Trafic Code question Ever here of this??? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

jplinville · #31 12-09-2012, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

The boys mother went to the court house the next day and was told that the ticket stands and that the fine of $360 dollars must be paid. They can fight it after ward if they want. Sounds like a city scam to me.

The part that I don't get is how the city can say that a road paid for and maintained with city tax dollars cannot be traveled on by tax payers. That makes no sense to me.

It's a matter of public safety, especially of the neighborhood has many young kids. Most suburban areas have laws preventing neighborhoods from becoming thoroughfares. Kids tend to play ball in the streets...I know we did when I was growing up in suburbia. Our city didn't allow neighborhoods to become high traffic areas...and they ticketed those they could, when they could, whenever people called and complained.

Most neighborhood roadways aren't constructed to handle the constant heavy traffic that the main roads are designed for. Adding heavy traffic to road beds that aren't designed for it will prematurely wear the road out, causing higher costs for street maintenance.

Brian Carlton · #32 12-09-2012, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

The fact that a community can prevent people from driving down a public road is just insane.

If you have enough money, you don't even need a "community". Those with significant wealth get any kind of law they need in local communities. It's a fact of life with the corruption in this country.

In your specific case, an entire voting block was, apparently, significant enough to get another law passed so that some DB politician can get reelected. It doesn't matter if the law is heavily biased in favor of a specific group.

spdrun · #33 12-09-2012, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

The street that he cut through on apparently has a small sign that says you cannot cut though.

It would be a great shame if the sign went missing and pics to that effect were submitted to the court. Let them prove it existed at the time and was visible.

Also, perhaps the sign is obscured by foliage at the right viewing angle. Photo time!

t walgamuth · #34 12-09-2012, 11:22 AM

Stealing the sign sounds like a bad idea.

spdrun · #35 12-09-2012, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Stealing the sign sounds like a bad idea.

Who says anything about stealing it? It could be hit by a truck trying to parallel park and bent beyond recognition.

davidmash · #36 12-09-2012, 11:41 AM

I do not think it is a public safety issue. Were that the case why not have these in all neighborhoods? I have lived around schools, driven by schools and I currently live down the street from one and I have never even seen a neighborhood which was closed off from traffic. I have seen no parking signs to prevent make sure the residents have paring for their own cars but never any signs saying that you cannot pass through.

I believe this has more to do with what BC mentioned. This is a matter of influence of a neighborhood and and obscene tax by the the city.

The sign issue is one thing, but to make the ticket cost $360 is obscene. That is less than most moving violations and those can actually hurt someone.

retmil46 · #37 12-09-2012, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

If you have enough money, you don't even need a "community". Those with significant wealth get any kind of law they need in local communities. It's a fact of life with the corruption in this country.

In your specific case, an entire voting block was, apparently, significant enough to get another law passed so that some DB politician can get reelected. It doesn't matter if the law is heavily biased in favor of a specific group.

Similar situation a few years back in this area, with a local high-end community - they managed to get it codified into a local ordinance, that local kids were not allowed to even WALK thru their community on the sidewalks, on their way to and from a neighboring school - even if said kids actually resided inside the community. The spokesperson for the community displayed an attitude similar to what I saw in the Norfolk area years ago - "sailors and dogs keep off the grass" - except it was directed towards other people's children.

spdrun · #38 12-09-2012, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Similar situation a few years back in this area, with a local high-end community - they managed to get it codified into a local ordinance, that local kids were not allowed to even WALK thru their community on the sidewalks, on their way to and from a neighboring school - even if said kids actually resided inside the community. The spokesperson for the community displayed an attitude similar to what I saw in the Norfolk area years ago - "sailors and dogs keep off the grass" - except it was directed towards other people's children.

A neighborhood should be allowed to do that when they pay for all of their own road maintenance via HOA dues. Till then, if people pay taxes for the streets, they should be entitled to use them.

(And the "damage to pavement" and "risk of hitting a kid" arguments don't apply to kids walking, obviously.)

retmil46 · #39 12-09-2012, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

A neighborhood should be allowed to do that when they pay for all of their own road maintenance via HOA dues. Till then, if people pay taxes for the streets, they should be entitled to use them.

(And the "damage to pavement" and "risk of hitting a kid" arguments don't apply to kids walking, obviously.)

It was couched in terms of "maintaining peace and quiet for our older residents" and "preventing property damage by undesireables".

What was left unsaid, was that the attitude of many in that community, is that the term "undesireable" included anyone that was a native of the area and/or didn't speak with an accent from north of the Mason-Dixon line.

TwitchKitty · #40 12-09-2012, 01:03 PM

Moral questions like these that involve undesirable teenagers need a standard by which they are judged. I just ask myself:

What would George Zimmerman do?

jplinville · #41 12-09-2012, 01:20 PM

My neighborhood is trying to get the borough to ban traffic from flying through our area due to the narrow streets. Most of the streets in this neighborhood are one way, and there are very, very few driveways...I am the only one in 4 blocks that has one. Since everyone parks on the streets, it makes them that much more narrow.

My street seems to be the one everyone wants to drive on, since it's the shortest line from point A to point B. Since moving here, my neighbor has had to replace his driver's side mirror 3 times, because of passing traffic hitting it.

According to the last council meeting, it looks like we'll be getting signage in the Spring, directing drivers to other roads to get through here, or risk a fine from the borough.

cullennewsom · #42 12-09-2012, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

It's a matter of public safety, especially of the neighborhood has many young kids. Most suburban areas have laws preventing neighborhoods from becoming thoroughfares. Kids tend to play ball in the streets...I know we did when I was growing up in suburbia. Our city didn't allow neighborhoods to become high traffic areas...and they ticketed those they could, when they could, whenever people called and complained.

Most neighborhood roadways aren't constructed to handle the constant heavy traffic that the main roads are designed for. Adding heavy traffic to road beds that aren't designed for it will prematurely wear the road out, causing higher costs for street maintenance.

Everybody understands why a neighborhood would want to do such a thing. He's looking for the legal principle that allows a small group of people to appropriate a public asset for their own private use.

cullennewsom · #43 12-09-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

A neighborhood should be allowed to do that when they pay for all of their own road maintenance via HOA dues. Till then, if people pay taxes for the streets, they should be entitled to use them.

(And the "damage to pavement" and "risk of hitting a kid" arguments don't apply to kids walking, obviously.)

Agree, If a neighborhood wants a private road, they should raise the money and purchase one, and maintain it.

TnBob · #44 12-09-2012, 06:32 PM

I wonder if your local Chan XX Investigative reporters might have interest ?

JamesDean · #45 12-10-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I got some more info. The boy was not speeding, no failure to yield no moving violation of any kind. The street that he cut through on apparently has a small sign that says you cannot cut though. This is a public road paid for by tax payer money but apparently in TX if you get enough people to complain that people from the school across the street are cutting through your neighborhood you can get a sign put up to prevent people from driving on a public road and you will get a ticket for $369.

My ticket for driving 15mph over the limit was only $160 and I could get deferred adjudication for the ticket with no points. In Mansfield you must pay this ticket in full and you can try to fight it afterwards. The kid will have to go to drivers ed to prevent the points from going on his record. The folks are pretty well off so they are going to get a lawyer and see if they can fight it.

I think that is a complete BS ticket. The fact that a community can prevent people from driving down a public road is just insane. You moved near a school, what did you think was going to happen?

!

There is one of these near me. But I don't know/think its official. Its a development right above mine. Mine is not gated but it only has one entrance/exit. So there is no point using it as a cut through.

On the development above mine there are two signs attached to speed limits signs that say: "THIS IS NOT A CUT THROUGH".

I've said BS for years. My tax money paid for this I am going to use it. And I do. As often as I can.