careful where you park!

[bikeoutback]

I was always under the impression that a spot had to be clearly/properly marked on the ground and had to have a clearly/properly posted sign.

My girlfriend always said this same thing, has to be on the ground and a sign. She works with disabled persons and drives various size vans over the years taking them to outings and was briefed on all of this stuff. I'm not sure how snow cover is taken into consideration though.

I think a warning would have been sufficient, it's irrational law enforcement agents that make them all seem like they are just out for the power. I'd take it to court as everyone else said, worse they can do is say pay it.

[shnelson]

Here are a few photos of my predicament:

The dodge is the other poor sap that got a ticket, the silver truck is the CO, he pulled up and parked between the 'designated loading zone' and the posted handicap spot after I pulled out.

There are no posted signs in between the two handicap posts (outlined them in blue). I was parked directly next to the dodge, leaving at least a full space from my truck to the curb (pretty much equivalent to the space the dodge left on his driver's side). The angle of the photographs don't look like they are to my advantage, but I know there was at least a full spot there because there was a car parked next to the curb about 20ft back from the sign (see third photo for his tire tracks), I left enough room for him to pull forward and back out at an angle if someone parked too close behind him.

I was hoping my photos turned out better, looks like I will need to stop by the launch with my digital camera and get some more - iphone didn't work so well!

[zamboni]

Did the signs say that the zone was between the signs?? If not, I always take the law of the handicapped spots being directly behind the signs, which the Dodge wasn't, he was between the signs. The CO looks to be parked more in the handicapped zone then the other truck.

Never understood stuff like that, It is ok for him to park there to give you a ticket, but not you? Kinda like speeding, you are doing 63, meet a cop, he turns around and has to do about 80 to catch up to you.

[jigginjim]

Photo the signs also, close enough that you can read them. I assume the gold truck is your? Is that where you were parked? There could be agruement that there was not enough room between your truck and the Handi. spot?

Let us now! maybe something we all need to watch.

Like parking at Pulaski lake in Buffalo. You must disconnect trailor from truck at ramp for parking.

[Big Buck Buster]

jigginjim,

He said the other truck is the CO's.

[shnelson]

Photo the signs also, close enough that you can read them. I assume the gold truck is your? Is that where you were parked? There could be agruement that there was not enough room between your truck and the Handi. spot?

Let us now! maybe something we all need to watch.

Like parking at Pulaski lake in Buffalo. You must disconnect trailor from truck at ramp for parking.

Nah, the gold (dirty silver) truck was the CO's, he pulled in after I pulled out to grab my portable off the landing. I did find it funny that he felt it ok to obstruct the same parking spot that he wrote me a ticket for. I'm going back for some more photos and possible measurements of the line spacings (not sure if that's necessary or helpful?), will definitely get some of the signs and their full text.

Just to be clear, my truck was parked further away from the curb than he was, there was plenty of room for another vehicle to consume the full handicap parking spot.

[pulleye16]

I see no "handicap load area" signs, but just a plain handicap sign. You will win hands down on this on. Just bring it in to whomever and they should just let you off right there without going to court. There aren't even tire tracks in the handicap spot which he cited you for. I think that CO was having a bad day and just need a little "power trip" on that one!

[reddog]

The fact that the CO parked there and you have evidence, should be all that is needed. Case Dismissed.

[Phred52]

shnelson, Yep, Get photos with as much detail as possible! The judge otherwise will have only his imagination to picture the situation and the CO will be 'well rehearsed' in discribing his reasoning. The more detail the better and as said before photo the sign that they can be read!! Good Luck! Phred52

[PierBridge]

The fact that the CO parked there and you have evidence, should be all that is needed. Case Dismissed.

That won't effect the case one way or another.

Problem with pictures after the fact is we/they won't know where your truck was originally.

I hope you win but its 50-50 at best!

[Burnham]

although you cannot see your truck and where it was, thanks to the snow if you look about 2 feet to the left of each of the treads of the CO's truck you can see what appears to be your tracks, although not as visible as the CO's it is evident that there was a truck there.

[WhiskeyPete]

[DTro]

The CO parking there means nothing. at least that is my opinion. You cannot argue to the judge that the COP made an illegal U-Turn to pull you over for speeding.

I really think your only argument is intent. It was obvious you didn't intend to park in the handicapped zone, otherwise you would've parked in front of the sign. It is pretty clear that both vehicles made an effort to leave the spaces open.

That is the angle I would take.

Good Luck

On a side note, I think the CO could've handled this one a little differently.

[shnelson]

The CO parking there means nothing. at least that is my opinion. You cannot argue to the judge that the COP made an illegal U-Turn to pull you over for speeding.

I really think your only argument is intent. It was obvious you didn't intend to park in the handicapped zone, otherwise you would've parked in front of the sign. It is pretty clear that both vehicles made an effort to leave the spaces open.

That is the angle I would take.

Good Luck

On a side note, I think the CO could've handled this one a little differently.

I completely agree, the more I look at it intent is my only angle. There would be no argument for him parking in the handicap spot just after he cited me for it, just like enforcement vehicles aren't restricted by the 2 minute engine run time law they've got to have some kind of clause to cover parking.

I made it out to the launch today, there were fresh tire tracks in both lanes between the signs (we got quite a bit of snow yesterday). The sign that I was parked closest to on saturday was very generic, had no mention of a loading zone or anything. The sign closest to the dodge truck however had 'van accessible' underneath it, might make his battle a little more difficult than mine?

I'm also trying to get an e-mail response from the city in regards to plowing and maintenance for the launch during winter. I think it might help having a statement saying they do not plow it.

[Lip_Ripper Guy]

Originally Posted By: dtro

The CO parking there means nothing. at least that is my opinion. You cannot argue to the judge that the COP made an illegal U-Turn to pull you over for speeding.

I really think your only argument is intent. It was obvious you didn't intend to park in the handicapped zone, otherwise you would've parked in front of the sign. It is pretty clear that both vehicles made an effort to leave the spaces open.

That is the angle I would take.

Good Luck

On a side note, I think the CO could've handled this one a little differently.

I completely agree, the more I look at it intent is my only angle. There would be no argument for him parking in the handicap spot just after he cited me for it, just like enforcement vehicles aren't restricted by the 2 minute engine run time law they've got to have some kind of clause to cover parking.

I made it out to the launch today, there were fresh tire tracks in both lanes between the signs (we got quite a bit of snow yesterday). The sign that I was parked closest to on saturday was very generic, had no mention of a loading zone or anything. The sign closest to the dodge truck however had 'van accessible' underneath it, might make his battle a little more difficult than mine?

I'm also trying to get an e-mail response from the city in regards to plowing and maintenance for the launch during winter. I think it might help having a statement saying they do not plow it.

Is that really a law?

[shnelson]

It might just be a city ordinance, I can't find the article on kstp anymore - but am finding some google results for a 3 min idle limit in minneapolis (excludes being in traffic).

[SpecialK]

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/airquality/AntiIdling_home.asp

[Neighbor_guy]

Here are a few photos of my predicament:

The dodge is the other poor sap that got a ticket, the silver truck is the CO, he pulled up and parked between the 'designated loading zone' and the posted handicap spot after I pulled out.

There are no posted signs in between the two handicap posts (outlined them in blue). I was parked directly next to the dodge, leaving at least a full space from my truck to the curb (pretty much equivalent to the space the dodge left on his driver's side). The angle of the photographs don't look like they are to my advantage, but I know there was at least a full spot there because there was a car parked next to the curb about 20ft back from the sign (see third photo for his tire tracks), I left enough room for him to pull forward and back out at an angle if someone parked too close behind him.

I was hoping my photos turned out better, looks like I will need to stop by the launch with my digital camera and get some more - iphone didn't work so well!

Based on the pics you posted. I would say you are hosed. Especialy if your truck was parked where the CO's truck is in the photo's. I have done a lot of P/Lot layout back when I was painting. There has to be a minimum of 4' of "walkway" between stalls for ADA complience. If there is a "Van Accessable" designation, that means 8'. So when I look at the picks you posted, with a Handicap sign on either side with 2 stalls between, I automaticly figure them as "loading" zones. If it were a paved lot, I would expect it (the space in between) to be hashed out.

You can fight it, but I think you are wasting your time.

[shnelson]

You can fight it, but I think you are wasting your time.

Are you saying you wouldn't fight it? The way I see it, is that the end result is me paying close to $300 after fees no matter what. By going to court, I have a small chance of getting it dropped or reduced, so for me it is worth the effort. Funny how that works, I feel guilty until proven innocent!

The outcome is very circumstantial; I have to cross my fingers for a decent judge and hope that the CO is too busy to show up, or my photographs outweigh his case for issuing the ticket. Here's what I've got helping me so far:

- My truck was not parked where his is, I gave the entire 8' width of the handicap spot plus some change.

- The sign I was parked adjacent to has no posting about Van accessible, loading zone, etc

- My spot was not posted for anything, to this point it is assumed that there are lines painted on the pavement but I have not verified yet.

- The boat launch is unmaintained and unplowed during the winter season, leaving the location inaccessible for handicapped persons who would intend on using it.

I'd also like to point out that these parking spaces offer no benefit during the winter season. Their intended purpose is for ease of dock access and boat launching, that benefit does not exist when the launch is frozen. I don't think I'll bring this point up in the courtroom, as the CO made it very clear that he saw it as black and white with no room for this gray area to be considered, and that there is no such exemption listed in his books.

The items I have working against me:

- No photograph of my truck actually parked where it was, only assumed tire tracks which you can't make out very clear in the picture.

- I was in fact parked next to a designated handicap spot, on a 4 lot stretch that one should easily assume is completely dedicated as loading zones.

[trapperdirk]

Well to me it looks like who ever is parked with the green sled in the back is not thinking straight either because it looks like they are parked straight in front of the access or trail folks are using and you can see folks are parked at the top of the hill on the left . Even the black truck beside the one with the sled is partially blocking what to me looks like the access . How are the folks parked at the top supposed to get out ?

I have a feeling unless there is something amiss in the pic you may even get chastised in court for your troubles if that truck with the sled in the back is yours and blocking the only access to the top of the hill .

It's wrong to block an access or make it difficult for folks to leave .

TD

[DTro]

pretty sure that is the CO's truck dirk

[trapperdirk]

pretty sure that is the CO's truck dirk

I see dtro and thanks . Well I guess he can park wherever he wishes because he has the gun and badge to back up the law . LOL Not a good place for even him to park either though because it is at the bottom of a hill to boot .

TD

[PierBridge]

The CO will not be at the first court appearance where you will hopefully get the prosecutor to drop or reduce the fine.

If you choose to fight the citation the CO will be notified and present at the next hearing so I wouldn't bank on that strategy at all.

[Big Dave2]

My ex-boss is a low level quadrapalegic and uses a wheel chair. I can tell you that there is no way that he would even get out of his vehicle in that much snow. His wheel chair just would not work in that situation.

I guess what I am saying is that if this lot is left unplowed all winter then there is absolutely no sense in wasting any law enforcement officers time to enforce these spots even if you were parked right in front of the sign.

This LEO is being petty and not using common sense. I would fight this if I were you, like you said, what do you have to lose? The rest of us should be upset that this CO is taking his time to write such rediculous tickets and then have to take the time to testify in court when by all accounts there is a shortage of COs in the state. IMO he could be using his time doing things that are a LOT more important

[DTro]

I guess what I am saying is that if this lot is left unplowed all winter then there is absolutely no sense in wasting any law enforcement officers time to enforce these spots even if you were parked right in front of the sign.

Couldn't agree with you more Dave