Banning pavement parking

[mumbojumbo]

It has been mooted that schemes in Derby and central London could be extended,with a ban on pavement parking nationally.I must admit I had presumed it wasi iilegal already.This will no doubt please many cyclists especially those who have colonised pavements,and created de facto cycle paths throughout our communities.I would happily volunteer to put notices on offending vfehicles and drivers.

[merseymouth]

Yo, I seem to recall that the 1855 Highways Act made it unlawful for carriages to use the pavement for any purpose? Carriage is the legal term for vehicles such as cars!
Also hen cyclist's tried to say that such a law did not apply to them the government of the day clarified the situation to the extent that cycles were also covered my such a prohibition, used the 1888 Local Government Amendments Act to enshrine it in law.
Not being a law graduate I my be stating the exact detail of the 1888 bill?
But we do commit an offence to use the pavement in control of a "Carriage"! Only problem at he moment is an unwillingness of the part othe Police & Local Councils to get the problem dealt with?
I offered a solution to our local council years ago? Land Mines under the first flags kerb-side, free wheelchair for all survivors! MM

[[XAP]Bob]

Better make sure there aren't any survivors... wheelchairs are ferociously expensive.

[thirdcrank]

It has been mooted that schemes in Derby and central London could be extended,with a ban on pavement parking nationally.I must admit I had presumed it wasi iilegal already.This will no doubt please many cyclists especially those who have colonised pavements,and created de facto cycle paths throughout our communities.I would happily volunteer to put notices on offending vfehicles and drivers.

Is there a link to the current proposals?

[mumbojumbo]

Heard it on R4-WATO from 300-1345.You could try a google

[thirdcrank]

I ask because this is one of those hardy annuals that pops up again and again. It's something a lot of people would like and others wouldn't. Without a firm proposal to do it from some part of the transport ministry it's illusory.

[Jdsk]

Government consultation: "Pavement parking: options for change", open until 22 November 2020:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/managing-pavement-parking/pavement-parking-options-for-change

Jonathan

[mjr]

Government consultation: "Pavement parking: options for change", open until 22 November 2020:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/managing-pavement-parking/pavement-parking-options-for-change

The option we need is option 3. The compromise option 2 is an unworkable fudge little better than the current situation where in theory you can be done for obstruction or pavement driving but in practice few ever are.

But we do commit an offence to use the pavement in control of a "Carriage"! Only problem at he moment is an unwillingness of the part othe Police & Local Councils to get the problem dealt with?

I think it's not entirely their fault. thirdcrank might know the case law, but I've been told that pavement driving can only be prosecuted if a suitable officer witnesses it and they're not allowed to conclude that a car seen parked on the pavement was driven there by its driver because vandals may have moved it there to get its driver in trouble.

So, the police would have to stand officers watching stretches of empty pavement and waiting for drivers to drive onto them, which understandably police chiefs are unwilling to do, or rather people are unwilling to fund.

[thirdcrank]

Jdsk

Thanks for that.

I've had a quick look and it seems to describe the situation well. IMO, the main point is we've got here because nobody gripped the nettle in time. I'll predict a bit of tinkering at the edges but overall, kicking it down the road into the long grass (with my apologies for some mangled metaphors.)

=================================================================================

mjr

It's not easy to track down traffic case law without a copy of Wilkinson, but the case which stands out in my memory dating from around 1979 involved somebody employed to paste up the huge posters on hoardings. He used some sort of van to carry the materials and tools of his trade and parked with two wheels on the pavement. IIRC, The prosecution was based on the principle that any part of the highway which is not open for movement is ipso facto obstructed. On appeal it was held that the obstruction was "necessary" in that he couldn't be expected to lug everything a long distance and that in the circumstances, two wheels on the footway was better than the entire vehicle in the carriageway. IME, that was widely interpreted as legitimating footway parking. A nod's as good as wink.

Once upon a time, parking was "unnecessary" unless there was a purpose which made it necessary, perhaps the most obvious being loading and unloading. Prolonged parking in town centres - 20 mins + - risked being reported. That was before my time and growing problems led to yellow lines, largely enforced by traffic wardens employed originally by the police. When yellow line enforcement was transferred to highway authorities, the general police view became that parking enforcement of any kind was not a police matter.

In one unnecessary obstruction case it was held that in the absence of yellow line restrictions a driver might reasonably assume parking was OK. In most of the cases I've seen reported, the courts have taken the pragmatic view that on-street parking is a fact of modern life.

Anyway, what we are really talking about here is residential on-street parking. Nobody but nobody has the bottle to tackle that now, on or off footways.

https://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/wilkinson/index.html

[mumbojumbo]

If a person inadvertently scratched a car with a pram while easing past through a narrow gap left by parked vehicle would they be liable for subsequent damage?My feeling would be that the parked car was at fault and not the pusher of pram.

[Jdsk]

A car isn't a legal person and, roughly speaking, can't be responsible for anything.

You're not required to take unreasonable steps to avoid scratching it, and I would contend that being forced onto the road with a child in a pram is unreasonable.

But is this really an anti-motorist suggestion encouraging damage to unlawfully parked cars?

Jonathan

[[XAP]Bob]

A car isn't a legal person and, roughly speaking, can't be responsible for anything.

You're not required to take unreasonable steps to avoid scratching it, and I would contend that being forced onto the road with a child in a pram is unreasonable.

But is this really an anti-motorist suggestion encouraging damage to unlawfully parked cars?

Jonathan

As a wheelchair user I *can't* divert onto the road in many places, so have to squeeze past.


I'm normally pretty good at judging spaces, but last year got caught out in a local Asda... Only their first and last aisles are wide enough for their wheelchair trolleys. The rest are, without any labelling, about a half inch too narrow. Got a trolley really nicely wedged into the narrowing gap.
I looked at the gap and went "that looks a bit tight, but it *must* be just the right size, because to make it too small would be idiotic". Unfortunately they were idiotic.
I had come from one end of the aisles, and the "first" that way (i.e. one of the two wheelchair accessible aisles in a relatively new building) wasn't staffed, so I looked for another.


I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that someone parking on a pavement has thought to leave a wheelchair's width gap alongside their vehicle.

The other thing that irritates me nearly as much is people parking on the grass verge, saving a mere 8" of roadway space - which makes no difference to even the local fire department - and ruining the grass verge.

[pwa]

A car isn't a legal person and, roughly speaking, can't be responsible for anything.

You're not required to take unreasonable steps to avoid scratching it, and I would contend that being forced onto the road with a child in a pram is unreasonable.

But is this really an anti-motorist suggestion encouraging damage to unlawfully parked cars?

Jonathan

As a wheelchair user I *can't* divert onto the road in many places, so have to squeeze past.


I'm normally pretty good at judging spaces, but last year got caught out in a local Asda... Only their first and last aisles are wide enough for their wheelchair trolleys. The rest are, without any labelling, about a half inch too narrow. Got a trolley really nicely wedged into the narrowing gap.
I looked at the gap and went "that looks a bit tight, but it *must* be just the right size, because to make it too small would be idiotic". Unfortunately they were idiotic.
I had come from one end of the aisles, and the "first" that way (i.e. one of the two wheelchair accessible aisles in a relatively new building) wasn't staffed, so I looked for another.


I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that someone parking on a pavement has thought to leave a wheelchair's width gap alongside their vehicle.

The other thing that irritates me nearly as much is people parking on the grass verge, saving a mere 8" of roadway space - which makes no difference to even the local fire department - and ruining the grass verge.

As someone who very occasionally puts two wheels on a footpath when there seems to be no practical alternative (normally when working) I would never leave less than the width of a wheelchair + some elbow room, and I dislike having to put wheels on the pavement at all. I do it, reluctantly, when parking fully on the road would obstruct a bus route, but parking further away is not on due to the need to transfer a lot of heavy stuff between vehicle and door. But I always leave the pavement passable. That is my bottom line. The pavement must not be blocked. Real life is messy. Even modern streets constructed recently aren't designed to allow "deliveries" without the street being blocked.

[millimole]

I was thought pavement parking was simply a minor irritation to a small subset of grumpy people until, about five years ago, my wife became increasingly less mobile.
While she's still a way off from needed a set of wheels it's made me realise how inconsiderate (and bloody minded) pavement parking is.
Let alone the poor design of many supposedly public areas that are inaccessible without prior planning.

My point us, that until one has experienced some degree of loss of mobility its not completely apparent what challenges are faced by a lot of people due to what many motorists (and others) think is normal and acceptable.

[thirdcrank]

Perhaps there are fewer people with children in buggies etc and more using child seats in cars.

IMO, once the defining line of the kerb was abandoned, then the situation was lost. Once something like this is matter of individual judgment, a lot of people will exercise their judgment in their own favour.