You can blame someone for doing something you have always wanted to do. You can't blame them for wanting to do it ... you can't blame them for fantasizing about it ... but you can blame them for doing it.
Lots of people fantasize about shooting their brothers, sending bombs to bosses they despise ...
That kind of incident calls for the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I can't imagine that the woman arrested goes around throwing coffee at people, but the stress of the moment led her to behave badly.
I'm sure that meter patrols have many confrontational situations. Not fun.
I'd like to see the town have an alternative means of paying, maybe a debit card system, but of course that would mean a capital outlay for a new meter system. In the meantime, carry a bunch of quarters in your change tray. And try to keep your cool.
.if you don't have quarters in the car, (it sucks, happens to me a lot), how about park around the corner on a residential block for two hours, legally, for free?
However, I also have an issue with the Barney Fife-inspired "once we start writing the ticket, we have to issue it, even if the driver shows up to move the car" mentality of the parking police. Just further proof that most parking enforcement (with the exception of impeding traffic, blocking bus stops, crosswalks, hydrants and wheelchair ramps, or improperly using handicap spaces) is all about REVENUE, and has little to do with public safety.
For the record, I have received only two parking tickets in my 30+ years of driving, and in both cases the Town parking clerk agreed they were issued in error and voided them.
They write you up "even if the driver shows up to move the car" because the violation has already occurred. Do they give flashers a break because they stop waving their dicks at women when they see the police coming?
A "flashing" incident is a serious CRIMINAL act that generally results in mental anguish, however brief, for the victim. Plus, I doubt that many people would disagree with the argument that encouraging such criminal behavior constitutes a real threat to public safety.
By contrast, violating an arbitrarily set time limit on a parking space is a CIVIL violation that, at worst, inflicts a minor inconvenience on other people. Having a car sit in an otherwise legal and safe parking space beyond the time alotted has NO negative impact on public safety.
And no, I'm not encouraging people to break the law here, be it parking violations or more serious actions. But I've heard too many stories over the years from co-workers and friends of mine who've returned to their cars within five minutes of the meter expiring only to find a ticket being written by one of Barney Fife's distant relatives. This type of practice to me falls under the definition of unreasonable enforcement.
Would you accept the behavior of a police officer who ties up traffic by consistently pulling drivers over for going 58 mph in a 55 mph zone? Yes, technically, going 58 in a 55 zone is a violation of the law. But I would hope that most police officers would have the discretion to realize that there is no immediate threat to public safety in such a situation.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the purpose of time limits to make spaces available to more people? If a driver shows up to move the car within a REASONABLE time (say five to ten minutes) of the meter expiring, the car will be moved and the space now becomes free. Issuing a ticket in this circumstance, especially if the driver shows up as the ticket is STILL BEING WRITTEN is just plain arrogant policy.
But, as I stated earlier, it is increasingly obvious that most parking enforcement is (to paraphrase real estate agents) all about REVENUE, REVENUE, REVENUE.
If a driver shows up to move the car within a REASONABLE time (say five to ten minutes) of the meter expiring, the car will be moved and the space now becomes free
If they added ten minutes on to every meter time, you'd just want ten more minutes after that, wouldn't you?
If you don't obey the rule, you are punished. Someone had to ride around the block because you decided you don't need to follow the rules - you deserve bonus points.
Like I said - grown-ups understand. You don't have to worry about revenue if you get your car out of the spot when you're supposed to.
But, I'm pretty sure the "started writing the ticket already" problem has more to do with the fact that there's an accounting for all of the parking tickets in the book...and it would be a bit of a paperwork nightmare if every time they turn the book in they have to go:
Ticket 1 = meter unpaid, Mr. X
Ticket 2 = meter unpaid, Mrs. Y
Ticket 3 = torn up
Ticket 4 = meter unpaid, Mr. A
Ticket 5 = torn up
Ticket 6 = ...
As tickets are going to have to be voided anyway for various reasons. Some times the meter maids don't realize the meter is broken until they started writing, or sometimes they don't realize there is an HP placard for the vehicle.
But what does happen in busy areas is this: People will work in commercial areas with a view of their car on the street from their workplace (or a co worker can see it). This person parks at the meter all day, and either feeds the meter all day illegally (past the meter limit of 2 hours usually), or simply lets it lapse until they see the meter maid come by. Then they run out from their office and try to tell the meter maid that they work there and will move the car. Or they will simply pull what happend here and just show up and expect the meter maid to stop since they can move the car right there.
The problem these meter maids have is their job performance is based on how many tickets they write a day. It's not always about revenue, but about accountability for these meter maids. The boss knows that in a 8 hours the meter maid should write x amount of tickets. They can have a few breaks during the day, but in the end there is an expected amount of tickets.
So in a given shift for a meter maid, they are going to run into a good percentage of vehicles tickets where the owner will show up during the time the ticket is written. Now this is where some common sense should take place. If a meter maid sees an expired meter but at the same time a person is at that car putting groceries in, then the meter maid should move on. But if that meter maid approaches that car and starts to write a ticket and then the person shows up, then that vehicle should get a ticket. But people should know that the law is the law. The violation should be very clear. You either paid the meter or didn't pay it. After that common sense period is over, it shouldn't be up to the meter maid to decide who gets or doesn't get a ticket. That decision should be made by an appeals officer whos official job it is to hear appeals.
COMMON SENSE! Sorry, but where I come from, having the parking police lying in wait to write a ticket within five minutes of the meter expiring is EXCESSIVELY AGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT - plain and simple. Continuing to write up a ticket when the driver is about to move their car out of that space - thus making it available to others, is EXCESSIVELY AGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT - plain and simple.
After all, that's supposedly one of the requirements of a police officer - to be able to use their JUDGMENT in assesing a situation. But I guess meeting quotas, raising revenue, AND purposely inconveniencing people (by making them go the hassle of appleaing unreasonably issued tickets) for the sake of enforcing petty laws is more important than allowing people to use good judgment and common sense.
As I previously stated, I don't condone the driver's apparent actions in this incident. However, had the meter maid been allowed to use some discretion in this instance, perhaps the situation wouldn't have escalated to the point it did.
Now, because of this "rules are rules no matter the situation" mentality, how much of the Town's resources and the taxpayer's money is going to be spent prosecuting a FELONY conviction (which, given there was no injury here, IMO seems excessive in and of itself)? And for what, a $50 parking fine.
But I guess some grown-ups would rather blindly maintain the status quo than consider alternative viewpoints on the subject.
A witness to the incident said Collazo had just bought parking time at a muni-meter and was bringing the ticket back to put on his windshield when the agent swooped in."That's why they need a grace period," said Aurora Susi, an employee at nearby Metro Optics. "They need to give you time to walk back to the car. I see this every day."
Sounds like NYC parking officers don't understand the law, and that NYC has dropped the ball in informing people about the law itself. This example also demonstrates the stupidity of replacing individual parking meters with a 'dashboard ticket' payment system. I also wonder how much of the taxpayer's money has been wasted in purchasing fancy handheld computers JUST to write parking citations (a pen and a citation book worked perfectly for decades).
Oh wait, I get it now. Buying the fancy equipment gives them the excuse to both raise fines and increase enforcement.
-The automatic ticket machines save money because the ticketes are computerized and do not have to be hand entered by a human being. When you write a paper ticket (duplicate copies), the violator gets the ticket, and the meter maid gives the other copy to a person that has to read it and enter it by hand. By having computers, you don't need to hire someone to enter it.
-The automatic parking pass machines (instead of meters) save money because you don't have to hire people to physically remove coins from the meters. You also don't need a place to bring the coins, you don't need someone to bring those coins to the bank, and you don't need anyone to maintain the meters in case they break. Of course someone has to maintain these machines as well.
study to determine how long it takes for the supposed cost savings derived from this flashy high teck gear to actually pay for the equipment itself. In an era where cities and towns are dealing with increased costs, dwindling resources, and record deficits, I feel it is a very important evaluation that government should give serious consideration to.
Although it's not a parking payment/enforcement system, let's use the MBTA's Charlie fare system as an example here. As I understand it, the system installed to date (which is still FAR from complete - i.e. commuter rail rollout) has cost about $250 million. According to the T's own numbers, they have been able to recoup approximately $13 million a year so far through lower fare evasion and lossage. So, assuming there are NO costs associated with operating the system (which isn't true, given maintenance, software licensing, etc. etc.), it will take almost TWENTY years to pay off the cost of the equipment.
Yes, I'm aware that the T claims other positive passenger benefits from the new system, however, I have yet to see any of them actually materialize as compared to the old "tokens and turnstiles".
The biggest flaw I see with "smart" parking machines for on-street parking is the necessity of the driver to return to their car to leave the ticket on their dashboard. If you have the machines spaced every half-block or so, most folks would consider that a minor inconvenience. However, space them a block or more apart, and that becomes very inefficient for the end user (huum, why does the phrase "for the safety and convenience of our employees" come to mind).
And once again for the record, as I've stated previously in this and other threads, I do NOT rely on my car for commuting, so the availability of on-street parking is NOT an issue for me. I normally travel between my home and Downtown Boston by a combination of walking, commuter rail, and subway.
The big one is free transfers from subway to bus, and 45-cent transfers from bus to subway. This actually lowered fares for many customers, and would have been difficult to implement without Charlie.
I also like being able to buy passes and commuter rail tickets on any day at any station, and using credit and ATM cards to buy tickets, passes, and stored value.
And not needing a pocketful of change to ride the bus.
The BTD is a money making organization. They do everything they can to make money. If it cost less to hand write the tickets, the tickets would be handwritten.
Sometimes they might try new things that don't end up working out, but these people don't do things that aren't cost effective.
An external study of the system would be a waste of money I would think. Unless someone really thinks these parking machines are losing money for the city.
point that parking enforcement groups like BTD are in the business principally for the REVENUE.
Of course, there's also the larger matter of why cities and towns make drivers pay to use parking spaces that are on PUBLIC streets that our taxes have constructed and maintain to begin with. Funny how most people go ballistic when you even breath "toll increase", but are quite willing to drop money into a local parking meter.
Parking meters are not there for revenue. If they were, you could put them on every street in Boston and make a whole lot of money. Or you could just raise the registry fee x amount of dollars. They are there so people can drive to commercial districts and find a place to park and spend money.
Almost every parking ticket is justified. The drivers messed up, and parking tickets were the consequence. Now Ms Krystle can deal with the consequences of her actions- the parking and the assault.
While we're on the topic... let's increase the cost of those parking tickets, increase the cost of metered parking, and increase parking enforcement. The city needs the revenue, and drivers can help.
illegally parked in tow zones, crosswalks, etc. etc.. My comments were directed at the enforcement of TIME LIMITS (which was the case in the Brookline incident), which, although perhaps well-intentioned regulations, are TOTALLY ARBITRARY rules that violation of which pose no hazard WHATSOEVER to other drivers or the general public.
And while we're on the subject of enforcement, let's consider a person pulled over for speeding (I trust most people reading this will agree that speeding, like most other traffic violations, constitutes a far greater risk to the safety of the public than a car left overtime in an otherwise LEGAL parking space).
Assuming the person stopped doesn't have an outstanding warrant for another offense, the police officer generally has multiple options. They can issue a verbal warning, they can issue a written warning, or they can write a written ticket (in certain speeding cases they can even arrest the driver on the spot). The decision is left to their JUDGEMENT and DISCRETION.
Yet the parking enforcement officer MUST ALWAYS issue a ticket for violation of a totally arbitrary rule, even when the offending car is about to move out of the OTHERWISE LEGAL parking space. Most grown-ups should understand the concept I'm illustrating here - it's called a DOUBLE STANDARD.
Unless you advocate that the law should be changed to mandate that police officers must ALWAYS write a traffic ticket when they stop a driver as well. Good luck getting the public to accept that one!
If it were up to the police or meter maids, they wouldn't give out any tickets. They could sit around and just wait for people to call up and complain about illegal parkers. That's human nature. But parking laws are parking laws, and while you might call them "arbritrary", the meter maids are probaby instructed by their bosses to enforce these infractions. How can you blame the meter maids for that?
Think about this roadman: Imagine if you knew that meter maids had discrestion and you could simply approach them while ticketing them and try to convince them or intimidate them into not getting a ticket? This is why meter maids are instructed not to use discresion. You can't have the parking judge and jury court trials out in the streets.
Like I said before, common sense should prevail in many instances, but you simply can't try to intimate someone into not getting giving you a ticket. It appears to me what happened in Brookline here.
the car, so I'll give them a break and NOT finishing writing the ticket", which is the type of discretion I'm thinking of, equate to a driver intimidating the meter maid?
As I said earlier, if we give police officers discretion in how they handle a traffic violation, then common sense dictates we should do the same for parking enforcement. And I'll repeat another earlier comment - Had the meter maid in the Brookline incident been allowed the discretion to not finish writing the ticket when confronted by an angry driver, perhaps she wouldn't had the cup of coffee thrown at her.
"Had the meter maid in the Brookline incident been allowed the discretion to not finish writing the ticket when confronted by an angry driver, perhaps she wouldn't had the cup of coffee thrown at her."
First off, they are allowed discretion, and this police officer used her discrestion to issue a parking ticket, and it was a legal parking ticket! Second, thats a lousy arguement. Kind of like saying if the cops didn't respond to the bank robbery, the bank robbers wouldn't have shot the cops and the cops would still be alive.
And again, if this meter maid saw the owner first at the car and wrote the ticket anyway, then yea the meter maid was a jerk. But I don't care if the meter maid said she didn't like black people and thats why she was writing the ticket. You still can't throw coffee at her.
Lets not forget that this person was in violation! For a lousy $25. I mean, do you want the meter maids to race around fast trying to ticket cars so they can beat the owners there? All they are doing is ticketing violations.
Sometimes they're there to basically force turnover of parking spaces in commercial districts - think of meters with two-hour limits. Basically, since stores can't tell their workers (well, other store's workers) not to park in the street, they get the city to do something to ensure customers have at least a chance of finding a nearby space.
I don't drive, but I ride in a car alot, so...why is it people blame the meter maid when they've run out of money in their meter, or parked in a no parking/tow zone? Do people not wear watches? Everyone has a cell phone, it has a clock on it, you know.
Even going in 'just for a minute' is still breaking the law.
I recall this occurring in the Back Bay by some tool with a Starbucks coffee and a hummer.
The trolls who cheer for the assulting of meter maids should be banned and have their licenses revoked. You're the cause of road rage.
Comments
Angry over a Parking Ticket
Boy, I bet she really got mad when they cuffed her, shoved her in a cruiser, and slammed her in with all the stinky drunks in the holding pen.
We've all wanted to...
I can't blame someone for doing something i've always wanted to do.
But we don't all do it
You can blame someone for doing something you have always wanted to do. You can't blame them for wanting to do it ... you can't blame them for fantasizing about it ... but you can blame them for doing it.
Lots of people fantasize about shooting their brothers, sending bombs to bosses they despise ...
That would be Amy Bishop... I
That would be Amy Bishop... I don't believe most of us want to shoot our brothers.
Really...
You've always wanted to chuck a cup of coffee onto a 64 year old woman?
coffee assault
That kind of incident calls for the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I can't imagine that the woman arrested goes around throwing coffee at people, but the stress of the moment led her to behave badly.
I'm sure that meter patrols have many confrontational situations. Not fun.
I'd like to see the town have an alternative means of paying, maybe a debit card system, but of course that would mean a capital outlay for a new meter system. In the meantime, carry a bunch of quarters in your change tray. And try to keep your cool.
Or, in the case of Brookline...
.if you don't have quarters in the car, (it sucks, happens to me a lot), how about park around the corner on a residential block for two hours, legally, for free?
I don't condone what the woman apparently did in this case.
However, I also have an issue with the Barney Fife-inspired "once we start writing the ticket, we have to issue it, even if the driver shows up to move the car" mentality of the parking police. Just further proof that most parking enforcement (with the exception of impeding traffic, blocking bus stops, crosswalks, hydrants and wheelchair ramps, or improperly using handicap spaces) is all about REVENUE, and has little to do with public safety.
For the record, I have received only two parking tickets in my 30+ years of driving, and in both cases the Town parking clerk agreed they were issued in error and voided them.
They write you up "even if
They write you up "even if the driver shows up to move the car" because the violation has already occurred. Do they give flashers a break because they stop waving their dicks at women when they see the police coming?
A grown-up would understand this principle.
With respect, you're talking apples and oranges here.
A "flashing" incident is a serious CRIMINAL act that generally results in mental anguish, however brief, for the victim. Plus, I doubt that many people would disagree with the argument that encouraging such criminal behavior constitutes a real threat to public safety.
By contrast, violating an arbitrarily set time limit on a parking space is a CIVIL violation that, at worst, inflicts a minor inconvenience on other people. Having a car sit in an otherwise legal and safe parking space beyond the time alotted has NO negative impact on public safety.
And no, I'm not encouraging people to break the law here, be it parking violations or more serious actions. But I've heard too many stories over the years from co-workers and friends of mine who've returned to their cars within five minutes of the meter expiring only to find a ticket being written by one of Barney Fife's distant relatives. This type of practice to me falls under the definition of unreasonable enforcement.
Would you accept the behavior of a police officer who ties up traffic by consistently pulling drivers over for going 58 mph in a 55 mph zone? Yes, technically, going 58 in a 55 zone is a violation of the law. But I would hope that most police officers would have the discretion to realize that there is no immediate threat to public safety in such a situation.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the purpose of time limits to make spaces available to more people? If a driver shows up to move the car within a REASONABLE time (say five to ten minutes) of the meter expiring, the car will be moved and the space now becomes free. Issuing a ticket in this circumstance, especially if the driver shows up as the ticket is STILL BEING WRITTEN is just plain arrogant policy.
But, as I stated earlier, it is increasingly obvious that most parking enforcement is (to paraphrase real estate agents) all about REVENUE, REVENUE, REVENUE.
If a driver shows up to move
If they added ten minutes on to every meter time, you'd just want ten more minutes after that, wouldn't you?
If you don't obey the rule, you are punished. Someone had to ride around the block because you decided you don't need to follow the rules - you deserve bonus points.
Like I said - grown-ups understand. You don't have to worry about revenue if you get your car out of the spot when you're supposed to.
Not only that
But, I'm pretty sure the "started writing the ticket already" problem has more to do with the fact that there's an accounting for all of the parking tickets in the book...and it would be a bit of a paperwork nightmare if every time they turn the book in they have to go:
Ticket 1 = meter unpaid, Mr. X
Ticket 2 = meter unpaid, Mrs. Y
Ticket 3 = torn up
Ticket 4 = meter unpaid, Mr. A
Ticket 5 = torn up
Ticket 6 = ...
Actually that isn't even too much of a problem Kaz
As tickets are going to have to be voided anyway for various reasons. Some times the meter maids don't realize the meter is broken until they started writing, or sometimes they don't realize there is an HP placard for the vehicle.
But what does happen in busy areas is this: People will work in commercial areas with a view of their car on the street from their workplace (or a co worker can see it). This person parks at the meter all day, and either feeds the meter all day illegally (past the meter limit of 2 hours usually), or simply lets it lapse until they see the meter maid come by. Then they run out from their office and try to tell the meter maid that they work there and will move the car. Or they will simply pull what happend here and just show up and expect the meter maid to stop since they can move the car right there.
The problem these meter maids have is their job performance is based on how many tickets they write a day. It's not always about revenue, but about accountability for these meter maids. The boss knows that in a 8 hours the meter maid should write x amount of tickets. They can have a few breaks during the day, but in the end there is an expected amount of tickets.
So in a given shift for a meter maid, they are going to run into a good percentage of vehicles tickets where the owner will show up during the time the ticket is written. Now this is where some common sense should take place. If a meter maid sees an expired meter but at the same time a person is at that car putting groceries in, then the meter maid should move on. But if that meter maid approaches that car and starts to write a ticket and then the person shows up, then that vehicle should get a ticket. But people should know that the law is the law. The violation should be very clear. You either paid the meter or didn't pay it. After that common sense period is over, it shouldn't be up to the meter maid to decide who gets or doesn't get a ticket. That decision should be made by an appeals officer whos official job it is to hear appeals.
There's another thing grown-ups should understand -
COMMON SENSE! Sorry, but where I come from, having the parking police lying in wait to write a ticket within five minutes of the meter expiring is EXCESSIVELY AGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT - plain and simple. Continuing to write up a ticket when the driver is about to move their car out of that space - thus making it available to others, is EXCESSIVELY AGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT - plain and simple.
After all, that's supposedly one of the requirements of a police officer - to be able to use their JUDGMENT in assesing a situation. But I guess meeting quotas, raising revenue, AND purposely inconveniencing people (by making them go the hassle of appleaing unreasonably issued tickets) for the sake of enforcing petty laws is more important than allowing people to use good judgment and common sense.
As I previously stated, I don't condone the driver's apparent actions in this incident. However, had the meter maid been allowed to use some discretion in this instance, perhaps the situation wouldn't have escalated to the point it did.
Now, because of this "rules are rules no matter the situation" mentality, how much of the Town's resources and the taxpayer's money is going to be spent prosecuting a FELONY conviction (which, given there was no injury here, IMO seems excessive in and of itself)? And for what, a $50 parking fine.
But I guess some grown-ups would rather blindly maintain the status quo than consider alternative viewpoints on the subject.
Parking Grace Period: NYC tried it
For once, Boston is more logical than NYC. Read this Roadman: http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/12/07/city-councils-grace-period-sparks-parking-agent-assault-whats-next/
A parking grace period is nothing but a meaningless political ploy.
If I read the article correctly, NYC is ABOUT to try
the grace period.
A witness to the incident said Collazo had just bought parking time at a muni-meter and was bringing the ticket back to put on his windshield when the agent swooped in."That's why they need a grace period," said Aurora Susi, an employee at nearby Metro Optics. "They need to give you time to walk back to the car. I see this every day."
Sounds like NYC parking officers don't understand the law, and that NYC has dropped the ball in informing people about the law itself. This example also demonstrates the stupidity of replacing individual parking meters with a 'dashboard ticket' payment system. I also wonder how much of the taxpayer's money has been wasted in purchasing fancy handheld computers JUST to write parking citations (a pen and a citation book worked perfectly for decades).
Oh wait, I get it now. Buying the fancy equipment gives them the excuse to both raise fines and increase enforcement.
roadman
-The automatic ticket machines save money because the ticketes are computerized and do not have to be hand entered by a human being. When you write a paper ticket (duplicate copies), the violator gets the ticket, and the meter maid gives the other copy to a person that has to read it and enter it by hand. By having computers, you don't need to hire someone to enter it.
-The automatic parking pass machines (instead of meters) save money because you don't have to hire people to physically remove coins from the meters. You also don't need a place to bring the coins, you don't need someone to bring those coins to the bank, and you don't need anyone to maintain the meters in case they break. Of course someone has to maintain these machines as well.
Points taken. However, has anyone actually done a
study to determine how long it takes for the supposed cost savings derived from this flashy high teck gear to actually pay for the equipment itself. In an era where cities and towns are dealing with increased costs, dwindling resources, and record deficits, I feel it is a very important evaluation that government should give serious consideration to.
Although it's not a parking payment/enforcement system, let's use the MBTA's Charlie fare system as an example here. As I understand it, the system installed to date (which is still FAR from complete - i.e. commuter rail rollout) has cost about $250 million. According to the T's own numbers, they have been able to recoup approximately $13 million a year so far through lower fare evasion and lossage. So, assuming there are NO costs associated with operating the system (which isn't true, given maintenance, software licensing, etc. etc.), it will take almost TWENTY years to pay off the cost of the equipment.
Yes, I'm aware that the T claims other positive passenger benefits from the new system, however, I have yet to see any of them actually materialize as compared to the old "tokens and turnstiles".
The biggest flaw I see with "smart" parking machines for on-street parking is the necessity of the driver to return to their car to leave the ticket on their dashboard. If you have the machines spaced every half-block or so, most folks would consider that a minor inconvenience. However, space them a block or more apart, and that becomes very inefficient for the end user (huum, why does the phrase "for the safety and convenience of our employees" come to mind).
And once again for the record, as I've stated previously in this and other threads, I do NOT rely on my car for commuting, so the availability of on-street parking is NOT an issue for me. I normally travel between my home and Downtown Boston by a combination of walking, commuter rail, and subway.
Passenger benefits from the Charlie system
The big one is free transfers from subway to bus, and 45-cent transfers from bus to subway. This actually lowered fares for many customers, and would have been difficult to implement without Charlie.
I also like being able to buy passes and commuter rail tickets on any day at any station, and using credit and ATM cards to buy tickets, passes, and stored value.
And not needing a pocketful of change to ride the bus.
Trust me roadman, they save money.
The BTD is a money making organization. They do everything they can to make money. If it cost less to hand write the tickets, the tickets would be handwritten.
Sometimes they might try new things that don't end up working out, but these people don't do things that aren't cost effective.
An external study of the system would be a waste of money I would think. Unless someone really thinks these parking machines are losing money for the city.
OK, I concede. However, your comments also prove my
point that parking enforcement groups like BTD are in the business principally for the REVENUE.
Of course, there's also the larger matter of why cities and towns make drivers pay to use parking spaces that are on PUBLIC streets that our taxes have constructed and maintain to begin with. Funny how most people go ballistic when you even breath "toll increase", but are quite willing to drop money into a local parking meter.
You may be missing the point about meters.
Parking meters are not there for revenue. If they were, you could put them on every street in Boston and make a whole lot of money. Or you could just raise the registry fee x amount of dollars. They are there so people can drive to commercial districts and find a place to park and spend money.
Her friend had a mask that
Her friend had a mask that said "Peace, Liberty and Social Injustice for All." on it.
Riiiiiight
If you can't do the time...
don't park illegally.
Almost every parking ticket is justified. The drivers messed up, and parking tickets were the consequence. Now Ms Krystle can deal with the consequences of her actions- the parking and the assault.
While we're on the topic... let's increase the cost of those parking tickets, increase the cost of metered parking, and increase parking enforcement. The city needs the revenue, and drivers can help.
Note that I have said nothing about waiving tickets for drivers
illegally parked in tow zones, crosswalks, etc. etc.. My comments were directed at the enforcement of TIME LIMITS (which was the case in the Brookline incident), which, although perhaps well-intentioned regulations, are TOTALLY ARBITRARY rules that violation of which pose no hazard WHATSOEVER to other drivers or the general public.
And while we're on the subject of enforcement, let's consider a person pulled over for speeding (I trust most people reading this will agree that speeding, like most other traffic violations, constitutes a far greater risk to the safety of the public than a car left overtime in an otherwise LEGAL parking space).
Assuming the person stopped doesn't have an outstanding warrant for another offense, the police officer generally has multiple options. They can issue a verbal warning, they can issue a written warning, or they can write a written ticket (in certain speeding cases they can even arrest the driver on the spot). The decision is left to their JUDGEMENT and DISCRETION.
Yet the parking enforcement officer MUST ALWAYS issue a ticket for violation of a totally arbitrary rule, even when the offending car is about to move out of the OTHERWISE LEGAL parking space. Most grown-ups should understand the concept I'm illustrating here - it's called a DOUBLE STANDARD.
Unless you advocate that the law should be changed to mandate that police officers must ALWAYS write a traffic ticket when they stop a driver as well. Good luck getting the public to accept that one!
You need to understand something else roadman,
If it were up to the police or meter maids, they wouldn't give out any tickets. They could sit around and just wait for people to call up and complain about illegal parkers. That's human nature. But parking laws are parking laws, and while you might call them "arbritrary", the meter maids are probaby instructed by their bosses to enforce these infractions. How can you blame the meter maids for that?
Think about this roadman: Imagine if you knew that meter maids had discrestion and you could simply approach them while ticketing them and try to convince them or intimidate them into not getting a ticket? This is why meter maids are instructed not to use discresion. You can't have the parking judge and jury court trials out in the streets.
Like I said before, common sense should prevail in many instances, but you simply can't try to intimate someone into not getting giving you a ticket. It appears to me what happened in Brookline here.
Perhaps. But how does "The driver shows up and is about to move
the car, so I'll give them a break and NOT finishing writing the ticket", which is the type of discretion I'm thinking of, equate to a driver intimidating the meter maid?
As I said earlier, if we give police officers discretion in how they handle a traffic violation, then common sense dictates we should do the same for parking enforcement. And I'll repeat another earlier comment - Had the meter maid in the Brookline incident been allowed the discretion to not finish writing the ticket when confronted by an angry driver, perhaps she wouldn't had the cup of coffee thrown at her.
Come on Roadman.
Lets start with your last statement:
"Had the meter maid in the Brookline incident been allowed the discretion to not finish writing the ticket when confronted by an angry driver, perhaps she wouldn't had the cup of coffee thrown at her."
First off, they are allowed discretion, and this police officer used her discrestion to issue a parking ticket, and it was a legal parking ticket! Second, thats a lousy arguement. Kind of like saying if the cops didn't respond to the bank robbery, the bank robbers wouldn't have shot the cops and the cops would still be alive.
And again, if this meter maid saw the owner first at the car and wrote the ticket anyway, then yea the meter maid was a jerk. But I don't care if the meter maid said she didn't like black people and thats why she was writing the ticket. You still can't throw coffee at her.
Lets not forget that this person was in violation! For a lousy $25. I mean, do you want the meter maids to race around fast trying to ticket cars so they can beat the owners there? All they are doing is ticketing violations.
I need to add some: 1)
I need to add some:
1) parking meters are there to earn revenue
2) paying the meter buys a grace period
Not always there to earn income
Sometimes they're there to basically force turnover of parking spaces in commercial districts - think of meters with two-hour limits. Basically, since stores can't tell their workers (well, other store's workers) not to park in the street, they get the city to do something to ensure customers have at least a chance of finding a nearby space.
Wait, I'm confused...
I don't drive, but I ride in a car alot, so...why is it people blame the meter maid when they've run out of money in their meter, or parked in a no parking/tow zone? Do people not wear watches? Everyone has a cell phone, it has a clock on it, you know.
Even going in 'just for a minute' is still breaking the law.
I recall this occurring in the Back Bay by some tool with a Starbucks coffee and a hummer.
The trolls who cheer for the assulting of meter maids should be banned and have their licenses revoked. You're the cause of road rage.