|Posted on Tuesday, 27 February, 2007 - 09:38 pm: |
According to my neighbours, a few days ago a traffic warden came around advising people of forthcoming enforcement action if cars were half parked on the pavement. This referred to Ewelme Road and Woodcombe Crescent specifically but may be borough wide. Is anyone aware of this and why this suddenly a bone of contention?
Its generally a good idea, particularly when some cars take up a great deal of pavement so much that people can't get past with buggies, etc, but around our way, the reason people park with 2 wheels on the pavement is to avoid damage to their car particularly in narrow roads with a history of the same.
Recently a neighbour had considerable damage done to the side of his car to the tune of £2000. There are countless examples of wing mirrors and rear headlights being clipped and damaged.
My view is , if this to be enforced, then the Council should be firstly tackling the core issue , which is excessive and heavy vehicular traffic travelling along narrow residential roads carelessly and at speed. The residents of these roads have campaigned tirelessly in the past for traffic calming measures , most of which has fallen on deaf ears.
Is this enforcement a Council led measure? If so why is it such a priority over traffic calming measures which would improve the safety of local residents. Yesterday I saw car speed up Woodcombe at around 50mph. This is a disaster waiting to happen, and of course this is on top of what has happened in the past, ie demolished garden walls, near misses, lorries losing their load all over the road, ambulances being prevented from reaching their destination, etc.
In Woodcombe Crescent people have to park on the wider pavements as otherwise traffic cannot get past. Is this measure to apply to this road also?
Perhaps some of our Councillors could enlighten me?
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 February, 2007 - 10:13 pm: |
Pavements are for pedestrians. I think it is sad that because the roads are crowded out it is assumed that it is acceptable to park on pavements. It isn't. Let the cars fill the roads up and leave the pavements alone.
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 February, 2007 - 10:23 pm: |
Some roads in Lewisham have signs with a picture of vehicle parked with 2 wheels on the pavement. If this is to indicate parking on the pavement is allowed on that road or is just a suggestion I'm not sure.
Some time ago I did point out councils where being given additional powers re traffic offences.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 - 07:40 am: |
You're missing the point. Pavements are for pedestrians, I agree, but as I said, no one wants their car smashed to bits which is why they do what they do, particularly in my street where it is such a frequent occurrence. In Woodcombe cars parked on the road would prevent emergency services from getting past.
The same traffic that does the damage has the capability to harm pedestrians getting in and out of cars, and simply crossing the road hence. People paying road tax also have a right not to have their cars constantly and repeatedly damaged. If you lived in my road you would know all about it as hardly no one's car has been left unscathed. All I'm saying, before Lewisham become all heavy handed about this issue, they need to look at the root causes of the problem, and if they are so concerned about pedestrians, start with measures that may prevent us from getting killed outside our own homes.
Loneranger, can you refer me to your previous postings re traffic offences as I must have missed this.?
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 - 08:32 am: |
Within the thread 'Perry Vale Crossing'
I posted on Wednesday, 18 January, 2006 at 11:42 pm the following:
"I believe local councils will or have the power to fine motorists for minor offences don't know if speeding is one. It may be how 20mph zones will be enforced?"
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 - 08:56 am: |
One answer would be to make narrow roads one-way streets. But this would probably increase the speed of the traffic - knowing that there would be no vehicle coming the other way.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 - 09:08 am: |
One way streets are definitely more hazardous for pedestrians, with higher vehicle speeds and, on narrow streets lined with parked cars, drivers assuming there are no hazards to worry about, which generates less cautious driving and much higher speeds. And one way streets are a disaster for cyclists, who will not go round the block to get where they're going, and wind up cycling on the pavement - or adding to congestion by reverting to car use.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 - 09:44 am: |
Respectfully, Roz, I think YOU'RE missing the point. Paying road tax gives none of us the right to store private property on public space outside our own homes. The only right we all have in using the public highway is to "pass and re-pass".
If people are concerned about damage to their cars (and I really do sympathise), there are a number of possibilities:
- Find some private land to park on, and pay for the privilege
- Find another, safer bit of public road to park on
- Buy a cheaper car, that you don't mind having damaged
- Give up motoring
None of these options are easy, attractive or cheap (except, perhaps, the last one).
But to suggest that pavement parking is OK is just not fair on parents who wind up pushing buggies in the road, or people (like my neighbour in Westwood Park) who fell on paving trashed by footway parking, and smashed her face into a car wing mirror.
Lewisham Council, and all of us, know the "root causes of the problem" - too many private cars stored on public roads that were built before mass private car ownership existed.
And all this in a city designed to be walkable, with (still) one of the world's greatest public transport networks!
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 - 10:28 am: |
Pavement parking is OK (as in not immoral, I'm not saying it's legal!) if the pavements are very wide. My road is so narrow that cars have to park on the pavement otherwise no traffic would be able to get past. That was 'officially' recognised by the Council when the pavement parking ban was introduced and they painted white lines on the pavement indicating the maximum distance that parked cars could encroach on the pavement. On my side the pavement is so wide that it's possible to park a car, within the permitted space, with all 4 wheels on the pavement and still leave plenty of room for pedestrians.
If Roz's road has wide pavements, perhaps she could suggest something similar to the Council?
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 - 11:23 am: |
One of the problems with accepted pavement parking or painted lines to designate where you can park is that they become the thin end of the wedge.
Because it is OK to park up to a certain point the "I don't want my car damaged" mentality inexorably leads to cars creeping ever further onto the pavement (eg Honor Oak Park opposite One Tree Hill). If you park just a tiny bit further in than all the other parked cars yours will actually be the least likely to get damaged. Where does it end?
Up until last summer I was pushing toddler twins around in a double buggy and regularly ended up having to squeeze the buggy through a slightly too small a gap. Ironically that meant some of these "my car is the safest" vehicles were actually scratched by my buggy on the inside!
I wasn't sorry - just angry. It didn't do the buggy much good either.
Only this morning I saw a large 4 wheel drive vehicle completely parked on the pavement in Woodcombe - and there was about 2 feet between car and edge of road.
Now the twins walk everywhere I only have dog poo to worry about!
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 - 11:38 am: |
"It's a knockout!"
"Right everyone. When you hear the whistle, a member of each team sprints to the buggy park and collects their double buggy packed to the brim with toys. You make your way down the chicane of dog poo, points deducated for every squelch and each toy dropped, until you get to the "tunnel of exasperation". You must negotiate the cars on the pavement and the road, alternating between scratching one side, then wrenching off the wing mirrors on the other. Finally, you get to your destination and must race across the road through the oncoming traffic (ignore the red lights, these play no part in the game).
All survivors then jump straight into the waiting 4x4's and race for the finish."
Roz, get your camera. I think we have a winner!
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 - 02:31 pm: |
Good idea. Maybe we could merge this with Pvp's cheese hill rolling event.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 - 04:00 pm: |
I have a car but refuse to park on pavements which are for pedestrians , some of wgom and blind or handicapped.
I am very upset when people next to me park on the pavement.
I do agree that Woodcombe Crescent and Upper Ewelme Rd are becoming over congested especially in the rush hour.
This is a separate matter.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 - 07:24 pm: |
The point remains that people do this to prevent damage to their vehicles and also to their person.
I have just come home, parked my car on the road,( all 4 wheels) opened the car door to get out, to be met with complete outrage and hooting from a 4x4 driver who had to stop for the duration, ( hooting all the time) and objected to my impeding her attempt to do top speed up the hill. Sorry, but I will be parking 2 wheels on the pavement in future in order to avoid instances like these which are sheer harassment. The answer, and root cause, Paul , is actually to introduce traffic calming measures to stop motorists using these narrow residential roads as a race track. Only then will people park as they should.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 - 11:25 pm: |
FYI - Westwood Park has marked spaces half on the pavement, and there is plenty of paved space. This means that there is about one space per house.
Lewisham does occasionally enforce these spaces and ticket cars outside the spaces - mainly in the driveway entrance. This causes a right kerfuffle.
Main problem is each house having at least two cars/people carriers, groan, in the good old days I was happy to have a three-legged donkey etc, global warning, etc...
|Posted on Thursday, 01 March, 2007 - 10:04 am: |
I lived on Westwood Park, and I routinely found myself struggling to get through the gap between the cars and garden walls. It's just not true to say there's "plenty of paved space". I walkked to work in Sydenham with my other half, and we'd walk the length of our own road indian-file in silence, because so much space was taken up by empty cars designed for - surprise! - people to sit side-by-side for a bit of conversation!
Why don't we have cars that are one person wide - that really WOULD solve the problem.
Oh, and Roz - Westwood Park HAS traffic calming, and you STILL have to park on the pavement.
But please don't assume I think you're wrong to park as you do, Roz. We all have to get on with things they way they are, and I absolutely understand that, for many people, there isn't another option at the moment.
But we HAVE to be honest about the problems it causes, rather than try to salve our guilty consciences by saying "No, there really isn't an issue here - or if there is, I'M not part of the problem."
Mea Culpa - I drive, I pollute, I endanger, I blight. There, I've said it.
|Posted on Thursday, 01 March, 2007 - 08:23 pm: |
God I've not blighted for ages, I like a nice blight...
|Posted on Friday, 02 March, 2007 - 08:30 am: |
I very much symphasise with your plight. I know the upper end of Ewelme Rd and your road are at times very busy. You know the rat runners as when I go down Ewelme Rd I go all the way down, nearly every other car turns into your road.
Trouble is I also do not agree with parking on pavements or irate and rude 4 x 4 drivers.
Not sure what can be done here. If Ewelme Road blocked at top end would only transfer to Benson Rd , then to Tyson ( as I understand our Mayor lives in Tyson perhaps action would be taken).
May I suggest you get all your neighbours together on this and take positive action.
|Posted on Sunday, 04 March, 2007 - 11:42 am: |
Thank you to the person who put copies of Lewishams parking policy through my door this morning. It is useful information. However, as you can imagine, it is quite freaky to receive anonymous correspondence particularly when its clear that someone has managed to both identify me and my home address from this website. None of my neighbours has received this so I can only conclude that the purpose of this delivery to my alone was to make some sort of point, and not necessarily a friendly constructive one either.
|Posted on Sunday, 04 March, 2007 - 11:53 am: |
PS I know its not a Council circular due to the specific format of what came through the door.
|Posted on Sunday, 04 March, 2007 - 01:32 pm: |
Yes I agree scary. Hope the person will own up and explain how they got this info
|Posted on Sunday, 04 March, 2007 - 07:21 pm: |
If you want to work it out through a process of elimination, I can assure you it wasn't me, Roz.
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 09:22 am: |
Re enforcement, the council/mayor have discussed giving street warderns the power to issue fixed penalties for some offences.