Cuddlesworth wrote: » The traffic warden is employed by the council. As I said before, its best practice across the country to ignore bikes parked on pavements as long as they are not impeding anybody. The wardens and councils are obviously fine with this as otherwise they could issue a couple of thousand tickets a day in Dublin alone. The warden has been targeted as its not a council policy to do this, hence it was his decision.
Paparazzo wrote: » Hey, just because all your points are completely stupid, and they're being pointed out as stupid, doesn't equal a "hissy fit"!
Paparazzo wrote: » The bike might fall on someone!! And someone who enforces the law shouldn't use common sense? Another lol! Your 2 opinions there are so idiotic I'm not sure if you're trolling, you can't genuinely believe them? "The bike might leak"! lol! Suppose an old person might walk past and stand in the oil and fall? Keep your "many reasons" coming, these are great!
UDP wrote: » It is not illegal for a push bike to park on a street as it is not mechanically propelled.
UDP wrote: » See thats my problem with what people are saying here. They are suggesting that the Traffic Warden here was wrong and there has been a lot of abuse directed at him. The Traffic Warden was 100% correct here but yet he is a "c'unt", "Bastid", "moronic", "degenerate jobsworth", "pr1ck", "asshole", Nazi. Why should he get a bollocking? If anything it is the council that need to ensure that spaces are provided for bikes so the anger should be directed towards them.
UDP wrote: » There was no gray area here for "common sense" to be applied. The bike was clearly on the path it wasn't half on it or on an unofficial path. Ok, I guess there is never anything wrong with Motor Bikes? Nice to know they never leak and they never fall over and that they are light so would never injure anyone. Glad to know there are absolutes in this regard. End of the day they are heavy machinery on a pedestrian path which is not allowed by law thus the Traffic Warden did his job correctly so there is no need for people to direct abuse at him. If everyone followed the law the country would be a better place instead of throwing hissy fits when the law is applied correctly.
Cuddlesworth wrote: » If for nothing else they will either have to admin their hypocrisy or the traffic warden will get a bollocking.
maameeo wrote: » is it actually illegal for a bike to park on a path? i didnt think it was as long as it wasnt obstructing anyone.
ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997 wrote: (2) A vehicle shall not be parked— ( a ) on that side of a section of roadway along the edge of which traffic sign number RRM 008 [double yellow lines] has been provided; ( b ) on a section of roadway where traffic sign number RUS 019 [No Parking sign] has been provided, during the period indicated on the information plate accompanying such traffic sign; ( c ) within 5 metres of a road junction; ( d ) on a section of roadway with less than 3 traffic lanes and where traffic sign number RRM 001 [continuous white line] has been provided; ( e ) on a section of roadway where traffic sign number RUS 020, in association with RRM 029 [appointed stand], has been placed to indicate that an appointed stand has been provided; ( f ) in any place, position or manner that will result in the vehicle obstructing, delaying or interfering with the entrance to or exit from a fire brigade station, an ambulance station or a Garda station; ( g ) in any place, position or manner that will result in the vehicle obstructing an entrance or an exit for vehicles to or from a premises, save with the consent of the occupier of such premises; ( h ) within 15 metres (on the approach side) or 5 metres (on the side other than the approach side) of a section of roadway where any of the following traffic signs have been provided— (i) traffic sign number RPC 001 [Pedestrian Crossing]; (ii) traffic sign number RPC 002 [Pedestrian Crossing Complex]; or (iii) traffic sign numbers RTS 00I, RTS 002, RTS 003 or RTS 004 [traffic lights];( i ) on a footway, a grass margin or a median strip; ( j ) on a part of a roadway which is a casual trading area, during hours of trading, unless the vehicle is for the time being in use for the purposes of casual trading; ( k ) in a manner in which it will interfere with the normal flow of traffic or which obstructs or endangers other traffic; ( l ) where traffic sign RUS 031 [bus stop] or RRM 030 [stopping place or stand] has been provided unless the vehicle is an omnibus.
maameeo wrote: » people would complain if we started taking up car park spaces with bikes, cant win either way.
maameeo wrote: » the op parked on the path for 10mins, he provided pictures that show it wasnt obstructing anyone, ive seen bikes parked in all sorts of places in dublin and the gardai wouldnt bat an eyelid. its quite obvious that the traffic warden either had a bee up his bum that day or doesnt like bikes.
maameeo wrote: » if a push bike was in the same place nothing would be said and there is more chance of a pushbike falling over then a motorbike!
Kintarō Hattori wrote: » Can anyone explain to me where you're supposed to park? I'm really surprised. I didn't know something as stupid as that existed.
Kintarō Hattori wrote: » I didn't know something as stupid as that existed.
UDP wrote: » Yes, I must be a traffic warden :rolleyes:
Interceptor wrote: » Your brown and yellow hat slipped over to the side there lad. Why are you even in here?
Interceptor wrote: » The rules of this site prevent me from suggesting you move back to your own country,
Interceptor wrote: » but I suspect you don't own a bike and you do own a little handheld ticket printer.
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.....
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.
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.
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.
Shhh wrote: » Good stuff, post when you get a result!
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
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.
