Parking on Pavements (DfT consultation Sept 2020)

[AM9]

Standard procedure on my road is that on one side you park on the road, on the other side half on the road/half on the pavement. There is no question of two vehicles passing in the remaining space, if someone is coming in the opposite direction you must wait until they have come through. If the (unofficial) parking protocol was not followed, and both sides saw parking on the road, only smaller cars would be able to travel along the road at all - delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc would just not be able to get through.

Whoever parks their vehicle obstructing the highway is committing an offence. Therefore on the road that you are describing, drivers parking vehicles on one side leaving a through path are not biolating obstruction laws. There's no defence saying that there weren't any legal spaces so rather than obstruct the road to other vehicle, they decided to obstruct a public footpath instead. Possession of a registered vehicle with the coreect VED, MoT and insurance permits the use of the roads according to the releavnt laws. It does not entitle a driver to obstruct the highway (which include any pedestrian footpaths) just because its convenient to do so near to where he/she lives/visits.

 

[miami]

If the (unofficial) parking protocol was not followed, and both sides saw parking on the road, only smaller cars would be able to travel along the road at all - delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc would just not be able to get through.

If there is no room to park without illegally driving on the pavement, then you shouldn't be parking.

Sounds like the solution is double yellows on one side.

 

[bramling]

If there is no room to park without illegally driving on the pavement, then you shouldn't be parking.

Sounds like the solution is double yellows on one side.

Not really a solution either, as this just ends up with cars displaced to other problematic locations.

Sometimes it just has to be accepted that pavement parking is the least-worst solution. I don’t like it, however I’m fortunate to live in a road where parking isn’t an issue.

Pavement parking isn’t always a problem by definition providing sufficient pavement space is left. I’d rather attention was focussed on people who don’t do that, rather than on pavement parking generally.

I don’t park on pavements myself except in highly exceptional circumstances, however I accept it as one of those little facts of life.

 

[py_megapixel]

Not really a solution either, as this just ends up with cars displaced to other problematic locations.

Sometimes it just has to be accepted that pavement parking is the least-worst solution. I don’t like it, however I’m fortunate to live in a road where parking isn’t an issue.

Pavement parking isn’t always a problem by definition providing sufficient pavement space is left. I’d rather attention was focussed on people who don’t do that, rather than on pavement parking generally.

I don’t park on pavements myself except in highly exceptional circumstances, however I accept it as one of those little facts of life.

If they are going to accept that pavement parking is the lesser evil in any particular solution, it would be better, in my opinion, for them to narrow the pavement. Then you can provide a consistent message that pavement parking is unacceptable everywhere. It is also significantly friendlier to pedestrians, because it completely maintains the level separation between vehicles and pedestrians.

I would be in favour of the installation of devices on the kerb to make it difficult to drive onto the pavement, but that might negatively impact wheelchair users so would not be ideal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would be the long term aim, but in the short term marking bays is easier and quicker.

 

[Ianno87]

If they are going to accept that pavement parking is the lesser evil in any particular solution, it would be better, in my opinion, for them to narrow the pavement. Then you can provide a consistent message that pavement parking is unacceptable everywhere. It is also significantly friendlier to pedestrians, because it completely maintains the level separation between vehicles and pedestrians.

Or you send a consistent message that "car is king, stuff everybody else". More space is needed for active travel, not less.

 

[py_megapixel]

Or you send a consistent message that "car is king, stuff everybody else". More space is needed for active travel, not less.

I entirely agree. But that space may as well not exist if people are going to park there all the time!!

As a pedestrian, I would prefer a narrower pavement with cars parked to the road next to me to a wider pavement with cars blocking half of it, assuming that the available space will be the same in each circumstance.

In an ideal world I would prefer to remove the parking space entirely, but that won't satisfy people either.

 

[ABB125]

If they are going to accept that pavement parking is the lesser evil in any particular solution, it would be better, in my opinion, for them to narrow the pavement. Then you can provide a consistent message that pavement parking is unacceptable everywhere. It is also significantly friendlier to pedestrians, because it completely maintains the level separation between vehicles and pedestrians.

I would be in favour of the installation of devices on the kerb to make it difficult to drive onto the pavement, but that might negatively impact wheelchair users so would not be ideal.

In many situations it may even be possible to entirely remove the pavement from one side of the road. Why is it necessary to have a pavement on both sides? (Says the person who grew up on a road with a single-side pavement, which no-one ever used. Admittedly the village green was on the other side of the road! ) Personally I'd have absolutely no issue with crossing the road to get to the pavement on the other side. Although obviously it does depend on local circumstances: how busy is the road? is there a large volume of pedestrian traffic? etc etc.

Take for example this road: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.099...4!1spqv9Kme8Z_VwJh0drKe_Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
A row of Victorian terraces, with no driveways. The only place to park is on the road. Unfortunately, there just happens to be a large school at the end of the road (behind the camera, if the link works correctly). Pavement parking is therefore a definite no, because of the large volume of children arriving every day on foot. However, there also needs to be a gap large enough for around 13 buses/coaches to travel both ways, twice a day, within around 20 minutes, as well as all the car traffic in the area. The road is wide enough for a single lane of traffic, but all hell breaks loose when some idiot in a car goes head-to-head with a bus... If you're fortunate, there will be a gap in the parked cars. If not... well, let's say I've spent a good few hours on coaches not going anywhere on that road!

(Incidentally, I could create a whole new rant thread about traffic in Evesham!)

 

[bramling]

Or you send a consistent message that "car is king, stuff everybody else". More space is needed for active travel, not less.

That's very easy to write from somewhere like Cambridge where alternative options are viable and readily on hand. For much of the country, especially rural areas, this is simply irrelevant, and isn't going to change regardless of what "message" is sent out.

If they are going to accept that pavement parking is the lesser evil in any particular solution, it would be better, in my opinion, for them to narrow the pavement. Then you can provide a consistent message that pavement parking is unacceptable everywhere. It is also significantly friendlier to pedestrians, because it completely maintains the level separation between vehicles and pedestrians.

£££££££££££, unfortunately.

 

[ABB125]

That's very easy to write from somewhere like Cambridge where alternative options are viable and readily on hand. For much of the country, especially rural areas, this is simply irrelevant, and isn't going to change regardless of what "message" is sent out.

Indeed.

Even if you live in a town, it's very likely that you will still need a car for journeys that aren't possible by public transport/walking. eg: buying a week's worth of food for a large family from the supermarket the other side of town.

DISCLAIMER: I don't live in a town (why would I want to? )

 

[Bletchleyite]

In many situations it may even be possible to entirely remove the pavement from one side of the road. Why is it necessary to have a pavement on both sides?

That's a very interesting point - one thing I've noticed is that it's very common in Germany and Switzerland to have it only on one side.

Even if you live in a town, it's very likely that you will still need a car for journeys that aren't possible by public transport/walking. eg: buying a week's worth of food for a large family from the supermarket the other side of town.

The answer to that is delivery services and occasional top-ups from a more local store (Tesco Expresses, Sainsbury's Locals, Co-ops, Little Waitroses in posh places etc are all over the place in towns now).

Aldi don't deliver yet (though they do do click and collect), but I bet they won't be long joining the fray.

 

[ABB125]

That's a very interesting point - one thing I've noticed is that it's very common in Germany and Switzerland to have it only on one side.

The only reason I can think of is that it might be considered dangerous to cross the road to get to the pavement on the other side, especially if there's a line of cars parked outside. However, if it's a residential street where most of the traffic is people diving to/from home (ie: very little traffic) that shouldn't be an issue. You should also be able to hear a car coming. (Well, if you aren't the sort of person who is glued to their phone whilst walking, wearing headphones, and so oblivious to their surroundings! But then it's your own fault if you get run over by a car because you didn't look (awaits response to the contrary by the anti-car lobby).)

The answer to that is delivery services and occasional top-ups from a more local store (Tesco Expresses, Sainsbury's Locals, Co-ops, Little Waitroses in posh places etc are all over the place in towns now).

Aldi don't deliver yet (though they do do click and collect), but I bet they won't be long joining the fray.

Possibly. Personally I'm not a fan of online shopping (not least because you can't specify that you want whichever loaf of bread is half-price because it's about to run out of date, for example.

 

[Bikeman78]

That's very easy to write from somewhere like Cambridge where alternative options are viable and readily on hand. For much of the country, especially rural areas, this is simply irrelevant, and isn't going to change regardless of what "message" is sent out.



£££££££££££, unfortunately.

I'm talking specifically about housing estates in Cardiff. I wonder how far people drive on average. In fact, many of the cars dumped on the pavement don't move for days on end.

 

[Ianno87]

That's very easy to write from somewhere like Cambridge where alternative options are viable and readily on hand. For much of the country, especially rural areas, this is simply irrelevant, and isn't going to change regardless of what "message" is sent out.



£££££££££££, unfortunately.

Indeed.

Even if you live in a town, it's very likely that you will still need a car for journeys that aren't possible by public transport/walking. eg: buying a week's worth of food for a large family from the supermarket the other side of town.

DISCLAIMER: I don't live in a town (why would I want to? )

More car space just becomes self-fulfilling. Create more, and more cars appear to fill it up. Net result = square one.

I'm talking specifically about housing estates in Cardiff. I wonder how far people drive on average. In fact, many of the cars dumped on the pavement don't move for days on end.

Yes, exactly. It is such an inefficient use of space (compared to say car clubs and the like).

Not saying car clubs are suitable for everybody, but the idea that everybody has a rectangular piece of metal parked outside "just in case" is nonsensical.

 

[ABB125]

More car space just becomes self-fulfilling. Create more, and more cars appear to fill it up. Net result = square one.

But removing/narrowing the pavement in itself doesn't necessarily create space for more cars to park, it just provides more space for other cars (and pedestrians) to get past.

 

[Bikeman78]

Pavement parking is therefore a definite no, because of the large volume of children arriving every day on foot.

People in Evesham must be more polite. People have no qualms about parking on the pavement near my children's school. Or, in a small number of cases, driving along it to get round an oncoming vehicle. I had a standoff with a taxi driver last year. He seemed to think that I was in the wrong for daring to walk along the pavement when he wanted to drive on it. I won in the end. I can be a stubborn git!

 

[Ianno87]

But removing/narrowing the pavement in itself doesn't necessarily create space for more cars to park, it just provides more space for other cars (and pedestrians) to get past.

Until that car space isn't enough and they start creeping onto pavements again.

Or the fact that making it difficult for cars to get past, is itself a form of traffic calming.

 

[AM9]

... Pavement parking isn’t always a problem by definition providing sufficient pavement space is left. I’d rather attention was focussed on people who don’t do that, rather than on pavement parking generally. ...

Therein lies the problem. What is "sufficient"? Sufficient for the driver to still be able to park somewhere convenient as he/she sees fit, or sufficient to allow a wheelchair/scooter/any other person for whom the footpath portion of the highway to pass unindered? Arbitrary rules and laws create conflict, and in a confrontation between a pedestrian and what I have frequently seen of serial pavement blockers, the pedestrian usually is at a disadvantage on a part of the highway that that is provided for their exclusive use.

 

[Ianno87]

Therein lies the problem. What is "sufficient"? Sufficient for the driver to still be able to park somewhere convenient as he/she sees fit, or sufficient to allow a wheelchair/scooter/any other person for whom the footpath portion of the highway to pass unindered? Arbitrary rules and laws create conflict, and in a confrontation between a pedestrian and what I have frequently seen of serial pavement blockers, the pedestrian usually is at a disadvantage on a part of the highway that that is provided for their exclusive use.

"Sufficient" ought to be for at least two people, of any mobility or encomberment, to pass wach other unimpeded. Minimum.

 

[AM9]

But removing/narrowing the pavement in itself doesn't necessarily create space for more cars to park, it just provides more space for other cars (and pedestrians) to get past.

How does removing/narrowing the pavement provide more space for pedestrians to get past?

 

[ABB125]

People in Evesham must be more polite. People have no qualms about parking on the pavement near my children's school. Or, in a small number of cases, driving along it to get round an oncoming vehicle. I had a standoff with a taxi driver last year. He seemed to think that I was in the wrong for daring to walk along the pavement when he wanted to drive on it. I won in the end. I can be a stubborn git!

I think the residents of Victoria Avenue are resigned to the fact that there's a school there. Furthermore, even with pavement parking there's no way you could fit two buses through the remaining space, so why bother parking on the pavement? There's just enough room for said bus to get through with everyone parking on the road.

Until that car space isn't enough and they start creeping onto pavements again.

Or the fact that making it difficult for cars to get past, is itself a form of traffic calming.

However, if the pavement on one side of the road is entirely removed, there's no more space to be gained. And penalty notices could be given to persons who do park on the remaining pavement.
The second point is valid, though a car travelling at a steady 20mph should produce fewer emissions than one constantly accelerating and decelerating because of obstacles in the way. (See also speedhumps.)

How does removing/narrowing the pavement provide more space for pedestrians to get past?

If you replace two fairly narrow pavements, both of which are infringed by parked cars, with a single narrow pavement which experiences no pavement parking, there should be more space for pedestrians. Especially if the single remaining pavement could be widened slightly.
This wouldn't necessarily be the case in all locations, it would depend on the local circumstances.

 

[AM9]

"Sufficient" ought to be for at least two people, of any mobility or encomberment, to pass wach other unimpeded. Minimum.

If the governments (local or national) are so scared of the motoring lobby, I agree that that could be a time-limited way of ensuring at least some footpaths in the worst areas are usable by those for whom it is intended. So assuming that two people might not be required to walk along like a honeymooning couple, that should be specified as 1.5 metres or more.

 

[Ianno87]

If the governments (local or national) are so scared of the motoring lobby, I agree that that could be a time-limited way of ensuring at least some footpaths in the worst areas are usable by those for whom it is intended. So assuming that two people might not be required to walk along like a honeymooning couple, that should be specified as 1.5 metres or more.

Panacea is to permit two wheelchair users to pass each other without hesitation - which is 2 x 635 mm, plus allowance to avoid collision / trapped finger / scraped paintwork etc.

 

[AM9]

I think the residents of Victoria Avenue are resigned to the fact that there's a school there. Furthermore, even with pavement parking there's no way you could fit two buses through the remaining space, so why bother parking on the pavement? There's just enough room for said bus to get through with everyone parking on the road.

However, if the pavement on one side of the road is entirely removed, there's no more space to be gained. And penalty notices could be given to persons who do park on the remaining pavement.
The second point is valid, though a car travelling at a steady 20mph should produce fewer emissions than one constantly accelerating and decelerating because of obstacles in the way. (See also speedhumps.)


If you replace two fairly narrow pavements, both of which are infringed by parked cars, with a single narrow pavement which experiences no pavement parking, there should be more space for pedestrians. Especially if the single remaining pavement could be widened slightly.
This wouldn't necessarily be the case in all locations, it would depend on the local circumstances.

That just legitimises the encroachment of already limited footpath space. The bottom line is that anybody that meets the licensing, taxing and insurance requirements can drive a vehicle along a permitted highway. That doesn't include any right to obstruct, cause a nuisance or claim any particular part of the highway, however inconvenient it might be if such acts weren't allowed.

 

[ABB125]

That just legitimises the encroachment of already limited footpath space. The bottom line is that anybody that meets the licensing, taxing and insurance requirements can drive a vehicle along a permitted highway. That doesn't include any right to obstruct, cause a nuisance or claim any particular part of the highway, however inconvenient it might be if such acts weren't allowed.

So it does.
I don't necessarily agree with the principle of narrowing/removing pavements just to make car owners' lives easier. However, if it produces a good compromise between vehicle users and pedestrians it should be considered.

Taking the argument the other way: why is it OK for the function of the road be compromised (by there not being enough space for the bin lorry to get past, for example) in order that pedestrians have their pavements clear of obstruction, but not for the function of the pavement to be compromised (through pavement parking) in order to have a clear(er) roadway?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only reason I can think of is that it might be considered dangerous to cross the road to get to the pavement on the other side, especially if there's a line of cars parked outside. However, if it's a residential street where most of the traffic is people diving to/from home (ie: very little traffic) that shouldn't be an issue. You should also be able to hear a car coming. (Well, if you aren't the sort of person who is glued to their phone whilst walking, wearing headphones, and so oblivious to their surroundings! But then it's your own fault if you get run over by a car because you didn't look (awaits response to the contrary by the anti-car lobby).)

More that it's discriminatory against blind people?

Possibly. Personally I'm not a fan of online shopping (not least because you can't specify that you want whichever loaf of bread is half-price because it's about to run out of date, for example.

You can do that at the local Co-op.

 

[bramling]

More car space just becomes self-fulfilling. Create more, and more cars appear to fill it up. Net result = square one.



Yes, exactly. It is such an inefficient use of space (compared to say car clubs and the like).

Not saying car clubs are suitable for everybody, but the idea that everybody has a rectangular piece of metal parked outside "just in case" is nonsensical.

Yet so nonsensical that it’s pretty mainstream. Indeed I have three such pieces of metal (not on the pavement though!), and I’m not what one would call a car enthusiast.

I am fortunate that my road has plenty of space, however I have been around enough to be able to appreciate that not everyone is so fortunate, and am prepared to tolerate that as a fact of life.

 

[AM9]

Panacea is to permit two wheelchair users to pass each other without hesitation - which is 2 x 635 mm, plus allowance to avoid collision / trapped finger / scraped paintwork etc.

Agreed so 1500mm seems about right given pavements aren't always good enough for wheelchairs across their whole width. Also, that width should not have any vehicular intrusions including mirrors, etc..
Your mention of scraped paintwork is significant, for instance if a footpath user does scrape any paintwork on a vehicle that hasn't met the clearance requirement, apart from theillegal parking offence, they have no claim against the person who couldn't avoid the damage.

So it does.
I don't necessarily agree with the principle of narrowing/removing pavements just to make car owners' lives easier. However, if it produces a good compromise between vehicle users and pedestrians it should be considered.

Taking the argument the other way: why is it OK for the function of the road be compromised (by there not being enough space for the bin lorry to get past, for example) in order that pedestrians have their pavements clear of obstruction, but not for the function of the pavement to be compromised (through pavement parking) in order to have a clear(er) roadway?

Because the bin lorry is a road vehicle. I'm surprised that you can't see that. Pavements are not for any road vehicles.

 

[bramling]

That just legitimises the encroachment of already limited footpath space. The bottom line is that anybody that meets the licensing, taxing and insurance requirements can drive a vehicle along a permitted highway. That doesn't include any right to obstruct, cause a nuisance or claim any particular part of the highway, however inconvenient it might be if such acts weren't allowed.

Life is a compromise, and I for one am prepared to accept that sometimes footpath space may best be used to accommodate parked cars, so long as sufficient space is left to allow things like wheelchairs comfortably past.

 

[Bikeman78]

Furthermore, even with pavement parking there's no way you could fit two buses through the remaining space, so why bother parking on the pavement?

That was my point in post 384. Why park on the pavement when it doesn't benefit people on the road? It's quite street specific too. I can think of roads where everyone happily parks on the road and leaves just enough space for one vehicle. Whereas, on other streets, almost everyone parks on the pavement which leaves a slightly wider gap on the road but still not enough for two vehicles.