My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: WASHINGTON
OK - This seems relatively petty from a financial standpoint, but I also think the signage is a junkshow and a trap for well-meaning people so I thought I'd ask. Please see linked video.
In the video, I was parked in front of the blue car (that also got a ticket, but was there prior to my arrival without a ticket). It is my opinion that the first sign to the north (The bus stop is south of the parking area in question) is logically taken to indicate that there no parking between there and the driveway. on the other side of the driveway (a large one, providing entry to a commercial lot), we clearly assumed that parking was fine; a logic reinforced by the other "no parking" sign to the south in the bus area. I found nothing in the RCW specific to the "domain of inclusion" for such signs, so I'm not sure if I'm just bitter or have a legitimate gripe to take this to traffic court. For the $45, it's just a donation of my time on behalf of everyone else who will get into the same trap, so I'd rather just pay it if it's murky (though I will write to someone about it.) Something tells me the arrow on the first sign must have a legally defined area that it affects, and that's where the truth lies.
Thanks in advance! This is a great resource.
OK - This seems relatively petty from a financial standpoint, but I also think the signage is a junkshow and a trap for well-meaning people so I thought I'd ask. Please see linked video.
In the video, I was parked in front of the blue car (that also got a ticket, but was there prior to my arrival without a ticket). It is my opinion that the first sign to the north (The bus stop is south of the parking area in question) is logically taken to indicate that there no parking between there and the driveway. on the other side of the driveway (a large one, providing entry to a commercial lot), we clearly assumed that parking was fine; a logic reinforced by the other "no parking" sign to the south in the bus area. I found nothing in the RCW specific to the "domain of inclusion" for such signs, so I'm not sure if I'm just bitter or have a legitimate gripe to take this to traffic court. For the $45, it's just a donation of my time on behalf of everyone else who will get into the same trap, so I'd rather just pay it if it's murky (though I will write to someone about it.) Something tells me the arrow on the first sign must have a legally defined area that it affects, and that's where the truth lies.
Thanks in advance! This is a great resource.
Parking Violations: Inadequately Marked "No Parking" Area
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire