Parking cars on pavements

What is the deal with Woodcombe Crescent? I cycled down it this morning and it’s madness. Cars driven onto pavements, and more cars rat running down the road. There are no ‘legal pavement parking’ signs like there are on Taymount Rise. There seems to be a tarmac strip which people have taken to mean they can drive on that part of the pavement (I’m sure this is illegal unless there’s some covenant that covers it which I can’t find online), but these days cars are so big and wide they’re encroaching onto the actual paved part too. With all the bins out this could force wheelchair users or mothers with prams onto the road, aside from having to dodge cars driving onto the pavement whilst parking. It’s also cracking the paving stones, which we all have to cough up council tax for to fix.

As for the insane rat running, a neighbour has a camera on Ewelme Rd which is capturing 2-3000+ vehicle movements a day(!) - I think if there was some parking enforcement on Woodcombe which forced cars to park half-on / half-off the road then it would narrow it to a single lane and dissuade through traffic.

Here are some pics showing where motorists have driven onto pavements, and also in one there are four cars coming up the road. They then go on up over Westwood Park and on to Peckham.

IMG_71791920×1440 546 KB

IMG_71801920×1440 565 KB

A few fines from Lewisham council parking wardens would soon stop the practice and raise much needed money for the council.

Which is precisely what has happened on Devonshire Road. Cars used to park semi on pavement and it was hard for pushchairs to get past. Now cars have to park in the road, or they get a ticket, but has it reduced rat running? Doubt it or not so you would notice. Now cars that are legally parked get scraped and tempers run high at rush hour when someone has to back down and reverse to let traffic past. And then the scooters and motorbikes mount the pavement too.

Another topic “Riding bikes on pavements” has created a thread now over 100 posts long and has substantively has become a thread debating the supremacy of cars on roads.

But this topic has fallen short of discussion. The pavement is the only safe space for pedestrians. Blocking the pavement particularly with cars creates an obstructive hazard particularly for those with mobility issues, with children and pushchairs and even is some cases pedestrians walking two abreast. I fail to understand how this is even allowed.

I’d be interested to hear from car owners on the matter.

I assume it’s the residents parking there to avoid their cars getting scratched/hit.

On my regular walking route, Como road, cars are allowed to park on the tarmac side as there is a dashed line which I assume indicates this, but the pavement is just as narrow if not narrower than the space given for pedestrians on Woodcombe. Are you sure it’s not permitted?

What is a danger to pedestrians I frequently see and is really annoying is parking over dropped kerbs and double yellow lines at junctions, forcing those blind and partially sighted and in wheelchairs to cross where it is unsafe/extremely difficult to do so. In the Perry Vale area the staff and customers of the cafe on the corner of Siddons road are terrible for this, but there is no enforcement it seems, and I’ve given up going on and asking them to move!

Would that be "that" car?

On Como Road, the areas where pavement parking is allowed are marked with white dashed lines and a parking sign (blue, letter P with a car shown mounted on the pavement) on some of the lampposts. In the absence of such indications on any other roads, I would assume that pavement parking isn’t allowed.

I have a lot of sympathy for the residents who do not have driveways, who park on wide pavements like Woodcombe Crescent when it is used by so many motorists as a shortcut. As well as cars parked on the pavement the photo shows a bike parking place on the same pavement taking up the space of a car. I’ve got no problem with the position of the bikes or the cars in this case but by allowing the bike parking on the pavement, it is recognising that parking takes priority over pedestrians on this part of the pavement.

It would indeed! Although increasingly I’ve noticed their customers doing this now too. I’m glad the business is doing well but I’ve watched families with an older child a wheelchair struggling out into the main road, and a partially sighted women needing to be helped across the road when she should have the freedom to cross independently.

The proprietors of the Journey Cafe (Kirkdale’s Woodman pub as was) are especially bad at blocking the pavement. Despite having no front pavement curtilage (the pub had a back garden, which the owner - an estate agent - built over) the proprietors built platforms for tables on the pavement, put out A boards and used the Forest Hill Assembly funded planter as an ashtray (to be fair, I don’t know if they still do the latter since a kind neighbour took the trouble to repeatedly clean it out).

After many years of residents campaigning requests for bollards being rebuffed by the Council, Leo kindly pursued this and bollards were installed in an attempt to stop pavement parking. Sadly the Journey Cafe people just drive between them.

The most blatant “it’s all about me” instance though is that someone painted over the double yellow lines on Halifax Street with black paint.

That is awful. Let’s not forget except where express permission is given it is already illegal in London to park on the pavement.

Even where it is there are issues. As noted it is allowed to park two wheels up on the pavement on Taymount Rise but in my view it comes at an unacceptable cost. It damages the pavements, it creates a crowded and dangerous road and encourages drivers to park on pavements all up the road blocking entrances and making life unpleasant for pedestrians, paticularly those with mobility issues.

pv1839×1718 543 KB

It’s also got a (deliberately) noisy exhaust which can often be heard early and late as it commutes between Catford Hill.

I’ve not seen it park on the pavement however…

I see how you can infer that, but the bike parking is a planned piece of infrastructure. By the same analogy you could say there’s an electrical cabinet on the pavement so I can park there. But I could be accused of making a straw man argument so…

…and as far as I’m aware the installation of a secure bike parking facility does not constitute ‘express permission’ to park a car next to it. It’s a blue sign with a picture of a car half up on a pavement. I’m not aware there’s one for ‘park your whole car on the pavement’. You changed the topic from ‘Driving’ to ‘Parking’ and whilst the cars spend most of their life parked, they do need to drive onto and off the pavement to get there. I think it should be as much of an issue as bikes on pavements. They do move, occasionally.

Also note that the bike storage takes up as much space as one car but probably stores upto 10 bikes.

It doesn’t need to - it’s painted in hi-viz

I have no issue at all with council supplied bike pods being on the pavement where there is room. It is a good idea.

Taymount Rise just now. I suppose we should be grateful they aren’t on the pavement.

20210910_1903491920×3413 508 KB

Some car drivers just can’t win. Obviously a conscious driver whose been on the forum recently and taken note of the problems caused by parking on pavements but is also in tune with the needs of cyclists, including those who like cycling on pavements…top marks that man👍

I was thinking it was actually the other way round. Usually cycle racks are built in parking spaces - not usually on the pavement. On this road the cycle racks were placed in a parking space - on the pavement - recognising, if not formally approving, the accepted parking on this road. The cars made it possible to have cycle parking on this road!

But some pavement parking is much less acceptable:

Screenshot_20210910-234109_Maps1920×934 169 KB

Ok I see your point.

Also, putting anything on the road would cause a bottleneck and discourage through traffic. Clearly safer to park bikes on the pavement.

Incidentally I found a ‘park on the pavement’ sign. They do exist, just not on Woodcombe: here’s one on Kirkdale

image1855×2482 431 KB

Safer for whom? Safer for those with mobility issues, those pushing prams, the sight impaired? Our pavements need a general clearing of all street clutter and routes need to be kept clear and safe, and pavements repaired and level. Won’t happen though, some opportunist will plonk some obstruction on any space created.

I see, so it’s the secure bike parking facility on the pavement that’s the real problem here, not the scores of cars that drive onto the pavement to park. That’s kind of the point of this post in the first place - lots of comments in the other thread about bikes on pavements, but the first real issue with the cars parking on pavements thread are the bicycles.

Personally I agree - stick the bike parking on the road, leave enough space to make it single file to discourage rat running.

Sigh. I’ll try to make it clearer.

Bicycles on pavements = bad.
Cars on pavements = bad.
Clutter on pavements = bad.

I am sure there are pavements that are wide enough to have dedicated bicycle and motorbike parking that does not spill out onto walkways and obstruct pedestrians. Just as there are roads that are wide enough to have car and van parking that does not obstruct the two way flow of traffic.

Many shops and hospitality venues have curtilage to the front which they own and may be used for A boards and other business use (in some cases licence dependent). Not all do.

yes I noticed that-showed photo to my other half to point out Somebody is worse at parking than me!
On a serious note it was virtually in the middle of the road parked near a corner-not ok

This is what Premier group think is ok. Right in the middle of a pavement in Perry Village. Driver keen to tell me how hard it is to park here. I was keen to explain the difference between roads and pavements.

image1920×1440 345 KB

image1920×1440 334 KB

Blocking of dropped kerbs makes me absolutely hopping mad. It’s incredibly selfish and thoughtless.

Coincidentally a little while ago I asked @LeoGibbons whether he could find out whether pavement parking was permitted down Woodcoombe. He said he’d find out but not heard back.

My impression is that pavement parking has got a lot worse on Devonshire in the last couple of years, especially from the Tyson Road junction towards Honor Oak. I have never seen a car ticketed for pavement parking anywhere in Lewisham.

Well they certainly were when the council cracked down on pavement parking. Admittedly that was some years ago now.

I got one once.

Somewhat ironically as I intentionally parked on the pavement as all other cars did and there was a sign to indicate that was the approved parking. Little did I realise until too late, the parking on the pavement stopped at the next car to me, and I was meant to park in the road…this was quite a few years ago now.

There are a few roads around where there is tarmac of sorts on the pavement, and all cars park on them (though there is still enough pavement width for everyone to pass incl prams etc), however I am not sure if there are signed to indicate this. If all those cards parked in the road though no cars could pass, not sure what would happen if these areas were clamped down on but it’s the most practical solution for some of those roads and seems to work for everyone.

Woodcombe has wide enough pavements luckily to allow pedestrians and cars, space & parking & always has seemed to be ok for the last 20 odd years. As soon as a car parks on the road or half on & off on Woodcombe it causes more traffic delays in busier periods of the day.

It’s not the road I was thinking of, but that does sound a ‘if it’s not broken, don’t fix it’ road.

Like many things, I think we need to consider the objectives and reason for arguing against parking on the pavement. Many perfectly reasonable ones have been made above, especially in terms of pedestrians being able to walk down them.

Where there is not sufficient space for pedestrians to walk, I assume residents of those roads should be consulted as to what they would like done (if anything), as well as other stakeholders (eg maybe a school / PTA is it’s a regular school route etc).

I think where cars do park on the pavement, it should also be perfectly sensible to install some secure bike racks.

I guess at some point a lot of these will be reviewed when the position of electric vehicle charging points are proposed, though when that will be looked at in earnest who knows.

Perry Rise is an interesting case.

Screenshot_20210927-232527_Maps1080×2220 198 KB

I think examples like the one you have posted are the trickiest.

You (and I don’t mean you Michael) are effectively choosing between a more optimal pavement space, saying no parking there for residents, or perhaps making the road one way and widening the pavement that way. I suspect option 2 would be hugely unpopular with residents and I would agree with them.

These ones will have genuine arguments from opposing sides.

If it were me (and I’m glad it’s not) I’d want to understand what issues people using the pavement were facing on that side, and then look at what solutions -assuming issues were identified - might be possible (eg how much extra pavement space might be needed to resolve any issues, is the pavement on the other side of the road suitable, are other routes possible etc).

Perhaps the people who are going to build the tunnel under Forest Hill could also build some underground car parks…

I am 99% sure pavement parking is not allowed on Woodcombe Crescent but I’ve asked officers about it and asked for an enforcement sweep of the area @Runner_Rich.

As you can see, I have asked some public questions to our Cabinet Member for Transport about pavement parking in an attempt to get in on the agenda. It looks like LBL are currently instigating a ‘review’ of footway parking.

When i worked and parked in Sangley Rd Catford they had alternate parking one side to the other from one day to next as it had a bus route running down there at the time.
Was clearly signposted and worked well in the two yrs i was there.

Catford. Twinned with Manhattan!

Perhaps American street cleaning could answer three of our problems: keeping our streets clean, discouraging long term parking and getting Lewisham some extra revenue.

I think the schemes generally work by designating one day of the week to clean either side of the street when you have to move your car or get a ticket. It would be relatively easy for residents to move their cars at night when there is less demand for parking but harder for people who live further away and just dump their car on the street. It would be cheaper than a CPZ and have the advantage over a School Street LTN that it would displace traffic for just one day rather than 24/7.

Personally though with Covid and working from home, I have started to appreciate the benefits of long term parking outside your window. If one car sits there then you get less pollution but if the space has a short-term occupant, it could change about 8 times a day with all the resultant pollution whether it is a petrol/diesel/electric car.

Back to parking cars on pavements, we should think of the usage by pedestrians, if 10 cars sit on a pavement for one day, it will benefit 10 individuals whereas if the pavement is open to pedestrians in a busy area, it will probably benefit a few hundred a day. Closing off pavements by making it uncomfortable for pedestrians makes an area less vibrant and sociable, reducing casual conversations as people don’t have the space to stop and have a chat.

A few more: opposite Pantry

IMG_73821920×1440 461 KB

Stanstead Road

IMG_73831920×1440 498 KB

Outside FH Cars, complete with ‘no parking’ cones…

IMG_73811920×1440 405 KB

“Post your street parking pictures of SE23!”

9FC9A28E-5926-422F-B86C-0386E8269FFC_1_105_c1024×768 372 KB

Here’s one on Woodcombe where cars are king. 2 wide lanes so the 1000s every day can speed through the rat-run without any hindrance, 2 lane wide pavement so residents and commuters can park their cars without any any risk of getting damaged by the other cars.

That red car’s parking is classic! Not only the double whammy of blocking access to a fire hydrant AND parking on a pavement, but is the telecoms cabinet accessible? With the car for sale and the owner’s phone number displayed in the back window, is this one some kind of set up? Surely no one could be that arrogant and/or dim?

Maybe a bit of disruption and inconvenience here would reduce traffic through Perry Vale and on through Forest Hill? As it stands it’s a through route of dreams - you get drive 2 miles without any traffic lights or any real disruption.

Screenshot 2021-09-29 at 13.52.221242×1594 192 KB

Perhaps Lewisham could organise play pavements and pavement partys like they do currently with streets to allow for temporary closure of the pavement to cars so kids and adults can use and enjoy the pavement.

On a more practical note, perhaps residents getting together to plant more vegetation and trees on the pavement might be a long term solution and give more of a sense of the pavement being something to care about.

The one outside FH Cars might be alright. Depends whether that darker paving is part of the property in which case they’re good to go. Though those few inches into the public pathway from the front right tyre might be an issue.

Funny you say that… I have been thinking today that Woodcoombe is about 250m long and the pavements used for parking are say 2m wide on both side, which i think works out as a sq/km of land in Forest Hill dedicated to parked cars. Could have have an amazing community garden or something there.

I didnt think you could drive up a kerb and across the pavement to get to your land without a dropped kerb.

No idea. I have seen drives without a dropped kerb.

I think they’re called a front gardens then

They should be reported to the council.

One thing you never see down Woodcoombe is children playing… actually that’s true when it snows i have seen some.

It’s a good route but you can probably shave off 10 seconds by using Westbourne Drive and Canonbie Road rather than the slow main roads and pesky zebra crossings. It is a particularly good route if you have 4 wheel drive so that you don’t need to slow down for humps.

Perhaps on that particular occasion.

I saw this once (admittedly a while ago). It forced a pedestrian with baby buggy to walk in the road to pass.

20200125_1516481920×3413 732 KB

Dunno what this loonbag was up to but pretty sure it inconvenienced numerous pedestrians.

2_Upside-down-car1200×1200 234 KB

FH Car is on the property line so not pavement

I wonder how the car got there.

I saw something like this in Croydon a few years ago.
The car was upside down, but parked perfectly in a parking bay!

Screenshot 2021-09-30 at 15.20.121578×1670 228 KB

Is this the route of choice for the discerning 4x4 or SUV rat-runner? 14 miles per hour average!

Oops. Does that look worryingly like the car in which Katie Price left police custody?

Screenshot_20210930-174512_DuckDuckGo1080×2280 210 KB

Mmm, well spotted marymck, although if the lovely Katie had been involved pretty sure her airbags would have done their job and she would have emerged unscathed…

You are on form today, Troy !

Hi all,

Just a quick piece of information. The Council have a new system for reporting footway parking and I’ve been told by the Cabinet Member for Transport this is meant to help our wardens be a bit more responsive.

To report footway parking, you should telephone 0208 7875397 and select Option 5.

Thanks,

Leo

This one takes entitlement to a new level. Imagine being so important that you have to not only park on a public pavement, but then you have to string a high voltage electric cable across it.

Electric cars might help with reducing pollution, but it’s a bit of a safety issue if you’re going to force pedestrians onto the street, let alone parents with strollers or people with mobility issues.

IMG_74621920×1654 498 KB

Have you reported it Clausy?

It is a clear offence. Actually two. The reg is clear and its a fair bet the registered keeper is at the same address. Its not as if there are not a fair number of available chargers nearby that would charge it much faster.

Many 13A chargers won’t reach from the house to the road. He wasn’t using an extension lead perchance? That’'s potentially dangerous too.

The plate is a bit odd. Registered in Birmingham in 2005. But the first prototype Tesla didn’t take to the US road until 2006. Not an obvious vanity plate transferred from another car. But it’s legit - I checked.

Report it to whom - Police, Council?

This seems a bit antiquated. Something like ‘fixmystreet’ with a photo upload would be better. The council would make a fortune over time - why not let motorists committing obvious violations pay for the huge shortfalls in funding eh.

https://www.met.police.uk/ro/report/ - is it a ‘crime’ or a ‘road traffic incident’

I do agree though - why an '05 plate? Seems odd - It’s a model X and they came out late 2015.

I may have overstated the cable offence. It depends on the local authority. Some do:

I don’t know the Lewisham situation with their enthusiasm for legalising pavement parking. It’s about time pedestrians started claiming their pavements back.

What’s the betting the bins are there, kept handy, to secure the space.

I don’t think you have.
It’s total disregard for anyone - without even putting a rag or some kind of marker to warn of the trip hazard at least.

Unless it’s bin day, leaving the bins outside is naughty in itself.

Difficult to imagine either of them being very interested, somehow.

To prevent patrons of JK Banquets bottlenecking the entire road

A great use of Lewisham Council time and resources. Preventing people parking on their own land…

I don’t think anyone objects to people parking on their own land or have I missed something.?

May be he thinks he owns the pavement, a lot of drivers round here seem to.

You’d surprised at how many people do in fact own the pavement in front of their property but don’t realise it. My brother lives in Guildford and it wasn’t until an amicable discussion with his neighbour with regards to Thames Water accessing a manhole on his property that our dad found out through the deeds that he owns the pavement in front of his property up to the kerb line.

There is a conversation within this thread where Leo says private driveways without dropped kerbs should be reported to the council.

@GotDeletedOnce seems to think that people should be allowed to build private driveways requiring access across the pavement without paying the due fees /getting permission for a dropped kerbs without council enforcement.

The black bricks are clearly in line with the chain link fencing that starts next to next to the station and also with the boundary wall around the rear of Waldram Place. If the entirety of the land out front of FH Cars was with that grey Council paving then I think there might be a case. Would like to see the boundaries on paper tbh.

I think the comment is referring to the pavement parking in front of FH Cars on Perry Vale. The point of my original post was to respond to the ‘cycling on pavements’ to point out that cars drive on pavements too, and in this case right in the middle of town. The original post title was in fact ‘driving cars on pavements’.

The comment is suggesting that FH Cars are parking on their own land which is on the pavement and the real question is why… is there even a dropped kerb that gives them access to drive across the pavement (doesn’t look like it from the map link), and also I’d add why drive onto the pavement when they have a giant car park next door.

From what I can recollect, the section of pavement outside the offices there do drop down fairly close to the road compared to the rest of the pavement on that side of Perry Vale. Also the gates to those car parks are locked more often than not so I imagine they are storage units for the garage instead. I will check when I do my daily Pantry run later. I might even poke my nose into the parking situation with the staff when I book my cab for tomorrow.

No one wants to see bicycles or cars going down pavements for any stretch. But surely we have no issue with either of them bumping up a pavement to get to their front door provided no one is injured or inconvenienced in the process?

God I’ve lived on Perry Vale for too long and used that cab office far too often…

Depends on much damage to the kerb and pavement there is. There is a reason why you have to have a drop kerb installed if you want to park on your drive. If drivers cause damage that everyone else has to pay for then I do have an issue with it (or I would if I still lived there!)

Do you think that would apply to very many houses in inner London though?

Whether there is a dropped kerb or not, this particular offender that @clausy posted a photo of is clearly parking illegally because he’s parked at a fire hydrant.

IMG_73821920×1440 461 KB

To me the simple guiding principle should be in most cases roads are for cars and pavements are for people. The rest of us can’t just store our private property on the pavement becuase it is more convenient.

Indeed. I believe you are not allowed to obstruct by parking across a dropped kerb (unless it is your drive). Whereas if it is undropped you can park. That could lead to a dodgy situation if someone feels ‘blocked’ as a result.

I wish that applied to wheelie bins and the ever growing number of telecoms cabinets too.

Agreed.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with how the black merc and white toyota are parked though.

Erm, which comment are those cars in?

Parking cars on pavements - #79 by clausy and Parking cars on pavements - #41 by Runner_Rich

I still don’t know which back Merc you are referring to.

As for the white Toyota, technically its on the pavement by an inch or two, although it was probably craned in.

I’m my mind it’s unclear whether this land is private. I suspect not given the fire hydrant and telecom cabinet around the corner on the same brick paving. Also note the line of similar bricks between the kerb and paving slabs.

Obviously there is a title deed somewhere with the facts on it, as you said.

Have a look on google maps and you’ll see the black paving in line with the rest of the property boundary.

It’s also pretty common to have utility infrastructure on “private” land such as water meters, landline equipment and also drains. There’s a drain in my back garden that Thames Water need to have access to at any moment.

The Council Highways Department has maps that show curtilage. I have one for the top part of Kirkdale high street. That’s how I know that The Woodman (currently known as the Journey Cafe) doesn’t have a pavement curtilage. In that case if the estate agent who bought the pub hadn’t hacked up the building and built over the garden, there would have been no need for the cafe to land grab the pavement.

On Sydenham high street the curtilages are outlined by small metal studs in the pavement. I don’t know if that is the case elsewhere?

I thought you had to get a pavement licence from Lewisham to use the pavement for eating. Can they not ask them to pay this money and also remove all furniture from the street when not in use?

I think it makes sense to extend the pavement licence to cars crossing the pavement as well even when getting to your own property. Maintaining the pavement costs money and it is not just one off, a landowner may have paid 30 years ago for a dropped kerb but the kerb has probably been redone many times since with the additional costs of each dropped kerb. It also means the licence can be reviewed over time so that a crossover beside a railway station back entrance that is not being used can be reconsidered if the back entrance becomes a main entrance.

They should apply for a vehicle crossover and not believe the rules don’t apply to them.

If their vehicle crossover application is rejected, it is probably because 1. their ‘driveway’ space is not large enough and any vehicle will jut out and obstruct the pavement or 2. it is in a location where exiting or entering a driveway would be dangerous.

If they are parking on a drive without a vehicle crossover they are likely to be damaging the pavement and illegally driving across the footway.

When I worked in Merton, the council would occasionally place bollards on the edge of kerb outside a persistent offender’s property. The council would only remove the bollards if the owner of the property built a wall preventing them from parking at the front of their property again. I loved it.

Interesting if somewhat dystopian ‘broken windows’ style blog that you recently posted on this subject:

Well that was a depressing read!

Back on topic, there seem to be 3 or 4 types of car pavement parking, and I’m not sure if people are objecting to all or just some of them.

1. Anti-social type parking as illustrated in in @clausy’s post here and @beige’s post here. . I assume everyone objects to these type of parking violations.

2. Parking on the pavement where it has traditionally occured (but no official signs permitting it) but there is not a lot of pavement space, like in @Michael’s example here. The pavement space is clearly squeezed, but there is no space for cars to park fully on the road. So it’s status quo, removing parking from residents, or making the road one way so cars can park on one side, or someting else.

3. Parking on the pavement (either fully on half on) where it has traditionally occured (but no official signs permitting it) but there is a lot of pavement space so does not block pedestrians, those with prams etc.

4. Parking on the pavement where signs permit it and there is room, or not.

I personally don’t have an issue where there is sufficient parking space on the pavement for both cars and pedestrians, I think there are bigger priorities to look at.

I think the focus should be on the very bad parking like in example 1 (though that could be expanded to other types of bad parking).

Or alternatively we should congratulate some of this pavement parking, as a brilliant traffic calming scheme against the cyclists and electric scooters that speed down the pavement, a direct danger to many compared to the parking! (this is part jest!)

I object to pretty much all pavement parking, it looks messy, makes life harder for pedestrians and creates the impression that cars have a greater claim over public space.

On Taymount Rise cars can legally park with two wheels up on the pavement. As a pedestrian who uses it twice a day every day this makes the experience pretty rubbish. You end up having to dance around fellow pedestrians as there is so little space, it makes the road is dark and unwelcoming, there is ways the risk of being “doored” by an inattentive car occupant and I am sure it is destroying the pavement that is in very poor condition.

Would it be unreasonable to suspect that some of the people who complain a lot about cars, motorists and parking on the pavement, etc., on here don’t hold a driving license and are simply resentful of the fact that some of the money they pay in tax is directed towards supporting a resource they don’t have regular access to?

For the record, I’ve held a clean driving license since 2003.

Yes it probably would. I have 2 cars, one in a garage, and one I pay in a CPZ to park on the street and not on the pavement. And I’ve had a license since 1986.

As I said earlier, the original point of the post was simply to demonstrate that cars drive onto and off pavements and they’re at least as annoying there as cyclists.

Roads, pavements and indeed even cycle lanes are paid for out of general taxation with disproportionately high funding for roads. It’s indeed annoying when we waste tax repairing pavements that are cracked by motorists, let alone railings on the pedestrian island outside the station.

Around half of local residents don’t own a car and I suspect they’d be happy not to have to clamber over cables strung across the pavement or dodge pavement parked cars. I don’t think it’s resentfulness, in fact some people are probably proud of the fact they don’t own a car. Culturally that might be difficult for some people to imagine.

… and most likely order takeout that is delivered to their door by a vehicle powered by petrol.

Not here Swagger and I have one ticket in 55 years of driving.

Indeed I think there is a special place in hell for motorists who have space to park on their own land but instead choose to use or abuse the public space that is the pavement and/or the road.

Imho it’s just plain selfish.

I have had a driving license since 1998 but do not own a car at the moment. I grew up rurally so know what it is like to depend on a car so am very happy livinng in London means I don’t have the expense and inconvenience of running a car.

I also take very few deliveries - preferring my own two feet.

There are a number of roads in Forest Hill with parking on the pavements despite no visible sign of marked bays, this includes Fairlie Gardens, Pearfield Road, Woodcombe Crescent, Wynell Road, Riverview Park, Loxton Road, Round Hill, Grassmount, Willow Way, High Level Drive, Greystead Road, and of course Perry Rise and Southend Lane - where pavement parking turns inappropriateness into an art form.

Perhaps residents should be polled about whether they would like more pavements or more parking. Or perhaps the council could simply write to all residents in these streets reminding them not to park on pavements.

It would be interesting to consider what the council will do if Perry Rise residents choose to legally park their cars on the carriageways.

Perry rise road has so many issue. The pavement parking is just one of them. I’m not a fan of parking permits, but I think parking should be allowed only on one side and they really need to sort out the road surface and markings.

Just catching up with this thread. @LeoGibbons and I keep raising the issue of pavement parking at the Council. There is now a number you can call to report it (as well as idling vehicles) - 02087875397, option 5.

It would be interesting to know who made that happen: Councillors? Chief Exec? I often get the sense that Lewisham councillors behave like byestanders entirely passive and unable to get anything done - telling constituents in response to complaints that they will “raise it with the council”. YOU ARE the COUNCIL!

The executive power in Lewisham lies at the feet of the directly elected Mayor. In Merton, it would be the Council Leader.

Not in my dealings with Leo and his predecessor (Maja?).

I had a car drive across and down the pavement toward me yesterday outside the taxi office by the station. And the same again 5 mins later outside boots, when someone went to pick up a prescription. Meanwhile the car park is always empty.

Or people with visual impairments who won’t even see the hazard.

Spotted this morning on pavement at corner South circular and Devonshire. Crashed into one of the new ULEZ signs

image1920×2560 596 KB

Seeing just what a thought provoking and emotive issue this has become I thought I would try to capture some of my fellow Forest Hillermites concerns into song:

You’ve heard about my capers when I’m parking my car on pavements
Now I’d like to tell you of a few more things I’ve seen
I’ve seen little old ladies having to walk in the road and my, my how they’ve sworn uncontrolled
I’ve heard swear words that would make your head explode, when parking my car on the pavement
Near the school I’ve caused a jam and the mums with prams ram my car so it needs repairs
But I’m insured so I don’t care, when I’m parking my car on pavements
All day my car is parked on the pavement as I’m as busy as can be
It’s not my fault you can’t get by and it makes you cry
To overcrowded roads I’ve been, sixteen folk having to walk in the road I’ve seen
When I’m parking my car on pavements
X25

Ordinarily this should be sung to the tune of George Formby’s fantastic popular hit song from the 1930s but for copyright reasons I don’t think it should be….

That’s a pretty common spot for cars to have difficulty judging the corner. I hope everybody involved is okay and I hope this will be a reminder to all those ulez signs that they should wear bright colours when using the pavements.

People who have that issue probably should reconsider if they should be driving or not before they kill a pedestrian.

Here’s another ‘near miss’.

IMG_78841920×1440 427 KB

That section of pavement is a shared cycle and pedestrian path, so we shouldn’t rule out the possibility that is was caused by a cyclist hitting the bollard (although my understanding of conservation of momentum would suggest that a cyclist would have to be traveling at the speed of sound to do that sort of damage).

A reminder that bollards in London should wear helmets.

I was tempted to put it in the other thread, I admit. I didn’t know the pavement that side of the road is a shared path though? I know the crossing is shared (cyclist top left)

Meanwhile the ULEZ sign on my street is a nice easy to see camo colour.

IMG_78811920×2560 589 KB

You think that’s camouflaged?

Here’s the car park sign opposite Waldenshaw Road (the only sign from either direction that reveals this little known gem in Forest Hill)

image1667×627 121 KB

And I don’t see how you didn’t know that the pavement on Waldram Park was shared with bicycles there a single clear sign to help pedestrians and cyclists know that they are sharing the space - not sure how you could miss it:

image1663×472 91.4 KB

I received an email from Living Streets this morning about a campaign to ban pavement parking Link

Interesting link.

introduction of legislation to introduce a London-style pavement parking prohibition throughout England, as in Scotland

From my skim read I think their campaign is to change the rules outside of London. We could probably do with a campaign to enforce the existing rules in London.

I can’t see it.

Here’s another notice - thankfully temporary - which is plain wrong and confusing. If it’s meant for West bound traffic then it’s on the wrong side of the road. I’m sure it’s meant for East bound traffic and therefore facing the wrong way and placed in a stupid location i.e. after traffic has already passed the roadworks, maybe drivers are supposed to read it in their rear view mirrors to understand that they just drove past roadworks?

And finally, back to the subject of the original post

20211121_122052480×640 66.7 KB

Woodcombe Crescent. I had to walk on the road around this vehicle. Maybe a minor inconvenience for an able-bodied person, but what about someone unsighted, or in a wheelchair, or a parent pushing a child in a buggy? They should not be forced onto the road.

image1920×2560 653 KB

Not limited to just locals. End of Devonshire Road this morning. Addison Lee people carrier fully on the pavement. Had the audacity to apologise when I asked where the hell I was meant to go to get round. I had no option but to walk in the road (pregnant).

This is a hotspot every week for people to use as some kind of lay-by.

At least they understood the double red line meant no stopping .

I wish a photo such as yours could be used to generate a fine.

From Addison Lee’s website:

“As a business that’s proudly been serving the capital for over 45 years, and part of London’s transport network, Addison Lee has a particular responsibility towards the city’s people and its’ environment.”

From the look of this, govt seems more concerned about the free flow of motorisedtraffic on roads than the free flow of people traffic on pavements.

Also looks as though they will leave the problem to local authorities.

image1448×2048 335 KB

That is also Lewisham’s policy.

well, no it is not Lewisham’s policy. This is their policy.
poorly enforced though, probably because of entirely inadequate resources.

"6.9 Footway parking
In Lewisham, as with other London Boroughs, it is a contravention to park a vehicle
wholly or partly on the footway and is therefore subject to a Penalty Charge Notice.
This is because footways are provided for pedestrians, and parking vehicles on them
causes problems for many people including the visually impaired, people with prams,
pushchairs or wheel chairs, and many of us just wishing to walk along the footway.
However, at some locations it is reasonable to allow parking on the footway, for
example in streets with very wide pavements and narrow roads. The Council has a
procedure to assess applications for footway parking exemptions, incorporating site
surveys, suitability against set criteria and public consultation.

Before considering an exemption to the footway parking regulations there must be
evidence of a need for an exemption and one or both of the following must apply:
 The carriageway width is less than 10.2 metres
 The footway width is more than 3.6 metres.
Where footway parking is subsequently considered then the following criteria will
apply:
 The footway construction must be suitable for the purpose
 It must be shown by public consultation amongst frontages that there would
be a majority in support of such a scheme
 There is insufficient or non-existent off-street parking available
 The resultant available footway width will normally be a minimum of 1.8
metres, and 1.2 metres as an absolute minimum, after allowing for
overhanging hedges etc.
 Footway parking will not be permitted across vehicular crossings and will
terminate a minimum of 1.5 metres either side of the crossing
 Footway parking will not be permitted over pedestrian crossing places
 Footway parking will not be permitted within 1 metre of a fire hydrant or road
gully
 Footway parking will not be permitted within 10 metres of a junction
 Sight lines must be maintained at junctions, and around bends
 Footway parking will not be allowed within 12 metres of a bus stop
 Access for emergency vehicles and refuse collection will be given preference
to on-street parking provision
 Footway parking will not be allowed to the detriment of cycling facilities
 Footway parking exemption will only apply in an area that is clearly marked
on the street with appropriate traffic signs and lines."

I mean, you could just DRIVE along the path as I’ve just witnessed on Devonshire Road by a motorbike to avoid the traffic.

Seriously sick to death of the type of dangerous driving and parking us residents have to put up with around this road!

A few years ago 4 cars just mounted the path and drove down it to go around roadworks. There’s a certain type of moron that use these roads! Unluckily I didn’t get this driver’s numberplate in time tonight like I did the cars last time who were fined by the police.

Coincidentally just walked past some residents having a similar conversation in the street about the speeding cars along this road.

At the recent FH Ward Panel meeting with the local police team we agreed to add speeding to the list of the ward’s ‘safer streets’ policing priorities for the year. That means a few roads will be targeted for speed checks, including Devonshire and some other notorious local rats runs.

I’ve also put in an NCIL bid for traffic counting cameras which also give speed readings and other statistics to deploy around the area, so I’ll be looking for volunteer to host them in windows if it gets approved.

Quality parking on Woodcoombe and Ewelme over the past week.

IMG_48411280×960 266 KB

IMG_48461280×960 274 KB

Just reposting that this is the number you can call to report cars parked on the pavement (&also idling cars) - 0208 7875397 and then Option 5

I would be curious to know if anyone has tried this. Is there really someone ‘on call’ to answer reports of cars parked on pavements and then are there any stats on:

• how long it takes to answer / report
• how many calls they get per day
• how many reports are acted upon
• how many fines are issued?

Does this need an FOI request or does the council publish stats on this?

Hi Sophie is there an email address associated with that phone number, so we can send date stamped photos? Thanks.

I think it’s this one: LewishamParking@nslservices.co.uk

I wouldn’t bother though they don’t respond or react to any of the complaints.

To that email address I sent a number of photos of a persistent vehicle which would park on double yellows on a junction and idle it’s engine every morning at the same time and place.

I got nothing but an automated reply and no action.

In the end I spoke very politely to the driver one morning and he was apologetic. He switches off his engine now, but still sometimes parks dangerously on the double yellows. Possibly I’m lucky his reaction was reasonable.

@SophieDavis
I also am not sure what the phone number can really help with? I’ve noticed some spray painted stencil signs on the pavement about dog fouling and penalties. Not sure if this is council or a local resident. Could we do something similar about pavement parking or specifically cars blocking crossings? Ideally where they will most likely see it when they get out of the car?
This should be a relatively cheap and easy thing to do. I think a lot of people do this as they see other people do this but usually once you point this out to them they apologize. It’s just become so accepted.

Also could Lewisham decide which streets pavement parking is allowed on (e.g. Perry Rise, I can’t see what else you do except make it one way!) and clearly mark this out so there is no confusion!

Maybe a bumper pack of these might help get the message across.

I’d pay good money to hire a Car Narc to apply those stickers.

IMG_51971280×960 281 KB

This has been parked like this for a few days on Woodcoombe Crescent.

I have reported to the number Sophie gave, lets see if there’s a ticket or anything issued.

I thought the one thing Lewisham council was good at was raising money from traffic violations but it would appear not as the car is still parked in Woodcombe Crescent a week after the picture was taken.

Not in Forest Hill at least.