Better than I ever could have said it.
Once upon a time, I used to ride a Honda CH-80 Elite scooter around these City streets. You might recognize it as the pizza delivery driver’s ride from the opening scene of the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie.
I scooted merrily around Philadelphia without a care in the world, pleased at myself for the fantastic gas mileage and quick manner in which I navigated the streets. But I hung up my scooter helmet for good one day when I scooted out to get my sick wife some orange juice, and in an unfortunate pothole incident, my life was almost ended by a 1997 Ford Taurus. That would have been a tragedy — killed by a Ford Taurus. Embarrassing.
Though my scooting days are now over, for the time that I scooted around town, I faced the same problem that many two-wheeled riders still face today: Where the hell can I park this damn thing without getting a ticket? (Spoiler: By the end of this post, I won’t be able to answer this concretely.)
Unofficially, I’ve been told a few different things from Philadelphia Parking Authority employees: within three feet of a building, so long as it’s not obstructing the sidewalk; to an inverted U bike post; to a traffic sign; to a pole, etc. But as anyone who’s parked in the City knows (or anyone who’s ever seen Parking Wars, for that matter), you can’t really every count on the word of a PPA employee to be “the law.”
So Here’s the Law.
Under the City Code §12-913. Prohibitions in Specified Places
(1) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or to protect the safety of any person or vehicle or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic-control device, no person shall:
(a) Stop, stand or park a vehicle:
(ii) On a sidewalk except that a bicycle may be parked as provided in Section 12-807.
Got it? No vehicles other than bikes on the sidewalk. This leads us to a follow up question: what’s a “vehicle” for the purposes of the code?
Well, the Philadelphia Code doesn’t actually define a vehicle in the definitions section of Title 12. Luckily for us, the Commonwealth picked up the city’s slack.
Let’s look to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §102, Definitions, which defines just about any motorized-two wheeled device you can think of:
“Motor vehicle.” A vehicle which is self-propelled except an electric personal assistive mobility device or a vehicle which is propelled solely by human power.
“Motorcycle.” A motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.
“Motor-driven cycle.” A motorcycle, including a motor scooter, with a motor which produces not to exceed five brake horsepower.
“Motorized pedalcycle.” A motor-driven cycle equipped with operable pedals, a motor rated no more than 1.5 brake horsepower, a cylinder capacity not exceeding 50 cubic centimeters, an automatic transmission, and a maximum design speed of no more than 25 miles per hour or an electric motordriven cycle equipped with operable pedals and an automatic transmission powered by an electric battery or battery packpowered electric motor with a maximum design speed of no more than 25 miles per hour.
“Vehicle.” Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used exclusively upon rails or tracks. The term does not include a self-propelled wheelchair or an electrical mobility device operated by and designed for the exclusive use of a person with a mobility-related disability.
Under these definitions, it seems that unless you’re driving a Jazzy Power Chair around town, you, the scooter driver, are on a “motor vehicle ” under Pennsylvania law, and therefore presumably also under Philadelphia law.
The PPA agrees, and established special zones with scooter-only parking:
Pennsylvania Law prohibits motor vehicles from driving or parking on sidewalks. The Philadelphia Parking Authority has established new parking zones to accommodate motorcycles and scooters in the area between Arch and Locust, Broad and 20 Streets. Only motorcycles and scooters are permitted to park in these zones, where the meter fee will be one-half the prevailing rate on the block. Motorcycles and scooters may not park on the sidewalk in that area. Doing so will result in a $76 fine.
You can find a list of these parking spots here. When you seen them, you can tell that they’re special sports because the parking meters are white. Also, and perhaps more obviously, the spots are very tiny.
As far as I can tell – According to the law as written right now, it looks like you have to park your putt-putt in the street.
“No motor vehicles may be parked on the sidewalk. A scooter is a motor vehicle. Ergo, no motor scooter may legally park on the sidewalk.” If A, then B. A, therefore, B. It’s a simple logic problem, right?
Wait a second – at the bottom of the PPA page, though, they give you a little nudge-nudge wink-wink: “Motorcycle zones are still in the process of being installed within the pilot area. Once a motorcycle zone has been established on a block, the prohibition on sidewalk parking will be strictly enforced in the vicinity of that zone.” Curious. Does this mean they’re not strictly enforcing sidewalk parking rules outside of these areas? A quick walk around City Hall seems to confirm this, as scooters are parked all over the place.
So, with the PPA basically admitting they’re not enforcing the sidewalk parking law outside of that area, it seems that you can park on the sidewalk chained to a bike rack, even though it’s technically illegal, so long as you’re not blocking sidewalk traffic.
This Sounds Like a Typical “It Depends” Lawyer Answer. What Can you Definitively Tell Me?
As far as I can tell, these are the takeaways from today’s post:
- It is illegal to park your scooter on any public sidewalk.
- If you park on the sidewalk in the designated “Motorcycle and Scooter Zone”, the PPA will write you a $76 ticket.
- Calvinball rules apply to the rest of the city.
I’m glad that almost 1,000 words later, we’re right back where we started. Isn’t it grand when laws are well-written and don’t allow for ambiguity?
Bonus Takeaways All Drivers and Bikers in the City who Ride Around with iPod Headphones in Totally Oblivious to the Rest of the World — Stop Doing That.
It’s not only stupid, it’s illegal.
§12-812. Use of Audio Headphones
(1) No person shall operate a bicycle on a street or highway while wearing headphones connected to an audio device.
§12-1122. Use of Audio Headphones While Operating Motor Vehicles.
(1) No person shall operate a motor vehicle on a street or highway while wearing headphones connected to an audio device.
(2) For the purposes of this Section, the term motor vehicle shall include any automobile, truck, bus, motorcycle, or motor-bike.
Until next time — when I try to tackle a recent Philadelphia Common Pleas Court case that really bolsters tenants’ rights against slumlords — safe scooting!
Note: Leo really enjoyed the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie as a kid. While the scooter survived the Taurus near-death incident, Leo decided to sell it immediately afterwards to prevent future near-death experiences. Last he saw, it was living somewhere down on Christian Street – its tell-tale scratch marks and bright red color are a dead giveaway. The Taurus could not be reached for comment.
If you have any experience being ticketed for parking your scooter in the City, let me know in the comments below, and let’s see if we can figure out the rules to Calvinball.
And you should be ashamed of yourself for even having a supporting agrument on his behalf. If this happened to your daughter I’m sure you be fucking silent right now. So if you have anymore supporting comments for this scumbag and his attorney, you should join them in the darkest pit of hell. Just saying. Prayers and thoughts for the VICTIM AND THERE FAMILY.
– Some guy on Facebook, responding to me defending a defense attorney for defending his client.
I know that guy was trying to insult me, but it really just made my day.
Per today’s ABA Journal:
A Dallas law firm has filed a lawsuit seeking to learn the identity of a commenter calling himself “Ben” who posted a bad online review.
The Lenahan Law Firm claims defamation and seeks $50,000 in damages, Texas Lawyer reports. Partner Wes Black says the suit will allow the law firm to subpoena Google to learn the commenter’s identity.
Ben wrote in his comments on Google Review: “Bad experience with this firm. Don’t trust the fake reviews here.” Ben also gave a bad review to an Oregon cleaning company and may have intended to post the negative review about a different law firm closer to home, the suit says.
Hasn’t this firm heard of The Streisand Effect?
Tonight I saw a Tweet from Rachel Rodgers:
Any Colorado business attorneys out there? I have a potential client for you.
Rachel’s Tweet reminded of something that happened to me a few years ago. I had recently gotten my law license, and I was going to “build a referral network.” Become a rainmaker. During the year, I went to networking events, had lunch with people, and acquired business cards left and right.
At a young lawyer networking function, I met this guy. We’ll call him Steve. Steve seemed like a nice guy, and said he focused on, let’s say for the story’s sake, criminal defense and family law, two areas outside of what I do. Steve was a year older than me and liked to talk a lot. He also shared my affection for Jack and Coke. Steve was a dude’s dude. In addition, this seemed like a mutually beneficial relationship for us, because I refer out criminal and family law, and he refers out civil litigation matters. Like me, Steve was looking to network and build a practice.
Now, I had never seen Steve in a courtroom or observed his work product. I had just met him at a networking event, although he seemed pretty cool.
As fortune would have it, a little while after I met Steve, a former client of mine was looking for a good family lawyer to handle something fairly complex. I had built up a good relationship with this client.
Naturally, I had to show the client that I “knew” people, and that I was a one stop shop to help meet their legal needs. Hell, I “know a guy” for everything. Plus, hopefully Steve would send me work in the future. This was networking, baby!
Now, what I should have said was: “I don’t know anyone. I’m sorry.”
What I did say: “Oh yeah, I know a guy! You should call Steve!”
There was one huge problem with me telling him to call Steve: I didn’t know anything about Steve or how he practiced law. I had never seen Steve’s office (did Steve even have an office?), any of his papers, or interacted with Steve outside of this networking event. In reality, Steve was just some guy with a business card that I knew nothing about, other than the fact he shared my affinity for Jack and Coke. Given that was the case, why in God’s name would I use my credibility and trust with a client to “recommend” Steve?
I wish I would have asked myself that question at the time.
Unfortunately, the representation didn’t go well. The client gave Steve a generous retainer, the representation was botched, and the client came back angry at me. The client felt he had spent a hefty chunk and change and nothing had been accomplished. And he was probably right.
The client was very disappointed with me when we discussed the matter:
“Jordan, I don’t mean to be critical, but I don’t think Steve knew what he was doing.”
“I’m sorry to hear that.”
“… so why did you send me to him?”
I didn’t have a good answer. Then it dawned on me — it was incredibly reckless and irresponsible to send someone who trusted me to some guy I had just met at a networking event. I had violated the client’s trust.
I went to my boss, James, and asked what to do. Naturally, James wasn’t happy with me.
“Jordan, I’ll be blunt. You fucked up. You should never refer work to any schmuck you meet at a networking event. Doing that is incredibly irresponsible, it’s stupid, and it will just make your clients come back mad at you. You had no idea about this guy’s practice, but you lent him your credibility. For what? What were you thinking? I take that back, you weren’t thinking.”
James could tell I knew I messed up, and was then kind enough to turn it into a learning experience…
“The most important thing you have with your clients, your adversaries, and the court is your credibility. You become credible by doing the right thing and being a man of your word. And unfortunately, your credibility is going to be shot with this client for awhile.
Kid, I know you’re eager to build a practice, but slow down. You have an obligation to do what’s best for your clients. And when they know you’re always going to act in their best interests, they’re going to come back to you and refer you other clients, because they will trust you. That is how you build a practice. The quickest way to sink your practice is to sacrifice your credibility, like you did today.
Moving forward, here is what we are going to do… we are going to make it right. I know this woman, Carol, who does work in that area. Her office is right by the courthouse. I’ve known Carol for many years and I can vouch for her as a competent and ethical attorney. We’re going to apologize to the client, and then we’re going to refer him to Carol.”
Thankfully, James fixed the situation and Carol made everything right. The client was happy and all was well. Though to this day, I still wonder if whenever I talk with the client, I’m still the guy who sent him to Steve…
After that incident, I won’t send work to someone unless I know them. If I don’t have a guy, I will tell the client “I don’t have a guy for that.” If I do have a guy, it’s because I know that person and I trust their abilities. Any client with a brain could Google “business attorney Colorado.” When a client comes to you for a referral, it’s because they trust you, and they believe you will refer them to someone you trust. Anyone who refers their clients to “some guy who knows a guy on my Twitter feed” violates their client’s trust and is doing them a disservice.
My credibility is far too important to send work to someone just because they subscribe to my Twitter feed and ask for work in a certain area.
But it is almost impossible to think of late 18th-century situations that are analogous to what took place in this case. (Is is possible to imagine a case in which a constable secreted himself somewhere in a coach and remained there for a period of time in order to monitor the movement’s of the coach’s owner? [FN 3])
[FN 3] The Court [it its majority opinion] suggests that something like this might have occurred in 1791, but this would have required either a gigantic coach, a very tiny constable, or both—not to mention a constable with incredible fortitude and patience.
-Justice Alito discussing Justice Scalia’s opinion in United States v. Jones, and the confluence of 18th century law, the Fourth Amendment, and GPS searching technology.
I love when a SCOTUS opinion brings home the laughs.
Today in SCOTUS news, an apparent victory for privacy advocates and those who’d prefer to protect our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizure.
The GPS device helped authorities link Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government’s installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required.
“By attaching the device to the Jeep” that Jones was using, “officers encroached on a protected area,” Scalia wrote.
All nine justices agreed that the placement of the GPS on the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.…
Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a concurring opinion in which he said the court should have gone further and dealt with GPS tracking of wireless devices, like mobile phones. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.
From the little I’ve read about the ruling, it seems like the majority, under Scalia, drew a physical distinction whereas Alito drew a more theoretical line. I look forward to reading a gander at the full opinion.
It’s always a good day for me when the SCOTUS upholds our rights to be free from unreasonable state intrusion in an era when so much government is champing at the bit to take those rights away.
Read move over at NPR’s site and and listen to Nina Totenberg’s take on the matter.
Update [12.50]: Here’s a link to the Jones opinion.
Update [16.34]: Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy has some thoughts about the case.
The Supreme Court’s decision is an important one because it sends a message that technological advances cannot outpace the American Constitution…. The people will retain certain rights even when technology changes how the police are able to conduct their investigations.