New York

[lstone19]

NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.

As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.

[kalvado]

Tons of light trucks (and vans, for that matter) have commercial plates but are used as personal cars. I highly doubt that's ever stopped any owner of any such vehicle from driving it on a NY parkway.

There were some stories on this very site - probably in this very thread - about people ticketed for pizza delivery in their personal car on a parkway as well as about buziness owner driving in their own car without any marks, but with stack of business printed material on the back seat...

UPD:

I mean, my dad's stepfather was pulled over on one of the parkways in the 80s for having a box of catalogs for his used book store on the back seat. Using the parkway for commercial purposes. So if they're gonna be that strict, they can pull over anyone delivering anything.

[seicer]

And by definition of an RV - does this include Ford Transits used as a camper? Or people towing a RV? Or just those full drivable models? This law is so open to interpretation that I'm sure it's been challenged before. It really needs to be restricted upon height/width and weight.

[empirestate]

This would be a really big BGS:

(a) bicycles;
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.

Yeah, it should be pretty noticeable, and so presumably get the point across!

Of course, you could also (in this imaginary exercise) switch it up and have different vehicles mentioned on different signs: trucks and RVs on one, mopeds and snowmobiles on another, plumbers' vans and school buses on a third, etc. The thought experiment is merely whether plumbers tend to drive their vans on the parkways because they simply don't realize they mustn't–and if so, is that because there are signs saying who mustn't, that doesn't include plumbers' vans? Do they take the absence of evidence as evidence of absence?

[Alps]

NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.

As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.

I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.

[Rothman]

NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.

As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.

I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.

Wonder how other states handle NY's junior DLs.  Probably illegal to drive with them.

I hate that set up.  Just doesn't make sense to me to restrict kids like that.

[dgolub]

• A road test area (not sure how this can be enforced)

When you're in a road test area, there are signs telling you so and saying that practicing there is prohibited.

[cockroachking]

• A road test area (not sure how this can be enforced)

When you're in a road test area, there are signs telling you so and saying that practicing there is prohibited.

The Fishkill test site only has this measly little blue sign at the start point. I never knew where people actually went from there until I did it myself.

[Flyer78]

Similar to where I was tested many years ago in Syracuse. I do recall the "Brownie" (a likely now retired term for the tester, wearing a drab brown uniform) yelling to someone parallel parking on the route.  It is in the manual that you can't practice on the test route for your area. For me, this was the mid-'90s, it was the same course my older siblings used; and seems similar to this day.

Now living in the Philly burbs, there is a PennDOT testing site in a nearby mall, and apparently there is no (or no enforced?) prohibition on taking practice rounds on the course. This adds to the fun of driving in the center's parking lot, because you never know if the person ignoring rights-of-way is a new driver, or just unskilled.

[webny99]

NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.

As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.

I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.

Wonder how other states handle NY's junior DLs.  Probably illegal to drive with them.

I was told I couldn't drive in other states or Canada until I had my full license, but it probably depends on the state.

[lstone19]

NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.

As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.

I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.

Wonder how other states handle NY's junior DLs.  Probably illegal to drive with them.

I was told I couldn't drive in other states or Canada until I had my full license, but it probably depends on the state.

Keep in mind I was talking about almost 50 years ago. There was no such thing as junior licenses back then (at least in NJ although 17 was the driving age there).


iPhone

[empirestate]

I hate that set up.  Just doesn't make sense to me to restrict kids like that.

Unless you're also going to restrict the adults that are just as bad!

[baugh17]

• A road test area (not sure how this can be enforced)

When you're in a road test area, there are signs telling you so and saying that practicing there is prohibited.

The Fishkill test site only has this measly little blue sign at the start point. I never knew where people actually went from there until I did it myself.

Other NYSDMV offices seem to have a similar setup.  Just a sign at the starting point...was the case in Canandaigua when I took my road test way back when...Still the case in Utica.

At least they warn you in North Tonawanda...  http://www.newyorkroutes.net/images/misc/roadtest.jpg

[Roadgeek Adam]

They warn you and it's near the NT Police station in case you crash.

[Alps]

NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.

As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.

I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.

Wonder how other states handle NY's junior DLs.  Probably illegal to drive with them.

I was told I couldn't drive in other states or Canada until I had my full license, but it probably depends on the state.

Keep in mind I was talking about almost 50 years ago. There was no such thing as junior licenses back then (at least in NJ although 17 was the driving age there).


iPhone

Yeah me too. Junior License is not something I know of. Provisional License is what NJ now has from 17-18 so I assume that has restrictions too.

[D-Dey65]

Couldn't get a picture, but I-84 at the state borders and on either side of the Taconic Parkway exit has new signs warning of low bridges. Standard black text on white background stating something to the effect of "No Trucks, Trailers, RVs on Parkways" with a black text on yellow banner below saying "Low Bridges". These have been put up within the last month, I assume in response to all the recent bridge strikes.

I'll have to keep an eye out for these. As an incidental observation, this is a non-exhaustive list of prohibited vehicles on the parkways (and of reasons for the prohibition). It is probably no coincidence that the unmentioned vehicles and reasons coincide with those less known by many motorists.

I'd like to see those too. I was recently looking on the CDOT's Merritt Parkway website, and I found a slightly more elaborate version of their truck restrictions site.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Commissions/STC/Connecticut-Parkways

[empirestate]

I'd like to see those too. I was recently looking on the CDOT's Merritt Parkway website, and I found a slightly more elaborate version of their truck restrictions site.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Commissions/STC/Connecticut-Parkways

Sort of a mirror case to the New York question–not ALL passenger vehicles are permitted, surely (or are they?), but do some people mentally make that leap in CT?

[kalvado]

I'd like to see those too. I was recently looking on the CDOT's Merritt Parkway website, and I found a slightly more elaborate version of their truck restrictions site.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Commissions/STC/Connecticut-Parkways
( image removed )

Sort of a mirror case to the New York question–not ALL passenger vehicles are permitted, surely (or are they?), but do some people mentally make that leap in CT?

This is the image from what looks like as NYSDOT official material:

As for the law,

Nonrestricted vehicles, except taxicabs and vehicles owned and operated by governmental agencies, having any name, insignia or sign painted or displayed thereon are prohibited within the parkway system, except for identification purposes

So contractors using cars (I just saw "the maids" cleaning services well-decorated one) would not be allowed.

[empirestate]

As for the law,

Nonrestricted vehicles, except taxicabs and vehicles owned and operated by governmental agencies, having any name, insignia or sign painted or displayed thereon are prohibited within the parkway system, except for identification purposes

So contractors using cars (I just saw "the maids" cleaning services well-decorated one) would not be allowed.

Yeah, that's probably the most common violation, by far. (However, there is a carve-out for name and address only, not exceeding a certain size lettering.)

If there were (and always had been) giant signs saying "No cars with your business name on them", would these violations almost completely disappear? Or would most of the same people use the parkways anyway, because they know they won't strike any bridges?

[kalvado]

As for the law,

Nonrestricted vehicles, except taxicabs and vehicles owned and operated by governmental agencies, having any name, insignia or sign painted or displayed thereon are prohibited within the parkway system, except for identification purposes

So contractors using cars (I just saw "the maids" cleaning services well-decorated one) would not be allowed.

Yeah, that's probably the most common violation, by far. (However, there is a carve-out for name and address only, not exceeding a certain size lettering.)

If there were (and always had been) giant signs saying "No cars with your business name on them", would these violations almost completely disappear? Or would most of the same people use the parkways anyway, because they know they won't strike any bridges?

A better question is if that should be a violation to begin with. Just looking at the roads around me, small commercial trucks and cars are only a small %% of traffic. I am not one of those with aesthetic hypertrophy, and don't get insulted whith minor things like cables in the air or business signage on cars (and only mildly irritated with piss-yellow NY license plates).
If purely recreational nature of parkways needs to be enforced, commute and shopping trips should be banned as well. As they are not, I see no point in focusing on business name stickers. 

[empirestate]

A better question is if that should be a violation to begin with. Just looking at the roads around me, small commercial trucks and cars are only a small %% of traffic. I am not one of those with aesthetic hypertrophy, and don't get insulted whith minor things like cables in the air or business signage on cars (and only mildly irritated with piss-yellow NY license plates).
If purely recreational nature of parkways needs to be enforced, commute and shopping trips should be banned as well. As they are not, I see no point in focusing on business name stickers. 

I wouldn't consider that question better than mine, as it has a wholly different purpose. Yours goes into what the policy is or should be, whereas mine is an observation/exploration of information and messaging (and I guess human behavior).

To me the better option would be to simply have both conversations, rather than supplant one with the other.

[kalvado]

A better question is if that should be a violation to begin with. Just looking at the roads around me, small commercial trucks and cars are only a small %% of traffic. I am not one of those with aesthetic hypertrophy, and don't get insulted whith minor things like cables in the air or business signage on cars (and only mildly irritated with piss-yellow NY license plates).
If purely recreational nature of parkways needs to be enforced, commute and shopping trips should be banned as well. As they are not, I see no point in focusing on business name stickers. 

I wouldn't consider that question better than mine, as it has a wholly different purpose. Yours goes into what the policy is or should be, whereas mine is an observation/exploration of information and messaging (and I guess human behavior).

To me the better option would be to simply have both conversations, rather than supplant one with the other.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suppressing any conversations, and actual tickets handed out do deserve attention.
My strong feeling, though, is that original policy IS wrong, and that is a bigger issue - hence "better question". It  doesn't cancel "would I get a ticket?" one. I am sorry if my choice of words is  confusing...

[empirestate]

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suppressing any conversations, and actual tickets handed out do deserve attention.
My strong feeling, though, is that original policy IS wrong, and that is a bigger issue - hence "better question". It  doesn't cancel "would I get a ticket?" one. I am sorry if my choice of words is  confusing...

No, it's probably me–I get this all the time. I often mention some little observation that's interesting to me, and it often gets mistaken for something I consider important. Generally, I don't use the internet for important stuff, but I know a lot of people do so that might be why.

Anyhoo, the question isn't about tickets, it's just whether people would tend to do a certain thing if the signs were different. Do people drive cars with business names on the parkway simply because there are no giant signs saying "no cars with your business name on it"? Do they think that only large vehicles are prohibited, because those are the only ones mentioned on signs–in other words, do they mistakenly think that the signs contain a complete list of prohibited vehicles, and that anything not mentioned is therefore permitted?

[roadman65]

Is there a specific reason why the rim of the Kenisco Dam in White Plains is not open to motor vehicles?  I noticed that bicycles and pedestrians are only allowed to use the once public road between NY 22 and the west side of the reservoir and even GSV has no caption of it other than submitted still photos at both sides of the dam.

[vdeane]

Is there a specific reason why the rim of the Kenisco Dam in White Plains is not open to motor vehicles?  I noticed that bicycles and pedestrians are only allowed to use the once public road between NY 22 and the west side of the reservoir and even GSV has no caption of it other than submitted still photos at both sides of the dam.

I believe it has to do with 9/11 security concerns.