01-04-2017, 07:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2017, 07:33 PM by danbrotherston.)
@Coke6pk That's all very interesting, and you've brought up a number of issues.
As Canard pointed out, the bylaws have been amended (as of Jan 1) to explicitly prohibit parking (or stopping, or even driving) on the rapidway. That should be sufficient.
However, at least every time I've called (and that's frequently), I am told that in order for them to ticket a car parked in a bike lane, there must be no parking signs as well, which clearly isn't required, legally, and yet that seems to be the policy.
On the other hand, I asked for no parking signs at the trail crossing at Gage because cars and trucks frequently park there (too close) blocking line of sight. I was told that bylaw would enforce that if I called, even without signs, but other officers told me they didn't think that was against the bylaw at all.
It seems there needs to be some education of city staff on these specific issues.
Further, I'm surprised and frustrated by the requirement to have a bylaw actually written for no parking. Why not just a bylaw saying "no parking allowed where signs indicate no parking allowed, the following is an inexhaustive list of locations that should have no parking signs...." after all, it is the sign that matters, that justifies that someone shouldn't park there. If there's no sign, they have no reason to believe they shouldn't, if there is a sign, they have no reason to believe they should. So the sign is what should matter. Logically.
And you're absolutely right about entitlement of drivers, IMO, it's the most frustrating thing about our roads, and probably the hardest thing to change.
Frankly, I think the city should take a hard line on this. Giving too much leeway only reinforced the entitlement.
As Canard pointed out, the bylaws have been amended (as of Jan 1) to explicitly prohibit parking (or stopping, or even driving) on the rapidway. That should be sufficient.
However, at least every time I've called (and that's frequently), I am told that in order for them to ticket a car parked in a bike lane, there must be no parking signs as well, which clearly isn't required, legally, and yet that seems to be the policy.
On the other hand, I asked for no parking signs at the trail crossing at Gage because cars and trucks frequently park there (too close) blocking line of sight. I was told that bylaw would enforce that if I called, even without signs, but other officers told me they didn't think that was against the bylaw at all.
It seems there needs to be some education of city staff on these specific issues.
Further, I'm surprised and frustrated by the requirement to have a bylaw actually written for no parking. Why not just a bylaw saying "no parking allowed where signs indicate no parking allowed, the following is an inexhaustive list of locations that should have no parking signs...." after all, it is the sign that matters, that justifies that someone shouldn't park there. If there's no sign, they have no reason to believe they shouldn't, if there is a sign, they have no reason to believe they should. So the sign is what should matter. Logically.
And you're absolutely right about entitlement of drivers, IMO, it's the most frustrating thing about our roads, and probably the hardest thing to change.
Frankly, I think the city should take a hard line on this. Giving too much leeway only reinforced the entitlement.