It Should Always be Legal to Back Into a Parking Spaces

[Brian57]

I would argue what is the purpose of the sign? If a sign said girls in mini-skirts cannot walk on this premises, it would be unenforceable. If a sign said four cylinder vehicles cannot park in that lot, it would unenforceable. On the same note, why can't a car back into a 90 degree parking stall? If it's for tow-away capabilities, it makes no sense because a large percentage of vehicles are front wheel drive.

I drive a full size truck and I can only fit into most stalls by backing into it. Furthermore, I rarely see a lot with 90 degree parking require head-in only. It can be required for angled parking stalls but that is different because of traffic flow and safety purposes.

As said, the sign has no purpose except for a small portion of that lot. Therefore, I would argue that the sign is invalid. Again, a novice could not ague this and win, but IMO a skilled trial lawyer could.

[LegalWriter]

That type of argument will get you nowhere. It's like saying why should I have to stop at a stop sign in the middle of the night where there are no other cars. You do because there's a sign, period. Besides, the signage determination was made by the city council and the courts are not going override their legislative judgment.

[Brian57]

That type of argument will get you nowhere. It's like saying why should I have to stop at a stop sign in the middle of the night where there are no other cars. You do because there's a sign, period. Besides, the signage determination was made by the city council and the courts are not going override their legislative judgment.

Every sign has a purpose. A stop sign has a purpose. What is the purpose of that sign?

True, the court would not invalidate the sign. It would have to be fought with those who posted the sign.

Most of that parking lot should allow back-in parking. Therefore the sign should be more specific, or not be posted at all. IOW, the sign amy be in error and should be removed. If it was put up in error it should be unenforceable.

Again, it would take a skilled lawyer and a lot of time to undo that citation. But in theory, I believe it could be done.

[cbg]

The fact that you do not know the purpose of the sign does not mean it has no purpose.

[sniper]

I would argue what is the purpose of the sign?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocr...s-illegal/amp/

Question: I got a parking ticket the other day for backing into my parking space in the parking structure on Pomona Avenue near the Metrolink station. I was in a corner spot where backing out would have required me to make a three-point turn in a blind corner.

Why does Fullerton require head-in parking? It’s a two-way parking structure with perpendicular spaces, so there isn’t a problem with people pulling out the wrong way the way it would be in an angled spot.

The sour grapes in me (the part that had to write the $25 check) says that it’s either a way for Fullerton to get some money through an arbitrary rule, or it’s a way to recoup money lost by not being able to inspect people’s license plate stickers What’s the real reason?

Dave Lieberman

Anaheim

Answer: I checked with Lt. Kevin Hamilton of the Fullerton Police Department. He said historically, the rule was originally designed for parking lots with shrubbery and trees when the wheel base from the rear to the front was longer. Cars would back into spaces and often damage the plants.

Dave Langstaff, traffic engineering analyst for the city, filled in the rest of the information. He said, first of all, parking structures and parking lots should all be posted with “no-backing-in” signs. With this ruling, police will be able to check if rear license plates are registered and legal.

Also, it’s a standard policy to have lot permit tags in the front windows and parking stickers on the back sides of the cars for employees. This prevents motorists from parking in the wrong spaces.

Barbara Giasone

If you want to change the law (muni code) for your city go to your city council and demand it be changed. If not, obey the properly posted and prominently displayed sign, regardless of the vehicle type you have.

[Brian57]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocr...s-illegal/amp/

If you want to change the law (muni code) for your city go to your city council and demand it be changed. If not, obey the properly posted and prominently displayed sign, regardless of the vehicle type you have.

All three of those reasons are BS.

1) If the rear of a car can extend further than the front, allow for that in the landscaping plans.

2) If traffic laws do not require that we drive a certain way so police can see our tags, then it goes without saying that we should not be required to park a certain way so they can see our tags either. Furthermore, without probable cause that a crime has been committed, police and city councils have no bearing over us to require that we show our papers to prove that we are not law breakers. If they suspect that we broke a law, let them collect their evidence on their own time.

3) The parking permit issue is 90% irrelevant.

[sniper]

Once again, you show your passion for issues have no bearing on the actual laws that are in place. Once again, if you disagree with the placement or wording of an enforceable sign, then you need to bring your issue up with the relevant jurisdiction who governs the sign. If you don't do that you will waste your breath and your feet will hurt from stomping them all the time.

[Brian57]

Once again, you show your passion for issues have no bearing on the actual laws that are in place. Once again, if you disagree with the placement or wording of an enforceable sign, then you need to bring your issue up with the relevant jurisdiction who governs the sign. If you don't do that you will waste your breath and your feet will hurt from stomping them all the time.

I take that you are in agreement that those three reasons are BS.

BTW - I don't fight all BS laws. Only the ones that I choose to fight. But because I do not choose to fight it doesn't mean it isn't BS.

[cbg]

My husband, who used to be a stringer for a baseball scout, knows more about the detail of the game than most people. He can tell you all kinds of reasons why, and history of, the most obscure rules of baseball. But even so, occasionally when I ask him why a play was called the way it was, his answer is, Because that's what it says in the rule book.

Well, guess what. Sometimes you just have to do what the rules say. As long as there is a requirement that you back into the space, you back into the space, whether you agree with the reason for the requirement or not. You can go to the City Council, or whoever is the agency in charge, and you can make your argument to them, and if you are sufficiently persuasive, they can change the rule. But there IS no I-don't-agree-with-the-reason-for-the rule exemption that will allow you to violate it with impunity.

[Brian57]

My husband, who used to be a stringer for a baseball scout, knows more about the detail of the game than most people. He can tell you all kinds of reasons why, and history of, the most obscure rules of baseball. But even so, occasionally when I ask him why a play was called the way it was, his answer is, Because that's what it says in the rule book.

Well, guess what. Sometimes you just have to do what the rules say. As long as there is a requirement that you back into the space, you back into the space, whether you agree with the reason for the requirement or not. You can go to the City Council, or whoever is the agency in charge, and you can make your argument to them, and if you are sufficiently persuasive, they can change the rule. But there IS no I-don't-agree-with-the-reason-for-the rule exemption that will allow you to violate it with impunity.

I agree that a citation can be written for backing in. I am also aware that it would take a great deal of time and money for a skilled lawyer to fight it just to save the $25.