - if one person applies for it and it fits those criteria it MUST be marked

There is something that I would add this.

It can only be refused if a reference electric wheelchair cannot fit past the parked cars AND if the pavement is required to access properties or another road or public right of way[1]; or if cars are able to park on the road or in a nearby car park without obstructing the flow of traffic[2]

[1] Because a lot of go-nowhere pavements actually provide access to a public footpath, for example

[2] Because there is no point in councils spending money and inconveniencing pedestrians because one person with a vehicle (or ego!) too large or a grudge against pedestrians requests pavement parking permission in a location with plenty of space to park elsewhere

 

[Bletchleyite]

[1] Because a lot of go-nowhere pavements actually provide access to a public footpath, for example

Yes, true. I only even thought of this because there is such a "go nowhere" pavement opposite my driveway, and if people move to parking fully on the road the pavement will still serve no purpose whatsoever, while it will become very difficult to get on and off my driveway (unless you ban parking there entirely, but the effect of that would be to move the problem elsewhere). The real fix to this is to remove the pavement (because it serves no purpose) and widen the carriageway, but that of course is more costly. As London has had the law for some time, this is what has happened there slowly over time.

[2] Because there is no point in councils spending money and inconveniencing pedestrians because one person with a vehicle (or ego!) too large or a grudge against pedestrians requests pavement parking permission in a location with plenty of space to park elsewhere

I don't agree with this with regard to parking elsewhere; presumption should be to retain the status quo if it could not cause a user of a reference electric wheelchair[1] any access difficulties. Clearly if there's room for the parking to be on the road without preventing access by a fire engine or refuse truck that would be a reason for refusal (if it prevents access by other vehicles that do not generally need to access that location such as builders' lorries, the fix would be to implement a vehicle width restriction there and for any such goods to be delivered a different way).

[1] To me that is what is important. If you live in an area with terraced housing and narrow pavements and still buy one of those ridiculous all-terrain three-across buggies you're just a muppet and don't require accommodating; there are plenty of other designs that aren't as wide. A regular double buggy (if you've got 3 or 4 small kids, there are ones that have 2 in front of 2 in a car like layout) will fit anywhere an electric wheelchair will.

 

[py_megapixel]

I don't agree with this with regard to parking elsewhere; presumption should be to retain the status quo if it could not cause a user of a reference electric wheelchair any access difficulties. Clearly if there's room for the parking to be on the road without preventing access by a fire engine or refuse truck that would be a reason for refusal (if it prevents access by other vehicles that do not generally need to access that location, the fix would be to implement a vehicle width restriction there).

Fair enough... my concern would be the potential for someone with either a grudge of some kind, a belief that as a car driver they should be able to just park where they like, or more cars than they could sensibly need, to needlessly request pavement parking markings for locations where it isn't helpful at all.

 

[Domh245]

Fair enough... my concern would be the potential for someone with either a grudge of some kind, a belief that as a car driver they should be able to just park where they like, or more cars than they could sensibly need, to needlessly request pavement parking markings for locations where it isn't helpful at all.

It may not be 'helpful' but where it passes the electric wheelchair test (or other arbitrary measurement of choice) then it isn't unhelpful. Approaching this from a seemingly anti-car basis (as opposed to pro-accessibility) isn't helpful

 

[Bletchleyite]

It may not be 'helpful' but where it passes the electric wheelchair test (or other arbitrary measurement of choice) then it isn't unhelpful. Approaching this from a seemingly anti-car basis (as opposed to pro-accessibility) isn't helpful

Agreed. Using this as an anti-car thing is really not helpful. The presumption should be to retain all parking as it presently exists (or close to it) unless it is causing an accessibility problem for wheelchair users[1] or an obstruction to other drivers needing access.

[1] As I said, catering for wheelchair users by way of a reference electric wheelchair (as these tend to be larger than manual ones) will also deal with sensible prams. Silly prams don't need dealing with; people need to buy sensible ones, as the massive wide 3-across ones cause issues elsewhere, too.

 

[py_megapixel]

It may not be 'helpful' but where it passes the electric wheelchair test (or other arbitrary measurement of choice) then it isn't unhelpful. Approaching this from a seemingly anti-car basis (as opposed to pro-accessibility) isn't helpful

Agreed. Using this as an anti-car thing is really not helpful. The presumption should be to retain all parking as it presently exists (or close to it) unless it is causing an accessibility problem for wheelchair users[1] or an obstruction to other drivers needing access.

Well which perspective do you want? Anti-car or anti-pedestrian?

Allowing pavement parking where there's no need for it is still an inconvenience to pedestrians, and the message it sends follows the stupid societal convention we have that cars are the most important and pedestrians are secondary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well which perspective do you want? Anti-car or anti-pedestrian?

A balance, recognising that most people are both pedestrians and car users.

 

[py_megapixel]

A balance, recognising that most people are both pedestrians and car users.

No, I mean for this specific question. Where there is ample space for parking on either the road or the pavement, do you:

• Ban pavement parking causing a slight reduction in traffic capacity but keeping the segregation of pedestrians and vehicles (which increases safety), or,
• Allow pavement parking, introducing the risk of pedestrians being hit by manouvering vehicles and narrowing the pavements, for a minor gain in capacity?

It seems to me that the changes in traffic capacity are negligible either way, while the effects on pedestrians are far more severe.

Obviously the answer to this question will vary depending on the exact conditions. But I don't believe an approach of "anyone can request pavement parking and if it isn't actively detrimental to pedestrians then it must absolutely be granted under all circumstances" results in a good road layout, sends the right message, or is a sensible use of council funds.

 

[Domh245]

Well which perspective do you want? Anti-car or anti-pedestrian?

Allowing pavement parking where there's no need for it is still an inconvenience to pedestrians, and the message it sends follows the stupid societal convention we have that cars are the most important and pedestrians are secondary.

Like @Bletchleyite says, a balance. Leaving an electric wheelchair width (or even more, say a nice arbitrarily picked 1.5m) whilst still a bit of an inconvenience is no worse than most other pavements (indeed, probably better than some). My main issue is that a lot of people in this thread seem to be taking this as an opportunity to attack car ownership in general - that's a whole other argument and trying to use the issue of pavement parking to piggyback general anti-car views isn't helpful.

For the specific situation you've introduced in post 343, then you still go with the pavement parking if it's been requested and the conditions are met. Refusing things because there may be enough space on the road starts making things messy, yes you will get some less than ideal situations where somebody could be parked on the road but is instead on the pavement, but given that there is still 'sufficient' space on the pavement and that you avoid those grey zones that tend to introduce all matter of legal challenges and costs, it's on balance the better solution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, I mean for this specific question. Where there is ample space for parking on either the road or the pavement, do you:

• Ban pavement parking causing a slight reduction in traffic capacity but keeping the segregation of pedestrians and vehicles (which increases safety), or,
• Allow pavement parking, introducing the risk of pedestrians being hit by manouvering vehicles and narrowing the pavements, for a minor gain in capacity?

It seems to me that the changes in traffic capacity are negligible either way, while the effects on pedestrians are far more severe.

OK, fair point. Where there is ample space for parking on the road in the same location, there is probably little sense in permitting it on the pavement. Ample space would mean on a residential street that the same range of vehicles could access it as before even if some might need to pull in and let others past (on long stretches that may require short stretches of yellow lines), but on a thoroughfare would mean for two-way traffic of all vehicles without any need to pull in. If there was felt to be a real danger to pedestrians, the proper work should be done to provide proper bays and relocate the kerb.

But also remember the status quo is to have the pavement parking, so you are not making things worse for pedestrians.

The only basis on which I support this is provision of wheelchair access. If that's available, I see no reason to change the status quo (other than the need to add some white paint and signage).

 

[py_megapixel]

For the specific situation you've introduced in post 343, then you still go with the pavement parking if it's been requested and the conditions are met. Refusing things because there may be enough space on the road starts making things messy, yes you will get some less than ideal situations where somebody could be parked on the road but is instead on the pavement, but given that there is still 'sufficient' space on the pavement and that you avoid those grey zones that tend to introduce all matter of legal challenges and costs, it's on balance the better solution.

Except this still makes the frankly ridiculous assumption that pedestrians don't matter as much as car drivers.

I'm not so concerned about the actual implications of allowing pavement parking just because a single person requested it. It's more the fact that it sends a really terrible message.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except this still makes the frankly ridiculous assumption that pedestrians don't matter as much as car drivers.

As I said, most pedestrians are also car drivers (or benefit in other ways from cars, e.g. getting a lift or using a taxi[1]), and all car drivers, pretty much without exception, are also pedestrians (assuming you consider wheelchair use to be a form of pedestrianism, which as it occurs on the pavement I'd suggest it is). It's wrong to consider them as totally separate, unrelated things.

It is about striking a balance, and to use it as an anti-car measure is totally wrong and would cause me to wholly withdraw support as a firm believer in a quality European-style cycle facility and public transport carrot properly funded by taxation, not a UK style half-job stick.

[1] It's funny how many anti-car people still benefit from cars. Charlie Hulme, who has long run the excellent North Wales Coast website, is about the only anti-car person I've ever come across who actively shuns their use wherever possible. Most of the others I've come across shout about not having a car but then use taxis[2] or are happy to get a lift.

[2] Taxis, driven by poorer people, are often based in streets of terraced housing with no off-street parking.

 

[py_megapixel]

As I said, most pedestrians are also car drivers, and all car drivers, pretty much without exception, are also pedestrians (assuming you consider wheelchair use to be a form of pedestrianism, which as it occurs on the pavement I'd suggest it is). It's wrong to consider them as totally separate, unrelated things.

Fair point. The problem I have is that if we send the message that car drivers are considered more important than pedestrians, then what are people going to do? Switch to their cars for journeys where they could otherwise walk. Either as a status symbol, or because walking is a terrible experience for them. Which - no matter how much you may complain I am "anti car" - is not a good thing.

I would be entirely happy with the system you suggested in post 335, if it also worked in reverse. That is, a single person could request the removal of pavement parking permission, if vehicles were parked causing an obstruction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fair point. The problem I have is that if we send the message that car drivers are considered more important than pedestrians, then what are people going to do? Switch to their cars for journeys where they could otherwise walk. Either as a status symbol, or because walking is a terrible experience for them. Which - no matter how much you may complain I am "anti car" - is not a good thing.

Again, this is not the appropriate mechanism for this. Ensuring wheelchair access (and by extension access for sensible pushchairs, because those fit within the width of a typical electric wheelchair) is the purpose of it in my book - nothing more, nothing less.

I would be entirely happy with the system you suggested in post 335, if it also worked in reverse. That is, a single person could request the removal of pavement parking permission, if vehicles were parked causing an obstruction.

If vehicles were parked outside of the marked bays, then that's what enforcement is for! If they were parked within the marked bays, they have already been deemed as not causing an obstruction by definition (because I would use an absolute definition for painting them - that access is possible for a reference electric wheelchair) - so no, there is no room for this, unless the appeal was simply that the pavement outside of the bay was not the specified width (i.e. a matter of simple fact in identifying an error made when painting it).

 

[Ianno87]

Again, this is not the appropriate mechanism for this. Ensuring wheelchair access (and by extension access for sensible pushchairs, because those fit within the width of a typical electric wheelchair) is the purpose of it in my book - nothing more, nothing less.

Blimey, a "non-sensible" pushchair must be enormous! Is Vicky Pollard coming down the street?

 

[py_megapixel]

If vehicles were parked outside of the marked bays, then that's what enforcement is for! If they were parked within the marked bays, they have already been deemed as not causing an obstruction by definition (because I would use an absolute definition for painting them - that access is possible for a reference electric wheelchair) - so no, there is no room for this, unless the appeal was simply that the pavement outside of the bay was not the specified width (i.e. a matter of simple fact in identifying an error made when painting it).

My apologies. I thought you were suggesting that entire lengths of pavement be converted to parking. Marked bays (with gaps between them, wide enough for a few pedestrians to stand in) are considerably better.

A common occurrence in my area is having to wait at the end of a line of parked cars for someone with a buggy to come through, so that one can pass them.

 

[Domh245]

Except this still makes the frankly ridiculous assumption that pedestrians don't matter as much as car drivers.

I have to disagree. I don't see how allowing a car to use a piece of ground without any particular detriment* to the other (occasional) users of said piece of ground is assuming that one matters more than the other. Saying that pavement parking should be allowed in certain cases isn't to say that car drivers matter more, just a realisation that there's only so much usable ground area on which you can put a vehicle, and suggesting that people park however many miles away in a designated council car park is simply nonsense. Don't get me wrong, we should be reducing car ownership and encouraging more sustainable means for people to get around, but doing it by stealth with this is absolutely not the way to go about it.

I'm not so concerned about the actual implications of allowing pavement parking just because a single person requested it. It's more the fact that it sends a really terrible message.

I fail to see what terrible message it is sending out? I do think that refusing to grant such a parking place because the council or whatever other objecting party thinks that there is space for the car to park elsewhere is not a particularly good message either however.


*Because it's RUK and we love edge cases, sure if there are 2 pairs of people converging on a piece of pavement side by side, or somebody with a megabuggy, and the car is there and parked right up against it's limit then they've been inconvenienced. These sort of edge cases are both of such low frequency and such easy solution (walk single file/don't buy a lifestyle buggy) that they can't be used to argue against this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because it's RUK and we love edge cases, sure if there are 2 pairs of people converging on a piece of pavement side by side, or somebody with a megabuggy, and the car is there and parked right up against it's limit then they've been inconvenienced. These sort of edge cases are both of such low frequency and such easy solution (walk single file/don't buy a lifestyle buggy) that they can't be used to argue against this.

Pedestrian etiquette (with apologies to Half Man Half Biscuit) does seem to be lacking at times - I've lost count of the number of times I've been pressured to walk in the road or wait because a couple won't part for a second to tuck in behind one another. And I'd agree that peoples' laziness and lack of consideration in this regard is definitely not a reason to deny someone a parking space.

On the other hand I just popped out to the chippy (walking) and on one road a car was parked 1' onto the pavement for no reason whatsoever - the road is wide enough to park on it, and indeed most others had done so. That sort of pavement parking is definitely not to be encouraged even though a wheelchair user would fit past easily. Perhaps we need another criterion surrounding this. I suspect the person concerned just did it out of habit without thinking.

 

[Adsy125]

I don't see why you would allow pavement parking anywhere where there is enough space on the road for the vehicle, even if there's a wide pavement. It seems pointless.

 

[Meerkat]

If there is too much pavement the first choice should be more greenery.

 

[The Ham]

If there is too much pavement the first choice should be more greenery.

Indeed, unless the space can be used to provide reasonable cycle facilities, including undercover cycle parking, then that should also be considered (as I'm aware that cycle facilities may not be needed, hence the considered)

 

[Bletchleyite]

If there is too much pavement the first choice should be more greenery.

Yes, true. The point of permitting parking is basically cases where (a) it's already being practiced due to the road being too narrow otherwise, and (b) it doesn't prevent the passage of a suitably large wheelchair. I wasn't intending to suggest that it should be allowed in cases where there's tons of room to park on the road.

 

[miami]

hiring a car is, as I said, a massive faff

Our work has a corporate agreement with enterprise, they drop the car off at my home at the time of my choosing, and pick it up in the same way, easy.

Airport pick ups are generally as easy as long term parking, and some will drop the car off at the terminal for you. In general globally, car hire at airports is much easier than car hire at stations, presumably because of the demand.

I don't see how allowing a car to use a piece of ground without any particular detriment* to the other (occasional) users of said piece of ground is assuming that one matters more than the other.

I assume you'd be fine with me setting up a tent on the pavement in front of your house then?

 

[ainsworth74]

I assume you'd be fine with me setting up a tent on the pavement in front of your house then?

The pavement? Sure. Think you'd be a bit weird but sure. Though I can think of at least one of my neighbours who'd be straight onto the police to have you moved on

 

[miami]

Though I can think of at least one of my neighbours who'd be straight onto the police to have you moved on

Isn't that the fundamental problem though? much of the country think it's unacceptable to pitch a tent on a pavement (or indeed on the road), but have no problem with parking a car on a pavement.