-
Ticketed for Simultaneously Parking Two Vehicles With Handicapped Hang Tags
My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: washington
this police keeps ticketing my cars and its beginning to irk me
i have 2 cars and i have 2 disabled placards...one in each
i am being harassed...what can i do about it?
i live in downtown seattle and i move my cars every 72 hours to keep from getting tickets
and now this start happening because there is nothing else they can ticket me for
http://imageshack.com/a/img924/6343/uOE4eF.jpg
i see nothing in the law saying i can't have 2 cars and use my placards
Quote:
Quoting Seattle Municipal Code, Sec. 11.72.065 - Disabled parking, Invalid Placard—Violation.
A. A parking space or stall for a person with a disability shall be indicated by a vertical sign with the international symbol of access, whose colors are white on a blue background, described under RCW 70.92.120 and a warning that other vehicles without permits will be impounded.
B. Any vehicle displaying a valid disabled parking placard that is being used to transport a person who meets the criteria for special parking privileges under RCW 46.19.010 shall be allowed to park free of charge for a maximum of a four hour time period where designated in parking areas (including areas with parking payment devices) which are otherwise restricted as to the length of time parking is permitted. Areas with four-hour time limits shall be appropriately signed and/or marked. Any vehicle displaying a valid disabled license plate or valid disabled parking year tab shall be allowed to be parked free of charge for unlimited periods of time in parking areas (including areas with parking payment devices) which are otherwise restricted as to the length of time parking is permitted. This section does not apply to those zones or areas in which the stopping, parking, or standing of all vehicles is prohibited or which are reserved for special types of vehicles.
C. It is a parking infraction, with a monetary penalty of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) for any person to stop, stand or park a vehicle in a parking space or stall for a physically disabled person, whether the stall is indicated as required by subsection A of this section, by pavement markings or a sign indicating that the stall is reserved for disabled parking, for any purpose or length of time unless such vehicle displays a special placard or license plate issued under RCW Chapter 46.19. In addition to any penalty or fine imposed under this subsection, Two Hundred Dollars ($200) shall be assessed. If a person is charged with a violation, the person shall not be determined to have committed an infraction if the person produces in court or before the court appearance the special license plate or placard required under this section.
D. It is a parking infraction, with a monetary penalty of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250), for any person to park in, block or otherwise make inaccessible the access aisle located next to a space reserved for physically disabled persons. In addition to any penalty or fine imposed under this subsection, Two Hundred Dollars ($200) shall be assessed.
E. The use or display of a disabled placard or license plate that is stolen, expired, issued to a person who is now deceased, or is otherwise invalid in or upon a vehicle parked in a public right-of-way or on other publicly owned or controlled property is a parking infraction with a monetary penalty of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250).
F. The court may not suspend more than one-half (½) of any fine imposed under subsection C or D of this section. For a second or subsequent violation of subsection C or D of this section, in addition to a monetary penalty, a violator must complete a minimum of forty (40) hours of either community service for a nonprofit organization that serves the disabled community or persons having disabling diseases or any other community service that may sensitize the violator to the needs and obstacles faced by persons who have disabilities.
G. The assessment imposed under subsections C and D of this section shall be allocated as provided by RCW 46.19.050. Any reduction in any penalty or fine and assessment imposed under subsections C and D of this section shall be applied proportionally between the penalty or fine and the assessment.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
You cannot utilize the benefits of 2 placards is 2 cars at the same time because you can only use one car at a time. Notice section B in your photo; "that is being used to transport". Only one can be used to transport you. The other is simply parked.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
jk
You cannot utilize the benefits of 2 placards is 2 cars at the same time because you can only use one car at a time. Notice section B in your photo; "that is being used to transport". Only one can be used to transport you. The other is simply parked.
it says nothing of "at a time or same time"...i use both of my cars every day or every other day...so they are being used to transport
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
hurricane62417
it says nothing of "at a time or same time"...i use both of my cars every day or every other day...so they are being used to transport
Not simultaneously, you don't.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
Dogmatique
Not simultaneously, you don't.
where does it specify that my cars must be used simultaneous at?
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
hurricane62417
where does it specify that my cars must be used simultaneous at?
Comprehension is fundamental.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
whats the point of having 2 disabled placards if i cant use them for both of my cars...
same point as if i had disabled license plates for both cars
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Assuming that you are not parking these cars in time restricted spots (e.g. non time restricted disabled parking spaces) then I agree with you that the tickets would be invalid since the ordinance merely requires that in that circumstance the vehicle must display the parking placard
If you are parking them in spots where the time is restricted then the ordinance allow you to park there for up to four hours if the vehicle was used to transport the disabled person. The intent of this part of the law is to allow disabled persons to park in, say, a business area at a parking meter so they shop or do business but not to allow non-disabled persons to abuse the parking placards by parking at a meter and not pay the fee or to park longer than the meter allows. So, if the car was not used to transport the disabled person to that spot put the person still tried to use the placards to get the benefits a disabled person would, that’s a clear violation of the ordinance. That’s the easy case.
So the issue here would be what exactly does it mean when the ordinance says you may park in those time restricted spaces if the disabled person was transported in that vehicle? One might view it as abusing the disabled parking privilege to park two cars in the same restricted parking area for only one disabled person because that disabled person is taking up two valuable spots, one of which he/she presumably does not need at that time to enable him/her to do whatever business he/she has there. That’s the sort of thing that tends to aggravate people. A court might well conclude that both vehicles could not have met the requirement that you had be transported there given the basic idea behind the rule.
You are free to contest the ticket and see what the court says. Without knowing the details of the parking spots involved (are they time limited, and if so what kind of restrictions) and why you are parking two vehicles in these spots I couldn’t hazard a guess what the court might say or even whether I might uphold the ticket were I the judge. But try to think of the circumstances of your parking and whether others might consider it an abuse of the parking placards — if you are taking up badly needed spaces that others could use, for example — and that might give you an idea of how the court might lean on the issue.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
the only restriction of the parking spots on my side of the street is the vehicle cant be parked for over 72 hours across the street is time restricted zones...no parking between 6am - 9am and 3pm - 7pm...assuming for rush hour traffic its plenty of parking here for other people (unless there's an event at the theater on the block) i live on 2nd Ave in between Stewart St and Virgina St...feel free to google map it
i also found out from other tenants in the building who saw the tickets in action... it wasn't even a parking enforcement cop (was a cop in a regular cop car) our parking enforcement cops ride in small buggylike vehicle or on bicycles/hoverboard type machines same cop wrote me the tickets twice now
also i've asked parking enforcement cops that i catch riding by before about my cars to find out if i was breaking any laws by being parked there and yes...the parking enforcement cops i spoke to knew both cars were mine and both i've asked told me i wasnt breaking any laws
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Reading the ordinance carefully, subsection (B) has two rules:
1. If the car displays disabled parking placards then the vehicle may park for free up to 4 hours in a time limited spot if the vehicle was used to transport the disabled person.
2. If the car displays a disabled parking license plate or disabled year tab then the vehicle may park in a time limited spot for free for any length of time.
You stated you have the parking placards. So the first rule in subsection (B) would allow you to park for free in a time limited spot for up to 4 hours. I assume that the spots in which you are parking don’t require a fee so the free part doesn’t matter. But since the ordinance only allows you to park in a time limited location up to four hours with a placard, it would not help you when the restriction is a 72 hour limit. You’d still have to move the car the car every 72 hours because for parking placards you only get the benefit of a 4 hour period, i.e. if parking was limited to 30 minutes your placard would give you the ability to park there up to 4 hours. So, if you were leaving the vehicles parked in the same spot more than 72 hours I could see an ordinance violation. But you say you are moving them every 72 hours so that’s evidently not the problem. Looking at the street with Google maps I cannot read the parking signs really clearly, but on both sides there seems to be signs indicating payment is required when parking there during certain hours of the day. Is this perhaps what is causing the problem?
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
there is no payment required for persons with disabled parking placard or disabled tag which sign would you like a clearer picture of?
the ticket is for invalid disabled placards...when the expiration date is june of 2020
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
A DP placard is meant to be moved to any car that you are driving at the time. The ticket says, "Only one DP placard valid at any given time." You were using two at a given time to avoid paying for parking for the second car. It really is just that simple.
Quote:
E.
The use or display of a disabled placard or license plate that is stolen, expired, issued to a person who is now deceased, or is otherwise invalid in or upon a vehicle parked in a public right-of-way or on other publicly owned or controlled property is a parking infraction with a monetary penalty of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
Dogmatique
Comprehension is fundamental.
I pointed that out to you already. Sorry you missed it.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Here is some information that might explain it to you. This is from a Northwest ADA advocacy center's website.
"It is a parking infraction to:
Use the placard, identifying license plates, or identification card if they are not authorized.
Exercise the parking privilege when the vehicle is not transporting the person to whom the privilege is issued.
Exercise the parking privilege without an identifying license plate or placard.
Block the access aisle located next to an accessible parking space."
You need to remove the placard in the vehicle that you are not driving at that moment. You can only be transported by one vehicle at a time. Did you notice that you cannot get two tabs that go on your plates? This is probably why, they don't want one butt taking up two seats.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Just curious, how did you get two tags in the first place?
did they both come from the same agency at the same time or did you acquire them separately from different agencies or different time/dates?
If you got them both from the same place at the same time, I'd suggest going back to that agency and ask them how you can stop these tickets from happening. Of course if you take this route be prepared for the possibility that it is found out they issued you two in error and they ask for one back.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Washington state will issue two placards. California (where I am) will issue one placard, one plate, or a placard and a plate. That does not mean I get to use them both at the same time. I can only be transported in one vehicle at a time. It also doesn't mean that someone who doesn't have the disability driving the car with the plate can use the accesses allowed by the plate. If they park at a metered spot, they need to pay the meter. (I do not).
I also cannot have my husband follow me in the plated car tell him to park it in the handicapped spot next to the one I am using, get out and walk away. Then explain to the officer that I don't know which vehicle I'll be using so I need both in the spots. I don't think that will fly. I was transported there by the one I drove in. My husband could argue I am being transported by the one he left, but I am not sure that would fly. The law says being transported in, not might be being transported in.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
hurricane62417
there is no payment required for persons with disabled parking placard or disabled tag which sign would you like a clearer picture of?
the ticket is for invalid disabled placards...when the expiration date is june of 2020
You're taking up two handicapped spaces when there is only one of you. Despite your protestations, that's just plain wrong.
You have the following options:
1 - Plead not guilty and try to convince a judge. Good luck with that. Hopefully, he'd be as outraged as I am.
2 - Keep paying the fines as a cost of your "convenience."
3 - Find someplace else to put your second car and put the placard in the glove compartment until you actually use the car.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
adjusterjack
You're taking up two handicapped spaces when there is only one of you. Despite your protestations, that's just plain wrong.
You have the following options:
1 - Plead not guilty and try to convince a judge. Good luck with that. Hopefully, he'd be as outraged as I am.
2 - Keep paying the fines as a cost of your "convenience."
3 - Find someplace else to put your second car and put the placard in the glove compartment until you actually use the car.
Where is that darned "like" button??
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
Cocoabean
California (where I am) will issue one placard, one plate, or a placard and a plate.
Not to hijack the thread, but I believe California only limits the number of placards you can have to one. There is no restriction on plates. I have California handicapped plates on all of my vehicles in addition to a placard.
If you have a permanent placard, your vehicle is in the same name as the person the placard is registered to and want handicapped plates for that vehicle, simply take your placard and it's DMV slip to a DMV or an AAA (if you are a member). Surrender the plates on your old vehicle and you will be issued handicapped plates and registration. It's that simple.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
adjusterjack
You're taking up two handicapped spaces when there is only one of you. Despite your protestations, that's just plain wrong.
You have the following options:
1 - Plead not guilty and try to convince a judge. Good luck with that. Hopefully, he'd be as outraged as I am.
2 - Keep paying the fines as a cost of your "convenience."
3 - Find someplace else to put your second car and put the placard in the glove compartment until you actually use the car.
I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.
I just don't.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
adjusterjack
You're taking up two handicapped spaces when there is only one of you. Despite your protestations, that's just plain wrong.
Morally wrong, perhaps. But nothing in the ordinance actually says what the officer wrote on the ticket. Nowhere does it say you cannot have two parking placards in the same block. The OP might still get dinged because of an interpretation of the transport requirement, but that would depend a lot on how well the city attorney/prosecutor argues that point. That is, notably, a different argument than the one the cop used in writing the ticket. The city would likely lose on the cop’s theory of the violation.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
But nothing in the ordinance actually says what the officer wrote on the ticket. Nowhere does it say you cannot have two parking placards in the same block.
I agree with you, that the provision cited (subsection e) does not seem applicable. There does not seem to be any dispute that both hang tags are valid, and the officer's objection is not in fact to their validity but is instead to the manner of their use.
The primary reason why a disabled person is given the choice of receiving two hang tags is not so that they can tie up two handicapped parking spots. It's so that they can leave one hang tag in their regular vehicle, and have another available for those occasions in which they are using a different car or are a passenger in somebody else's car. The officer pretty clearly regards the OP as abusing the privilege, but as you say, an act that is morally wrong is not necessarily also legally wrong.
I can see a strained reading of subsection (b), pursuant to which the vehicle that most recently transported the disabled person is eligible for the hang tag, such that a previously operated vehicle would no longer be eligible -- and I think that's what you're getting at when you say, "The OP might still get dinged because of an interpretation of the transport requirement" -- but the ordinance does not appear to have been drafted with this sort of situation in mind.
One way or another, it appears that unless and until a court rules that the tickets are not valid, the officer is going to keep issuing parking tickets.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
Mr. Knowitall
I can see a strained reading of subsection (b), pursuant to which the vehicle that most recently transported the disabled person is eligible for the hang tag, such that a previously operated vehicle would no longer be eligible -- and I think that's what you're getting at when you say, "The OP might still get dinged because of an interpretation of the transport requirement" -- but the ordinance does not appear to have been drafted with this sort of situation in mind.
Yes, that is exactly what I had in mind. That reading of subsection (B) is about all I can see that the city could hang its hat on here. I agree with you that it would be strained, which is why I said that the city would need to make a skillful argument on that point and that it may come down to how offended the judge is by the OP taking up two spots. But clearly the reason articulated by the officer in the citation and the subsection of the ordinance he/she cited doesn’t support a violation.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
L-1
Not to hijack the thread, but I believe California only limits the number of placards you can have to one. There is no restriction on plates. I have California handicapped plates on all of my vehicles in addition to a placard.
If you have a permanent placard, your vehicle is in the same name as the person the placard is registered to and want handicapped plates for that vehicle, simply take your placard and it's DMV slip to a DMV or an AAA (if you are a member). Surrender the plates on your old vehicle and you will be issued handicapped plates and registration. It's that simple.
Whoops! My bad, you are correct.. from the application: "Disabled Person License Plates can only be assigned to vehicles currently registered in the name of the qualifed disabled person." For some reason I took it to mean one plate. Durrrr! Apparently I don't have the reading comprehension of a 5th grader. :tan:
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Minor thread hijack:
This is an excellent example of something I was talking about with someone this morning. One of the problems this country has is that common sense has flown right out the window. The INTENT of the law is quite clear, and is exactly what AJ says it is. But now we have, "Well, it doesn't actually SAY I can't do it, and therefore I should be able to violate the perfectly obvious spirit of the law because the letter doesn't spell out all the possible variations" and we have to waste time, and taxpayer dollars, getting a ruling on something that should be too obvious to need comment.
I'm sure this will offend people, and people I respect. I know that they will say they can only be concerned with what the law does and doesn't say, and not with possibly arbitrary interpretations. I'm sorry if my statement is offensive. It is, however, IMO, nonetheless true, and something that needs pointing out. Consider it pointed.
End thread hijack.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
So true, CBG. And when I reread the CA law for review, it doesn't specifically STATE I cannot use two spots at one time if I have multiple plates and a placard, but it does speak to being transported. Which leads to interpretation. Which would also lead to the question of what if I don't get out of the vehicle. I understand some jurisdictions address this issue, but CA doesn't.
But I thank this thread, because I just notice today that in CA, a handicapped person with a placard, but not in a wheelchair, cannot park in a van accessible spot with the crosshatching next to it. So, perhaps helping me to avoid a ticket! It was good for me to review the law!
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
One of the problems this country has is that common sense has flown right out the window.
Common sense is no longer very common...:p
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
Minor thread hijack:
This is an excellent example of something I was talking about with someone this morning. One of the problems this country has is that common sense has flown right out the window. The INTENT of the law is quite clear, and is exactly what AJ says it is. But now we have, "Well, it doesn't actually SAY I can't do it, and therefore I should be able to violate the perfectly obvious spirit of the law because the letter doesn't spell out all the possible variations" and we have to waste time, and taxpayer dollars, getting a ruling on something that should be too obvious to need comment.
I'm sure this will offend people, and people I respect. I know that they will say they can only be concerned with what the law does and doesn't say, and not with possibly arbitrary interpretations. I'm sorry if my statement is offensive. It is, however, IMO, nonetheless true, and something that needs pointing out. Consider it pointed.
End thread hijack.
Oh, let's hijack it. I disagree as to the intent of the law where multiple placards or license plates are issued.
Consider:
1. The purpose of a handicapped placard or license plate is to minimize the distance a disabled owner has to walk.
2. A handicapped placard or plate owner may own more than one vehicle. For example, I have a small passenger car for transportation and an SUV for hauling large items which I have other people load and unload for me.
3. Many placard or permit owners (such as myself) only have street parking available for vehicle storage.
4. If an owner is limited to utilizing one permit at a time, this means they must park their second vehicle at a distant location where the advantages of a handicapped permit may not be used, and walk the longer distance back, negating the whole, short walk purpose of the permit in the first place. This does not make sense.
5. The fact that someone has switched from Vehicle A to Vehicle B, does not mean Vehicle A was not "used for transport" within the meaning of the law, any more than leaving Vehicle B unattended for a long period of time means it no longer qualifies as having been "used for transport." If both belong to the handicapped person and bear his placards or plates, they are vehicles used for their transport within the meaning and spirit of the law.
If, upon issuing multiple placards or plates, it was the intention of the Legislature that they be only used by one vehicle at a time, such language would have been expressly included in the law. It has not. For others to now substitute their personal philosophy for the law in the form of such an unwritten rule creates an underground regulation which is contrary to public policy.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
Minor thread hijack:
This is an excellent example of something I was talking about with someone this morning. One of the problems this country has is that common sense has flown right out the window. The INTENT of the law is quite clear, and is exactly what AJ says it is. But now we have, "Well, it doesn't actually SAY I can't do it, and therefore I should be able to violate the perfectly obvious spirit of the law because the letter doesn't spell out all the possible variations" and we have to waste time, and taxpayer dollars, getting a ruling on something that should be too obvious to need comment.
I disagree with you that the intent is quite clear. You may think so because you have a strong view of how someone should act in this circumstance. That’s the moral view, and indeed many people would likely agree that is how it should work (though not all, probably). But the ordinance itself does not clearly express that intent. If it did, I don’t think there would be a debate about this in this thread.
When you look at a statute, you start with the express language of it. Especially when it comes to criminal statutes, clarity is important and vagueness works to the benefit of the defendant rather than the government. Why? Because a person should be able to read the statute and reasonably know what actions are prohibited by that statute. That way he or she can conform his/her actions to the statute.
When you come along later and say that it is a violation to park two cars with a disabled placard in a city block when the ordinance says no such thing, you run the risk of penalizing someone for something that he/she would not know was illegal by reading the text of the ordinance. You might say “well, common sense dictates that it should work that way so we can penalize you based on common sense even though the law does not say it” but that isn’t how our legal system works. Once you take that approach then no one can really be sure that the law means what it says — you have to then worry too about whether some judge’s idea of “common sense” will impose some requirement you could not have known about and make you guilty of something you had no idea was illegal. Some nations operate that way, but our founders rejected that approach, rightfully so in my view.
Where a statute is vague, a court will interpret it to provide clarity. Perhaps here the court might come up with an interpretation of subsection (B) that would say that both cars don’t get the benefit of the disabled placard because the transport requirement was not met. At least that then the court is arguably applying what the ordinance says, and the court might do that (even if it is strained) to reach the result the court thinks the law intended. But the officer’s statement of why this is a violation has no support in the ordinance and clearly cannot support the violation. Even if you think that is how it should work, if the law does not say that then it is not a violation. If you think it ought to be, you seek the change in the law to make that a violation.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
And Tax just proved my point.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
Cocoabean
But I thank this thread, because I just notice today that in CA, a handicapped person with a placard, but not in a wheelchair, cannot park in a van accessible spot with the crosshatching next to it. So, perhaps helping me to avoid a ticket! It was good for me to review the law!
Oooooh, go back and read again. Parking in the van accessible slot is OK, even if you don't have a wheelchair. What they are saying is you can't park in the cross hatch section next to the van accessible spot.
They put this in because people with placards or plates and small cars sometimes try to park in the crosshatch section if no other spaces are available and this prevents folks who park in the slot from unloading their wheelchairs.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
L-1
Oooooh, go back and read again. Parking in the van accessible slot is OK, even if you don't have a wheelchair. What they are saying is you can't park in the cross hatch section next to the van accessible spot.
They put this in because people with placards or plates and small cars sometimes try to park in the crosshatch section if no other spaces are available and this prevents folks who park in the slot from unloading their wheelchairs.
Ok, my reading skills REALLY need improvement...Plus it was very early when I read it. Here is the sentence from the DMV's site. "You may not park:
In spaces marked with a crosshatched pattern next to a parking space with the International Symbol of Access (wheelchair symbol). These spaces are for wheelchair and wheelchair lift access." I read that to mean that I cannot use spots that have the crosshatching next to them as THOSE sites are reserved for people needing wheelchair access. Also, I am not seeing anything about being transported in the California law..just where you may park with a placard or plate. So it seems the state of CA would allow for you to place all of your vehicles in Handicap Access spots at one time with no issue. I do admit you make a fine argument about the issue, though.
I used to work with someone who insisted on parking in the spot closest to the offices's crosshatching..even if another handicapped spot was available. She'd be nasty about it, claiming she was too ill to walk that far, and I look just fine. I was usually the first person in in the morning, so would take the closest spot. My issues were none of her concern, yes she'd see me delivering mail through the building. It was my job! It hurt! I didn't want to ask not to do it. It was none of her business! The Powers That Be's answer was to put a blue pained parking bumper right in the middle of the crosshatching, since she refused to stop parking there, and they refused to bring the police on site (fully secure federal facility) to ticket her. First day I nearly went back end of tea kettle over it. Reported it as a dangerous thing, was told parking lots are dangerous places, pay attention. I said how is a wheel chair supposed to use that area, that is for them? Oh, there is room. I also said, you don't expect concrete bumpers THERE, but at the heads of parking spots! A couple months later a person jogging the lot on lunch break took a header over it, broke his nose and cut his face open. Bumper gone the next day. Told ya so! Just ticket her! Don't punish all of us! Sheesh.
I think my brain has atrophied since I retired two years ago. Thank you, L-1, for keeping me straight. :D I shall now go back into my hole and enjoy the debate of people with much bigger brains than mine.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
And Tax just proved my point.
Which point? The one where you say the intent of this ordinance is quite clear? The one where you state that “common sense” should dictate over what the law actually says? Or the point that some others would disagree with you on that? As to the first two, I don’t believe I proved that point at all. As to the third of them, clearly yes, I did prove that at least one person disagrees with you :D. And from L-1’s reply, I’m not the only one.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
Minor thread hijack:
This is an excellent example of something I was talking about with someone this morning. One of the problems this country has is that common sense has flown right out the window. The INTENT of the law is quite clear, and is exactly what AJ says it is. But now we have, "Well, it doesn't actually SAY I can't do it, and therefore I should be able to violate the perfectly obvious spirit of the law because the letter doesn't spell out all the possible variations" and we have to waste time, and taxpayer dollars, getting a ruling on something that should be too obvious to need comment.
I'm sure this will offend people, and people I respect. I know that they will say they can only be concerned with what the law does and doesn't say, and not with possibly arbitrary interpretations. I'm sorry if my statement is offensive. It is, however, IMO, nonetheless true, and something that needs pointing out. Consider it pointed.
End thread hijack.
There is a saying ... If you can't argue a case on its merits (or common sense), argue the law (the minutiae). I agree that what the OP is doing is a dodge, but, the section cited does not appear to have been violated:
E. The use or display of a disabled placard or license plate that is stolen, expired, issued to a person who is now deceased, or is otherwise invalid in or upon a vehicle parked in a public right-of-way or on other publicly owned or controlled property is a parking infraction with a monetary penalty of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250).
The officer over-reached it would seem.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
i wasn't parked in a handicap space...
its street parking on the street where i live
no handicap marked spots anywhere near my apartment building
Quote:
Quoting
yyz0
Just curious, how did you get two tags in the first place?
did they both come from the same agency at the same time or did you acquire them separately from different agencies or different time/dates?
If you got them both from the same place at the same time, I'd suggest going back to that agency and ask them how you can stop these tickets from happening. Of course if you take this route be prepared for the possibility that it is found out they issued you two in error and they ask for one back.
people with permanent disability get 2 (blue) disabled placards and yes...i got them both at the same time from the DMV office
the placard itself last for 5 years...when its time to renew all i have to do is go to the office and pick them up...its no error
people with temporary disability on get 1 (red) disabled placard
what i do find funny though is how "common sense" got throwed up in the air by someone who doesnt seem to have it
Quote:
Quoting
L-1
Oh, let's hijack it. I disagree as to the intent of the law where multiple placards or license plates are issued.
Consider:
1. The purpose of a handicapped placard or license plate is to minimize the distance a disabled owner has to walk.
2. A handicapped placard or plate owner may own more than one vehicle. For example, I have a small passenger car for transportation and an SUV for hauling large items which I have other people load and unload for me.
3. Many placard or permit owners (such as myself) only have street parking available for vehicle storage.
4. If an owner is limited to utilizing one permit at a time, this means they must park their second vehicle at a distant location where the advantages of a handicapped permit may not be used, and walk the longer distance back, negating the whole, short walk purpose of the permit in the first place. This does not make sense.
5. The fact that someone has switched from Vehicle A to Vehicle B, does not mean Vehicle A was not "used for transport" within the meaning of the law, any more than leaving Vehicle B unattended for a long period of time means it no longer qualifies as having been "used for transport." If both belong to the handicapped person and bear his placards or plates, they are vehicles used for their transport within the meaning and spirit of the law.
If, upon issuing multiple placards or plates, it was the intention of the Legislature that they be only used by one vehicle at a time, such language would have been expressly included in the law. It has not. For others to now substitute their personal philosophy for the law in the form of such an unwritten rule creates an underground regulation which is contrary to public policy.
yes...i have problems walking which is part of my disability...also i wasnt even using the 2 closest spots to the building when ticketed...
(the same cop wrote tickets on the 18th and the 24th) and yes i'm contesting them
it would be retarded to park my car on another block when i have to cart in things from my car as it is (i get the cart from the concierge in my building)
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
I'm not so sure the ticket isn't enforceable. Regardless of what the cop wrote, the section can be interpreted as it referring to a single vehicle (the one used to transport you which could be inferred as being the last one used). Although the cops understanding of the law is incorrect, if the court finds the statute applicable regardless of what the cop wrote you could still be found guilty of the violation, legitimately.
If anybody cares to research the history of the enactment of the statute they may find the answer. I'm not so inclined myself as I hope it actuslly is enforceable. If I were a neighbor I have to admit I would be a bit miffed with two cars being allowed to take spaces with the time limits removed.
I wonder if the op moves his cars to a different parking space every 72 hours. I know some areas where if they were not moved to a different space it would not qualify as moving them. Even if by coincidence if a person actuslly drove around for hours and parked in the same space, unless the ticket agent realized the car had been gone it would still be ticketed. If the owner could not prove it had actuslly left the space, the ticket would be upheld.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Tax, I knew you would disagree, and I knew why. I'm betting Mr. K disagrees also, for the same reason. You believe in the minutiae. If it isn't listed in express detail, you take the position that it's not clear. I'm not going to argue that people haven't successfully avoided taking responsibility for their actions by claiming that they haven't actually violated the law because the law doesn't expressly state that they can't do what they did - or alternately that they can't do what they did do.
Nonetheless, I am genuinely concerned that such a huge portion of our population appears quite unable to take responsibility for their own actions. The very fact that they go seeking minutiae to exclude them from the statute or case law is proof of that. How often do we see people asking if a misspelled name or a wrong color listed on a traffic ticket will get them out of it?
When are we as a nation going to start accepting that actions have consequences?
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
Nonetheless, I am genuinely concerned that such a huge portion of our population appears quite unable to take responsibility for their own actions.
That is a different issue. There are some things that a person knows what they did was wrong, knew it at the time, and then when caught will seek any excuse to avoid responsibility, like claiming they never really intended to steal the item they hide in their pocket. Those are situations in which it is pretty clear the law was violated and the person is looking for some technical out. Everyone knows (or should) that theft is wrong. Even little kids grasp that. To extent that people are trying to avoid their responsibility for an obvious wrong like this I share your concern.
This situation does not fall into that category, IMO. There is nothing about parking that is obviously morally wrong in the absence of rules for, unlike theft which we all understand is wrong even if there wasn’t a law saying that. Parking rules are purely a creature of the local government that enacts them. Without those rules one could park anywhere. The only way you know what is allowed and what is prohibited is by reading the ordinance that enacted the restriction. That is all you have to go by. There isn’t any great moral principle involved with them. Common sense doesn't much enter into it because there are dozens of ways one might decide to set parking rules for a particular block, and people will differ as to what makes the most sense. So, since all you have to guide you is what the ordinance says, I do not see it as some great moral failure for a person to say he/she is not guilty of the offense if the ordinance does not expressly forbid the parking that he or she did. Even if what he or she did ticks off all the other parkers. ;)
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Given that there are special rules involved when there are handicapped placards, I don't think it's quite as simple as that. But I'll agree to disagree if you will, Tax.
-
Re: Disabled Handicap Parking
Unless you can find a "special rule" that prohibits the OP's use of the second tag, it actually is as simple as that. If you act in a manner that is not unlawful under a statute or ordinance, you cannot be lawfully convicted of violating the statute or ordinance even if "There oughta be a law!"