Michigan did the same last year, and there was a lot of publicity before it took effect. Luckily during rush hour when it’s impossible to get over, they don’t enforce it en masse when it’s not reasonable.
I wonder, though, how likely they’d be to enforce it on out of state people? My experience is they’re usually pretty forgiving of a lot of things for out of state people.
Same thing going here in Texas. The law requires that a driver approaching a police vehicle (or any emergency vehicle) stopped on the shoulder must either vacate the nearest lane or, if that’s not possible, slow down to 20 miles per hour under the posted limit. It’s in the Texas Transportation Code, section 545.157.
No taking 2 photographs, a day off of work to go to court, waiting around for your case to be heard is a whole lot of work.
Traffic tickets are quasi-criminal and violating a city ordinance or state statute imposes absolute liability. What if you parked within 12 feet of a fire hydrant or 20 feet of an intersection (or whatever distances Illinois proscribes) and no sign indicating that you could not do so? Do you really believe a defense of ignorance of those laws is an excuse? The provision concerning obscure or non-existent signs applies when there is no law governing the matter, but when a previously posted sign is missing or becomes hidden. BTW, you can always appeal to the court, regardless of what the citation states. The ALJ is not the end of your rights. He or she could be the end of your administrative rights, but that does not preclude a court appeal.
No matter the legality of the ticket, a court would probably dismiss it. There’s a good chance of that, but are you willing to take that chance considering the costs involved?
I thought the municipalities in Illinois have traffic courts which hear these cases. I know in many cities, such as Charleston, SC, a hearing officer will hear your case first on a traffic ticket, and then decide whether to recommend dismissal or not. That is a recommendation for the traffic court judge, but if he decides to dismiss it, it will be dismissed. But his decision is not the last word. The traffic court judge must decide it. I know Chicago and Peoria have traffic courts.
I don’t know what a viaduct, wide or narrow, even looks like. So i guess i’m the most ignorant one of all!! 
In California parking tickets are now considered civil matters and are completely out of the criminal justice system.
Never been to Wisconsin, have you?
It’s an elevated road, like an overpass or bridge.
But, why a duck?
The difference is these are state code, right? You’re supposed to know this whenever you get a drivers licenese. Here in Michigan you get a new test every four years (it’s a joke, but simple things like fire hydrant distances do come up).
The difference is Chicago the city just makes up their own rules and expects everyone to know them. Wasn’t it Boston or Philly or some place like that that tried to establish a city-wide no-right-on-red rule that was shot down because it wasn’t part of the uniform traffic code (or something like that)? The city had to post signs at every intersection.
And, FWIW, I would tend to think that there’d be no problem parking under a viaduct.
Most, if not all, states have granted municipalities “home rule,” which means that they can enact ordinances so long as the state has not preempted the subject matter. Since the state has a turn right on red law, the city cannot enact an ordinace contrary. The state has a preemptory statute.
To get back to my first post, a better example is an ordinance stating that the speed limit in residential areas is 25 mph, unless other wise posted. Signs are not posted on all residential streets showing the 25 mph. You are supposed to know the residential speed limit. However, if 20 mph is dictated for a city street, that must be posted. This assumes that the streets are city streets, and not state roads. Only the state can change the speed limit on state roads, and there are many state roads in a large city.
This is a state rule thing, again, though. The state law is 25mph, so yeah, we agree: of course everybody should know this without signs being everywhere. And of course if a city wants to deviate, it must post signs to the contrary.
But what about the treatment for “lack of a rule.” By default, anything is legal that is not expressly made illegal. Therefore in the state of Illinois, it is legal to park under a viaduct. Therefore the city, if it wants to deviate from this statewide rule – i.e., make it illegal to park under a viaduct where the normal, statewide expectation is that someone could – then the city must post signage.
So, aren’t you and I saying the same thing? I don’t see how we’re not.
No one can fairly be required to know the little codes of every little city they may pass through.
No. The state speed limit applies to the state roads. The city is free, under home rule, to impose its own speed limit, and if by ordinance it states that the speed limit in the city shall be 20 mph, it doesn’t have to post signs stating so. That speed limit is a matter of law imposed by the ordinance. If on certain streets, it wants to impose a stricter speed limit, it must post a sign.
If the state is silent on parking under viaducts, the city can pass an ordinance making it illegal to do so. If that is covered in an ordinance, the city does not have to post a sign. Everyone is supposed to know what the law is. You say that everything is legal that is not expressly made illegal, but the ordinance makes it illegal.
There are some flaws in your argument barbitu8.
First of all, the 20 mph “law” you cite, is a pretty common-sense one, one that any reasonable person should know.
One of my points is that parking under a viaduct is not something the average person would know is illegal, judging from the number of people who park there. I posted here to see if others would think this was a “common-sense” thing.
Secondly, you say that “everyone is expected to know what the law is”. If that’s the case, why does the city post signs in areas where there is no parking except by permit? Why would they spend the money to put up signs if they could make money by not putting up signs and enforcing the ordinance (and I assure you that permit parking areas are defined by ordinance) which “everyone is expected to know”?
If nothing else this is a violation of “due process” since the city seems to be arbitrarily putting up signs (which would count as public notice) in some areas covered by ordinance and not in others. There isn’t even a complete Municipal Code for Chicago available online, so it’s not easy for the average citizen to know the codes. In order for me to do so, I’d have to take time off from work to go to the public library to study two huge volumes. This violation doesn’t even appear pre-printed on the standard parking ticket!
Yes I did file an appeal.
And what I want to know is what are we supposed to do if the speed limit is 15 MPH? Start backing up?