Archive | August, 2011

Park(ing) day 2011

22 Aug

Park(ing) Day is a global grass-routes project to convert parking meter spaces into attractive social spaces for a few hours on one day each year, thereby challenging the dominance of the car in a playful and effective way. The initiative, which started in San Francisco in 2005  had already spread to 183 cities around the globe by 2010 and Parking day 2011 takes place on 16th September in a few weeks time. This could be a good day to do some stuff in our local areas. Any ideas?

In San Francisco this initiative has already inspired the city authorities to convert parking bays into pavement extensions for cafe tables, park benches, bike racks etc on a more permanent basis. Very simple, very effective and very San Francisco. Do of course remember that in North American English the ‘pavement’ is the carriageway, or more accurately the paved road surface rather than the footway. Click on the images for more information and do watch the video. Isn’t it great!

Divisadero Street Parklet (copyright image)

22nd Street Parklet (copyright image)

Colas “We place the highest importance on safety”

17 Aug

I spotted this highway maintenance vehicle across the pavement today making it almost impossible for a group of pedestrians with young children to get past. I also noticed that their website saysWe place the highest importance on safety” and thatThe safety of the general public, clients and our own people is our top priority“. A workman nearby used the classic excuse ‘what about the cars – they are breaking the law as well’. In fairness the guy worked for another company and quickly got on the phone to get the vehicle moved and it was gone within 10 minutes. No excuse for it being there in the first place though.

For their benefit, here are the relevant rules for heavy good vehicles (Road Traffic Act 1988 section 19 and 20). Parking a heavy commercial vehicle on pavements is an offense except where “the vehicle was parked on the verge of a road or on a footway for the purpose of loading or unloading, and (b) that the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been parked on the footway or verge, and (c) that the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked“. This vehicle was unattended, there was space on the carriageway and it had been there for at least 30 minutes. It would be great if this law had been extended to all vehicles, but it has not been. I am dropping an email to the main contact for local authority work at the company to ask him to remind his staff of this law.

Colas vehicle illegally parked on the pavement

Absolutely no reason not to be parked on the carriageway


I also noticed that one of Carillion’s signs for the works was leaving only 680mm for pedestrians which is less that the one metre which is required by law (Traffic Signs Manual chapter 8 clause D4.4.1). The guy I spoke to used the rather lame excuse that “we thought it was 1 metre” but said that it would be gone within 30 minutes anyway which seemed reasonable to me. At least he knew if should be one metre. He did explain that if they put it on the carriageway then they would get blamed by motorists who then hit it! Whatever the reasoning, it is great to have some laws on our side for some of this and it is well worth complaining.

Sign illegally leaving less than 1 metre for pedestrians

Police apparently reasssures motorist that persistent illegal parking is OK

12 Aug

I have reported this Jaguar car to the police on a number of occasions for parking in a raised crossing outside a local primary school over the past 9 months – the car even takes pride of place at the the top of our ‘Rogues gallery‘. I saw the owner in his car today for the first time. He told me that the police has visited him about 3 months ago and said that it was OK for him to continue parking as he was. I am very surprised to hear that because I have personally reminded the local sergeant about the Traffic Management Act 2004 (section 86) which says that it is illegal to block a raised crossing. Possibly the police were confused because there is also a single yellow line which doesn’t apply after 6pm. Whatever the truth is, it is clear that the guy didn’t stop parking illegally so the police can’t have done much to enforce the law.

The guy told me that he was moving today, so as a send-off here are some of the photos taken over the past 9 months including one taken today of the van he is using to move house parked up on the raised crossing as well! I will send a copy of this post to my local sergeant in a few days to remind him to respond to my last two letters on the subject. I will include any (polite) messages that are left at the end of this post over the next few days.

Jaguar still on the crossing in August 2011

Jaguar on the raised crossing outside the school in June 2011

Our friend the Jaguar driver again, back in May 2011)

Jaguar on a raised platform with a single yellow line in November 2010)

His removal van up on the raised crossing today!

Illegal signage on a dangerous road

12 Aug

I discovered recently that all signage left on the footway must leave at least 1 meter clear at the side, preferably 1.5 meters; the actual wording is “in no circumstances must the width of the footway be reduced to less than 1m, preferably not less than 1.5m” (Traffic Signs Manual chapter 8 clause D4.4.1). The sign in the picture below leaves a minimal 600mm beside a very busy and dangerous road. On a positive note, I found the Palmer Group, who put the signs there, very helpful when I phoned them and they said they would sort is ‘asap’. Given the narrow pavement and the big sign I will be interested to see what they do! Update: They moved the sign to a very suitable place within 12 hours. Great work and thanks… but next time please don’t wait to be asked!

Illegal signage – less than 1 meter available for pedestrians

I have also just produced a causality map for the area in question showing where people have been killed and injured by cars in the area over the past 25 years. Two people have been killed in that time (the two red dots), 12 people have been seriously injured (the 12 purple dots) and there have been many slight injuries reported to the police (blue dots).

Foxhall road casualties map

It’s my spot and I’ll park what I want to!

10 Aug

I friend just sent me this great link from Melbourne, Australia. The notice on the toy car reads “DO NOT REMOVE – This is the property of unit 1. We pay are rent for this parking place and shall therefore use it for whatever vehicle we want to“.

It’s my spot, and I’ll park what I want to!

‘Illegal Items placed on verge’

8 Aug

Today I discovered that councils that completely ignore cars left all over the verges then get agitated when local residents use painted rocks, home-made posts or whatever to protect these very same verges. Councils refer to these rocks as ‘items left illegally on the verge’. take for example this page published by Surrey CC entitled ‘‘Protecting Grass Verges from parking‘: “Some residents may take their own measures to prevent parking (often plant-pot shaped concrete blocks or large rocks). Although these can be aesthetically pleasing, it is an offence to place unlawful items on the public highway. If seen or reported, we have the right to request that the items are removed.” Needless to say, having removed these home made defenses the council in all likelihood doesn’t then have the resources to replace them: “All methods require funding from very limited maintenance budgets. Funding may be provided specifically for verge protection but this is not always guaranteed“.

This same page also confirms that “There is no legal right to park on a road, verge or footway.” (so that makes cars ‘illegal objects’ as well doesn’t it?). So… what does the council do about these car shaped illegal objects? err.. they seem to just pretend that they are not objects after all. So there you have it, simple when you know how!

In a curious twist, verges in Surrey can be protected by a clause in one of those odd local Acts of Parliament which should have died out in Victorian times but which are evidently still being created. In this case the ‘Surrey Act 1985  (section 5) which allows the council to ban verge parking simply by placing a sign saying ‘no parking’ on the verge. Not a lot of people know that and I shouldn’t think it is that effective as a result! Not sure why it was necessary to mention horses and cattle in the 1980s? I wonder how much parliamentary time was taken debating if sheep, swine and cattle should or should not be included?

Here is the relevant section of the Surrey Act 1985:
This section applies to any of the following land in a district which, being in, adjoining or accessible from a highway, is maintained in an ornamental condition (whether by mowing or otherwise):—
(a) a grass verge,garden,lawn or green managed by a local authority; or
(b) land laid out as a public garden or used for the purpose of public recreation which is vested in a person other than a local authority.

“A local authority may by notice prohibit, either entirely or at such times or on such days as may be specified in the notice, the doing of any of the following things on land to which this section applies:—
(a) driving, riding or leaving vehicles;
(b) allowing horses or cattle to enter;
(c) using any equipment provided on such land.

“A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes a notice displayed under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

Summer Streets. Cities without cars

8 Aug

New York Summer Streets 2011

New York Summer Streets is back for 2011 with the first of three major street closures last Saturday on the 6th August and Paris has again installed its regular beach on a dual carriageway along the banks of a Seine. A pavement chalk festival took place in London, in Passadena and Liverpool is hosting the 3rd open International Pavement Art Competition in September when the London Sky Ride also returns to the capital. So many ways to enjoy our streets when the cars are banished!

The sorry tale of the Road Traffic Act 1974

7 Aug

Or possibly the title should be ‘how to talk about something for 37 years and achieve very little!

This long story starts with Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 which should have make pavement parking illegal across the country. It was intended to achieve by a further amendment to section 36 of Road Traffic Act 1972 which had already been amended in 1973 to ban on the parking heavily commercial vehicles on pavements by the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act 1973.

The new change added the following clause to the 1972 Act: “a person who parks a vehicle, other than a heavy commercial vehicle, within the meaning of section 36A of this Act, wholly or partly— (a) on the verge of an urban road, or (b) on any land which is situated between two carriageways of an urban road and which is not a footway, or (c) on a footway comprised in an urban road,shall be guilty of an offence“.

A pavement parking was however successfully introduced and enabled in 1974 by the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (Section 15).

So what happened to this national ban? Firstly, one needs to be aware that each section of an Act of Parliament needs to be ‘enabled’ and in some cases (like this one) they never are! The excuses have changed over the intervening 37 years but no new meaningful powers to get cars off general pavements have been introduced. Notice how the excuses for non implementation morph over this period when the number of vehicles on the GB roads has more than doubled.

The bill received Royal Assent in July 1974.

By January 1975 the government was being asked when this section would be brought into operation. The response was:  “Time must be allowed for authorities to survey their areas and prepare exemption orders under subsection (5). My Department is consulting the local authority associations on the length of time required before fixing the date of commencement.

In April 1975 it was: “The Department is consulting the local authority associations over the commencement date for this provision.”

In May 1975:  “I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—Mr. Neil Carmichael—to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) on 10th April,—[Vol. 889, c. 463–4.]

In June 1975 it was more encouraging: “I intend in the near future to make a decision on the commencement date for Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1974. ”

October 1975: “Local authorities must survey their areas, prepare exemption orders and signs before Section 7 may be implemented in full. Since this must be done within existing resources some delay is unavoidable, but I hope it will be kept to a minimum.”

By January 1976 the reponse was: “Before Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 can be fully implemented local authorities have to arrange for the exemption of roads where it would be necessary to allow footway parking. It will take some time for this work to be completed because it must be accomplished within their present resources. It is hoped to state a date for the full implementation of Section 7 after consultation with local authorities in the spring.”

In February 1976 the Secretary of state was asked twice, and both times pretty much responded with the same message: “Before Section 7 can be fully implemented local authorities must prepare orders exempting from the ban those roads where footway parking should be allowed to continue. With existing resources this is bound to take time. The local authority associations will be consulted in the spring about the prospects for implementation.”

In February 1977 the Bishop of London asked in the Lords: “what is the reason for the delay in introducing regulations to give effect to Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1974, and on what date such regulations will be introduced.”

Baroness STEDMAN responded and actually gave a date for implementation. She said: “My Lords, the right reverend Prelate will know that, before footway parking can be banned, work to exempt streets where such parking needs to continue must be completed. With so many pressing calls on their resources, local authorities have not hitherto been able to give this work priority. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has proposed to the local authority associations that the date for making Section 7 operative should be 1st April 1980.”

The bishop pressed further: “My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her Answer and for giving a set date, may I ask whether she will ensure that every pressure is brought to bear upon local authorities to see that the necessary work, which has been provided for on the Statute Book since 1974, is completed in time for the date mentioned?”.

Baroness Streadman responded firmly: “My Lords, my right honourable friend has made it very plain to all the local authority associations that there is no variance from the date. ”

But.. then there was a change in government and the tone changed.

In June 1979 the response was now vaguer: “Since section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 has not been brought into effect, it is not illegal under that Act to park vehicles on footways.” He went on to mutter about yellow lines etc.

By July 1979 the decision was firming up: “In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I have decided that this additional task should not be imposed on local authorities and the police when the need to reduce public expenditure is overriding. We reached this conclusion following representations from the English and Scottish local authority associations and from the police. Local authorities already have powers to ban parking on particular stretches of footway, and yellow line waiting restrictions apply to the footway as well as the carriageway. Of course heavy commercial vehicles are also prohibited from parking on footways. Against this background we are therefore deciding to defer implementing section 7 at least for the time being.”

He was pressed on the matter again in October 1979 with similar effect.

In January 1980 Mr. Kenneth Clarke replied to yet another query on the matter and referred back to his earlier response: “Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 already makes provision for a national ban on footway parking beside urban roads, but, although we are very conscious that such parking can be a hazard to blind and disabled pedestrians, amongst others, my right hon. Friend has decided, for the reasons given in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) on 27 July—[Vol. 971, c. 631–32]—that it is necessary to defer implementation of section 7.” He ended saying “We are doing what we can in the present circumstances to discourage footway parking by giving publicity to the inconvenience it causes.”

In July 1980 Mr. Kenneth Clarke answered: I disapprove of parking on pavements and verges which is inconsiderate to other people and can be dangerous to the blind and the disabled. However it would not be sensible to bring section 7 into force until local authorities and the police are in a position to implement and enforce it.

By March 1982 there was no answer, or more accurately it was ” I will answer this question shortly”. The following day the longer response was the more familiar one: “Implementation of section 7 has been deferred because representatives of local authorities and the police are not yet in a position to implement and enforce a footway parking ban. It is an offence under existing law to drive on footways, to park on footways in roads where yellow line waiting restrictions are in force, to park heavy commercial vehicles on footways, and to leave a vehicle in a dangerous or obstructive position. I deplore inconsiderate parking which endangers handicapped people. My Department will issue further publicity material to discourage it.”

And then a same response in July 1982: ” Implementation of section 7 has been deferred because representatives of local authorities and the police tell us that they are not yet in a position to undertake the work necessary to implement and enforce a footway parking ban. However, it is important to realise that it is already an offence to drive on footways, to park heavy commercial vehicles on footways, to park on154W footways in roads where yellow line waiting restrictions are in force, and to leave a vehicle in a dangerous or obstructive position.”

And also in December 1982: ” I assume the hon. Member is referring to Section 36B of the 1972 Act, as inserted by section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1974, which will, when implimented, prohibit parking on the verges and footways of urban roads. Implementation has been deferred because local authorities and the police are not yet ready to undertake the work involved in preparing for and enforcing the ban. There are already a number of ways in which action can be taken against such parking under existing law.”

There was then silence on the matter until March 1985 when a much simpler reason for non-implementation was given: “The need to avoid new demands on public sector resources.”

The Road Traffic (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988 carried this, and other non-enacted provisions of the now repealed 1974 Act forward to the new Act (Schedule 2 paragraph 22). The Road Traffic Act 1988 did however introduce the offence of parking on a shared use path (or cycle track as it is called in the Act) (Section 21) which is useful.

In December 1990 the Secretary of State for Transport was asked to make a statement on the response to his Department’s discussion document issued to local authorities on solving the problems created by parking on pavements. The response was “Over 450 responses were received, expressing a wide range of views. We have concluded that new statutory powers are needed to allow authorities to target problem areas effectively. We are now discussing with the local authorities advice on available engineering measures to deter parking on footways and verges.”

This irritating un-enacted clause from the 1974 Act was then repealed by the Road Traffic Act 1991. Of course this didn’t stop the questions coming. The answers tend to lean more heavily back onto the police and the ineffective law of ‘obstruction’ and to also place great faith on the new powers of decriminalised parking enforcement given to Authorities as part of the 1991 Act.

In February 1991 the question got this response: “The latent power in paragraph 22 of schedule 2 to the Road Traffic (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988 which, if commenced, would introduce a new national offence of parking a vehicle, other than a heavy goods vehicle, on the verge of an urban road, or on the footway or on any land situated between two carriageways on an urban road is being repealed by the Road Traffic Bill. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on 11 December 1990, at column 344.”

In March 1992 a question referring back to the 1974 act got a nice fluffy response  “We are committed to seeking effective alternative powers to enable local authorities to deal with the problem of parking on footways when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. Meanwhile, general parking restrictions and in some cases local Act provisions, can offer a remedy. The use of high kerbs and other road engineering measures such as bollards can also prove a highly effective deterrent to footway parking, provided proper provision is made for the needs of pedestrians with disabilities”.

In November 1992 the government tried to claim that the current rules could be used effectively saying: “Under the Road Traffic Act 1991 local authorities are able to assume responsibility for all permitted parking controls throughout their areas on  application to us. They can also apply to have special parking areas designated in which they will be able to enforce virtually all parking restrictions. While the police will retain powers to enforce endorsable offences such as obstruction and dangerous parking, local authorities will in practice be able to deal with the vehicle concerned if it is also parked in contravention of a parking regulation”

By 1993 the government was saying that a total ban on pavement parking would be impractical: “While there is a general ban on parking heavy goods vehicles on the pavement, parking other kinds of vehicles there is banned only where it is prohibited by a local Act of Parliament, as in London, where it contravenes a traffic order made by the local traffic authority, or if the vehicle is parked in a dangerous or obstructive position. Responses to the consultation document “Curbing an Abuse”, which we published in 1987, showed that a complete ban would not be practical. It would create severe difficulties for many local traffic authorities, and the police do not have the resources that would be necessary to enforce it effectively.” Also that “I accept that the current situation is not entirely satisfactory, but expect it to improve as local authorities take on responsibility for parking enforcement under the arrangements in the Road Traffic Act 1991.”

By 1999 answers wereall focused on the police and ‘obstruction’ and also on that gentle request in the Highway Code that drivers ‘should not’ park on the pavement: To quote: “the Highway Code (Rule 218) makes it clear that motorists should not park on the footway or pavement as it can seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs, the visually impaired and people with prams and pushchairs. Enforcement is a matter for the police under the law relating to obstruction.”

The 2001 Parliamentary Select Committtee report on ‘Walking in Towns’ recommended: “extending the ban on pavement parking to towns and cities outside London and ensuring that it is enforced”. (The government response is not easily available on the web but they evidently rejected this advice – see December 2002 response below).

October 2002: “Enforcement of criminal parking offences is an operational matter for the police. The Road Traffic Act 1991 provided for the decriminalisation of most non-endorsable on-street parking offences and their enforcement by local authorities. Normally, where there is an infringement a local authority parking attendant would issue a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to the transgressor. It is a matter for the local authority to ensure parking attendants are doing their jobs properly. Motorists can appeal to an independent parking adjudicator if they wish to dispute the issue of a PCN.”

December 2002: “We are not in favour of a national ban on pavement parking for the reasons given in our response to recommendation [e viii] of the Walking in Towns and Cities report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee (Cm 5277). Parking on pavements and verges is a problem that should be tackled at local level using traffic regulation orders.”

In December 2010 Norman Baker (then in opposition) asked and got this response: “Local authorities outside London already have powers to prohibit parking on the footway where they consider this to be a problem, using Traffic Regulation Orders and appropriate traffic signs. They are also able to use physical measures such as high kerbs or bollards, which are self-enforcing and effective. There are no powers in primary legislation for the Secretary of State to make regulations that would enable local authorities to ban parking on the footway without a Traffic Regulation Order.”

In February 2011 Norman Baker (now a minister) claimed that there would be a: “nationwide blitz on motorists who selfishly force pushchair mums into the road” after it gave councils in England permission to use signs to indicate a local pavement parking ban. (only a few councils had announced plans for schemes in very small areas by August 2011 – hardly a blitz!).


History appears to be repeating itself, but this time with regard to parking in mandatory cycle lanes (being a lane in the carriageways for cycling marked by a solid white line, and not to be confused with a shared use footway, or cycle track, which is not on the carriageway) ….

The Traffic Management Act 2004 (schedule 7 part 1 4(2)h) included a ban on parking in cycle lanes.

Since the Act received Royal Assent the section relating to the parking ban has not been enabled, meaning that it can’t be enforced. In March 2010 Lord Adonis said: “The Department for Transport is currently liaising with the Local Government Association to seek its views on the priority that its members outside London give to the introduction of the moving traffic contraventions provisions under part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. A decision on the timing of implementation of these provisions will be made when these views are clear to the department.”

In 2013 the clause had evidently still not been enabled, according to the CTC who said: “However, DfT has yet to implement powers in the Traffic Management Act 2004 to enable local authorities to enforce parking in mandatory cycle lanes.”.

Judging by the fate of the 1974 Act I think cyclists are going to be in for a very long wait!

Possible £1,000 fine for moving traffic signage

3 Aug

A few weeks ago I came across yet another sign that had been placed needlessly on a pavement. I asked the workmen to move it into the coned-off layby. They told me that they couldn’t move it because it had been put there by a subcontractor and that it would be illegal for them or me to move it. To be honest I didn’t believe them and moved it anyway. I have since spotted the law they were referring to which states: “If a person without lawful authority or excuse—(a) takes down, alters or removes any fence, barrier, traffic sign or light erected or placed in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) above, or (b) extinguishes a light so placed, he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.” New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (section 65). Level 3 on the standard scale is currently £1,000! Here is the sign before and after I committed the offense!

The road sign placed needlessly across the pavement over the textured pavement

The same sign moved so that it will  cause no obstruction to anyone

I did however also spot one useful clause in the official manual which tells contractors where to place all their cones and signs which states very clearly that “in no circumstances must the width of the footway be reduced to less than 1m, preferably not less than 1.5m” (chapter 8 clause D4.4.1). I will continue to move signs where this rule is being broken but will probably refrain from moving signs otherwise in future!

Sheds, cycle stores, planters and sofas…

1 Aug

I was reminded yesterday that once upon a time people who parked on the highway took care to park facing in the direction of travel and to use parking lights at night. It is a long time since I heard of either these regulations being enforced and to be honest had forgotten all about them so I have done some investigating. Some things have changed in the intervening period but some have not. Here are the current regulations:

  • “You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space” (Highway Code rule 248, Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations 1986 Section 101, Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 section 24).
  • “Goods vehicles exceeding 1525 kg [which include Ford Transits  btw] MUST NOT be left on a road at night without lights [regardless of the speed limit]” (Highway code rule 250, Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 section 24).
  • “All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked at night within 10 meters of a junction [regardless of speed limit]”. (Highway code rule 249, Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 section 24).
  • “All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph” (Highway code rule 249, Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 section 24).
  • Then of course there are of course the rules that you must not drive on the pavement (Highway Code rule 145) and rule 239 which says something along the lines of ‘you should not park on the highway unless you have to’ which is of course completely pointless without a clear definition of what ‘have to’ means.

A quick survey around where I live shows that there is an average of 1 contravention per parked vehicle which is quite an achievement given that a significant number of vehicles are parked legally. One commercial vehicle that was parked at night facing the wrong way with wheels up on the pavement without lights within 10 meters of a junction scoring a maximum 4 points. Many others scored 2 (wrong direction and up on the pavement).

Clearly the authorities are not enforcing these regulations and I am quite sure that no amount of encouragement will persuade them to start doing so. So why mention it at all? Only because if these authorities seem happy for people to do pretty much what they want to when if comes to leaving cars on the highway then possibly it is time to start leaving other interesting ‘stuff’ on the highway to stir things up a bit and get some debate going.

What would happen if a rash of sheds, planters, children’s play equipment, bicycle stores and sofas etc etc turned up on roads across the country. Each item would have a clear label saying that this was private property and an explanation of why it ‘had to be’ left of the highway. One person ‘had’ to leave a shed on the highway because there was not enough room for it in their  garden? another ‘had’ to put a cycle rack in the road because the front hall was not wide enough for people to get past if the cycle was kept indoors? and a third ‘had’ to put a kids swing in the road because it wouldn’t fit down the passageway beside the house, etc etc?.

When the authorities come after the owners then the owner will ask for confirmation that the law is going to be enforced fairly and will string things out. It would be visual and engaging for the media!

I am reminded of the splendid person who gave evidence to the parliament back in 2001 who saidIf pedestrians placed a chair on the carriageway it would be removed immediately, even though it would obstruct a smaller proportion of the road than when a car parks on the pavement. Cars could slow down and take care to avoid the chair, as pedestrians have to with parked cars. The Highways Act applies equally to the road and the footway. Pedestrians are being discriminated against“.

Any thoughts?