Interceptor wrote: » You have to have suspected that it was a possibility that you'd get done? Its a major pain the nads alright - what would you have done if you'd got there as he was starting to write the ticket.... I can't see a whole lot wrong with where you parked, you just crossed the wrong degenerate jobsworth. Pay the fine, get on with your life in the knowledge that bikes are still the best way to get around. <EDIT> Are there dedicated bike parking spaces anywhere near where you parked? I wonder if you appealed it to the council on the basis that you had no other option... 'cptr
gipi wrote: » You may not be allowed to park in a car parking space either -for example, Dublin City Council's parking bye-laws specifically state that bikes can't park in a pay car parking space....(see paragraph 13)http://www.dublincity.ie/RoadsandTraffic/Parking/Documents/Dublin_City_Council_Parking_Control_Bye-Laws_2011.pdf So we can't park on the pavement, we can't take up a pay parking space, there are no dedicated bike spaces.....
Iwannahurl wrote: » I hate footpath parking, but in the highly unlikely event that I was a traffic warden I wouldn't be making you my priority target, especially if there are other excessive restrictions such as lack of proper motorbike parking (a common problem for cyclists too) and prohibitions on using P&D spaces as one poster mentioned. In terms of the letter of the law, the diligence of the particular Traffic Warden, and hazards encountered by vision-impaired pedestrians especially, it's hard to argue against getting a ticket I suppose.
jimmyendless wrote: » Ya, that's what I'm doing, printed off the pics there. Make them earn the 40e.
Interceptor wrote: » Are there dedicated bike parking spaces anywhere near where you parked? I wonder if you appealed it to the council on the basis that you had no other option... 'cptr
Shhh wrote: » Good stuff, post when you get a result!
UDP wrote: » Cant believe people think the OP was hard by here and firing abuse at a traffic warden who was just doing his job properly. You broke the law you got done. What if you bike had fallen over and landed on a pedestrian? - it doesn't look like it is at a great angle there. What about those of poor sight who shouldn't have to worry about motor bikes before they get to the edge of the path? - its bad enough that they have to worry about trees and bins etc but at least they are there the whole time - heavy motorised vehicles are a different kettle of fish. what about oil and other possible leaks ending up on the path? Im sure there are many other reasons too when grouped together end up as a good argument for keeing motorised vehicles off of footpaths. Even without the reasons above what the OP did was against the law and thus the fine was correct to be issued. I commend the parken warden for actually applying the law. Just because the law is not being correctly applied elsewhere doesn't mean it shouldn't be applied properly here. There is no need for the abuse being hurdled at a Traffic Warden who was just doing his job and actually applying the law. There is one thing petitioning to the council for spaces to be provided but that has nothing to do with the Traffic Warden here who is just doing his job and is no reason for abuse.
UDP wrote: » firing abuse at a traffic warden ..... good argument for keeing motorised vehicles off of footpaths..... the fine was correct.....I commend the parken warden ....... no need for the abuse being hurdled at a Traffic Warden ......nothing to do with the Traffic Warden ...... no reason for abuse.
Paparazzo wrote: » Ah yes "I vas just following orders". didn't work in Nuremburg, and it won't work in Ballincollig. (godwined!) Common sense has to be used, the warden didn't, hence the anger. Bikes don't fall over, they don't leak oil unless there's something wrong with it, the angle it's at is perfect (you obviously don't have a clue about what you're talking about), if you have bad sight you'll cross at a ped crossing, not here, it's not a "heavy motorised vehicle". Maybe you could list some of the "many good reasons" because so far you haven't given one.