editor
hiraethified
There's a twitter thread here which includes a brilliant quote from the Mayor of Pontevedra which has been car free for 19 years:
Local council removes a verge so cars can park over the pavement
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
There's a twitter thread here which includes a brilliant quote from the Mayor of Pontevedra which has been car free for 19 years:
In this country, or England at least, I understand that pavement parking is only completely illegal in London. Elsewhere it's allowed, but driving on the pavement isn't. Which rather begs the question of how cars parked astride the kerb got there.Isn't parking on (or partly on) a pavement illegal anyway regardless of whether some clown has had lines painted?
Epona
Sonic: 1 Nov 2006 - 8 Jan 2022
However I am in London and in a nearby narrow back street there are parking bays clearly marked by the council which are half on the pavement - very narrow gap left to get through, wheelchair users or people with prams, pushchairs, tartan trolleys, walking frames or aids, carrying bulky shopping bags, or just (like me) a bit fat have to use the pavement on the other side or use a different street.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Isn't parking on (or partly on) a pavement illegal anyway regardless of whether some clown has had lines painted?
No. Driving on a pavement is illegal, but even though driving on the pavement is a prerequisite for parking on the pavement, parking on the pavement is not illegal. In London I think it is banned but this doesn't seem to be enforced because people in London still park like cunts.
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
This is a fucking disgrace. Pavements are for people. How have we rolled over to this extent to the selfish arseholes that think just because they've bought a car that entitles them to dump it wherever they like, and fuck anyone who's inconvenienced by that?
Epona
Sonic: 1 Nov 2006 - 8 Jan 2022
And grass verges (especially when left unmown throughout the summer) are extremely valuable areas for wildlife, most notably pollinating insects. Removal of even a small area is going to have an impact on biodiversity in the area - and it's not just one thing like this, this is one of thousands of examples of similar, and it all adds up.
(This is in addition to the more obvious concerns of accessibility and use of the pavement which have already been addressed in above comments).
(This is in addition to the more obvious concerns of accessibility and use of the pavement which have already been addressed in above comments).
dessiato
🇪🇸 my spirit is crying for leaving
That's misleading. Only the centre of Pontevedra is car free. The vast majority of the city has cars. It's much the same as any other city. I, for example, lived in Ecija, Puente Genil, Ribadeo etc. All had pedestrianised centres. By this loose definition all of them are car free.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Except when we have summers like now, and long dry grass becomes a fire hazard.
Oxford is terrible for pavement parking. Narrow roads/pavements, terraced housing where there are three or four people (often students) with three or four cars per house.
Getting past cars parked on the pavement was often tricky, no chance if you'd a wheelchair or pushchair or whatever.
And yes, a lot of people spent a lot of time moaning about parking.
(Where I lived -- East Oxford -- was also pretty central with a v good bus service. I wonder how many of those car owners really 'needed' a car.)
Getting past cars parked on the pavement was often tricky, no chance if you'd a wheelchair or pushchair or whatever.
And yes, a lot of people spent a lot of time moaning about parking.
(Where I lived -- East Oxford -- was also pretty central with a v good bus service. I wonder how many of those car owners really 'needed' a car.)
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
If you find it on Google Street View it's a cul-de-sac of mostly older semi-detached houses that don't have front gardens/off-road parking and the street is full of loads of cars parked on both sides with a very narrow gap between them. I suspect the council has opted for the least bad of whatever bad options there may have been since the pre-existing situations was clearly dangerous. Yep it's not ideal but there isn't a lot else they could do. There is quite a nice large park across from the end of the street and I suppose some of that could have been tarmaced over to make public parking but I suspect that would generate even more outrage.
I suspect there might be a undercurrent of "Well we will ban people who live in streets like this from owning cars then" but that is never going to happen ever.
I suspect there might be a undercurrent of "Well we will ban people who live in streets like this from owning cars then" but that is never going to happen ever.
Sure there is. They could've left the verge/pavement alone. I mean why is it that what these drivers want trumps the basic right of pedestrians to walk along the pavement in peace? And as folk have said, what about wheelchair users? Or people with buggies/prams? Are they less important than car owners? Because it very much looks like they are as far as that council's concerned.
Your car, your problem.
ETA And if it was indeed dangerous how/where people were parking before, there's an easy solution to that. Ticket them relentlessly and they'll stop soon enough.
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
It's a spiral. Make things better for car owners by making things worse for pedestrians and what happens? More people using cars.Sure there is. They could've left the verge/pavement alone. I mean why is it that what these drivers want trumps the basic right of pedestrians to walk along the pavement in peace? And as folk have said, what about wheelchair users? Or people with buggies/prams? Are they less important than car owners? Because it very much looks like they are as far as that council's concerned.
Your car, your problem.
ETA And if it was indeed dangerous how/where people were parking before, there's an easy solution to that. Ticket them relentlessly and they'll stop soon enough.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
They can't ticket people for parking outside their own homes, they can introduce restrictions on who can park there and ticket non-residents but it won't solve the problem that there isn't physical parking without a) knocking some of the houses down or b) banning cars from the street altogether. Neither of which the council can actually do.Sure there is. They could've left the verge/pavement alone. I mean why is it that what these drivers want trumps the basic right of pedestrians to walk along the pavement in peace? And as folk have said, what about wheelchair users? Or people with buggies/prams? Are they less important than car owners? Because it very much looks like they are as far as that council's concerned.
Your car, your problem.
ETA And if it was indeed dangerous how/where people were parking before, there's an easy solution to that. Ticket them relentlessly and they'll stop soon enough.
Sure, introduce restrictions, then ticket away. It'll solve the problem of people parking dangerously. It'll solve the problem of pedestrians being obstructed by cars on the pavement. The problem that car owners have with parking? Their cars, their problem frankly.
The point is that however much parking there is, people always seem to want more. I remember talking to someone who wanted the council to tarmac over a nearby green space as there was a lack of parking. He had a three-bedroom house but the household had five cars. I'm sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous. And absolutely his problem.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
Kind of missing the point Sue, the Council does not have any legal authority to stop the residents from parking there and it looks to me like the residents are the problem (many of whom will no doubt be complaining they can't get their wheelchairs/buggies etc past their neighbours cars) The council has no duty to provide parking spaces but it has no authority to stop it either and it isn't illegal to park on the pavement. (Actually I do agree with you there it should be but it isn't)
Well I'm sure someone is responsible for double yellow lines and parking restrictions/ permits. And if that's not the council, they'll know who it is. People can't park on the pavement if there's a double yellow there, can they?
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
Indeed it is the council, however it cannot just paint double yellow lines down a residential street on a whim. it has to consult with the residents providing a sound justification (that will stand up in court) and make alternative provision where necessary. If it introduces parking restrictions then it will have to issue permits (usually 2 per household) to the residents. None of these will solve the fundamental problem of the fact that the residents have cars and nowhere to put them.
The council is trying (admittedly badly) to manage a problem it has no actual solution for.
Oh, I'm sure there must be some provision for safety reasons in the law somewhere. And I'd be interested to see what a consultation would come up with too. (They did one somewhere I used to live and a load of people who owned cars voted for restrictions/permits cause they blamed commuters or something. Turned out it wasn't commuters, it was local residents owning too many cars.
)The fundamental problem is that people have cars that they're parking unsafely and something needs to change for them to change their behaviour. Making life less safe/more difficult for pedestrians is not the solution.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
Greater London; parking on pavements is banned, unless specifically instructed otherwise.
Outside Greater London (England); parking on pavements is allowed, unless specifically instructed otherwise.
General rules around obstructive parking still apply - if there are no restrictions or parking bays in place the onus is the motorist to use their own judgement as to what constitutes an obstruction, either to other vehicles or to pedestrians/cyclists, but it's still a ticketable offence.
Parking bays either wholly or partially on the footway; guidance is that a minimum of 1500mm footway width should be maintained over a sustained length, with 1200mm minimum at pinch points. I've always taken pinch points to mean where there's a streetlight/bollard/telegraph pole etc, but I think some councils take the piss a bit with lengths of guardrail or "we're only putting in 30m worth of bay, it'll be fine". However, it's guidance rather than regulation.
Outside Greater London (England); parking on pavements is allowed, unless specifically instructed otherwise.
General rules around obstructive parking still apply - if there are no restrictions or parking bays in place the onus is the motorist to use their own judgement as to what constitutes an obstruction, either to other vehicles or to pedestrians/cyclists, but it's still a ticketable offence.
Parking bays either wholly or partially on the footway; guidance is that a minimum of 1500mm footway width should be maintained over a sustained length, with 1200mm minimum at pinch points. I've always taken pinch points to mean where there's a streetlight/bollard/telegraph pole etc, but I think some councils take the piss a bit with lengths of guardrail or "we're only putting in 30m worth of bay, it'll be fine". However, it's guidance rather than regulation.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
Isn't parking on (or partly on) a pavement illegal anyway regardless of whether some clown has had lines painted?
Only in London IIRC - Due to its history as the city that put-in pavements long before most of the rest of the UK, there are some significant differences in the various laws/bylaws that govern them.
There is a surprisingly interesting essay on the history of pavements in London out there that I read once.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
All thanks to (checks notes) too many people driving cars.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
I mean they could...not actively encourage drivers to block pavements? They could do that.
They could do nothing, which coincidentally would meet 100% of their legal and moral obligation to provide parking spaces.
Doctor Carrot
Marxist Henchman
Does the 'your car your problem' extend to providing spaces for parking your bike safely? I don't drive and I hate the state of cycling infrastructure but I do expect a safe place to lock my bike up in public to be provided for me and it isn't. Sure, there's plenty of places but they're not exactly safe from the hoardes of thieving toe rags where I live. It's very much a belt n braces approach to securing my bike.
Obviously the pictured spaces in the OP are a disgrace but I think the answer to the problem of too many cars is, as ever, make it inconvenient and expensive to drive whilst at the same time providing excellent, cheap public transport and cycling infrastructure.
Obviously the pictured spaces in the OP are a disgrace but I think the answer to the problem of too many cars is, as ever, make it inconvenient and expensive to drive whilst at the same time providing excellent, cheap public transport and cycling infrastructure.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
They could indeed do that and it would have the extra benefit of not costing them anything in a time in which councils are struggling for funds. Yet they have decided on a course of action which both costs them money and draws the ire of U75 which implies to me that they looked at the problem and decided that this was the least worse of the practical options facing them.
Similar threads
