Severe tire damage- how are these legal?

Factual Questions
121

[QUOTE=Blalron]
I don’t understand why they even have those tire spikes. Can’t they just put a concrete barrier or something in the same spot? Tire spikes just seem… mean.
[/QUOTE]

This pretty much sums up my many posts on the topic in one sentence :slight_smile:

A barricade arm, fence, attendant, any number of things would serve the exact same purpose without the potential of a stupid or scatterbrained patron from neding four new tires. Period. Maybe its legal, maybe a court has ruled its legal, maybe there are specific laws saying its legal. But I would wager that far fewer people are going to accidentally ram a visible fence or barricade arm than would accidentally run of a set of non visible spikes six inches high, in back of them, sign or no sign.

122

[QUOTE=Blalron]
I don’t understand why they even have those tire spikes. Can’t they just put a concrete barrier or something in the same spot? Tire spikes just seem… mean.
[/QUOTE]

Somebody would need to invent one-way concrete. The point with the spike traps is that you can drive over them in one direction, but not the other. At that, I’m usually not that happy about driving over them the direction I’m supposed to. If those spikes got stuck and failed to depress they look like they’d take out a tire in the “forward” direction, too.

As long as this thread seems incapable of dying, I’ll reiterate the point that I think speed bumps are a decent example of the sort of mechanism the OP was looking for, although he dismissed them. The speed bump exists to cause damage to the vehicle, or at least seriously upset the driver, if the rules aren’t followed. If you don’t believe that, go over a 5 mph speed bump at 20. There’s a good chance you’ll be buying a new oil pan. In fact, speed bumps are sometimes criticized for causing bodily harm, not just vehicular damage. Spinal compression injuries and so on.

123

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
What about this?

I’m behind another car. I have a manual and the exit is on an uphill. The car in front of me jams on their brakes so I (unintentionally) end up just over the spikes. When the other car leaves, I hit the gas but (as stickshifts are prone to do going uphill), I roll back just a bit - just enough to ruin my tires.

Any liability on the owner?
[/QUOTE]

None. If you chose to drive over the spike before the exit was clear, AND are not good enough to make a hill start without rolling backwards first, how is this the garage owner’s problem? You are a lousy driver. What if the exit were on an uphill and you rolled back and hit the car behind you? Is that the garage owner’s problem for not making the exit level? :rolleyes:
I have said it before, and I repeat it here.
Driver, you are responsible for the safe operation of your vehicle.

124

I think there’s little doubt that the owner is liable if the warning is insufficient. So, it would depend on the factual situation, but if SaintCad’s scenario occurred frequently enough, it is possible in principle for the owner to be found liable, right? Do the signs normally warn people entering, or do they just face people exiting? Seems like a jury could find inadequate warning if there were no signs facing the entry or indicating the risk of stopping on the ramp, etc.

125

Ok, I’m going to make one last post in this increasingly silly thread.

This is directed directly at Wee Bairn.

  1. You are not actually asking if they are legal; you are wanting to assert that they should not be legal, in other words, you wish to debate the situation, because you don’t like them.

  2. They are legal. You’ve been answered this. They are legal because:

    a. There is no specific law that prohibits the use of them, and
    b. There is no common law principle which would compensate you as the owner of a vehicle who drives over them, so long as they are not negligently installed.

I understand that you do not LIKE this answer, but it is the answer to your question. If you wish to debate the morality or sensibility of allowing them to be used, I suggest opening a thread in Great Debates or In My Humble Opinion.
As for other options, what options would you prefer? The spikes exist in places where cars must be allowed ingress; they exist to prevent unauthorized egress. A barrier, such as a wall or fence would preclude ingress. A gate may be able to regulate ingress and act as a deterrent for some to egress, but there are many who would blithely drive through a gate arm to avoid a large parking fee. Those people are going to think twice about driving over spikes.

126

That’s just not a charitable reading of what Wee Bairn is saying. He’s arguing (among other things, some of which might be misguided) that the warning is inadequate. If the warning is indeed inadequate, it is illegal. A more helpful GQ answer would be to show him why the warning he describes, a 2x3 sign on the right hand side while exiting, would constitute adequate warning in the common law.

127

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
This pretty much sums up my many posts on the topic in one sentence :slight_smile:

A barricade arm, fence, attendant, any number of things would serve the exact same purpose without the potential of a stupid or scatterbrained patron from neding four new tires. .
[/QUOTE]
Four!? Four new tires?? So not only is that person stupid enough to back into the spikes, he’s dumb enough to continue backing up and punching holes in the other two tires!? People that stupid shouldn’t have a license to begin with. Or an internet connection for that matter.

128

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
Four!? Four new tires?? So not only is that person stupid enough to back into the spikes, he’s dumb enough to continue backing up and punching holes in the other two tires!? People that stupid shouldn’t have a license to begin with. Or an internet connection for that matter.
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely!
Screw the First Ammendment.
Which action I shall endorse if I see, one more time, this;
“Driver, you are responsible for the safe operation of your vehicle.”
:stuck_out_tongue:

129

[QUOTE=Rick]
Are you serious? The first one of these I saw was in about 1965. Either you are at least 15 years older than I am, spent the first 29.5 years of your life on a desert island, or are not terrible observant. As far as what the signs meant, perhaps looking around and noticing the large spikey things protruding from the ground, might have been a clue? I was not even of driving age when I saw my first set, and it was blindingly obvious to me what they were, how they worked, and what was their purpose.
[/QUOTE]

I’m from a small town in (downstate) Illinois, and I can’t recall ever having seen a set of these. It’s possible I have and forgot, but they certainly aren’t common around here. I’m sure some exist in Chicago, but I don’t think I’ve seen any on my visits there, and I’ve driven extensively around St. Louis while living there for a while, and don’t remember any there either.

130

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Ok, I’m going to make one last post in this increasingly silly thread.

This is directed directly at Wee Bairn.

  1. You are not actually asking if they are legal; you are wanting to assert that they should not be legal, in other words, you wish to debate the situation, because you don’t like them.

  2. They are legal. You’ve been answered this. They are legal because:

    a. There is no specific law that prohibits the use of them, and
    b. There is no common law principle which would compensate you as the owner of a vehicle who drives over them, so long as they are not negligently installed.

I understand that you do not LIKE this answer, but it is the answer to your question. If you wish to debate the morality or sensibility of allowing them to be used, I suggest opening a thread in Great Debates or In My Humble Opinion.
As for other options, what options would you prefer? The spikes exist in places where cars must be allowed ingress; they exist to prevent unauthorized egress. A barrier, such as a wall or fence would preclude ingress. A gate may be able to regulate ingress and act as a deterrent for some to egress, but there are many who would blithely drive through a gate arm to avoid a large parking fee. Those people are going to think twice about driving over spikes.
[/QUOTE]

How abut a six foot gate, that opens and closes by remote control. Most apartment complexes I have seen utilize these to achieve samer puporse.

No one here has cited regulations that they are absolutely legal in the one particular scenario I encountered- one small sign. The statutes quoted, if in effect everywhere in the US, there would be debate if it constituted adequate warning. My point is, in the scenario I personally encountered, I would argue adequate warning was not present.

I have seen People’s court cases where someone argued and won (I know, I know citing People’s Court) brcasue the no parking signage was viewed as adequate (small, faded and confusing IIRC). Maybe other setups of these in other towns are blatantly obvious. But consider the fact that my experience and exposure to this may not be the same with those in other citites and countries. Maybe if some of you saw the one I saw, you would say “I agree, this one is not like the ones I see, it is not marked enough”.

And I get out and travel fairly often, live in a fairly large city, but have seen these once in my life- in an airport parking lot. I do not freq

131

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Ok, I’m going to make one last post in this increasingly silly thread.

This is directed directly at Wee Bairn.

  1. You are not actually asking if they are legal; you are wanting to assert that they should not be legal, in other words, you wish to debate the situation, because you don’t like them.

  2. They are legal. You’ve been answered this. They are legal because:

    a. There is no specific law that prohibits the use of them, and
    b. There is no common law principle which would compensate you as the owner of a vehicle who drives over them, so long as they are not negligently installed.

I understand that you do not LIKE this answer, but it is the answer to your question. If you wish to debate the morality or sensibility of allowing them to be used, I suggest opening a thread in Great Debates or In My Humble Opinion.
As for other options, what options would you prefer? The spikes exist in places where cars must be allowed ingress; they exist to prevent unauthorized egress. A barrier, such as a wall or fence would preclude ingress. A gate may be able to regulate ingress and act as a deterrent for some to egress, but there are many who would blithely drive through a gate arm to avoid a large parking fee. Those people are going to think twice about driving over spikes.
[/QUOTE]

How abut a six foot gate, that opens and closes by remote control. Most apartment complexes I have seen utilize these to achieve samer puporse.

No one here has cited regulations that they are absolutely legal in the one particular scenario I encountered- one small sign. The statutes quoted, if in effect everywhere in the US, there would be debate if it constituted adequate warning. My point is, in the scenario I personally encountered, I would argue adequate warning was not present.

I have seen People’s Court cases where someone argued and won (I know, I know citing People’s Court) brcasue a no parking sign was viewed as adequate (small, faded and confusing IIRC). Maybe other setups of these in other towns are blatantly obvious. But consider the fact that my experience and exposure to this may not be the same with those in other citites and countries. Maybe if some of you saw the one I saw, you would say “I agree, this one is not like the ones I see, it is not marked enough”. :slight_smile:

And I get out and travel fairly often, live in a fairly large city, but have seen these once in my life- in an airport parking lot. I do not frequent public parking lots often, but have never even seen them when driving by them.

IOW, if these are legal, I think in my particular case, it could possibly be argued and won based on not being marked well enough.

132

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
What about this?

I’m behind another car. I have a manual and the exit is on an uphill. The car in front of me jams on their brakes so I (unintentionally) end up just over the spikes. When the other car leaves, I hit the gas but (as stickshifts are prone to do going uphill), I roll back just a bit - just enough to ruin my tires.

Any liability on the owner?
[/QUOTE]

If you don’t know how to drive a manual properly, i.e. don’t know how to do a hill start, then it’s most certainly your problem.

133

I dunno if this has been covered, but supermarkets routinely have turnstiles that allow patrons to enter but not leave, directing them instead to the exits near the cash registers. If you try to leave via an entrance and injure yourself against a stubborn turnstile, is the store liable? I expect not.

134

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
If you don’t know how to drive a manual properly, i.e. don’t know how to do a hill start, then it’s most certainly your problem.
[/QUOTE]

The parking brake method:
When you come to a complete stop, set your parking brake. When the light is about to change, get ready and depress the clutch. As the light goes green, let out the clutch until it just catches, and at the same time release the parking break while you give it a little more gas and release the parking brake fully. And off you go. Igmore any idiots behind you who feel the need to honk. Before you know it, you won’t need to do the parking brake thing any more because you will have gotten the “feel” of the gas + clutch action. Practice somewhere where there’s no other cars.
Some of these “purists” here will use the old “rev the engine to near redline and slowly ease out the clutch” method. Don’t do this. Fried cluthes are quite expensive to replace.

135

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I dunno if this has been covered, but supermarkets routinely have turnstiles that allow patrons to enter but not leave, directing them instead to the exits near the cash registers. If you try to leave via an entrance and injure yourself against a stubborn turnstile, is the store liable? I expect not.
[/QUOTE]

But if the turnstile was designed to ruin your pants there most certainly would have to be adequate warning.

136

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
But if the turnstile was designed to ruin your pants there most certainly would have to be adequate warning.
[/QUOTE]

Good point, IMO. The spikes are designed specifically to ruin tires. They are not designed to stop vehicles. In fact, they cannot actually stop a car.
BTW; I haven’t found any spikes yet.
Methinks people in Berkeley are far too cultured to destroy peoples tires. :wink:

137

[QUOTE=mangeorge]
Good point, IMO. The spikes are designed specifically to ruin tires. They are not designed to stop vehicles. In fact, they cannot actually stop a car.
BTW; I haven’t found any spikes yet.
Methinks people in Berkeley are far too cultured to destroy peoples tires. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

Get out of town and visit some of the regional parks and recreation areas. Many Bay Area county parks and so on want to charge a fee, but don’t want to man a booth. They tend to have spiked exits to prevent you entering that way, with a ticket machine at the entrance. In the South Bay, Uvas Canyon and Sanborn-Skyline come to mind. I recall similar arrangements around the East Bay, but I can’t tell you where.

The People’s Republic of Berkeley would rather construct those &!@@% barricades that force traffic to take scenic detours through their fair city rather than going directly where the drivers want to.

138

[QUOTE=yabob]
Get out of town and visit some of the regional parks and recreation areas. Many Bay Area county parks and so on want to charge a fee, but don’t want to man a booth. They tend to have spiked exits to prevent you entering that way, with a ticket machine at the entrance. In the South Bay, Uvas Canyon and Sanborn-Skyline come to mind. I recall similar arrangements around the East Bay, but I can’t tell you where.

The People’s Republic of Berkeley would rather construct those &!@@% barricades that force traffic to take scenic detours through their fair city rather than going directly where the drivers want to.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, those fucking barricades were initially installed because of local “tourists” taking their so-called short cuts to go watch the Bears. Now we have roundabouts, :wink:
The entrance to Chabot State Park camping area and rifle range has spikes. I have no idea why, you can flip a U and leave any time you want. There’s no fee. But that’s in San Leandro.
I thought we were talking about parking areas. In Berkeley.
Do you live in Orange County, by some chance?

139

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
What about this?

I’m behind another car. I have a manual and the exit is on an uphill. The car in front of me jams on their brakes so I (unintentionally) end up just over the spikes. When the other car leaves, I hit the gas but (as stickshifts are prone to do going uphill), I roll back just a bit - just enough to ruin my tires.

Any liability on the owner?
[/QUOTE]

What if in that situation you rolled backwards over a pedestrian who was crossing behind you instead? Who would be at fault?

That said, why not have one side be a flat wall rather than spikes?

140

Berkeley is a democracy. Bushs USA is a republic. Replete with tire spikes. :smiley: