The explosive rise in online shopping has flooded our streets with delivery vans. Nothing wrong with that you might think. After all, home deliveries are convenient for many and replace a large number of car shopping trips with a smaller number undertaken by professional drivers. Except that they aren’t entirely professional. In fact, in many cases they are downright dangerous.
According to Tesco, their delivery drivers ‘need’ to park on the pavement. The company appears oblivious to the fact that it is not only illegal to drive on the pavement, it is highly dangerous.
Why is any of this important?
Quite apart from the obstruction caused by pavement parking, the practice can be deadly. Last year, a four-year-old girl was on a pavement when a delivery driver – who didn’t want to hold up the traffic behind him – pulled onto the pavement and killed the child as her mother looked on helplessly. This is not an isolated incident. Last year in Britain, drivers killed 43 people while they walked on the pavement.
The more we searched online, the more examples we found of people complaining to Tesco about their drivers driving and parking on pavements. Some have bceome so frustrated, they have resorted to posting videos on Youtube.
When we tweeted Tesco to remind them that driving on pavements is illegal, not to mention dangerous, and to ask them to revise their position, we received no reply. At the time of writing, this question has been retweeted over 50 times, but still no reply from Tesco.
Of course, Tesco is not the only company whose drivers break the law, but the company’s seemingly flagrant disregard for the law and refusal to engage in conversation about the dangerous pavement parking it advocates are striking.
If you object to the danger caused by pavement driving and parking and you shop at Tesco please consider tweeting them at @Tesconews or contacting them via tesco.com/help/
For our part, we have written to Tesco Chief Executive, Dave Lewis, in the hope he can answer our question.
Update: 25 January 2018
We have received the following reply from Tesco. It appears their social media team may have gone rogue…
If your road continues to be plagued by dangerous and illegal pavement parking, you may wish to resort to this…
If your street is plagued by illegal and dangerous pavement parking by Tesco drivers, why not use our handy cut-out-and-keep penalty notice? #everylittlehelps
Pavement parking and the law
With the exception of those pavements clearly marked for parking – the accompanying road sign shows a car half on the road and half on the pavement – it is illegal to drive on the pavement and as such a matter for the police. For added clarity, here is an excerpt from a parliamentary briefing on the subject.
An ethical provider like no other
Not only are we voted to be an ethical company, but we also campaign for sustainable transport. Sometimes that means protesting until a school gets the zebra crossing they’ve been refused, or running 60 roadshows this year to encourage people out of their cars, or fixing bicycles for free. Supporting this work is easy – you simply have to take out insurance with us. We provide home insurance, cycle insurance, travel insurance and breakdown cover – all while putting concern for the environment at the heart of all we do.
Jamie
Great article. Speaks the truth. Shame Tesco refuse to take part in the conversation about their illegal and dangerous policies.
Martin
Time for a ban on pavement parking anywhere signs do not specifically allow it, nationwide, enforceable by civil parking enforcement officers. The practice is rapidly becoming normalised all over the place, all to the detriment of pedestrian safety, comfort and convenience.
Howward Jones
What happens then in shared space locations where there isn’t a pavement? Most rural locations haven’t got any pavements to start with, nor street lighting for that matter ?
Baker
Where on earth do you people live?? Virtually every street I’ve ever lived on, if delivery vans didn’t mount the kerb, the street would become impossible to traverse for several minutes at a time many many times per day. It would play havoc with cities where light sequences are pre-determined by the distribution of traffic long before they reach the lights. And most commonly of all, it would force the majority of people living in our older city centres to spend hours looking for parking every single day, causing horrific congestion and pollution, and force them to take their cars further into the outskirts to park which would then pass that effect on to even those people living on wide enough streets. I’m an avid cyclist, I also do a walking commute, and I don’t have a car, yet I think this is batshit crazy.
There’s a reason the police don’t attempt to enforce this: for the CPS to proceed to prosecution, prosecution needs to be ‘for the public good.’ This clearly isn’t. Of your 40 deaths of pedestrians annual, almost never are they caused by vehicles parking on the kerb; the very vast majority are caused by vehicles losing control and mounting the kerb, being pushed up onto the kerb by other vehicles, or intentionally mounting the kerb to cause injury. Why this absurd quest?? Better to focus on getting vehicles out of cycle lanes… or pedestrians for that matter!
John Doe
Did we read the same article? Did you overlook completely the fact that pavement driving and parking are killing young children? perhaps you don’t have kids.
Nigel Cuttell
What a well-written response, I agree with all the points here.
The ETA
You question why we have embarked on what you describe as this ‘absurd quest’ to prevent young children from being crushed to death by cars that drive and park illegally on footpaths. The answer is that reducing road danger is one of the ETA’s primary aims.
Baker
John, you need to consider scale. 1000 times more people die per year from falling down stairs. Parking sensibly on the kerb will never kill a person; driving like an idiot when you do not have visibility will, but the van driver was just as likely to be doing this and kill someone on a crossing or whilst reversing round a corner as parking on a kerb.
ETA, you exponentially increase road danger by discouraging safe use of the roads, pavements, and surrounding areas. By forcing congestion outwards from our city centres and making drivers crawl around suburbia to park their vehicles, you increase the likelihood of children being killed whilst playing games in the street, as well as the likelihood of lone drivers walking long distances back from their cars through areas they do not know finding themselves the victim of violent or sexual crime late at night. Further, by encouraging drivers to obscure vital road width by unnecessarily avoiding parking on wide kerbs, you vastly narrow the lanes, increasing the likelihood of accidents involving crossing pedestrians, animals, and stationary objects. Moreso, that 30cm difference between cars parked on the kerb and cars not parked on the kerb is frequently the 30cm difference between a cyclist crushed by an aggressive driver and a cyclist able to avoid the side-swipe. Both myself and my housemates have been in situations where either the space created by a car parked on the kerb was a lifeline as a cyclist, or where someone inconsiderately NOT parking in the way -everyone- else has parked (on the kerb) has created a massive danger that overtaking cars have been completely oblivious too. My ex-girlfriend required a CT scan, and neck brace after a driver who had done exactly this opened their door into the lane as a bus was overtaking her as she cycled past. Were that driver parked as everyone else had, she would have had space to get out of her car without obscuring the busy lane and causing a life-threatening accident.
Again, there is a reason the Police are not interested in this crime; it is NOT in the public interest to enforce; especially as quite clearly it’s not within the spirit of the law. There is a reason there is no civil punishment for parking on the kerb; no one intends to discourage it. The reason it is criminal to mount the kerb is to stop people literally driving on it.
Finally, I implore you again to explain where you live that you cannot see the catastrophic impact this would have on virtually every town and city centre in Britain were it enforced in the way you intend.
The ETA
Baker, Why do you imagine it’s illegal for cars to drive onto a footpath?
David Low
Equally galling are drivers who park of traffic calming rumble strips and the like forcing the cyclist to take evasive action over an uneven and uncomfortable surface. You can absolutely guarantee if traffic calming measures exist, it will be to the detriment of the cyclist. Help one lot, hinder the others.
David Low
Equally galling are drivers who park on traffic calming rumble strips and the like forcing the cyclist to take evasive action over an uneven and uncomfortable surface. You can absolutely guarantee if traffic calming measures exist, it will be to the detriment of the cyclist. Help one lot, hinder the others.
Jim Clark
Guide Dogs and others representing visually impaired have been running a campaign against pavement parking and other pavement obstructions for a few years now and made little progress, please look at their web site and join the campaign.
I’ve just spoken to my house wall about getting the police to deal with pavement parking, the wall hasn’t replied yet.
Les Gunbie
Why do the delivery vans need to park in sight of the customer’s front door? Find a legal parking space, like every other road user. Build your business model round the law! No special rules for corporations!
Paul Hubert
I think parking on the pavement ought to be treated as aggravating a parking offence, whereas in practice drivers and perhaps enforcers are treating it as lessening the offence.
Terence Grandfield
If it is illegal to drive on the pavement, every vehicle parked on the pavement is breaking the law because it has to drive on there to park in the first place. .
Lee
From what I’ve read unless the police witness someone actually driving on the pavement and therefore breaking that law they know the defence lawyers will use this to get it thrown out, which means the CPS are less likely to go to court, as a conviction is not likely.
Yes that makes a mockery of the law and you could argue the vehicle had to drive on the pavement to park on it but the law in place doesn’t state that, just that it’s illegal to drive on one!! So get the law updated so the CPS can proscute.
Given the Police no longer investigate a number of crimes, like low level burgalries: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/16/low-level-crimes-to-go-uninvestigated-in-met-police-spending-cuts ,I doubt they will ever enforce this law no mater how rebust it’s made.
The other point to make to those that think it’s fine to park on pavements is that they are not constructed for this purpose and become damaged which we then pay for in taxation, not Tescos as in this case. Also most pavements have a dual purpose, with a number of service running under them, such as gas and water pipes feeding our homes. These also get damaged over time and guess what, we all pay for it in our bills.
Half parking on a pavement/road still means cars have to go around it, still crossing the whiteline, so still impacting the flow of traffic. So no gain there just obstructing the pavement for its proper use.
Tim Harris
Well said Baker. A rare shimmer of common sense amongst the rabid militants (and yes I’m a cyclist and pedestrian with a small child).
Should we also ban cars as they kill many many more per year?
Come on people, get real for heaven’s sake!
The ETA
Tim Harris, we don’t share your view of the world – We don’t think calling for a systematic approach to road danger reduction makes us rabid militants! They’ve done it in the Netherlands and their towns and cities are immeasurably cleaner, safer and more pleasant than most here in Britain.
Pete O’Sullivan
Baker, couldn’t agree more
John Holiday
It is time that this anti-social practice was eradicated.
Time to give up bowing to the omnipotent motor vehicle?
Mary Fisher
Yes, John Holiday. King Car (usually with just one occupant) rules our country. Laws need to be enforced, not allowed to be broken.
Dave H (@BCCletts)
Right, let’s get this sorted out and start using the term FOOTWAY here. The term Pavement is a generic one which applies to any hard surface which can be walked ridden or driven over. It aligns with the law, and with the actual use to call the part of a Highway specifically for foot traffic the Footway and the part for carriages (and foot traffic where there is no footway) the carriageway. It reinforces our case immensely when reports say that “The driver (NB NOT the car) mounted the footway” emphasising the clear fact that it is the place for pedestrians and not cars.
We then have the crazy position on this offence – Section 72 Highways Act 1835 – driving or riding a carriage or beasts on a footway. This is perhaps the only road traffic offence that requires the offender to be caught ‘in flagrante delicto’. For every other common offence – speeding, red light running, using a bus lane etc can be prosecuted from a photograph or CCTV with a near production line process of the offence being checked, and through ANPR an FPN or TOR printed off and posted to the vehicle keeper – who must either take the blame (with fine and points) or identify the driver.
It might be possible to change this relatively simply as a process of Secondary Legislation (or a Statutory Instrument). This process avoids the rigmarole of a full Parliamentary Bill, and can this be processed fairly quickly, and with a low profile, perhaps in this way avoiding any tantrums, over motorists ‘rights'(sic) to carry on breaking the law. In the interim a steady flow of CCTV and photographic evidence to the local Police and PCC can press for local enforcement purges, with a mix of warning letters and actual fines & points on licences.
However there are further offences that can be pursued. If the vehicle is over 7.5Tons (an HGV or a large bus) then Section 19 Road Traffic Act 1988 applies – an offence to drive AND park on a footway, an offence where some Police forces may accept photographic evidence for a prosecution or warning letter, with a further avenue of reporting regular offending to the regulator for commercial vehicle operator’s licences (and driver’s HGV and PSV licences) the area Traffic Commissioners (7 cover the UK, excluding Norther Ireland) (Use their central admin address in Leeds). The TC’s can impose penalties and restrictions on operators who operate with a cavalier attitude to safety and legal compliance, and also revoke or suspend vocational driving licences.
A further offence (originally part of Section 72 I think) is Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980, basically when a vehicle is obstructing traffic. This is ALL traffic on foot and on wheels (Remember you ARE the traffic), and so a driver leaving a car blocking the footway is committing an offence. Its a level 3 fine (up to £1000 if it goes to court). Again I think that some Police forces may take photographic evidence and issue warning letters or even FPN and its an area to press the PCC and local politicians for enforcement
There are also the road markings offences – parking where the zig-zag markings protect the visibility of pedestrians on a crossing, or where red or yellow lines (or the absence of marked parking bays (in a CPZ) set a parking restriction which applies to the OUTSIDE EDGE of the FOOTWAY unless otherwise stated. The parking offences (and PCN) are a Local Council issue, with Parking Attendants your friendly local resource – put their contact number on your mobile phone, and smile at them as they descend on the street to issue tickets. Some of these Council staff (TfL Traffic Officers) can also issue tickets for Section 72* and Section 137** and its worth doing some local research (*They were issuing S72 tickets to cyclists riding over Tower Bridge footways when the carriageway was closed for repairs **They noted that they could issue S137 tickets but there was a lack of (political?) backing for this)
So your homework ; Start using the term Footway to emphasise the pedestrian use of this part of the highway ; Press your MP to rectify the anomaly that prevents the use of CCTV/photographs to prosecute drivers using a footway with their carriages (Section 72 / Section 129.5 of Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 in Scotland) ; Press your PCC/Local Police/Politicians to enforce laws on obstruction and illegal parking, and Section 19 for HGV’s
Dave H (@BCCletts)
PS In case you wondered the 1835 Act is a marvel of Victorian smart legislation – in 1888 the cycle was officially deemed to be a carriage (Local Government Act) (with case law preceding this from 1878) and in 1903 the motor car was likewise defined as a carriage in the Motor Car Act. Doubtless the 1835 Act can accommodate most future forms of traffic on the highway in years to come.
Dave Stanley
It is a few years since i did a thorough review of transport stats. Can’t imagine they have changed the trends. Truck MPG continued to decline. Barely noticeable improvement in overall car mpg – appeared to be due to drivers taking the minimal car efficiency improvements by switching to bigger motors (lower % %2500cc + cars purchased).
But there was a huge increase in white van consumption – which i attributed to consumers buying on line – white van delivery BUT compensating by driving elsewhere than the shops with the “time”saved.
In other words home delivery by the big boys is a lose lose scenario.
Mik
The only time I have challenged a Tesco driver over this, he made a menacing kind of move towards me with the metal rod that they use to pull the baskets towards themselves from inside the van. I like to think that the expression of contempt on my face towards this display of macho bravado sufficed!
Vincent Edwards
I often hear motorists say they have to park on the pavement because there is nowhere else. Years of government indifference to an ever-worsening situation has led to many motorists concluding, perhaps understandably, that there is nothing wrong with parking on a pavement where to do otherwise is inconvenient. So families which own three or more cars move into a house where there is room to park only one or none. Curious really. They wouldn’t move into a house with insufficient bedrooms but think nothing of moving to a house with insufficient parking.
A lot of pavement parking is nothing to do with “necessity” – it’s often just bad habits, laziness and lack of consideration for others. On the 1950s council estate where I was brought up (there are almost identical estates all over the country) almost everyone has a front garden large enough to park two or three cars, and many have hard standings for the purpose. A lot of residents make use of them. Yet all too many prefer to dump their cars across the pavement without a thought for anyone else. Even if they parked fully on the road there would be room for other vehicles to pass. But often two vehicles park on opposite pavements, leaving both pavements blocked and insufficient room on the road for a fire engine to get between them.
On the wide road where I now live a neighbour’s visitors park on the pavement across the entrance to his driveway. There is space for them to park on the driveway. If that is too much trouble, they could just park on the road. Why park on the pavement? Nearby there are three primary schools. Don’t get me started on parents dropping off/picking up their charges. Perhaps we need drive-through classrooms.
Mary Fisher
Vincent, you are right in every way. Perhaps a question could be asked: why does everyone need a car? Buses might be a trifle inconvenient for someone who’d rather drive but that driver causes a lot more inconvenience for other road users and footpath users.
Bill
I live in a cul-de-sac with a narrow roadway. If we and everybody parked in the road to conform to your daft idea, how would a ambulance get down the road. What world do you inhabit??!
Maurice Hopper
In 1952 the last trams ran in London. One of the reasons offer for abandoning the tram was that is was dangerous for other road users.
By the same logic we should band the car as it is dangerous to other road users. Oh! But I forget, there are no other road users that count apart from drivers…. and their importance is measured by the size of their vehicle!
Pedestrians, cyclist, children and the elderly just don’t count when it comes to priority on our streets.
It might also be a good idea to point out to drivers that roads where built for movement and not parking. If we must park in the streets… old narrow streets should be one way with parking on one side only….. and as someone said people should only living in houses with enough parking space for all their cars.
Vincent Edwards
The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association advocates a general ban on pavement parking except where specifically allowed by the local authority. Your cul-de-sac could, depending on local circumstances, be a place where limited and controlled pavement parking would be permitted – though I would like to think that the needs of pedestrians to have somewhere safe to walk would come first.
Perhaps if anyone is “daft” it’s people who buy cars when they have nowhere to park them at or near their home (other than by causing inconvenience and danger to others). The sad thing about decades of government indifference to this issue is that it has encouraged numerous motorists to think the pavement is there for the taking when it suits them. And this applies not only where parking is difficult, but also where roads are wide and where people have private driveways they cannot be bothered to use. This is an issue not only for pedestrians but also for motorists – increasingly suburban roads are like slalom courses with parked cars everywhere and anywhere. Heaven help us if a fire engine needs to get through.
Steve Case
What do you think would happen if all the people complaining on here got together and parked across a tesco depot ‘ to deliver’. Say 1 every 20 mins. Do you think they would get the point and change their tune ? I also look at the amount of damaged curbs in my area which seem to be there for an eternity. I’m sure the local council hasn’t the money in these times to repair all this damage. Perhaps it’s time for the local council to issue licences to these delivery firms to a least claw back some of this money because at the moment I believe these people are making money at our expense whether we ordered groceries or not.
nikki adams
I kid you not, on the 28th of June this year one of their drivers ran over my neighbours 19yr old cat, deliberately. He then laughed in her face and called it roadkill. All of this in front of loads of witnesses, including my 10 year old and her friends. She is still traumatised.
Their response was to offer to pay for a new cat and put him on a dangerous driving course. He got to keep his job. Tesco can rot in hell as far as I’m concerned.