the ubiquitous blog

Following on from my last blog post, I decided to take a look at the “Pavement Parking Standard Response” from the Tory MSPs and this is what I found. It is clear example of Orwellian double speak, their proposed amendments are not intended to “to strengthen the Bill” but rather to introduce loopholes to undermine the clauses on pavement parking.

Thank you for your email,

The Transport Bill offers a chance to examine and possibly change legislation surrounding pavement parking, as well as low emission zones and bus franchising to name some of the other issues it may address.

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the Transport Bill in principle but we will likely aim to lodge amendments to strengthen the Bill at Stages Two and Three to ensure it is a robust and sound piece of law.

Frequent parking on footways can cause damage that eventually manifests as uneven pavements. Such damage can represent a real danger to pedestrians, especially vulnerable ones, with local authorities having to foot the bill for repairs.

We can all agree that inconsiderate parking must be tackled and I am pleased that there are plans to look at it. A blanket ban on pavements must be properly researched and proportionate. Inconsiderate parking should not be tolerated, but there are many instances when parking partly on a pavement is the only available option and can be done without obstructing pedestrians’ access.

As you will be aware there may be instances in which parking with two wheels on a pavement has left sufficient room for pedestrians to pass while allowing traffic to flow freely on the road. That is a key point because it would obviously be counterproductive to impose a ban only for it to result in constant road blockages. As long as such parking can be done in a way that allows more than enough room for all pedestrians to pass freely, it is not always necessary to impose a blanket ban. I am not convinced that a blanket ban with no room for exemptions by local authorities in places might be too much of a catch all approach, I know of many areas where pavement parking is the only option to allow free passage of vehicles, including emergency vehicles, through narrow streets – in those examples perhaps local authorities may need to approach this pragmatically. Blanket centralisation of such individual circumstances in my view has historically caused unintended consequences.

The compromise that we would like to emerge would be to find a balance between protecting vulnerable pedestrians and allowing harmless pavement parking to continue. I suspect our amendments will be of this ilk.

I can understand the temptation to push through a blanket ban because it is right to say that we should not tolerate forcing vulnerable pedestrians to move around parked cars on pavements or dropped footways. However, we would not be serving the public if we simply imposed a blanket ban and left motorists, as well as law enforcement officers, to clear up the mess.

I hope you find the above position helpful and I thank you for contacting me regarding this important subject.

They start by acknowledging that “Frequent parking on footways can cause damage that eventually manifests as uneven pavements. Such damage can represent a real danger to pedestrians, especially vulnerable ones, with local authorities having to foot the bill for repairs”. Yes, that is why the Bill proposes to completely ban parking on the footway. However, they suggest that “parking partly on a pavement is the only available option”, not true, there is always the option to park considerately elsewhere and walk to your final destination, that is what footways are there for. We all have the right to walk, but there is no “right” to drive, this is a privileged form of mobility undertaken under licence.

Then we get on to the suggestion that “parking with two wheels on a pavement” should be acceptable, this directly contradicts acknowledgement that parking on the pavement is damaging for a wide range of reasons. The frequency of this parking behaviour is a red herring, they already suggest pavement parking is harmful and then proceed to contradict themselves. The next red herring is “pavement parking is the only option to allow free passage of vehicles”- if the road is too narrow to allow parking on the roadway, then yes, it is indeed too narrow for parking – so why should motorists expect to be allowed to encroach into areas specifically set aside for pedestrians? It is neither fair nor reasonable. Just remember that we all have the right to walk but there is no right to drive. By saying that pavement parking should be permitted, this is saying the motorist should in all cases have priority over pedestrians. This is in no way about “compromise” or “balance”, it is about prioritising motorists over “vulnerable pedestrians” who are currently forced “to move around motor vehicles parked on pavements or dropped footways” by inconsiderate and selfish parking.

Finally we are told that a blanket ban will leave “motorists, as well as law enforcement officers, to clear up the mess”, how so? If there is a blanket ban on pavement parking the law, is then clear and unambiguous, there should be no mess to clear up. By introducing exemptions for so called “harmless pavement parking” it deliberately introduces ambiguity, which then creates a mess for enforcement officers to clear up, along with time-wasting court action while loophole lawyers argue over the level of harm caused.

For the good of all, these loopholes must be blocked before the Bill is passed. Only by having a blanket on all pavement parking will the law be clear and unambiguous.

The Transport (Scotland) Bill is currently making it way through the Scottish Parliament, among its provisions are clauses which aim to ban pavement parking in Scotland, which is long overdue. However, there are a few loopholes which need closing. Therefore as a responsible citizen, I decided to write to my MSP’s asking the consider helping to close these loopholes as the Bill makes it way through Holyrood. Here is the letter which I sent to my elected representatives:

I am writing to you in the hope that you will act to close the loopholes regarding pavement parking in the current Transport (Scotland) Bill. Without closing these loopholes the legislation will fail to provide the full benefit to all of the people living in Scotland.

There are currently exceptions for all “delivery vehicles”, allowing vans and lorries to park on pavements for “up to 20 minutes”. This is a total nonsense, there is no need for delivery vehicles to park on footways or cycleways. Rather, there is a need to rethink how last mile deliveries are carried out and to seek smarter, more sustainable solutions. The current practice of allowing vehicles to park on the pavement not only causes great inconvenience to pedestrians, it also places a cost burden hard-pressed local authorities who have to pay for the damage caused by pavement parking.

The bill also needs to more clearly define what a pavement obstruction is so that enforcement is straightforward and easy for local authorities. A clear definition will also make it easier for drivers to know what they are expected to comply with. There should be no ambiguity on what constitutes obstruction such as the time limit nonsense referred to above.

The other thing that is lacking from the bill is the banning of parking which obstructs dropped kerbs, this omission needs to be corrected. Not only are dropped kerbs important to wheelchair users, people with mobility scooters and parents with pushchairs, they are important for those carrying deliveries too. Here again, there needs to be a clear definition of what constitutes obstruction dropped kerbs so that everyone knows what is expected of them.

The Transport (Scotland) Bill has the potential to improve safety on our roads and the quality of life for all, if these loopholes are closed. Please don’t miss the opportunity to improve this Bill.

Thanks,

Kim

Mr Kim Harding, BSc, MPhil

I will add in replies as I get them.

The first three replies I received where automated responses, one was an “out of office” message saying that the MSP was on holiday and would get back to me on his return. The other two came from Miles Briggs (Conservative) and Jeremy Balfour (Conservative), both replies were almost identical which suggest that this is a standard party approach to dealing with any correspondence from constituents.

Thank you for contacting me.

Priority is given to helping constituents with individual concerns or problems.

If your email relates to a nationally organised campaign on a current political issue where you have been asked to “Write to your MSP” you are likely to find a response on my website at: [MSP’s website]

While I always welcome personal comments from constituents I am afraid that I have reached the conclusion that it is no longer possible for my staff to process individually the many thousands of identical or computer-generated `round-robins` I receive every month. If you live in Lothian you may wish to come along to one of my regular advice `surgeries` when I will be pleased to discuss your own concerns with you in person. These are advertised in the local media and on my website.

Kind regards,

With these automated replies, these MSPs are effectively holding up two fingers to their constituents and show their contempt for those they are elected to represent. To be clear these auto-replies are not to an automated campaign, they are to all email correspondence sent MSPs representing the Conservative party. We live in a “representative democracy” when a person takes the time to write a personal message to their elected representative, it is the responsibility of the elected person to read and respond to the message, otherwise what is the point of electing these people. The fact that the issue which I am raising is a matter of concern to a number of other people, who have also made the effort to contact their elected representative, is totally irrelevant.

Having received the automated replies Tories, I checked out their standard reply on the Pavement Parking clauses in the Transport (Scotland) Bill, only to find that they are deliberately trying to insert the loopholes into the Bill.

The first genuine reply can from Kezia Dugdale (Labour), on behalf of a college who was on holiday, saying that their party position was to fully support the Bill:

Thank you for your email regarding the parking provisions within the Transport (Scotland) Bill.

Scottish Labour very much supports a ban on pavement parking. As your email highlights, pavement parking can cause serious problems for those with mobility issues, as well as those with prams, and we should take action to prevent it as far as possible.

The Transport Bill as it is drafted does provide a number of specific exemptions and gives local authorities the ability to exempt certain roads from a ban. These exemptions provide an element of flexibility and will help to protect against potential problems such as unnecessarily restricting access on certain roads for emergency vehicles. There are also specific exemptions built into the bill for certain vehicles, for example an ambulance attending an emergency. However, as your email notes, there is a risk that exemptions may create loopholes and undermine the effectiveness of the ban, so it is important that they are kept to a minimum.

In the coming months the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Economy and Connectivity (REC) Committee will be scrutinising the Transport Bill. This is an opportunity to look closely at potential problems and loopholes, such as the ones outlined in your email. In the REC Committee Scottish Labour’s Transport Spokesperson Colin Smyth will be working to strengthen the Bill and address concerns about its effectiveness.

The REC Committee are currently collecting evidence on this Bill. If you wish to submit your views, information on how to do so is available here. [No information provided]

In the meantime, thank you again for your email, and please don’t hesitate to get back in touch if I can be of any assistance to you in the future.

Kind regards

Kezia

I can understand the point of exempting emergency vehicles attending an emergency call, but where is the point exempt whole roads from a ban? If the road is too narrow to permit parking on the roadway, it is too narrow to permit parking other than in a emergency situation. Providing any other form of exemption will only lead to abuse.

Update 12th Sept 2018
This is Alison Johnstone (Green) reply:

Many thanks for writing to me about the Transport Bill, and efforts to restrict pavement parking. I am responding also on behalf of my Green MSP colleague, Andy Wightman.

I agree that parking on pavements should be an enforceable offence. Even partially parking vehicles on the pavement can reduce the amount of space that is available for people to pass by and can completely obstruct the footway. No one should be forced onto the road, especially our most vulnerable street users, including older people, children, parents with buggies, wheelchair users and those with reduced mobility.

I understand concerns that the current exemption for delivery vehicles in the draft Bill could undermine efforts to deliver accessible streets for all. Scottish Green Transport spokesperson John Finnie MSP is seeking more information about these exemptions and how we can legislate to best deliver safe pavements for the most vulnerable in our society.

As a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, John will vigorously test the Scottish Government’s proposals when they are discussed at Committee in the coming weeks.

Best wishes,

Alison