Is this illegal?

[AdamL]

Okay, I have a stupid question about driving. Say you're in a parking lot and you see a spot. You pull in, and the spot in front of it is also open. So, you pull through the open spot you first saw and park in the one in front. Is this illegal? I was in a debate with someone about it.

[lancestraz]

I hope it's legal because I do this all the time.
It's easier to park and when you want to exit you don't have to reverse out.

[motulist]

I can't imagine a reason why it wouldn't be legal. A parking lot is not a roadway, so the only rules that apply to driving there should just be the basic right-of-way rules.

Regardless of whether it's officially legal or not, it's completely legal in the everyday sense of the word, meaning you'll never ever ever get in legal trouble for doing it. There are zillions of crazy laws on the books that aren't enforced that say things like you may not wash a goat in an apartment bathtub or other weirdness like that. If it's not an enforced law, then for all intents and purposes it's legal.

[cornopaez]

Pulling in the spot in front you when parking is just an easy way of getting out of reverse parking :p... for some reason there's still is people out there that have a lot of trouble with that.

Still, I hope is not illegal... I've done that in 2 different countries as of today :D

[atszyman]

I don't think it is (or can be) illegal. I've been told in the past (not sure if it's true) that due to the fact that parking lots are private property they are only as enforceable as the owner of the lot wants to make them so accidents and violations of signs in the lot are handled differently by police.

However in a straight lot I don't see a problem, in angled parking it should be illegal since angled lots are designed to be backed out of and do not allow for an easy turn to drive the correct direction if you pull through.

[synth3tik]

If there was a young child laying in between the spaces then yes....:eek::D

[EricNau]

Perfectly legal; traffic laws do not apply on private property.

[AceWilfong]

Good way to avoid having to back out later, when drunk.

[janitorC7]

It cannot be illegal (in the US at least) on private property.

But often it is considered inconsiderate to do so, namily because its hard to see arround other cars, so if there is another person trying to pull into that spot from the other end, you run the risk of stealing their space, and ore crashing into them

[squeeks]

Perfectly legal; traffic laws do not apply on private property.

so you can run stop signs and smash into other people in private parking lots?

[lancestraz]

so you can run stop signs and smash into other people in private parking lots?
Run stop signs, yes. Smash cars no. By smashing a car you would then be encroaching on that persons personal property.

[adrianblaine]

I believe it is difficult to do something illegal in a parking lot driving wise short of parking in a handicap parking spot or running into other cars or people...

With that said, there are times where it is actually not a good idea to do this. Mainly in a parking lot with one way angled parking with the direction switched every other lane. If you pull through to the next spot, you are angled in the wrong direction to leave your spot easily. Even then, if you drive the wrong way

[EricNau]

so you can run stop signs and smash into other people in private parking lots?
Run stop signs, yes. Crash into people, yes, but you'll be paying for the damages.

[Rodimus Prime]

it legal to do that. it is not legal to start crossing the parking lot though a bunch of parking spot.

[Axl Rose]

it legal to do that. it is not legal to start crossing the parking lot though a bunch of parking spot.
Its private property so yeah it is....

[yg17]

It'll get you a ticket if you do it on a lot at my university. Since parking passes are on the rear windows, the meter maids would actually have to get out of their car and walk around to see who has a pass or not if you pulled through :rolleyes:


Really annoys me, because in any other lot, I do it every chance I can get

[Fearless Leader]

wow, this is one of the only Is this illegal questions I've had to turn out to be legal.

[WildCowboy]

Many traffic laws can be enforced by police on private property that is open to the general public...DUI and reckless driving being a couple of the most notable. In many areas, property owners can also request that certain laws be enforced...there's usually a sign at the entrance of the lot stating that if it has been requested and granted.

[mcarnes]

Everyone does it but we're talking jail time if you get caught doing it. Same as a DUI in some counties.

[Sesshi]

It's not illegal, but it could be hazardous in that a driver pulling into the spot that you are planning to occupy could assume that you are going to occupy the space you're moving through.

Does that make sense :confused:

[squeeks]

Run stop signs, yes. Smash cars no. By smashing a car you would then be encroaching on that persons personal property.

ah ok

[Rodimus Prime]

Its private property so yeah it is....

it not exactly same type of private property as you see it. It also considered public area. This gives the cops more room to enforce. They can sit in a parking lot and clock cars, pull them over and what not. The cops and will still ticket you for doing something like that. Most of the time they will just pull you over and lecture you that it is against the law and it is not safe.

Running a stop sign in a parking lot is a ticket able offense. All the place has to do is agree ahead of time to allow cops to do that and most of the time they have no issue with it and would rather see people punished for it. I have seen cops pull people over in a parking lot and right them a ticket it. Now the cop was in the parking lot because they had stop at one of the stores.

[savar]

Many traffic laws can be enforced by police on private property that is open to the general public...DUI and reckless driving being a couple of the most notable. In many areas, property owners can also request that certain laws be enforced...there's usually a sign at the entrance of the lot stating that if it has been requested and granted.

Is anybody here actually a lawyer? The above response seems the most lawyerly to me.

I don't know much about law, but the one thing I have learned (from talking to lawyers) is that everything is incredibly nuanced, and almost nothing makes any sense.

I would guess that the "is this legal?" question actually has an incredibly complex answer, and depends on which jurisdiction you are in and numerous other factors such as the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.

[Markleshark]

Without trying to be rude, how in the hell could this be illegal?

[MacBoobsPro]

Without trying to be rude, how in the hell could this be illegal?

I'll be rude if you like. Starting a thread as dumb as this must be illegal. :D

Just messing. The only thing I can think of that makes you think it may be illegal is the fact you are crossing a solid white line? If thats the case then how the heck would you deal with a stop sign?

:D

[atthecross]

depends on if it is posted no pull through (yes, there is such a sign in CA)

[wongulous]

No. Private property, they can I *guess* make that rule if they want, but how on earth could or would they enforce it? Ridiculous.

[PlaceofDis]

i don't see a problem with it, but as mentioned earlier, if its and angled parking setup, not the wisest of ideas.

[Markleshark]

I'll be rude if you like. Starting a thread as dumb as this must be illegal. :D

Just messing. The only thing I can think of that makes you think it may be illegal is the fact you are crossing a solid white line? If thats the case then how the heck would you deal with a stop sign?

:D

Sit in the car screaming... Or maybe thats just me... :D

[MacBoobsPro]

Sit in the car screaming... Or maybe thats just me... :D

You have reclining seats too? :p

[Markleshark]

You have reclining seats too? :p

... I don't know what to say... :D

[Rodimus Prime]

No. Private property, they can I *guess* make that rule if they want, but how on earth could or would they enforce it? Ridiculous.

it is not hard. All that could happen is if a cop is around they write you a ticket. not hard to enforce. cutting though a parking lot is against the law. Driving to fast in a parking lot is against the law. All things that will get you ticketed. More than likely with something like reckless endangerment.

[abiyng87]

On my schools campus (Southern Illinois University Carbondale) you can get a ticket for pulling through spots in parking lots, or for backing into spots. Since it is 'private property' and they have their own police force they make the rules.

[wonga1127]

Remember: it's only illegal if you get caught.

[CalBoy]

Remember: it's only illegal if you get caught.

That's terrible logic and morality.

I don't believe it's illegal, as the general rule of parking lots is that you must yield to pedestrians, stay on your side of the road, etc. If the property owner really doesn't want you doing it, the easiest way to achieve that result would be to put up a concrete barrier between you and the space ahead of you (which many do use).

[JNB]

On my schools campus (Southern Illinois University Carbondale) you can get a ticket for pulling through spots in parking lots, or for backing into spots. Since it is 'private property' and they have their own police force they make the rules.


If SIU is a state institution (I honestly can't recall), it's not private property and they're not "their own police force," they would be sworn officers per Illinois' penal code.

If it's a private school, then that's another story altogether.

[CalBoy]

If SIU is a state institution (I honestly can't recall), it's not private property and they're not "their own police force," they would be sworn officers per Illinois' penal code.

That's not true. Berkeley is a public school, but the campus police are a separate organization that do not serve the city of Berkeley.

[748s]

Can't be illegal unless there is legislation that says you can't do it.
No one is going to bother making the legislation.
But if it was a law, it would have to be displayed at the entrance as a condition of entry.

[OLD ELPASO]

I certainly don't treat it as an illegal act, but I did do this maneuver upon pulling into the parking lot after I had completed my drivers road test. He commented on it, by saying "It is not a driving lane. The only reason your car should enter a marked parking space, is to park your car in it, not to drive through"

He didn't say it was illegal though. And I passed my drivers test with flying colours!

[EricNau]

That's not true. Berkeley is a public school, but the campus police are a separate organization that do not serve the city of Berkeley.
Not entirely correct. The UCPD have statewide jurisdiction and authority.

[Piccolo]

Its private property so yeah it is....

Actually a lot of parking lots post signs stating that all traffic laws are enforceable on them.

At least around here in Cali they do.

They are usually small, but by each entrance to the parking lot.

If you are so notified, then the police can ticket normal traffic offenses in the parking lot.

[mpw]

Just to reiterate what some others have already said; It depends what the law says wherever the parking lot is.

Where I come from, Jersey, it would not be illegal as far as the legislator were concerned as a parking lot is not the public highway. Not only could the Police do nothing about this, they wouldn't and couldn't do anything about speeding, reckless driving or smashing into other vehicles (unless it were deliberate and the owners wanted to press charges) the only thing they could get involved with would be DUI, and that's specifically written into law to enable them to stop drunk drivers in parking lots of bars etc. from leaving onto the highway.

However, if the landowner chooses to erect suitable signs to advise any visitor to his property, he can make any rules up about the terms under which they do and can state that they'll be charged/clamped/towed for whatever reason within reason.

[JNB]

That's not true. Berkeley is a public school, but the campus police are a separate organization that do not serve the city of Berkeley.

Reread my post, carefully ;). Regardless of what else goes on at PRB (People's Republic of Berkeley), the officers there are sworn peace officers, specifically under 830.2 PC, in California. As has been noted, they have jurisdiction statewide.

My point was, and it varies from state to state, is that if it's a publicly-funded (as in state) institution, the grounds are public, not private, property, and the ordinances of the state and institution are enforceable by either local police or campus police. The campus police may or may not be sworn peace officers in their respective state, but are throughout California as members of the UCPD. K-12, CC and non-UC officers are under a different statute (832.2).

We now return to our regularly scheduled topic.

[CalBoy]

Not entirely correct. The UCPD have statewide jurisdiction and authority.

Reread my post, carefully ;). Regardless of what else goes on at PRB (People's Republic of Berkeley), the officers there are sworn peace officers, specifically under 830.2 PC, in California. As has been noted, they have jurisdiction statewide.

My point was, and it varies from state to state, is that if it's a publicly-funded (as in state) institution, the grounds are public, not private, property, and the ordinances of the state and institution are enforceable by either local police or campus police. The campus police may or may not be sworn peace officers in their respective state, but are throughout California as members of the UCPD. K-12, CC and non-UC officers are under a different statute (832.2).

We now return to our regularly scheduled topic.

Huh...that's interesting. So why bother setting up two competing police forces? Wouldn't it be easier to simply dedicate x number of officers to a campus?

[klymr]

so you can run stop signs and smash into other people in private parking lots?

My dad was hit by an illegal immigrant while driving his truck through a parking lot. The police could not do a thing because it happened in a private lot. The other guy had no license, not driving a registered vehicle, and had no insurance. He hit my dad's truck so hard the front fender was pushed into the tire so hard the wheel wouldn't even rotate with the 454 trying to push the truck. He had to pull out his jack and slowly crank the dent out that way enough to drive home.

Also, I was told that anywhere there is a traffic control device, sign, etc. the police have jurisdiction. That would include lots I believe, but only the places in the lots that have a stop sign. The actual stalls themselves they don't. I may be wrong, but I believe that's what my friend was saying.

[mpw]

My dad was hit by an illegal immigrant while driving his truck through a parking lot. The police could not do a thing because it happened in a private lot. The other guy had no license, not driving a registered vehicle, and had no insurance...
Your Dad could've still sued the guy though.

...Also, I was told that anywhere there is a traffic control device, sign, etc. the police have jurisdiction. That would include lots I believe, but only the places in the lots that have a stop sign. The actual stalls themselves they don't. I may be wrong, but I believe that's what my friend was saying.
Doesn't sound right to me, but it may be so in the US. It's certainly NOT the case in the UK. The Police can't do a thing on private land with regards to road traffic law, unless it's DUI.

[Rodimus Prime]

Huh...that's interesting. So why bother setting up two competing police forces? Wouldn't it be easier to simply dedicate x number of officers to a campus?

Yes local police have power on college campus's just general they will not touch them unless the campus police call them.

The reason it is set up that way it is allows college to have control over the police for direct control of it needs. It does not have to compete with the city cover it. Plus the city does not want to deal with having to cover campus police because they do not get any real extra money off of it. Instead it would require for example my school another 30-40+ officers just to cover the campus. The college having its own dedicated force is more so needs are met in a much more timely fashion.

If it lets say the city police doing it. The City police would not really have to listen to anything the college says because it isn't he city not the college signing their paychecks.

Lastly on most college campus the campus police are worn peace officers and have all the power there off.

[joeshell383]

Huh...that's interesting. So why bother setting up two competing police forces? Wouldn't it be easier to simply dedicate x number of officers to a campus?

Most large universities have a dedicated police department with full legal authority as mentioned earlier in this thread. They are comparable to a municipal police department, but, as also mentioned, the area police have jurisdiction over campus as well.

There are a number of ways universities are self-sufficient. Many run their own bus systems. My university has its own power plant and infrastructure.

To answer the OP, it is not against the law, but there may be rules established by other entities (i.e. property owners) prohibiting such behavior.

[gonyr]

How about this... many lots near me have stops at the end of each row of parking. But, instead of an actual stop sign, they have the word stop painted on the ground. It's obvious that they expect you to stop before pulling out or swinging around to the next row. It's also very obvious when there's nobody coming especially at such a slow speed in such a wide open area. It seems to be about a 50/50 split between people who stop no matter what and people who stop if someone is coming but otherwise roll right through at speed (about 10-15 mph). I have no comment on which group I fall into.

Does the word stop painted on the ground function the same way legally as a stop sign?

[abiyng87]

That's not true. Berkeley is a public school, but the campus police are a separate organization that do not serve the city of Berkeley.

CalBoy is sorta right... At least for us at SIU... SIU officers can't respond to off campus calls and local and state authorities don't come on to campus unless absolutely necessary.

[CalBoy]

The college having its own dedicated force is more so needs are met in a much more timely fashion.

If it lets say the city police doing it. The City police would not really have to listen to anything the college says because it isn't he city not the college signing their paychecks.

I don't buy that. Sorry, but it's a lame argument. Police forces don't care who signs their paychecks; they mostly care about doing there jobs. If campuses had a dedicated staff of officers, it would be just as effective as a seperate police force that is designated as "campus police." There could be stations located on campus in order to ensure rapid response time.

Most large universities have a dedicated police department with full legal authority as mentioned earlier in this thread. They are comparable to a municipal police department, but, as also mentioned, the area police have jurisdiction over campus as well.

We weren't really discussing whether the city's police had jurisdiction, we were discussin whether or not the officers of a campus are "real" officers compared to state or municipal officers. Whether or not they are "comparable" isn't really relevant, as US marshalls are "comparable" to police as well; the fact is, US marshalls and state troopers have very different duties.

CalBoy is sorta right... At least for us at SIU... SIU officers can't respond to off campus calls and local and state authorities don't come on to campus unless absolutely necessary.

No, I was wrong. What JohnNotBeatle was saying was that campus police forces are in fact "real" police. They are given the power to arrest, hold a firearm, etc. They are in fact equal to any municipal officer. The only difference is that their jurisdiction is restricted to a campus as opposed to a whole city/town.

[abiyng87]

No, I was wrong. What JohnNotBeatle was saying was that campus police forces are in fact "real" police. They are given the power to arrest, hold a firearm, etc. They are in fact equal to any municipal officer. The only difference is that their jurisdiction is restricted to a campus as opposed to a whole city/town.

Hence the "sorta" part. My uncle was a campus cop here back in the day, and from what I understand (and this could just be Illinois) but they don't have as much "power" as a city cop would. But I could be wrong about that too :)

[CalBoy]

Hence the "sorta" part. My uncle was a campus cop here back in the day, and from what I understand (and this could just be Illinois) but they don't have as much "power" as a city cop would. But I could be wrong about that too :)

Well I'm sure they have all the normal powers (arrest, command traffic, etc). I'm also pretty sure that if you disobey one, you can be jailed for resisting police authority.

[abiyng87]

Well I'm sure they have all the normal powers (arrest, command traffic, etc). I'm also pretty sure that if you disobey one, you can be jailed for resisting police authority.

oh, for sure...


So, back on the OT, does anyone know of a city/state/etc where this is in fact illegal? I would be curious to know...

[CalBoy]

So, back on the OT, does anyone know of a city/state/etc where this is in fact illegal? I would be curious to know...

Yes, let's get back on topic huh?:p:D

I'm sure that certain rules still apply, even if it is private property. For example, I doubt that you could speed beyond 25mph in a parking lot, as it's a road that's heavily populated with pedestrians. Other provisions must also apply (yielding to a fire engine/ambulance).

[Rodimus Prime]

I don't buy that. Sorry, but it's a lame argument. Police forces don't care who signs their paychecks; they mostly care about doing there jobs. If campuses had a dedicated staff of officers, it would be just as effective as a seperate police force that is designated as "campus police." There could be stations located on campus in order to ensure rapid response time.


You forget one thing. The city does care. To them the police on the campus would just be a drain on their resources. I also might like to point out that the one on the campus would pretty much be function the exact same way as the current campus police does. Means they really have nothing to with city matters and only campus matters. The other city police would not really go into campus it would let the dedicated campus police from the city handle it So it still come down to basically 2 separated police forces. Just if the city is paying the bill the city gets to make the calls on how many cops, who they hire and what equipment they get.

I can promise you the colleges would not like that. They want control over how many cops they want/need and they determine what is best. They do not want to be at the mercy of the city. Add in the city could pull alway the officers very easy if they need something off campus grounds. Colleges are not going to like that.

Last as I point out before hand a lot of times the city the college is in can not afford to supply the officers it needs. Cities already struggle to meet the 1:1000 ratio right now much less having to deal with the extra 30k at the college.

So putting it all under the city does not change the cost (might make it more expensive) still causes to separated police forces and the college loses almost all control over it.

I think the system in place now where the colleges have their own police force is better just because the one in need of the extra police are the same one paying the bills for it. No fighting over city funds and everything else.

Hence the "sorta" part. My uncle was a campus cop here back in the day, and from what I understand (and this could just be Illinois) but they don't have as much "power" as a city cop would. But I could be wrong about that too :)

Oh they have all the normal powers. Only difference is when they arrest some one they have to call the city police to come in and take them off to jail house and they are charged with a crime violating city law.

[CalBoy]

Last as I point out before hand a lot of times the city the college is in can not afford to supply the officers it needs. Cities already struggle to meet the 1:1000 ratio right now much less having to deal with the extra 30k at the college.

So putting it all under the city does not change the cost (might make it more expensive) still causes to separated police forces and the college loses almost all control over it.

I think the system in place now where the colleges have their own police force is better just because the one in need of the extra police are the same one paying the bills for it. No fighting over city funds and everything else.

Ok, I'll buy that. For certain cities it can be hard. Why can't all y'all have high property costs like the Bay Area?:p;):p
Oh they have all the normal powers. Only difference is when they arrest some one they have to call the city police to come in and take them off to jail house and they are charged with a crime violating city law.

See, that's interesting. Why would they have to have the city police process them? It seems like the campus police are like "honorary" police, no?

[GoodWatch]

Without trying to be rude, how in the hell could this be illegal?

Hear, hear! Sometimes you Brits are very sensible ;) But it is a non issue. So sue me :p :cool:

[Rodimus Prime]

Ok, I'll buy that. For certain cities it can be hard. Why can't all y'all have high property costs like the Bay Area?:p;):p


See, that's interesting. Why would they have to have the city police process them? It seems like the campus police are like "honorary" police, no?

They reason they can not process them is because general college lack well the jail cells to handle them along with they are going to be charge with a city crime and ticket since they are still with in the city limits. It is a lot like when a state troop pulls over some one and arrested them. The ticket is normally always going to be to the city/ county they are in and if they arrested some one they are general going to call the local PD to take care of them.

[JNB]

On the OT: In most of the US, what happens on private property is not subject to civil enforcement (though infractions and civil suits may still arise). Criminal laws cross property boundaries, and peace officers may enforce and arrest without regard to property boundaries. Parking, most collisions, traffic laws, etc., are for the most part civil, and as such not normally within the authority of sworn officers to directly enforce.

On the campus police sidetrack: You have to see how the officers are sworn in your state. In California, the UC (University of California) Police are state police (just like the CHP and CA State Police), having jurisdictional authority within the entire state. Others, even within a single state, may have differing jurisdictional or arrest power. As per usual, YMMV.

It seems like the campus police are like "honorary" police, no? Only Elvis was "honorary." All the others are as real as they come.

[joeshell383]

We weren't really discussing whether the city's police had jurisdiction, we were discussin whether or not the officers of a campus are "real" officers compared to state or municipal officers. Whether or not they are "comparable" isn't really relevant, as US marshalls are "comparable" to police as well; the fact is, US marshalls and state troopers have very different duties.

I realize that. That is the point I am making. They are "real" police officers and have the full powers that a municipal police department does.