Parking on Pavements (DfT consultation Sept 2020)

[Ianno87]

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.

With prams, it's not just the size....

Pavements are rarely flat or level, so trying to turn corners/negotiating obstacles/mounting kerbs on a slanty pavement with a double pram (or single pram with an older child in it) is quite physically hard work. Even worse for wheelchair users.

 

[jmh59]

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).

Thats exactly what the PCSO that leafletted our street said was the model. But you cannot simply do it by measure as we have hedges all over, and some are quite stiff and prickly and fall out over the pavement meaning anyone with just so much space has to bend sideways to avoid them. Then there are those that park up on the pavement and fill the remaining space with the wheelie bin... there is just no hope for these people.

I just can't understand why if you have a driveway you wouldn't use it.

I could rant forever on that point but I will rant only this once. When we had our gates installed I had to park on the road and as I just never park on pavements the buffoon opposite had to then park on his drive rather than the pavement outside his house which is of course his and his alone. I really found it hard to not burst out laughing at his whining about me making his life hard when I've seen him reverse a LWB land rover in under the same circumstance! Ugh.

 

[sprunt]

There are certainly people on here who are using it to push an anti-car agenda.

"Car owners should not block the footway preventing legitimate users proceeding down it." is not an anti-car agenda.

 

[krus_aragon]

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.

My parents-in-law have a drive, but no car, so I park up on it when I visit with my car. There's only room for one car, though, so when my in-laws are also visiting, one car has to be parked on the road. (Usual practice among the denizens is to park a foot onto the pavement, leaving three feet of pavement for pedestrians.)

We can always tell who drove over by where their car is parked: if it's on the drive then it was my brother-in-law, because my sister-in-law can't/won't reverse through the narrow gate onto the drive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Car owners should not block the footway preventing legitimate users proceeding down it." is not an anti-car agenda.

Have you actually read the thread?

 

[Meerkat]

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

That’s already how the world works - the poorest will already live in homes with no parking.
It would make small houses cheaper and public transport more viable as non-drivers became more concentrated, as drivers move to more appropriate places (they don’t need public transport if they have cars

there will be need to park another car somewhere..

No, there will be a desire to, not a need to.
Plenty of people in flats and inner cities are already in this situation, they survive.

This thread has gone pretty extreme (I am amused that I am “anti-car” here, but on other threads I am accused of being the selfish driver!)
Do we need the dinner lady to hold us back (or close the thread!)?

 

[GB]

Jeez this is going around in circles. We are NOT talking just about flats or dense housing or inner cities. If I visit my parents tomorrow who live in a village with no further parking guess where I will be parking. Get it out of your head that the world stops at the boundary of a city or town.

 

[Meerkat]

Jeez this is going around in circles. We are NOT talking just about flats or dense housing or inner cities. If I visit my parents tomorrow who live in a village with no further parking guess where I will be parking. Get it out of your head that the world stops at the boundary of a city or town.

On the road in a place that doesn’t obstruct fire engines?

 

[GB]

I'll take my magic wand shall I.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

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...

Change jobs,
Change house,
Change shifts,
car share with colleagues,
agree with a neighbour who doesn't use their space,
rent a space nearby,
employer arrange subsidised travel of some kind.

How long a list do you want for your outlier personal circumstances?

 

[miami]

If people can park on a pavement while still leaving the pavement wide enough, why not reduce the width of the pavement so that cars don't need to drive on it and damage it.

 

[ainsworth74]

If people can park on a pavement while still leaving the pavement wide enough, why not reduce the width of the pavement so that cars don't need to drive on it and damage it.

Because as a car driver I can accept that already quite a lot of space is dedicated to me. I don't see that I need more dedicated space.

 

[miami]

Because as a car driver I can accept that already quite a lot of space is dedicated to me. I don't see that I need more dedicated space.

In which case there should be no problem with car drivers staying out of the space that's dedicated to pedestrians.

 

[Ianno87]

If people can park on a pavement while still leaving the pavement wide enough, why not reduce the width of the pavement so that cars don't need to drive on it and damage it.

Because the more space you give to cars, the more car drivers are likely to abuse that space (driving excessively fast, etc) at the risk to other road users.

 

[ainsworth74]

In which case there should be no problem with car drivers staying out of the space that's dedicated to pedestrians.

And so we go around again. That works fine in theory but in practice, if you do that, then many roads become impassible to many vehicles including emergency services and council bin wagons.

 

[miami]

And so we go around again. That works fine in theory but in practice, if you do that, then many roads become impassible to many vehicles including emergency services and council bin wagons.

Double yellow.

Either there
1) is room on the pavement to park a car without blocking pedestrians - in which case you reduce the width of the pavement
2) it not room on the pavement, therefore you don't allow parking on the pavement

 

[AM9]

And so we go around again. That works fine in theory but in practice, if you do that, then many roads become impassible to many vehicles including emergency services and council bin wagons.

Even when pavement parking is prohibited by default, it will still be illegal to obstruct the road part of the highway, so the problem is the parked cars, neither the essential vehicles nor the road itself. So over time, those whose current lifestyle persuades them to park on a pavement will make suitable adjustments to those lifestyles alond some of the lines suggested by other posters in this thread.

 

[bramling]

Even when pavement parking is prohibited by default, it will still be illegal to obstruct the road part of the highway, so the problem is the parked cars, neither the essential vehicles nor the road itself. So over time, those whose current lifestyle persuades them to park on a pavement will make suitable adjustments to those lifestyles alond some of the lines suggested by other posters in this thread.

Depends how you define obstruct. A lot of pavement parking happens in order to avoid having a car’s width parked in a road which could quite happily take a car but then restrict the width of two directions of traffic flow. For me it’s a perfectly acceptable compromise, in many cases a sensible one to maximise road space and increase visibility which is a good thing for safety purposes.

But then, apparently unlike some, I don’t go round worrying too much about how people are parked and looking for problems which aren’t really there.

Yes it’s a pain when a car is causing a genuine pavement obstruction, and yes this is a major problem for people with mobility issues, but (in my experience at least) it isn’t such a common issue as some seem to be making out. Most people *are* thoughtful about where they park. In a country which is densely populated, particularly congested places like St Albans, people are going to tread on each other’s toes. On that score we’re overdue a pedestians / drivers versus cyclists thread!

 

[AM9]

Depends how you define obstruct. A lot of pavement parking happens in order to avoid having a car’s width parked in a road which could quite happily take a car but then restrict the width of two directions of traffic flow. For me it’s a perfectly acceptable compromise, in many cases a sensible one to maximise road space and increase visibility which is a good thing for safety purposes.

But then, apparently unlike some, I don’t go round worrying too much about how people are parked and looking for problems which aren’t really there.

Yes it’s a pain when a car is causing a genuine pavement obstruction, and yes this is a major problem for people with mobility issues, but (in my experience at least) it isn’t such a common issue as some seem to be making out. Most people *are* thoughtful about where they park. In a country which is densely populated, particularly congested places like St Albans, people are going to tread on each other’s toes. On that score we’re overdue a pedestians / drivers versus cyclists thread!

You've misread my post. I said "Even when pavement parking is prohibited by default, it will still be illegal to obstruct the road part of the highway". In other words, if the default position is changed in law, (with the obvious exception of officially permitted pavement parking, - just like there is in London), there won't be an excuse to block the road just because the driver can't find anywhere nearby to park. Obstructing the highway with a vehicle cannot be defended that way. Would you accept a council recycling centre being closed/crowded/too far away as a defence for fly-tipping?

 

[bramling]

You've misread my post. I said "Even when pavement parking is prohibited by default, it will still be illegal to obstruct the road part of the highway". In other words, if the default position is changed in law, (with the obvious exception of officially permitted pavement parking, - just like there is in London), there won't be an excuse to block the road just because the driver can't find anywhere nearby to park. Obstructing the highway with a vehicle cannot be defended that way. Would you accept a council recycling centre being closed/crowded/too far away as a defence for fly-tipping?

I don’t see why you seem to assume the reason for pavement parking is because people can’t be bothered to walk a little further. No doubt that applies in *some* cases, but I’d suggest there’s a wide variety of reasons other than that. Some that spring to mind:

* To reduce the risk of their wing mirror being knocked off by something passing carelessly
* Wish to avoid hindering traffic flow
* Wish to avoid reducing visibility for passing drivers
* Wish to be able to see their car from their property
* Nowhere else - in rural areas it may not be physically possible to park elsewhere as there may be no pavement

Personally I don’t wish to see a plethora of signage and markings everywhere for something which I simply don’t see as a major issue. By all means take action against people who cause an obstruction, but otherwise this is just a fact of life which needs to be sucked up. And don’t think it doesn’t still happen in London, I can assure you it does - outside my office for a start.

 

[miami]

* Nowhere else - in rural areas it may not be physically possible to park elsewhere as there may be no pavement

Fairly sure nobody is complaining about cars parking on the pavement where there is no pavement.

 

[AM9]

* To reduce the risk of their wing mirror being knocked off by something passing carelessly I've never had mirrors knocked off a parked car and folding mirrors are available on most care these days.
* Wish to avoid hindering traffic flow As said above, obstructing the road part of the highway is still an offence, but courteous drivers can avoid that by not parking in the wrong place.
* Wish to avoid reducing visibility for passing drivers It's a fact of life that visibility on roads with too many parked cars reduceds visibility. The remedy if you have so much genuine concern is not to park where it would impair visibility.
* Wish to be able to see their car from their property Get a property where you can park off the highway and gaze lovingly at your car.
* Nowhere else - in rural areas it may not be physically possible to park elsewhere as there may be no pavement As miami says above, not sure what that means.
In essence, those 'reasons' for you wanting to park a road vehicle on space provided exclusively for pedestrians are a bit specious, and do not excuse such behaviour. If the law is changed as it might be, a court presented with a valid pedestrian complint would probably not entertain a defence based on those. Nobody is 'forced' to park a car illegally. It might be inconvenient to park correctly, but that is the responsibility of the driver.

 

[miami]

If the pavement is for pedestrians, it should be for pedestrians, so no parking.

If it's for parking, it should be for parking, so make it into the road.

Don't pretend it's for pedestrians but treat them as a second class citizen when a car comes along.

 

[bramling]

Fairly sure nobody is complaining about cars parking on the pavement where there is no pavement.

What I meant was the situation where there may be pavement in the immediate vicinity of houses, then a section of road with no pavement. This scenario is *very* common in rural areas.

Clearly some people here can’t see beyond their immediate familiarity.

 

[bramling]

If the pavement is for pedestrians, it should be for pedestrians, so no parking.

If it's for parking, it should be for parking, so make it into the road.

Don't pretend it's for pedestrians but treat them as a second class citizen when a car comes along.

To me this is a silly line to take, and furthers my view that some here are looking for problems which aren’t really there. At the end of the day it’s all simply land, and I have no problem with it being used in the most sensible way for a given situation and time. It seems to be this rigid viewpoint which is upsetting people.

 

[bramling]

I've never had mirrors knocked off a parked car

Neither have I, but it happens. There’s a village near me where it’s quite common to drive through and see wing mirrors lying in the road.

Your comment is rather revealing though, in that you seem completely able to entertain any view of the world other than your own, and simply because something isn’t a problem for you seemingly means it isn’t for anyone else either.

It’s the same sort of attitude which advocates how everyone should lump a particular type of train seat, yet we then find out how a person advocating this will themselves make use of declassified first when they travel to avoid what’s good for everyone else.

I’ve seen nothing more convincing here than “pavements are for pedestrians”. No doubt there’s people who will scratch cars that are on a pavement parked causing no problem other than that it upsets someone’s view of the world.

 

[AndrewE]

I’ve seen nothing more convincing here than “pavements are for pedestrians”. No doubt there’s people who will scratch cars that are on a pavement parked causing no problem other than that it upsets someone’s view of the world.

You didn't read post #40 then. Or do you not care about injuries to people who aren't motorists?
Vehicles should not be on surfaces not built to take them, especially when it wrecks it for non-motorists.

 

[mmh]

Fairly sure nobody is complaining about cars parking on the pavement where there is no pavement.

They're blocking the way of pedestrians more than the pavement parkers in most cases. In the real world these things aren't the massive problems people are making them out to be. Walking along the section of my road with no pavements with a pushchair is not a problem. The most awkward thing is actually speed bumps, as they're ones which extend the full width of the road with no gap at the sides.

 

[furnessvale]

Double yellow.

Either there
1) is room on the pavement to park a car without blocking pedestrians - in which case you reduce the width of the pavement
2) it not room on the pavement, therefore you don't allow parking on the pavement

A road near me has a continuous line of parked cars most of the time. It has a footway barely 2ft wide. Even so one or two still feel it is OK to bump up two wheels onto the footway so that "their" car is less likely to lose a wing mirror.

 

[miami]

What I meant was the situation where there may be pavement in the immediate vicinity of houses, then a section of road with no pavement. This scenario is *very* common in rural areas.

Clearly some people here can’t see beyond their immediate familiarity.

Still really confused why the presense or not of a pavement affects parking. Imagine instead of a pavement there was a wall. Would you still be able to park?