Cycling UK Forum

thirdcrank wrote:I believe it is only highway authorities which may take control of parking enforcement.

By coincidence I found out today that my District Council, not a Highway Authority, is "thinking of drawing up a set of bye-laws which would prohibit [parking on verges & pavements]" with a view to enable FPNs.

As it's in a local party newsletter I'm dubious about the accuracy, but it sounds as though it might be simpler to do than it seems from previous discussion here.

Pete

I've no axe to grind over this and if I'm wrong over the highway authority thing, fair enough. (On the other hand 'verges' can be something of a grey area. If they are part pf the highway, parking restrictions applying o the highway apply equally there. If not, the verges may belong to the council as part of a council housing scheme and then they probably have byelaws prohibiting all sorts of activities on the land from slaughtering livestock to holding fairs and marts, as well as no parking. Leeds City Council used to have - and may still have - a byelaw dating to 1905 prohibiting parking on verges Max penalty £1-00)

It seems to me that the issue for anybody trying to get somebody to do something about this is toidentify a public body prepared to act.

A school local to where I used to live had problems with parking parents on double yellow lines.

One day I was pushing my wheelchair-bound mother along the pavement past the school - to find it blocked by vehicle after vehicle. After advising my mother to put her coat over her face as we were about to enter the hedgerow, I shouldered my way through, twisting and turning this way and that to get along the pavement. I managed to twist, turn and even knock off quite a few wing mirrors in my progress along the pavement.

Imagine my delight when, about fifteen minutes later, with mother in the wheelchair remarking happily on the spring weather, I was accosted by a driver in a large 4wd who used language my mother had never previously been subjected to and then spat straight into my face.

Fortunately mother had the presence of mind to record his registration number and we went straight up to the police station, spittle still dripping off my glasses.

I learnt later than when a copper went round to give him a "friendly" warning, he noticed items pertaining to criminal activities in clear view in the house and further action was taken ...

So it MIGHT be worth recording numbers and reporting them, and it is certainly worth approaching it from a DDA POV. I am convinced that had the entire episode not involved a person in a wheelchair, that shoulders would just have been shrugged.

Calandra wrote:A school local to where I used to live had problems with parking parents on double yellow lines.

... and even in the cycle lanes

My understanding of the legal position (in Scotland) is that there is no specific offence for cars parking on a footway. HGVs are prohibited under RTA 1988 Section 19.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2zeozr
Cars can be dealt with under Construction and Use Regs as an obstruction.
This would be where the footway was blocked to the extent prams wheelchairs could not get passed. Getting the police to find the time to do it might be the problem.

If there are parking restrictions on the road then parking with all 4 wheels on the pavement avoids them. This ruling from the Scottish Parking Appeals is of interest. From Scots Law News.
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/sln/search.aspx

"The Scottish Parking Appeals Service (SPAS) has ruled that yellow line parking restrictions do not apply to adjoining footways, and that accordingly fines cannot be imposed on persons parking their vehicles on the pavements inside adjacent yellow lines. It also appears that, with, without, within or outwith yellow lines, parking on the pavement is only otherwise an offence when an obstruction is caused. Edinburgh City Council, where pavement parking is apparently common, has told its parking “enforcers” to ignore the SPAS ruling, and is appealing against it."

The only solution as others have suggested from problem areas like outside schools is bollards to physically prevent lazy inconsiderate drivers from blocking the footpath.

I just came across Bristol Cycling Campaign's flyer for cars on the pavement. A friendly way to put the message over.

Pete

Spotted this on the cycle home tonight... If the police wont obey the laws on this no chance of anyone enforcing them.

No reason for the police to stop there - ample parking on the other side of the road for the shops...

For the record this was Strathclyde Police.



David.

The police have advised people living near Sheffield, concerned about exposing their cars to the dangers of passing traffic, to park on the footpath instead of parking in the road - leaving pedestrians to expose themselves to the dangers of passing traffic instead.
And a letter to the local paper claimed that the police (who's marked police car was blocking this chaps gate so he couldn't get bhis wheelchair out) had told him that the footpath was part of the highway so they were entitled to drive on it.
Don't expect any support from the police on this subject.

Tom Richardson wrote:.
And a letter to the local paper claimed that the police (who's marked police car was blocking this chaps gate so he couldn't get bhis wheelchair out) had told him that the footpath was part of the highway so they were entitled to drive on it..

So ... if the footpath is part of the highway in the sense that it can be driven on when convenient for the police, why can't we legally ride our bikes and horses on it if we so choose and if it is convenient for US ...?

Calandra wrote:So ... if the footpath is part of the highway in the sense that it can be driven on when convenient for the police, why can't we legally ride our bikes and horses on it if we so choose and if it is convenient for US ...?

because what motorists and cyclists can and can't do isn't determined by the law or any reasonable consideration but by what motorists and the police expect at any time (and to know that you have to read their minds). Cynical I know but borne out by experience.

Tom Richardson wrote:

Calandra wrote:So ... if the footpath is part of the highway in the sense that it can be driven on when convenient for the police, why can't we legally ride our bikes and horses on it if we so choose and if it is convenient for US ...?

because what motorists and cyclists can and can't do isn't determined by the law or any reasonable consideration but by what motorists and the police expect at any time (and to know that you have to read their minds). Cynical I know but borne out by experience.

I was amused to see that the same law bans pavement parking as bans cycling on the pavement!

Highway Act section 72.
Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.
If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon ; every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby.

If the law is an ass, it certainly isn't allowed to drive or park on the pavement !

Pete

jocks wrote:Secondly, as I said the law is an ass. A criminal offence requires a criminal and therefore someone has to be held responsible. .

The law most certainly is not an ass over this. It's right and proper that the legal system has to prove that an indidual has comitted an offence for them to be punished for it.
What would you prefer - guilty until proven innocent.... That really would be an ass like system.

pete75 wrote:

jocks wrote:Secondly, as I said the law is an ass. A criminal offence requires a criminal and therefore someone has to be held responsible. .

The law most certainly is not an ass over this. It's right and proper that the legal system has to prove that an indidual has comitted an offence for them to be punished for it.
What would you prefer - guilty until proven innocent.... That really would be an ass like system.

I frankly don't care - I simply want my blind wife to be able to walk along a pavement.

Given that the "law" cannot do anything about heavy machinery obstructing the pavement, it is resolutely a complete ass.

Now, since you have rattled my cage, how do explain how speeding tickets work? The vehicle is gunned by a Gatso camera and the ticket is sent to the registered owner of the vehicle NOT the person who may have committed the offence. The owner is presumed guilty and that may not be the driver of the vehicle at the time. So why can that not be done with parked cars?

So while the legal eagles sort this mess out, my wife is forced to walk blindly into the path of traffic. Explain to me why the law is not an ass?

The law is ok - its the lack of will to enforce it for the intended purpose of protecting innocent and vulnerable people that's an ass - and undemocratic as well

jocks wrote:.....how do explain how speeding tickets work? The vehicle is gunned by a Gatso camera and the ticket is sent to the registered owner of the vehicle NOT the person who may have committed the offence. The owner is presumed guilty and that may not be the driver of the vehicle at the time. So why can that not be done with parked cars?

It can be done, in the same way that normal parking tickets are issued to the car owner. This is explained (somewhat) at www.parking-appeals.gov.uk
which says that any local authority can ask to take local control of parking offences by FPNs, instead of the complication of a criminal offence. This includes "On street- Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking)". Code 62 on your parking ticket.

It does need the local authority to deploy 'parking attendants' to enforce it but they at least have a financial incentive to do it and are easier to nag than the police.

Pete