The law makes it illegal for drivers to park their cars within 20 feet of a crosswalk, on the side of the street that faces the crosswalk.
Of course They haven’t marked any of this out with even the slightest consistency. Any excuse to let the road-pirates off-leash in good-ol’ Cali. TwO MoNtHs ShOuLD Be eNoUgH … yeah sure, I read more California and San Diego news than I really have any business doing, and this is the first I’m hearing of this law.
I’m actually pretty happy for this enforcement. I think a lot about accessibility, and car owners that do this are causing a lot of issues.
You may also know from my post history that I’m also a frequent poster in the police problem community, so this is a rare thumbs up to those folks.
I would be if they didn’t completely half ass all the marking where you can’t park.
Not within 20 feet 9f the crosswalk. Some curbs are painted red 5’. Some curbs painted red 20’. Some curbs aren’t painted. Some crosswalks aren’t white striped but they still count.
They wrote nearly $500,000 worth of fines in 2 months but don’t bother to properly mark the curbs or even the crosswalks first.
A similar rule applies to not parking too closely to stop signs in my area. There aren’t any extra signs or painted curbs, drivers are just expected to ask themselves, is this too close to that stop sign? I don’t see how crosswalks are any different. If you give yourself 2 car lengths from the crosswalk you should be good for most cars.
That’s a law in all states, though. It’s universal. A new law that’s for within 20’ of a crosswalk, on only one side of the road, on unmarked cross walks as well is a lot less clear.
Same. At first glance I felt a bit of trepidation, especially with the current state of American politics, but this is a good move.
Could someone explain why this is called daylighting? I get what it means and this seems like a very smart thing to do if you want to make walking safer, but the term makes absolutely no sense at all. If even tried to look it up, it bothers me. The only thing that would make a bit of sense is that they mean the crosswalk is no longer in the shadow, but that seems quite a stretch too.
While I’m in favor of the concept, I want to garrotte the idiots who came up with and disseminated that stupid term. It should be called “Sightlining” because it increases everyone’s line of sight, to help prevent vehicles from killing pedestrians and cyclists, and cyclists from injuring pedestrians as well. Or you could say it establishes a Visibility Zone. I failed to find an etymology or original source but if someone does, let me know.
According to this source https://www.etymonline.com/word/daylight#798. It seems to refer to an old figuratove usage of the term daylight to indicate a clear space between two objects. That makes sense applied to the methods use in “daylighting” intersections since it’s meant to create a visible gap for better visibility.
If they are not being discriminatory and actually legitimately fining people, then I’d say this is a huge win.
The fact that over 4000 people were CAUGHT means there must have been tens of thousands doing it over those two months.
Crosswalks that aren’t painted with white stripes still count. Some curbs are unpainted, some are painted red less than 20 feet. Some are painted 20 feet out.
How many people do you think parked short of a red curb and near a crosswalk the city didn’t bother to stripe? Maybe properly mark the curbs before you start fining people $240,000 a month?
Why would you need curbs to be marked?
Over here in Germany parking 5 meters in front of crosswalks is illegal. No curb is ever striped, anywhere. If you are unsure whether you are too close you are expected to measure.
Because right now this law is only done in one small area and only on one side of the road. We have more universal laws, like no parking within 15 feet of a stop sign, but this isn’t one of them.
The only way they could be discriminatory with this campaign is if they disagreed with the owners bumper stickers. So I think it’s safe to say that there was no discrimination.*
Given that most cities have areas with varying proportions of people of different ethnicities, yeah it can be discriminatory. They just target certain neighborhoods and know that those are far more likely to be people of a certain background. Not saying they did or didn’t do it here, but that’s how they can do things like that.
There also general differences in the types of infrastructure that could also correlate.
Higher income areas often have larger land plots, and while there may be plenty of nice sidewalks, crosswalks would likely be fewer and far between, so there would be less infrastructure affected by this.
There are a lot of ways discrimination can be seen de despite it not being a factor. Although discrimination via other factors obviously results in those differences in the first place. Lots of correlation without direct causation when it comes to things like this specifically.
Well it could also depend on area, the type of car, the officer knows who owns the car. Discrimination can be subtle and unconscious a lot of the time.
It would be interesting to see a map with where the ticked offense took place with demographic data. There is. Fair chance that minorities get the short end on this.
about 6.1 meters
Headline! Cops Start Doing Their Job! News at 11!
