Parking on Pavements (DfT consultation Sept 2020)

[Bletchleyite]

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

That is a longer-term aspiration, as many pavements are not that wide even without parking.

Indeed, I'd say the real aspiration is the Milton Keynes new estate concept - a regular (1.5m ish) pavement on one side, a 2+ metre "Redway" shared/cycle route on the other.

You're not, however, going to achieve that on a street like this (Google Streetview of Woleseley St, Lancaster, which looks to be barely 4m wide in its entirety):

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[Ianno87]

Yet so nonsensical that it’s pretty mainstream.

Just because lots of people do it doesn't make it rational, logical or considerate.

Cars are, to some extent, a status symbol as much as they are a practical means of transport.

 

[ABB125]

More that it's discriminatory against blind people?

You can do that at the local Co-op.

Every day is a school day!

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

I agree. I'm just curious as to why double standards seemingly apply.

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.

I think it might just depend on the attitudes of the residents, but also what everyone else does: for example, someone just moves in to a house on the street, and sees that most of the cars are parked on the pavement. They are likely to do so too. Whereas if most of the cars aren't parked on the pavement, the new resident will probably avoid it too.

Cars are, to some extent, a status symbol as much as they are a practical means of transport.

Quite. How many of those people who have an enormous (probably German) car actually need it when they could probably make do with a much smaller car. Especially as a smaller car probably wouldn't need parking on the pavement.

Having said that, even small cars nowadays are quite big, I believe due to safety standards. So potentially, increased standards for cars to reduce injury of the occupants might actually increase the likelihood of injury for pedestrians. I wonder if the standards authorities consider thing like this...

 

[bramling]

Just because lots of people do it doesn't make it rational, logical or considerate.

Cars are, to some extent, a status symbol as much as they are a practical means of transport.

Can’t help but chuckle. In my case I have two pretty old cars (one 21 years old, the other 11), and a third which is rather newer. It’s fair to say neither of these would be seen as status symbols judging by the faded paintwork, though under the skin they’re both heavily maintained. Ironically the cost of keeping these is probably more than I could pay for a modest new car on a finance deal. Of the three, one is for work use (and probably wouldn’t be here were it not for the ThamesLink Programme), the other for holidays, and the third for general use to take the mileage off the holiday car.

I must admit I know someone at work who has three people carriers on finance, which I don’t quite get, and there does seem to be an element of “community pressure” there.

However I’m less sure how relevant all this is, as the places where pavement parking is an issue tends to fall into one or three categories (IME):
1) Older fairly dense terraced housing
2) Newer stuff which wasn’t designed for today’s sizes of car (it’s surprising how many recent and new build estates are terribly laid out for parking, with the roads being that little bit too narrow and with awkward wavy curves).
3) Rural housing alongside faster roads

I’m not sure there’s that much which can be done about any of this as the constraining factors are pretty fixed. Hence why I am prepared to accept it as a fact of life.

 

[ABB125]

2) Newer stuff which wasn’t designed for today’s sizes of car (it’s surprising how many recent and new build estates are terribly laid out for parking, with the roads being that little bit too narrow and with awkward wavy curves).

You could've just said "it's surprising how many new-build estates are terrible" EDIT: or even just "new estates are terrible".

Virtually all modern housing developments are car-dependent (at least where I live) due to, amongst other thing, lack of local shops/schools etc, no "sustainable transport" links (it's all well and good having a cycleway around the estate, but if it stops at the edge, leaving the cyclists to take their chances on the busy, narrow road, it's not going to be very useful! However, that would mean spending more money for no benefit (to the developer), so will never happen unless mandated by the planning authority (and even then, making something a requirement doesn't mean it'll actually happen!).

Another topic I could start a new thread on...

 

[maniacmartin]

I don't think there is a single solution for all types of street, as it really depends.

My old flat was on a dead-end road in greater London. The estate was built with seperate garage blocks, but the garages are too small to fit the cars of today. It's a narrow road, so all residents park half on and half off the curb which means the bin lorry can just get past. There was just about enough space to fit everyone's car, until 2 properties decided to acquire 3 long cars each! Everyone seems content to walk on the road, given it is a cul-de-sac anyway. The best solution here to me is to just remove the pavements entirely and make the entire street a shared space (There are neighbouring roads with lots of space where one could park instead, but the residents of those roads get very angry if you park there and don't live there, despite them not using the space). Banning pavement parking on this street would be very unpopular with the street's residents.

Estates like this should not get past planning permission stage nowadays, yet somehow they do. In fact another block of flats got approved and built on the street, despite me commenting that there were insufficient parking spaces and the garage spaces on the plan had such tight angles to get into that it is unlikely any driver would ever use them.

My current house is a typical terrace house. You can always find a space nearby so parking hasn't been an issue to me. Some residents want a guaranteed space available right outside their front door though, so have got dropped curbs fitted and turned their gardens in driveways by getting rid of their front walls and concreting over their entire property frontage. I think that looks very ugly, especially if too many neighbouring properties do it, as you end up with a massive concrete expanse. One of my neighbours' solutions was to buy 2 cones which he leaves on the road to "reserve" his space when he is out! Banning pavement parking on a road like this would be fine, but pointless as no-one parks on the pavement anyway.

I do have a car even though I don't "need" one, but it is quite a small car. I tried car sharing clubs and rental cars, and the experience wasn't great. Sometimes I would arrive and the car wouldn't be there, or my journey would take longer than expected and I'd be stressing about getting it back in time. Also, the times when you most need a car, Christmas etc, are when everyone else also wants one so there are few cars available. It was just a lot of hassle and stress.

 

[PeterC]

I do have a car even though I don't "need" one, but it is quite a small car. I tried car sharing clubs and rental cars, and the experience wasn't great. Sometimes I would arrive and the car wouldn't be there, or my journey would take longer than expected and I'd be stressing about getting it back in time. Also, the times when you most need a car, Christmas etc, are when everyone else also wants one so there are few cars available. It was just a lot of hassle and stress.

The last time that I rented a vehicle I turned up at the depot to find that it still hadn't been returned 24 hours after the end of the previous hire. After attempts to phone the hirer and then ringing round other depots I ended up being driven to for about 30 minutes to pick up a vehicle that happened to be free.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Last time I hired a vehicle it was not there, it was at a depot 50 miles away. A kindly employee brought it for collection eight hours later
..
Vehicles standing on footways is bad enough, but vehicles driving to park on footways, aiming at people walking along, expecting them to get out of the way, is intolerable

 

[miami]

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.

Make it one way

That was my point in post 384. Why park on the pavement when it doesn't benefit people on the road?

I suspect a fair number of people are unable to judge where their inside wheel is. Parking on the pavement means you're not parked 8" into the road.

Therein lies the problem. What is "sufficient"?

The size that the pavement is. Might be 50cm wide, might be 5m wide.

If you think the pavement is too wide, lobby the council to shrink it.

If you think it's too narrow, lobby the council to increase it

 

[sheff1]

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.

Perhaps you might like to conduct a door to door survey on the hundreds (possibly thousands) of streets in Sheffield which have a similar layout as mine and put your solution to residents. I don't rate your chances of completing the survey without getting lynched.

 

[AM9]

Perhaps you might like to conduct a door to door survey on the hundreds (possibly thousands) of streets in Sheffield which have a similar layout as mine and put your solution to residents. I don't rate your chances of completing the survey without getting lynched.

Then what's the point in trying to reason with residents who have that sort of attitude?

 

[bramling]

Then what's the point in trying to reason with residents who have that sort of attitude?

It’s a bit like getting angry when it rains - one of those little facts of life that’s unlikely to change and not worth getting worked up about, except for the worst cases.

I don’t like vehicles on pavements, but accept that in some cases it’s the least-worst solution.

 

[miami]

Then what's the point in trying to reason with residents who have that sort of attitude?

Lynching is an extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged transgressor, punish a convicted transgressor, or intimidate

Sounds about right for "me first" car owners

 

[Baxenden Bank]

It’s a bit like getting angry when it rains - one of those little facts of life that’s unlikely to change and not worth getting worked up about, except for the worst cases.

I don’t like vehicles on pavements, but accept that in some cases it’s the least-worst solution.

I'm not having a go at you Bramling:

To all those in favour of parking on the pavement, what is your view of pedestrians walking in the road, even if there is a footway available? What if a pedestrian starts crossing the road, then stops to admire the view. Do you mind? Do you beep as you swerve, or gesture? What if they set up a table and chairs for a game of dominoes blocking off a whole lane at peak hours but then wander off leaving it abandoned?

 

[py_megapixel]

Sounds about right for "me first" car owners

These'll be the same people who consider speeding tickets unfair because they didn't realise there was a camera there, and who tailgate and beep at cyclists who choose to use the main carriageway rather than the foot wide cycle lane in the gutter full of potholes, drain gratings and parked cars

 

[sheff1]

Then what's the point in trying to reason with residents who have that sort of attitude?

How is it reasonable to tell people that they cannot park in their own district, never mind their own street, when there is no suitable public transport available ?

Many moons ago, Sheffield Council had a policy of making bus travel in the city free and were working towards that. The majority of residents supported the policy, bus ridership increased and with it bus frequency. Then Mrs Thatcher said such things were not allowed and since then bus services have deteriorated in virtually all areas with many routes withdrawn and frequencies reduced (in some cases to the point where the service becomes effietively useless for most people).

If policy is to make public transport unattractive, or non-existent, people will obviously move to using a car and need somewhere to park it.

In reality, the parking arrangements I described mean that people can generally park reasonably near to their home and pedestrians can safely use the pavement, as can people with buggies or wheelchairs. Reducing the number of parking spaces by 50%, as suggested, is not a "solution" to anything.

To declare an interest - I do not own a car as I am not allowed to drive.

 

[ashkeba]

If policy is to make public transport unattractive, or non-existent, people will obviously move to using a car and need somewhere to park it.

Policy is now the opposite plus to encourage walking, so it must now be fine to provide all the intended space for walking (to the transit stop or even all the way) and require car owners to buy or rent suitable storage for their vehicles when not in use.

Car owners tend to take all the space allotted to them and then a bit more. This seems the same across Europe. But in England, they seem to be allowed to get away without penalty tickets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Policy is now the opposite plus to encourage walking, so it must now be fine to provide all the intended space for walking (to the transit stop or even all the way) and require car owners to buy or rent suitable storage for their vehicles when not in use.

That requires the transit to exist.

An hourly bus service from about 8am to 5pm does not constitute adequate "transit".

 

[miami]

never mind their own street

Oh sorry, didn't realise these were private roads. in that case, sure, park wherever you want (assuming you're the landowner)

I thought we were talking about public roads owned by the public though

 

[bramling]

I'm not having a go at you Bramling:

To all those in favour of parking on the pavement, what is your view of pedestrians walking in the road, even if there is a footway available? What if a pedestrian starts crossing the road, then stops to admire the view. Do you mind? Do you beep as you swerve, or gesture? What if they set up a table and chairs for a game of dominoes blocking off a whole lane at peak hours but then wander off leaving it abandoned?

Walking in the road is actually a mainstream activity, as there are plenty of roads which have no footpath - mainly those in rural areas, but also some in built-up areas too. I will be out for a walk later, and will infact be using two separate sections of such road.

The key to all this is what’s reasonable. I’m not going to go walking down the centre of a lane on a busy road, but by the same token I expect car drivers to be courteous to people who do need to use the road when walking. Naturally I would use a pavement were possible. The flip side of this coin is I don’t have an issue with people parking on a pavement providing it’s done considerately.

I just think both sides of this need to be a little more understanding. It seems there’s people whose ears go back at the very sight of a car on a pavement (regardless of whether it’s causing an obstruction or not), and at the same time there certainly are car users who seem to think the entire world revolves around their immediate preferences. IMO neither attitude is appropriate.

One further thought regarding pavement parking, round here (where as it happens we *don’t* have pavement parking as there is no shortage of space, fortunately due to the way the houses are laid out we only have houses down one side of the road, plus another side-road with no houses until about 100 yards in) looking at old photos going back to when the houses were built, there were no pavements, the entire space was simply gravel extending right up to the property boundaries, there’s even a photo with a horse and cart parked directly up against my front wall, where the pavement now is. At what point would separate pavements have become the done thing?

 

[miami]

the very sight of a car on a pavement (regardless of whether it’s causing an obstruction or not

By definition it's causing an obstruction, just as walking along a motorway would be causing an obstruction.

 

[AM9]

... The key to all this is what’s reasonable. ...

It's that type of language again, "reasonable". Perhaps you could help by explaining how that could be defined in law, because at the moment there is plenty of pavement parking that the majority of pavement users regard as 'unreasonable' but surprisingly, most motorists see it as reasonable.

 

[bramling]

It's that type of language again, "reasonable". Perhaps you could help by explaining how that could be defined in law, because at the moment there is plenty of pavement parking that the majority of pavement users regard as 'unreasonable' but surprisingly, most motorists see it as reasonable.

I admire your psychic powers in being able to know what people think!

Seriously, do that many people give second glance to a car on a pavement providing it isn’t in their way? In many roads it’s simply the done thing and I don’t see hoards of pavement users openly moaning about it.

For me reasonable is parking in such a way which considers the needs of others, in other words leaving space for people to easily walk past, and for wheelchairs, pushchairs and similar to pass.

I don’t why some people seem to be taking the view “there’s a car on a pavement over there, I happened to want to walk through that particular piece of pavement so now I’m going to be all affronted for the rest of the day”. Would it be an issue if someone set up a deckchair on the said pavement and chose to sit there for a few hours?

The gist seems to be an emotive anti-car undertone rather than finding a pragmatic solution to a real-life problem that isn’t going to go away, no matter how much both of us might like it to.

 

[miami]

Seriously, do that many people give second glance to a car on a pavement providing it isn’t in their way?

How much space do you determine is needed to make it not in my way? 50cm? 1m? 1.5m? 2m? 3m? 10m?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How much space do you determine is needed to make it not in my way? 50cm? 1m? 1.5m? 2m? 3m? 10m?

I'd go with maybe a foot or so wider than the widest common electric wheelchair (that actually is classed as a wheelchair; disabled carriages are to be used on the road), or the full width of the pavement if narrower.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

There need to be wider places too, so wheelchair users going opposite ways could pass each other

Cars have been getting wider and wider, perhaps they could start getting narrower

 

[Bletchleyite]

There need to be wider places too, so wheelchair users going opposite ways could pass each other

As long as there's periodic space for them to "pull in" that's fine.

Cars have been getting wider and wider, perhaps they could start getting narrower

The reason they have is increased safety measures e.g. side impact protection, that is not going to change.

 

[miami]

I'd go with maybe a foot or so wider than the widest common electric wheelchair (that actually is classed as a wheelchair; disabled carriages are to be used on the road), or the full width of the pavement if narrower.

[Withdrawn] Inclusive mobility (web version)

www.gov.uk

A clear width of 2000mm allows two wheelchairs to pass one another comfortably. This should be regarded as the minimum under normal circumstances. Where this is not possible because of physical constraints 1500mm could be regarded as the minimum acceptable under most circumstances, giving sufficient space for a wheelchair user and a walker to pass one another. The absolute minimum, where there is an obstacle, should be 1000mm clear space

So a 2m wide pavement with occasional obstruction (tree, wheeliebin, etc) is fine.

A 1.5m wide pavement is the absolute minimum

A row of cars should be looking at leaving 2m from the edge of the pavement. If there is a pavement more than 2m wide, then perhaps petition the council to

1) Reduce it
2) Mark out parking bays on it

 

[Bletchleyite]

The vast majority of pavements, even in new build estates, are not 2m wide. More like between 1 and 1.5m.

 

[miami]

Seems like cars shouldn't be on the pavement at all then