Unenforceable then
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Transport Bill / Pavement Parking
(72 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
How soon until we can find out which MSPs voted how?
I can't find it on the Vote Search function.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Tories voted against all the good stuff (remove 20 min exemption, ban on parking in cycle lanes, WPL)
Greens voted for all the good stuff
Labour voted against WPL but in favour of removing 20 min exemption & ban on parking in cycle lanes
SNP voted for WPL, against removal of exemption, against ban on parking in cycle lanes
Lib Dems voted against WPL, not sure about the other two amendments
EDIT: these were just the amendments; they ran out of time so will continue tomorrow.
Posted 4 years ago # -
So a police officer/parking attendant(?) will have to turn up and stare at a car parked on the pavement for twenty minutes before they can do anything? Sounds great...
Posted 4 years ago # -
Possibly, although it shouldn't mean that.
With people parking on double yellow lines (but where loading is allowed for, I think, 30 minutes), parking attendants only need to wait 5 minutes (10 for commercial vehicles) to determine if loading is taking place.
Any grace period is stupid when it comes to pavement parking, of course, but I don't think it'd be a 20 minute period in this case.
(The bigger problem will still be getting a police officer out to look at the vehicles in the first place).
Posted 4 years ago # -
Enforcement is decriminalised so it would be a parking attendant rather than a police officer.
Good news that the grace period for 'active loading' may be shorter than 20 minutes. But still rubbish that they are exempt otherwise. Would not be surprised if this result in an increase in pavement parking in the centre!
Edinburgh Council made it very clear in their response that this would make the legislation extremely hard to use. Given much of the residential pavement parking occurs outside of the CPZ, it wouldn't surprise me if this ends up achieving very little. Disappointing.
At least we got the WPL though I suppose!
Posted 4 years ago # -
Enforcement is decriminalised so it would be a parking attendant rather than a police officer.
Hadn't realised this - that's good.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I'd been thinking about a protest where we 'park' pedestrians and cyclists in the carriageway. So long as it was less than 20 minutes at a time and we didn't block the road entirely, i.e. just make it awkward or dangerous to get past, then that wouldn't be a problem under the [flawed] logic behind the current legislation.
It would need a reasonable number of protestors to be safe, but it could be done mob style. Turn up, 'park' then drift off to to the next location.
Wish I'd done something about it now.
Posted 4 years ago # -
We can still protest after the fact to reveal how unworkable this is...
Posted 4 years ago # -
It doesn't make any difference. Basic traffic law is no longer enforced so adding new offences is pointless in practical terms.
The fight has to be for a functioning state and a coherent society which sees benefits for all in following the laws.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Where law breaking occurs but is unenforced we could flash mob and block in the law breaking vehicle. Keep them there all day.
We could park dozens of bikes outside MSP's offices. Keeping them out or keeping them in.
We could continue to petition, even converse, but only direct action will effect change.
Posted 4 years ago # -
At least we got the WPL though I suppose
I thought the WPL had not been passed ??
Posted 4 years ago # -
I don't know if the whole act has been passed yet (although it almost certainly will be) but all the wrecking amendments were rejected.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49991051
With Green support, and the SNP committed to support it as part of the budget deal, the WPL not making it to law was extremely unlikely from the start. Which is why Labour and the Tories felt emboldened to make political capital out of futile opposition.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Labour very unhappy that the WPL went through - although was their policy for a while.
Their argument against WPL is that the better paid boss with his Range Rover will pay the same to park as a cleaner with a modest rustbucket.
Labour could also say that the fuel for the rich costs the same as the less well off. WPL is only one aspect of the package and will not be applied everywhere - think it is a good thing where vehicles are being driven on limited street space to sit idle for 8 hours.
The problem with applying socialism to motoring is that this whole mode of transport is sold on status and being 'one up' on the car behind (perhaps?).
Posted 4 years ago # -
The problem with applying socialism to motoring is that this whole mode of transport is sold on status and being 'one up' on the car behind (perhaps?).
I would say that the problem is that applying a 'carrot' to motoring problems normally fails to benefit the individual as much as they think motoring does. Direct legislation (ie banning) runs foul of politicians fear of the War on the Motorist. That really only leaves the 'stick' which will affect poorer households more than others, but something has to be done, and the less affluent are equally guilty of generating the problems that unhindered car use produces.Posted 4 years ago # -
Posted 4 years ago # -
I suppose "Scots law brought into line with that in England" wouldn't sell as many papers.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Let us not concern ourselves with the Daily Mail.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Their argument against WPL is that the better paid boss with his Range Rover will pay the same to park as a cleaner with a modest rustbucket.
But this applies to EVERYTHING if it's same-for-same. A pay & display space on the street, a bus ticket, gas for central heating, a packet of crisps, a cinema ticket, a set of spanners. It's almost as if the problem here is actually that some people are paid a pittance and there's massive and growing income inequality.
...is it weird to expect a socialist party to have a better analysis of this situation?
Posted 4 years ago # -
...is it weird to expect a socialist party to have a better analysis of this situation?
No.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I know an elected representative of the Scottish Labour party and they are charming and intelligent but also about as far from being a socialist as you can get without drifting into ethnic nationalism.
Posted 4 years ago # -
One thing that has slipped under the radar. An amendment by John Finnie that was agreed allows Scottish Ministers to introduce new regulations setting out how Redetermination Orders are handled. This could do away with some of the delay to new cycle infrastructure. Hardly revolutionary, but one to press the Scottish Government on for speedy progress.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@unhurt Also, the WPL is charged to the employer. It's up to the employer how, or even if, they pass on the cost of the levy to employees.
I believe in Nottingham the council charges % of salary rather than a flat rate in order to make the levy more progressive. Somewhat dubious source here:
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/teachers-city-council-workers-pay-2487236
Posted 4 years ago # -
Actually, I was wondering if employers choosing to pass the cost on to staff could scale it by pay band or similar!
Posted 4 years ago # -
@morningsider
I think that was amendment 175, which wasn't moved on as far as I can tell. So I think it's dead.
https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Bills/Transport%20(Scotland)%20Bill/SPBill33AMLS052019.pdf
https://www.parliament.scot/S5_BusinessTeam/Chamber_Minutes_20191010.pdf
Posted 4 years ago # -
@Morningsider, That sounds positive. (Edit: or maybe not if @toomanybikes is correct)
as @MediumDave says and most of the commentary seems to ignore is that this is a charge to the business not the employees. As far as I know businesses are free to charge their employees to park at the moment and this law doesn't change that.
Businesses who start to charge their employees for the privilege of parking in the office car park will essentially be giving their staff a pay cut, whether they use their new costs as an excuse or not. While higher paid workers may take this on the chin it seems plausible that such companies will be less competitive in the recruitment marker than companies who don't charge.
I wonder how many firms with more than 10 parking spaces actually employee cleaners directly. I can't see many companies getting away with charging their suppliers to park on site without it affecting how much they pay.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@unhurt, I don't think there is any regulations about charging staff to park either existing or as part of this bill.
Would it be legal for employers to charge for parking on a salary sacrifice basis? Doing so could reduce the employees tax and NI liability.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I resent the fact that people that drive to my work are given a parking space worth ~£1000 p.a., whereas people that don't take a space get nothing.
It amounts to a thousand-pound tax-free salary increase to those who poison our kids and heat the planet.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@acsimpson
Businesses who start to charge their employees for the privilege of parking in the office car park will essentially be giving their staff a pay cut
I would turn this statement around to:
Businesses who don't charge their employees for the privilege of parking in the office car park are essentially giving their non-driving staff a pay cut
Posted 4 years ago # -
I'm pretty sure the TRO/RSO review did pass but can't find any proof. Spokes' social media seemed excited about it.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
