Coach double parked against the taxi rank outside the Playhouse this morning. Should be able to grab a still from the camera. Just frankly rude when it's rush hour!
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Bad parking pics?
(127 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
No photo, but happy to report that the bunch of cars that have adopted the pedestrianized two thirds of High Riggs as their free car park were all wearing penalty notices yesterday.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I'm not sure the designers of the apartments intended* this to happen.
And I'm sure Historic Enviro Scotland wouldn't be impressed at parking on top of an historic monument.
And why aren't the traffic wardens who 'live' round the corner doing anything?
South side of canal, nr Leamington Bridge:
*Perhaps the designers intended it all along? Maybe they thought, "We'll make a nice CGI mock up of these flats with lots of pedestrians, cyclists, trees and sunbathers using the canal-side. That way we won't get any awkward objections to the plans about parking. But we know all along that the residents will use the canal side as a parking area. And free parking is what we want. Job done."
Posted 8 years ago # -
"And why aren't the traffic wardens who 'live' round the corner doing anything?"
I suspect they can't because the cars aren't actually parked on the double yellows, and (guessing) the 'pavement' they are parked on is actually private property.
Which all ties in with wondering if it's what the developers intended...
Posted 8 years ago # -
I thought that yellow lines still applied to the pavement (or maybe that was for double parking?)
I have certainly seen a warden ticketing cars parked 'on' a single yellow, but fully on the pavement, at the new Bainfield student residences.
Also of note, the kerb is not dropped in photos 3 & 4, so access by vehicles at that location was not intended (whereas in 1 & 2 the kerb is flush/non-existent).
Posted 8 years ago # -
I'm going to stick my neck out (and I suspect someone will prove me wrong), but....
Is it a normal warden or blue meanie ticketing the cars on the pavements at the uni residences? If a normal warden I suspect the ticket is for parking on the pavement, rather than anything to do with the line; if a meanie I don't think they have the power to issue tickets there. If it's private property then it may be that the warden is employed by the company that owns the land and was ticketing on their say-so.
On the private property point, if there isn't a sign saying you may be charged (and specifically charged, not fined, if you say 'fined' then the sign may be void and any fine knocked out the ballpark) then the private landowner couldn't issue tickets. Plus, as it is on private land the wardens can't do anything.
I genuinely think that's what has happened here. The land beyond the lines is private (the size of the kerbing is irrelevant) and the double yellows only apply to the road itself, not the land beyond it (for instance if someone has a private driveway which has double yellows running across it, parking on the private driveway could not be ticketed - there's no real difference here).
Thinking on this particular spot, as I used to work nearby and sometimes stopped to sit by the canal there with my lunch, did there not used to be chains up separating the road from the non-road? I must have some old photos...
Posted 8 years ago # -
Are these the areas that are marked as car parks on Openstreetmap ( http://osm.org/go/evfKfzUKg )?
I have to admit in this specific example I'm not sure what to think, though I don't know the location very well.
Yes, on a fundamental level there are double yellow lines and the developers glossy brochures showed them as pedestrian space, so it's another example where drivers just ignore everything and plonk their machines into any space that's free.
But, who else would actually use these spaces? As far as I can see, these spaces are not connected to anything, and Rope Walk is closed at the end (?). So where would all the "lots of pedestrians, cyclists, trees and sunbathers using the canal-side" actually come from? Presumably only the residents in the flats? But these are their cars, so it's really up to the residents to decide how they use this space?
Or am I missing something here?
Posted 8 years ago # -
How does this tie in with planning permission? Presumably part of the permission was that there would be a maximum of x car parking spaces. If residents then chose to park wherever they want on the property does the council have any recourse? In which case it makes the whole parking restrictions thing pointless as a developer can just include a big grassy area and then let residents work it out for themselves.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@Stickman Good point. Although I doubt if the council would do anything in a location like this where doesn't seem to be much demand, considering that the Council doesn't even check that school buildings don't suddenly collapse.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"If residents then chose to park wherever they want on the property does the council have any recourse? "
I'm going to say 'no', with the answer being in the question. Residents are choosing to park where they like. The developer can easily say it provided actual parking spaces in line with its permission.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@WC
The warden I saw at Bainfield was a regular warden (I don't think blue meanies still exist(?)). He was ticketing cars fully on the pavement on a single yellow on public land (I think). He was also looking at (but possibly not ticketing) other cars on fully on the pavement but within a set of metal studs, possibly indicating private land.
@Stephan
Yes, it is those areas marked as 'car parking' on OSM. OSM could be wrong though (or even edited by the flat owners with wishful thinking).
What strikes me as strange is that these 'spaces' are basically a free and unrestricted car park in a permit-holder zone. Anyone can park there. There is even a logo-ed "Angle Park Motors" car parked there constantly - and they are almost certainly not owners or visitors to the flats.
Posted 8 years ago # -
If the council has no recourse on public land what recourse would a fellow flat owner have if fellow residents/owners in their block parked on the landscaped spaces rather than on the roadway?
Posted 8 years ago # -
That would presumably be governed by their title deeds. Certain rights will be given, e.g.. common access, but there may also be conditions set on such access which prohibits parking. A case could be brought under 'nuisance' if another owner breached their title deeds or caused undue irritation to other owners.
Posted 8 years ago # -
How long before a car ends up in the drink? That would be ... a shame
Posted 8 years ago # -
It does seem now, in this country, that people feel they have an absolute right to park their car anywhere in the public realm that is not expicitly forbidden. This can't go on for ever.
I noticed when following up on another thread (bike parking outside stations iirc) that in Japan, you can't own a car in the city unless you can show that you have a designated off-road parking space and a permit. A bit of that here would be good.
Posted 8 years ago # -
All the rope walk Townhouses are actually let out as short stay apartments: http://www.staycity.com/edinburgh/townhouses/ I'm guessing that most of the parked cars are people staying there?
I note that on OpenStreetMap the parking was mapped via survey/Aerial imagery. Given that seems to be the common use, I can't really disagree...
Posted 8 years ago # -
ih;
"an absolute right to park their car anywhere in the public realm that is not explicitly forbidden"That is indeed the way the law stands.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Klaxon
'"an absolute right to park their car anywhere in the public realm that is not explicitly forbidden"
That is indeed the way the law stands.'
My comment wasn't so much about the legal position, but more about the perception that people have that there exists a right to park anywhere, irrespective of the nuisance caused. There are many discussions on this forum about double parking, pavement parking, parking in advisory lanes, blocking access (which this example probably falls into), all of which may be "legal" at the moment, but which in general "we" think are not a good thing. In my limited memory, there was a time when parking was more considerate of others. Clearly the increase in car ownership is the main factor in creating this nuisance but additionally people's "couldn't care less" attitude plays a part, as exemplified by the double parker who is only a few metres from a kerbside space. I believe over time that there will be fewer cars (in towns and cities) and social behaviour will improve, but I'm not holding my breath and things may have to get a lot worse before they get better.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"'anywhere in the public realm that is not explicitly forbidden' That is indeed the way the law stands."
Is this true for all objects, or do cars have a privileged legal status that allows them to be left everywhere?
If I have a sofa that I don't want in my living room, can I park it on the public road? I don't see any signs "No sofas allowed", so it must be ok.
Posted 8 years ago # -
That's flytipping.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Is surely true for all things full stop?
If something isn't forbidden by law then it must by definition be legal?
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I've always understood that to be the difference between the the way the law works in the UK and, say, France.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@Wilmington's Cow: Why is leaving a sofa "flytipping" but leaving a car in the same place legal?
Posted 8 years ago # -
I've had this discussion a few times when people say that we can't limit parking in public spaces as people *must have* somewhere to park their car, as if it's a basic human right.
So far, no one has satisfactorily answered the question of what is special about a car compared with say a shed, or a canoe, or @Stephan's sofa, that means it's not just OK to leave it lying around, but that the council are somehow duty bound to provide you with some public space in which to leave it lying around, *for free*.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@ih
"It does seem now, in this country, that people feel they have an absolute right to park their car anywhere in the public realm that is not expicitly forbidden."
According to a conversation I had with the police last week about a car blocking a pavement, it's ok for cars to park on pavements.
The one exception to this is that, if they're blocking a driveway - and there's a car in the driveway - then that's illegal.
So, basically...
* Pavements are primarily for cars to park on, but can be used by pedestrians when no driver wants the space.
* Bike lanes are primarily for cars to park in, but can be used by cyclists when no-one wants to park there.
* Roads - you can park at the side of roads, but you can't block roads because moving cars need them.
So, in Scotland's insane game of transport top trumps, cars beat bikes and pedestrians, and moving vehicles beat stationary vehicles.
Posted 8 years ago # -
It is perfectly legal to park on a pavement. It's illegal to drive upon it. Yeah. The law is that daft around that.
"So far, no one has satisfactorily answered the question of what is special about a car compared with say a shed, or a canoe, or @Stephan's sofa, that means it's not just OK to leave it lying around, but that the council are somehow duty bound to provide you with some public space in which to leave it lying around, *for free*."
Because as far as I'm aware no-one takes a sofa to a place, leaves it, then comes back and moves it later. A car is left, then removed. A sofa is left and... left. If a car is left and left then it is abandoned and the police put 'Police Aware' stickers on.
Leaving a car parked to go back to later, and leaving a sofa in the same place, are completely different. Apple and pears.
And I suspect if you left a sofa, then came back to find someone about to remove it, and you argued it was your sofa and you'd just come back for it to take it home again, then you'd be left to do that (perhaps with a stern look of course). Also, in order to determine if a car has been abandoned or not they've got those handy registration plates for the police to try and locate the owner. Maybe the solution is to have to register sofas?
(I'm not saying it's right that people should park wherever they want - it's not,a nd it winds me up something rotten, but this is a conversation about an entirely falsely created equivalence that doesn't exist).
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Because as far as I'm aware no-one takes a sofa to a place, leaves it, then comes back and moves it later."
One rule for the banks, another for everyone else.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@WC
"It is perfectly legal to park on a pavement. It's illegal to drive upon it."
Which is why it's so common to see drivers lift up their cars and place them on the pavement.
It's the only way to park on a pavement without breaking the law.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@gibbo thanks, that just about sums up the position of biker and walker.
Not sure about your 'moving' versus 'stationary' cars hierarchy though. I think parkers are at the top. Most residential roads are now so narrowed by big fat cars on both sides that there's insufficient room for cars to pass in the middle. This incidentally is a key fault of quietways; the road is so contricted that you are intimidated by cars trying to get past whilst riding to avoid the door zone on the left.
Posted 8 years ago # -
What if I attach wheels to my sofa and move it across the road from time to time?
Posted 8 years ago # -
@TheBoy "If something isn't forbidden by law then it must by definition be legal? ... difference between the the way the law works in the UK and, say, France."
I don't know France and I'm also not a lawyer, but for Germany there is some truth in that. Or perhaps it's more that we have codified law that generally starts with some general principle what's allowed and what isn't, and then goes on to more specific issues, whereas in the UK the first, general bit often isn't written up explicitly.
While the UK highwaycode is just a collection of various recommendations, some coming from individual laws, others that somebody found useful but are not law. In Germany, we don't have such a thing, instead the traffic code is one big (mostly) consistent regulation (StVO for "Straßenverkehrsordnung") with all rules having the same legal status.
The StVO starts with rule 1: "Participation in traffic requires being careful and mutual respect at all times. Everybody has to behave in a way that nobody else is injured, endangered, or - more than is unavoidable in the circumstances - obstructed or inconvenienced." (we had to memorise this for the driving license...). This rule is a catchall that applies to really everyone, whether in a car, on bike or on foot.
Then one of the next rules says something like "vehicles have to use the carriageway" ("vehicles" means everything on wheels, inc bicycles) which implies that you're not allowed to drive on pavements or offroads. Then later rules specify that you can e.g. park on pavements when there is a sign permitting it and similar situations.
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
