Which side is unreasonable re parking?!

[FlorenceAndTheVagine]

I wonder what the consensus would be if either party posted on AIBU? Classic MN parking dilemma…

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3perwwny1o

No dropped kerb no driveway. She is in the right

If there is no dropped kerb, I don't think it can be called a driveway, and the neighbour maybe in trouble for driving over the kerb.

Must be a really quiet news day in Bristol!

They are both knobs. One for pass agg notes on cars, the other for being deliberately goady.

The BBC is unreasonable for not including a diagram in the article. It’s what we all want to see!

That's not a driveway, it's a paved front garden and they shouldn't be driving over the pavement to access it.

I agree, both as bad as each other.

No dropped kerb no driveway.

Yep. I saw that article on the BBC website and looking at the photo you can see straight away there is no dropped kerb.

Nothing goady about what 'Astrid' is doing.

Even if it were a real driveway (which it's not) she is not blocking them in.

If the car has made it onto the drive at that angle. Then there is nothing preventing them from reversing back off the drive.

Hang on, if you aren't allowed to drive over the pavement to park your car on your paved over garden why are you allowed to drive your car onto the pavement in order to park on the pavement? (And as an aside, the pavement parker is not leaving enough space for wheelchair users etc based on that photograph.)

None of those cars, and there are several of them, should be parked on the pavement. I guess the council turn a blind eye because parking is so limited but if pedestrians were to complain, they would have to enforce it.

The famous mumsnet phrase Patio with aspirations.
seems appropriate

There's a process you need to follow and you need permissions to make a driveway which requires access over a public pavement.

The owners of the house with the paved front garden have obviously not secured the required consent because if they had, the council would have put in a dropped kerb and reinforced the pavement (at the house owner's expense).

I'm Team Astrid, as long as she is leaving ample space for pedestrians, wheelchairs, mobility scooters, pushchairs etc.

I rather think her neighbour may have shot themselves in the foot, as the council could decide to come along and instal bollards to prevent her from driving across the pavement on to her paved front garden - or even a strategically-placed new traffic sign.

Legally, Astrid and any of the neighbours can park right outside and block access to what the neighbour believes is their 'drive'. They should be really grateful that they're leaving them sufficient room to (illegally) use it, if parking is at such a premium; not be complaining about somebody overlapping a tiny bit at the side that they wouldn't need to drive over to park there in the first place.

I think parking on the pavement makes you a dick. I also think going to the papers over such a minor issue makes you a dick. Extra points for thinking having some (walking age!) children means she’s special in some way.

But she’s not technically wrong to park across the ‘drive’ so 🤷‍♀️