3 ms·

Great, so now you can outsource being an asshole? This guy needs to suck it up, pay his tickets, read the signs, and stop driving and parking like a moron. Be

Great, so now you can outsource being an asshole? This guy needs to suck it up, pay his tickets, read the signs, and stop driving and parking like a moron. Best approach for people who absolutely cannot be bothered to read and follow the rules would probably be to sell the car and join a car sharing service where the parking spaces are dedicated.

Karunamon 12y ago
That cuts both ways, you realize? The guy in the article got his tickets killed because the moronic city broke the law by not having the signage posted correctly: >Fixed came through. The startup couldn’t do anything about the street cleaning ticket, but after reviewing some Google Street View pictures of the scene of the parking ticket crime, one of Fixed’s full-time “advocates” determined that the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency (SFMTA) had not complied with California state law specifying where parking signage must be placed. The city needs to suck it up and follow their own laws if they're going to levy stealth taxes on people. Live by the law, die by the law.
- zippergz 12y ago
  It doesn't say he parked there because he thought it was legal due to the signs. It says he parked there because he "forgot his car." The incorrect signage was a technicality that allowed him to get out of paying the ticket.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    And? The tickets were therefore unjustified. Live by the law, die by the law.
pmorici 12y ago
Why does exercising your constitutional right for legal do process make you an asshole?
- noarchy 12y ago
  >Why does exercising your constitutional right for legal do process make you an asshole? It doesn't, of course. There are those, however, who are under the mistaken impression that all parking tickets that are issued are justified. Thus if you contest it, you're creating extra costs for the city and should feel bad about it. I happen to disagree with them.
mikeash 12y ago
Since he got most of the tickets dismissed, does that not indicate that he was not breaking the rules is those cases?
- msandford 12y ago
  It all depends on terminology. He might have been breaking the intent of the rules but wasn't technically because the rules weren't properly specified. If an online merchant mistakenly lists an item for 1% of what it's worth by misplacing a decimal point and I buy it for 99% off, did I steal it? Would they be within their rights to cancel the order? It's not immediately clear to me. What if everything was properly marked but someone stole the sign? Clearly he shouldn't be held accountable and the city should be forced to not only drop it but also correct the missing signage problem. But in that case the city isn't obviously wrong to ticket him in the first place; unless knowing the ins and outs of all the relevant laws is the base level of expectation for the people writing these tickets. I'd like it to be, but experience suggests that I'm a fool for wishing for that.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Cities will nail you on technicalities, so it's only fair to nail them on technicalities too. I'm sure we've all heard stories of people going to a pay station after parking and coming back to a ticket, or getting a ticket at four hours plus one minute as they're getting into the car, or what have you. In any case, the courts are the final arbiter of the rules. They decide what is and isn't legal. Since he got these tickets dismissed, that means that he was within the intent or the letter or whatever part matters of the law. For your hypothetical case of a accidental 99% sale, if the case went to court and the judge rendered a verdict, you'd have an ironclad answer to your question of who was right, legally speaking. Here, it did go to court and the judge did render a verdict, so we don't have to wonder.

Karunamon 12y ago

That cuts both ways, you realize? The guy in the article got his tickets killed because the moronic city broke the law by not having the signage posted correctly: >Fixed came through. The startup couldn’t do anything about the street cleaning ticket, but after reviewing some Google Street View pictures of the scene of the parking ticket crime, one of Fixed’s full-time “advocates” determined that the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency (SFMTA) had not complied with California state law specifying where parking signage must be placed. The city needs to suck it up and follow their own laws if they're going to levy stealth taxes on people. Live by the law, die by the law.

zippergz 12y ago
It doesn't say he parked there because he thought it was legal due to the signs. It says he parked there because he "forgot his car." The incorrect signage was a technicality that allowed him to get out of paying the ticket.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  And? The tickets were therefore unjustified. Live by the law, die by the law.

pmorici 12y ago

Why does exercising your constitutional right for legal do process make you an asshole?

noarchy 12y ago
>Why does exercising your constitutional right for legal do process make you an asshole? It doesn't, of course. There are those, however, who are under the mistaken impression that all parking tickets that are issued are justified. Thus if you contest it, you're creating extra costs for the city and should feel bad about it. I happen to disagree with them.

mikeash 12y ago

Since he got most of the tickets dismissed, does that not indicate that he was not breaking the rules is those cases?

msandford 12y ago
It all depends on terminology. He might have been breaking the intent of the rules but wasn't technically because the rules weren't properly specified. If an online merchant mistakenly lists an item for 1% of what it's worth by misplacing a decimal point and I buy it for 99% off, did I steal it? Would they be within their rights to cancel the order? It's not immediately clear to me. What if everything was properly marked but someone stole the sign? Clearly he shouldn't be held accountable and the city should be forced to not only drop it but also correct the missing signage problem. But in that case the city isn't obviously wrong to ticket him in the first place; unless knowing the ins and outs of all the relevant laws is the base level of expectation for the people writing these tickets. I'd like it to be, but experience suggests that I'm a fool for wishing for that.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Cities will nail you on technicalities, so it's only fair to nail them on technicalities too. I'm sure we've all heard stories of people going to a pay station after parking and coming back to a ticket, or getting a ticket at four hours plus one minute as they're getting into the car, or what have you. In any case, the courts are the final arbiter of the rules. They decide what is and isn't legal. Since he got these tickets dismissed, that means that he was within the intent or the letter or whatever part matters of the law. For your hypothetical case of a accidental 99% sale, if the case went to court and the judge rendered a verdict, you'd have an ironclad answer to your question of who was right, legally speaking. Here, it did go to court and the judge did render a verdict, so we don't have to wonder.