This is the type of prohibition which we want to enforce because they disturb others, and it would be inappropriate to disturb the illegitimately disturbed person even more by having to stop their activities and wait for some official to resolve the problem.
If a car is blocking a bus stop, the harm is done even if the car leaves before some official arrives to write a ticket, and it seems reasonable that the bus operator should be able to request that the law gets enforced without having to stay on the spot and point out the violation to someone - we do want a deterrent effect towards any would-be violators, that they should fear a ticket even if there are no officials onsite, and perhaps not do the prohibited thing.
If you can't get someone to the bus stop to write a ticket, that's a question of resources. I see no reason that getting someone there is some insurmountable task and thus requires a completely different solution.
It's a useless waste of resources - if there's no genuine dispute whether a violation occurred, in this situation, effective deterrence (which, as psychological research shows, is generally based on the likelihood of getting caught, not the size of punishment, so ticketing as many offences as possible is the key part) is the desired result, so why shouldn't society do it in the most efficient means possible, i.e. with as little wasted labor as possible?
If we want people to obey a certain restriction (especially a relatively minor one like parking in bus lanes), any obstacles that make enforcement time-consuming or inconvenient tend to result in it not being enforced and not being followed - and if we're okay with that, then we should instead totally repeal that restriction and any fines, as if it will be enforced only sporadically, then it will be turned into a tool for arbitrary punishment and not for actually getting that law followed - if we want the latter, we do want mass enforcement.
"if we want the latter, we do want mass enforcement"
I suspect this is meant as a cheap way to keep traffic police from having to interact with potentially violent drivers who believe they should be free to violate parking laws.
> SAN FRANCISCO – Parking control officers rallied outside San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency headquarters Thursday, fearing for their safety as the city ramps up its crackdown on parking violations.
> Officers told CBS News Bay Area that they've always felt at risk while doing their jobs. Now that SFMTA has announced that they'll be cracking down on parking enforcement, officers like Mishan Schexnayder feel like there's a bigger target on their back.
> ... "We deal with everything, from objects being thrown at us all the way up to physical assaults and threats being made on our lives and our family," Adams said.
The choice is either to have a full duty police officer doing traffic enforcement, with the training and arrest powers when things go violent, or hide behind a camera and magic AI dust.
Long history suggests that those with political power don't really care about traffic enforcement, likely in part because those with political power also drive and want weak enforcement to apply to them. Enforcement only along bus routes, gives them the ability to tell bus riders that politicians are Doing Something, while minimizing the negative political consequences of mass enforcement against entitled car drivers. (Hence why the enforcement will only be for car "parked illegally in a bus lane or a bus stop".)
Personally I agree with the need for mass enforcement of traffic laws, including speeding. But I also recognize how driving is given such elevated standing in US culture that I'm not holding my breath. I also see no chance of repealing those laws, or amending them to reflect current use.
Consider how many people break the speed limit, and if the speed limit is raised to reflect current speeds, they'll go even faster, because the cultural expectation is that driving 5mph over the limit is somehow acceptable.
