Councils call for pavement parking to be banned across England : unitedkingdom

[-] Oneeightnine@feddit.uk 50 points 1 year ago

Sounds great in principle, but where are me and the other 60 houses down our terraced street with no off-street parking supposed to park our cars?

Yes, I'd love to live in the public transport utopia that's just over the horizon, but right now, I need a car to get to and from work and I live in a house that was literally built before cars were a thing.

Again, I can only speak to our street but the vast majority of car owners make sure there's ample room to get through. The issue is that there's usually one or two assholes who ruin it for everyone, and those guys usually find out pretty quickly why it's a bad idea to block the path.

For context: I drive, but I've also had two kids and therefore two pushchairs I've had to navigate along the pavement. My car also got totalled a few years ago by a delivery driver who drove into it whilst it was parked. Id rather it not be parked on the road/pavement but what choice do we have here?

[-] EinfachUnersetzlich@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

It's your problem to find somewhere to park. Maybe on another nearby street. Or buy/rent a dwelling with parking provided.

[-] MeepsTheBard 32 points 1 year ago

"That's your problem" is a terrible way to get people to support policy. These are real, valid concerns that many people simply can't deal with without other systems in place that currently don't exist.

This type of "fuck any gradual change, revolution now" is just armchair anarchy pushed by kids who don't face financial pressure.

[-] EinfachUnersetzlich@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

Oh totally. I don't have a car because I don't have anywhere to park it, and can't justify owning a personal vehicle when (bad) public transport and cycle paths are available.

Because of this I find people who expect public space to be given to them, to the detriment of other people, to be selfish.

[-] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

Ya but your argument is also expecting public space to be given to you to the detriment of others. It's a double edged sword.

"Park on a different street" literally just shifts the problem.

If a public parking lot was available then ya, totally feasible, but it'll have to be big which then takes up the land from something else, again shifting the problem.

You're getting upitty with someone who is concerned that knee-jerk public policy is going to have large, likely unplanned, detrimental effects on the citizens outside of just themselves.

[-] EinfachUnersetzlich@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

"Park on a different street" literally just shifts the problem.

Actually I'm more going for "don't have a car if you don't have anywhere to put it". I know it's an unpopular opinion, but having a car is not a right and the sheer volume of them is to the detriment of the entire population.

[-] pearable@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Taking space used for cars and giving it to cyclist does actually make everyone's life better, even drivers. You get less pollution, traffic, medical cost to the NHS, pedestrian deaths, and infrastructure costs.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

So if I park on another street aren't I just parking in someone else's way? You're just kicking the can down the road you're not actually fixing the problem the fact that you don't get that is insane

[-] EinfachUnersetzlich@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Forcing people to park further away discourages them from purchasing a vehicle in the first place. Fewer cars is better for everyone.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

No it doesn't it just annoys them. Have you actually met people like real members of the human race or they all just abstract numbers in your head because you know nothing about humans.

[-] Swarfega@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

British streets were never built for the amount of cars we have today. I can see why parking half on/off is needed.

I live in a new estate where homes either have two spaces on their driveway or a parking space. People still park fully on the path. To the point if you was in a wheelchair you couldn't get by. People also don't use their allocated parking space and park outside their house on the footpath.

[-] FatLegTed@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago

This. My ex has a separate garage with hardstanding in front of it 25m from her front door. The garage is full of shite and she parks in 'her space' outside her front door. She gets the arseache if someone else parks there as well.

Thing is, there is a Tesco Express at the end of the road and delivery lorries have taken her driver side wing mirror about three times.

Still has to park in her space though.

[-] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

I think it already is. It just doesn't get enforced.

[-] Zip2@feddit.uk 14 points 1 year ago

I think it is illegal to completely obstruct a pavement to the point that wheelchairs, pushchairs etc can’t get past.

But parking your car and leaving a bit of a gap is apparently fine.

[-] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

When I had driving lessons, it was taught that most people think that's the rule, and in real life it practically is the rule, but it's on the books as illegal to put your car on the pavement at all, and you'll be penalised for it during the parking parts of a driving test.

[-] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

I think the specific offence is driving on the pavement, which parking obviously requires, but I could be wrong.

[-] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

From the highway code:

244

You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.

Law GL(GP)A sect 15

Signs explicitly permitting it are rare.

[-] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] alibloke@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

Except in London boroughs

[-] Palerider@feddit.uk 6 points 1 year ago

Because rich cunts see the fine as the parking fee...

load more comments (2 replies)

[+] ianovic69@feddit.uk 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] FatLegTed@feddit.uk 13 points 1 year ago

Should not means you can. You're just a very naughty boy.

[+] ianovic69@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

If that were true, the text could read “ You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement unless signs permit it. “

[-] theplanlessman@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

The law is NOT there for "should" statements in the Highway Code. "Shoulds" are considered best practice, and can work against you in a careless/dangerous driving case if you didn't follow them, but they are not themselves tied to any specific legislation. "Must" statements ARE backed up by legislation, and so can be enforced.

The highway code is not law.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Nope : rules in the Code which are legal requirements, and which you will be committing a criminal offense if you disobey, use the words “must/must not.” Violating other parts of the Code, which use the words “should/should not” or “do/do not”, can be used as evidence against you in Traffic Court, even if violating them is not an automatic criminal offense

[-] andthenthreemore@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Do you have something to back that up? It seems very odd that London would be named specially as must not then a second clause for the remainder of the country that sounds different. Surely it should either be "you must not park on the pavement" or if there's some archaic reason that London needs specific wording "you must not park on the pavement in London, and you must not park on the pavement elsewhere "

[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 13 points 1 year ago

Said councils need to provide adequate parking, and ensure that future developments have such.

[-] byroon@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Councils need to provide public transport, and support walking and cycling

[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago

Sure, and the government needs to regulate the public transport industry such that they stop structuring their businesses so they can squirrel their profits away using Hollywood-style accounting. But, failing that, councils need to plan cities appropriately.

Even London, which has decent public transport, has decent space for parking.

[-] Nyfure@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago

So you want the city to freely give public space for your private vehicle?

[-] FatLegTed@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago

Yes, Because I am entitled. So there. Peasant.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why do city governments need to provide free/subsidized storage for private vehicles in public spaces, now?

It is not financially nor geometrically sustainable. It is a wealth transfer from the poorer to the richer. People who want cars can store them on their own property.

[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Private vehicles are owned by members of the public. The public pay taxes.

It not being "geometrically sustainable" is the result of poor planning - which the city council is responsible for.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Everything is owned by members of the public. That is not a clever argument.

There's no reason to be subsidizing this. It is not necessary nor helpful for the health of the city.

Not being geometrically sustainable means that a city with good planning doesn't lean into it. It's not the "result of poor planning". You can't change the laws of geometry with planning. Cars are an inefficient and ineffective transportation plan outside of the countryside and cities should only support them the bare minimum necessary while encouraging other forms as primary - subsidizing them by providing free/mandatory parking is leaps and bounds beyond the bare minimum and can quickly put to death sustainable urban growth.

When in the midst of a housing crisis we should not be devoting city resources to these intensely inefficient, regressive uses.

[-] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 8 points 1 year ago

That would hurt the number of little boxes their developer cousins can build though.

[-] freamon@endlesstalk.org 6 points 1 year ago

Part of the problem is how much wider on average cars have got, making it less viable to park next to the curb or with just 2 wheels on it. Another part is that both members of a couple are more likely to be working and needing separate cars, and if their kids can't afford to move away, than that's an extra car too. Additionally, councils have convinced themselves that not lowering carbs to allow for extra driveways is promoting public transport use, ignoring how unviable that often is.

Cars with all 4 wheels on the pavement annoy me, but it's become so normalised that drivers have looked at me, like me walking on the pavement is an irritating obstruction to where they have every right to be. I think the police in some areas allow you to upload a photo to report them, but it's not something I'd do 'cos it's a complex problem and fines aren't the solution.

United Kingdom