Motorcyclists Say <i> Not</i> Parking by Store Entrance Is a Hazard

Dear Readers:

It’s mailbag time again. This week, Street Smart looks at some responses to past columns. First off, in November, a reader complained that motorcyclists who park near store entrances pose a hazard to pedestrians, since some drip oil near doorways.

Three motorcycle riders wrote in response, offering reasons why they choose to park near entrances and downplaying it as a problem.

Richard Lynch of Westminster, who has parked close up for 18 years, gave two reasons why he does it:

“One, I am not leaving my $5,000 motorcycle out in the parking lot out of view when it can be thrown in the back of a pickup in about 15 seconds. Two, I get tired of hearing people in cars saying: ‘Can’t you park that somewhere else? You’re hogging up a whole parking spot for a car.”

Adding on to this list of reasons was Jack Byers of Buena Park:

“Many of us have returned to our bikes in parking places to find they’ve been smashed by a driver thinking the space is open,” Byers wrote. In addition, he said, “passersby most often are interested in seeing our contraptions up close on the way to the store.”

As for oil puddles left behind, Byers suggested telling the store manager to remove the hazard. Meanwhile, John Waugen of Anaheim said oil pools under motorcycles are a rarity, as only old Harley-Davidsons leak oil.

To Waugen, any complaint about parking near an entrance may have more to do with jealousy:

“Car drivers seem to have a problem with motorcycle drivers. I don’t know if it’s envy, jealousy or what, but I have read a lot of complaints, and this has to be the most ridiculous of all. Car drivers will spend 20 minutes driving around a parking lot to find a spot 10 feet closer to the door. I suppose a motorcycle that parks right up by the door would drive them nuts.”

*

Also in November, Street Smart wrote that Anaheim and Caltrans plan to install traffic signals where off-ramps from the Riverside Freeway meet Weir Canyon Road. The signals are expected to be operational by next October.

That’s too long a wait for Charles W. Homer of Anaheim, who wants the city or Caltrans to take action to get the signals installed immediately.

“As a frequent user of that intersection, I strongly urge whatever government agency is responsible for the traffic flow to re-examine that decision. The level of traffic has been increased in the past few weeks by the opening of the Fiesta shopping center in the area. Flow was already critical because of other retail stores and services--including the Price Club--plus the commuter traffic generated by office workers, construction workers and residents.”

On the good news side, in addition to new signals, Weir Canyon is also being widened to three lanes in each direction there, according to Curt Breusing, an Anaheim traffic engineering aide.

The widening should help ease the congestion, but it also means that new signals can’t be put in until the work is done. And to widen the street, there are various procedures that the city is required to follow, Breusing said.

Among these, the city must choose a consultant for the project. The consultant will examine the traffic flow and design the new street layout, including where the signals will go. The plans have to go through approval processes with both Anaheim and Caltrans. Then a bid for construction will be needed. Then the actual work has to be done.

“Yeah, it takes a while,” Breusing said. Unfortunately, those are the rules that have to be followed, and it’s complicated by having two government authorities having to work together.

*

In September, Street Smart wrote about a state appellate court case that a reader believed gave drivers the right to attend traffic school even after losing in court.

The consensus from Street Smart’s sources seems to be that even though that might be so, it does one little good, since traffic school only clears your record if a ticket has been dismissed, not if it has been upheld.

Sam M. Eagle, a Fountain Valley attorney, wrote asking for the vehicle code sections and the court case number that were referred to in the column.

“It would be of great benefit to many for you to publish the case name and vehicle code sections so that others may review this information and make a better informed decision as to what they will do with traffic tickets.”

Here’s the information:

The court case was People vs. Wozniak, 197 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 43. Those looking in a law library should be able to locate the case with that information and the help of the librarian.

California Vehicle Code Section 42005 gives courts the ability to send someone to traffic school, either as an alternative to having a case tried or as an additional penalty if convicted for a ticket.

Section 41501 gives courts the ability to dismiss a ticket after someone has attended traffic school, if the ticket was not upheld after a court trial, and Section 1808.7 makes sure those tickets are not listed on a person’s record.

By the way, the state vehicle code may be obtained at any Department of Motor Vehicles office. It was $3 when Street Smart got the most recent copy this year.

*

T. Wilson of Newport Beach wrote wanting signs that tell drivers whether to get in the right or left lane of a street in order to reach a freeway on-ramp.

More than 100 of these signs were put up last year through a one-time project run by the Orange County Transportation Authority. Currently, there aren’t any funds or plans for a repeat performance, according to Dean Delgado, an OCTA traffic analyst who oversaw the program.

If you find trouble spots now, you should contact Caltrans. When Street Smart dealt with this issue last year, the agency said it would fix signs that did not provide motorists with “ample warning” about which lane to get in.

Delgado also suggested passing suggestions for signs to cities, too. They may be able to work with Caltrans to get a change.