Banning Children's bicycles/skate boards, etc

It is going to come up to ban children from riding their skateboards, bicycles, etc on the streets within the condo comples(not city streets) and also on the sidewalks...Some of those low to the ground peddle things are dangerous in the streets(condo streets) when the kid is darting(yes, darting) in and out of parked cars into the street when people are driving up to 20 MPH(even though not allowed)... it is dangerous for the kids.

Many complaints about having to dart away from kids on those things when they are on the sidewalks of the complex... mostly from elderly people..

Thus, where can they go? There is going to be a suggestion(strong suggestion) that they be banned all together... The CC&Rs do not mention that they cannot be used.

Has anyone had problems with these things? I also am concerned about being accused of discrimination against "children"

AlexL, Your concern about discrimination is well founded. The HOA may be allowed to establish a rule to ban skateboards, bicycles, etc in the common areas - but not just for children. The issue is safety and what can be done to allow children to play while not being a significant disturbance to others. And when making such rules ask how does the HOA effectively police and enforce those restrictions. It is a difficult problem to resolve and that is why 55+ communities are becoming more popular.

i would like to say that the advice offered here to remove the ban on "children" doing X and Y and instead simply banning Activity X and Y was absolutely fantastic.

I cannot tell you how many times in my world(s), i see similar rules being made to ban or prohibit a certain thing, and yet it truly fails to get to the real problem. In this case, we don't want 'kids' to dart out into traffic, and be hit. So, we ban "kids" from doing things that would cause that. But, in effect what we are saying is that if you are an adult, the same behavior that we find dangerous and horrible in children is suddenly acceptable. Is it really? Is it okay to dart out into traffic as a 28 year old? Is it okay to rollerblade and crash into someone's flower planter if you are 58? THe day before your 18th birthday, you can't ride a skateboard. Then, two minutes after midnight, you suddenly can? What changed to make you safer?

If only more boards, and more people, would look to the real root of their issue, and work a rule to deal with THAT, instead of applying a ton of rules to the outside, cosmetic, or expressed symptoms if the issue, things would be easier.

Thank you for the great advice. thank you very much, it was a pleasure to see it brought forward.

Robert they can ban activities but unless it’s a 55 or older community they can’t discriminate between children and adults as this condo found out when the US Attorney filed suit against them: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/02/26/childrens_play_restrictions_spur_suit/

I can tell you with certainty that restricting children's "skateboards, bicycles, etc" is familial discrimination.

I would think that the focus should be on those people that are "driving up to 20 MPH(even though not allowed)" If the people were not driving that quickly, then would it be as dangerous for the kids?

With all due respect, this is not true at all.

Many adults ride both bicycles and use skateboards.

In fact, a great many do.

So if the activity is restricted, it would apply to them as well.

If your association owns the roads in your development, and they are designated as common area, and the board can make rules and regulations regarding what can and can't happen on common areas, then you might be able to build such a rule.

However, I'm not sure you will be able to with the sidewalks, but, if they, too, are owned and maintained by the HOA, then possibly you can.

In our area we have skate and bicycle parks, and we have bike trails in various other parks.

Does your community have such a thing?

FYI: Bicycles are defined as Vehicles in almost all state laws, and bicyclists are given the same rights and responsibilities as all other vehicle operators. Even if the Association owns the streets, I would find it very unlikely that a flat-out ban on bicycle use would stand up in court.

The problem isn't the use of bicycles (or any other type of transportation), it's the improper use, including the improper use of motor vehicles. Darting in and out of parked cars is improper use. Cars parked on the streets is probably also improper use. Excessive speed (for both motorized and non-motorized vehicles) is improper use.

Instead of trying to ban legitimate modes of transportation, maybe it would be better to start a general education campaign geared towards educating all residents in proper use of their vehicles.

In case the analogy is missed let me explain:

The OP suggestion was to ban children specifically from a certain activity (riding a bike/big wheel/skate board) because there is a much greater liklihood of a child being injured while doing the activity than an adult.

In my example the activity is walking on a sloped part of the common area (which is almost all of the common area) and that activity when done by a senior has a much greater liklihood of injury than when done by a child or younger person. I see no reason not to ban seniors from our common area all together.

Alex,

The best that you can do is to post signs banning use of bikes and skateboards on the common area sidewalks. But has anyone thought about trying to enforce this? Condo commandos? Yuk, another job for them to drive normal people crazy.

Put up the signs and just be reasonable about the boards and bikes. With the signs up, the association is at least covered in case someone does create a real problem with the wheels.

Donna and Michele,
Don't know how it happened but I really think the conclusion one can draw from this thread, bears some scrutiny. To proclaim that because an association puts up signs they have no more obligation or responsibilty is just not proper. The posting of signs is an attempt to warn someone of something. It doesn't mean by warning them the danger don't exist. Take a swimming pool, you can post signs no swimming after 9PM. If someone goes in the pool and is harmed, the defense of the association would not be, "I posted a sign." That is why most states (Read insurance companies) are requiring all pools be fenced. Then you jump somewhere to ridiculing the "Condo commando", certainly you can not label a person a condo commando because they would warn someone of dangerous conduct, even if it is "signed". Isn't that a choice that everyone has the right to make? This coming from some Board members who freely admit the Board (their board) will not self enforce rules and convenants, but they will rely on "the condo commando, or the squeaky wheel to keep them informed of misconduct and they will at some point decide, well maybe, the Board should intercede and take steps to correct a problem.

I am not protecting the trouble maker, but this post isn't about trouble makers, and I defend myself and ony other owner that feels the need to use their mind and care enough about their association that they want to protect it, in fact it is their obligation, sign or not. If a child is endangering themselves or others or an adult is endangering the association, you should just ignore them or not, dependent on whether a sign is posted? You can post your property "No trespassing," does this mean if someone comes on your property where there are no sign posted and harms themselve because you created a hazzardous condition, you are not liable. Does it also mean if they walk right past the sign and hurt themselves the owner is not liable. I advocate good signage, but it does not absolve the individual or the association from reasonable conduct, and it is certainly reasonable to not ignore dangerous conditions.. I would believe that if all that was required to protect a business from liability was a sign, within two weeks, the insurance rates would drop 80% and the sign makers output would increase 5000%. (figures are a wild a-- guess).

To Donna and Susan,
Sorry about this double post saying much the same thing. I got a new Laptop and I generally post on my PC. Trying to resolve these mating issues and apparently not doing a very good job. Long story, but again, sorry for the double post, don't chew am a-- out double.

Robert:

I completely understand your position, and I didn't mean to imply that posting a sign would prevent someone from suing the HOA. People can sue for whatever they want, pretty much.

My point with the sign is that it alerts the homeowners about the restriction and that violating the restriction is then at their own risk. That includes allowing people in their homes violating the restriction.

My comment regarding the sign was intended to mitigate the idea that because there is a restriction that the HOA must always actively "police" to enforce it.

A sign that reminds (warns) people of the restriction would help in that mitigation.

At that point, again, the violator is made aware of the restriction and takes on a certain responsibility for ignoring the notice.

It's sort of like no trespassing signs and signs at our lake that state the lake area is for the exclusive use by our association residents, that there is no swimming, boating, ATVing, etc allowed.

Well, that won't stop someone from coming there who is not a member of our association and that won't stop that person from engaging in the activities that are noted as restricted on the sign.

So if someone (member or not) then violates say the swimming restriction -- and gets hurt, I can certainly bet that we would still get sued.

But our signs can reduce to an extent any damages. Possibly still not completely, nothing ever really does, does it? But I do know that NOT having the signs opens our pockets MUCH wider and MUCH deeper.

So I guess this is a long-winded way of saying, signs won't be the magic teflon barrier, but NOT having any signs if the ban is enacted would be likely be more problematic.

Donna and Michele, Oh, if we were all perfect. Michele, I referred to you as Michele once and Susan once. Woe on me.

But both your responses are full of reason, as usual and several good ideas and observations were made by both of you, as always. Not that I have buttered you up, forgive the expression, I don't claim ownership, it just came to mind, I do think the reference to the Condo Commando did not indicate this sorry soul would be likely to take the soft glove approach. I have a long history of being a Commando (I was called the xxxxxhaven Cop.)after years of looking back I think I did more good than bad. Being nice did not seem to mitigate the effect you have on some people when they elect to think NO ONE can tell them what to do. I have always encouraged homeowners to pay attention to what goes on with their property, now if they elect to let people trash it, then signs, boards, whatever is not going to help. That makes this association membership and mutual responsibility the core of living in the association.

Anna,
You comments directed to me come as a surprise and the first of this sort I received, as far as I can remember. Living in a "swanky" condo hardly describes where I live. However , I have to admit I don't know what I wrote about you, I am sure I responded to a message that was posted on the Board. Attaching your name to some kind of vendetta is just not there my friend. Of course I am distressed if I upset you and you certainly have taken me out of character with your description. However, I absolutely will not believe I picked you for some kind of personal attack. If whatever you wrote and you posted under Joe, I would respond to that post.
I offer my apology if I have offended you, I do not offer any apology for what I wrote.............I have no conflict that is personal........

Give it some time Anna, I am sure you think you have nailed me dead center, or you would not have written what you did, but if I am the one that is keeping you from posting your thoughts on this site, may I suggest your reason is not worthy of the action you are taking.

Michelle: VERY WELL put

Anna,
I appreciate you providing me with this information. I would suggest that you relay this information to the folks you are calling "morons". That way you would achieve maximum efforts for your choice of words. Incidently, I have said much worse to a few select individuals. I must say it is not the smartest thing I have ever done.

Recently I complained to board that my next door neighbor's nephew (8 years old with ADD) was riding on a motorized skate board sometimes unsupervised. I was so fearful because we have blind spots around this townhouse community. A guard told me that someone reported that the child almost got hit by a resident. The board finally did something by posting this flyer, "Children should be supervised while bicycle riding, roller skating, skateboard riding or tricyle riding."

Then just last week I was walking my dog and heard a neighbor complain to a father of 7-8 year old children that he almost hit one of them with his car while they were riding their scooter.

I don't know about laws but I just would hate to see any person irrespective of being a child/adult be hurt at our community for unsafe activities.

Why is it wrong to use the word children are banned/prohibited (Fair Housing Act.)?

You can ban the activity without running into problems. It's when you start banning certain people (or classes of people, such as children, for example) that you start getting into discriminatory practices.

Trust me, adults can be just as irresponsible engaging in the activity as children can be, so why single out children?

Besides, there are no laws that will protect the children from accidents. The laws simply add another layer under which the parent can be deemed irresponsible for not providing proper supervision if an accident happens.

MicheleD,

I remember at a board meeting a discussion about infants in the jacuzzi with diapers. They said they can't post a sign saying no infants with diapers because it was discrimatory. My brother-in-law came to visit and he refuses to wear Depends. Oh, my gosh he would wet his pants and even pooped in his pants in my brother's car.

I have to admit since they posted the notice about children must be supervised by an adult while bicyling and etc. there hasn't been any complaints/incidences.

I agree adults can be just as careless. I was clowning around while roller blading and ran smack into a wall- good thing I had protective gear on.

Patsy02

Hey There Miss Hallie,

That was not nice and uncalled for. This site is for Board members , Managers and committee people who try to have their number one concern for their HOAs. This is a problem solving site and not a venting blog. Sorry, but you must find some place else to blow off steam. Just remember this post when you turn 70.

Not likely, Snowflake. Fear monger much?

If you want to have your kids play unfettered by rules and safety issues, then move into the country.

Buh-bye.

Hallie, my child,
And I truly mean that. Best you go somewhere else.

You do not know it now, but soon....very soon....ending in court will be the last and least thing on your mind. Very soon you will be wondering what you are going to do with the rest of your life. You will be concerned with having to go through your house and toss out your loved ones belongings. Your children will be with you trying to give you support at this sad, sad, time.
I'm eighty, just about, I am still capable of knowing your tirade is simply petty juvenile proclamations, screaming in the darkness. Go to another site, give it some time and the next time you blink your eyes, drop by again. You will find you are the person you have so unjustly violated.

I hear what you are saying, you are just not far enough down the road to explain it.

Hallie my child,
You missed again.

Hallie,

Best that you say "BYE BYE" The monitor has been notified that you are not playing by the rules.

Donna 4,000 posts shows you need to get a life!