Illegal to feed someone else's parking meter?

[snopes]

Comment: Is it really true that it's illegal to feed another person's
expired or about-to-expire parking meter? If so, where?

[Esprise Me]

What would be the rationale for such a law?

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Esprise Me

What would be the rationale for such a law?

To stop people from feeding other people's meters.

[Eddylizard]

A lot of metered parking spaces here have a sign which say something to the effect of:

"Maximum stay 2 hours. Return not permitted within 2 hours."

The limit varies.

So because it's a busy place and they want as many people to be able to get to the shops as possible, your stay is limited.

Whether that's enshrined in law or bylaw I have no idea.

So yeah, if you feed someone elses meter, you permit them to stay beyond the limit.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Here's what our township code says:

It shall be unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this article for any person:

A. To cause, allow, permit or suffer any vehicle registered in the name of or operated by such person to be parked overtime or beyond the period of legal parking time established for any parking meter zone as herein described, or to deposit in any parking meter any coin for the purpose of parking beyond the maximum legal parking time for the particular parking meter zone.

Note the phrase "any person." So, yes, in my town it is illegal, no matter who does it. Having your eight year old feed the meter for you is not likely to cut it with the traffic court judge.

[Troodon]

I think that there's can be a distinction between feeding someone else's meter and enabling them to park beyond the maximum allowed time, because on all the meters I've seen time is bought in intervals several times shorter than the maximum allowed time.

[purpleiguana]

to be parked overtime or beyond the period of legal parking time established for any parking meter zone as herein described, or to deposit in any parking meter any coin for the purpose of parking beyond the maximum legal parking time for the particular parking meter zone.

That doesn't sound like plugging in another dime to help someone out. It sounds more like something along the lines of cars aren't permitted to park in a certain place for longer than a certain time. A little different. For example, if a metered parking space has, as Eddy commented, a maximum stay of 2 hours, and a person has only fed enough to stay there for 30 minutes, and someone else decides to plug in another dime or a quarter or whatever, that doesn't seem to be illegal, based upon what Steve quoted.


OTOH, it's entirely possible that it might be on the books somewhere as being obstruction of justice... if it's a case where a meter maid (or whatever the more proper PC term is) has already begun to write a ticket. I'm not saying that definitively... just saying that it's possible someone might argue it that way.

[videoguy]

Apparently, it's illegal in Tucson.
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/243946

...and Toronto...
http://www.canadiantechnician.com/bl...=2182&catid=16

I found this at answers.com...
Anyone can put money in a parking meter for someone else, but this activity, called re-metering, is illegal in some cities. An enterprising type of individual arose some years back and made a business of sorts by feeding the meters of people whose time had expired, or nearly so. This person would then leave a self-addressed envelope on the vehicle asking for compensation which, obviously, was voluntary. The individual who was (possibly or probably) saved from getting a parking ticket might be inclined to put a few bucks in the envelope and post it. That, after all, was a return of the favor, and cheaper (by far) than having to pay a parking citation. City fathers in some of the urban areas where this was happening decided that this activity, re-metering, was costing the city because it cut into the revenues generated by issuing parking citations. Local ordinances sprang up here and there as other cities joined the move to protect the income being generated by parking enforcement activities.

[SatansHobbit]

So our Lovely Ritas are hardened criminals?

[Troberg]

In Sweden, it's perfectly legal to put money in parking meters that has expired. There was a even a news story a while ago about some out of work people who did it as a business idea. They just walked ahead of the meter maids and put money in expired meters, and put a note on the window telling the car owner what they had done and encouraging the owner to donate money to show their apreciation. It worked wondefully, and they made quite a lot of money.

Everybody was happy, the car owners, the out of work guys, the parking company (as long as they get paid, they are happy).

I usually do a somewhat similar thing. If I park in a parking lot where you get a reciept from the machine which you are supposed to put in the window, and I see someone who has got a ticket, I usually put my reciept under their wiper when I leave. If they are smart, they can fight it and win easily with that reciept.

I also leave the recipt at the machine when I leave if I have lots of time left. It's paid for, perhaps the next person can make use of that time.

It's fun to help people!

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

A lot of metered parking spaces here have a sign which say something to the effect of:

"Maximum stay 2 hours. Return not permitted within 2 hours."

The limit varies.

So because it's a busy place and they want as many people to be able to get to the shops as possible, your stay is limited.

Whether that's enshrined in law or bylaw I have no idea.

So yeah, if you feed someone elses meter, you permit them to stay beyond the limit.

Well, formally, since you paid for it, intead of the vehicle owner who originally paid, wouldn't it be you who have parked there, and thus start a new time limit cycle?

If I park there, leave, then someone else returns with my car within two hours, that's a new parking altogether, it's not me parking there.

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by Esprise Me

What would be the rationale for such a law?

I don't know much about meters but at the zoo it says because the animals are on a special diet. Makes sense to me.

[llewtrah]

The last time I bothered taking the car to Romford* the car park notices said feeding the meter was not permitted. However that would be car regulations, not a criminal offence.

*almost 20 years ago; I found trains to be less hassle than trying to get a parking space

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Troberg

I usually do a somewhat similar thing. If I park in a parking lot where you get a reciept from the machine which you are supposed to put in the window, and I see someone who has got a ticket, I usually put my reciept under their wiper when I leave. If they are smart, they can fight it and win easily with that reciept.

In other words, you condone cheating the system, and abetting others in cheating the system, for nor good reason whatsoever.

It's fun to help people!

Really! What's next -- helping shoplifters get out of stores undetected?

Well, formally, since you paid for it, intead of the vehicle owner who originally paid, wouldn't it be you who have parked there, and thus start a new time limit cycle?

No, because he's talking about feeding the meter where someone else's car is parked, not parking there himself.

If I park there, leave, then someone else returns with my car within two hours, that's a new parking altogether, it's not me parking there.

Nope, not here -- the metering applies to the vehicle, not to the driver. Otherwise, I could indefinitely stay past any parking limit by simply alternating the driver's seat with Barbara and re-parking our car every time the time limit expired.

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Well, formally, since you paid for it, intead of the vehicle owner who originally paid, wouldn't it be you who have parked there, and thus start a new time limit cycle?

If I park there, leave, then someone else returns with my car within two hours, that's a new parking altogether, it's not me parking there.

What snopes said. Here at least if a car is involved in some sort of traffic violation (major or minor) the registered owner is presumed to be the one who committed it and if claimong not produce proof that someone else was driving at the time.

I don't discount the possibility that I could lend my car to a string of friends over a several hour period, and they all parked in the same spot; unlikely but not impossible.

The only info the Traffic Warden has to go on is the numberplate which links straight to my name and address, It is up to me to prove that I was not the driver and the authorities should go after Mrs/Miss/Mr X instead. If I don't give a name for an alternate driver, I am liable. Legal protections apply of course, and I can fight any allegation in court.

I take your point that - if I've just got home from shopping and someone asks to borrow my car for their own shopping, they might inadvertantly end up parking in the same spot as I vacated - and a sharp eyed traffic warden might pick it up. Then it's either fight it in court (you'd win) or just pay the fine (quicker, cheaper and easier.)

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by snopes

In other words, you condone cheating the system, and abetting others in cheating the system, for nor good reason whatsoever.

I don't see it as cheating the system. It costs a certain amount to park there for a given time period. Unless you are talking about one of those time limited parking lots (and around here those are patrolled regularly and tires are chalked to ensure they don't overstay or re-park), then it should not matter whether the driver had put another quarter in to start with, or I put a quarter in They get the quarter either way, and they only have a right to the $28 (or whatever the ticket is) if the car is still there and they did not get their quarter. That is like saying if I borrow money from my mom to avoid a late fee on a bill, they should get to charge her the fee instead.

Really! What's next -- helping shoplifters get out of stores undetected?

Nope. It is much more analogous to seeing someone about to shoplift, and offering to pay for the product and give it to them. The store/meter is getting their money for the services or good the person is using. I honestly do not see why it matters who paid for them.

[lord_feldon]

He doesn't pay for other peoples parking. He gives them his receipt, which he no longer needs. The money only gets paid once.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by lord_feldon

He doesn't pay for other peoples parking. He gives them his receipt, which he no longer needs. The money only gets paid once.

Oops, I missed that bit. Both times; when reading the post and when reading the quote. I thought he was still talking about putting money in before the traffic cop gets there. Yeah, the receipt thing is bad. My comments only apply to other people putting more money in a meter.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by geminilee

I don't see it as cheating the system. It should not matter whether the driver had put another quarter in to start with, or I put a quarter in They get the quarter either way, and they only have a right to the $28 (or whatever the ticket is) if the car is still there and they did not get their quarter.

Not so. Troberg wasn't talking about putting a coin in someone else's about-to-expire meter; he was talking about giving his used receipt to someone who had already been ticketed for exceeding the designated time limit and encouraging them to use it as false evidence in fighting the ticket.

That is like saying if I borrow money from my mom to avoid a late fee on a bill, they should get to charge her the fee instead.

Nope. It's more like saying that it's perfectly okay for you to try to avoid a legitimate late fee by falsely proffering your mother's cancelled check as proof that you paid on time.

Nope. It is much more analogous to seeing someone about to shoplift, and offering to pay for the product and give it to them.

Nope. It's much more analogous to your giving the receipt for a Wii you bought legitimately to a shoplifter who was caught stealing a Wii in order to help the crook avoid a theft charge.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by snopes

Not so. [ snip]
Nope. [ snip]
Nope.

Yeah, I realized I had misread it, but I guess my retraction didn't post before you started this. I fully admit you are right.

[snopes]

My comments only apply to other people putting more money in a meter.

Even that's wrong, because it assumes the only reason for metering parking spaces is to collect fees for their use. It isn't. As noted in other posts, it's also to ration the use of available spaces so that people can't monopolize them.