Odd question about...On base parking!

[ixium]

Mybe not the right place for this, but unsure where else to ask.

Without knowing any back ground...Is there a DAOD/QRO/Base SOP that says that civilian vehicles (POMV, like ones you drive to and from work, not DND civi pattern) HAVE to be backed into a parking spot?

 

[George Wallace]

Mybe not the right place for this, but unsure where else to ask.

Without knowing any back ground...Is there a DAOD/QRO/Base SOP that says that civilian vehicles (POMV, like ones you drive to and from work, not DND civi pattern) HAVE to be backed into a parking spot?

On some Bases:  YES.

CFB Gagetown has/had one such Order on its Base Routine Orders.  That was to facilitate the towing of vehicles if necessary and the access to the batteries for boosting during winter months.  One may also cite 'Safety', in that it was safer to drive out of a parking spot than to back out into the unknown; but that may be stretching it a bit. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I believe CFB Halifax is the same.  The parking reg's for Hfx was a 29 page document the last time I saw it, so should be easy to find.

* parking spaces are now being paid for by the mbr in CFB Halifax too.  I saw the HALGEN or whatever it is called.  Most expensive $/month I saw was $110 for RA Park.  Based on "fair market value" stuff.

 

[JesseWZ]

Parking is normally regulated in part by Base Standing/Routine orders and they will vary base to base. In Esquimalt, it is recommended but not required for civilian POMV's but mandatory for government vehicles. When I was posted to Gagetown it was mandatory and I believe was governed by a Base Standing Order.

 

[ixium]

Interesting. Is there a place that will actually show it? I've been searching the DIN for both of your suggestions but nothing specifically about reversing into a parking spot.

I'm also looking for information about specifically 8 Wing Trenton.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You would have to go to the 8 Wing DIN site and check ROs.  Or, call the Wing Transport or MP flight, they'd likely know the score.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Interesting. Is there a place that will actually show it? I've been searching the DIN for both of your suggestions but nothing specifically about reversing into a parking spot.

I'm also looking for information about specifically 8 Wing Trenton.

Get a ticket did we? 

 

[ixium]

Hah, no. A higher up is saying that he's going to start enforcing it saying it's in the regs.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Pick the hill you die on  ;D

 

[my72jeep]

At some point in the parking experience you need to back up, so why fight doing it at the start?

 

[Tibbson]

Hah, no. A higher up is saying that he's going to start enforcing it saying it's in the regs.

Two thoughts on the subject in general:

1)  its unenforceable for civie vehicles since there is no way to tell if the vehicle is driven by a military member who should know the reg (and is subject to the CSD), a civilian employee who should know or a civilian visitor who would have no clue.  By not having it enforced equally its unfair to thkse who get picked on;  and

2)  Once all basex go to pay parking, like Halifax just did, the issue will get even more clouded.

If you have a supervisor looking to enforce some regulation then you have every right to respectfully ask to see that regulation.  After all, one of the elements of the offence to show YOU were not following a regulation or order is that it must be proven you knew about the regulation/order.  If he/she can't,  or won't,  show it to you or tell you where to find it...and you cant find it, it doesn't exist.

 

[MJP]

Two thoughts on the subject in general:

1)  its unenforceable for civie vehicles since there is no way to tell if the vehicle is driven by a military member who should know the reg (and is subject to the CSD), a civilian employee who should know or a civilian visitor who would have no clue.  By not having it enforced equally its unfair to thkse who get picked on;  and

2)  Once all basex go to pay parking, like Halifax just did, the issue will get even more clouded.

If you have a supervisor looking to enforce some regulation then you have every right to respectfully ask to see that regulation.  After all, one of the elements of the offence to show YOU were not following a regulation or order is that it must be proven you knew about the regulation/order.  If he/she can't,  or won't,  show it to you or tell you where to find it...and you cant find it, it doesn't exist.

Good post.  I find asking someone to show me the ref or reg sorts out many of these useless bunfights.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think a read of the MARLANTORD on the parking regs in Hfx would show you it's enforceable for civie vehicles and both military and civil servants.  There is even a traffic enforcement / parking cops patrol.

 

[Good2Golf]

Two thoughts on the subject in general:

1)  its unenforceable for civie vehicles since there is no way to tell if the vehicle is driven by a military member who should know the reg (and is subject to the CSD), a civilian employee who should know or a civilian visitor who would have no clue.  By not having it enforced equally its unfair to thkse who get picked on;  and

2)  Once all basex go to pay parking, like Halifax just did, the issue will get even more clouded.

If you have a supervisor looking to enforce some regulation then you have every right to respectfully ask to see that regulation.  After all, one of the elements of the offence to show YOU were not following a regulation or order is that it must be proven you knew about the regulation/order.  If he/she can't,  or won't,  show it to you or tell you where to find it...and you cant find it, it doesn't exist.

Two points:

1. Your point 1 may not be valid if the regulation holds bylaw status for the jurisdiction in question and is signed appropriately, although it seems this may not to be the case in the situation the OP is referring to; and

2. Your point that I have highlighted above is not entirely accurate.  Wording of the basis of many contraventions is based on the phrase "ought reasonably to have known about the rule/regulation/order."  This is particularly the case with regulations based on, or supportive of the National Defence Act.  If a regulation is published in 8 Wing's Routine Orders, for example, wherein the requirement to back vehicles into parking spaces (or pull through double spaces) is stated, then a member could not say, "I didn't know about that rule," as it was in fact published in orders that policy states all shall be familiar with.

I do concur with the general understanding wherein regulations that members are to be held to account for, must be made reasonably available and/or published, in order to have a basis of enforceability.  Consider, however, that such regulations would apply to all who chose willingly to set foot (tire) on a Defence Establishment (similar to the 'subject to search' condition on all DND establishments).

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[The_Falcon]

After all, one of the elements of the offence to show YOU were not following a regulation or order is that it must be proven you knew about the regulation/order. 

Incorrect.  All that needs to be proven (for strict liablity offences, which parking infractions are) is that a regulation/law/order (civy or military) exists, and was valid/in force at the time of the infraction, and that the person commited the requisite act for the infraction.  Whether or not a person is/was aware of that law/reg etc. is immaterial.

 

[my72jeep]

Parking is normally regulated in part by Base Standing/Routine orders and they will vary base to base. In Esquimalt, it is recommended but not required for civilian POMV's but mandatory for government vehicles. When I was posted to Gagetown it was mandatory and I believe was governed by a Base Standing Order.

Back in the mid to late 80s Gagetown had sign's in all parking areas stating back in parking was mandatory.

 

[Happy Guy]

I was a Transportation Officer on a large Army base and I, along with the Base MP, was charged by the Base Commander to promote safe driving on the base.  The MPs to enforce traffic regulations and Base Transport to promote safe driving practices like providing the safe backing course.

For the reasons stated by Good2Golf, the Base Commander is well within their rights to charge anyone, on the base (DND property) with any driving infractions.  The rules about backing all vehicles into parking stalls, less PMQs, is published in Base routine orders, unit routine orders and is periodically passed down through the chain of command (CO and RSM net) particularly during APS.  In additions there are usually signs warning people.  Ignorance is no excuse.

As mentioned before in previous posts, I would recommend that you find another cause to fight.

 

[McG]

...Is there a DAOD/QRO/Base SOP that says that civilian vehicles ... HAVE to be backed into a parking spot?

No DAOD.  No QR&O.  Some bases do have a standing order to this end and others do not.

Some bases have stopped publishing routine orders and don't have standing orders to be found.  On such bases, one would have a reasonable 129 defence if there were no signage.  But, of the bases that I know, those who have backing policies have not abdicated the role of publishing orders.

 

[Tibbson]

Two points:

1. Your point 1 may not be valid if the regulation holds bylaw status for the jurisdiction in question and is signed appropriately, although it seems this may not to be the case in the situation the OP is referring to; and

2. Your point that I have highlighted above is not entirely accurate.  Wording of the basis of many contraventions is based on the phrase "ought reasonably to have known about the rule/regulation/order."  This is particularly the case with regulations based on, or supportive of the National Defence Act.  If a regulation is published in 8 Wing's Routine Orders, for example, wherein the requirement to back vehicles into parking spaces (or pull through double spaces) is stated, then a member could not say, "I didn't know about that rule," as it was in fact published in orders that policy states all shall be familiar with.

I do concur with the general understanding wherein regulations that members are to be held to account for, must be made reasonably available and/or published, in order to have a basis of enforceability.  Consider, however, that such regulations would apply to all who chose willingly to set foot (tire) on a Defence Establishment (similar to the 'subject to search' condition on all DND establishments).

:2c:

Regards
G2G

You missed my point.  If the supervisor is unable to provide a reference and the member is unable to find it then the relevent element of the offence cannot be proven, that being that the member was aware of the regulation.  I continually deal with RMPs and can draw upon numerous examples where charges have been dropped or tickets cancelled for those reasons.  It was published in ROs...oh, the member was deployed at that time...dropped.  It's on the base/unit DIN page but the member does not have regular access to a computer....dropped.  The individual is a civilian visiting base and the "backing in bylaw" is outside the norm of what a driver in the provice would expect and since they dont get ROs to read when they come on base....dropped. 

Bottom line, if such an order or "bylaw" exists on Base X and a supervisor says he is going to enforce it then any member is well within their rights to request the reference and have an opportunity to review it for reference.  If the supervisor cannot provide the reference, and the member cant find it on their own, then there isnt anything to enforce nd it can be successfully challenged.

 

[George Wallace]

Bottom line, if such an order or "bylaw" exists on Base X and a supervisor says he is going to enforce it then any member is well within their rights to request the reference and have an opportunity to review it for reference.  If the supervisor cannot provide the reference, and the member cant find it on their own, then there isnt anything to enforce nd it can be successfully challenged.

READ what you posted again.

IF a "bylaw" exists on Base X and a supervisor says he is going to enforce it, the member had better follow the "bylaw" that EXISTS.  If not, then the member had better be prepared to suffer the consequences.  SIMPLE.