can someone pls link to the part of the bill or an extract where it mentions legitimising 20 mins of pavement parking for loading/etc..
thanks.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Transport Bill / Pavement Parking
(72 posts)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
See these tweets. Cllr Arthur seems to refer to a different section/para than the one cited widely here.
https://twitter.com/ProfScottThinks/status/1007154898650222592
Posted 5 years ago # -
http://www.parliament.scot/Transport%20(Scotland)%20Bill/SPBill33S052018.pdf
Section 47(6)(c):
The parking prohibitions do not apply where
—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 5 years ago # -
thanks to all. I have sufficient now.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Living Streets
Com'on people, no excuse not to.
https://e-activist.com/page/26541/action/1
Civic duty and all that.
Posted 5 years ago # -
"Yet it currently does not ban parking over dropped kerbs, which are vital for people using footways"
I was sure this is already illegal, but can only find legislation for England and Wales. Can anyone confirm?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Very keen to support this. However, I have one question: what do they mean by "parking over dropped kerbs"? I can see it possibly meaning a number of different things:
- Parking on a driveway with a dropped kerb in such a way as to obstruct the footway ie sticking out from the property across all or part of the footway (you could call this the "perpendicular" interpretation)
- Parking across the entrance to a driveway in the direction of the roadway but wholly or partly on the footway - basically the same as most pavement parking usually is (you could call this the "parallel" interpretation)
- Parking on the roadway in such a way as to obstruct a dropped kerb where it is providing access to the roadway. This is basically what Highway Code rule 243 says DO NOT do (in bullet points nine and ten) but, as we all know, it's not illegal unless the HC says you MUST NOT.
I can see interpretations 1 and 2 above being covered under a general prohibition against parking on the footway, so it seems reasonable to presume that the third one is what is meant by "parking over dropped kerbs". But I wouldn't have expressed it that way. I'd like to understand what the words are supposed to mean so that I can, if necessary, amend the wording in my correspondence to be clearer.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Pretty sure it means number 3. Equivalent law in England and Wales is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86
Posted 5 years ago # -
Round Robins duly despatched to all MSPs, even the Tories on the list. I personalised it to include a sentence about the current bill making it legal for folk to pavement park while "just popping into the shop" for a minor purchase, by putting their hazards on therefore "loading".
Posted 5 years ago # -
Response from Gordon Lindhurst MSP
Thank you for your email,
The Transport Bill offers a chance to examine and possibly change legislation surrounding pavement parking, as well as low emission zones and bus franchising to name some of the other issues it may address.
The Scottish Conservatives welcome the Transport Bill in principle but we will likely aim to lodge amendments to strengthen the Bill at Stages Two and Three to ensure it is a robust and sound piece of law.
Frequent parking on footways can cause damage that eventually manifests as uneven pavements. Such damage can represent a real danger to pedestrians, especially vulnerable ones, with local authorities having to foot the bill for repairs.
We can all agree that inconsiderate parking must be tackled and I am pleased that there are plans to look at it. A blanket ban on pavements must be properly researched and proportionate. Inconsiderate parking should not be tolerated, but there are many instances when parking partly on a pavement is the only available option and can be done without obstructing pedestrians’ access.
As you will be aware there may be instances in which parking with two wheels on a pavement has left sufficient room for pedestrians to pass while allowing traffic to flow freely on the road. That is a key point because it would obviously be counterproductive to impose a ban only for it to result in constant road blockages. As long as such parking can be done in a way that allows more than enough room for all pedestrians to pass freely, it is not always necessary to impose a blanket ban. I am not convinced that a blanket ban with no room for exemptions by local authorities in places might be too much of a catch all approach, I know of many areas where pavement parking is the only option to allow free passage of vehicles, including emergency vehicles, through narrow streets – in those examples perhaps local authorities may need to approach this pragmatically. Blanket centralisation of such individual circumstances in my view has historically caused unintended consequences.
The compromise that we would like to emerge would be to find a balance between protecting vulnerable pedestrians and allowing harmless pavement parking to continue. I suspect our amendments will be of this ilk.
I can understand the temptation to push through a blanket ban because it is right to say that we should not tolerate forcing vulnerable pedestrians to move around parked cars on pavements or dropped footways. However, we would not be serving the public if we simply imposed a blanket ban and left motorists, as well as law enforcement officers, to clear up the mess.
I hope you find the above position helpful and I thank you for contacting me regarding this important subject.
---
I think that can be summed up 'I'm against pavement parking unless banning it would inconvenience drivers at all'. It's a sense of entitlement really - that if there's nowhere to park without blocking the road, it's OK to encroach on pedestrian space.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I think this is the key bit of that -
“
We can all agree that inconsiderate parking must be tackled and I am pleased that there are plans to look at it. A blanket ban on pavements must be properly researched and proportionate. Inconsiderate parking should not be tolerated, but there are many instances when parking partly on a pavement is the only available option and can be done without obstructing pedestrians’ access.
“
So, ‘don’t make it illegal and rely on drivers to be sensible and have 100% enforcement when necessary’.
Or in other words ‘we basically agree with the missing bits of this proposed legislation remaining missing’.
Posted 5 years ago # -
If it was right and reasonable that parking partly on the pavement was 'required' in some places wouldn't these pavements in fact be parking bays?
Posted 5 years ago # -
No, no - it’s all about “shared use”.
‘You share when it suits us’ (people with cars).
Which is why bicycle users should be wary of SU proposals - especially if it is basically allowing bikes on (even wide) pavements.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Schroedinger’s Tories
Both:
“parking on footways can cause damage”.
and
“harmless pavement parking”
Posted 5 years ago # -
It's not Gordon's words. They were written by a faceless Tory and available copy and pasted into other MSPs web pages. At least he has the decency to paste it into a reply.
Edit: Or perhaps the others have the right idea not spending tax payers money on staff who sent template emails all day.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I got exactly the same reply, which is fair enough I suppose as I only personalised the Round Robin LS letter a wee bit...
"They were written by a faceless Tory"
Or possibly Cllr Nick Cook, whose day job it is to do PR etc. for the Conservative MSPs.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I got the same. The first point I made in my reply was that he mentions 'blanket' as in blanket ban 6 times. No one is asking for a blanket ban, they're just saying it to get an outraged reaction. Trumpesque. Facts be damned. They ought to be better.
Posted 5 years ago # -
"I am not convinced that a blanket ban with no room for exemptions by local authorities in places might be too much of a catch all approach ..." have they got their negativity mixed up?
Posted 5 years ago # -
"Blanket" is a favourite phrase of Cllr Cook's too.....in relation to 20mph.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Odd then that the Tories had no concerns about legislating for a "blanket ban" on driving along a footway, footpath or cycle path (Section 129(5), Roads (Scotland) Act 1984).
I would imagine that the Tories will try and amend the Bill to give local authorities the power to implement local pavement parking bans, rather than impose a national ban. Clearly - almost no Council would choose to do so, for fear of any electoral fall-out.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Simple solution: those who wish to park on the pavement pay a levy, just like the brown bin one, to the council, the cost of which covers repairs to damaged pavements annually. Paying it directly to the council rather than local traffic wardens removes corruption
Posted 5 years ago # -
Doesn't help vunerable people get around though.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Agreed @steveo, the pavement is for people all the time, not just when someone rich enough to pay the pavement parking licence isn't around.
Posted 5 years ago # -
So why can Blue Badge holders park where they like, including blocking dropped kerbs?
(I suspect that the thousand pound a year plus cost of a pavement parking license might put folk off)
Posted 5 years ago # -
SPOKES' response to the Transport Bill:
Posted 5 years ago # -
That's a good response to the Transport Bill from Spokes (I'm not a member). It highlights, amongst other things, that the Bill could actually enshrine practices making things worse for cycling: no ban on parking by, and blocking, dropped kerbs; 20 minute blanket exemption for double and pavement parking whilst "loading". This is wrong in principle and impossible to enforce, it will legitimise a practice which, imo, creates a major barrier to active travel.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Parliament debating the Transport Bill today. An amendment to remove the 20 minute exemption has been voted down.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Is workplace parking levy being passed today?
Posted 4 years ago # -
amendment on cycle lane parking rejected :(
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49959328 (17:38 update)
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
