OT: In New York, when they say “No Parking”, THEY MEAN No Parking

Cidu Bill on Apr 13th 2017

sony-14.JPG

Filed in Bill Bickel, New York City | 35 responses so far

35 Responses to “OT: In New York, when they say “No Parking”, THEY MEAN No Parking”

  1. James Pollock Apr 13th 2017 at 05:00 pm 1

    I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to remove license plates from cars, even if they are parked illegally.

  2. furrykef Apr 13th 2017 at 07:06 pm 2

    So, their response to illegal parking is to make it difficult to unpark the car?

  3. Cidu Bill Apr 13th 2017 at 07:15 pm 3

    I have a feeling they haven’t had to actually deflate any tires or remove any license plates since that sign went up.

  4. Mark in Boston Apr 13th 2017 at 09:50 pm 4

    Like the sign in a store that says “Any unattended child will be given an espresso and a free puppy.”

  5. Minor Annoyance Apr 14th 2017 at 01:16 am 5

    I like the phrasing. It sounds like they’re going to carefully remove the air from your tires and keep it along with your license plate.

  6. Mitch4 Apr 14th 2017 at 03:19 am 6

    And there is a little adjustment to understand “Parkers” as the vehicles rather than people — owners or drivers. Or would the people have their air removed?

  7. Proginoskes Apr 14th 2017 at 03:38 am 7

    They forgot: “Gasoline will be drained. Floor mats will be turned upside down. We will reprogram your radio and burn Yanni songs on your CD. We will weight your fuzzy dice so that they roll funny.” etc.

  8. James Pollock Apr 14th 2017 at 04:11 am 8

    I guess this means that Spider-Man better not be caught loitering on the roof.

  9. Kilby Apr 14th 2017 at 04:38 am 9

    MiB wins it all at @4 - much better than the NYC meanness.

  10. Olivier Apr 14th 2017 at 01:45 pm 10

    This not too drastic ; there’s worse :
    “Lisa: (reading the letter from New York) Dear motorist, your vehicle is illegally parked in the burrough of Manhattan.
    Homer: My vehicle!
    Lisa: If you do not remedy this malparkage within 72 hours, your car will be thrown into the East River at your expense.”

  11. Cidu Bill Apr 14th 2017 at 02:34 pm 11

    I don’t know… Homer was given 72 hours to get out of the situation without consequences. This place is threatening summary judgment.

  12. Bob in Nashville Apr 14th 2017 at 07:15 pm 12

    Taking the air out of the tires seems a little heavy handed. All they have to do is hold open the valve in the valve stem and the air comes out willingly.

  13. Olivier Apr 15th 2017 at 02:53 pm 13

    Without consequences ?

    (Pleasant female voice): “Thank you for calling the Parking Violations Bureau. To plead ‘not guilty,’ press 1 now…Thank you… Your plea has been…”
    (Gruff male voice): “REJECTED…”
    (Pleasant female voice): “You will be assessed the full fine plus a small…”
    (Gruff male voice): “LARGE…”
    (Pleasant female voice): “lateness penalty. Please wait by your vehicle between 9am and 5pm for parking officer Steve…”
    (Gruff male voice): “GRABOWSKI…”

  14. Dave in Boston Apr 15th 2017 at 05:53 pm 14

  15. Kilby Apr 15th 2017 at 11:50 pm 15

    I’ve never seen a booted car in Germany until last week. On the other hand, there wasn’t any ticket on the car, and the boot looked a little odd. Now I’m wondering whether it was a theft-prevention device (like the crowbar that some people put on their steering wheels).

  16. Boise Ed Apr 16th 2017 at 02:32 am 16

    Bob [12]: :-)

  17. Christine Apr 17th 2017 at 09:30 pm 17

    Dave in Boston - I have to wonder if letting the air out of the tires is any more legal than a boot is. (Although the illegality of the boot seems to stem from the fee to have it removed, not its use in and of itself.)

  18. James Pollock Apr 17th 2017 at 09:44 pm 18

    “I have to wonder if letting the air out of the tires is any more legal than a boot is.”

    In the case where signs are clearly posted saying that cars parked on the property will have the air let out of the tires, parking on the property implies consent to having the air let out of the tires.

    The “typical” punishment is to have one’s car towed to an impound yard, where one must pay the fee for the towing to have the car released back to them. In the case of having the car booted, one is paying for the time of the person who has to come out an unboot the car.

    I remember a time when a car was left diagonally across two spots in a crowded parking lot. About six guys came over and physically picked it up and carried it, leaving it, with about six inches of clearance, between a solid brick wall and a solid concrete staircase. (No, I was not the parker, nor one of the group of young men who made the parking adjustment. I’ve also heard the legend from multiple sources, but did not see, the car that parked so as to block the loading dock of the warehouse, which was subsequently shrink-wrapped. (Both of these events were from before the ubiquity of camera-phones.)

  19. Christine Apr 18th 2017 at 12:53 pm 19

    “parking on the property implies consent to having the air let out of the tires.”

    By that logic, you’d be legally allowed to boot the cars that are parked in a lot that’s signed saying that cars parked there will be immobilized.

    During my frosh week, we were at a presentation by campus recreation, when someone parked (I believe in the handicapped spot) their car, left it running, and ran inside, presumably to update their shoe tag or something. I, sitting in the back row with a lot of burly young men, was suggesting that we pick up the car & relocate it somewhere more appropriate. I still somewhat regret not actually standing up and getting us to do it. (Although moving it to behind the bollards wouldn’t have helped, as pretty much all of campus is drive-able for service vans. It’s merely not allowed to drive a car there, not actually prevented.)

  20. James Pollock Apr 18th 2017 at 01:16 pm 20

    “By that logic, you’d be legally allowed to boot the cars that are parked in a lot that’s signed saying that cars parked there will be immobilized. ”

    Yes. Illegally-parked cars that are towed to an impound yard are immobilized, too. Unless it’s something contrary to public interest (”trespassers will be violated”), consent covers a lot of things, even if it’s only implied consent. Here’s another one. Some parking lots in the city are literally packed bumper to bumper. You pull up, pay the attendant, and leave your keys.. if they have to move your car to let someone else out, you’re giving them permission to do so. You aren’t giving them permission to joyride around town, or go through your glovebox, but they might adjust the seat and mirrors.

    Or consider the way some stores have big signs as you enter that bags may be checked when you exit. If you don’t consent to having your bag checked, you shouldn’t enter, because by being inside the store, you’ve given them permission to check your bag..

  21. Winter Wallaby Apr 18th 2017 at 01:21 pm 21

    James #20: Booting is illegal in Washington state, even with a sign indicating that booting will occur. And as Christine refers to, this is apparently also the case in Canada.

    Christine: I think the distinction you make at #17 between booting and air-letting-out is sound.

  22. Arthur Apr 18th 2017 at 01:29 pm 22

    Christine: I think the distinction you make at #17 between booting and air-letting-out is sound.

    Right. Putting on a boot makes a ratcheting sound, but letting
    out air is more like ssssssssss.

  23. James Pollock Apr 18th 2017 at 01:49 pm 23

    “Booting is illegal in Washington state, even with a sign indicating that booting will occur.”

    Right. It takes a specific law to overrule the general rule. (And, of course, even as Washington criminalized booting by private individuals, they retained it for the state itself and its subdivisions. Seattle, Spokane, and as best as I can tell all the public universities still boot.)

  24. Winter Wallaby Apr 18th 2017 at 01:56 pm 24

    James #23: There’s no “general rule” that you agree to everything on a sign when you enter a store or other private property. And Washington has always taken the position (correctly, IMO), that booting is illegal in Washington state even absent a specific law.

  25. James Pollock Apr 18th 2017 at 02:12 pm 25

    The “general rule” is that consent allows actions that might otherwise be torts. As noted, there are some “public policy” exceptions, of which this is one (in those jurisdictions where it is, in fact, an exception).

    “booting is illegal in Washington state even absent a specific law.”
    Except, of course, when it isn’t.

  26. Winter Wallaby Apr 18th 2017 at 02:20 pm 26

    Yes, consent allows actions that might otherwise be torts. True, but irrelevant, since you don’t consent to everything on a sign simply by entering a store or private property.

    “Except, of course, when it isn’t.”

    I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

  27. James Pollock Apr 18th 2017 at 03:47 pm 27

  28. James Pollock Apr 18th 2017 at 03:49 pm 28

    “you don’t consent to everything on a sign simply by entering a store or private property.”

    Sometimes it’s printed on your ticket, not on a sign.

  29. Winter Wallaby Apr 18th 2017 at 03:57 pm 29

    James #27/#28: Are your comments and links supposed to be in some way relevant to anything we were discussing? I honestly don’t see how you can possibly think that they are.

  30. B.A. Apr 18th 2017 at 04:00 pm 30

    If the unauthorized parker complains, the guy who owns the lot can always deny it: “You left your car unattended in Manhattan. Sh t happens, I guess.”

  31. James Pollock Apr 18th 2017 at 04:24 pm 31

    Imagine the following string of events:

    A store has a “we check your bags as you exit policy”. It’s printed on the sign above the door as you enter.

    Now, a customer attempts to leave, bypassing the bag check with a cart full of purchases.
    An employee steps in front of and stops the cart from moving further away from the door and points out the bag check requirement.
    Customer, angered, attempts to physically force the employee away from the cart.
    A second employee “sweeps the leg”, dropping the customer to the ground, causing injury.

    Customer sues the store and the two employees as individuals, attempting to recover damages for medical bills and pain and suffering. In the preliminary hearing, the first employee is dismissed as a defendant.

    The issue is:
    Are the defendants in the clear, because employee #2 acted in defense of others, seeing a man attacking employee #1 and acting to stop the attack? Or are they liable, because employee #1 was falsely imprisoning customer, and use of violence to escape false imprisonment is legally escused?

  32. Mark in Boston Apr 18th 2017 at 09:25 pm 32

    Someone I know worked across the street from a lot where illegally parked cars are towed to. As you probably know, neither the police nor the tow company accept any liability for damage or loss.

    Several times a day this would happen: The tow truck arrives with a car in tow. The employees gather around. Someone pops the trunk. Christmas in July! Employees grab anything of value and have a Yankee swap. Then the car is put into the lot.

  33. James Pollock Apr 18th 2017 at 10:21 pm 33

    That limitation of liability evaporates if it turns out the vehicle was legally parked when towed.

  34. Meryl A Apr 19th 2017 at 12:38 am 34

    Robert is on a number of RV lists. People ask the list where to stay (in their RV) when they come to NYC. They are told by numerous people to park on the street in Manhattan and that they can stay there for days. Surprised him.

    Apparently people do this and/or leave their RV just parked on the street for an extended time while not staying in it. A short while ago there was a big deal that NYC was towing away RVs parked on the streets.

    He was warning people not to stay on the street - just for personal safety (and he also tells them, but they scoff at the idea, that it is illegal to bring their gun with them for safety), as well as the possibility of being towed.

  35. Meryl A Apr 19th 2017 at 12:43 am 35

    Mark in Boston (32) - just checking - based on what my embroidery chapter calls a Yankee Swap that would mean that they each gift wrap an item from the trunk and sneak it onto a table so no one knows whose is whose. Each then picks a number and in the order of the numbers gets to pick an item from the table. First person picks, unwraps gift and shows it, if someone else wants it they grab it. If gift grabbed one gets to pick again - repeat. If gift kept the next person gets to pick a wrapped gift - repeat.

    So when do they get a chance to wrap all the stuff from the trunk? :-)

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply