Surely, one of the issues is about how wide the pavement is. If, as BarCar suggests, even with cars on, the remaining footpath is plenty wide enough for pedestrians, prams, buggies, wheelchairs, etc, then what's the issue?

In other words, the council could come round, and just make the pavement narrower. Then we have big enough parking spaces, and wide enough pavements. (Unless there is legislation somewhere that determines how wide a pavement should be).

Anyway, regardless of that, the question put by BarCar was, if the council have said it is ok to park on the pavement, which they have, should they then not lower the curb?

The answer is of course they should. And that's regardless of whether or not BigJulie agrees in principle with the council allowing this.

If you want to debate whether or not the council should allow parking on the pavement in the first place, go ahead and start a thread on that. But don't blame BarCar just because they have.

jon14 -this thread is fine, thank you.

"Anyway, regardless of that, the question put by BarCar was, if the council have said it is ok to park on the pavement, which they have, should they then not lower the curb?

The answer is of course they should."

Err, who pays?
Just because the council allow it to happen doesn't mean they should be committed to massive spending (just to benefit car drivers, yet again). A remarkable assumption on your part.

And a massively good assumption at that!

If the council allow something, they should make sure it can be done safely (just as they have assessed the current situation and deemed the path wide enough to allow parking safely).

Like with footpaths - if there is a hole in a path, the council pays for it to be filled, as otherwise it could be a danger to pedestrians. What, filling a hole, just for the benefit of the pedestrians?? How dare they?

I think they tend to mend holes because they don't want people to hurt themselves. The difference here is that it's more difficult to isolate the impact that driving up a curb every day has. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact.

Am I right in assuming you don't have a car BigJulie?

No you're not, I have got a car.

If every pavement was amended as suggested it would cost a fortune. I don't think it is a priority - there are more important things to finance than people being precious about their cars.

Well we all have different priorities, and for you to have yours is no different to BarCar having his. But that's different to saying the kerbs shouldn't be lowered in principle, the principle being that pavements belong to pedestrians. By saying that it's not a priority, you almost admit that it's a legitimate casue somewhere along the line.

To be honest, I don't think it's necessarily about being 'precious' - if it was, I might agree. Whether you like it or not, driving up the kerb a lot does have an impact on your car, and people don't have enough disposable income these days to be paying for new tyres all the time.

I expect that the Council would lower the kerb if the car owners paid. I do not see why as a council tax payer I should pay for unnecessary work.

Personally, I think that if the Council chooses to allow parking on the pavement it should lower the kerb, but put in another kerb to restrict cars from totally blocking the pavement as they often do.

I agree Sherwood. The pedestrian reserved area should be enough to allow 2 prams to pass.

I agree with the second bit. But how, as a council tax payer, do you define 'unnecessary'? Is it absolutely necessary to put speed bumps and speed cameras on roads? I'm sure we'd all get by without them.

Anyway, it's probably just me, but the two sentences from Sherwood seem to say two different things, so I'm not sure if we agree or not!

At the risk of feeding the troll...

- I am not being 'precious about my car'. I just can't afford to replace the tyres at the frequency required due to the extra wear and tear resulting from mounting a 12cm kerb every day. Lewisham council accept that this is at the upper limit of most car's capabilities.

- the footpaths on the roads in question are very wide - more than wide enough for two prams to pass with vehicles parked on the kerb (in the marked bays). In fact the trees narrow the footpaths more than the parked cars in places - maybe we should cut those down to prevent the obstruction they are causing to pedestrians.

- expecting people to choose where they live on the basis of parking facilities is dangerously close to saying 'people who can only afford to live in small houses on narrow streets shouldn't be allowed cars'. I accept that there is an argument for discouraging car ownership but I think it is more complex than leaving it to the market.

- the setting of priorities for spending our general taxation is within the remit of our elected representatives - as good a reminder as any for people to get out and vote on 1st May.

I think at this point I think I will bow out of this topic since the discussion is obviously polarised and not especially constructive.

Jon14,

You left this sentence out of your quotation "I expect that the Council would lower the kerb if the car owners paid."

My point was that I think that lowering of the kerb for people to park on the pavement should be paid for by the car owners and not the council tax payers.

If people want the kerb lowered for a crossover, they have to pay for it.