Parking on pavements MEGATHREAD

[duckweed]

The police don't have the manpower to find and ask every badly parked driver to move and that was why traffic wardens were invented. As far as I can see obstructing the pavement is already an offence and the person concerned can be fined for it. Just because there has been leniency in the past doesn't mean you couldn't have been fined. You may think you are not causing an obstruction but you are not a partially sighted pedestrian. Of course we should be able to fine the council too for obstructing the pavement with bins too. Add the two together and I might as well stay home.

[Nutbrown]

I believe there should be fines,.. excellent, but I think it should be "within reason". If it's fair, just and reasonable then a fine should be incurred, but if we're talking two wheels on the edge of a large path / a bit of the grass verge to make the road still useable,.. do it. I see the problem in Heeley.

 

This is actually a topic I have a lot of experience with. I'm a student, i'm a car salesman in the weekend and in the week i do some food deliveries. Being a delivery boy I have to park,... a lot. Outside the shop where I work is a massive pavement. There is little parking near the shop that is always used. It is on a corner and when i park there it still leaves enough room for,... another car, maybe another 2 cars, and pedestrians to cross/ wheel chairs etc etc,... do i deserve a fine? Well,... do you deserve cold food because i've had to walk about half a mile down the road with it before even getting in the car? Does it cause any nuisence to anyone? no,...

However, some people do park in rediculous places, and they should be fined. I feel however, those that park for safety as much as anything esle keeping the road open, or for a good reason do not, so long as the path is clear enough! People just need to be reasonable.

 

If you want to be the only person that parks your car totally on the road, on a road where everyone parks slightly on the path,.. get fully comp insurance for when your mirrors get taken off every night by cars.

[Buble Fan]

These changes which were published in The Star on Thursday are actually occurring nationally. They come into force on 31 March 2008 and there are extra contraventions (offences under criminal law, but called contraventions under civil law), which local councils will be able to enforce. The main additions are parking with part of the vehicle on a pavement, parking adjacent to a dropped kerb and parking more than 50cm from the kerb / double parking. Also the local councils will be able to issue penalties for parking on zig-zags near pedestrian crossings - this is something only police could do previously.

 

 

However, the Department for Transport is still working to come up with appropriate signs to inform motorists that parking on the pavement / against dropped kerbs etc is not allowed and will be enforced. This was also stated in The Star's article.

 

The important thing is how each Council approaches enforcement and Cllr Lodge's comment I think illustrates that Sheffield will take a reasonable approach. he is quoted as saying: "The authority would be cautious about issuing fines where streets are so narrow that people must park on pavements to avoid casuing an obstruction"

 

The other aspect of the Traffic Management Act is that it makes it clear that parking enforcement should be clear, fair and consistent. However, motorists have a responsibility in general to look for the road markings and signs that show parking restrictions. Many do not do this and then moan afterwards if they get a ticket.

[duckweed]

I hope you are not the one in Heeley who parks across the lowered kerb. That is a frequent problem to me. But no one is addressing the problem here for those who are visually impaired. This is a major problem as are the black bins on the pavement. Try walking along a Heeley pavement with your eyes blindfolded and maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about.

[T-MAX]

Can't wait to see the effect this new law has outside Hillsborough School (and probably most other Sheffield schools too) where it is common practice for parents to park as close to the school gates as possible. God forbid that their "little angels" should have to use their legs and walk any distance.

 

The parking around Hillsborough School not only impedes pedestrians, but the general flow of traffic and puts those children who do have to walk in danger.

[Nutbrown]

No that's not me, I work in Greenhill.

[WallBuilder]

I know people who use wheelchairs, have mobility issues and some with visual impairments and am therefore very aware of how a few inconsiderate drivers can cause problems. I'd of thought that if there was a section of kerb that was dropped and in many cases had tactile paving then it should be obvious that parking across it is not a good idea but it happens time after time.

I'm rather worried at the idea though of another load of signs going up to tell drivers not to park on the pavements as the amount of existing poles is already in my mind getting ridiculous in some area's and as all new poles have to be sited at least 450 mm away from the kerb that means on narrow pavements the pole ends up right in the middle meaning two people can't walk next to each other and visually impaired people have yet another obstacle to put into their mental map of an area. If new signs have to go in then will the planners please take note

PUT THEM ON EXISTING POLES

[Planner1]

If new signs have to go in then will the planners please take note

PUT THEM ON EXISTING POLES

 

They try to do that wherever they can, but the legal requirements often dictate that they can't.

[WallBuilder]

I've often wondered about the 'legal requirement' arguement I suspect that it is not always a legal requirement but just to make the car drivers life that little bit easier so they wont get fined for example.

I thought the highway code was still required reading for drivers as that mmight make a few signs un-necessary.

Wasn't it the guy who talks about shared surfaces, Ben Hamilton Bailey? who on one occasion was invited to a village that was a mass of signage and managed to remove over half of it.

[Parapou]

They try to do that wherever they can, but the legal requirements often dictate that they can't.

 

Please explain - why are new poles so often put up next to others for signs? Sometimes obscuring each other, obscuring junctions, or in the case of one my bus encounters daily, making it harder for large vehicles to swing round?

 

Also - why a pole 2.5 metres high for a tiny 'no stopping on the bus stop' sign. There's no sensible reason to put them up this high, and it makes it easier to pretend you ain't seen it.

 

In other cities I've seen parking signs put at the height of drivers' windows, which must be more effective.