Pavement Parking - a device to combat it...

[AlaninWales]

Surprised not to find this already here: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/extreme-new-gadget-could-put-1316584
I wonder what the reaction would be if a council somewhere had the courage to start using these .

[Psamathe]

I can't see it happening. Think of the legal cases where angry motorists sue the Councils for damage to their tyres.

But an interesting line in the linked to article

“Last year 43 people were killed by cars as they walked on pavements,” he said.

- which (if true) puts the number of deaths caused by cyclists in perspective and should presumably cause an immediate and urgent inquiry/review by DfT (or whoever).

Ian

[661-Pete]

Sometimes emergency vehicles need to mount the pavement to get around cars parked on the carriageway. And people using mobility scooters might have problems. I can see some downsides to this idea.

[kwackers]

Why not simply make it illegal and employ more traffic wardens. I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be a net income generator.

The cycle lane that runs in a loop near my house widens at one point and becomes a bus lane which has a times of operation placard.
Parking in it follows a pattern. Apparently (according to the local FB page) traffic wardens only ever come down at certain times/days so folk start parking in it. Over a period of a few weeks more and more park and more and more stay inside the prohibited times.
Then suddenly a traffic warden appears and tickets 10 or 20 cars and they squeal like stuck pigs on the FB page. Apparently it's unfair.

Last time was about 2 weeks ago and the lane has been car free for most of the time since but now I've noticed they've started to reappear.

I look at all the cars parked on pavements usually without a good reason and can't help but think it's an opportunity lost...

[Mick F]

Why not simply make it illegal and employ more traffic wardens. I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be a net income generator.

Agree ............... and whilst they're there, they can book all the pavement cyclists too.

[JohnW]

Lets get real - motorists are 'allowed' (and believe they have the right) to do what they want, where they want, why they want, in any way they want......................and remember that legalists, politicians etc etc are devout members of the nations established religion of motorism. No action will ever be taken about pavement parking, or parking in 'bus stops, or parking at crossing points.................it won't ever change.

[RickH]

Why not simply make it illegal and employ more traffic wardens. I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be a net income generator.

Agree ............... and whilst they're there, they can book all the pavement cyclists too.

But it isn't always easy to know where cycling on the pavement is allowed or not. Or badly signed - over in Chester the other week we were out on the tandem. They've built a new bus station recently & part of the road layout changes they've made is to make one of the roads one way but made the pavement "shared use" so bikes can still get both ways. All well and good so far. The slight problem came when I reached the "Cyclist rejoin main carriageway" sign & realised that the sign was after the dropped kerb to do so. On a solo I could possibly have managed the manoeuvre to swerve to the dropped kerb, or dropped off the kerb at a random, slightly later, point, but neither of those were really an option on the tandem so I simply carried on on the pavement until I reached the next dropped kerb.

And sometimes there is a shared use "low flying bicycle" sign and then nothing for a significant distance - 1/2 mile or more - or, conversely, the first shared use sign is a significant distance after the dropped kerb that allows you access, or there is no sign at a junction letting you know that you can use the pavement legally. (Are there any regulations about how often the "low flying bicycle" signs should be repeated?)

Nearer to home, where are you allowed to cycle if you have a look round here (Google StreetView link)?

I think the signs have got twisted round but I think the intention is to allow you to ride on the pavement between the side street and the crossing on one side of the main road & between the crossing & the park entrance on the other. But there is no end of route, or other marking, to advice you not to cycle further. There are no further shared use signs if you continue but nothing to say you can't cycle further either

[JohnW]

In principle, I'm personally opposed to pavement cycling, but there are two places that I cycle regularly, that are so dangerous - indeed life threatening - that I do roll on to the pavement to use a 'Pelikan' to get across a main road alive. I don't like doing it, it doesn't give me satisfaction. There are very few pedestrians around those locations, but I make a point of, indeed take a pride in, stopping/dismounting/waiting if there are any pedestrians - on the basis that in that situation they have the moral, and probably legal, right of way.

I know that youths on bikes sometimes ride on the footpath as their norm, if they can get past the parked cars, but it's a matter of mutual respect. But motorists.................does anyone recall the post a couple of years ago, posted by the mother of a toddler, whose little toddler on her bike had scuffed a car parked on the pavement on a cul-de-sac? - the motorist was aggressive and abusive, and threatened to sue.

I despair for humanity................

[Cunobelin]

Why not simply make it illegal and employ more traffic wardens. I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be a net income generator.

Agree ............... and whilst they're there, they can book all the pavement cyclists too.

I have some sympathy with the Boateng principle and "Considerate" pavement cycling.

However what has always stuck in my mind was a local Councillor here... she organised multiple crackdowns on children pavement cycling near the School, because it was dangerous, but there was never any action taken over the illegal parking. When asked why this was... her reply was that parents "HAVE" to park on the pavement whereas the children "CHOOSE"to cycle on the pavement

[Tizme]

Cunobelin wrote:
However what has always stuck in my mind was a local Councillor here... she organised multiple crackdowns on children pavement cycling near the School, because it was dangerous, but there was never any action taken over the illegal parking. When asked why this was... her reply was that parents "HAVE" to park on the pavement whereas the children "CHOOSE"to cycle on the pavement

Got it in one! That is the battle we face, changing the mindset.

I was once running along a road when I came across a car parked on the pavement, so close to the wall that you would be lucky to get more than a fag paper between the two. Just as I ran around the car (obviously I am now in the road), the driver appeared, I politely explained how dangerous her parking was for pedestrians. Her reply: " I am a nurse on call - I have to park here" The fact that she was female (and would possibly claim I was intimidating her - all 5'6"/9st of me) stopped me from saying more - like pointing out that she was parked across the driveway of the house!

[[XAP]Bob]

Sometimes emergency vehicles need to mount the pavement to get around cars parked on the carriageway. And people using mobility scooters might have problems. I can see some downsides to this idea.

Scooters aren't heavy enough to expose the spikes, and users would be much better off without the stupid motorists blocking the pavements...

The 'services' getting around a car in the carriageway is potentially problematic, but I can't think of any occasion when I've seen that happen - and frankly the car should be towed away.
I've seen *one* vehicle mount the kerb to allow an ambulance past recently, but not in a place where such devices might be installed - and as has been pointed out, there exist roads with other barriers and we seem to manage.

The only issue I can see is making them obvious enough, and ensuring that they aren't placed on the edge of driveways...

[JohnW]

.................Got it in one! That is the battle we face, changing the mindset.................................!

..............just as you say - +1 to that.

[freeflow]

They would be illegal because they are designed to damage other people's property.

[Cunobelin]

They would be illegal because they are designed to damage other people's property.

... perhaps another answer

There are millions of pounds spent each year to repair damage due to pavement parking (not forgetting the cost of injury due to the damage)



These drivers choose to inflict that damage ....... surely they should be charged with criminal damage and in addition to fines, ASBOs and the like be forced to pay for the repairs?

W

[pete75]

We already have a device to combat pavement parking - all that's needed is the will.