Every person complaining in this article was actually blocking the footpath: because they don't think the kerb crossing is footpath they think it's their driveway, I imagine it's the same for the berm crossing that is actually public property too.

a vehicle parked alongside any part of a kerb crossing provided for a driveway or within 1m of the prolongation of the side of a driveway must be regarded as obstructing entry or exit.

It's endemic where I live, I assume it's the same everywhere.

I do however agree that the council should probably have advertised that they were going to start actually enforcing the rules.

I get it, storage of your vehicle is more important than everyone else's use of the roadway.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Dave 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I find this quite interesting. The rules about blocking a driveway don't only apply to being on the side of the road but also the public property part between the road and the privately owned section.

I wouldn't have parked there but I wouldn't have complained if someone wasn't blocking the route along the footpath. It's pretty common that places around Wellington don't have anywhere else to park.

I guess I can see both sides of this argument. Yes the council might be following the law (or might not be, based on the later part of the article), but it's not exactly well known and it's a bit of a dick move for the council to change their stance and not tell anyone, just double the fine then start handing out fines.

[–] deadbeef79000 2 points 1 day ago

but it’s not exactly well known and it’s a bit of a dick move for the council to chance their stance and not tell anyone, just double the fine then start handing out fines.

Agree whole heartedly. If it were purely about compliance then education is the first and principal step. That's it's essentially been stealthed in makes it look like a revenue grab (which admittedly the council is in dire need of).