CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Pavement parking - another consultation.... (and implementation)

(224 posts)

No tags yet.


1234…8

  1. acsimpson
    Member

    There is always likely to be a certain amount of selection bias in any consultation. However I wonder if the blight is caused by a small minority of otherwise non-law abiding DGAFs. Once one of them dumps their private property on the pavement and nothing happens the OLAs quickly follow. Some/many/most of who would rather a level playing field where everyone has to park considerately.

    I realise it's a completely different level of inhumanity but I'm reminded of stories coming from SA after apartheid was abolished. Beforehand most of the whites knew deep down that it was wrong but the risks of speaking out were huge. This meant that post abolition support for apartheid disappeared almost overnight.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  2. gibbo
    Member

    @wicgf

    It seems to have been getting spoken about for years with the only result being - lets have another consultation.

    IMO, it's yet another example of Scot Gov talking a good game, but when it comes to the moment for action, choosing stalling tactics instead.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  3. neddie
    Member

    @crowriver

    The document summary is misleading as it fails to mention certain "negative" points e.g. Question 6:

    Do you think there should be exemptions applied to allow pavement parking to take place, particularly due to local concerns about access for vehicles and lack of alternative parking provision?

    Approximately 72% of these respondents (288) thought that there should be exemptions applied to allow pavement parking to take place, particularly due to local concerns about access for vehicles and lack of alternative parking provision.

    So 3/4 of respondents want loads of exemptions to enable more & more parking!

    Like I say, if they follow "the will of the people", they'll end up with a law so weak as to be useless.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  4. neddie
    Member

    Interesting that 31% of respondents think that pavement parking should be allowed where the pavement is already "exceptionally wide". Except that where pavements have been made exceptionally wide, it is usually for good reason, i.e. very high footfall.

    Parking on the shop-side Princes St pavement anyone?

    And surely any pavement with a segregated cycleway on it could be considered "exceptionally wide"?

    pavement parking exemptions by Ed, on Flickr

    Posted 6 years ago #

  5. Stickman
    Member

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/pavement-parking-to-be-banned-in-scotland-under-transport-bill-1-4752439

    "
    “Beyond bus services, this Bill will allow for decriminalised enforcement of low emission zones, double parking and parking on pavements.

    “This will help transform our towns and cities into cleaner, more accessible and more pleasant spaces to travel and enjoy. By strengthening the technology and governance which underpins smart ticketing, people will be able to move between our cities with greater ease and convenience."

    Posted 6 years ago #

  6. wishicouldgofaster
    Member

    At least things appear to be finally moving - was it not proposed about 6 years ago?!

    Posted 6 years ago #

  7. jonty
    Member

    https://www.transport.gov.scot/transport-scotland-bill/parking-and-the-transport-scotland-bill/

    "The Bill provides exceptions to certain vehicles if they are involved in emergencies or delivering goods"

    sigh

    Posted 6 years ago #

  8. Stickman
    Member

    Full bill here:

    http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/108683.aspx

    "The parking prohibitions do not apply where—
    (a)
    (b)
    the motor vehicle is, in the course of business—
    (i) being used for the purpose of delivering goods to, or collecting goods from, any premises, or
    (ii) being loaded from or unloaded to any premises,
    the delivery, collection, loading or unloading cannot reasonably be carried out without the vehicle being parked on a pavement or, as the case may be, as mentioned in section 46(1), and

    (c) the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary for the delivery, collection, loading or unloading and in any event for no more than a continuous period of 20 minutes."

    Posted 6 years ago #

  9. jonty
    Member

    Full list of exemptions from the bill (page 61 for full legal wording, including some helpfully vague 'if necessary' stuff.)

      Emergencies

    • for police purposes, including for the purposes of the National Crime Agency
    • for ambulance purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of the Scottish Ambulance Service Board
    • for or in connection with the exercise of any function of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service or Her Majesty's Coastguard
    • for naval, military or air force purposes
    • the motor vehicle is being used by a registered medical practitioner, registered
      nurse or registered midwife for or in connection with the provision of urgent or emergency health care
    • any person saving life or responding to another similar emergency

      Roadworks

    • the undertaking of works in roads
    • cleaning, placing, removing or adjusting by or on behalf of a roads authority of any equipment or structure which is placed on or over a road
    • for the removal of an obstruction to traffic

      Service vehicles

    • the collection of waste by or on behalf of a local authority,
    • postal services
    • delivering/collecting/loading/unloading goods from any premises (for no more than a continuous period of 20 minutes)
    • providing assistance at an accident or breakdown

      Other exemptions

    • where the council has explicitly permitted pavement parking for a street (which can only apply unconditionally at all times)
    • where the motor vehicle is parked wholly within a parking place
    • where the motor vehicle is parked in accordance with permission given by a constable in uniform

    Posted 6 years ago #

  10. Klaxon
    Member

    Isn’t this explicitly legalising the status quo of free for all pavement parking for loading, and not the other way round?

    It’ll do nothing to prevent damage to paving nor make it taboo to ‘just bump wheels up’ to nip into the shops

    Posted 6 years ago #

  11. Trixie
    Member

    That's how I read it, Klaxon. :(

    'Delivering goods' is open to such a wide interpretation that this effectively legalises the vehicles and behaviour that are the actual problem.

    So nothing changes except I can now no longer challenge vehicles blocking and wrecking the FOOTpath. Great.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  12. jonty
    Member

    Isn’t this explicitly legalising the status quo of free for all pavement parking for loading, and not the other way round?

    Not just that - it also permits double parking in these situations as well.

    So given that there appears to be no law against blocking an advisory cycle lane - at least not one that Parking Attendants can enforce - this would make blocking the Leith Walk on-street bike lanes explicitly legal.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  13. crowriver
    Member

    So, wheelchair users, parents with buggies, etc. will be expected to wait for 20 minutes (at least) before they can proceed on the footway? And this will have the full weight of the law behind it?

    Posted 6 years ago #

  14. Frenchy
    Member

    Will completely obstructing the pavement remain illegal (even when loading), as it already is?

    Posted 6 years ago #

  15. jonty
    Member

    I can't find anything in the bill but I assume that:

    • the previous 'obstruction' test will remain
    • but the bill doesn't decriminalise it
    • so it will remain an extremely low priority police matter!

    Worth remembering that this is just the start of the process and Parliament hasn't even touched this bill yet. Get emailing your MSPs so they can put in some amendments to make the bill better. Some suggestions:

    • get rid of the loading exemptions
    • introduce a clear definition of 'obstruction' which overrides all non-emergency exemptions and takes into account street furniture and width of a wheelchair/buggy.
    • introduce a minimum pavement width for council exemptions which takes into account the above (or get rid of this provision entirely given that councils can already redetermine footways as carriageways where necessary)
    • explicitly forbid the blocking of off-road cycle lanes by pavement parking (this may be explicit in the 'footway' wording but it's worth checking)
    • explicitly forbid the blocking of on-road cycle lanes by double parking

    Posted 6 years ago #

  16. gibbo
    Member

    OK, I don't understand legalese.

    (Wasn't there a government commitment to write in plain English?

    So, if you understand 47 2(b), could you explain it to me?

    "The achievement of the purposes, or the exercise of the function, would be likely to be hindered if the vehicle were not parked on a pavement or, as the case may be, as mentioned in section 46(1)."

    Posted 6 years ago #

  17. ih
    Member

    "
    So, if you understand 47 2(b), could you explain it to me?
    "

    It' s worth pointing out that 47.2(b) is ANDed with 47.2(a) which effectively limits this exemption to emergency and military vehicles. As such I'm not enormously bothered by it, although "likely to be hindered" gives them absolutely free rein to say anything is hindering their function, even if they could quite comfortably park round the corner and walk 50 metres to their function.

    47.6 worries me more. It's about loading and is so full of loopholes as to be unenforceable.
    "
    47.6
    The parking prohibitions do not apply where—
    
    (a)

    the motor vehicle is, in the course of business—
    (i) being used for the purpose of delivering goods to, or collecting goods from, any premises, or
    (ii) being loaded from or unloaded to any premises,

    (b)

    the delivery, collection, loading or unloading cannot reasonably be carried out without the vehicle being parked on a pavement or, as the case may be, as mentioned in section 46(1), and

    (c)

    the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary for the delivery, collection, loading or unloading and in any event for no more than a continuous period of 20 minutes.
    "

    Posted 6 years ago #

  18. gibbo
    Member

    Thanks, Ih.

    I was worried it meant that, if you could argue that parking on the road (heaven forbid!) could mean emergency vehicles might not be able to pass, then you could park on the pavement.

    IMO, this is going to be the big test of this bill: The argument that, if you can't park on the pavement, the road will be too narrow for vehicles.

    Of course, the sensible solution would be to ban parking on such streets - or to restrict it to just one side. But I have sero faith the main political parties will go down that route.

    Instead, I reckon they'll side with drivers over pedestians as usual - and say parking is more important than being able to walk down the pavement.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  19. Morningsider
    Member

    Also, the previous Members' Bill proposed a ban on parking in front of dropped kerbs - which is not in this Bill. So, wheelchair users, pram-pushers and the like now get fewer obstructions - just no way of easily crossing most roads.

    Nice to see there are some things you CAN rely on - such as Tory Environment lead Donald Cameron MSP, quoted by the BBC as stating:

    "Motorists already feel like the Scottish government has an anti-car agenda, and some of these proposals would exacerbate that. Any changes must be done with agreement of businesses and people who rely on their car to get around either for work or leisure."

    Obviously a bit too much to expect Donald to look into why so many people "rely" on their car.

    Details: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-44438589

    Posted 6 years ago #

  20. Stickman
    Member

    Legalese again: the bill is concerned with "footways" only: are shared use paths or segregated bike paths also covered by this or already covered in other legislation?

    Posted 6 years ago #

  21. Frenchy
    Member

    Pretty sure that they're already covered.

    EDIT: Actually, I've no idea. *Driving* on footways is already illegal, but there's a loophole that means the police can't do anything about parked vehicles. It's quite possible the same is true for footpaths etc.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  22. jonty
    Member

    With road traffic law it seems fairly irrelevant whether something is 'covered' or not - what matters is whether enforcement is decriminalised and managed by parking attendants. If it isn't - which I think is the case with most existing rules in this area - it may as well not be covered at all, as the chances of the police dealing with such a low-level offence are very small.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  23. ih
    Member

    @Stickman @Frenchy

    Section 42 refers to Prohibition of "pavement" parking where pavement is defined as a footpath or footway. Further sections then go on to give exemptions to footWAY parking, so, if I read it correctly(?) there are no exemptions to allow parking on footPATHS.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  24. neddie
    Member

    Surely to make the “loading clause” legal, they also have legalise driving along the footway as well. Otherwise the whole thing is a nonsense.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  25. crowriver
    Member

    "the whole thing is a nonsense."

    Pretty much sums it up, unfortunately.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  26. mgj
    Member

    @ih so this does not apply to the parking on a cycleway! At last a reason for shared use.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  27. ih
    Member

    @mgj There should be no exemptions allowed (i.e. no parking allowed) on shared cyclepaths/ways such as the NEPN. That shouldn't be a big deal as all paths I can think of wouldn't have car access that would tempt people to park there anyway. However the situation where there is a shared footway alongside a road, might be different and all these exemptions could be allowed. It's a mess isn't it?

    Posted 6 years ago #

  28. wishicouldgofaster
    Member

    Some people have fairly recently started parking on the pedestrian footpath parallel to Clermiston Road. Just because it used to be the road (about 50 years ago) does not make it right!

    Posted 6 years ago #

  29. Stickman
    Member

    Two Conservative councillors expressing support for banning pavement parking?

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/john-mclellan-beam-up-the-selfish-parkers-1-4754174

    https://twitter.com/jomowat/status/1007010592241135617

    "This morning I met a car driving on the pavement, kindly the driver stopped - for my safety, when I remonstrated with her that there was no safe way to drive on the pavement and it wasn’t for cars she told me it was the council’s fault!"

    Posted 6 years ago #

  30. gibbo
    Member

    @mgj There should be no exemptions allowed (i.e. no parking allowed) on shared cyclepaths/ways such as the NEPN.

    Presumably the council will continue to allow staff (and untilities companies etc) to drive along and park on NEPN.

    Posted 6 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1234…8

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin