I just checked DVLA in relation to another pavement parker this time near my mother-in-law. MOT has ran out LOL, I'll check in a week just in case there's been a slight paperwork delay before reporting though.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Pavement Parking Ban
(40 posts)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
I see there's now a consultation running until March about pavement parking exemptions: https://www.transport.gov.scot/consultation/scotland-s-pavement-parking-prohibitions-consultation-on-pre-implementation-directions-and-regulations-for-local-authorities/
A lot of questions and I've not read it all. However even if there was an exemption to park on the pavement in certain areas, would it not still be an offence to drive onto a footway, park on a cycle track, or park an HGV on the pavement? Unless the legislation has amended those laws as well.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yes, that's right.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@boothym: even if there was an exemption to park on the pavement in certain areas, would it not still be an offence to drive onto a footway
Indeed.
IMO this is a good example of what happens when illegal or antisocial behaviour becomes 'normalised'. It only takes a few moments' reflection to conclude that - since no driver ever arranges to be followed around by a 2T crane - every single instance of pavement parking you ever see must have involved driving on the footway, which is illegal. It's therefore prima facie evidence of that offence having been committed. Despite that, it's apparently impossible to enforce these obvious breaches of the law*, so an additional law has to be passed specifically to make pavement parking illegal. But that practice has become so ingrained in the behaviour of certain 'normal law-abiding citizens' that the legislature feels the need to allow permanent exemptions for the convenience of some who steadfastly refuse to comply with the already-existing laws and/or who seem to regard 'parking' (aka leaving one's motor vehicle cluttering up the public highway) as a right obtained through the payment of 'road tax'.
* Rather than making pavement parking illegal in itself, how difficult would it have been to make the offence of driving on the footway as evidenced by a motor vehicle being abandoned thereupon work like speed cameras i.e. it would be the responsibility of the registered keeper of the vehicle to identify who was driving at the time of the offence, or else incur a penalty themselves. But that would no doubt be regarded as yet another offensive in the "war on motorists" (one which they seem to be winning fairly comfortably, going by the casualty rates on the various 'sides' involved - even allowing for the fact that a good proportion of the casualties on the drivists' side are "blue on blue").
Posted 2 years ago # -
I replied to the consultation (which was lengthy) to say I felt it was based on a flawed premise that there was any situation in which an exemption was justified. If there's never a justification, then there's no need for an exemptions process.
I chose my answers and wording carefully to ensure that either taken in isolation would signal my objection to the whole thing.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm not sure I chose my words quite so carefully but I agree. If there really is space for parking then surely the kerb needs to be moved to signify that it isn't pavement.
The worrying suggestion from the first(?) question is that they are considering allowing exemptions to fully block a pavement if a road is too narrow for parking and traffic.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The preamble to Question 1 suggests that pavement parking be allowed where:
(a) the footway is of sufficient width to enable 1.5 metres (down to an absolute minimum of 1.2 metres over a short distance to take account of street furniture) to be available for the passage of non-vehicular traffic (including pedestrians, wheelchair users and mobility scooters) when a vehicle is parked on the footway
Odd then that Transport Scotland's own Roads for All good practice guide states:
The minimum width of a footway is to be 2000 millimetres in normal circumstances, since this width allows two wheelchair users to pass.
In existing constrained environments and where obstacles are unavoidable, an absolute minimum width of 1500 millimetres may be used without the requirement of a Departure from Standard.
Allowing clearance well below the "absolute minimum" standard required for wheelchair users? I suppose I don't need to say anything, as those well-known supporters of disabled people SWEM and GEM will be on the case any minute...
Posted 2 years ago # -
IMO the only times it should be allowed are
1) dropping off or picking up a disabled person
2) an emergencyPosted 2 years ago # -
Indeed, the reference to 1.2m is strange as all the exemptions allowed in the Act mention 1.5m. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/part/6 (s55)
I'm trying to imagine the scenario in Q1 (b) -
the carriageway associated with a footway is of sufficient restricted width or access that -
it would be rendered unpassable by emergency vehicles when one or more vehicles are parked on the carriageway, but would be possible to access if vehicles were permitted to park on the footway.What are we talking about here, a carriageway that's 3-4m wide, or one that's 6.5m but with parked cars on both sides? And how big of a footway - will there still be 1.5m left?
I'm also confused by section 57, dropped footway exemptions -
(2) The dropped footway parking prohibition does not apply where the footway has been lowered or the carriageway has been raised as described in section 56(1) for the purpose of access to a driveway or to a garage (whether on commercial or residential premises).
That means you can park in front of someone's driveway?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yeah, the 'narrow street' exception feels extremely wooly. A road which is too narrow to park on is, surely, too narrow to park on? Presumably the intent is that this is used for narrow streets were pavement parking has become normalised, but surely the whole point of the Act is to reclaim the pavements on such streets? And yes, it's not clear if this is meant to allow parking on one side or both sides.
All in all, it really does feel like the reality of this law has just been more and more disappointing at every turn. We already knew that most pavement loading was going to be explicitly permitted or impossible to enforce against, but now we learn that pavement parking in residential areas will all probably end up exempt too. Great! The pavement parked cars themselves, however, will be fully protected from being double parked over. Phew.
I assume the driveway thing is simply to ensure the act remains focused on dropped kerbs for pedestrians as was the intent of the act. Parking in front of driveways is covered already covered by different legislation I think. Perhaps covering it under this one would mean it moves to decriminalised parking attendant enforcement rather than police enforcement. It's quite rare that driveways get blocked badly so perhaps the threat of police enforcement is viewed as working sufficiently well for now. (Or perhaps they're planning a Prohibition of Driveway Parking Bill next year, which actually legalises it if you promise you really really couldn't get parked anywhere else.)
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
