Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cycling in Waterloo Region
(04-13-2018, 10:19 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: In fairness of the drivers, how can they possibly know that is a no-parking zone?

By using their eye balls.

Quote:Normally signs are angled so the drivers on that side of the road can see, as well as it appears the sign in forward of the bike line, indicating No Parking on the roadway, NOT the bike lane.

There are two groups of signs:

1.  Ones permanently mounted on the light standards, just as they are in every other part of the Province.
2.  Additional temporary ones mounted on weighted bases, which are routinely shifted out of the way (which I routinely shift back into the correct position).
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply


(04-13-2018, 11:46 AM)darts Wrote: I think they are indicating that you can see it says no parking if you were acrross the street from the sign in the picture but if you were driving up king st it isn't visible unless they pass the sign.

Anyone who misinterprets, cannot see, or understand this sign should not be driving.

   
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
I was not being sarcastic, as a driver (and former by-law officer), I would not consider a sign parallel to the roadway acceptable.

The image in Canard's post immediately above is legit.  It is angled in such a way that the driver should reasonably have been able to know that the area they are entering in is a No-Parking zone.

In the original sign posted, the driver would have a clear view of the side and/or rear of the No Parking sign.  This is not acceptable.  As much as people bitch that by-law is `hiding in the bushes trying to catch people`, we actually try not issue tickets without making the person aware they are committing an offence.  

I`ve discussed this here before, a giant blue parking space with an internationally observed disable persons logo will get you ZERO tickets issued.  A regular parking space with a sign facing the driver...  I`d write those $300 invitations from the Queen all day!  Bike lane with `very subtle` colouring (or mud) falls into this category.

Coke

In all seriousness, I understand and applaud the passion you have for the bike lanes.  Drivers (in general) are stupid.  They need direction, and poorly mounted signs are not direction.  Your anger should be at the city staff who don`t put up the proper signage, and their bosses who don`t implement decisions correctly.  Don`t be mad at the drivers until they are properly warned.

EDIT: Since I cannot see the full sign in the original picture, I was assuming it was permanently mounted.  If this is a temporary sign that was moved to no longer be facing the vehicles, then its not the fault of the city staff.
Reply
(04-16-2018, 10:25 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: I was not being sarcastic, as a driver (and former by-law officer), I would not consider a sign parallel to the roadway acceptable.

The image in Canard's post immediately above is legit.  It is angled in such a way that the driver should reasonably have been able to know that the area they are entering in is a No-Parking zone.

In the original sign posted, the driver would have a clear view of the side and/or rear of the No Parking sign.  This is not acceptable.  As much as people bitch that by-law is `hiding in the bushes trying to catch people`, we actually try not issue tickets without making the person aware they are committing an offence.  

I`ve discussed this here before, a giant blue parking space with an internationally observed disable persons logo will get you ZERO tickets issued.  A regular parking space with a sign facing the driver...  I`d write those $300 invitations from the Queen all day!  Bike lane with `very subtle` colouring (or mud) falls into this category.

Coke

In all seriousness, I understand and applaud the passion you have for the bike lanes.  Drivers (in general) are stupid.  They need direction, and poorly mounted signs are not direction.  Your anger should be at the city staff who don`t put up the proper signage, and their bosses who don`t implement decisions correctly.  Don`t be mad at the drivers until they are properly warned.

EDIT: Since I cannot see the full sign in the original picture, I was assuming it was permanently mounted.  If this is a temporary sign that was moved to no longer be facing the vehicles, then its not the fault of the city staff.

This is what bugs me though, bylaw will jump through every hoop to ensure that a driver has no excuse, and yet, I still hear excuses all the time.  From my perspective, it seems like bylaw does their best not to ticket people, and it is nearly impossible to get someone issued a ticket.  You can see how the other perspective seems.

Why isn't there an aggressive warning that can be given to cars that you don't want to ticket, if we absolutely *must* compromise.
Reply
Coke... I am mad at the city staff. They are doing absolutely nothing. The sign in the other picture is indeed portable/temporary. Every time I am through there I move the signs back; someone keeps “hiding” them.

Have a walk/drive through there sometime and you’ll see. Or I’ll make (another) video if it’s not clear.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(04-16-2018, 10:54 AM)Canard Wrote: Coke... I am mad at the city staff. They are doing absolutely nothing. The sign in the other picture is indeed portable/temporary. Every time I am through there I move the signs back; someone keeps “hiding” them.

Have a walk/drive through there sometime and you’ll see. Or I’ll make (another) video if it’s not clear.

Frustration shared. Thanks for your photo the other day of the permanently pole-mounted sign; I couldn’t remember if there were any like that and it’s good to see a reminder that there really is unquestionably sufficient signage (or could be with 1 hours’ work by a sign crew to put up more) to begin ticketing.
Reply
When I was an officer (and this was Kitchener, not Waterloo), I did not jump thru hoops to avoid writing a ticket. If an infraction was there and valid, I wrote the ticket. There are cars that were illegally parked, but I couldn't tag. That's just the downside of following the law. [Example: If I park in your driveway, by-law officers cannot issue a ticket unless there are signs stating "Private Property - Enforced Under By-Law #----". I know this car shouldn't be here, as the property owner wants it towed. But I can't do anything as no signs were posted before the car was parked.]

If I still worked there today, every one of those photos of a car on the tracks in Kitchener would have a slice of paper under the windshield.

I cannot speak to why Waterloo by-law is refusing to lay tickets in the bike lanes. If there is signage there, it should be tagged. There are no quotas for tickets, but officers need to justify their existence. It would surprise me if an officer would consistently ignore the violations, unless they were told by their bosses to not tag.

Coke

[Fun Fact: Got called to a private residence once, where he complained his neighbour parked in his driveway. Drove there expecting to tell him there was nothing I could do, but when I got there there was a piece of paper stuck to his garage with a handwritten private property sign. He signed the declaration that the sign was posted before the car was parked, so we tagged and towed it. I'm sure it wasn't his first rodeo, and the sign went up min before my arrival... but he met the legal standards I had to meet]
Reply
(04-16-2018, 11:35 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: When I was an officer (and this was Kitchener, not Waterloo), I did not jump thru hoops to avoid writing a ticket.  If an infraction was there and valid, I wrote the ticket.  There are cars that were illegally parked, but I couldn't tag.  That's just the downside of following the law.  [Example:  If I park in your driveway, by-law officers cannot issue a ticket unless there are signs stating "Private Property - Enforced Under By-Law #----".  I know this car shouldn't be here, as the property owner wants it towed.  But I can't do anything as no signs were posted before the car was parked.]

If I still worked there today, every one of those photos of a car on the tracks in Kitchener would have a slice of paper under the windshield.  

I cannot speak to why Waterloo by-law is refusing to lay tickets in the bike lanes.  If there is signage there, it should be tagged.  There are no quotas for tickets, but officers need to justify their existence.  It would surprise me if an officer would consistently ignore the violations, unless they were told by their bosses to not tag.

Coke

[Fun Fact:  Got called to a private residence once, where he complained his neighbour parked in his driveway.  Drove there expecting to tell him there was nothing I could do, but when I got there there was a piece of paper stuck to his garage with a handwritten private property sign.  He signed the declaration that the sign was posted before the car was parked, so we tagged and towed it.  I'm sure it wasn't his first rodeo, and the sign went up min before my arrival... but he met the legal standards I had to meet]

Yeah, this is a special circumstance where somewhere somehow bylaw has been instructed not to enforce the no parking bylaw here, and nobody will admit to whom or why, although I have my suspicions.

I'm not suggesting that's necessarily how bylaw officers feel, but it is how it is perceived.

An entire summer I called in bylaw complaints about illegal parking in the bikelane on Glasgow.  At some point, I asked to speak directly to bylaw to ask if they would regularly patrol (which I understand they won't), I was told that all summer they had refused to issue tickets, because their opinion was that the signage was insufficient.  I literally called every single day for 3 months.  Think of how that feels to someone who's relying on bylaw to try and keep bike lanes safe.  Worse, they told me that they had requested that the signs be fixed, (and yet had not been for the many months that they had not been ticketing), I called the transportation department and they said they had no idea it was a problem.

To top it off, in *my* opinion, the no parking signs should not be required.  The bylaw states there is no parking in bike lanes.  There was signage for the bike lane, but there were not enough "no parking" signs.  As a result, bylaw said they refuse to enforce the bylaw "no parking in bike lanes" unless there is *also* a no parking sign.

So again, this is why I perceive it the way I do.  At this point the main reason I call in complaints is to generate a record of a problem.

Now I'm not saying this is the attitude of any particular officer, or even any of them, but it is the general policy of enforcement. 

To an alternate point, why, if a person was to park in my driveway do I need bylaw to ticket their vehicle.  Am I not permitted to tow away vehicles parked on my property.  If someone abandons something of theirs on my property is it not mine for the taking? How can I be held responsible for returning it to the original owner?
Reply
(04-16-2018, 11:53 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 11:35 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: [Fun Fact:  Got called to a private residence once, where he complained his neighbour parked in his driveway.  Drove there expecting to tell him there was nothing I could do, but when I got there there was a piece of paper stuck to his garage with a handwritten private property sign.  He signed the declaration that the sign was posted before the car was parked, so we tagged and towed it.  I'm sure it wasn't his first rodeo, and the sign went up min before my arrival... but he met the legal standards I had to meet]

To an alternate point, why, if a person was to park in my driveway do I need bylaw to ticket their vehicle.  Am I not permitted to tow away vehicles parked on my property.  If someone abandons something of theirs on my property is it not mine for the taking?  How can I be held responsible for returning it to the original owner?

If there is no signage on your driveway, it's not a bylaw violation, so the bylaw officer will neither ticket nor have the vehicle towed.

Now, if you do it yourself, that's a whole different kettle of fish.
Reply
(04-16-2018, 12:34 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 11:53 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: To an alternate point, why, if a person was to park in my driveway do I need bylaw to ticket their vehicle.  Am I not permitted to tow away vehicles parked on my property.  If someone abandons something of theirs on my property is it not mine for the taking?  How can I be held responsible for returning it to the original owner?

If there is no signage on your driveway, it's not a bylaw violation, so the bylaw officer will neither ticket nor have the vehicle towed.

Now, if you do it yourself, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

That was my question.  I am quite certain that if someone leaves something in my driveway that is not a car, I'm in my rights to take it, or have it removed and/or liquidate it to cover the costs of having it removed.  Now, I might be a nice guy and if it say, a phone, or a wallet or something, attempt to have it returned to the owner, but AFAIK there is no legal requirement to do so.

But if that object just happens to be a car, does that change anything?  It seems like it so often does, but I don't think it should.
Reply
(04-16-2018, 01:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 12:34 PM)tomh009 Wrote: If there is no signage on your driveway, it's not a bylaw violation, so the bylaw officer will neither ticket nor have the vehicle towed.

Now, if you do it yourself, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

That was my question.  I am quite certain that if someone leaves something in my driveway that is not a car, I'm in my rights to take it, or have it removed and/or liquidate it to cover the costs of having it removed.  Now, I might be a nice guy and if it say, a phone, or a wallet or something, attempt to have it returned to the owner, but AFAIK there is no legal requirement to do so.

But if that object just happens to be a car, does that change anything?  It seems like it so often does, but I don't think it should.

I do not believe that is the case, though it is likely dependent on jurisdiction. I believe in the scenario described (neighbour leaves a car, phone or wallet in your driveway) it is considered mislaid property, and the rightful/title owner's property rights apply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_misl...d_property
Reply
Anyone been through UpTown (Waterloo) today? How are the bike lanes? Full of cars, I imagine?
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(04-16-2018, 05:12 PM)Canard Wrote: Anyone been through UpTown (Waterloo) today? How are the bike lanes? Full of cars, I imagine?

No, they’re too full of snow right now. Although I did see a pickup truck parked.

Also I happened to notice as we went past that the “No Parking” sign on the pole is a bit of an oddball: as far as I saw, it’s the only one; the others are just a few of those temporary ones, and they aren’t even all correct. At least one is a one-directional (end of No Parking zone) one rather than the correct two-directional kind.

Still agree it’s ridiculous the City couldn’t get a crew out to install the proper signage before re-opening the street. Also they should be No Stopping, not No Parking.
Reply
(04-16-2018, 04:58 PM)robdrimmie Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 01:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: That was my question.  I am quite certain that if someone leaves something in my driveway that is not a car, I'm in my rights to take it, or have it removed and/or liquidate it to cover the costs of having it removed.  Now, I might be a nice guy and if it say, a phone, or a wallet or something, attempt to have it returned to the owner, but AFAIK there is no legal requirement to do so.

But if that object just happens to be a car, does that change anything?  It seems like it so often does, but I don't think it should.

I do not believe that is the case, though it is likely dependent on jurisdiction. I believe in the scenario described (neighbour leaves a car, phone or wallet in your driveway) it is considered mislaid property, and the rightful/title owner's property rights apply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_misl...d_property

Interesting.  

Well, that is surprising.

Although I am not a lawyer, parking a car in your neighbours driveway doesn't seem to qualify for any of these.  It's not abandoned, because you (probably) intend to return to it, but it isn't lost or mislaid, because you intended to park there.

So I'm not sure if any of those laws would apply.

If they did, that would be absurd though, because then you could park in your neighbours driveway and there's not a thing they could do about it.

Sometimes laws just do not make any sense.
Reply
I realize bylaw will only call for a tow if the parking is marked as private, but what prevents you from hiring a tow truck on your own dime?
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  Winter Walking and Cycling danbrotherston 482 56,954 12-12-2018, 09:04 PM
Last Post: danbrotherston
  Cycling in Waterloo Region Spokes 35 25,300 08-31-2015, 07:21 PM
Last Post: numberguy

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links