Parking ban?

[Berk]

AFAIK shared space environments don’t appear to even have a kerbline.

I’m all for having one, just that it should be set (and be no higher) than foot height, like a dropped kerb.

[C83]

So I'd agree with a standard that it is illegal to park on the pavement, where there are particularly narrow roads and wide pavements, councils could put up signs to permit locally, but when the road is next due for repair, pavement and carriageway widths should be adjusted.

I’d firmly agree with that, but also ask why do we need pavements on both sides of the street outside city centres??

Hmm, so thinking of this from the perspective of a person in a wheelchair/with buggy, one pavement would work in some locations, but not in others. In a new build estate where it is all cul-de-sacs there is limited traffic, if someone leaves their house, gets to the end of their garden path/drive then has to walk 10m down a quiet street to reach a dropped kerb on the other side, that probably works ok. Particularly if parking is only on the pavement side and not in front of dropped kerbs.

On a 'Coronation Street' terrace where the houses face directly onto the road with no garden it wouldn't work. Firstly, you would have to ban parking directly outside of the doors, as otherwise they simply wouldn't get out the door. Secondly, even if that was the case a pedestrian squeezes between the cars, if they may well need a dropped kerb to access the pavement opposite, how far down the road do they need to walk to access a pavement.

The absolute priority should be that a pedestrian with limited mobility can get between 2 buildings or from the building they are in to a point where they can access a vehicle or public transport safely.

[Simon_GNR]

(you'll still get a double buggy or wheelchair past the car with ease)

To me, that is the main criterion as to whether parking partly on the pavement is OK. If there's still enough room for such pavement users, what's the problem?

[Berk]

(you'll still get a double buggy or wheelchair past the car with ease)

To me, that is the main criterion as to whether parking partly on the pavement is OK. If there's still enough room for such pavement users, what's the problem?

The problem is that for many terraced streets, including my own, it simply isn’t possible.

And in fact, for older Victorian/Edwardian terraces, it’s even worse - you’ve barely got one vehicle width’s access - barely S1 with parking on both sides.

I think the only way to fix the worst streets is to compulsorily purchase half of the street so it can be knocked down.

It might sound harsh, but you can introduce a cycle path or green features at the same time, to encourage walking.

[Vierwielen]

This is a draconian measure that will not help anyone

Other than people in wheelchairs. Or people with pushchairs. Or the blind. Or indeed, pedestrians.

Or actually, people who pay council tax that has to be spent on repairing damaged footpaths.

On reading through the legislation going through Parliament I could not find any references to pedestrians. I wiuydl have thought that as long as anybody legitimately using the pavement was not inconvenienced, then that should be a defence.

I have read a few EU directives and also UK laws. The biggest difference that struck me was that the first section of any EU directive was called the "recital" and it gave the reason for the directive whereas UK legislation merely states who is making the law and what the law is. The advantage of having the recital is that it shows what the law is trying to achieve.

[Big Nick]

Yeah, if you can explain how to reduce pavement parking on streets like these without upsetting all the residents?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.36755 ... 8192?hl=en

It's all very well saying demolish half the street but where will you house those residents? You could demolish 1 in 5 homes and create parking spaces or perhaps a small multi story at the end but people like being able to look out and see their cars.

Perhaps the answer is to negate the need for personal car ownership altogether....

[c2R]

This is a draconian measure that will not help anyone

Other than people in wheelchairs. Or people with pushchairs. Or the blind. Or indeed, pedestrians.

Or actually, people who pay council tax that has to be spent on repairing damaged footpaths.

On reading through the legislation going through Parliament I could not find any references to pedestrians. I wiuydl have thought that as long as anybody legitimately using the pavement was not inconvenienced, then that should be a defence.

I have read a few EU directives and also UK laws. The biggest difference that struck me was that the first section of any EU directive was called the "recital" and it gave the reason for the directive whereas UK legislation merely states who is making the law and what the law is. The advantage of having the recital is that it shows what the law is trying to achieve.

There are often explanatory notes at the end of legislation or statutory instruments which try and give a reason as to what the legislation is trying to achieve.... although admittedly it isn't always helpful...!

[Vierwielen]

I am the neighbourhood watch rep for our close.

When this legislation was first mooted, a retired army officer who lived at the end of the close used a mobility scooter. I visited him an measued the width of his scooter. I also measured the width of a double buggy that belonged to one of the mums in the close. Both were between 70 and 80 cm. I then entered into correspondence with our MP and suggested to him that a fair comrpomise woudl be to permit pavement parkingprovided that there was a one metre gap for pedestrians, buggy users and mobility scooter users. My letters went to the minister, but it seems that my suggestion was ignored.

We must now wait for the refuse lorry to refuse to service our wheelie bins due to cars parked in the road. This happened before - in 1997 - and I was then in correspondence with the local police.

[Fenlander]

The useable width now might be very different in a few weeks when the hedges start growing properly, there’s one I drive past every day who parks her car on the path covering about 50% of it but still leaving enough room to get past. As the bush in her garden grows though that space quickly gets smaller to the point that she starts to park facing the other way so she can get in from the road side instead of from the pavement.

[Ruperts Trooper]

The useable width now might be very different in a few weeks when the hedges start growing properly, there’s one I drive past every day who parks her car on the path covering about 50% of it but still leaving enough room to get past. As the bush in her garden grows though that space quickly gets smaller to the point that she starts to park facing the other way so she can get in from the road side instead of from the pavement.

That's a different issue - if overgrown vegetation reduces the pavement width, that should be cut back - if necessary with appropriate enforcement orders.

[WHBM]

That's a different issue - if overgrown vegetation reduces the pavement width, that should be cut back - if necessary with appropriate enforcement orders.

Highways authorities landscaping is of course the worst for this - who is going to enforce against that ?

We must now wait for the refuse lorry to refuse to service our wheelie bins due to cars parked in the road.

This would be reasonable if the refuse department was reasonable as well. When I first moved here the refuse lorry had no issue manoeuvring round the typical 1980s London Docklands semi-shared space layout. Since then, each generation of vehicles has been larger and longer in all dimensions, all it seems to suit the convenience of the refuse department in easing handling and staying out all day. It's as if the periodic managers' meetings with their neighbours have some "mine's bigger than yours" showing-off competition. Our current machine, a vast 6-wheeler, way larger than the fire engine, led throughout our neighbourhood firstly to double yellow lines being splatted on the typical Docklands attractive brick paviors round which there had never been any parking problem, followed by the felling (not pruning but actual felling) of our nice trees in their planting boxes where they overhung this leviathan. I'm just waiting for them to start issuing CPOs on houses at the corners.

[Helvellyn]

And in fact, for older Victorian/Edwardian terraces, it’s even worse - you’ve barely got one vehicle width’s access - barely S1 with parking on both sides.

I think the only way to fix the worst streets is to compulsorily purchase half of the street so it can be knocked down.

It might sound harsh, but you can introduce a cycle path or green features at the same time, to encourage walking.

That'll cause considerably more problems than it solves.

[Bryn666]

And in fact, for older Victorian/Edwardian terraces, it’s even worse - you’ve barely got one vehicle width’s access - barely S1 with parking on both sides.

I think the only way to fix the worst streets is to compulsorily purchase half of the street so it can be knocked down.

It might sound harsh, but you can introduce a cycle path or green features at the same time, to encourage walking.

That'll cause considerably more problems than it solves.

Indeed, that's redesigning society for cars, not people. The answer is simple, don't buy a house with nowhere to park if you want somewhere to park. You wouldn't buy a house without a toilet so why would you buy one without a parking space and then complain you can't park?

[M5Lenzar]

Indeed, that's redesigning society for cars, not people. The answer is simple, don't buy a house with nowhere to park if you want somewhere to park. You wouldn't buy a house without a toilet so why would you buy one without a parking space and then complain you can't park?

This ban would be akin to the government removing your toilet after you've made the purchase.

[AndyB]

Not really.

If you park on the street, you are at the mercy of yellow lines and the inability to park near your door due to other people on business in your area. You don't buy parking outside unless you buy space as part of your property, so preventing you from parking on the footway isn't taking away something to which you have a right.

It's always about the right to get about your business, because there is no right to choose your method of transport.

[Bryn666]

Indeed, that's redesigning society for cars, not people. The answer is simple, don't buy a house with nowhere to park if you want somewhere to park. You wouldn't buy a house without a toilet so why would you buy one without a parking space and then complain you can't park?

This ban would be akin to the government removing your toilet after you've made the purchase.

You don't own the road outside your house, completely false equivalence.

[Chris Bertram]

Indeed, that's redesigning society for cars, not people. The answer is simple, don't buy a house with nowhere to park if you want somewhere to park. You wouldn't buy a house without a toilet so why would you buy one without a parking space and then complain you can't park?

This ban would be akin to the government removing your toilet after you've made the purchase.

You don't own the road outside your house, completely false equivalence.

Not *completely* false, I suggest. People take all kinds of things into consideration when deciding which house to buy - the view, the numbers of bedrooms, the size of any garden ... the provision of parking, off-street and/or on-street. And they will research if there are any plans to change any aspect of the property, such as the line of a proposed by-pass, plans to erect new houses nearby, and proposals to alter street layouts and parking in any way among them. Now of course nothing can be guaranteed in perpetuity, but the removal of a provision on which you have relied for some time is a material change to the suitability of a property. There is certainly cause to be upset at such a change, even if you have no legal right to redress.

[Bryn666]

This ban would be akin to the government removing your toilet after you've made the purchase.

You don't own the road outside your house, completely false equivalence.

Not *completely* false, I suggest. People take all kinds of things into consideration when deciding which house to buy - the view, the numbers of bedrooms, the size of any garden ... the provision of parking, off-street and/or on-street. And they will research if there are any plans to change any aspect of the property, such as the line of a proposed by-pass, plans to erect new houses nearby, and proposals to alter street layouts and parking in any way among them. Now of course nothing can be guaranteed in perpetuity, but the removal of a provision on which you have relied for some time is a material change to the suitability of a property. There is certainly cause to be upset at such a change, even if you have no legal right to redress.

Caveat emptor.

Relying on something you have no control over to remain the way you want it to be is foolhardy at best. It is a given that road restrictions are subject to change, being taken by surprise by such a fact is again foolhardy at best.

[Chris Bertram]

You don't own the road outside your house, completely false equivalence.

Not *completely* false, I suggest. People take all kinds of things into consideration when deciding which house to buy - the view, the numbers of bedrooms, the size of any garden ... the provision of parking, off-street and/or on-street. And they will research if there are any plans to change any aspect of the property, such as the line of a proposed by-pass, plans to erect new houses nearby, and proposals to alter street layouts and parking in any way among them. Now of course nothing can be guaranteed in perpetuity, but the removal of a provision on which you have relied for some time is a material change to the suitability of a property. There is certainly cause to be upset at such a change, even if you have no legal right to redress.

Caveat emptor.

Relying on something you have no control over to remain the way you want it to be is foolhardy at best. It is a given that road restrictions are subject to change, being taken by surprise by such a fact is again foolhardy at best.

No, you do your research and rely on the best information available. If that's foolhardy, then we're all fools. Anyway, if such a change happens, there is normally notice plus a right to object, so the aspect of surprise doesn't really come into it.

[Bryn666]

Not *completely* false, I suggest. People take all kinds of things into consideration when deciding which house to buy - the view, the numbers of bedrooms, the size of any garden ... the provision of parking, off-street and/or on-street. And they will research if there are any plans to change any aspect of the property, such as the line of a proposed by-pass, plans to erect new houses nearby, and proposals to alter street layouts and parking in any way among them. Now of course nothing can be guaranteed in perpetuity, but the removal of a provision on which you have relied for some time is a material change to the suitability of a property. There is certainly cause to be upset at such a change, even if you have no legal right to redress.

Caveat emptor.

Relying on something you have no control over to remain the way you want it to be is foolhardy at best. It is a given that road restrictions are subject to change, being taken by surprise by such a fact is again foolhardy at best.

No, you do your research and rely on the best information available. If that's foolhardy, then we're all fools. Anyway, if such a change happens, there is normally notice plus a right to object, so the aspect of surprise doesn't really come into it.

Relying on the best information - yes, it's the public highway and you haven't any rights to park on it. That is crystal clear, so you are taking a risk. It's not even calculated. You know the situation will likely change at some point.

I've no sympathy with it, owning a car does not give you more rights than anyone else.