Parking on Pavements (DfT consultation Sept 2020)

[Baxenden Bank]

That's a very naive way at looking at it, all that would happen is the driver would get the blame for the fines, and if the driver tuck longer the driver would then get the blame for running late on the delivery. If we did get longer slots then as you say that would put up delivery costs, but then we like many companies are in a battle with might of Amazon who can likely absorb the cost more and then we get into a whole other argument.

As already said I don't believe its really a massive problem in my area generally perhaps with a few exceptions which could be looked at rather than using a sledge hammer to crack a nut, even when I do park on the pavement I do try and leave a reasonable amount of room for pedestrians where I can..

And where you can't leave a reasonable amount, you just block the whole pavement?

 

[py_megapixel]

The localism angle would be handled by councils (perhaps at a town/parish level) being able to define streets as "Drivers only".

In all cases of course it seems that drivers have a statortory right to about 10 square metres of land. I'm thinking of putting a small shed on my 10 square metres.

It's utterly daft, really. Drivers feel an entitlement to free access to land pretty much anywhere they want, to dump their wheeled metal boxes, and will moan if their paintwork gets so much as a scratch.

It's just one of many small, but significant, societal conventions that add up to the unspoken ideology that motorists are inherently superior to anyone else.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A small step headed in the right direction. Hopefully pavement parking will get banned and instantly ticketable.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

It's utterly daft, really. Drivers feel an entitlement to free access to land pretty much anywhere they want, to dump their wheeled metal boxes, and will moan if their paintwork gets so much as a scratch.

It's just one of many small, but significant, societal conventions that add up to the unspoken ideology that motorists are inherently superior to anyone else.

Yep, but a large proportion of the population (a majority?) are drivers and they have strong representation through the various road / car lobbying organisations. Anything anti-motorist is immediately anti-freedom. As per the gun lobby in the USA.

The recent lockdown has allowed the voice of non-motorists to be heard. Hopefully a few drivers, having taken up the option of walking locally to fill their lockdown time, will have come across some obstructed pavements and it may just have made them think about their future behaviour.

 

[py_megapixel]

Yep, but a large proportion of the population (a majority?) are drivers and they have strong representation through the various road / car lobbying organisations. Anything anti-motorist is immediately anti-freedom. As per the gun lobby in the USA.

According to the RAC foundation approximately 36 million people hold a driving license in the UK.
The population of the UK is around 67 million.
There are around 8 million children under 10, who we can safely assume don't have a huge amount of independence when it comes to travel and therefore for this purpose don't make sense to consider. This leaves us with about 36 out of 59 million people - or 61%.

So it's a majority - but not a huge one. And a good proportion of that 61% are going to walk more often than they drive anyway - walking and driving aren't mutually exclusive.

(I will point out that these are VERY approximate calculations, but the point still stands)

 

[miami]

The only solution as I can see it is to allow cars to park half on front yard and half on pavement while still leaving room for wheelchairs and prams to go past.

If there isn't enough room to park on the road and have large vehicles pass, surely the solution is double-yellow lines? This would ensure enough space for all road users - including motorists (motorists like myself).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2020 ==

Anything anti-motorist is immediately anti-freedom. As per the gun lobby in the USA.

Number of gun deaths and number of road deaths in the US appear fairly similar (1 per 8k). UK road deaths are about 1 in 35k in comparison.

 

[37424]

If there isn't enough room to park on the road and have large vehicles pass, surely the solution is double-yellow lines? This would ensure enough space for all road users - including motorists (motorists like myself).

So down a local street near to me which also a bus route, there are probably 50 plus cars parked on the roadside with some on the pavement around more awkward ares of the road belonging to Terrace house residents, so apart form the residents being extremely angry about it where are you going to find a home for all these cars?

 

[py_megapixel]

So down a local street near to me which also a bus route, there are probably 50 plus cars parked on the roadside with some on the pavement around more awkward ares of the road belonging to Terrace house residents, so apart form the residents being extremely angry about it where are you going to find a home for all these cars?

Is there a council car park that permits could be issued for, on a strict limit of 1 vehicle per adult in the household?

 

[37424]

Is there a council car park that permits could be issued for, on a strict limit of 1 vehicle per adult in the household?

There is no car park anywhere near.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Should have been banned decades ago.

It was banned decades ago in London! Park on a pavement in London and you get a FPN. It's also "enforced" by having higher kerbs in London, which will knacker your tyres if you try and mount them.

Funnily enough London doesn't grind to a halt, Yodel drivers still get to park up and drop-kick your parcel over the fence, and nobody has to wheel their child into the road.

As for delivery drivers, attached is a Corker. Main road into town, right by some traffic lights, and I had to go into the road because I couldn't get the pram past the van. The driveway of the house would have fit the van and was empty. Every little helps!

 

[Ianno87]

So down a local street near to me which also a bus route, there are probably 50 plus cars parked on the roadside with some on the pavement around more awkward ares of the road belonging to Terrace house residents, so apart form the residents being extremely angry about it where are you going to find a home for all these cars?

Reducing the number of cars seems like the obvious solution.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

So down a local street near to me which also a bus route, there are probably 50 plus cars parked on the roadside with some on the pavement around more awkward ares of the road belonging to Terrace house residents, so apart form the residents being extremely angry about it where are you going to find a home for all these cars?

I don't need to find a home for them, they do.

As drivers they choose to own a car, they chose their house despite knowing that they had nowhere private (ie legal) to park it. It is always illegal / unlawful to leave your vehicle on the public highway - be that on the footway, part on the footway, or entirely on the carriageway. Not that I am pushing that argument for any kind of enforcement. If there is room, fine. If the footway is 4m wide, fine, have 2m for parking. If the footway is 2m wide, get your car the heck off it! I need more than 6 inches to walk through.

As I said way up thread, in Japan it used to be that you had to prove that you had somewhere to park your vehicle (at home and workplace) before you were allowed to buy one. A bit extreme but I don't see why everyone else should suffer, or stump up for the cost of providing a solution, for an individuals choice in life.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Reducing the number of cars seems like the obvious solution.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2020 ==

It is always illegal / unlawful to leave your vehicle on the public highway - be that on the footway, part on the footway, or entirely on the carriageway.

No, it's not.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Meanwhile, in the real world...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2020 ==



No, it's not.

Sure?

 

[Tetchytyke]

No, it's not.

You have a common law right to pass and re-pass along a public road. If you're parked up, you're neither passing nor re-passing. It's not strictly banned, but it's not strictly lawful either.

Clearly it's not something to enforce either way, but still.

As for pavement parking, it's not lawful in London and everyone survives.

 

[Ianno87]

Meanwhile, in the real world...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2020 ==

Make drivers pay the real cost of motoring, and watch the demand to have a rectangular piece of metal outside everybody's home evaporate.

Finding space in cities to park metal for 95% of the day is inefficient and outdated.

 

[py_megapixel]

Make drivers pay the real cost of motoring, and watch the demand to have a rectangular piece of metal outside everybody's home evaporate.

I think there is a common misconception that by taxing their car, drivers are buying access to the road. What they are actually doing, if I understand correctly, is paying a penalty for the damage that their vehicle will do to the road. Strikethrough section is incorrect, see posts 233, 234 and 236
This sounds similar on paper, but is a important distinction, because one creates the implication that drivers have rights to road access (and untaxed modes of transport have no right to road access), and one doesn't.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Perhaps vehicles could stop getting bigger, and get smaller, narrower, lighter instead
One per person, or one per household maximum?

 

[cactustwirly]

Reducing the number of cars seems like the obvious solution.

Which can only be done if public transport is actually useful and cost effective for the journeys you want to make.
Atm it falls very short.

 

[py_megapixel]

Perhaps vehicles could stop getting bigger, and get smaller, narrower, lighter instead

I believe you have just described a modal switch to bicycles.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Perhaps vehicles could stop getting bigger, and get smaller, narrower, lighter instead
One per person, or one per household maximum?

Vehicles are bigger because of safety inprovements- side-impact bars and side airbags have to go somewhere.

I have two cars and I have a driveway which will fit two cars on it. Which is lucky.

 

[Ianno87]

Which can only be done if public transport is actually useful and cost effective for the journeys you want to make.
Atm it falls very short.

OK, make motoring more expensive and the cost of public transport will compare more favourably.

If drivers didn't pay tax, fuel, insurance, maintenance, finance etc seperately and instead theoretically fed £10 into their car every time they wanted to drive it, public transport would suddenly seem very attractive...

 

[cactustwirly]

I think there is a common misconception that by taxing their car, drivers are buying access to the road. What they are actually doing, if I understand correctly, is paying a penalty for the damage that their vehicle will do to the road. This sounds similar on paper, but is a important distinction, because one creates the implication that drivers have rights to road access (and untaxed modes of transport have no right to road access), and one doesn't.

No that's false, it's a tax on the value of the car (after March 17), or the emissions the car produces (Electric and other vehicles registered before March 17).
Once you've paid your tax, and you're insured you effectively have free access to as much road as you want.

 

[miami]

You have a common law right to pass and re-pass along a public road. If you're parked up, you're neither passing nor re-passing. It's not strictly banned, but it's not strictly lawful either.

Wouldn't it be littering?

As for pavement parking, it's not lawful in London and everyone survives.

Driving on the pavement is illegal unless it's crossing it to enter a premises (like a driveway)

I think there is a common misconception that by taxing their car, drivers are buying access to the road. What they are actually doing, if I understand correctly, is paying a penalty for the damage that their vehicle will do to the road. This sounds similar on paper, but is a important distinction.

There's an awful lot of misconceptions about driving laws. And laws in general. And politics in general.

There are two main 'road related taxes'

Vehicle Excise Duty - charged on a vehicle no matter how many miles it does based on its CO2 emissions. A 500g/mile car driven 100 miles a year attracts more than a 50g/mile car driven 100,000 miles a year. Crazy system.

Petrol tax - charged on petrol usage, so a 30mpg car pays more than a 90mpg car.

Those taxes are nominally linked to polution, not to damage, even if all vehicles traveled the same amount.

There are other road-related taxes, including VAT on road related items, as well as occasional tolls.


Funding for roads is almost entirely from national government funding (mainly things like income tax, national insurance etc), or from local council funding (mainly buisness rates and council tax).

 

[cactustwirly]

OK, make motoring more expensive and the cost of public transport will compare more favourably.

If drivers didn't pay tax, fuel, insurance, maintenance, finance etc seperately and instead theoretically fed £10 into their car every time they wanted to drive it, public transport would suddenly seem very attractive...

It's still very inconvenient, and personally for me it's impossible to get to work without using a car. This is the case for a lot of people.

 

[py_megapixel]

No that's false, it's a tax on the value of the car (after March 17), or the emissions the car produces (Electric and other vehicles registered before March 17).
Once you've paid your tax, and you're insured you effectively have free access to as much road as you want.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.... but the point is that drivers are not buying the right to use the road. They are paying a tax on their vehicle, and not the road.

This invalidates the argument that "pedestrians/cyclists shouldn't get road infrastructure provided for them because they don't pay vehicle tax"

 

[Ianno87]

It's still very inconvenient, and personally for me it's impossible to get to work without using a car. This is the case for a lot of people.

Which is fine.

But imagine how much easier residential street parking would be if it were only those with the greatest need that actually owned cars, not all and sundry....?

 

[37424]

It's still very inconvenient, and personally for me it's impossible to get to work without using a car. This is the case for a lot of people.

Indeed and seems to ignore the fact that the majority of people are car drivers and want to use their car

 

[cactustwirly]

Fair enough, I stand corrected.... but the point is that drivers are not buying the right to use the road. They are paying a tax on their vehicle, and not the road.

This invalidates the argument that "pedestrians/cyclists shouldn't get road infrastructure provided for them because they don't pay vehicle tax"

All parties should be entitled to access to the road.
It's very frustrating for me as a driver and a cyclist to share the road, ideally cyclist should have a dedicated cycling path, but obviously this isn't possible for all roads.

 

[Ianno87]

Indeed and seems to ignore the fact that the majority of people are car drivers and want to use their car

"Want" and "need" are different things.