Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
It's funny, seeing all the people supporting the OPs position.
Your posts of this and "you're wrong" to everyone is so wonderfully and articulately put together that I have no choice but to back down and accept your victory.
Your intellect is much to high for everyone's here even though everyone else is disagreeing with you, thus, you win this round.
What a gracious way to admit defeat. Was it hard for you to come to the conclusion that my position was the correct one? You seem like a person who would have trouble admitting that you were wrong. Anyway, I applaud your effort, my friend. Perhaps next time our roles will be reversed, and I will have to be the one to admit defeat. Or perhaps not.
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
It's funny, seeing all the people supporting the OPs position.
Your posts of this and "you're wrong" to everyone is so wonderfully and articulately put together that I have no choice but to back down and accept your victory.
Your intellect is much to high for everyone's here even though everyone else is disagreeing with you, thus, you win this round.
What a gracious way to admit defeat. Was it hard for you to come to the conclusion that my position was the correct one? You seem like a person who would have trouble admitting that you were wrong. Anyway, I applaud your effort, my friend. Perhaps next time our roles will be reversed, and I will have to be the one to admit defeat. Or perhaps not.
WHOOOOSHHHHSHSHHSH
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: karlchad
he got a ticket for parking from 4-6:30 (no parking) . case closed. - Monk
He's the guy.
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
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."
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.
Originally posted by: sandmanwake
Here's what happened.
EricMartello parked his car at 3:30 at an area of DC that allows parking for up to 3 hours between 8am to 4pm. The metermaid, theflyingpig, who also worked nights as a troll on various message boards had a quota to meet. Seeing that EricMartello's license plate indicated that he was from out of town, theflyingpig figured that EricMartello would be an easy mark since he would be less likely to contest the ticket. As such, even though EricMartello hadn't broken any laws, theflyingpig wrote EricMartello a ticket at 4:12pm, skipped work early, went home to meet his accomplice, helped Glen Beck allegedly rape and kill another girl just like in 1990, disposed of her body, and still made quota for a whole day of metermaiding.
It was brilliant except for one thing. EricMartello decided not to be a pussy and fought the ticket. There was no way EricMartello would have been ticketed had theflyingpig been in the area the whole time to do his job properly. Thanks to EricMartello's testimony, theflyingpig and allegedly Glen Beck will be going to jail for a long, long time for allegedly raping and killing a girl just like in 1990.
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: sandmanwake
Here's what happened.
EricMartello parked his car at 3:30 at an area of DC that allows parking for up to 3 hours between 8am to 4pm. The metermaid, theflyingpig, who also worked nights as a troll on various message boards had a quota to meet. Seeing that EricMartello's license plate indicated that he was from out of town, theflyingpig figured that EricMartello would be an easy mark since he would be less likely to contest the ticket. As such, even though EricMartello hadn't broken any laws, theflyingpig wrote EricMartello a ticket at 4:12pm, skipped work early, went home to meet his accomplice, helped Glen Beck allegedly rape and kill another girl just like in 1990, disposed of her body, and still made quota for a whole day of metermaiding.
It was brilliant except for one thing. EricMartello decided not to be a pussy and fought the ticket. There was no way EricMartello would have been ticketed had theflyingpig been in the area the whole time to do his job properly. Thanks to EricMartello's testimony, theflyingpig and allegedly Glen Beck will be going to jail for a long, long time for allegedly raping and killing a girl just like in 1990.
Interesting story, the only problem with it is that if I were really there I would have punched EricMartello's face out through his asshole and across the Potomac. Everyone knows this.
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.
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Interesting story, the only problem with it is that if I were really there I would have punched EricMartello's face out through his asshole and across the Potomac. Everyone knows this.
Originally posted by: JS80
Dude, stop digging that hole. No stopping means no parking with a threat of no dropping off passengers either. City buses are allowed to stop; their stop/go is a few seconds long. No stopping = no parking. Why would you let cars park, but not "stop"?
Why in G-d's name would you allow traffic to park in the far right lane, but not just "stop"?
Funny, I was going to say the EXACT same things about you.Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Interesting story, the only problem with it is that if I were really there I would have punched EricMartello's face out through his asshole and across the Potomac. Everyone knows this.
It's funny how you simultaneously fail at:
1) Understanding this thread.
2) Trolling
3) Internet tough guy
I'll even give you a chance to back up your claim. Where do you live?
The better question is how many times will you try to make a invalid claim without supporting yourself with any kind of valid reasoning.
andInternet tough guy
I'll even give you a chance to back up your claim. Where do you live?
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Do you even know how awesomely you have failed? Do you even have a clue? Do you? Do you know?
Originally posted by: slag
Originally posted by: guyver01
Originally posted by: EricMartello
No signage was present that says NO PARKING in that area. It just says 3 hour limit, it doesn't.
LOL... maybe you need to go back to Driver's ed.
Originally posted by: EricMartello
There was an area that said I could park up to 3 hours between from 8am to 4pm
This is an IMPLIED NO PARKING from 4:01pm to 7:59am.
This is stated in every DMV manual i've ever seen.
No, thats not implied at all. Whats implied is that the parking area has a 3 hour parking window enforced from 8-4.. thats all thats implied. And unless it specifically says you cant park there from 4:01 pm to 7:59 am, then the OP is in the right.
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Best thing would be for Eric to identify the stret and block that he was on. Then a local DC member can go and verify the signage along the block (pics would be useful of signage).
From my POV, it sounds like restricted parking between 8 & 4. After that there is no limit on parking UNLESS there is a No Parking sign around
I agree. It's possible the (seemingly intellectually challenged) OP did not see a "No stopping 7-8 am, 4-6:30 pm" sign, in which case he would be ticketed. But if the ONLY sign was "2 hour parking, 8am-4pm," then you ought to be able to park any time after 4 and be fine (perhaps any time after 2pm, because by the time you've hit the 2-hour limit, the parking restriction has ended). I've never heard of "implied no parking."
Perhaps different cities, states, or parts of the country handle it differently. Certainly there seem to be people who very adamantly believe that "2 hour parking, 8am-4pm" means "No parking, 4pm-8am." But in my city, Minneapolis, they agree with Common Courtesy's assessment. Hell, my girlfriend lives in an area with pretty tight parking and whenever I visit her I have to search around to find one of the "2 hour parking, 9am-4pm" spots. Everyone around here including me parks in those spots overnight, and you can even leave your car there until 11am without being ticketed. That is simply how it works here.
To the people arguing for "implied no parking": Are you all just trolls? Are you so closed-minded that you think the same rules apply everywhere, even though my own personal experience says otherwise? I'm willing to accept that such rules might apply to some areas, but I was not aware of them until just now. I can say WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, a 2-hour restriction during business hours means free unlimited parking outside the range specified on the sign, unless another sign says otherwise.
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.
That's what I'm thinking. But if that sign really wasn't there, then he was ticketed wrongly. However, it seems likely that the sign was there and OP missed it.
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Parking =/= Stopping because you park your car OUT OF THE WAY of traffic and STOPPING impedes the flow of traffic.
Originally posted by: EricMartello
No stopping is NOT equivalent to no parking, and even your run of the mill moron knows that it is implied at most...or are you going to back up your claim with the law that clearly states "no stopping" = "no parking"?
Stopping (when prohibited) - halting a vehicle except to avoid conflict with other traffic
or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or a traffic control sign or signal.
Park or Parking - the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, other than
temporarily for the purpose of, and while actually engaged in, loading or unloading
merchandise or passengers.
Originally posted by: guyver01
Originally posted by: Syringer
everywhere I've ever been, when a street parking signs that say "2 hour parking from 9am - 6pm" means that you can park for FREE after 6pm until 9am.
LOL what??
why have a sign that saying you can park for 2hours from 9a-6p if there's free parking from 6p-9a?
why not have a sign that says "unlimited free parking forever"
or why not just remove the sign.
the sign is there to tell you when you CAN park.
if there's no sign, you can park
if there's a sign, you can park during the limited hours only.
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.
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
I'm guessing you missed one or two other signs that were posted along with the sign you're talking about. I've rarely seen one parking sign posted by itself in DC.
Text
Right, because I wouldn't have noticed all those signs in red...I specifically avoided parking in an area where there were red "no stopping" signs and "no parking" signs. If a sign posted a few blocks away or ahead somehow is meant to apply to the whole road, it is clearly a scam to bilk parking fines out of unsuspecting visitors.
The only sign that was visible in the area that I parked was the green one, and furthermore, there were plenty of other cars already parked there so it's not like mine was somehow blocking traffic.
It's quite clear that DC is built on a foundation of stupid and there is no way I'm rolling over for them and paying a BS fine. Lucky my car didn't get towed? Why would I be lucky? If they were going to tow my car they would have to tow all the cars in front and behind it just to get to it. Their budget problems are not my problem and I'm not going to be victimized by some out-of-control governing system that thinks it can abuse US citizens to keeps its life support going. Anyone who lives in the US and finds these kind of government extortion practices acceptable needs to be deported to Canada or France.
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Parking =/= Stopping because you park your car OUT OF THE WAY of traffic and STOPPING impedes the flow of traffic.
"No stopping" is more restrictive than "no parking." "No parking" means you can briefly stop your car to load and unload passengers or merchandise. "No standing" means you can briefly stop your car to pick up or discharge passengers only. "No stopping" means you cannot stop your car except to avoid a conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with the direction of a police officer or official traffic control device. It's in the DC driver's manual.
http://dmv.dc.gov/info/DriverEducation.shtm
If there was a no stopping sign there, you were not allowed to park there. You said you came back to your car around 6:30 and the other cars didn't have tickets - if they parked there after the "no stopping" timeframe, or after the last time the cop checked that street, that makes sense. "No stopping" does not refer only to the middle of the street just the same as "no parking" does not refer only to the middle of the street. "No stopping" means you can't pull your car to the curb and stop it to do anything.
You obviously have no intention of paying the ticket regardless, so why bother defending yourself here? Please update this thread if you ever have to go back to Washington, DC and you get arrested for an unpaid parking ticket.
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Parking =/= Stopping because you park your car OUT OF THE WAY of traffic and STOPPING impedes the flow of traffic.
"No stopping" is more restrictive than "no parking." "No parking" means you can briefly stop your car to load and unload passengers or merchandise. "No standing" means you can briefly stop your car to pick up or discharge passengers only. "No stopping" means you cannot stop your car except to avoid a conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with the direction of a police officer or official traffic control device. It's in the DC driver's manual.
.
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Parking =/= Stopping because you park your car OUT OF THE WAY of traffic and STOPPING impedes the flow of traffic.
"No stopping" is more restrictive than "no parking." "No parking" means you can briefly stop your car to load and unload passengers or merchandise. "No standing" means you can briefly stop your car to pick up or discharge passengers only. "No stopping" means you cannot stop your car except to avoid a conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with the direction of a police officer or official traffic control device. It's in the DC driver's manual.
.
That doesn't make any sense though. Why would there be a sign saying "no stopping" and another sign saying "you can park here" for the same section of road? If "no stopping" takes precedence then the other sign is redundant and false. If not, then the other sign is the only one that matters.
Originally posted by: Jeeebus
If it helps you shut your idiotic pie-hole, yes.
Courtesy of D.C. Municipal Regulations, Title 18, Chapter 99:
Stopping (when prohibited) - halting a vehicle except to avoid conflict with other traffic
or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or a traffic control sign or signal.
Park or Parking - the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, other than
temporarily for the purpose of, and while actually engaged in, loading or unloading
merchandise or passengers.
TEXT
In case you can't quite figure it out for yourself, "no stopping" is more restrictive than "no parking," meaning you can't even stop to let someone out of the car/pick someone up curbside. Otherwise, it's exactly the same concept.
Now, if you'd kindly STFU, we can all go about our merry business.
EDIT: Creepy, Mugs. We were both typing the same message to this idiot.