I don't think the hospital administration would allow any golf cart traffic to cross the parking lot. I hope that any lawmakers would take into consideration that any extra traffic travelling across hospital property would not be in anyone's best interest.

The street legal carts from the north cross 441/27 at Buenos Aires Blvd. If is it safe for a 25 MPH street legal cart, 35 MPH cars, pedestrians, bicycles, and 2 MPH walkers it would be safe for a 20 mph golf cart; similar to the State approved Spruce Creek South 441/27 crossing at an existing stop light.




.

Now that is a good SC'r friend...putting his Village buddy at risk. The cards are tracked by the Villages (they know when and where the card was used), not too hard to figure out if a card is being used by a SC'r. That could be embarrassing to the Village buddy, with friends like that who needs enemies?


I hope "the current group" (you and ?) are successful. I doubt "the developer" wants to stop a SC'r from visiting the hospital, he just wants to keep their carts off The Village paths and retain the value he designed into his development (one of the SC shortcomings IMHO). I will assume a new gate would be erected at the hospital where The Village path access is, just to keep "the developer's" desires intact.

At that point "the current group" (you and ?) will have little left to whine about on here, thus you will have more time to enjoy your lighted pickleball courts...

Who said that any of the above was "safe"? I think it only a matter of time before someone gets severely injured or even killed while trying to cross at those locations. The speed limit for cars on 27/441 is 45 MPH and I know I have seen vehicles travelling much faster than that. I don't have any proof, but anyone that has been there knows it's the truth.

I don't know the amount of pedestrian traffic at that intersection but not including speeding automobiles I have witness several autos blow right thru a red light there. I cringe when I've seen it. I believe putting a cart crossing there would involve extra traffic control planning.

Ummm... I believe that the Florida Highway Department has determined it to be safe. I've crossed there several times with my bicycle and it's fine. As far as cars blowing through red lights, that can happen anywhere whether you are walking, riding a bike, driving a golf cart or a car. You obviously have to take some personal responsibility and watch out for things like this.

The point is that if walkers and bicyclists can cross there and 25 mph golf carts can cross there, is it any less safe for a 19 mph golf cart to cross.

This is a pet peeve of mine. I live in Silver Lake not too far from the intersection of Griffin and 27/441. In order for me to go to CVS or Target I have to drive my golf cart a half mile down to the bridge, over the bridge, which some people claim is not safe and then a half mile back to CVS. It a lot of wasted time and energy. I can walk to CVS faster than I can get there by golf cart. All that would have to be done would be to make a little section of Griffin from LaGrande to 27/441 accessible to golf carts and then allow carts to
cross over when the light turns green. Alternatively, a path could be made behind the Circle K to the traffic light control box and allow golf carts to cross as pedestrians like I do with my bicycle.Simple and safe.

Golf cart or car makes no difference. I doubt the Hospital Administration will try and restrict access for those that are trying to obtain a crossing.

Now there's a screen name that fits ones personality.

That may or may not be true but it would only apply to that piece of property. I believe it must be specifically posted. The problem is the gate keeps getting broken.

Sounds like a plan to me. I also have wondered why you can cross with a vehicle that structurally is identical to a vehicle that is banned from crossing. The only real difference is it can travel up to 6 MPH faster and has a few lap belts installed.

The specific piece of property that we're discussing is a house lot that, if I'm not mistaken, was owned by the developer. I believe that ownership was transferred to the ccd. Since it is privately owned, the owners have a right to say who is and who is not allowed to use it.
The owners have decided that this lot may only be used by Villages residents to access the area on the other side. The owners of the property on the other side have decided to allow anyone in a golf cart to drive on their property.
I may have to be specifically posted, but I think that the gate pretty much implies what a sign would say.

I think that part of the issue might be is that they areas leading up to the intersections are not golf cart accessible or golf cart approved areas. There are "No Golf Carts Beyond this Point" signs posted at the gates making it impossible to legally get to the intersection.

The discussion was not about a sign but about vehicles that are structurally identical yet treated differently. All a municipality has to do to allow a crossing is post the proper signage. A street legal cart can be used legally yet a golf cart cannot. That was what the original post was frustrated about.

Don't misunderstand.
 

Well, no. I gave the reference to the Florida Statute in my post. You might want to read it. I would hate for you to mistakenly rely on what I posted, which was not legal advice, and get in trouble.

A no trespassing sign or personal notice is not required to forbid unauthorized access to the property if it is protected by posting, fencing, or cultivation. If you drive through the gate you can be regarded as a trespasser.

You also face the possibility of arrest and presumption of guilt of having violated the prohibition of bypassing fencing (the gate) if it demonstrable that there is no legal access to the area from the outside.

You might also be on video gaining illegal access to the area, either at the gate or illegally crossing the highway. There are cameras everywhere.

------------------

Perhaps you have driven through the development and seen the signs that say, "Speed Limit 20 mph unless otherwise posted." This generic sign could easily be duplicated to say "No trespassing on multi-modal paths." It wouldn't be necessary to post every individual path.

I have also noticed some sentiment in the postings for TV registration of golf carts, with an identifying sticker. A notice could be posted to prohibit any unregistered golf cart in TV.

Or alternatively a sign could be posted to prohibit use of the MMPs by anyone who is not a resident or guest of a resident of TV.

There are several methods of identifying and apprehending trespassers.

All the Developer needs is motivation; the technology exists.

Yes it was a house lot that was designated for a Golf cart access point. With the gate now in place it is obvious the access is to be restricted over that piece of property. No one has ever said otherwise. It is also obvious their is a maintenance problem with the gate. As I indicated earlier if they would change the design to conform to the normal it just might save you some maintenance cost. But if someone wants to spend money unnecessarily as long as its not mine, knock yourself out.

Now anyone who crosses that piece of property without an invitation by a village property owner is trespassing. So those that have been invited by their friends that live in TV to enter or given access are not trespassing. Those that where invited by their friends are not trespassing because they where given permission by one of the land owners to cross the property. The original land owner has relinquished his interest on the property and transferred it to the district therefore putting it under the authority of the district or in short the land owners of the common property of the people that live in the villages.