Illegal to feed someone else's parking meter?

[Troberg]

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've got ticketed by the major parking company for a perfectly legal parking, and got verbal abuse as a response when I pointed that out, so I have a perfectly valid feud with them. I eventually won and didn't have to pay, but I never received any apology for their behaviour.

Originally Posted by snopes

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

No, I don't care much for shoplifters.

Originally Posted by snopes

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

Well, that depends on how the law defines "parking" in this specific case. Is parking the act of stopping the car at a specific location, or is it the business transaction between the parking company and the person who pays?

Originally Posted by snopes

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.

and

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

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.

OK, in that case, our legal system is a bit more advanced, here, a car can never be guilty of a crime, it is only the person who operates it who can be held responsible. This is, by the way, the reason parking offenses are not a crime, just a "control fee", because it's difficult to prove who parked the car. For any traffic violation that is a crime, it's always the driver who is responsible, and the owner has no responsibility to inform the police or anyone else who used the car at a certain time.

Now, I don't approve of this "hey, we can't properly prove guilt, so let's call it something else so we can still squeeze money out of people with no evidence", but that's the way it works here. It does have some advantages though. For instance, parking violations do not go onto your criminal record, so it's perfectly viable to do a cost/risk assessment and decide that it's cheaper in the long run to simply not pay and instead take some occasional fine instead, especially since, if you consistently fight the fines, you'll get out of at least half of them. By de-criminalizing parking offences, they created a choice of payment schemes for the customer, which many appreciate.

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

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.)

Well, I've talked about a similarly small case (my mother having to pay for a parking paid with credit card that she never made) with a traffic law specialist (actually, he is THE guru of Swedish traffic law, and has written much of it). His advice was to always take the matter to court, no matter how small, as you will otherwise legitimize bad behaviour by "letting them get away with it".

Originally Posted by geminilee

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.

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.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by snopes

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.

Well, not false evidence, just real evidence presented in a misleading way. The ticket is real and proper, it's just not theirs. I've paid for it, it's mine to dispose of whatever way I want. If they wan't to present it as their own, it's on their head, not mine.

They might be doing a crime, but I'm not. I just like that I get a little more payback.

Originally Posted by snopes

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.

Yep, that would have been correct, if parking violations were criminalized, which they are not.

[Jay Temple]

I prefer to be halfway charitable in my assessment of the places with this law. Doubtless a great many of them do it because they want to be able to collect a hefty fine from the offenders, but I reckon a good number of them genuinely want to ensure adequate parking for all.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Troberg

I've got ticketed by the major parking company for a perfectly legal parking, and got verbal abuse as a response when I pointed that out, so I have a perfectly valid feud with them. I eventually won and didn't have to pay, but I never received any apology for their behaviour.

What are you, six years old? Mature adults recognize that "He started it!" and "He was mean to me!" aren't excuses for committing fraud.

Well, not false evidence, just real evidence presented in a misleading way.

"I didn't lie to you, Mommy; I just told Johnny to lie to you."

Yep, that would have been correct, if parking violations were criminalized, which they are not.

No, it's still correct -- both examples are about entitled jerks abetting others in ripping off businesses.

[Troberg]

Originally Posted by snopes

What are you, six years old? Mature adults recognize that "He started it!" and "He was mean to me!" aren't excuses for committing fraud.

A company piss on me, I piss on them. Why on earth would I want to support a company who insulted me?

And, as I said, it's not me committing fraud. I just arrange the circumstances so that someone else has the opportunity to do so, if they so choose.

Originally Posted by snopes

No, it's still correct -- both examples are about entitled jerks abetting others in ripping off businesses.

No, it's about consumers who are fed up with taking crap from business handing out tickets for perfectly legal parking, and then insulting said consumers when they point it out. Consumers vote with their wallets, and this is one way to keep money out of the crappy companies' pockets.

Face it, just because someone started a company, they are not entitled to profits. They need a sound business idea, and handing out unwarranted tickets is not a sound business idea of a company that deserves to survive and prosper.

I'm sure that they, on the paper, think that it makes economical sense to ticket cars without reason, thus getting extra money from the parkee. Someone needs to show them that it does not.

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Well, that depends on how the law defines "parking" in this specific case. Is parking the act of stopping the car at a specific location, or is it the business transaction between the parking company and the person who pays?

Parking is the act of stopping the car and leaving it. If it was about the business transaction then one could presumably never be fined for parking illegaly in a place that isn't a parking spot - like a yellow line - since there was never a business transaction to begin with.

OK, in that case, our legal system is a bit more advanced, here, a car can never be guilty of a crime, it is only the person who operates it who can be held responsible. This is, by the way, the reason parking offenses are not a crime, just a "control fee", because it's difficult to prove who parked the car. For any traffic violation that is a crime, it's always the driver who is responsible, and the owner has no responsibility to inform the police or anyone else who used the car at a certain time..

You have somewhat misunderstood what I said. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it was not on purpose. Again in our primitive legal system.

The car is not considered guilty of the crime.

The operator is guilty of the crime.

Under circumstances where the operators identity cannot be established at the scene - two example circumstances, a parking violation (the warden is not going to wait for the operator to return) or a hit and run, the numberplate is the only point of reference.

Working from the numberplate, the only person that can be traced as the possible operator is the owner.

If the owner was the operator at the time of the offence then they face whatever consequences. If the owner was not the operator at the time of the offence, it's up to the owner to disclose who was the operator, so that person can face the consequences. Because generally speaking if you lend your car to someone, you know who it is.

If your car was stolen and still missing during the comission of the offence, then naturally that's different because you have no idea who was operating it. That places no liability on the owner.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Troberg

A company piss on me, I piss on them.

In other words, yes, you are six years old.

Why on earth would I want to support a company who insulted me?

Not supporting a company and committing fraud against it are two very different things. Apparently your selfish sense of entitlement doesn't allow you to understand the difference.

And, as I said, it's not me committing fraud. I just arrange the circumstances so that someone else has the opportunity to do so, if they so choose.

A distinction that has all the moral vapidity of claiming: "I didn't tell the druggie down the street to burglarize my neighbor's house -- I just told him where they hide their door key and exactly where to find their valuables; what he did with that information was completely up to him."

No, it's about consumers who are fed up with taking crap from business handing out tickets for perfectly legal parking, and then insulting said consumers when they point it out.

Actually, it's quite obviously about one immature, self-entitled consumer with a persecution complex. If I had to wager, I'd bet that he probably deserved the ticket he got.

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Troberg

... handing out unwarranted tickets is not a sound business idea of a company that deserves to survive and prosper.

I'm sure that they, on the paper, think that it makes economical sense to ticket cars without reason, thus getting extra money from the parkee. Someone needs to show them that it does not.

Explain to me please in small words how - if I've exceeded the posted stay time it is unwarranted and without reason to give me a ticket.

Maybe in your advanced legal system Traffic Wardens issue tickets to motorists with non expired parking on the offchance they won't come back in time, but AFAIK it doesn't happen here.

[Viliphied]

Originally Posted by snopes

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.

But that's far more situational. I know I've parked in, say, a 2 hour max spot and only paid for 30 mins. I am also pretty sure that most places with max stay lengths have other means of preventing cars from being there too long to prevent people from just re-metering themselves.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Viliphied

But that's far more situational. I know I've parked in, say, a 2 hour max spot and only paid for 30 mins.

But that's the point. Your paying for only 30 minutes means you have to vacate within 30 minutes or face a penalty for monopolizing the parking spot. If someone else feeds your meter, that penalty mechanism is defeated. The purpose is to get you out of the spot as quickly as possible.

[Eddylizard]

Parking charges vary immensly across Kent, so I'm just going to use my town as an example with actual figures. We don't have metered parking* - you buy a ticket for the length of time you think you're going to be and display it on the dashboard.

The short term car parks permit one to stay for up to four hours. You buy a ticket in hourly units on a sliding scale - it's £0.80 for one hour, £1.50 for two hours, £2.10 for three hours and £2.60 for four hours. Return not permitted within two hours. Link.

If I should park there thinking I'll only be one hour and my purpose turns into more than an hour I consider it acceptable to go and buy another ticket up to the four hour limit. If I buy four seperate one hour tickets then I'm paying a £0.60 premium as opposed to buying a four hour ticket - plus the stress of having to return to the car. Stuff happens to hold you up though sometimes.

However the town planners have determined it is undesireable for an individual vehicle to remain there for longer than four hours - exactly so no-one monopolises the space. So I think it would be inconsiderate (possibly illegal) to stay more than four hours in that spot - even if I did keep buying tickets.

*Assuming by that we mean a coin operated device adjacent to every individual parking space.

[RCIAG]

Snopes, do you own a meter or 3?

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by snopes

But that's the point. Your paying for only 30 minutes means you have to vacate within 30 minutes or face a penalty for monopolizing the parking spot. If someone else feeds your meter, that penalty mechanism is defeated. The purpose is to get you out of the spot as quickly as possible.

Then, if that is the purpose, wouldn't it be much better served by simply making a law to that effect: you get one shot per car at guessing your time, and if you go under you cannot return and pay more money, you must vacate the parking spot. But that is not the way the law works; if there is no legal limit I can go back and pay a dozen times if I so desire. What, then, is the point of making someone else paying it illegal? And how far does this extend? Can they cite a car passenger for feeding the meter? Or would that just be silly (er)?

[BringTheNoise]

Originally Posted by geminilee

But that is not the way the law works; if there is no legal limit I can go back and pay a dozen times if I so desire

Can you? I think that would be illegal as well.

[Judecat]

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

Can you? I think that would be illegal as well.

In downtown Baltimore city all the parking spaces are metered with 2 hour meters, but only a fraction of them have time limits posted. Basically people who work downtown get the unlimited spaces and pay the meter every two hours, the limited ones are for clients and visitors. It wouldn't do the city much good to limit all the spaces, because then they wouldn't have many businesses that would want to be there, if the employees all had to leave after 2 hours.
My husband and I had many times gone to work, parked in a particular spot, gone out to dinner and other entertainment in the same area, and not left the parking spot til after midnight. As long as we put money in the meter every two hours.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Troberg

OK, in that case, our legal system is a bit more advanced,

This explains everything.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Judecat

In downtown Baltimore city all the parking spaces are metered with 2 hour meters, but only a fraction of them have time limits posted. Basically people who work downtown get the unlimited spaces and pay the meter every two hours, the limited ones are for clients and visitors. It wouldn't do the city much good to limit all the spaces, because then they wouldn't have many businesses that would want to be there, if the employees all had to leave after 2 hours.

We have tons of businesses in our downtown, and all the metered parking is time-limited. There are also a lot of parking lots where business pay for parking by the month as a perk for employees.

[Viliphied]

Originally Posted by snopes

But that's the point. Your paying for only 30 minutes means you have to vacate within 30 minutes or face a penalty for monopolizing the parking spot. If someone else feeds your meter, that penalty mechanism is defeated. The purpose is to get you out of the spot as quickly as possible.

No, that's not it at all. The 30 minutes I put into the meter means that I either have to vacate within 30 minutes, or return to deposit more money into the meter. The 2 hour time limit means I have to vacate within 2 hours, no matter how much money I put into the meter. What's the difference between me paying the extra after 30 mins or someone else?

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by Troberg

And, as I said, it's not me committing fraud. I just arrange the circumstances so that someone else has the opportunity to do so, if they so choose.

Aiding and abetting a criminal is itself a criminal act in most jurisdictions I'm familiar with.

[Eddylizard]

Aiding and abetting might not be a criminal act in criminal systems that are "a bit more advanced" though.

[BringTheNoise]

Magical Sweden (not to be confused with the real Sweden you or I might visit) doesn't need no stinkin' Aiding and Abetting charges!