Scottish Government

CHAPTER EIGHT: EFFECTIVENESS, PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS OF INTERVENTION MEASURES

8.1 Introduction

The preceding chapters have evaluated user reactions to intervention for the enforcement of off-street parking for disabled people, and the contextual issues in relation to the application of intervention measures in the different case study sites. This chapter focuses more on the intervention measures to examine the overall effectiveness of the measures (drawing on evidence from the desk-top review, interviews with service providers, and stakeholder workshops) and takes into account the practical considerations (including cost implications) and constraints of these measures.

8.2 Possible Measures for Enforcing Off-Street Parking in Scotland

8.2.1 The issuing of notices, stickers and patrolled car parks

Effectiveness

Practical considerations and constraints

• There is a requirement for regular monitoring and staff resources. For example a rail station that is well-staffed might be able to monitor reserved parking spaces on a fairly regular basis, but employees manning a station alone, are less likely to carry out regular monitoring and far more likely to be reluctant to implement the policy of monitoring abuse for personal security reasons.
• Additional personnel-related costs incurred through such activities might include the cost of additional training (in conflict resolution etc.), sick leave taken as a result of assaults by members of the public, and increased absenteeism as a result of the stress induced by this aspect of the job. This is likely to vary by location.
• There are also often regulations in applying stickering; there are only some parts of a vehicle to which stickers and tickets might be attached (i.e. not the windscreen), and, if using a strong adhesive, the sticker has to be water-based and provide instructions as to how to remove it, otherwise the service provider could be fined.
• The stickers have to include instructions on how to remove them.

Advantages

• A main advantage that has been associated with this approach is that it could offer flexibility for people with justified reasons for using a bay, such as reduced mobility and travelling with small children. However, persistent abusers might continue to offend if the car park is not regularly patrolled or the attendant does not have authority to impose a fine.

8.2.2 Electronic Barrier

Effectiveness

• This approach can offer one of the most direct and effective measure of intervention.
• It is best implemented with segregated Blue Badge parking areas. It is also shown to work well in conjunction with automatic number plate recognition ( ANPR) camera technology as demonstrated by the supermarket context.

Practical considerations and constraints

• There are cost and practical constraints with implementing this measure. For example, an electronic barrier could only be implemented in large car parks since it is most cost-effective if its cost is spread over a large number of spaces, but is disproportionate if applied over a small car park.
• Careful consideration needs to be given on how the entry cards would be administered to disabled users.
• One option is for disabled people to register with the service provider for the entry card, or obtain the entry card as and when they visit the facility; however, measures should also be put in place to allow non-registered customers or people who have not used the facility before, to access the reserved parking.

• The electronic barrier is susceptible to technical failure if not regularly maintained.

Advantages

• Electronic barriers in combination with ANPR have been well received by disabled customers of the supermarket stores where this has been implemented.
• In the supermarket context, there is potential for the related database of registered disabled users to be shared across stores (or even other supermarket chains) as the number of locations with ANPR controlled barriers increases.
• It is regarded by the research participants (service users) as one of the most clear and fair intervention measures in its purpose.

8.2.3 The use of traffic wardens, imposition of fines and Traffic Regulation Orders ( TROs)

Effectiveness

• The use of traffic wardens to monitor reserved parking facilities in off-street car parks can be an effective policy for tackling the abuse of parking for disabled people, as demonstrated in Dundee and Angus. Also in Inverness and Stirling where parking has not been decriminalised, and reserved parking facilities for disabled people in off-street car parks are enforced by the Local Authority through the use of a Traffic Regulation Order, abuse is reported to be low. Compliance with the payment of fines is also higher than in other Scottish cities where parking has been decriminalised to recover outstanding fines through civil channels (e.g. Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen).
• The difference in the psychology of monitoring and enforcing parking policy using traffic wardens and parking attendants has been commented on by a spokesman for the RAC, who made the following remarks, based on the RAC's own research,

"Nowadays, many people feel that they're filling a council's coffers, and we have research that shows private parking attendants, like the ones many councils employ, come bottom of tables in terms of trust among motorists."

• From the interviews with service users, while it was found that the presence of traffic wardens and the chance of a £30 fine would be enough to deter most participants from misusing reserved parking facilities, it was suggested that some participants (especially the persistent abusers) would still be inclined to continue offending, as they have ignored similar measures for other traffic offences.

• Overall, these findings would suggest that the use of traffic wardens could have a greater impact on abuse than the possibility of face-to-face involvement with parking attendants. The lack of compliance in off-street car parks that are monitored and enforced by parking attendants could be a direct result of service users' perception and awareness of the legal situation in that the fixed penalty fines might not be legally enforceable. Any parking 'offence' on private land would be a civil offence, not a criminal offence, as the car park is not subject to the Road Traffic Act.

Practical considerations and constraints

• In theory, there might be a considerable amount of administrative cost and effort involved in ensuring that fines are paid, with the Local Authority perhaps having to trace the identity of an offending motorist through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
• Traffic Regulation Orders were considered to be a good solution among the stakeholders consulted in this study. However, a Local Authority representative expressed doubts as to whether a Local Authority would be willing to take this on, as many local authorities are already overstretched in terms of both funding and staff resources. It was pointed out that his Local Authority had recently handed control of a municipal car park to a supermarket as the supermarket was able to better maintain the car park.
• From the consultation with service providers, it has been reported that the process of seeking approval for the initial order and sealing the final order could take up to nine months. The process is highly regulated, with a clear timetable that must be adhered to, from initial Council approval (according to the contract standing orders), to consultation. If there were objections, then the order must be resubmitted to the Council for further consideration. If the order is especially contentious, then it would have to go to a Public Enquiry.
• From the discussions with stakeholders, it emerged that the application, enforcement and parameters of a Traffic Regulation Order (including costs, maintenance, potential changes to the value of the land etc) needs further clarification among service providers. There also seems to be uncertainty among some service providers of whether the private parking provider has the legal authority to issue penalties.
• For employing a parking contractor to carry out the enforcement of fines service providers should undergo a vetting process and ensure that the parking contractor has been approved by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to carry out this function.

Advantages

• The evidence of this research suggests that the presence of traffic wardens and the chance of a £30 fine would be enough to deter most people from misusing reserved parking facilities, however, it is unlikely to deter people who persistently misuse bays.

8.2.4 Automatic electronic announcement for bays

Effectiveness

• Previous research findings indicate that this type of measure can reduce the level of abuse to less than 1%. Asda's perception is that this measure has limited effect against persistent abusers of reserved parking bays, but it does help to reduce accidental abuse of such facilities. The ambiguity of this system has deterred people from using or attempting to abuse a parking bay. It has been realised that the system's effect on deterring potential abusers reduces as they become more accustomed to the system.
• The Merry Hill centre in the West Midlands removed the system because it was discovered that drivers were ignoring it.
• Due to no physical barrier this measure would need to be implemented in conjunction with a patrolled car park to be effective.

Practical considerations and constraints

• The batteries which power the system typically last for two years - Asda, for example, uses the service organisation that maintain its fridges and other in-store equipment to perform the task of changing the batteries, at which time the system's electronics pods can also be changed. It is also possible for the system to be powered by mains electricity, but this is usually only feasible when the reserved spaces are adjacent to a building.
• It has been shown to have limited effect on 'persistent' abusers and the cost of implementing the system at larger car parks could be prohibitive.

Advantages

• One feature of the system is that it can be used to monitor reserved parking bays without the involvement of members of staff - some employees are keen to not place their employees at risk of confrontation with members of the public.
• Another characteristic of the system, in contrast to systems which involve a physical obstruction or deterrent, is that it does not present a barrier to potential customers; this is very important for supermarkets and other retailers, because of their interest in welcoming the wider public as much as possible.
• Also because there is no physical barrier individuals are able to decide for themselves whether they are entitled to park in a space reserved for disabled people. This is important in the context of the number of people who have significant mobility difficulties, and might be registered as disabled, but who are not currently eligible for a Blue Badge.
• The system's audible announcement is flexible, in as much as it can be adapted to give any message, or play any tune. It is also linked to a timer, since it is usually desirable for the audible announcements to be inactive during certain times.

8.2.5 Remote controlled mini-barrier system

Effectiveness

• The remote controlled mini-barrier would physically prevent unauthorised cars from entering a bay.

Practical considerations and constraints

• The physical distribution and administration of the remote control units means that this system is most practical in the context of a facility with a finite membership of known size, as opposed to sites that are open to the general public e.g. supermarkets, hospitals, municipal car parks, because of the practical issue of issuing remote controls to all potential users (which is less complex with a finite membership of known size).
• The system was considered by Asda but was not implemented due to concerns relating to the barrier's technical reliability, the possibility for damage to customers vehicles' should the barrier malfunction with a car parked over it and the cost in administering large numbers of remote control devices to customers in order to activate the barrier.
• There is a chance that key fobs (which serve as the remote control units) could be misused or copied by non-disabled people.
• For small enterprises e.g. Oxtalls Tennis Centre, Gloucester, the cost of the remote control fobs is considered to be too expensive. At Liverpool John Moores University remote control units were issued to Blue Badge holders at considerable expense and caused management problems when these units were lost.

Advantages

• On the positive side, the system has proved to be relatively low maintenance as it requires little after sales support, equipment or supervision (therefore precluding the need for confrontation) after it is installed.
• The battery remains charged for at least 6 months, and end users can be trained in making repairs to the system.
• The system requires no staff supervision or routine input, which precludes the issue of Health and Safety of staff, since staff members are not required to confront members of the public when abuse of a parking space occurs.

During this research Asda expressed the opinion that a similar system to the national key scheme operated by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation ( RADAR) that gives keys to disabled people that allows them to independently access to locked public toilets across the UK. Applied to reserved parking such a system could mean that every reserved bay could be activated by a standard Radio Frequency and it could offer the best approach to developing an industry-wide standard solution for protecting disabled people's parking provisions.

8.2.6 Automatic Number Plate Recognition ( ANPR)

Effectiveness

• Asda supermarket, has demonstrated that ANPR could be effective in monitoring the use of segregated parking areas for registered disabled customers and dealing with the problem on the spot, without the need to penalise customers. This relies on 'live' monitoring otherwise the action caught on camera would need to be followed up with a warning, or penalty.

Practical considerations and constraints

• For supermarkets, the scheme requires disabled people to register their licence plate in-store in order that their number plate is recognised and a barrier to enter a space in a segregated area is lowered.
• One possible drawback for the ANPR technology is the fact that it is only really effective in a situation where there is a single entry point, or at least very few entry points, to a car park, so that this point can be policed by CCTV camera.
• The technology cannot monitor reserved parking spaces distributed around an area that is used for general parking, and implies that, if parking facilities are to be monitored, then there is a requirement for them to be confined to a separate and segregated area, (which is the case in the Asda stores in which the system is currently being used).
• Another supermarket chain, that has not yet begun to use such technology, reported that some problems were encountered with the compilation and maintenance of a database of entitled users of such a system, particularly the issue of some disabled customers naming a number (up to 20, it was claimed) of carers who might provide them with transport to the supermarket.
• The technology might be used in conjunction with a hand-held device, used by dedicated patrol staff and linked to an internet-based database. This database would need to be created and maintained either in-house or by an external contractor to check whether vehicles are registered to use the reserved parking bays at the particular site. Entitled users would need to register their vehicle with the car park provider.
• As parking attendants already use hand-held equipment, it might be feasible for new equipment linked to an ANPR functionality to be phased in as and when hand-held devices are replaced and upgraded. This would provide an outsourced, decriminalised option for car parking enforcement.
• The use of ANPR does not, however, provide visible evidence to passers-by that the car is not inappropriately parked. A possible solution to this would be for a discrete window sticker to be used as a means of identification - the use of an easily removable permit might put the user at risk of having their car broken into by a permit thief.

Advantages

• A main advantage that has been associated with ANPR for the enforcement of disabled parking is that the technology cannot be tampered with and therefore the abuse cannot be denied.
• One possible application of ANPR technology is that of addressing the issue of stolen or traded Blue Badges and other permits. This can be done by identifying people who are entitled to use the facilities by the list of nominated car registration numbers that are specified by each badge holder, so that someone in possession of a Blue Badge that has been stolen or illegally purchased can be identified.

8.2.7 Vehicle removal

Effectiveness

• There was generally high awareness amongst participants, of vehicle removal in Edinburgh and Glasgow for the enforcement of on-street parking but not for off-street parking, although Edinburgh City Council has a policy to tow offending vehicles found in off-street municipal car parks in the city centre. The findings suggest that vehicle removal would be a strong deterrent to inappropriate parking in off-street car parks, although they were not regarded as fair measures for first time offenders.

Practical considerations and constraints

• The restriction on this policy, however, is that the company is not permitted to make a profit from the fees that drivers pay to have their vehicle released, as this would be regarded, under Scottish Law, as being extortion, in much the same way as wheel clamping.

Advantages

• This research suggests that vehicle removal would be a strong deterrent to inappropriate parking in off-street car parks although they are not regarded by users (including people with and without disabilities) as fair measures for first time offenders.

8.3 Other 'Suggested' Measures for Enforcing Off-Street Parking

8.3.1 Wheel clamping

• Whilst wheel clamping is currently illegal in Scotland it is a solution to the abuse of spaces reserved for disabled people that has been used elsewhere in the UK.
• The Trafford Centre, in Manchester, for example, has over 200 spaces reserved for disabled people available, and now prolific offenders face their car being clamped, and a possible ban from the Centre, if they illegally park more than three times. The number of external officers patrolling the Centre's car parks on bicycles and security vehicles has also been stepped up and they carry out spot checks on the bays reserved for disabled people.
• Wheel clamping of vehicles parked inappropriately in the Merry Hill shopping centre car park, in Dudley, carried out by clamping contractors, is reported to have worked well and more effective at deterring abuse of parking facilities for disabled people than other measures previously used (automated electronic announcements, notices), although it was expensive, with costs exceeding recouped fines.

8.3.2 Licence points

Since licence penalty points are not currently applied for the enforcement of on- or off-street parking, it was not possible to review the effectiveness and practical considerations/constraints of its application. However the reactions of the research participants suggest that this approach, whilst considered to be 'severe' as a consequence of misuse of reserved parking facilities, was regarded as an enforcement measure that would be taken more seriously by the public and would most likely deter all types of abusers. It was not regarded as a particularly fair measure, unless applied in circumstances where it is used against persistent abusers. Clearly, at least one consideration for its application would be public consultation and gauging public acceptability.

8.4 Summary

The following table summarises the effectiveness, practicality and constraints of the invention measures:

Table 8.1: Summary the effectiveness, practical considerations and constraints of intervention measures