Parking at the town water reservoir just up the road was my comment. Will be interesting to see whether with all the recent rain there will be any work performed on the parking lot and newer pull out area -- the water from the current storm crested the concrete bridge across the stream that runs down the south side of Hurricane Mt. Road and did some damage to one side of the bridge. This is the parking spot for mountain bikers (principally for the Kettle Ridge and Red Tail trails) but it also access to the water tank so presumably Conway will ensure that there is vehicular access across the stream for water maintenance purposes. As to ticketing, I see both sides. Fundamentally, the more parking that is created, the more people come. I don't really see any solution. And I do reiterate my comment that few people have resisted the temptation to creatively park when it it suits them -- and that will never change. So while I get that issuing tickets is a low hanging fruit approach that typically just causes people to park further upwind or downwind from the trail head, I'm not sure I see other great solutions. Ultimately, the locals will end up dictating the outcome through their complaints or tolerance, as the case may be. Btw, the trail head parking for the Black Cap Mt. trail is being significantly expanded. Of course, that is 2.5 miles from the Kearsage North trail head. It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the new Black Cap lot overflows back onto Hurricane Mt. Rd. Prior to the new lot, the top of the pass was a zoo on most weekend days. On top of that, Hurricane Mt. Rd. is a huge destination ride for motorcycles, and there have been numerous complaints by the local Hurricane Mt. Rd. residents about MC traffic riding at excessive speeds. In any event, same old story re: too many people and too little resources.
Got a parking ticket at Kearsage North today
- Thread starter peakbagger
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
The bummer is that there is very large block of conserved land just up the road behind a ski club with a long drive way that is also a right of way. The no longer used "Broken Knee" mountain bike trail is accessed by this right of way. It follows the same route of the long abandoned but not difficult to follow Shingle Pond Trail Shingle Pond Trail - NH - New England's Lost Hiking Trails It makes a very nice loop over the summit that includes Shingle Pond, a very nice lesser known white mountain pond, with a short road walk back to the car.
When I researched it years ago, the group holding some of the land this route crosses reportedly does not manage for active recreation so no trails. The funny thing is most maps show it as Merriam State Forest. Looking at the topo, a relocation similar to South Moat could be done and get the parking on public land.
When I researched it years ago, the group holding some of the land this route crosses reportedly does not manage for active recreation so no trails. The funny thing is most maps show it as Merriam State Forest. Looking at the topo, a relocation similar to South Moat could be done and get the parking on public land.
Yes, that is right. But many folks don't want lands to go into recreational use because of the crowds that inevitably show up. The old Shingle Pond trail is quite nice and the pond itself and surrounding area is a gem (the old trail -- which is on historic topo maps -- is easy to follow once you find the entrance, but finding the entrance is not easy if you are not familiar with its precise location). The road you mention (Timberline Dr.) was regraded a few years back beyond the ski club and it appears that new underground electric lines were laid all the way to the end or close to it. But to my knowledge no building or construction has taken place (unclear to me whether any was planned). A few years back there was for sale a large parcel of land (on the east side, with road frontage just before the ski club) that I believe was the subject of litigation over a height of land restriction on building. I believe that land was subsequently sold but not sure what, if anything, is potentially going to happen with it or up the road beyond the ski club and residence. Upper Saco Valley Land Trust manages quite a bit of land in and around Mt. Surprise/Merriman SF, but there is no public access to those parcels. USVLT was looking to acquire a small parcel of land near the Kearsage North trail head a few years back, but an out-of-state buyer purchased that land and is said to be building a home there at some point. That parcel abuts the eastern side of USVLT-managed land (the Burnell Grant). Folks should note that there is no parking at the end of Mt. Surprise Road (where there is an USVLT kiosk) or at the condos on Eagle Ridge. And the Bartlett Mt. trail also departs from the USVLT parcel, travelling through Merriman SF. Again, no public access to this trail though.
Perhaps some of those locals should take advantage of the lack of parking and make some money for themselves by allowing people to park on their properties near trails for a fee.
Works in other areas where there is more demand for parking than space available, or the private spots are more convenient than the available free options (thus worth the extra cost).
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
Long ago, there was one private parking lot owned by a general store at the Piper Trail head for Mt Chocorua that seemed to do pretty well but at some point the USFS built a large parking lot on their land behind it. Without the parking lot, the store closed.
The Lowes charged for parking at Lowes path in Randolph (there really was no legal parking near the trailhead and the owner made sure that a no parking sign was maintained on the other side of the street at the actual traihead but in later years they were pretty casual about collecting the fee. Reportedly on occasion the owner would chain a heavy block to the bumper of a car owner who did not pay but I do not know if it actually happened or legend. Lowes stores future is in question with Alan Lowes passing, the store has been closed for several years yet Alan's widow reportedly lives above it. Despite saying it was not availabble for hiker parking it has been plowed.
The cog used to charge hikers for parking on and off over the years for access to Jewel and Ammo trail. At some point, the FS built a lot outside the Cog property and relocated trails to end up at the new lot while the cog continued having their guests use the original trails. The FS was not plowing the new Ammo lot when the base station road was finally allowed to be plowed, about a year or two later the cog started charging for winter parking and the FS started plowing the Ammo lot, although many folks pay the cog to save the extra 1/4 mile in and out.
My guess given the popularity of the Kearsage North trail, I am surprised the FS has not come up with a parking solution similar to Diana's Bath but given the demand for property in the Conway area, I do not think they could be quick enough to buy land unless it was from a willing seller that wanted to sell to the FS. That area north of Kearsage Road is inside the WMNF declaration boundary so they do not need congressional action to buy land but generally the FS is not fast on its feet with respect to real estate. The Bowman transaction in Randolph was done by a third party acting as an intermediary that can be agile and eventually sold or transferred to the WMNF at later date.
I expect there could be zoning issues in that area is someone opened up a paid parking lot on their property.
The Lowes charged for parking at Lowes path in Randolph (there really was no legal parking near the trailhead and the owner made sure that a no parking sign was maintained on the other side of the street at the actual traihead but in later years they were pretty casual about collecting the fee. Reportedly on occasion the owner would chain a heavy block to the bumper of a car owner who did not pay but I do not know if it actually happened or legend. Lowes stores future is in question with Alan Lowes passing, the store has been closed for several years yet Alan's widow reportedly lives above it. Despite saying it was not availabble for hiker parking it has been plowed.
The cog used to charge hikers for parking on and off over the years for access to Jewel and Ammo trail. At some point, the FS built a lot outside the Cog property and relocated trails to end up at the new lot while the cog continued having their guests use the original trails. The FS was not plowing the new Ammo lot when the base station road was finally allowed to be plowed, about a year or two later the cog started charging for winter parking and the FS started plowing the Ammo lot, although many folks pay the cog to save the extra 1/4 mile in and out.
My guess given the popularity of the Kearsage North trail, I am surprised the FS has not come up with a parking solution similar to Diana's Bath but given the demand for property in the Conway area, I do not think they could be quick enough to buy land unless it was from a willing seller that wanted to sell to the FS. That area north of Kearsage Road is inside the WMNF declaration boundary so they do not need congressional action to buy land but generally the FS is not fast on its feet with respect to real estate. The Bowman transaction in Randolph was done by a third party acting as an intermediary that can be agile and eventually sold or transferred to the WMNF at later date.
I expect there could be zoning issues in that area is someone opened up a paid parking lot on their property.
Build it and they will come. More parking spaces means more impact to trails. At some point direct cause and effect needs to be realized. Meanwhile local and general parking regulations need to be enforced if not more regulated in order to squelch the continual degradation of the existing trail networks.
Mike P.
Well-known member
The lot is tiny for the popularity of the trail.
PB, what does it mean to be within the national forest declaration boundary? I notice that on many maps, everything on the north side of Hurricane Mountain Rd is within the boundary but has homes/communities. Am I seeing straight?
Yes indeed. And from what I can see there is no way to expand it.
Ultimately people will need to be encouraged to hike other trails if the lot is full. I think someone mentioned signage as a potential solution. And the mountain bikers are overflowing the water tank parking up the road so although I mentioned that as an alternative, it probably doesn’t help much.
JoshandBaron
Well-known member
The FS can buy available properties as funds are available without further congressional approval.
Thx. But otherwise it's private land. Interesting.
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
Here is a lot more detail on declaration boundaries and the players in land preservation in the area that impact why Kearsage North access is such an issue. Unfortunately to understand, there is lot of background.
The declaration boundary is the legal boundary of the White Mountain National Forest established by Congress. Unlike the western national forests that were predominantly established on federal land, almost all the WMNF was on private lands that were a mix of mostly private land located in established towns and in some areas unincorporated locations. Many towns were dependent on having land to grow on and wanted assurances that the WMNF would not continue to grow and swallow them up. Therefore, if you look at the WMNF map, the boundaries are definitely not straight in many locations. Some of it follows watersheds while in most cases rail corridors and highway corridors were excluded. In some cases, major landholders, like the Brown Company in the north country with political influence and the state of NH had influence over the boundaries. Other factors are that WMNF was funded under legislation to benefit flood control predominantly on the Connecticut River watershed as the towns along the river in southern New England got hammered by spring floods of epic proportions due to the stripping of the watershed of trees by wholesale logging. The Weeks act proposed to reduce this flooding by restoring the watersheds that feed major rivers and the intent was that the land would be purchased on a willing buyer/willing seller basis. The prior large landholders used a lot of heavy tactics to drive out the small landholders prior to the WMNF. Much of the land was clearcut and on occasion burned out hillsides and valleys clogged with silt and logging debris from logging operations who had no interest in hanging around for forest regeneration. There are large and small landholdings in the national forest, these are still private and state lands inside the declaration boundary, if they come up for sale, the FS can fund the purchase from their budget or from special appropriations and "ear marks" or accept donations of land. BTW, the forest service like any government agency can as a final resort use eminent domain but that is regarded as the absolute "nuclear option" with nationwide repercussions if it were ever exercised. Even going to court for such a clear cut case of the former Mt Cabot trailhead access in Lancaster was reportedly deemed to be too much a of risk.
Desirable or available land outside the boundary is a different story, the FS cannot buy the land unless the declaration boundary is expanded by congressional action and typically takes years and can get wrapped up in national politics. The last expansion I can remember off hand was Lake Tarleton in the SW corner of the national forest. It originally was done to protect a large portion of the lake from development making the remaining properties on the lake incredibly valuable. That decision has "come to roost" of late as the WMNF is proposing to do a major cutting program in the land they acquired on the undeveloped side of the lake. It will probably benefit the forest in the long run but in the short run it will be ugly and the folks opposed tend to think in the short term. The Green Mountain National Forest is in same predicament, the land was protected for sustainable multiple use yet there is pressure now to stop any multiple use other than total preservation. The WMNF when it does timber sales is required to set aside some amount of the proceeds for recreational improvements, in some cases, these funds ahve been used for parking but in general those special funds are syphoned off to pay for maintenance of existing lots. The recreational use parking sticker program built and improved many large parking lots on WMNF land over the years in the whites but that revenue seems to have dwindled as court cases forced the WMNF to restrict the fee areas.
During the Northern Forest era in the 1980s when large blocks of industrial forest land in VT NH and to some extent western Maine were coming on the market from Wall Street leveraged buyouts of the long term owners where the companies large land holdings were stripped from the local industries who were already dying for other reasons, substantial expansion of the WMNF was not politically sellable in Washington (Reagan Era and spotted owl era on the west coast). The backdoor was to create the Silvio National Fish and Wildlife Refuge and the Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge as a means to preserve lands in the north country outside the WMNF boundary. The Umbagog refuge is quite "small" confined to the Lake Umbagog watershed, while Silvio Conte's borders are far less defined and can stretch along the entire length of the Connecticut River watershed although each individual management unit is quite small relative to the WMNF. They tend to be an "under the radar way" of the federal government to buy land for preservation through a somewhat routine budget process and has bought some small amount of the Northern Forest Lands. The Pondicherry area west of RT 115 in Jefferson is an example of a Silvio Conte management unit. I have watched that area grow over the years, they are patient and tend not to pay high prices but they set the low end. When undeveloped properties come up for sale in that area, they usually are backstopped by a refuge offer, if the owner can sell if for more to another buyer, it gets sold. I expect the flurry of recent house lot sales along Rt 115 on what was once large forest tracts are probably disappointing to the refuge.
The final actors in the story are large and small independent non profits that have access to donor funds, the large national groups can be relatively agile when inholdings come up for sale and in some cases will buy blocks of land adjacent but outside the boundaries. Some buy to hold but some like The Conservation Fund (TCF) What We Do | The Conservation Fund buy to redistribute to other organizations. Here is long history of the complex transactions leading to the Randolph Community Forest and the involvement of the Trust for Public Lands TPL) http://www.communitiescommittee.org/pdfs/randolphstory.pdf If you go through the deed registries for many north country towns in the WMNF, TPL and TCF appear quite often. TCF have been very active near the whites especially in recent years since 2016 when they hired Sally Manikian formerly of AMC. She has been involved in several recent medium sized transactions along the Androscoggin usually adjacent to but outside the declaration boundary. Her "trademark projects" are some incredibly complicated transactions (similar to the TPL Randolph Project getting funding from multiple sources to protect land. Once the land is distributed, TCF and TPL goes on to other projects and local non profits own and manage them. Upper Saco Valley Land Trust is a smaller land trust that was referred to as having lands in the area along Kearsage road. The trusts may own the land outright or just own easements of various sorts that permanently limit what can be done on a block of "conserved land". Some of these easements allow public access and recreation, but no recreational improvements, some do not. It usually depends on the funding source and what the original owner's intent was. The problem is that easements have to be managed "forever" and many of the organizations entrusted with owning the easements are frequently underfunded local or regional non profit organizations usually run by very dedicated but underpaid individuals in charge managing a revoloving door of interns and employees on their way up. In theory there is money set aside when easements are accepted, but few donors are interested in donating to administer properties and pay the staff compared to contributing to buying a new easement. Therefore, many land trusts really want to have nothing to do with organized public access as that requires staff and expenditures "forever" unless there is dedicated endowment and requirement to fund it. This can be real problem in urban areas where conserved lands become the refuge of the unhoused. The state of NH sometimes becomes the party entrusted with conserved lands as the state does not require long term funding of the management of an easement like third party trusts do. The state in general has a poor reputation with maintaining the easements and in many cases like the Sunapee, Ossipee's and Nash Stream have been known to ignore their responsibilities under influence of political pressure. The state division responsible for lands is chronically underfunded and understaffed and generally the only way they will do improvements is on projects that will self fund. Parking lots rarely self fund unless located on a very popular spot like a lake so the state is probably not going to build a parking lot at Kearsage North. The WMNF could if they had the funding and interest, but they would need to buy land from a willing seller and given the demand for land adjoining conserved lands I do not see that happening on Kearsage Road unless someone passes away and leaves the land to the WMNF.
So it comes down to its desirable to most locals who have "paid their dues" by buying land in town to have conserved land near their property but they really do not want too many folks from away to access it, the WMNF has many other priorities and Kearsage North is a prime example or one that is too sticky to deal with.
The declaration boundary is the legal boundary of the White Mountain National Forest established by Congress. Unlike the western national forests that were predominantly established on federal land, almost all the WMNF was on private lands that were a mix of mostly private land located in established towns and in some areas unincorporated locations. Many towns were dependent on having land to grow on and wanted assurances that the WMNF would not continue to grow and swallow them up. Therefore, if you look at the WMNF map, the boundaries are definitely not straight in many locations. Some of it follows watersheds while in most cases rail corridors and highway corridors were excluded. In some cases, major landholders, like the Brown Company in the north country with political influence and the state of NH had influence over the boundaries. Other factors are that WMNF was funded under legislation to benefit flood control predominantly on the Connecticut River watershed as the towns along the river in southern New England got hammered by spring floods of epic proportions due to the stripping of the watershed of trees by wholesale logging. The Weeks act proposed to reduce this flooding by restoring the watersheds that feed major rivers and the intent was that the land would be purchased on a willing buyer/willing seller basis. The prior large landholders used a lot of heavy tactics to drive out the small landholders prior to the WMNF. Much of the land was clearcut and on occasion burned out hillsides and valleys clogged with silt and logging debris from logging operations who had no interest in hanging around for forest regeneration. There are large and small landholdings in the national forest, these are still private and state lands inside the declaration boundary, if they come up for sale, the FS can fund the purchase from their budget or from special appropriations and "ear marks" or accept donations of land. BTW, the forest service like any government agency can as a final resort use eminent domain but that is regarded as the absolute "nuclear option" with nationwide repercussions if it were ever exercised. Even going to court for such a clear cut case of the former Mt Cabot trailhead access in Lancaster was reportedly deemed to be too much a of risk.
Desirable or available land outside the boundary is a different story, the FS cannot buy the land unless the declaration boundary is expanded by congressional action and typically takes years and can get wrapped up in national politics. The last expansion I can remember off hand was Lake Tarleton in the SW corner of the national forest. It originally was done to protect a large portion of the lake from development making the remaining properties on the lake incredibly valuable. That decision has "come to roost" of late as the WMNF is proposing to do a major cutting program in the land they acquired on the undeveloped side of the lake. It will probably benefit the forest in the long run but in the short run it will be ugly and the folks opposed tend to think in the short term. The Green Mountain National Forest is in same predicament, the land was protected for sustainable multiple use yet there is pressure now to stop any multiple use other than total preservation. The WMNF when it does timber sales is required to set aside some amount of the proceeds for recreational improvements, in some cases, these funds ahve been used for parking but in general those special funds are syphoned off to pay for maintenance of existing lots. The recreational use parking sticker program built and improved many large parking lots on WMNF land over the years in the whites but that revenue seems to have dwindled as court cases forced the WMNF to restrict the fee areas.
During the Northern Forest era in the 1980s when large blocks of industrial forest land in VT NH and to some extent western Maine were coming on the market from Wall Street leveraged buyouts of the long term owners where the companies large land holdings were stripped from the local industries who were already dying for other reasons, substantial expansion of the WMNF was not politically sellable in Washington (Reagan Era and spotted owl era on the west coast). The backdoor was to create the Silvio National Fish and Wildlife Refuge and the Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge as a means to preserve lands in the north country outside the WMNF boundary. The Umbagog refuge is quite "small" confined to the Lake Umbagog watershed, while Silvio Conte's borders are far less defined and can stretch along the entire length of the Connecticut River watershed although each individual management unit is quite small relative to the WMNF. They tend to be an "under the radar way" of the federal government to buy land for preservation through a somewhat routine budget process and has bought some small amount of the Northern Forest Lands. The Pondicherry area west of RT 115 in Jefferson is an example of a Silvio Conte management unit. I have watched that area grow over the years, they are patient and tend not to pay high prices but they set the low end. When undeveloped properties come up for sale in that area, they usually are backstopped by a refuge offer, if the owner can sell if for more to another buyer, it gets sold. I expect the flurry of recent house lot sales along Rt 115 on what was once large forest tracts are probably disappointing to the refuge.
The final actors in the story are large and small independent non profits that have access to donor funds, the large national groups can be relatively agile when inholdings come up for sale and in some cases will buy blocks of land adjacent but outside the boundaries. Some buy to hold but some like The Conservation Fund (TCF) What We Do | The Conservation Fund buy to redistribute to other organizations. Here is long history of the complex transactions leading to the Randolph Community Forest and the involvement of the Trust for Public Lands TPL) http://www.communitiescommittee.org/pdfs/randolphstory.pdf If you go through the deed registries for many north country towns in the WMNF, TPL and TCF appear quite often. TCF have been very active near the whites especially in recent years since 2016 when they hired Sally Manikian formerly of AMC. She has been involved in several recent medium sized transactions along the Androscoggin usually adjacent to but outside the declaration boundary. Her "trademark projects" are some incredibly complicated transactions (similar to the TPL Randolph Project getting funding from multiple sources to protect land. Once the land is distributed, TCF and TPL goes on to other projects and local non profits own and manage them. Upper Saco Valley Land Trust is a smaller land trust that was referred to as having lands in the area along Kearsage road. The trusts may own the land outright or just own easements of various sorts that permanently limit what can be done on a block of "conserved land". Some of these easements allow public access and recreation, but no recreational improvements, some do not. It usually depends on the funding source and what the original owner's intent was. The problem is that easements have to be managed "forever" and many of the organizations entrusted with owning the easements are frequently underfunded local or regional non profit organizations usually run by very dedicated but underpaid individuals in charge managing a revoloving door of interns and employees on their way up. In theory there is money set aside when easements are accepted, but few donors are interested in donating to administer properties and pay the staff compared to contributing to buying a new easement. Therefore, many land trusts really want to have nothing to do with organized public access as that requires staff and expenditures "forever" unless there is dedicated endowment and requirement to fund it. This can be real problem in urban areas where conserved lands become the refuge of the unhoused. The state of NH sometimes becomes the party entrusted with conserved lands as the state does not require long term funding of the management of an easement like third party trusts do. The state in general has a poor reputation with maintaining the easements and in many cases like the Sunapee, Ossipee's and Nash Stream have been known to ignore their responsibilities under influence of political pressure. The state division responsible for lands is chronically underfunded and understaffed and generally the only way they will do improvements is on projects that will self fund. Parking lots rarely self fund unless located on a very popular spot like a lake so the state is probably not going to build a parking lot at Kearsage North. The WMNF could if they had the funding and interest, but they would need to buy land from a willing seller and given the demand for land adjoining conserved lands I do not see that happening on Kearsage Road unless someone passes away and leaves the land to the WMNF.
So it comes down to its desirable to most locals who have "paid their dues" by buying land in town to have conserved land near their property but they really do not want too many folks from away to access it, the WMNF has many other priorities and Kearsage North is a prime example or one that is too sticky to deal with.
Last edited:
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
BTW an incredibly handy tool for determine if land is "protected" is this Map Just zoom up on the area in question and click on it and there will be some (but not all) information on the status of the land. Its worth roaming round the map on occasion just realize how much land is in some sort of preservation status in the region.
So when I click on in the area I think is the Kearsage North Trail I get this, presumably The Upper Saco Valley land trust is the area in Red? If you look carefully there is a dotted line that starts around the "o" on Hurricane Moutain Road that heads up and actually crosses into the Green Hills Preserve land on what is shown on the map as presumably private inholdings. I say presumably as in many cases I am not sure how accurately lots are depicted. Note Green Hills Preserve is listed as "closed" public access yet they have an extensive public trail network on other lands in the preserve so there is some public access allowed.
So when I click on in the area I think is the Kearsage North Trail I get this, presumably The Upper Saco Valley land trust is the area in Red? If you look carefully there is a dotted line that starts around the "o" on Hurricane Moutain Road that heads up and actually crosses into the Green Hills Preserve land on what is shown on the map as presumably private inholdings. I say presumably as in many cases I am not sure how accurately lots are depicted. Note Green Hills Preserve is listed as "closed" public access yet they have an extensive public trail network on other lands in the preserve so there is some public access allowed.
Last edited:
The red area above Mt. Surprise Rd. is USVLT managed lands, part of which are owned directly by the USVLT (it prefers to manage lands and not also own them, as there is a conflict of interest by their own admission when also owning the land). The darker red above that is Merriman SF. To my knowledge, the state pretty much does no maintenance on the Bartlett Mt. trail that lies within the SF. The Black Cap trails (hiking and mountain biking) that are south of Hurricane Mt. Rd. are all Green Hills Preserve land and I am pretty sure the area north that is on Hurricane Mt. itself is all Green Hills Preserve as well (or perhaps "Conway Common Forest Lands"). Not sure about the parcel just west of Timberline Dr. or the parcel in the southwest portion of the map. USVLT lands are generally open to public use but for many USVLT lands, including the lands around Mt. Surprise, there is no public parking and therefore no public access unless you walk or bike to them. I believe biking on the small trail network is permitted, but there really is no reason to bother given that just down the road at the water cistern/tank there are very well developed mountain biking trails, with many new trails having been added in recent years by professional trail developers/contractors. Those trails connect to an extensive trail network in and around Black Cap and Cranmore. Note that hunting is generally permitted on USVLT lands so visitors should wear orange during hunting seasons.
Edit: Looks like the land around Black Cap/Hurricane Mt. Rd and Hurricane Mt. is Conway Common Lands SF, according to the map. Green Hills Preserve is to the south down near Pudding Pond/Peaked Mt./Middle Mt. etc. In any event, lots of conservation lands in the area.
Edit: Looks like the land around Black Cap/Hurricane Mt. Rd and Hurricane Mt. is Conway Common Lands SF, according to the map. Green Hills Preserve is to the south down near Pudding Pond/Peaked Mt./Middle Mt. etc. In any event, lots of conservation lands in the area.
Last edited:
Salty
Active member
Hey PB, I'm guessing you got cited for RSA 265:68, which states:
"Upon any way outside of a business or residence district no person shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or main-traveled part of the way when it is practicable to stop, park or so leave such vehicle off such part of said way, but in every event an unobstructed width of the way opposite a standing vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles and clear view of such stopped vehicles shall be available from a distance of 200 feet in each direction upon such way."
(my emphasis)
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but judging by the photo, the "free passage" of a car in your lane would likely require going over the center line, or in the case of two cars, the one in your lane would have to slow way down and pass your vehicle cautiously. If that's the case, the citation is pretty legit.
"Upon any way outside of a business or residence district no person shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or main-traveled part of the way when it is practicable to stop, park or so leave such vehicle off such part of said way, but in every event an unobstructed width of the way opposite a standing vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles and clear view of such stopped vehicles shall be available from a distance of 200 feet in each direction upon such way."
(my emphasis)
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but judging by the photo, the "free passage" of a car in your lane would likely require going over the center line, or in the case of two cars, the one in your lane would have to slow way down and pass your vehicle cautiously. If that's the case, the citation is pretty legit.
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
It was an administrative ticket, similar to parking ticket, meaning town of Conway gets all the revenue. Strictly a revenue device in my opinion.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Hypothermic hiker rescued from Little Haystack by helicopter
- Latest: Dr. Dasypodidae
-
-
-
How Hard Was The Snowpack Hit Yesterday
- Latest: Dr. Dasypodidae
-
