One of the most demoralising parts of this campaign has been hearing from residents who raise clear safety and accessibility concerns — only to be met with boilerplate replies, circular reasoning, and an air of “nothing can be done.”
If you’ve contacted your councillor or MSP about the pavement parking ban (or blanket 20mph zones), you’ve probably seen some version of this:
A cut-and-paste explanation of “the rules”
A heavy lean on “guidance” nobody can question
Promises of possible “mitigation” — but only after problems occur
A sprinkling of moralising about “returning pavements to pedestrians” while ignoring every other accessibility issue in sight
And sometimes, a truly bizarre suggestion that makes you wonder if anyone’s actually listening
In my own case, the Council’s official line was:
“Most of the properties have off-street parking in the form of driveways.”
…followed a few sentences later by:
“Residents are able to apply to turn their front gardens into parking.”
Which is it? If we already have driveways, why suggest more? And if we do already have them, but the street still doesn’t function under the ban, that’s not a driveway problem — it’s a space problem.
This sort of contradiction is more than frustrating — it exposes how flimsy the justifications are when put under even basic scrutiny.
If this were genuinely about accessibility, we’d have seen action on:
Overgrown hedges blocking pavements
Uneven slabs and trip hazards
Dropped kerbs that are missing, broken, or too steep
Bins left out for days at a time creating genuine obstacles
Instead, residents get lectured about the “principle” of returning pavements to pedestrians, while real-world conditions are ignored and public transport remains unreliable or nonexistent.
When your representative sends you a polite-but-empty reply, you don’t have to let it slide. Most residents are worried first about safety — children, elderly neighbours, disabled friends and family — and then about access to vehicles for daily life. If their answer ignores both, here’s how to come back:
Call out contradictions clearly, such as:
If they claim your street has plenty of off street parking but also suggest residents should apply for new driveways, point out the absurdity.
If they insist pavements must be clear for accessibility but ignore overgrown hedges, broken slabs, and the multiple bins blocking the way, call it what it is — selective concern.
Refocus on evidence
Shift the conversation from abstract “principles” back to what actually happens on your street.
Use measurements (road width, pavement width, turning space), photographs, and specific examples — e.g. “An ambulance would have had to reverse 60 metres because the carriageway was blocked.”
Show how the changes reduce safety: longer walking distances on dark streets, more people crossing between parked cars, increased congestion near corners.
Challenge the premise
If the problem is space, say so — and demand they address it.
If it’s ideology (20-minute cities, net-zero enforcement, anti-car bias), don’t be afraid to name it.
Ask basic questions they can’t dodge: “Where will my carers park?” “How will my elderly parent get from two streets away in the rain?”
Stay civil but persistent
You’re not attacking them personally — you’re dismantling a bad argument.
Keep your tone measured, but don’t let them hide behind “guidance” or “process” as if those are immutable laws of nature.
Follow up. If they dodge specifics, ask again. If they say “we’ll review after enforcement,” ask for a written commitment to act on the review.
Bring it back to human impact
Remind them that safety is the first concern — avoiding injury, maintaining visibility, ensuring emergency access.
Access to vehicles isn’t just “convenience” — it’s how people get to hospital appointments, care for relatives, get shopping done, and keep local trades working.
The policy either makes that safer and easier, or it doesn’t.