Double Yellow Line Extension

[malumbu]

Parking near to junctions reduces the line of vision, as already discussed, and well shown in the photos above.  Whatever you think of LTNs, CPZs, Southwark Council and the like surely none of you can be opposed to the minimum of parking 10m, as in the Highway Code, away from junctions.  If anything you should criticise Southwark for not doing this right in the first place.

[first mate]

What they demonstrate is what happens when you deliberately create parking pressure by any means possible, as Southwark Council is doing.

Edited February 8 by first mate

[malumbu]

So parking in a dangerous position trumps road safety?  This obsession with Southwark doing everything to 'rip off 'the motorist is clouding opinion.  They could have ticketed cars parked there in any case, it makes more sense to actually show where you can't park,

[snowy]

50 minutes ago, first mate said:

What they demonstrate is what happens when you deliberately create parking pressure by any means possible, as Southwark Council is doing.

Hang on, earlier on you said there was no parking issue and now you are saying that there is one...

[Penguin68]

If you remove lots of parking places then you create parking pressure.

Previous yellow lines around junctions were sufficient for safety but were later deemed expandable.

That's also why the council extended lines over driveways, to remove parking space. It all adds to parking pressure where there wasn't any to get people to beg for CPZs. They hope.

The big pressure is of course by introducing CPZs to increase pressure on adjacent streets. Remember that Southwark policy was until very recently to enforce 100% CPZ on the borough. 

They're now forced back into their past incremental approach. 

[snowy]

27 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

If you remove lots of parking places then you create parking pressure.

Previous yellow lines around junctions were sufficient for safety but were later deemed expandable.

That's also why the council extended lines over driveways, to remove parking space. It all adds to parking pressure where there wasn't any to get people to beg for CPZs. They hope.

The big pressure is of course by introducing CPZs to increase pressure on adjacent streets. Remember that Southwark policy was until very recently to enforce 100% CPZ on the borough. 

They're now forced back into their past incremental approach. 

But at the start of this thread, it was said that they were being implemented to create parking pressure that didn't exist before.

then there's a series of posts pointing out the illegal parking on junctions without  extended yellow lines.  Not only making the junctions unsafe but removing access to dropped curbs and tactile paving for Disabled people.

These illustrate that drivers were ignoring the Highway Code. Putting in yellow lines is the only way drivers are going to realise they can't just park where they like without the risk of a consequence.

And you have never been allowed to park over drive ways. It's literally listed on the previous page under rule 243. 
 

It's almost like rule breaking is being justified for cars by some posters. 

 

[first mate]

Southwark have already created parking pressure with the combi of double yellows and CPZ, therefore streets without either, in certain areas, are now much more likely to suffer from the type of parking behaviours those photos show.

It 's just like displaced traffic caused by LTNs.

Don't act as though you do not know perfectly well what is going on and why. This is a systematic, concerted and deliberate effort to maximise parking pressure to achieve the borough-wide CPZ Southwark have clearly and repeatedly stated they want. Problem for them is they cannot do this without people complaining about parking issues. Solution, use every trick in the council book to create them.

Edited February 8 by first mate

[march46]

Dodgy parking by drivers is a real problem, which existed long before the CPZ, despite you previously stating there were no problems before.

It’s a good thing that Southwark is tackling it. 

[Rockets]

Creating parking pressure to then be able to charhe residents for the privilege will be part of this council's tarnished legacy. How very socialist of them...

[malumbu]

Who gives a fig about so called parking pressures, whether in your imagination or not.  Can you not think of something positive to say about anything?  A challenge - start a happy thread.  

[first mate]

What are you on about? Just earlier photos of bad parking, almost certainly the result of Southwark's manufactured parking pressure were on display.

You don't give a fig because you do not live in the area. But I also think a lot of this is a bit of a game to you. You seem to enjoy it.
 
 

[march46]

Always with the excuses for poor driving…the earlier photos of bad parking have nothing to do with CPZs and everything to do with inconsiderate drivers.

[snowy]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

Creating parking pressure to then be able to charhe residents for the privilege will be part of this council's tarnished legacy. How very socialist of them...

Drivers are already massively subsidised by wider tax payers. 

You have got to the point now where you are arguing:

 'boo hoo, it's outrageous, i just had to park my car on a double yellow line, on a dropped curb, which means a mum with a buggy / wheel chair user has to bump down the curb into road traffic to get around my car because the beastly council made me pay 60p per day to store my private property on public roads'.

Edited February 9 by snowy

[first mate]

Did those photos show cars parked on double yellows. March46 was arguing there were no double yellows?

And, it is not necessarily about charges, though those also have an impact, but about proximity. Some of the worst parking seems to involve delivery and home services (building, plumbing etc). If someone is on a job there is a limit how far they can carry tools etc and double parking to make delivery is not always possible.

You talk about mothers; for all you know some of the cars parked badly may belong to busy mothers, dropping off kids, unloading the shop... Those cars may belong to a carer or relative picking up an elderly person to take them to a medical appointment and parking further away is not feasible.

Southwark have deliberately created a parking problem, so examples of bad parking are likely to increase, which is counter productive, don't you think?

Edited February 9 by first mate

[Kurt_Lane]

15 hours ago, first mate said:

You talk about mothers; for all you know some of the cars parked badly may belong to busy mothers, dropping off kids, unloading the shop... Those cars may belong to a carer or relative picking up an elderly person to take them to a medical appointment and parking further away is not feasible.

I agree with this 👆🏻.  Sometimes you just have to put convenience over other people’s objective safety. Yes, I may be forcing mothers with prams to walk in the road and blocking access for disabled people, but if I don’t park on a junction then I’d have to walk 20 meters farther with my kids. When will people stop being so selfish and start thinking of my children and not their own?

Edited February 9 by Kurt_Lane

[first mate]

But if Southwark had not manufactured a parking issue in the first place, we would not see so much of this as there would be no need.

[snowy]

But on page 1 you say there is no parking pressure: 

What are you saying Southwark has created? By preventing drivers from breaking the rules they're creating pressure?

[first mate]

Same old games.

There are parking pressures on many roads where Southwark have increased double yellows, ostensibly for safety reasons, but where a very useful (to them) result is also to reduce parking spaces on that road. Then add in roads adjacent or close by CPZ, they will also have reduced parking because they will now be taking those cars that cannot easily park in the CPZ zone.

It is laughable that you try to pretend you are not aware of this. I would have so much more respect for the cycle activists on here if they simply admitted, you want rid of as many cars as possible, one way to do that is to create a parking nightmare. At the same time you get to virtue signal and but also help Southwark get loadsa money in parking fees.

[snowy]

The cars shouldn't be parked there - do you agree with that?

[malumbu]

Perhaps the car lobby could actually admit that they want the end to all restrictions and the banning of bikes.  It's a bit silly making the accusations about so called cycle activists.  I want safer, cleaner roads with less carbon emissions and a healthier population.  Increased bike use and less driving is one part of this.

[first mate]

Any sensible person wants safer, cleaner roads but you don't get that by turning up the thumbscrews as tight as you can on those driving cars, while allowing a massive proliferation of another type of powered transport, almost unhindered with zero checks. The pace of change is too fast and more to do with political box ticking and revenue grabbing than genuine environmental concern, in my view.

If the council were so concerned about the environment, just consider for a moment what they are happy to allow to happen with GALA on Peckham Rye. Utter hypocrisy on their part.

FWIW I am not and never have been a car lobbyist. As I have said, until I am blue in the face, I cycle more than I drive- but sometimes I need a car; rather like you, Malumbu.

[Rockets]

50 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Increased bike use and less driving is one part of this.

But it's not the only part...and many in the pro-cycle lobby (especially those in a position to set policy) often forget this.

[malumbu]

Says who?  There are some hard liners but they will not be running national government, or local authorities.  Not sure why you exaggerate their influence.  Most in sustainable transport policy will have exactly the same views as I have put forward.  You will argue against every measure taken to go down this route, but have no answers.

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Most in sustainable transport policy will have exactly the same views as I have put forward. 

Exactly. That's why there urgently needs to be a more balanced and pragmatic approach.

[Johnjohn]

Just to update, my original query was with regards to the DYL being extended. 

I was concerned about this as if it were to be repeated on other junctions there would be significant loss of parking spaces. (Something which other posters have suggested, and I alluded to, was that it might be the councils intention in order to create demand for a CPZ!)

It does now appear that this DYL is for the installation of a bike hanger.