Originally Posted by
UniChris
Not really, for two reasons:
First, you can have a city ordinance that has no dependence on the rest of a vehicle code, and cite violations of it independently. For example, you can have a whole complex set of environmental and permitting laws, but "no littering" is stand alone.
Second, do you think there would be any actual obstacle to citing the driver of a car for a vehicle code violation committed while intruding on a park path, as well as for their illegal presence there?
I don't like the idea of bike speed limits; it's an indication of a breakdown in personal judgement. But I like them a lot more than I like dismount zones or no bicycling signs.
My overall point was you can't charge a moving violation if such "violation" did not take place on a roadway.
Second, independent of the first point: Without a legal requirement to have installed an accurate measuring device they can not make the case that the operator was culpable in neglecting his legal obligation.
To your point, if it is illegal for a car to be on the path they'll charge the driver with some equivalent of operating the vehicle on a non-designated roadway, or vandalism, or malicious mischief or some other suitable misdemeanor crime. But, (to my point) not for speeding, reckless driving, or failure to yield, or failure to use turn signals, or whatever, which all would apply if the vehicle code applied there.
The park is just plainly outside of the vehicle code. So charging bicyclists with a vehicle code violation is absurd.
On a related note: (and I don't mean to derail the thread this early on)
Here in Washington we had a case a few years back where a guy got a speeding ticket. Key to the case was the officer wrote in his statement that his patrol car was located in the median when he properly used used his properly calibrated radar gun to observe the infraction take place. The driver fought the ticket in court & won. The gist of the drivers defense was that to be issued a citation the officer must observe from the roadway. Under the law the median is defined as: "The area between roadways." Therefore the officer was not in a legally defined place for accurate observation.
One reason, (among many) is the speed indication of the RADAR gun is a function of a tangent of the line of travel & any indication other than head on is inaccurate by definition. Another is the officer wrote a specific speed, something like 89 in a 60. Given it's already established inaccuracy from vantage, the appropriate ticket that
may have stuck would probably just be: "exceeding the limit" which is more subjective in nature. But it would still have only applied if the officer observed the alleged infraction from the legally defined roadway.