Here's something I posted about on m.t.r. a while back, but I'm re-posting it here because it came up again the other day, and I think I may be in trouble with the law. ;-)
I got off NY 17 westbound at Wurtsboro and headed north on Us 209 into the village, where I gassed up at the Stewart's on the corner of 209 and Sullivan St. To get back onto NY 17 westbound, I went west on Sullivan St. (CR 172) and used the freeway entrance west of the village.
As soon as you turn onto Sullivan from 209, there's a "No Thru Traffic" sign posted. It's black-on-white and rectangular, so presumably my compliance with its message is mandatory. Problem is, I don't know whether I was thru traffic or not. :confused: I did go "thru" the village. I did pass the sign only once–I didn't have to turn around and pass it going the other way–so I did find a way "thru", and of course the road is passable for many miles in either direction (it's old NY 17).
Am I OK because I got back on 17, rather than going "thru" to the next town? Or was I OK because I didn't come from the east on Sullivan St., so I wasn't going fully "thru" on it? Assuming this sign was posted by the village of Wurtsboro, was I OK until I reached the village line, at which point I should have turned back? But then why does the highway cross the village line in the first place if that's not allowed?
As you can see, I've always had trouble with the logic of this sign, wherever it's posted. Of course I know full well that it's meant to mean "We'd prefer you didn't pass through town on this surface street instead of on the freeway," but since it's a regulatory sign that requires my compliance, I'm always unsure of what action I'm theoretically supposed to take, or not take, to avoid becoming thru traffic. What's more, there's a No Thru Traffic sign on the street that I live on, so I need to know at what point I can be officially and justifiably annoyed at individual motorists who violate it, so I can practice being an old guy on the sidewalk who shakes his fist at passing cars. :biggrin:
This would be a lot easier to envision if you had a picture of the sign. I zoomed in using Google Street View but couldn't see anything. Bing doesn't have any images there.
Where on Sullivan is the sign posted? The reason I wonder is that I've seen black-on-white "No Thru Traffic" signs posted by gas station owners in such a way that they might appear to be referring to the main street but in fact they're telling people not to pull the "Esso Asso" move where you drive through the gas station to avoid stopping at the red light. Just based on looking at the map of the area that seems more plausible than the idea that they're trying to restrict the entire street.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 16, 2012, 11:15:55 AM
This would be a lot easier to envision if you had a picture of the sign. I zoomed in using Google Street View but couldn't see anything. Bing doesn't have any images there.
Where on Sullivan is the sign posted? The reason I wonder is that I've seen black-on-white "No Thru Traffic" signs posted by gas station owners in such a way that they might appear to be referring to the main street but in fact they're telling people not to pull the "Esso Asso" move where you drive through the gas station to avoid stopping at the red light. Just based on looking at the map of the area that seems more plausible than the idea that they're trying to restrict the entire street.
Yeah, I couldn't find the sign on Street View either; it must be new. It's posted immediately west of the gas station exit on Sullivan, such that I could read the sign from the gas pump. I don't think it referred to the gas station cut-thru move, since the pump island and driveway configuration is really too crowded for that to be convenient. And certainly, the one by my home can only be referring to the street itself, since there's no gas station there.
For what it's worth, although this topic is mostly just a mind game to me, a quick Google search shows me that it's actually an important question for a lot of people who have gotten tickets for it and so forth. Who knows, some day it might become more than just a curiosity of logic for me as well!
Quote from: empirestate on October 16, 2012, 11:03:36 AM
because it came up again the other day, and I think I may be in trouble with the law. ;-)
Quote from: Alice's Restaurant
And there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there. Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father rapers! Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me! And they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the bench next to me. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean 'n' ugly 'n' nasty 'n' horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me and said, "Kid, whad'ya get?" I said, "I didn't get nothing, I had to pay $50 and pick up the garbage." He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?" And I said, "Littering." And they all moved away from me on the bench
there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things.
My guess is that (unlike NO THRU TRUCKS signs), these are unenforceable, and as such their use ought to be proscribed by the MUTCD on public streets and roads.
These signs were once common along Md. 185 (Connecticut Avenue) in Chevy Chase, but many of them seem to have gone away. I found one on GSV at Woodbine Street (here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=town+of+chevy+chase,+md&hl=en&ll=38.984594,-77.077229&spn=0.073256,0.098534&safe=off&hnear=Chevy+Chase,+Montgomery,+Maryland&gl=us&t=h&z=13&layer=c&cbll=38.984594,-77.077229&panoid=cVlm46awHucfwLN-oubXRw&cbp=12,309.95,,0,13.08)), where the DO NOT ENTER signs are effective from 7:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. The DO NOT ENTER on the right side of the street shows the hours when DO NOT ENTER is in effect, the one on the left has a NO THRU TRAFFIC instead.
The municipalities of Chevy Chase (there are several of them) have their own police force, and I am pretty certain that they will enforce the DO NOT ENTER sign, but I don't think they can do anything about someone violating the NO THRU TRAFFIC sign (for one thing, what does it really mean?).
It doesn't really answer the technical (legal?) aspects of your situation... but I'd say you're good since you bought gas in their village. Drive that shit. If they don't like it, take your business elsewhere next time!
If the Google Street View van can drive past these signs, so can roadgeeks seeing the roads.
For the record, Florida says these are unenforceable because they aren't in the MUTCD: http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C
Quote from: Mr_Northside on October 16, 2012, 02:43:49 PM
It doesn't really answer the technical (legal?) aspects of your situation... but I'd say you're good since you bought gas in their village. Drive that shit. If they don't like it, take your business elsewhere next time!
Indeed, I did conduct business there, so that makes me "local" traffic instead of "thru" which is the implicit distinction. But what if I hadn't? What if a cop had been following me, thinking to himself, "As soon as this guy does ____, I'll pull him over because he will have become thru traffic and violated that sign."? What's in the blank? Crossed the village line? Turned onto NY 17? Not turned onto NY 17? Would it be different if I had gotten back on NY 17 at the same exit where I got off, making me out-and-back traffic instead of thru?
Quote from: NE2 on October 16, 2012, 04:34:51 PM
If the Google Street View van can drive past these signs, so can roadgeeks seeing the roads.
Presuming the intent of the sign is to prohibit traffic without any business in the village, that begs the question: what is business? For commercial vehicles it's straightforward: a delivery truck makes a delivery, or it doesn't. But for private motorists, what counts? Sightseeing? Roadgeeking? Seeing if there's a motel in town for next month's trip? If cited for not having business, how on earth do you produce that burden of proof?
Quote from: NE2 on October 16, 2012, 04:34:51 PM
For the record, Florida says these are unenforceable because they aren't in the MUTCD: http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C
"No Thru Street" is one word different from "No Thru Traffic"; would that make any difference? If a municipality posts "No Thru Street" on a street that actually does pass through, does it suffer any penalty for lying via signage?
Quote from: empirestate on October 17, 2012, 11:02:12 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 16, 2012, 04:34:51 PM
For the record, Florida says these are unenforceable because they aren't in the MUTCD: http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C
"No Thru Street" is one word different from "No Thru Traffic"; would that make any difference?
Neither is in the MUTCD, so the legal opinion applies equally to both.
Quote from: empirestate on October 17, 2012, 11:02:12 AM
Presuming the intent of the sign is to prohibit traffic without any business in the village, that begs the question: what is business? For commercial vehicles it's straightforward: a delivery truck makes a delivery, or it doesn't. But for private motorists, what counts? Sightseeing? Roadgeeking? Seeing if there's a motel in town for next month's trip? If cited for not having business, how on earth do you produce that burden of proof?
Exactly why I doubt anyone would even bother to attempt serious enforcement of this–a cop doesn't want to have to explain his interpretation of this to a judge and probably end up having the case thrown out anyway.
indeed, for me driving the old alignment would be a legitimate business application. I'd see if there were any old signs, which I can then use to further my knowledge of signage practices, allowing me to be more effective in my sales.
I wouldn't have to do anything that would appear different from the actions of a "through" motorist. I'd drive through, and look. that is it.
I plan to be driving all of old NY 17 early next year, which will undoubtedly take me past the sign. I will be "Thru Traffic" in that sense, because I will be following a continuous route through town without stopping. My guess, though, is that it's only enforced when you have a backup on 17 and traffic wants to try to use the old road to cut around it.
Quote from: Steve on October 20, 2012, 02:25:15 PM
My guess, though, is that it's only enforced when you have a backup on 17 and traffic wants to try to use the old road to cut around it.
Which begs the question: How is it even enforceable at those times?
Quote from: kphoger on October 20, 2012, 02:52:33 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 20, 2012, 02:25:15 PM
My guess, though, is that it's only enforced when you have a backup on 17 and traffic wants to try to use the old road to cut around it.
Which begs the question: How is it even enforceable at those times?
Local ordinance?
Quote from: Steve on October 20, 2012, 03:02:55 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 20, 2012, 02:52:33 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 20, 2012, 02:25:15 PM
My guess, though, is that it's only enforced when you have a backup on 17 and traffic wants to try to use the old road to cut around it.
Which begs the question: How is it even enforceable at those times?
Local ordinance?
My guess is that's not far from the truth. Local municipalities do have the power to designate "through highways" within their borders (even if it's somebody else's road, such as the state, though that's not the case here). They may simply have not designated old NY 17 as such a route, so that more restrictive traffic ordinances apply to it, the kind that would normally apply only to side streets. Probably, in effect, commercial traffic is banned from the road, unless it has a specific destination along it. But I don't know why they wouldn't use the usual "No Trucks Except Local Deliveries" sign for that.
Quote from: Steve on October 20, 2012, 03:02:55 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 20, 2012, 02:52:33 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 20, 2012, 02:25:15 PM
My guess, though, is that it's only enforced when you have a backup on 17 and traffic wants to try to use the old road to cut around it.
Which begs the question: How is it even enforceable at those times?
Local ordinance?
Still strikes me as unenforceable. As long as traffic follows the limit, stops at stop signs/signals, etc, it is unenforceable. We have similar signs around here, but they are on a black on yellow diamond.
Presumably if a cop follows you from one end of the road to the other and you don't stop, they could demonstrate that you had used the road as a "through" road and could stop you then.
Still, a lot of effort for little gain. Easier to just run radar.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 21, 2012, 09:58:18 PM
Presumably if a cop follows you from one end of the road to the other and you don't stop, they could demonstrate that you had used the road as a "through" road and could stop you then.
The only place I am aware of that sort of enforcement being done is at Washington Dulles Airport in Loudoun and Fairfax Counties, and only because people illegally use the Dulles Airport Access Road (instead of the Toll Road) to evade tolls and HOV restrictions on I-66 inside the Capital Beltway.
Airport cops will sometimes follow drivers through the airport watching for people that are just driving completely through without stopping, and issue them a ticket for illegal use of the Access Road (which is marked as being for "Airport Use Only - Other uses prohibited."
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2012, 09:46:02 AM
Airport cops will sometimes follow drivers through the airport watching for people that are just driving completely through without stopping, and issue them a ticket for illegal use of the Access Road (which is marked as being for "Airport Use Only - Other uses prohibited."
This is presumably allowed because it's not a public road.
Quote from: NE2 on October 22, 2012, 10:24:04 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2012, 09:46:02 AM
Airport cops will sometimes follow drivers through the airport watching for people that are just driving completely through without stopping, and issue them a ticket for illegal use of the Access Road (which is marked as being for "Airport Use Only - Other uses prohibited."
This is presumably allowed because it's not a public road.
Isn't it though? The Toll Road and Access Road (as opposed to the Dulles Greenway) are owned by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which is a public agency, so wouldn't that make them public roads?
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 22, 2012, 10:56:34 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 22, 2012, 10:24:04 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2012, 09:46:02 AM
Airport cops will sometimes follow drivers through the airport watching for people that are just driving completely through without stopping, and issue them a ticket for illegal use of the Access Road (which is marked as being for "Airport Use Only - Other uses prohibited."
This is presumably allowed because it's not a public road.
Isn't it though? The Toll Road and Access Road (as opposed to the Dulles Greenway) are owned by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which is a public agency, so wouldn't that make them public roads?
Wouldn't that also make the roadways at a federal prison "public roads"? But that doesn't mean they can't be restricted.
And the roads into the back areas of the airport are certainly not open to the public.
I never said they couldn't be restricted. You said the road wasn't a public road, and I said yes it was.
A public road is a road that has been officially laid out for public use (or become a de facto public road through continuous use), not any road owned by a public agency.
Quote
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hpmsmanl/chapt2.cfm
A public road is any road or street owned and maintained by a public authority and open to public travel. [23 U.S.C. 101(a)].
I was only speaking with regards to that first criterion (public authority) but doesn't the second hold true as well? It's open to public travel since anyone going to the airport is free to use it.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 22, 2012, 11:45:48 AM
It's open to public travel since anyone going to the airport is free to use it.
The same is true of any driveway, yet you don't call a driveway a public road. The DAAR is simply a long driveway.
Yes but the difference there lies in the first criterion: being owned by a public authority.
Someone's driveway is not owned by a public authority, unless said someone is a public authority.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 22, 2012, 11:53:15 AM
Yes but the difference there lies in the first criterion: being owned by a public authority.
Someone's driveway is not owned by a public authority, unless said someone is a public authority.
Back to kphoger's example: a prison driveway is not a public road.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 22, 2012, 10:56:34 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 22, 2012, 10:24:04 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2012, 09:46:02 AM
Airport cops will sometimes follow drivers through the airport watching for people that are just driving completely through without stopping, and issue them a ticket for illegal use of the Access Road (which is marked as being for "Airport Use Only - Other uses prohibited."
This is presumably allowed because it's not a public road.
Isn't it though? The Toll Road and Access Road (as opposed to the Dulles Greenway) are owned by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which is a public agency, so wouldn't that make them public roads?
I actually believe that the land under both is (still) owned by the federal government. The Access Road may still be
owned by the FAA (the FAA built it to provide access to Dulles, and the Airports Authority
leases Dulles and National Airports from the federal government).
Government can restrict public roads if it has a good legal or public policy reason to do so (consider "true" parkways which exclude trucks and sometimes other commercial vehicles and HOV lanes - and government can impose tolls on certain roads, bridges, tunnels and ferries, and can mandate that the toll be paid in order to use them).
In this case, government has decided that the Dulles Airport Access Road is for persons having business at the airport only (and signs are pretty clear about that), so government has the right to enforce that restriction (which I believe is codified into the Code of Virginia).
Quote from: Duke87 on October 21, 2012, 09:58:18 PM
Presumably if a cop follows you from one end of the road to the other and you don't stop, they could demonstrate that you had used the road as a "through" road and could stop you then.
Still, a lot of effort for little gain. Easier to just run radar.
But the end of the road is dozens of miles away; this is old NY 17. That's why I wonder at what point exactly I become Thru Traffic.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2012, 12:34:11 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 22, 2012, 10:56:34 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 22, 2012, 10:24:04 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2012, 09:46:02 AM
Airport cops will sometimes follow drivers through the airport watching for people that are just driving completely through without stopping, and issue them a ticket for illegal use of the Access Road (which is marked as being for "Airport Use Only - Other uses prohibited."
This is presumably allowed because it's not a public road.
Isn't it though? The Toll Road and Access Road (as opposed to the Dulles Greenway) are owned by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which is a public agency, so wouldn't that make them public roads?
I actually believe that the land under both is (still) owned by the federal government. The Access Road may still be owned by the FAA (the FAA built it to provide access to Dulles, and the Airports Authority leases Dulles and National Airports from the federal government).
Government can restrict public roads if it has a good legal or public policy reason to do so (consider "true" parkways which exclude trucks and sometimes other commercial vehicles and HOV lanes - and government can impose tolls on certain roads, bridges, tunnels and ferries, and can mandate that the toll be paid in order to use them).
In this case, government has decided that the Dulles Airport Access Road is for persons having business at the airport only (and signs are pretty clear about that), so government has the right to enforce that restriction (which I believe is codified into the Code of Virginia).
...It's still a public road. Just like the Blue Ridge Parkway is a public road. Just like NYS Parkways are public roads. Just like any other road that is owned by a public agency and open to the public. Sure, only certain traffic is allowed to use it, but that traffic may freely use it. I would not consider it open to the public if there were gates on it or if you needed special permission or a permit to drive on it. Which is why things like prison roads, and the driveways at government facilities (like the infamous VA 318 - the State Capitol driveway) are not open to the public even though they may still be owned by a public agency. In a similar vein, I don't consider roads like the Dulles Greenway as public roads because, even though they are open to all traffic, they are not owned by a public agency (and yes I include long-term leases).
How about the parking lot at a federal court house with a sign at its entrance stating "court house parking only", but without gates or required permits? If I were to drive into the lot and park, then walk across the street and eat at a restaurant, I wouldn't be surprised to find a ticket on my windshield.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 22, 2012, 03:33:15 PM
...It's still a public road. Just like the Blue Ridge Parkway is a public road. Just like NYS Parkways are public roads. Just like any other road that is owned by a public agency and open to the public. Sure, only certain traffic is allowed to use it, but that traffic may freely use it. I would not consider it open to the public if there were gates on it or if you needed special permission or a permit to drive on it. Which is why things like prison roads, and the driveways at government facilities (like the infamous VA 318 - the State Capitol driveway) are not open to the public even though they may still be owned by a public agency. In a similar vein, I don't consider roads like the Dulles Greenway as public roads because, even though they are open to all traffic, they are not owned by a public agency (and yes I include long-term leases).
There are roads on the campus of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Virginia that are obviously government-funded and maintained, but are definitely not open to the general public, so we agree with each other in that regard.
Another (infamous) case involves the road that leads to the presidential Camp David compound within Catoctin Mountain Park (owned and managed by the National Park Service) in Frederick County, Maryland. The late CBS-TV correspondent Andy Rooney did a "60 Minutes" segment where he went to the front gate of Camp David and was rewarded with a decidedly less-than-warm reception (described at the bottom of this (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-554312.html) Web page)
QuoteHe decided to see how close he could get to Camp David. He turned in off the main road and kept gong a few hundred yards to the guardhouse at the gate. He received a very cool reception from some of the company of Marines guarding the place.
QuoteThen he asked if could get permission to take pictures. He was denied permission and was asked to turn off his camera.
Quote"The Marines frisked our car, had us fill out intruder forms and asked Bob Peterson, the cameraman, to turn over the tape in his camera," says Rooney.
Quote"We have those pictures you saw because by mistake Bob gave them a blank tape."
Regarding roads that are operated by a private-sector concession but open to all motorists, I still regard those as part of the public highway network. I recall reading someplace that the TCA (https://www.thetollroads.com/) toll roads in Orange County, California are all owned by Caltrans, even though the TCA issued the revenue bonds that got them built, and collects the tolls from vehicles that use them.
Not sure who owns the Dulles Greenway - it may be the private investors that collect the tolls, but I am not at all confident about that. I do know that when the Greenway concession expires, then the road will (supposedly) become the property of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).
Now that I think about it, I guess roads that are privately owned or leased to a private company, like the Dulles Greenway and the TCA toll roads, but still carry a state route number should probably be included as well... because the presence of a signed, publicized number indicates that the road is part of the public system, even though the pavement itself is not publicly-owned.
This is quite an interesting subject.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 22, 2012, 08:08:14 PMThis is quite an interesting subject.
...that should probably be split.
Quote from: empirestate on October 22, 2012, 01:29:28 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 21, 2012, 09:58:18 PM
Presumably if a cop follows you from one end of the road to the other and you don't stop, they could demonstrate that you had used the road as a "through" road and could stop you then.
Still, a lot of effort for little gain. Easier to just run radar.
But the end of the road is dozens of miles away; this is old NY 17. That's why I wonder at what point exactly I become Thru Traffic.
To get back to the original topic...
My assumption (you know what they say about assuming) would be that there's an eastbound No Thru Traffic sign somewhere, and the two signs mark the boundaries of a "No Thru Traffic Zone", so that if you pass through the zone without stopping, you are prohibited thru traffic.
Quote from: Brandon on October 20, 2012, 11:20:53 PM
Still strikes me as unenforceable. As long as traffic follows the limit, stops at stop signs/signals, etc, it is unenforceable. We have similar signs around here, but they are on a black on yellow diamond.
Some of the northwest suburbs have the black on white rectangle, usually on side streets near an overloaded intersection.
As for the example at the start of this thread, it sounds to me the local village is a bit full of itself. They want no through traffic, then NYDOT should get rid of the stoplight and make Sullivan right in/right out to the west of US 209, or shut the street completely and just have the west leg be for gas station access.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 22, 2012, 03:33:15 PM
I would not consider it open to the public if there were gates on it or if you needed special permission or a permit to drive on it.
A gate is simply one way of enforcing restrictions. Posting signs and watching for violators is another.
Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 12:32:58 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 22, 2012, 03:33:15 PM
I would not consider it open to the public if there were gates on it or if you needed special permission or a permit to drive on it.
A gate is simply one way of enforcing restrictions. Posting signs and watching for violators is another.
No, there is a difference between a gate and a sign or visual enforcement of restrictions. A gate prevents ALL traffic from using the road except for people who have the ability to open the gate. A signed or visually enforced restriction does not. Roads with gates are not intended for random people to use them, whereas roads with signed or visually enforced restrictions are open to any random traffic that meets those restrictions.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 23, 2012, 01:52:26 AM
A gate prevents ALL traffic from using the road except for people who have the ability to open the gate.
Er no. If the gate is manned, policy may be to let anyone in who says they're going to whatever's beyond the gate.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 22, 2012, 08:28:45 PM
My assumption (you know what they say about assuming) would be that there's an eastbound No Thru Traffic sign somewhere, and the two signs mark the boundaries of a "No Thru Traffic Zone", so that if you pass through the zone without stopping, you are prohibited thru traffic.
That's a reasonable theory. Of course, as I was headed westbound, I wouldn't have seen the sign marking the end of the thru section, assuming it faced eastbound traffic.
It would also probably really tick off somebody who lived just past the second sign, and who just wanted to pop over to that gas station for some groceries...or gas.
The whole thing is all just so silly!
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 23, 2012, 01:52:26 AM
A gate prevents ALL traffic from using the road except for people who have the ability to open the gate. A signed or visually enforced restriction does not.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to obey signs that say, basically, "You can't drive here". A gate, yes, physically prevents unauthorized people from driving down a road; but, in another manner, a sign also prevents them. On the parkway example mentioned upthread, we don't need a ten-foot clearance barrier to keep commercial trucks off cars-only parkways. Rules, signs, and police officers are all that is needed.
The fact that
you would only heed a prohibitive restriction if there were a physical barrier doesn't mean it's unreasonable to expect
others to disregard less imposing restrictive measures.
Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 02:07:55 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 23, 2012, 01:52:26 AM
A gate prevents ALL traffic from using the road except for people who have the ability to open the gate.
Er no. If the gate is manned, policy may be to let anyone in who says they're going to whatever's beyond the gate.
If that's the policy then by my previously stated definition the road becomes public, because if the policy is to let anyone in then the "gate" is no different than a toll booth or entrance gate for a national park or something similar.
Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2012, 11:00:26 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 23, 2012, 01:52:26 AM
A gate prevents ALL traffic from using the road except for people who have the ability to open the gate. A signed or visually enforced restriction does not.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to obey signs that say, basically, "You can't drive here". A gate, yes, physically prevents unauthorized people from driving down a road; but, in another manner, a sign also prevents them. On the parkway example mentioned upthread, we don't need a ten-foot clearance barrier to keep commercial trucks off cars-only parkways. Rules, signs, and police officers are all that is needed.
The fact that you would only heed a prohibitive restriction if there were a physical barrier doesn't mean it's unreasonable to expect others to disregard less imposing restrictive measures.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that I would ignore a prohibitive restriction unless there were a physical barrier.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 23, 2012, 08:48:37 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 02:07:55 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 23, 2012, 01:52:26 AM
A gate prevents ALL traffic from using the road except for people who have the ability to open the gate.
Er no. If the gate is manned, policy may be to let anyone in who says they're going to whatever's beyond the gate.
If that's the policy then by my previously stated definition the road becomes public, because if the policy is to let anyone in then the "gate" is no different than a toll booth or entrance gate for a national park or something similar.
The policy is
not to let "anyone" in. It's to let anyone in who's going to the facility. If the driver is lying they can probably be prosecuted for trespassing.
A national park is different, in that you can drive through without stopping. It will cost you, but sometimes the alternative is significantly longer (e.g. Tioga Pass).
The attempt could be made to prosecute, but it would probably be extremely hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you prove that someone is not intending to go to the airport? If someone was going to the airport and realized they forgot something at home and turned around without stopping at the airport, can you find them guilty for that? They were intending to go to the airport, but changed their plans midway through.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 24, 2012, 12:35:55 AM
The attempt could be made to prosecute, but it would probably be extremely hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you prove that someone is not intending to go to the airport? If someone was going to the airport and realized they forgot something at home and turned around without stopping at the airport, can you find them guilty for that? They were intending to go to the airport, but changed their plans midway through.
If you see the same guy getting on at the airport, not stopping there, and exiting at the east end every day for a week, you know he's using the DAAR improperly.
Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 01:17:57 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 24, 2012, 12:35:55 AM
The attempt could be made to prosecute, but it would probably be extremely hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you prove that someone is not intending to go to the airport? If someone was going to the airport and realized they forgot something at home and turned around without stopping at the airport, can you find them guilty for that? They were intending to go to the airport, but changed their plans midway through.
If you see the same guy getting on at the airport, not stopping there, and exiting at the east end every day for a week, you know he's using the DAAR improperly.
But at that point is it really worth the cost to bother enforcing it at all?
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 24, 2012, 10:02:41 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 01:17:57 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 24, 2012, 12:35:55 AM
The attempt could be made to prosecute, but it would probably be extremely hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you prove that someone is not intending to go to the airport? If someone was going to the airport and realized they forgot something at home and turned around without stopping at the airport, can you find them guilty for that? They were intending to go to the airport, but changed their plans midway through.
If you see the same guy getting on at the airport, not stopping there, and exiting at the east end every day for a week, you know he's using the DAAR improperly.
But at that point is it really worth the cost to bother enforcing it at all?
Since the MWAA does enforce it, apparently so.
Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 24, 2012, 10:02:41 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 01:17:57 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 24, 2012, 12:35:55 AM
The attempt could be made to prosecute, but it would probably be extremely hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you prove that someone is not intending to go to the airport? If someone was going to the airport and realized they forgot something at home and turned around without stopping at the airport, can you find them guilty for that? They were intending to go to the airport, but changed their plans midway through.
If you see the same guy getting on at the airport, not stopping there, and exiting at the east end every day for a week, you know he's using the DAAR improperly.
But at that point is it really worth the cost to bother enforcing it at all?
Since the MWAA does enforce it, apparently so.
But do they enforce it by following people
every day for a week, as you said?
Contrary to what
some people here seem to think, the fact that it is supposed to be for airport use only would be enough to keep me from using it unless I were going to the airport (unless maybe I used it to commute and there was a terrible traffic jam on the Toll Road or something)
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 24, 2012, 11:11:25 AM
But do they enforce it by following people every day for a week, as you said?
I don't know. They would only have to follow until the last possible in-airport exit.
Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 11:17:34 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 24, 2012, 11:11:25 AM
But do they enforce it by following people every day for a week, as you said?
I don't know. They would only have to follow until the last possible in-airport exit.
Which is what I thought they did until you specified every day for a week.
Is there a point to all this goalpost-changing?