CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

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

(208 posts)
  • Started 7 years ago by Stickman
  • Latest reply from Arellcat

No tags yet.


  1. crowriver
    Member

    "does section 55(6) not also mean you can't park on the pavement unless it's necessary"

    Define "necessary". It's a legal grey zone like "reasonable".

    The legislation is not only not fit for purpose, it's also an utter waste of time for all the councils who will need to implement it. Simply because it will be completely unenforceable. It's literally a token gesture. It will not only not ban parking on pavements, it will actually define acceptable excuses for parking on them, and give it a legal basis.

    The motoring lobby are laughing up their driving gloves at this pavement parking "ban".

    Posted 3 years ago #
  2. boothym
    Member

    Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant was, do the stipulations in all four subsections of section 55(6) need to be met for the pavement parking prohibition NOT to apply?

    That is, to legally park on the pavement do you need to be: delivering/collecting/loading for a business AND doing it where you can't do so on the road AND leaving a 1.5m gap AND not be longer than 20 minutes?

    Or is each subsection considered separately?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  3. Frenchy
    Member

    @boothym - You are correct, all four conditions need to be met for pavement parking to be legal.

    The worry is that these exemptions will make enforcement harder. For example, it could lead to parking officers having to wait 10 or 20 minutes before ticketing any car parked on the pavement, which could significantly reduce how many tickets they can issue.

    Separately, councils will be assessing each street to see if certain locations should be exempted permanently - the guidance on what the criteria for such exemptions hasn't been announced yet.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  4. crowriver
    Member

    "That is, to legally park on the pavement do you need to be: delivering/collecting/loading for a business AND doing it where you can't do so on the road AND leaving a 1.5m gap AND not be longer than 20 minutes?"

    Just think how incredibly easy it would be to argue that these conditions apply. For example, all the parking/loading bays are full, ergo park on the pavement with blinkies = "loading" and "I'll just be a minute, or maybe 22".

    Not fit for purpose. And that's even before councils decide some pavements will be formally exempted.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  5. chdot
    Admin

  6. Rosie
    Member

    "Neil Greig, the Scotland-based policy and research director of motoring group IAM RoadSmart, said: “The introduction of a pavement parking ban in Scotland will have far-reaching implications in many residential areas and it is important its implementation is not rushed.""

    RoadSmart = PavementSneaky.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  7. wishicouldgofaster
    Member

    Clearly the need to park close to ones home is much greater than the need for pedestrians.

    I don't think that anyone can claim this has been rushed given the ridiculously slow progress in this matter.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  8. chdot
    Admin

    Perhaps those without drives shouldn’t be allowed to own cars?

    (I have neither.)

    Posted 2 years ago #
  9. Dave
    Member

    It seems a bit daft to hold off the entire law until all local authorities in Scotland can assess every single street. Since the law allows for streets where you can still block the pavements (presumably with signage) you'd think they could immediately enforce it on blackspot roads (with different signage) if they'd designed the law that way.

    I guess maybe that would have opened the door to local authorities just never implementing it though. East Dumbartonshire for example didn't spend a single penny of the Spaces for People funding. Ultra conservative and pro motoring.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  10. ejstubbs
    Member

    What I don't understand is how a footway parking ban was brought in to force in Greater London in 1974 with AFAICR barely a whisper of protest. Maybe there wasn't quite the level of vehicle infestation back then for it be a meaningful inconvenience to drivists? Nonetheless, Section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 seems (from legislation.gov.uk) to have remained unchanged since it was passed (I'm not sure whether that was under Heath or Wilson, which latter became PM in March of that year).

    Couple of things to note from that act:
    - Subsection (3)(d) allows parking on the footway "for the purpose of loading or unloading goods for a period not exceeding 20 minutes or such longer period as the council may permit". So the Scottish legislation seems to be replicating that exemption;
    - Subsection (4) allows councils to authorise footway parking on certain roads, but the default is for it to be illegal.

    Given that Greater London was and is almost certainly the most car-infested and congested conurbation in the UK (and 100% certainly the largest, at 7million vs 56million for the UK as a whole) it is puzzling as to why it proved so difficult for the nationwide footway parking ban in the contemporaneous Road Traffic Act 1974 to be enforced, other than pig-headed stubbornness allied with simple CBA. For 12% of the population concentrated in a large, busy, overcrowded metropolis central government was able able to make it "just happen". For the rest of us, nah.

    The lesson would seem to be that the grace period allowed for councils to get themselves organised ended up being the cause (for which read "loophole that was exploited"?) of the legislation's ultimate demise. The fact that the Scottish law seems to be eerily similar in that respect does not seem to me to bode well for the final outcome...

    Well, never mind, we can just go back to trying to pointing out to the PTB that parking of the footway must unavoidably* involve the commission of the offence of driving on the footway, asking why vehicle operators aren't therefore prosecuted for that offence, and being generally ignored.

    * other than in the unlikely event of a carne, or teleportation device, being deployed.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  11. chdot
    Admin

    Or change the law to say ‘no pavement parking except for electric cars (and white vans)’.

    That would be revolutionary...

    Posted 2 years ago #
  12. ejstubbs
    Member

    Just in from Living Streets:

    The ban on pavement parking in Scotland we fought so hard to win in 2019 is due to be implemented next year.

    However, the guidelines on how local authorities should implement it - and the exceptions they can consider - could risk undermining the ban.

    It's not too late, though...you might want to have your say.

    The Scottish Government is consulting on these guidelines - and Living Streets Scotland has prepared an email you can send them that spells out why we object to proposals that would weaken the new regulation enormously.

    HAVE YOUR SAY NOW!

    Living Streets Scotland has campaigned for this ban for a generation, and the Scottish Government has already accepted pavement parking is a hazard and a nuisance.

    It is vital the Government now ensures its ban is effective.

    The deadline for responses is 11 March. Write to Scotland's Road Policy Team now and ask them to stay on track.

    I'm all for trying to stop the (already flawed) legislation from being further watered down. Whether it will/can ever be effectively policed outside of busy central areas is perhaps another matter - but that's no reason to allow the legislation to be made toothless and/or impractical to enforce from the outset.

    As I think I may have said before: if London can ban pavement parking* (since the 1960s IIRC) then there really doesn't seem to be any valid reason why it can't be done everywhere.

    * And I even fell foul of it myself once, many years ago when I was a callow youth unaware of London's enlightened attitude to such things.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  13. CocoShepherd
    Member

    Thanks ejstubbs. Letter sent and consultation response completed

    Posted 2 years ago #
  14. ejstubbs
    Member

    Letter sent and consultation response completed

    For anyone interested in submitting a response to the Scottish Government consultation as well as sending a letter, the consultation is here. Closing date is 11th March 2022.

    (There is more, not very easy to follow, wordage about what's being consulted on here.)

    Posted 2 years ago #
  15. ejstubbs
    Member

    During my background research while putting together my consultation response, I came across this rather interesting document: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmtrans/1982/1982.pdf

    It's a report into pavement parking by the House of Commons Transport Committee, following up on the UK Government's promise of 2015 to look into the issue of pavement parking in England. It's dated 2019. In the summary at the beginning it states: [The Givernment] ran consultations and roundtables and held internal reviews, but this has not led to any actions that have made a difference to the public’s experience of pavement parking." Sounds familiar...

    There's quite a bit of thought-provoking information in there, but the part that really caught my interest was in Section 4, under "Education and Awareness of Drivers", where it states:

    Driving onto the pavement is illegal and, in almost all cases, vehicles parked on the pavement will have been driven onto the pavement in breach of this law. It is unclear how widespread public awareness is of this offence.

    This is something I've been saying for years but it just seems to get shrugged off. It's interesting that an appointed group of elected representatives also 'get' it, and they also go on to outline why it's not taken seriously:

    ...evidence suggests drivers may do something even when they know it breaks the rules. Chris Theobald from Guide Dogs told us that a 2017 YouGov survey found that 55% of drivers had considered the impact of pavement parking on people with visual impairments but did it regardless. Ian Taylor from the Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) said the majority of its members are aware of the rules but “as regards to practice, and what people think that they can get away with, because there has not been much actual enforcement where it is not allowed, people tend to do it”. Drivers can be unaware that it is illegal to drive on the pavement, are unaware of the implications of pavement parking, or do know but park on the pavement anyway because the threat of enforcement is low.

    Pretty telling to see the representative from the ABD openly admitting that drivers do it even if they know they shouldn't because the law is barely enforced, it at all, and it's become normalised. This is from the organisation which is habitually bleats on about how drivers are persecuted/used as cash cows/'waged war upon' by legislators - and yet he admits that they can't be trusted to comply with even the most basic of regulations i.e. don't drive on the <rule 2> pavement.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  16. Yodhrin
    Member

    I'll say it again - this could be solved in a month if the government hired a competent developer and put an app on the phone of any member of the public who wants it, with which you can take pictures of parking violations and upload them for review. Reviews would be undertaken centrally and could be done at a fair rate by a relatively small number of people, and fines sent to the post office paid by sodding weight with the number that would be needed. Proceeds after the cost of the scheme itself would go back to local authorities pro-rata by population, earmarked for roads resurfacing(which would serve to shut up *some* of the whining from motorists).

    Drivers would either get the message quick-sharp, or become a fantastic revenue stream. This tech has existed for years, it's being used elsewhere right now to great effect, the only reasons not to do it are A; the government tacitly endorses garbage parking & driving, or B; the government are cowards afraid of a few bad tabloid hit pieces.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  17. ejstubbs
    Member

    I have a recollection that the deployment of parking enforcement vans using cameras to record parking offences was deemed unlawful - though heaven only knows what the justification for that was. If my recollection of that is correct then I rather doubt that cameras wielded by citizens would survive a similar challenge. Unfortunately.

    Note that yellow-line parking offences are not a police matter in local authority areas which have opted to enforce the regulations themselves under the "decriminalisation" scheme. This may have some bearing on why camera vans can't be used. AIUI enforcement of the pavement parking ban would also be a local authority matter in "decriminalised" areas, potentially ruling out the use of cameras for enforcement of the new law as well.

    <Thinks: need to do some more digging in to the situation around the use or otherwise of parking enforcement cameras.>

    Posted 2 years ago #
  18. wishicouldgofaster
    Member

    I've lost count of the number of drivers I reported for parking on the pavement at my mother's. Number fined - none.

    Lots warned with one guy being warned at least 5 times as well as his company been told the van would be towed. Thankfully he has left the area.

    Sadly though the police are extremely reluctant to prosecute anyone regardless of the whole pavement been taken up by these selfish sods.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  19. dessert rat
    Member

    i reckon it could be solved nationwide in a weekend if the Gov allowed a Purge (the terrible film) type scheme on pavement parkers. Although unlike the film, it was permanent and also if you pavement park, your insurance becomes invalid.

    possibly politically unpalatable and legally difficult, but means to an end etc....and so on...

    Posted 2 years ago #
  20. wingpig
    Member

    Currently, traffic wardens often take photos of vehicles they're in the process of ticketing - anyone know if this is just for illustration, or is the photo itself part of the evidence, as well as the statement of the warden?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  21. dessert rat
    Member

    @wingpig - MrsMcR has/had a habit of getting tickets for a while. When you log into CEC site to pay the ticket, you can see the pics - quite hard to argue against a pic.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  22. ejstubbs
    Member

    AIUI they don't need a photo in order to issue a ticket, but as you say it rather reduces the wiggle room open to a driver to appeal the ticket. Especially in cases e.g. where the driver turns up and drives away before the traffic warden is able to put the ticket on the vehicle (they can send the ticket by post in such circumstances, to the vehicle's registered keeper).

    Posted 2 years ago #
  23. the canuck
    Member

    I am so ready for citizen-reporting via photos. I would PAY for that app.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  24. jonty
    Member

    Especially in cases e.g. where the driver turns up and drives away before the traffic warden is able to put the ticket on the vehicle (they can send the ticket by post in such circumstances, to the vehicle's registered keeper).

    I'm not sure 'remotely issued' tickets are legally valid in Scotland, otherwise eg. CCTV enforcement would surely be allowed. They may be/have been legal in England. One of the photos they take (so I'm told...) is of the ticket on the windscreen. They can still pursue you later but presumably the evidence the ticket was physically issued is necessary.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  25. MediumDave
    Member

    This perhaps gives some background

    https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s11606/7.3%20-%20Decriminalised%20traffic%20and%20parking%20enforce%20with%20apps.pdf

    ===================
    5
    Camera Enforcement
    4.18 In England, the Traffic Management Act (TMA) 2004 provides local authorities with
    limited powers to enforce bus lane and parking restrictions using approved camera
    devices. However, the TMA does not apply in Scotland.
    4.19 Under Section 44 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, Scottish Ministers have
    made regulations that allows this Council to enforce bus lane contraventions using
    cameras. This is the only traffic offence which the Council can use camera
    technology to enforce.
    4.20 The proposed Transport (Scotland) Bill includes provisions which are expected to
    allow Scottish Councils to use cameras for the enforcement of the prohibitions
    contained within the Bill, such as; low emissions zones, pavement parking, double
    parking and dropped footway parking.
    ===================

    Relevant section of the act is (I think):

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/60/enacted

    and "approved device" is 'defined' here:

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/59/enacted

    Basically anything the Ministers may want to put in regulations can be approved, including apps. Also:

    ============
    64 Arrangements in connection with enforcement

    A local authority may enter into arrangements with any person for the exercise by that person of any function conferred on the local authority by or under section 58(2), 59(1), 61(1), 62(1) or 63(1).
    ============

    So presumably no objection in principle to "citizen parking attendants". The various exemptions to the parking prohibitions probably make it untenable however.

    There was discussion about whether the forward facing cameras on buses could be "approved devices" for enforcing bus lane contraventions

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/request/804931/response/1928765/attach/html/4/211202%20FOISA%20R%20McGregor.pdf.html

    Lothian have no plans, as of last year anyway.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  26. acsimpson
    Member

    If a traffic warden gas been present and witnessed the parking then presumably the camera isn't being used to enforce the fine. It is simply being used as evidence. The ticket could still be posted.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  27. chdot
    Admin

  28. Frenchy
    Member

    Scottish Conservatives transport spokesperson Graham Simpson said: “This just shows that this legislation is in the ‘too difficult’ box.

    "This was well-meaning legislation that was not properly thought through.

    "We pointed it out at the time and it looks as though the SNP are now seeing that."

    Anyone remember the Conservatives arguing in favour of a far-simpler-to-enforce complete ban?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  29. Tulyar
    Member

    Simple - remove the in flagrante delicto requirement to prosecute for driving on a footway

    If your vehicle has wheels on the footway it has per se been drive on the footway and an offence committed nem conand the offender has to prove that the vehicle teleported to materialise in that position

    Existing law just needs Polis with cojones to enforce it

    Posted 2 years ago #
  30. Morningsider
    Member

    @Frenchy - yes, the Tories did raise concerns about the pavement parking ban during the passage of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Just in entirely the opposite way to that implied by Graham Simpson. In the final debate on the Bill, the Tory transport spokesperson (then Jamie Greene MSP) stated:

    Where on earth are all the cars going to go once they are moved off the pavements? I do not have an answer to that question—I am not sure that any of us do. That is a problem that the bill presents

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin