*sigh* Things like this make me hate this city. (Chicago: insurance, construction)

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

why or why not ??
Can the people not find their balls??

"The People" in Chicago most willing to fight would not create a government you'd be comfortable with.

[cobolt]

Drover- this is complete BS, however, what can you expect from the machine? I see though that the wording of the statute does not say "public roadway," but simply "roadway." So although I agree your driveway is not a roadway, sounds like their interpretation of roadway is fairly loose. It's a money-making racket. Wait until they slap a GPS on your car so they can charge you for driving x amount of miles over your annual allotment. Their already talking about enacting this big brother tactic in OR, NC, and a few other states. Can IL be far behind?

[Drover]

Originally Posted by cobolt

Drover- this is complete BS, however, what can you expect from the machine? I see though that the wording of the statute does not say "public roadway," but simply "roadway." So although I agree your driveway is not a roadway, sounds like their interpretation of roadway is fairly loose. It's a money-making racket. Wait until they slap a GPS on your car so they can charge you for driving x amount of miles over your annual allotment. Their already talking about enacting this big brother tactic in OR, NC, and a few other states. Can IL be far behind?

Ah, not so fast. According to Chicago Municipal Code 9-4-010, "'roadway' means that portion of a public way between the regularly established curb lines, or that part improved, and intended to be used for vehicular travel."

And furthermore, per the same code section, "'public way' means any sidewalk, roadway, alley or other public thoroughfare open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for purposes of travel, excepting bridle paths."

No portion of my driveway is between the regularly established curb lines or that part improved, nor is my driveway open to the use of the public as a matter of right. So no, my driveway is not a "roadway" within the meaning of the statute.

[cobolt]

Originally Posted by Drover

Ah, not so fast. According to Chicago Municipal Code 9-4-010, "'roadway' means that portion of a public way between the regularly established curb lines, or that part improved, and intended to be used for vehicular travel."

And furthermore, per the same code section, "'public way' means any sidewalk, roadway, alley or other public thoroughfare open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for purposes of travel, excepting bridle paths."

No portion of my driveway is between the regularly established curb lines or that part improved, nor is my driveway open to the use of the public as a matter of right. So no, my driveway is not a "roadway" within the meaning of the statute.

If that's the case, I'd print that stuff out, take your ticket, and make a friendly little visit to your Alderman's office. They do this sort of snuff because they can get away with it. If more people would stand up for their rights, it might not happen as much. I mean, I know it's a hassle and all, but what have you got to lose?

[johnm68]

I sympathize, and the same thing happened to me, but the City is in the right here. The relevant section of the Ordinance is the first sentence:

Every registration plate, temporary permit or evidence of temporary registration must bear evidence of proper registration for the current period and be displayed in the manner required by the secretary of state.

If I'm understanding you correctly, your car registration was not up to date, and therefore, in violation of the law. If you don't register your car, you run a good chance of getting a ticket, especially when the City is trying to wring every dime it can from every source. When it happened to me, I lived in Edison Park, and revenue agents went through the entire neighborhood. I was ticked off, but the fact was, my car was not properly registered. If they can see your car from the street, they can ticket it.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by johnm68

If I'm understanding you correctly, your car registration was not up to date, and therefore, in violation of the law.

You're selectively misunderstanding me by cherry-picking from the statute. Read the rest of it which you left out which says it's illegal for such a car to be parked on a roadway, which my car was not. Whether a car sitting on my own private driveway is registered or not is nobody's business.

Originally Posted by johnm68

If they can see your car from the street, they can ticket it.

No, they can't. The statute is very clear about when a vehicle is in violation and when it is not. It says nothing about merely being visible from the street.

[johnm68]

No, I'm not. If you own a drivable car in the City of Chicago, it needs to be registered, whether you park it on the street, in your driveway, in a garage or in your living room. I'll admit, the statute is confusing, and I don't understand the reason for the sentence about parking on a roadway. I am positive, though, that the first sentence is dispositive--you need to register your car. And really, no offense, but why don't you register it?

If you fight this, and win, please let us know, because an awful lot of people have been ticketed like this.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by johnm68

No, I'm not. If you own a drivable car in the City of Chicago, it needs to be registered, whether you park it on the street, in your driveway, in a garage or in your living room. I'll admit, the statute is confusing, and I don't understand the reason for the sentence about parking on a roadway. I am positive, though, that the first sentence is dispositive--you need to register your car. And really, no offense, but why don't you register it?

If you fight this, and win, please let us know, because an awful lot of people have been ticketed like this.

And just how exactly is the city to discern if my car is drivable or not? Do they actually get in it and try to start it?

I don't understand what's "confusing" about the statute or the reason for the second sentence. The second sentence clearly describes what constitutes a violation of the statute. I don't know how much less confusing it could be. Also notice the first part sentence of the statute upon which you seem to place great weight states that it must be registered as required by the secretary of state. The secretary of state does not require a vehicle not in use, on private property, to be registered.

I've cited for you the exact language of the statute. You've cited nothing but your assertions.

Why I don't register it is none of your freaking business, nor is it the city's if it's not parked on their property or used on their roads.

[Chicago60614]

why don't you just renew the plates? Or if you really don't ever ever drive the thing, get rid of it?

[UnderTheLiveOaks]

I've got to say, this all doesn't make a lot of sense to me, either. The idea of this being a game of tag was brought up before, and I think it's sort of strange that the city would treat it as such. I mean, ticketing a car because you can see it? That seems odd to me. People with garages are therefore exempt? It seems to me that the law should be the law. And if a car isn't in use, why must it sport up-to-date registration? That's clearly not the case at car dealerships. So there are exceptions. What if the car isn't working? What if it had no engine? Or the body! Would the Berwyn Spindle need plates if it were in the city limits?

I mean come on. It's a can of worms. It seems to me that leaving the law to govern autos operating in the roadway instead of attempting to fill city coffers by walking onto private property to write a dubious ticket would be the better way to go.