Washington DC Parking Nazis

[Linflas]

I used to ride a shuttle from 18th and F over to 7th and D to catch the VRE. We would get on Constitution Ave about 4:10 just in time to see the DC tow trucks dragging cars up onto the sidewalk from the street. They would come back later and tow them once the street was clear so if all they did was ticket you consider yourself lucky. They were not being all that careful when they dragged the cars off the street.

 

[soydios]

Some of the trolls in this thread must be too young to drive.

A sign that says "3 hour limit 8am-4pm" means that there is a 3 hour limit only from 8am-4pm, and no limit at any other time. This is what the OP said was the sign.

A sign that says "3 hour limit 8am-4pm, No Parking 4pm-8am" means that there is a 3 hour limit from 8am-4pm, and no parking at any other time.

theflyingpig is being a troll, and needs a vacation.

 

[EricMartello]

Hey, lookit what I found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...ident_Violator_Compact

Not that I'm one to trust in wikipedia but this seems to support my original assumption that as long as I avoid DC the worst that they can really do is shuffle the ticket off to a collections agency if I don't respond to it. They can't really pursue or enforce it out of state.

Since I don't negotiate with terrorists, I have no reason or intention of responding to this "letter of extortion", but this could be useful to someone wanting to dispute a parking ticket:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-overview.htm

 

[EricMartello]

I'm also questioning the use of "No Stopping" signs rather than "No Parking", because it's ambiguous. "No Stopping" means no stopping - i.e. you cannot stop in the middle of traffic like a bus or taxi does - to do something like pick up/drop off passengers, run into a store for a minute or pick up/drop off a delivery.

While many will say that "no stopping" implies "no parking" it is very debatable from a legal standpoint due to that ambiguity. A parked car is technically a car that is unattended and the motor is off, but typically it is parked out of the way of traffic and not in the middle of the road - if it was parked in the way of traffic (i.e. double-parked) it could then be considered as either "stopped" or "parked" and in violation of a "no stopping" sign.

The area I parked was out of the way of traffic and only had the 3-hour parking sign visible (and even that sign was very far away), and therefore the appropriate sign to indicate that parking there is prohibited would be "NO PARKING", or perhaps a "NO PARKING AND NO STOPPING" combo sign if that is what they meant.

When it comes to legal issues, implications are always going to be debatable...and isn't the burden of proof for DC to enforce a ticket like this to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that I was in fact violating some kind of CLEARLY STATED AND DEFINED law or regulation?

 

[KeithTalent]

Based on the information given, I have to go with the OP here. Everywhere around here, if the sign ONLY says 1 hour parking 9-6 M-F, that means at all other times you can park there for whatever amount of time. This is quite evidently true as you see the spots fill up after 6 with nobody getting tickets.

It would be exactly the same as only saying "no stopping between 9-6" which means you CAN stop there between 6 and 9. I'm not really sure where a lot of you guys are figuring there is an implicit restriction on parking outside of the times listed on the sign, when the exact opposite, as I stated above, makes far more sense.

KT

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: soydios

theflyingpig is being a troll, and needs a vacation.

Admit it, he made you laugh though.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: EricMartello
I'm also questioning the use of "No Stopping" signs rather than "No Parking", because it's ambiguous. "No Stopping" means no stopping - i.e. you cannot stop in the middle of traffic like a bus or taxi does - to do something like pick up/drop off passengers, run into a store for a minute or pick up/drop off a delivery.

While many will say that "no stopping" implies "no parking" it is very debatable from a legal standpoint due to that ambiguity. A parked car is technically a car that is unattended and the motor is off, but typically it is parked out of the way of traffic and not in the middle of the road - if it was parked in the way of traffic (i.e. double-parked) it could then be considered as either "stopped" or "parked" and in violation of a "no stopping" sign.

The area I parked was out of the way of traffic and only had the 3-hour parking sign visible (and even that sign was very far away), and therefore the appropriate sign to indicate that parking there is prohibited would be "NO PARKING", or perhaps a "NO PARKING AND NO STOPPING" combo sign if that is what they meant.

When it comes to legal issues, implications are always going to be debatable...and isn't the burden of proof for DC to enforce a ticket like this to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that I was in fact violating some kind of CLEARLY STATED AND DEFINED law or regulation?

Oh come on, you're not helping yourself.

I still think that if the only sign was a 3-hour limit between certain hours, then the parking should be unlimited outside of those hours. But "no stopping" implies "no parking." It also means you're not allowed to stop in order to drop someone off, pick someone up, etc.

Your car isn't moving when it's parked, is it? No, it's stopped.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Ladies Man
He missed another sign as many others have pointed out in the thread.

3 hour parking 8am to 4pm, but from 4pm to 6:30pm it's no parking. No other cars had tickets because he was the only prick parked there from 4 to 6:30, and by the time he got back to his car it was after 6:30 and people had parked there again.

This is most likely what happened IMO.

The alternative is the parking maid came back at 3:59pm and took a list of all the cars that were parked 3+ hours and it took him 12 minutes to get to OP's car.

However OP says he got there at 3:30, so I have to assume there is a "No stopping" sign from 4-6/7 that he just missed.

 

[Ika]

In all three of my pages, no one has mentioned Pwnage of the Year nominee 2009?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Aflac
In all three of my pages, no one has mentioned Pwnage of the Year nominee 2009?

If there is a no stopping sign from 4-6 then there is pwnage. If not, no pwnage.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: EricMartello
I'm also questioning the use of "No Stopping" signs rather than "No Parking", because it's ambiguous. "No Stopping" means no stopping - i.e. you cannot stop in the middle of traffic like a bus or taxi does - to do something like pick up/drop off passengers, run into a store for a minute or pick up/drop off a delivery.

While many will say that "no stopping" implies "no parking" it is very debatable from a legal standpoint due to that ambiguity. A parked car is technically a car that is unattended and the motor is off, but typically it is parked out of the way of traffic and not in the middle of the road - if it was parked in the way of traffic (i.e. double-parked) it could then be considered as either "stopped" or "parked" and in violation of a "no stopping" sign.

The area I parked was out of the way of traffic and only had the 3-hour parking sign visible (and even that sign was very far away), and therefore the appropriate sign to indicate that parking there is prohibited would be "NO PARKING", or perhaps a "NO PARKING AND NO STOPPING" combo sign if that is what they meant.

When it comes to legal issues, implications are always going to be debatable...and isn't the burden of proof for DC to enforce a ticket like this to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that I was in fact violating some kind of CLEARLY STATED AND DEFINED law or regulation?

Oh come on, you're not helping yourself.

I still think that if the only sign was a 3-hour limit between certain hours, then the parking should be unlimited outside of those hours. But "no stopping" implies "no parking." It also means you're not allowed to stop in order to drop someone off, pick someone up, etc.

Your car isn't moving when it's parked, is it? No, it's stopped.

I'm sorry but an "implication" does not a valid law make. You see, the kind implications you believe to exist are there because of weak minded and complacent citizens who simply accept this kind of abuse rather than fighting it.

I explained in my post the proper interpretation of "no stopping" and "no parking" - because if there was no difference you would not need more than one sign, now would you?

No stopping applies to STOPPING in such a way that you'd impede traffic, like a UPS truck stopping and blocking off a lane to make a delivery. The truck is NOT parked, it is STOPPED. A parked truck would be off to the side of the road, not in the way of traffic...and it is entirely different from being stopped. There is not a single NO PARKING sign in that area of DC. Not one...if they don't want people parking there, it stands to reason that there should be no parking signs and not the highly inappropriate "no stopping" sign on its own.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Aflac
In all three of my pages, no one has mentioned Pwnage of the Year nominee 2009?

If there is a no stopping sign from 4-6 then there is pwnage. If not, no pwnage.

Placement and type of signs used matters, says federal law. Seems that DC is up for somg pwnage.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: EricMartello
I'm also questioning the use of "No Stopping" signs rather than "No Parking", because it's ambiguous. "No Stopping" means no stopping - i.e. you cannot stop in the middle of traffic like a bus or taxi does - to do something like pick up/drop off passengers, run into a store for a minute or pick up/drop off a delivery.

While many will say that "no stopping" implies "no parking" it is very debatable from a legal standpoint due to that ambiguity. A parked car is technically a car that is unattended and the motor is off, but typically it is parked out of the way of traffic and not in the middle of the road - if it was parked in the way of traffic (i.e. double-parked) it could then be considered as either "stopped" or "parked" and in violation of a "no stopping" sign.

The area I parked was out of the way of traffic and only had the 3-hour parking sign visible (and even that sign was very far away), and therefore the appropriate sign to indicate that parking there is prohibited would be "NO PARKING", or perhaps a "NO PARKING AND NO STOPPING" combo sign if that is what they meant.

When it comes to legal issues, implications are always going to be debatable...and isn't the burden of proof for DC to enforce a ticket like this to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that I was in fact violating some kind of CLEARLY STATED AND DEFINED law or regulation?

Oh come on, you're not helping yourself.

I still think that if the only sign was a 3-hour limit between certain hours, then the parking should be unlimited outside of those hours. But "no stopping" implies "no parking." It also means you're not allowed to stop in order to drop someone off, pick someone up, etc.

Your car isn't moving when it's parked, is it? No, it's stopped.

I'm sorry but an "implication" does not a valid law make. You see, the kind implications you believe to exist are there because of weak minded and complacent citizens who simply accept this kind of abuse rather than fighting it.

I explained in my post the proper interpretation of "no stopping" and "no parking" - because if there was no difference you would not need more than one sign, now would you?

No stopping applies to STOPPING in such a way that you'd impede traffic, like a UPS truck stopping and blocking off a lane to make a delivery. The truck is NOT parked, it is STOPPED. A parked truck would be off to the side of the road, not in the way of traffic...and it is entirely different from being stopped. There is not a single NO PARKING sign in that area of DC. Not one...if they don't want people parking there, it stands to reason that there should be no parking signs and not the highly inappropriate "no stopping" sign on its own.

Bro..."no stopping" means no parking. It's there for anti-gridlock purposes during rush hour. My dad got towed last week because he left his car on Wilshire after 4pm. During rush hour they use the parking lane as a car lane to reduce traffic.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Aflac
In all three of my pages, no one has mentioned Pwnage of the Year nominee 2009?

If there is a no stopping sign from 4-6 then there is pwnage. If not, no pwnage.

YOU ARE WRONG AND STUPID EVERYONE KNOWS THIS

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: EricMartello
I'm also questioning the use of "No Stopping" signs rather than "No Parking", because it's ambiguous. "No Stopping" means no stopping - i.e. you cannot stop in the middle of traffic like a bus or taxi does - to do something like pick up/drop off passengers, run into a store for a minute or pick up/drop off a delivery.

While many will say that "no stopping" implies "no parking" it is very debatable from a legal standpoint due to that ambiguity. A parked car is technically a car that is unattended and the motor is off, but typically it is parked out of the way of traffic and not in the middle of the road - if it was parked in the way of traffic (i.e. double-parked) it could then be considered as either "stopped" or "parked" and in violation of a "no stopping" sign.

The area I parked was out of the way of traffic and only had the 3-hour parking sign visible (and even that sign was very far away), and therefore the appropriate sign to indicate that parking there is prohibited would be "NO PARKING", or perhaps a "NO PARKING AND NO STOPPING" combo sign if that is what they meant.

When it comes to legal issues, implications are always going to be debatable...and isn't the burden of proof for DC to enforce a ticket like this to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that I was in fact violating some kind of CLEARLY STATED AND DEFINED law or regulation?

Oh come on, you're not helping yourself.

I still think that if the only sign was a 3-hour limit between certain hours, then the parking should be unlimited outside of those hours. But "no stopping" implies "no parking." It also means you're not allowed to stop in order to drop someone off, pick someone up, etc.

Your car isn't moving when it's parked, is it? No, it's stopped.

I'm sorry but an "implication" does not a valid law make. You see, the kind implications you believe to exist are there because of weak minded and complacent citizens who simply accept this kind of abuse rather than fighting it.

I explained in my post the proper interpretation of "no stopping" and "no parking" - because if there was no difference you would not need more than one sign, now would you?

No stopping applies to STOPPING in such a way that you'd impede traffic, like a UPS truck stopping and blocking off a lane to make a delivery. The truck is NOT parked, it is STOPPED. A parked truck would be off to the side of the road, not in the way of traffic...and it is entirely different from being stopped. There is not a single NO PARKING sign in that area of DC. Not one...if they don't want people parking there, it stands to reason that there should be no parking signs and not the highly inappropriate "no stopping" sign on its own.

I'm still agreeing with you up until the "No stopping" thing. You have to stop your car to park. I know that you are reading the definition of "no stopping" to mean the thing that delivery trucks and taxis do, but it's not a very strong argument. I'm totally with JS80 here - if you missed a No Stopping sign, you're screwed. If not, then I'm siding with you.

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: EricMartello
I'm also questioning the use of "No Stopping" signs rather than "No Parking", because it's ambiguous. "No Stopping" means no stopping - i.e. you cannot stop in the middle of traffic like a bus or taxi does - to do something like pick up/drop off passengers, run into a store for a minute or pick up/drop off a delivery.

While many will say that "no stopping" implies "no parking" it is very debatable from a legal standpoint due to that ambiguity. A parked car is technically a car that is unattended and the motor is off, but typically it is parked out of the way of traffic and not in the middle of the road - if it was parked in the way of traffic (i.e. double-parked) it could then be considered as either "stopped" or "parked" and in violation of a "no stopping" sign.

The area I parked was out of the way of traffic and only had the 3-hour parking sign visible (and even that sign was very far away), and therefore the appropriate sign to indicate that parking there is prohibited would be "NO PARKING", or perhaps a "NO PARKING AND NO STOPPING" combo sign if that is what they meant.

When it comes to legal issues, implications are always going to be debatable...and isn't the burden of proof for DC to enforce a ticket like this to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that I was in fact violating some kind of CLEARLY STATED AND DEFINED law or regulation?

Oh come on, you're not helping yourself.

I still think that if the only sign was a 3-hour limit between certain hours, then the parking should be unlimited outside of those hours. But "no stopping" implies "no parking." It also means you're not allowed to stop in order to drop someone off, pick someone up, etc.

Your car isn't moving when it's parked, is it? No, it's stopped.

I'm sorry but an "implication" does not a valid law make. You see, the kind implications you believe to exist are there because of weak minded and complacent citizens who simply accept this kind of abuse rather than fighting it.

I explained in my post the proper interpretation of "no stopping" and "no parking" - because if there was no difference you would not need more than one sign, now would you?

No stopping applies to STOPPING in such a way that you'd impede traffic, like a UPS truck stopping and blocking off a lane to make a delivery. The truck is NOT parked, it is STOPPED. A parked truck would be off to the side of the road, not in the way of traffic...and it is entirely different from being stopped. There is not a single NO PARKING sign in that area of DC. Not one...if they don't want people parking there, it stands to reason that there should be no parking signs and not the highly inappropriate "no stopping" sign on its own.

Think to yourself what point would there be for a no stopping sign if you can park there. There is none. Are you admitting there is a no stopping sign there?

If you are parked you are stopped. If you are stopped it doesn't mean you are parked.

Also if you are blocking a lane of traffic as a UPS or delivery truck you can be ticketed. Alot of times this is overlooked since they are usually in and out before they can be ticketed anyway. Regardless though they can be ticketed. There is no need for a no stopping sign because it is illegal to stop in a lane of traffic anyway.

In a parking lane that doubles as a lane of traffic this sign is absolutely necessary and a simple no parking sign is not going to suffice.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Aflac
In all three of my pages, no one has mentioned Pwnage of the Year nominee 2009?

If there is a no stopping sign from 4-6 then there is pwnage. If not, no pwnage.

YOU ARE WRONG AND STUPID EVERYONE KNOWS THIS

NO UR A POOPOO FACE. YOUR MOMMAS SO FAT.

 

[shortylickens]

This thread is full of ownage and win.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: JS80
If there is a no stopping sign from 4-6 then there is pwnage. If not, no pwnage.

/thread

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: fulltilt39

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: fulltilt39

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
The ticket sucks but, not paying it could get your license suspended. I got stopped for 45 in a 35 while on vacation in Florida. I got the ticket at the beginning of a two week vacation and quite honestly, I forgot about it by the time I returned home. Six weeks later, I received a notice in the mail that my license was suspended.

A ticket is a moving violation and its generally considered a criminal offense, a parking violation is not. I can't see them suspending a license over parking tickets because they don't even verify that you receive the ticket. They just issue it and anyone could be driving the car. $100 fine is not happening for a place I'll never be parking in again.

i also got a parking ticket in D.C. once that i didn't pay and my license ended up suspended as well. of course, i didn't find that out until i got pulled over one night and they wouldn't let me drive my vehicle home.

i'd pay it or fight it.

They suspended your license in Alberta for a ticket in another country?

LOL no. if you read my 2nd post, i lived there. well, i lived in maryland. but worked/played/etc in D.C.

BUT...after i moved up here, i got pulled over and an RCMP was able to tell me that my insurance wasn't valid on my car (still had maryland plates/insurance).

they have ways...

That's fucked up. DC has been on my ass for a few years about a couple of parking tickets that I have no intention of ever paying. In the last year, I've registered two vehicles and renewed my license in MD with zero problem. Did you get a ticket for parking on top of a cop or something?

 

[fulltilt39]

Originally posted by: Bulk Beef

Originally posted by: fulltilt39

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: fulltilt39

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
The ticket sucks but, not paying it could get your license suspended. I got stopped for 45 in a 35 while on vacation in Florida. I got the ticket at the beginning of a two week vacation and quite honestly, I forgot about it by the time I returned home. Six weeks later, I received a notice in the mail that my license was suspended.

A ticket is a moving violation and its generally considered a criminal offense, a parking violation is not. I can't see them suspending a license over parking tickets because they don't even verify that you receive the ticket. They just issue it and anyone could be driving the car. $100 fine is not happening for a place I'll never be parking in again.

i also got a parking ticket in D.C. once that i didn't pay and my license ended up suspended as well. of course, i didn't find that out until i got pulled over one night and they wouldn't let me drive my vehicle home.

i'd pay it or fight it.

They suspended your license in Alberta for a ticket in another country?

LOL no. if you read my 2nd post, i lived there. well, i lived in maryland. but worked/played/etc in D.C.

BUT...after i moved up here, i got pulled over and an RCMP was able to tell me that my insurance wasn't valid on my car (still had maryland plates/insurance).

they have ways...

That's fucked up. DC has been on my ass for a few years about a couple of parking tickets that I have no intention of ever paying. In the last year, I've registered two vehicles and renewed my license in MD with zero problem. Did you get a ticket for parking on top of a cop or something?

they might've changed the laws since then. this was like...8 or 9 yrs ago LOL

it was just a regular DC parking ticket at Walter Reed, where i worked at the time.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

I'm still agreeing with you up until the "No stopping" thing. You have to stop your car to park. I know that you are reading the definition of "no stopping" to mean the thing that delivery trucks and taxis do, but it's not a very strong argument. I'm totally with JS80 here - if you missed a No Stopping sign, you're screwed. If not, then I'm siding with you.

We're not redefining the English language to accomodate unjust or abusive laws. "No Stopping" is not the same as "No Parking", obviously; they're not even similar words.

Implications are weak, and certainly do not fill the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement for non-criminal legal issues such as a parking ticket. I realize that this type of rebuttal would probably not have this ticket nulled by the greedy DC parking cartel but it is in fact a valid legal basis for attacking what amounts to municipal extortion.

Originally posted by: mchammer187
Think to yourself what point would there be for a no stopping sign if you can park there. There is none. Are you admitting there is a no stopping sign there?

If you are parked you are stopped. If you are stopped it doesn't mean you are parked.

Also if you are blocking a lane of traffic as a UPS or delivery truck you can be ticketed. Alot of times this is overlooked since they are usually in and out before they can be ticketed anyway. Regardless though they can be ticketed. There is no need for a no stopping sign because it is illegal to stop in a lane of traffic anyway.

In a parking lane that doubles as a lane of traffic this sign is absolutely necessary and a simple no parking sign is not going to suffice.

There is a difference between stopping and parking, a fact that may have revealed itself to you if you had bothered to read the last few posts. I am simply pointing out yet another reason why this ticket has no merit.

No Stopping refers blocking traffic by - ready for this - stopping. Most people do not park their car in the middle of a busy street. The "No Stopping" signs make sense due to the loads of tour buses in that area, and if they were allowed to stop to load/unload it would definitely cause traffic problems in that vicinity...so "no stopping" doesn't STATE that parking is prohibited, nor is the signage sufficient. Are you trying to say that a sign which is over a block away - not reasonably visible - somehow applies to that parking spot? No it does not according to federal law.

As I said before, the place I parked my car was among other parked cars and it was not stopped in a way that blocked traffic. If my car was "in the wrong" then all the cars on that row should have been as well.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

I'm still agreeing with you up until the "No stopping" thing. You have to stop your car to park. I know that you are reading the definition of "no stopping" to mean the thing that delivery trucks and taxis do, but it's not a very strong argument. I'm totally with JS80 here - if you missed a No Stopping sign, you're screwed. If not, then I'm siding with you.

We're not redefining the English language to accomodate unjust or abusive laws. "No Stopping" is not the same as "No Parking", obviously; they're not even similar words.

Implications are weak, and certainly do not fill the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement for non-criminal legal issues such as a parking ticket. I realize that this type of rebuttal would probably not have this ticket nulled by the greedy DC parking cartel but it is in fact a valid legal basis for attacking what amounts to municipal extortion.

Originally posted by: mchammer187
Think to yourself what point would there be for a no stopping sign if you can park there. There is none. Are you admitting there is a no stopping sign there?

If you are parked you are stopped. If you are stopped it doesn't mean you are parked.

Also if you are blocking a lane of traffic as a UPS or delivery truck you can be ticketed. Alot of times this is overlooked since they are usually in and out before they can be ticketed anyway. Regardless though they can be ticketed. There is no need for a no stopping sign because it is illegal to stop in a lane of traffic anyway.

In a parking lane that doubles as a lane of traffic this sign is absolutely necessary and a simple no parking sign is not going to suffice.

There is a difference between stopping and parking, a fact that may have revealed itself to you if you had bothered to read the last few posts. I am simply pointing out yet another reason why this ticket has no merit.

No Stopping refers blocking traffic by - ready for this - stopping. Most people do not park their car in the middle of a busy street. The "No Stopping" signs make sense due to the loads of tour buses in that area, and if they were allowed to stop to load/unload it would definitely cause traffic problems in that vicinity...so "no stopping" doesn't STATE that parking is prohibited, nor is the signage sufficient. Are you trying to say that a sign which is over a block away - not reasonably visible - somehow applies to that parking spot? No it does not according to federal law.

As I said before, the place I parked my car was among other parked cars and it was not stopped in a way that blocked traffic. If my car was "in the wrong" then all the cars on that row should have been as well.

Alright, fuck this, you're an idiot. I hope you have to pay the ticket now.

"Just pay the parking ticket. Don't be so outraged. You're not a freedom fighter in the civil rights movement. You double parked."

 

[Jeeebus]

this guy is a fucking idiot if he thinks he's going to argue the legal implications of "no stopping" not being equivalent to "no parking" to get out of a parking ticket. I've decided to take a walk around the Washington Monument tomorrow to track down one of these three hour parking signs and I fully expect to see the "no stopping" signs whose existence he denies.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Jeeebus
this guy is a fucking idiot if he thinks he's going to argue the legal implications of "no stopping" not being equivalent to "no parking" to get out of a parking ticket. I've decided to take a walk around the Washington Monument tomorrow to track down one of these three hour parking signs and I fully expect to see the "no stopping" signs whose existence he denies.

if that's the case, the OP is indeed an idiot and this thread should be nominated for ownage of the year. but if the sign is just "3hr parking, 8-4" then technically he is right.