Some of the exemptions seem reasonable, e.g. parking across dropped kerbs outside residential properties, rubbish collection, etc.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"A bill banning parking on pavements has been introduced to SP"
(71 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
I laboured on the point of why must pedestrians use the road for any reason, why can't emergency/delivery vehicles park on the road and traffic divert round them rather than forcing pedestrians, buggies and wheel chairs to divert round them.
Posted 8 years ago # -
There's a difficulty with the "dropped kerbs outside residential premises one" when that isn't a kerb leading to a driveway. Most of the kerbs on a tenement street are "outside residential premises", even the ones specifically built as crossing points. There's quite a few dropped kerbs round our way that we just cannot use with the buggy because they're permanently parked across.
Posted 8 years ago # -
yesterday evening on gilmore place I saw a taxi drive on to the pavement on the wrong side of the road, and carry on driving past several B&Bs before finally stopping, despite a young woman who was attempting to run on that same pavement.
under the exemptions proposed, this sort of behaviour might well still be legal - of if not technically legal, the fuzziness might encourage driver to say 'oy, I'm just dropping someone off'. etc.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"There's quite a few dropped kerbs round our way that we just cannot use with the buggy because they're permanently parked across."
Ask Local Team (and councillors) for I-Bars - the white paint that DOESN'T need a TRO.
Then ask for the DYLine TRO process to start!
Posted 8 years ago # -
"why can't emergency/delivery vehicles park on the road and traffic divert round them rather than forcing pedestrians, buggies and wheel chairs to divert round them"
Because that would interfere with fellow motorists and disrupt traffic flow...
Posted 8 years ago # -
under the exemptions proposed, this sort of behaviour might well still be legal - of if not technically legal, the fuzziness might encourage driver to say 'oy, I'm just dropping someone off'. etc.
Once you get into the minutia of 'waiting', 'loading', 'stopping' and 'parking', there be dragons!
Posted 8 years ago # -
Because that would interfere with fellow motorists and disrupt traffic flow...
Indeed, one might hope that bill such as this had the best interest of folk other than drivers at heart, I'm beginning to think not.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Once you get into the minutia"
Keeps lawyers in business.
BUT the lawyers working for Parliaments/Governments OUGHT to do some drafting with fewer holes AND parliamentarians OUGHT to do better.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Ask Local Team (and councillors) for I-Bars - the white paint that DOESN'T need a TRO.
Some of them actually have double yellows on them! But we live above a takeaway, so, you know, they're "just popping in for a minute"...
Posted 8 years ago # -
This Bill wasn't drawn up by Scottish Parliament or Government lawyers. It is effectively a cut-and-paste of sections 85 and 86 of the England-only Traffic Management Act 2004. Remember, it is a members' Bill - although it's a bit disappointing that some of its backers didn't stump up for a properly drafted Bill. The best hope is for a substantial re-draft following initial scrutiny by the Parliament.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@ Morningsider
Makes (too much!) sense.
So, who is responsible for the survey?
Posted 8 years ago # -
chdot - the survey is the responsibility of the Parliament's cross-party Local Government and Regeneration Committee. The Committee are initially charged with examining the "general principles" of the Bill and recommending to the full Parliament whether it should proceed to more detailed scrutiny. The purpose of the survey and call for written evidence is simply to gather views on the Bill and whether the general principles are sound (I imagine we would all agree that they are). These views also help influence potential amendments to the Bill if it proceeds to more detailed scrutiny.
The more people that complete the survey or submit generally supportive written evidence (always the best way to get your views across) the more likely the Bill is to proceed and to be improved.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@ M
Thanks, but reading comments above, there seems to be a view that the survey is trying to slant views/responses rather than being 'neutral' - does that reflect the intent of the Committee?
Posted 8 years ago # -
chdot - I think people are reading far too much into the wording of the survey. It's simply one channel for relaying views on the Bill to the Committee.
I have no special insight into what the Committee will think about the Bill - I doubt the politicians will even have looked at it yet, all the work to date will have been carried out by committee clerks. I seriously doubt the clerks would be trying to influence responses.
Posted 8 years ago # -
OK.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I seriously doubt the clerks would be trying to influence responses
perhaps not, but the moto-centric perceptual bias is clear.
Posted 8 years ago # -
The exemption to allow drivers to pull over for emergency vehicles or stop to avoid an accident is pretty weird. If you have to put those in for some sort of legal reason, you would also have to put in being stopped at traffic lights or in a queue as those things are not parking either.
Posted 8 years ago # -
This isn't even proper English:
"Do you think the police or local authorities would be able to enforce the proposed ban on footway, dropped kerb and double parking?" Yes or no.Yes, someone would be able to enforce the ban, or No, no one would be able enforce the ban? I hope that isn't the question that they mean to ask... or do they genuinely mean "do you think this ban is unenforceable?" as opposed to "who do you think should be responsible for enforcement?".
Or is it some other question they are trying to ask?
Posted 8 years ago # -
What the peeps are asking is
If I fix this reflective MOTORWAY MAINTENANCE sticker to the back end, does that mean Emergency Vehicle?
Aye ? Nice one !
Posted 8 years ago # -
Haha! Very good, bax!
Posted 8 years ago # -
Would you trust this lot with the safe passage of the bill?
.jpg)
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/29852.aspx
Apparently on 2nd September:
"Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill: The Committee considered its approach to the scrutiny of the Bill at Stage 1. The Committee agreed to commence its consideration of the Bill whilst the issue of its legislative competency is being resolved and agreed a draft call for evidence."
Attendance
Convener
*Kevin Stewart (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)Deputy convener
*John Wilson (Central Scotland) (Ind)Committee members
*Clare Adamson (Central Scotland) (SNP)
*Cameron Buchanan (Lothian) (Con)
*Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
*Cara Hilton (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Alex Rowley (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)*attended
Clerk to the committee
David CullumPosted 8 years ago # -
Any particular reason we shouldn't that your loaded question implies?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Cara Hilton was at POP and very sensible on active travel.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Survey done.
Added that anyone who walks is affected by pavement parking...Posted 8 years ago # -
@Wilmington's Cow, no particular reason. However, there has been criticism of the way the Parly goes about its work lately.
"There's not enough scrutiny, not enough rebels and too many party patsies"
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/patrick-harvie-theres-not-enough-6350349
"The purpose of a Parliament is to make sure the Government doesn’t just run around doing whatever it wants. It is meant to hold power to account. But the stale culture and old structures of legislative scrutiny we have are now so outdated that the SNP majority faces next to no resistance to its decisions.
This problem is clear as day if you look at the work of Holyrood’s committees.
The committees are a crucial check for all new Government legislation. Their job is to scrutinise proposed laws before they go to a vote and to make some noise if the Government gets it wrong. At the moment, very few people think our committees are working as they should.
The first problem is the workload. MSPs often sit on committees with remits that span a huge range of subjects.
Their workload is dictated by the Government’s requirements in terms of when they need an outcome. It should be the other way around – the Government should set their agenda based on how much time the committees need to carry out their work properly.
In the current set-up, committees’ ability to put new laws through a detailed inspection is limited at best, non-existent at worst.
And then there are the whips. Think of Westminster what you will, but at the moment there is far more rebellion and independent thought in the House of Commons than there is on the back benches of Holyrood.
This problem extends to committee work – many members seem to have forgotten that their job isn’t to push the party line but to take a long, critical look at Government proposals.
For example, when a row blew up between college bosses and the education secretary in 2012, the convener of the education committee dismissed the need for an inquiry out of hand.
In 2013, an Audit Scotland report into the creation of Police Scotland concluded that the Scottish Government had not provided a business case to support the need for a single force – despite assuring the Public Audit Committee that it would do so.
And just this month, we learned that barely a quarter of requests for action were accepted by the Public Petitions Committee.
In fact, it’s rare these days that committees undertake work on anything ministers would rather was left alone."
Posted 8 years ago # -
I think the gist of the proposal is that it should be illegal to park on the pavement, except when it would be inconvenient to not be able to...
(Inconvenient = can't park within 50m of where you want to.)
Posted 8 years ago # -
The pavement parkers who really get my goat are the ones who feel they must park on the pavement in order to leave 1.5 lanes for traffic to use as obviously no one can be trusted not to clip their wing mirror if only one lane has been left.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@acsimpson, uh-huh, that would be the exception under "in order to not cause an accident"?
Otherwise, folk can just put their blinkers on and pretend they're "loading" or "dropping off/picking up" for an hour or so...
Basically the legislation proposed claims to ban pavement parking but in fact does feck all to ban it due to the number of loopholes (sorry "exceptions") left to placate motorists.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Given the legislation it's been copy and pasted from, I wouldn't be surprised if the intent of the original law was in fact to create streets like this in London.
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
