http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Transport Bill / Pavement Parking en Tue, 19 May 2026 05:26:00 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=3#post-315860 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:03:54 +0000 Rosie 315860@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Radio 4's In Touch is going to cover pavement parking at 8:40. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=3#post-315841 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 15:49:04 +0000 threefromleith 315841@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I always think that if they're allowed to park on the pavement, we should be given the same privilege and be able to set up 3-seater sofa and two armchairs in the middle of the road and sit there for a few hours.</p> <p>I can't imagine we'll be supported with the same enthusiasm by those who're keen to label anyone who complains about pavement parking and pavement obstruction as 'snowflakes' who need to 'get a life' because it's 'not causing any problems, is it?' ;-) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=3#post-315833 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:53:23 +0000 ejstubbs 315833@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Chap I met in the pub on Friday evening was moaning that "we're not even allowed to park on the pavement any more" as if it was truly and without doubt the stupidest idea anyone had ever had. It's going to take more than a new law to get people to change their opinions and behaviour, although some enforcement (when it comes in to force) would be a start. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=3#post-315831 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:30:50 +0000 jonty 315831@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Not sure on footway status of prom but the bill hasn't received royal ascent, and the provisions about pavement parking probably don't come in for a while to give councils time to set up enforcement and consider exemptions.</p> <p>Enforcement is decriminalised so after that it will be a matter for parking attendants. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=3#post-315826 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 13:50:17 +0000 EdinburghCycleCam 315826@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Anyone know if this extends to Portobello Prom? The dog walkers are back ignoring the signs.</p> <p>If so, does this mean that them parking there is now a police matter? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=3#post-315813 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:57:31 +0000 dessert rat 315813@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48902270678_b46c796f29.jpg"> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=3#post-315812 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:49:16 +0000 I were right about that saddle 315812@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There is a lady up our road uses an electric wheelchair and there were 4x4 vehicles parked on the pavement either side of her house this morning. She could only leave the house by wheeling in the road. This is a street where people still know each other to some extent. Everyone knows she lives there.</p> <p>The problem is that no one gives a flying fox and no legislation is going to fix that, even if it were to be enforced. </p> <p>People will only behave reasonably if reasonable behaviour is widespread and advantageous. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=3#post-315806 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:27:08 +0000 jonty 315806@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Driving on the pavement is illegal too but pavement loading is now legal for 20 minutes, so they've had cognitive dissonance practice already. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=3#post-315801 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 10:58:45 +0000 Frenchy 315801@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Catching up on some some of this this morning.</p> <p>Apparently there was a technical error in the drafting of amendment 175, so it wasn't moved. I'm afraid don't understand what exactly the effect of passing amendment 174 but not 175 is.</p> <p>The reasons the Transport Secretary gave during the debate for opposing reinstating the explicit ban on parking in mandatory cycle lanes were (paraphrased):</p> <p>1. A new criminal offence contradicts Scottish Government policy to decriminalise parking enforcement.</p> <p>2. There are mandatory cycle lanes where loading is required at certain times of the day for access to shops.</p> <p>3. There would be nothing to stop a local authority introducing a mandatory cycle lane on any residential street without any form of consultation with the residents.</p> <p>None of which addresses the point that <em>driving in mandatory cycle lanes</em> is illegal, so it's impossible to park in them legally anyway. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=3#post-315642 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 16:04:16 +0000 Morningsider 315642@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@toomanybikes - too late for Roseburn, I'm afraid. Likely to be at least 18 months before any changes come into force. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=3#post-315641 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 15:53:37 +0000 toomanybikes 315641@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@morningsider</p> <p>Awesome. My knowledge of these things is pretty limited. 175 must have been a different amendment that wasn't moved then? </p> <p>Does this mean Ministers can now override the process of ongoing complaints at Roseburn? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=3#post-315633 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:20:53 +0000 Morningsider 315633@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@toomanybikes - It made it through, see Section 70ZA (Page 117) of the Bill as passed:</p> <p><a href="https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Bills/Transport%20(Scotland)%20Bill/SPBill33BS052019.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Bills/Transport%20(Scotland)%20Bill/SPBill33BS052019.pdf</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315632 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:17:41 +0000 jonty 315632@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'm pretty sure the TRO/RSO review did pass but can't find any proof. Spokes' social media seemed excited about it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315627 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:38:53 +0000 neddie 315627@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@acsimpson</p> <p><em>Businesses who start to charge their employees for the privilege of parking in the office car park will essentially be giving their staff a pay cut</em></p> <p>I would turn this statement around to:</p> <p><em>Businesses who don't charge their employees for the privilege of parking in the office car park are essentially giving their non-driving staff a pay cut</em> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315625 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:34:20 +0000 neddie 315625@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I resent the fact that people that drive to my work are given a parking space worth ~£1000 p.a., whereas people that don't take a space get nothing.</p> <p>It amounts to a thousand-pound tax-free salary increase to those who poison our kids and heat the planet. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315621 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:17:09 +0000 acsimpson 315621@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@unhurt, I don't think there is any regulations about charging staff to park either existing or as part of this bill.</p> <p>Would it be legal for employers to charge for parking on a salary sacrifice basis? Doing so could reduce the employees tax and NI liability. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315618 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:02:41 +0000 acsimpson 315618@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Morningsider, That sounds positive. (<em>Edit: or maybe not if @toomanybikes is correct)</em></p> <p>as @MediumDave says and most of the commentary seems to ignore is that this is a charge to the business not the employees. As far as I know businesses are free to charge their employees to park at the moment and this law doesn't change that.</p> <p>Businesses who start to charge their employees for the privilege of parking in the office car park will essentially be giving their staff a pay cut, whether they use their new costs as an excuse or not. While higher paid workers may take this on the chin it seems plausible that such companies will be less competitive in the recruitment marker than companies who don't charge.</p> <p>I wonder how many firms with more than 10 parking spaces actually employee cleaners directly. I can't see many companies getting away with charging their suppliers to park on site without it affecting how much they pay. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315617 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:01:54 +0000 toomanybikes 315617@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@morningsider</p> <p>I think that was amendment 175, which wasn't moved on as far as I can tell. So I think it's dead. </p> <p><a href="https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Bills/Transport%20(Scotland)%20Bill/SPBill33AMLS052019.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Bills/Transport%20(Scotland)%20Bill/SPBill33AMLS052019.pdf</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.parliament.scot/S5_BusinessTeam/Chamber_Minutes_20191010.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.parliament.scot/S5_BusinessTeam/Chamber_Minutes_20191010.pdf</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315616 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:00:18 +0000 unhurt 315616@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Actually, I was wondering if employers choosing to pass the cost on to staff could scale it by pay band or similar! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315614 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:28:06 +0000 MediumDave 315614@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@unhurt Also, the WPL is charged to the employer. It's up to the employer how, or even if, they pass on the cost of the levy to employees.</p> <p>I believe in Nottingham the council charges % of salary rather than a flat rate in order to make the levy more progressive. Somewhat dubious source here:</p> <p><a href="https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/teachers-city-council-workers-pay-2487236" rel="nofollow">https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/teachers-city-council-workers-pay-2487236</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315609 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:42:49 +0000 Morningsider 315609@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>One thing that has slipped under the radar. An amendment by John Finnie that was agreed allows Scottish Ministers to introduce new regulations setting out how Redetermination Orders are handled. This could do away with some of the delay to new cycle infrastructure. Hardly revolutionary, but one to press the Scottish Government on for speedy progress. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315606 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:21:03 +0000 I were right about that saddle 315606@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I know an elected representative of the Scottish Labour party and they are charming and intelligent but also about as far from being a socialist as you can get without drifting into ethnic nationalism. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315605 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:09:06 +0000 Frenchy 315605@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>...is it weird to expect a socialist party to have a better analysis of this situation? </em></p> <p>No. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315604 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:02:52 +0000 unhurt 315604@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Their argument against WPL is that the better paid boss with his Range Rover will pay the same to park as a cleaner with a modest rustbucket.</em></p> <p>But this applies to EVERYTHING if it's same-for-same. A pay &amp; display space on the street, a bus ticket, gas for central heating, a packet of crisps, a cinema ticket, a set of spanners. It's almost as if the problem here is actually that some people are paid a pittance and there's massive and growing income inequality. </p> <p>...is it weird to expect a socialist party to have a better analysis of this situation? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315594 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:38:42 +0000 I were right about that saddle 315594@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Let us not concern ourselves with the Daily Mail. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315592 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:24:53 +0000 Morningsider 315592@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I suppose "Scots law brought into line with that in England" wouldn't sell as many papers. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315581 Thu, 10 Oct 2019 21:30:54 +0000 chdot 315581@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48877417837_bf24ac6b2d_z.jpg"> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315567 Thu, 10 Oct 2019 17:33:18 +0000 stiltskin 315567@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>The problem with applying socialism to motoring is that this whole mode of transport is sold on status and being 'one up' on the car behind (perhaps?). </em><br /> I would say that the problem is that applying a 'carrot' to motoring problems normally fails to benefit the individual as much as they think motoring does. Direct legislation (ie banning) runs foul of politicians fear of the War on the Motorist. That really only leaves the 'stick' which will affect poorer households more than others, but something has to be done, and the less affluent are equally guilty of generating the problems that unhindered car use produces. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315566 Thu, 10 Oct 2019 17:15:51 +0000 LaidBack 315566@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Labour very unhappy that the WPL went through - although was their policy for a while.</p> <p>Their argument against WPL is that the better paid boss with his Range Rover will pay the same to park as a cleaner with a modest rustbucket. </p> <p>Labour could also say that the fuel for the rich costs the same as the less well off. WPL is only one aspect of the package and will not be applied everywhere - think it is a good thing where vehicles are being driven on limited street space to sit idle for 8 hours.</p> <p>The problem with applying socialism to motoring is that this whole mode of transport is sold on status and being 'one up' on the car behind (perhaps?). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18954&page=2#post-315557 Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:53:51 +0000 jonty 315557@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I don't know if the whole act has been passed yet (although it almost certainly will be) but all the wrecking amendments were rejected.</p> <p><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49991051" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49991051</a></p> <p>With Green support, and the SNP committed to support it as part of the budget deal, the WPL not making it to law was extremely unlikely from the start. Which is why Labour and the Tories felt emboldened to make political capital out of futile opposition. </p>