Cycling in Waterloo Region

[danbrotherston]

I realize you are a former MLEO, but I really must disagree with this. Some, I feel is completely false, some, I think is just biased by the image.

The sidewalk was blocked, but not 50% but almost 2 feet (it's a wide sidewalk).

Unless you can point me to a specific bylaw which says parking less than 50% of the sidewalk is acceptable unless someone is observed to struggle to get by, I'm going to call bullshit. Courts make judgement based on the law, and the law says "don't block the sidewalk", not "mostly don't block the sidewalk".  If a court has made an error in legal judgement in your experience, I can believe that....they're just as failable as the rest of the justice system, but that is not a court policy, if it is, we need a protest.

But I don't think we do, I have a friend who has personally received a ticket for blocking a sidewalk when they were only 6 inches over, he measured, because he was angry, I was there in person, to see. This sidewalk was, for the record, several feet wide. He was blocking the sidewalk by less than even I would call in to complain about, and I am an asshole who calls and complains any time the sidewalk is blocked and I am inconvenienced.

As for the yellow space, you have simply chosen a line to draw around the SUV...that line is not perpendicular to the face of the building, by that logic, I can park anywhere next to a parking zone because I can just draw the lines however I want. That SUV was very clearly parked to the right of that sign, they are simply at an angle. Parking at an angle makes you an asshole, not a legal parker.

Part of this is the angle of the photo distorts things, the sign is only 2 meters from the sidewalk, it would be impossible to park any vehicle between the sign and the sidewalk, it is not intended to be a parking space, the signage is incompetent.

Third, as I already said, the use of "private property" on the signage is incorrect, that is not private property, there is no private property. I checked the city's property map before making this claim, I did not post a screenshot as I am out of image storage space, but I do not make claims like that lightly.

Edit: I see that you have drawn the yellow line along the line in the concrete, that is simply a decorative line, it doesn't actually mean anything if you see the entire square in context.

OK, so lets say you park a car on the roadway.  I will assume no one here has measured the space from their tire to the curb.  There is a by-law (in almost every city), park more than 15 cm from the curb.  If you are 45 cm from the curb, this is the part of the act you would be charged with.  Now lets say an MLEO lays a ticket for every car > 15.1 cm from the curb.  What do you think to Justice of the Peace would do with all of them?  Common sense applies, and JP's err to a greater degree.  (Kitchener) has lost enough parking trials with < 50% of the sidewalk blocked that the policy is to not write tickets.  I never said it was a court order, I said it was policy.  There are lots of policy decisions that you may not like, but they are there for a reason.  Could they continue and hope to get new precedence?  Perhaps... but there are lots of other violators to deal with. (Only exception to less than 50% would be if one or more tires were physically on the sidewalk).  The 50% rule applies to No Parking / No Stopping zones too.  [Unless spots are marked, then you would get a "Parked in more than one space" or "Parked in spot other than marked".  ANY blockage of a disabled space will warrant a ticket as there is an expectancy of a person needing the entire widened space.  Call bullshit all you want, its a fact of life.

As you are aware, I didn't take the picture.  I can also clarify I wasn't there to see this vehicle.  I stick by the yellow line at the sidewalk, but now that you have accused me of just drawing a line around the SUV, I will concede that the angles of the concrete that are parallel to the sidewalk are not the same as the line in the concrete to the right of the vehicle.  It is highly likely that the yellow line to the right should of gone below the vehicle.  I will also ASSUME that the bottom of the picture is the sidewalk along Charles, and if so, my yellow lines should of been cut short of that.

I'm not justifying the driver, nor am I saying you are wrong.  All I am doing is giving some insight when you accuse by-law of being unwilling to write a ticket since there is no arrow pointing that way.  There may be a reason to be unwilling.

Coke

You're basically arguing that the law is just "whatever man". The reason the law says 15 cm, is because 15 cm is too much. The law is there so that we all have, as much as is possible, an unambiguous statement about what is right and wrong. When it says 15 cm...it's because we all agree that it should be 15 cm, not 15.1 and not 14.9. Since that kind of thing can be measured unambigously, why should we not ticket 16 cm (lets be fair and use a reasonable measurement error)? I am sick and tired of people believing themselves above the law. The only thing worse than people believing themselves above the law is LEOs telling them that they are right.

As for why I believe this is okay, you're right, I don't measure the distance to the curb, but I know that farther than 15 cm (about half a foot) is not okay, which means when I park, I ensure that I'm closer than that...it isn't hard...I don't need a measuring tape, if I'm at all close to half a foot, I'm not close enough.

This is why I like automated enforcement. If there is a speed camera, if you are traveling over the set point for speeding (which *SHOULD* be the limit, but in practice will not be, but should at least be public), you get a ticket, no discussion, no "well, he's a white guy", "she's a cute girl", "he looks like me", "well he has kids at my school", they just get a ticket. And people who get angry about this do so because they are used to using their privilege to get away with breaking the law.

Like I said, I call your 50% of the sidewalk, as bullshit...sidewalks are of different width, and my stroller takes up more than 50% of the sidewalk, 50% is well beyond obstructing the sidewalk, most sidewalks are only 1.5 meters wide, that leaves .8 meters with no ticket issued? I can't get a stroller past that. When I call in a vehicle because I was forced to go off the edge of the sidewalk when walking, I expect a ticket to be issued, and I would be quite angry to find out that wasn't happening. We already bend over backwards to excuse driver behaviour at every turn...I expect bylaw to do their job and enforce the bylaws. My friend got ticketed for being a few inches over, but you're telling me a driver forcing me into mud won't be unless they are blocking more than half the sidewalk fuck that.

Now you may be right and they don't issue tickets. But you say this policy exists for a reason? This isn't a good reason, it's a very bad reason, they exist because we refuse to enforce our laws against people who break them, who fit a certain description (is driving a car), and that is very wrong. It's also a terrible implementation. The law is written down so that we can all see it, but if the law isn't being enforced, but some other secret policy is, that's not how a fair society works.

Look I'm basically just ranting at this point, but I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. I'm sick and tired of blocked sidewalks and I'm so fucking sick and tired of council telling me enforcement is the solution, then refusing to even enforce the bylaws...GAH!!!

As for whether bylaw would write a ticket, I don't know, I agree the sign is wrong, and whoever put it up is at fault for any failure to write a ticket.

While I'm in a ranting mood, I would like to point out the insanity that it took us YEARS, like 4-5 YEARS to get the city to properly sign the MUT along Weber St. as a MUT. I'm aware that people were harrassed BY POLICE who mistakenly believed it was a sidewalk, as a result of the incorrect signage. Yet I'm aware of two cases in a season we have signage put up by the city or region that is fundamentally flawed, first, the dismount signs at the IHT crossing, and now this sign. How come this is so hard.

[plam]

I really think the core problem isn't the sign, but the roll curbs. The vast majority of drivers believe that the point of roll curbs is to allow them to drive to the other side of the curb. I can't even really say I blame them, as I have yet to figure out what other purpose they serve.

We need to stop putting roll curbs along pedestrian spaces. Barrier curbs are the standard signal for "this is not a driveable area".

I asked once about the roll curbs on King in Waterloo and was told "accessibility". I'm not convinced, but that was the answer.

[danbrotherston]

I really think the core problem isn't the sign, but the roll curbs. The vast majority of drivers believe that the point of roll curbs is to allow them to drive to the other side of the curb. I can't even really say I blame them, as I have yet to figure out what other purpose they serve.

We need to stop putting roll curbs along pedestrian spaces. Barrier curbs are the standard signal for "this is not a driveable area".

I asked once about the roll curbs on King in Waterloo and was told "accessibility". I'm not convinced, but that was the answer.

Yes, I've heard multiple answers, accessibility was an excuse given on King St. which doesn't hold much weight given that the other section of King where cars park have barrier curbs.

Same with the LRT, why does it have roll curbs, when every other road has barrier curbs.

And I've also heard for snow clearing, but that doesn't make sense in DTK where the sidewalks are plowed separately...nor for the LRT.

[dtkvictim]

You guys just don't understand, the roll curbs are clearly there for the accessibility of those with the end-game mobility device: motor vehicles.

[ijmorlan]

I really think the core problem isn't the sign, but the roll curbs. The vast majority of drivers believe that the point of roll curbs is to allow them to drive to the other side of the curb. I can't even really say I blame them, as I have yet to figure out what other purpose they serve.

We need to stop putting roll curbs along pedestrian spaces. Barrier curbs are the standard signal for "this is not a driveable area".

I asked once about the roll curbs on King in Waterloo and was told "accessibility". I'm not convinced, but that was the answer.

You were inadvertently misled by the person telling you that. Please note the use of Parliamentary language

As somebody else pointed out, if the accessibility explanation were true, then roll curbs would be universal, not just something used where there are bicycle lanes.

[ijmorlan]

As for why I believe this is okay, you're right, I don't measure the distance to the curb, but I know that farther than 15 cm (about half a foot) is not okay, which means when I park, I ensure that I'm closer than that...it isn't hard...I don't need a measuring tape, if I'm at all close to half a foot, I'm not close enough.

This is actually an example with some complexity, because the rule should not be distance of the nearest part of the vehicle from the curb but distance of the furthest part of the vehicle from the curb. If I’m parking a Smart car, 50cm from the curb is fine — I’ll still be taking up less of the road than an ordinary vehicle parked more closely. And if I’m parking a Hummer, maybe there isn’t room for me to park even if my tires are rubbing the side of the curb; if so, that’s just tough for me; I can find a larger parking space or a smaller vehicle.

Look I'm basically just ranting at this point, but I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. I'm sick and tired of blocked sidewalks and I'm so fucking sick and tired of council telling me enforcement is the solution, then refusing to even enforce the bylaws...GAH!!!

So right. If the City can’t enforce, then we should all hear about it as a problem they have, rather than just silently letting scofflaws get away with blocking the sidewalk year after year.

If the officer needs to observe somebody being obstructed in order to write that, then there is a simple solution: enforcement teams should consist of an officer and somebody in a wheelchair. If the wheelchair person can’t easily get by the car, then the officer observes this and uses it as evidence. Until the JP’s get it through their thick skulls that the sidewalk is obstructed if enough width for such a person is not available, even if they don’t happen to show up at that particular moment.

How are these people hired, anyway? If a JP is really demanding an actual victim, then they are wrong; unless the law is really written that way, in which case it clearly needs to be changed; except that the court system should be capable of changing it all by itself by applying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which forbids discrimination against people on the basis of disability. And requiring an actual victim before prosecuting a violation constitutes discrimination; people in wheelchairs (or whatever) shouldn’t have to show up and subject themselves to discrimination in order to achieve systemic justice.

Overall, lots of good points. Fundamentally, you have passion about this issue; but too often justice is viewed as just another administrative matter.

[danbrotherston]

Here is a map confirming that there is no private property. The sign is clearly incorrect.



(I am assuming that there is no special arrangement with the city allowing a private business to use that area for parking.)

This is not the only example of the city leasing out spaces that are marked as private property.  There were 5 or 6 just off Young St (in the former city lot that is now City Centre).  That was public property, but those spaces were "reserved" for the King St business abutting the lot.

If you park your car (in Kitchener) in a RESERVED space, a LEASED space, or a lot that requires a permit (No pay and display option), you will receive a ticket for "Parked on Private Property - Municipal" under Section 4 of the by-law.


* The fines are out of date, as is the entire ticket book, but the by-law remains.

I stand by my assertation that the signage is correct.

Coke

I stand by my rejection of that assertion.

Again, even if you think there is a tiny slice of leased land there, the sign is positioned such that there is not enough space for a car to park between the sign and the sidewalk. There are minimum standards for the width of a parking space which this does not meet. And unlike sidewalks and bike lanes, there are no exceptions for undersized vehicle infrastructure.

[Acitta]

King St. North, Waterloo. Go Logistics delivering for Amazon. He was there for at least 10 minutes.    

[Chris]

King St. North, Waterloo. Go Logistics delivering for Amazon. He was there for at least 10 minutes.

Did you share it with Go Logistics?

That is a nasty bike lane design if you want to go left to get around that van. Obviously you shouldn't have to make that move but if you do you need to be a pretty confident bike handler.

[ac3r]

Bike lanes evidently have two purposes here: a) bicycle lane b) specialized delivery driver lane. I always see things like UPS, Uber Eats, or general freight trucks stopped in the bike lanes around the city.

[KevinL]

We need to stop putting roll curbs along pedestrian spaces. Barrier curbs are the standard signal for "this is not a driveable area".

Either that, or we follow the King Street precedent and bollard the whole length.

[Acitta]

King St. North, Waterloo. Go Logistics delivering for Amazon. He was there for at least 10 minutes.

Did you share it with Go Logistics?

That is a nasty bike lane design if you want to go left to get around that van. Obviously you shouldn't have to make that move but if you do you need to be a pretty confident bike handler.

I shared it with Amazon. It is their reputation that is at stake.

[Acitta]

Speaking of obstructions on bike lanes . . .                

[Coke6pk]

I stand by my rejection of that assertion.

Again, even if you think there is a tiny slice of leased land there, the sign is positioned such that there is not enough space for a car to park between the sign and the sidewalk. There are minimum standards for the width of a parking space which this does not meet. And unlike sidewalks and bike lanes, there are no exceptions for undersized vehicle infrastructure.

Third, as I already said, the use of "private property" on the signage is incorrect, that is not private property, there is no private property.

Your original comment (Quoted second) was what I was referencing. You said the sign was wrong as it is not private property. You are now discounting the signage based on your belief it should not be a parking spot public or private. I can't answer that.

Coke

[Coke6pk]

You're basically arguing that the law is just "whatever man". The reason the law says 15 cm, is because 15 cm is too much. The law is there so that we all have, as much as is possible, an unambiguous statement about what is right and wrong. When it says 15 cm...it's because we all agree that it should be 15 cm, not 15.1 and not 14.9. Since that kind of thing can be measured unambigously, why should we not ticket 16 cm (lets be fair and use a reasonable measurement error)? I am sick and tired of people believing themselves above the law. The only thing worse than people believing themselves above the law is LEOs telling them that they are right.

As for why I believe this is okay, you're right, I don't measure the distance to the curb, but I know that farther than 15 cm (about half a foot) is not okay, which means when I park, I ensure that I'm closer than that...it isn't hard...I don't need a measuring tape, if I'm at all close to half a foot, I'm not close enough.

This is why I like automated enforcement. If there is a speed camera, if you are traveling over the set point for speeding (which *SHOULD* be the limit, but in practice will not be, but should at least be public), you get a ticket, no discussion, no "well, he's a white guy", "she's a cute girl", "he looks like me", "well he has kids at my school", they just get a ticket. And people who get angry about this do so because they are used to using their privilege to get away with breaking the law.

Like I said, I call your 50% of the sidewalk, as bullshit...sidewalks are of different width, and my stroller takes up more than 50% of the sidewalk, 50% is well beyond obstructing the sidewalk, most sidewalks are only 1.5 meters wide, that leaves .8 meters with no ticket issued? I can't get a stroller past that. When I call in a vehicle because I was forced to go off the edge of the sidewalk when walking, I expect a ticket to be issued, and I would be quite angry to find out that wasn't happening. We already bend over backwards to excuse driver behaviour at every turn...I expect bylaw to do their job and enforce the bylaws. My friend got ticketed for being a few inches over, but you're telling me a driver forcing me into mud won't be unless they are blocking more than half the sidewalk fuck that.

Now you may be right and they don't issue tickets. But you say this policy exists for a reason? This isn't a good reason, it's a very bad reason, they exist because we refuse to enforce our laws against people who break them, who fit a certain description (is driving a car), and that is very wrong. It's also a terrible implementation. The law is written down so that we can all see it, but if the law isn't being enforced, but some other secret policy is, that's not how a fair society works.

Look I'm basically just ranting at this point, but I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. I'm sick and tired of blocked sidewalks and I'm so fucking sick and tired of council telling me enforcement is the solution, then refusing to even enforce the bylaws...GAH!!!

As for whether bylaw would write a ticket, I don't know, I agree the sign is wrong, and whoever put it up is at fault for any failure to write a ticket.

While I'm in a ranting mood, I would like to point out the insanity that it took us YEARS, like 4-5 YEARS to get the city to properly sign the MUT along Weber St. as a MUT. I'm aware that people were harrassed BY POLICE who mistakenly believed it was a sidewalk, as a result of the incorrect signage. Yet I'm aware of two cases in a season we have signage put up by the city or region that is fundamentally flawed, first, the dismount signs at the IHT crossing, and now this sign. How come this is so hard.

Two words: Officer Discretion.  Its written in legal precedent, and you can like it or not.  I don't care. 

When a parking meter expired, I didn't write a ticket, even though it would of been legal to do so.  [When a meter expired, there would be a 10 min Violation countdown (flashing red, or in the old days a pop up VIOLATION sign).  Once the meter was expired more than 10 min the meter would be solid red (or pop up expired sign) and that's when a ticket would get written.  The 10 min isn't written into the by-law, but I can assure you every MLEO followed that.  We don't like having JP's ream our ass for being dickish in issuing tickets.

These policies also protect your councillors who receive the complaints when we issue tickets.  THEY are the driving force behind things like the 50% rule, as they are trying to placate the driving public.  CoK recently pushed for cat tags, similar to dog tags.  I have to pay a fee for my dog, even though he is in the house, my fenced backyard or if elsewhere, on a leash.  My neighbours cat roams the neighbourhood.  When the city had discussions, every "Crazy Cat Lady" showed up against, and that was shut down immediately.  The cat tags would of 100% funded the humane society, but instead we will continue with additional grants... all because those councillors are afraid of not getting voted in next election.

Your comment about automated enforcement is valid.  I agree with you.  But if you think for a second the Region will let you know where they have placed the limit, you are fooling yourself.  I wouldn't be surprised if it fluxuated over time (both up and down)to ensure you never know... and if they set it at 41 km/h, those close to the limit would be tossed by a JP.  [Who most have no legal background and are appointed by the ruling political party, which is why we have a hairdresser on the bench, but that's a different argument]

The law is written down so that we can all see it, but if the law isn't being enforced, but some other secret policy is, that's not how a fair society works.

CCC s. 265 (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(Pre COVID )You are working your way through a crowded room to get to the bathroom.  On your way, you brush against more than a dozen people before thankfully making it in time.  When you alight, police are there to charge you with 14 counts of assault.  The law was there for you to see, and there is no secret policy.  That is how a fair society works.

/end sarcasm

Coke