Edinburgh to be first Scottish city to ban pavement parking

[yorkie]

Edinburgh to be first Scottish city to ban pavement parking

From January, drivers in Edinburgh who park on the kerb face a £100 fine under plans by the council.

www.bbc.co.uk

Edinburgh is set to become the first city in Scotland to completely ban cars from parking on the pavement.

Under plans drawn up by the city council, drivers who mount the kerb will face a £100 fine.

Across the UK, parking on the pavement is only currently illegal in London, although police can take action if a driver is causing an obstruction.

This is good news; I wish more places would do this!

 

[Peterthegreat]

Edinburgh to be first Scottish city to ban pavement parking

From January, drivers in Edinburgh who park on the kerb face a £100 fine under plans by the council.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is good news; I wish more places would do this!

Me too. Even in small towns/villages it can be a serious issue.

 

[AM9]

Me too. Even in small towns/villages it can be a serious issue.

I wonder if there will be a chorus of whining motorists claiming that it will cause "chaos".

 

[Buzby]

As it’s not a Police matter, I’m sure I see this as the Council using fines to simply bolster their creaking finances as they’ve yet to follow Glasgow down the LEZ pathway (Unlike London, there’s no daily fee - just a fine).

 

[Peterthegreat]

I wonder if there will be a chorus of whining motorists claiming that it will cause "chaos".

And Rishi Sunak will bring in a act to prevent councils doing it!

 

[computerSaysNo]

Edinburgh to be first Scottish city to ban pavement parking

From January, drivers in Edinburgh who park on the kerb face a £100 fine under plans by the council.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is good news; I wish more places would do this!

This is good but I've read that (1) there will be no new enforcement officers for this so the duty will fall on the very limited number currently employed, and (2) enforcement officers will only be able to do anything if the vehicle is there for over 15 minutes and they're not going to stand around watching each vehicle for 15 minutes so it relies on them circling back around and remembering all the vehicles they saw during the first pass.

 

[yorkie]

This is good but I've read that (1) there will be no new enforcement officers for this so the duty will fall on the very limited number currently employed, and (2) enforcement officers will only be able to do anything if the vehicle is there for over 15 minutes and they're not going to stand around watching each vehicle for 15 minutes so it relies on them circling back around and remembering all the vehicles they saw during the first pass.

Clearly some effort needs to go into enforcement; it should pay for itself if done properly.

 

[Enthusiast]

It's been illegal in London for years. You never see a vehicle parked on the pavement there!

 

[yorkie]

It's been illegal in London for years. You never see a vehicle parked on the pavement there!

There needs to be more enforcement, but it's certainly less of an issue in London than elsewhere.

 

[Ediswan]

On some London streets which have a wide pavement, pavement parking is explicitly permitted. Does the Edinburgh plan allow for this ?

 

[Buzby]

On some London streets which have a wide pavement, pavement parking is explicitly permitted. Does the Edinburgh plan allow for this ?

Too early to tell - they talk of parking ‘on the kerb’. The issue isn’t wide pavements but private property, the fact a building frontage may stretch to reach a standard-sized pavement and the owner fully justified in parking on his land. From memory, very few areas of EH have this, but you can be sure where this does exist and tickets issued, the landowners will be challenging each and every ticket issued to them.

 

[Joe Paxton]

It's been illegal in London for years. You never see a vehicle parked on the pavement there!

It's not a common sight in London... saying that I can think of one narrow but busy street in a residential area where it seems to be accepted practice, and there's no official exemption.

Generally speaking I regard parking on the pavement as something that's anti-social and should be avoided - however I do remember parking a car somewhere (outside of London) and later coming back to see, from a distance, a fire engine slowly creeping past it... and when I got to it I found they'd left a (generic) flyer advising against inconsiderate parking on my windscreen! It was at a spot on a small road near to the entrance to a private back lane which leads on to a few other houses. A passerby did tell me the fire brigade were not attending an fire or 'blue light' emergency, but it certainly made me think more holistically about where and how I park. (Just to note it was a smaller car, not a Chelsea tractor!)

 

[Ken X]

On some London streets which have a wide pavement, pavement parking is explicitly permitted. Does the Edinburgh plan allow for this ?

Definitely the case on one road in the Raynes Park area. The dashed white lines denoting the parking areas were half on the road and half on the pavement. Not been there recently though.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Definitely the case on one road in the Raynes Park area. The dashed white lines denoting the parking areas were half on the road and half on the pavement. Not been there recently though.

This is how the exemption is implemented across Greater London - dashed white lines along with signage.

Info from London Councils:
www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/parking-services/parking-and-traffic/parking-advice-members-public/footway-parking

 

[Falcon1200]

Pavement parking is endemic round where I live, and often it is completely pointless; It's either on a quiet cul-de-sac where parking fully on the road would obstruct nothing, or on a through road the pavement-parked vehicles still do not leave enough room for two others to pass simultaneously. Having said that, it is not a major issue for me, except where they have parked so far on the pavement that people are forced onto the road to get past, that is where enforcement should be targeted.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I wonder if there will be a chorus of whining motorists claiming that it will cause "chaos".

Simples - will cause chaos around my area when we all park on the road !.

It's been illegal in London for years. You never see a vehicle parked on the pavement there!

+ yep nothing new here.

On some London streets which have a wide pavement, pavement parking is explicitly permitted. Does the Edinburgh plan allow for this ?

Narrow roads in Croydon and elsewhere end up with marked bays covering part of the pavement.

Definitely the case on one road in the Raynes Park area. The dashed white lines denoting the parking areas were half on the road and half on the pavement. Not been there recently though.

An example of that is Bensham Lane (not rural at all) in the North of Croydon - a bus route. Could get rid of the buses I suppose !.

Pavement parking is endemic round where I live, and often it is completely pointless; It's either on a quiet cul-de-sac where parking fully on the road would obstruct nothing, or on a through road the pavement-parked vehicles still do not leave enough room for two others to pass simultaneously. Having said that, it is not a major issue for me, except where they have parked so far on the pavement that people are forced onto the road to get past, that is where enforcement should be targeted.

A balanced view. We have become (over) dependent on the car and there is not enough space to park them. Something the planners don't think about when they allow out of town shopping.

I got fed up with my wing mirror getting knocked off. We have a theory it is when fellow motorists lose control on the speed bump by us - certain fellow motorists go rather too fast and lose control.

The pavements around our area are reasonably wide and I never park further onto the pavement than the trees use. If the council want to enforce keeping the rest of the pavements clear then they can cut down the trees (sadly I suspect they would). In fact trees in our borough are not getting pruned and there are places we have to walk on the road because of the trees. These are mainly young branches growing out from the lower part of the trunk - left for three years it seems !.

Simple problem is there are too many of us on the planet.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Another one of Edinburgh council's classic, anti motorist, policies but one that I happen to agree with. More than can be said for some of the others which are or worse simply designed to cause maximum inconvenience, but for someone like myself pavement parking is a huge hazard and indeed a huge problem and very prevalent in the street that I now live in and so yes I'm all on board with it but looks as if they have cheaped out on the enforcement side which could well come back to bite them

 

[AM9]

Simples - will cause chaos around my area when we all park on the road !.

Only by those that forget, (or ignore) the rules on not obstructing the highway). A few interventions from police/traffic wardens will help the learning process.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Only by those that forget, (or ignore) the rules on not obstructing the highway). A few interventions from police/traffic wardens will help the learning process.

Not sure where they will then park, up a tree ?.

I can see a few less constructive things happening. But it is probably why the council don't enforce round here. No point making enemies, especially as no one leaves too little room on the pavement.

 

[AM9]

Not sure where they will then park, up a tree ?.

I can see a few less constructive things happening. But it is probably why the council don't enforce round here. No point making enemies.

That's the problem for the driver, - ultimately a lifestyle decision. Drivers undertake to obey the laws and rules of the road, - those that don't are liable to be prosecuted. I doubt that a court would say: "well that's OK because you are excused because you couldn't find a legitimate place to park".

 

[Peter Sarf]

That's the problem for the driver, - ultimately a lifestyle decision. Drivers undertake to obey the laws and rules of the road, - those that don't are liable to be prosecuted. I doubt that a court would say: "well that's OK because you are excused because you couldn't find a legitimate place to park".

Yeah just shove the problem on the driver, they are only human after all.

My argument is that the pavement can be a legitimate place to park provided there is enough room left on the pavement. Outside where I live, if it is not considered enough, then the trees will need to be removed as well as the cars. Oh and fine the council for leaving the wheely bins in groups on the pavement - they do block the pavement even badly enough for pedestrians let alone wheelchairs !.

I would prefer to see more policies and procedures that reduce the need for so many cars - as opposed to forcing a reduction in so many cars. Did I mention out of town shopping ?.

 

[AM9]

Yeah just shove the problem on the driver.

The driver who wilfully breaks the law is the problem.

 

[yorkie]

Yeah just shove the problem on the driver, they are only human after all.

I would prefer to see more policies and procedures that reduce the need for so many cars - as opposed to forcing a reduction in so many cars. Did I mention out of town shopping ?.

These are not good excuses; it's entirely a lifestyle choice.

And yes, why shouldn't it be the car owners problem? Whose problem should it be?

 

[Peter Sarf]

These are not good excuses; it's entirely a lifestyle choice.

And yes, why shouldn't it be the car owners problem? Whose problem should it be?

I think it is every ones problem. That way a solution might be arrived at rather than just pushing one section of society around.

And it is not my choice that more and more of the shops are out of town. Granted it is the choice of others to use out of town shops (including car drivers). If they did not then the centre of Croydon would still have shops (Sainsburys just gone) and busses that serve the centre rather than skirting it.

In the UK we are still re-enforcing the need for cars sadly.

 

[yorkie]

I think it is every ones problem. That way a solution might be arrived at rather than just pushing one section of society around.

Why should I pay for other people to own cars?

And it is not my choice that more and more of he shops are out of town.

There's no requirement for anyone to shop at them.

 

[AM9]

I think it is every ones problem. That way a solution might be arrived at rather than just pushing one section of society around.

And it is not my choice that more and more of he shops are out of town.

It's the driver's choice where they want to park, where they drive to and from and whether they have a car at all. If I lived in an area where parking legally was that difficult, then I have two choices:

1) give up the car and use other means​

2) move to somewhere where parking was possible​

It isn't the world's obligation to move out of my way for my convenience.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Why should I pay for other people to own cars?

There's no requirement for anyone to shop at them.

Sadly, in more recent years, the shopping in central Croydon has dwindled. I walk into central Croydon but sometimes use a bus back if heavily loaded. But there really is very little there now so the out of town shops are essential.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==

It's the driver's choice where they want to park, where they drive to and from and whether they have a car at all. If I lived in an area where parking legally was that difficult, then I have two choices:

1) give up the car and use other means​

2) move to somewhere where parking was possible​

It isn't the world's obligation to move out of my way for my convenience.

It's two sided. Why not make cars less necessary ?.

 

[yorkie]

Sadly, in more recent years, the shopping in central Croydon has dwindled. I walk into central Croydon but sometimes use a bus back if heavily loaded. But there really is very little there now so the out of town shops are essential.

If they are essential, everyone uses them; I am sure many people in Croydon don't own cars, so presumably they can still get there, so what's the issue?

(Or maybe they aren't essential?)

I don't see how any of this negates the fact that cars shouldn't be parked on the pavement; it's just car-centric excuses which don't wash.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==

It's two sided. Why not make cars less necessary ?.

What are cars necessary for, and is car ownership in Croydon really 100% of the population?

 

[Peter Sarf]

If they are essential, everyone uses them; I am sure many people in Croydon don't own cars, so presumably they can still get there, so what's the issue?

(Or maybe they aren't essential?)

Not sure how many do not have cars. I have heard comments that they lose out. So they cannot get to the larger, cheaper supermarkets. I see some come home in a taxi btw. We have the option of going to Bromley by bus (about one hour).

The idea would be to have the shops and other essential services at the same node that all the public transport passes through - the town centre.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==

I don't see how any of this negates the fact that cars shouldn't be parked on the pavement; it's just car-centric excuses which don't wash.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==


What are cars necessary for, and is car ownership in Croydon really 100% of the population?

Ideally they should not need to. But that problem should have been prevented a decade or more ago by understanding one of the reasons people have cars. It is not just an "essential" or "luxury". We are now at the stage where car owners do not have an alternative place to park. In the 19 years I have lived with my GF at the current place we have watched the road fill up. There used to be only one car (well a large van) on the opposite side to us.

For greater Croydon car ownership is quite high. For those living nearer the centre it is less but they are now at a disadvantage. It is those of us who live in the denser populated parts that are now struggling.

From my point of view I use my car as little as possible but it still needs somewhere to park even if I am not using it. And bear in mind we are not taking more of the width of the pavement than the trees do so the pavements are quite wide.

 

[AM9]

Not sure how many do not have cars. I have heard comments that they lose out. So they cannot get to the larger, cheaper supermarkets. I see some come home in a taxi btw. We have the option of going to Bromley by bus (about one hour).

The idea would be to have the shops and other essential services at the same node that all the public transport passes through - the town centre.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==


Ideally they should not need to. But that problem should have been prevented a decade or more ago by understanding one of the reasons people have cars. It is not just an "essential" or "luxury". We are now at the stage where car owners do not have an alternative place to park. In the 19 years I have lived with my GF at the current place we have watched the road fill up. There used to be only one car (well a large van) on the opposite side to us.

For greater Croydon car ownership is quite high. For those living nearer the centre it is less but they are now at a disadvantage. It is those of us who live in the denser populated parts that are now struggling.

From my point of view I use my car as little as possible but it still needs somewhere to park even if I am not using it. And bear in mind we are not taking more of the width of the pavement than the trees do so the pavements are quite wide.

Saying "

But that problem should have been prevented a decade or more ago"

Is just claiming that any decisions made a decade or more ago are permanent, and (in this case) pedestrians will just have to lump it having drivers of road vehicles parking on the footpath for their convenience (forever).