Horrible Parking............

[Guibo]

However, I have every right to pay for, detail for countless hours, and expect my bought product to be unharmed in public.

Nobody has the right to render my countless hours as useless due to their own carelessness or because they drive some POS that they don't care to care for.

Hey, sometimes you're out, eating, and you have no napkins to wipe mustard or grease off of your hands, I assume it's okay to let your fellow citizen use his white T-Shirt as a rag? I mean, it'll only be a little spot, right, it's not like your ripping apart the whole shirt?

I can't believe that even on a car enthusiast Board, where people come to waste away hours obsessing about cars, we can't get an absolute decision that people literally touching your car without permission is absolutely OFF LIMITS!!

You have that right? Show me where such a right is enumerated. Make no mistake, the mere presence of all of those cars on a public road is a privelege. Not a right. If a bird drops a load right onto your freshly detailed hood, are you within your rights to pull out your .40 and blow it away? Park your car under a tree or power lines, you shouldn't be shocked it's going to get crapped on. Park your car in a bad neighborhood with the doors unlocked, you shouldn't be shocked to find it missing. Park your car in NYC, you shouldn't be shocked that someone parks like this. This is not a justification, as I've said before there is clearly a lack of respect for personal property; I'm just saying, you shouldn't be shocked by this.

I never said I wouldn't take offense to people touching my car. The mistake you're making is projecting your/our "car enthusiast" unwritten code of ethics onto people who may not be car enthusiasts at all. So yes, you can believe it. If you're in a city where it's normal for people to be using each other's T-shirt as a napkin, then so be it. Unfortunately, I know of no city where this is normal. Also unfortunately for your example, I can think of a city where parking like this might just be considered normal.

BTW, care to guess what city this is in?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[K-A]

I'm not saying that I'm completely shocked or naive to it, I just know it's wrong, and I hate that it happens, and I'd be livid if it happened to me.

Of course, as someone who cares about my car, I am completely aware of where I drive it, park it, how I park it, etc. etc. to try and minimize potential damage, etc.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

If a bird drops a load right onto your freshly detailed hood, are you within your rights to pull out your .40 and blow it away? Park your car under a tree or power lines, you shouldn't be shocked it's going to get crapped on.

What complete and utter nonsense. A bird crapping on your car is an act of nature from a creature that knows no different. A human being showing no consideration for somebody else's property is a criminal act. That this is even being debated is frankly astounding.

The mistake you're making is projecting your/our "car enthusiast" unwritten code of ethics onto people who may not be car enthusiasts at all.

This isn't about being a car enthusiast! This is about someone showing no respect for somebody else's property! Someone parking like that risks damaging the other car, and is a criminal act. Period.

Also unfortunately for your example, I can think of a city where parking like this might just be considered normal.

So, because a lot of people do it, it's acceptable then? That's a pathetic and ignorant attitude, and if I caught someone with that attitude parking their car in this way, I wouldn't just "accept it" which is what you're suggesting.

I hire cars frequently in New York. If I return the hire car with scratches on the bumper, I have to pay for the damage. Do you think that is acceptable?

 

[NarutoRamen]

With all due respect, not everyone has a private garage or is willing to pay ridiculous amount of money for a space when there's one for free.

Tell me about it. When lived in San Fran/Berkeley in '05, they wanted $200 a month in a horrible garage, where it's better to just park on the streets. For the better garages, it was more closer to $500-700..that's more than half of what I was paying for my studio appt at that time ($850). I know it's even more now, after 6 years, and it's even more expensive in NYC.

 

[Guibo]

What complete and utter nonsense. A bird crapping on your car is an act of nature from a creature that knows no different. A human being showing no consideration for somebody else's property is a criminal act. That this is even being debated is frankly astounding.

This isn't about being a car enthusiast! This is about someone showing no respect for somebody else's property! Someone parking like that risks damaging the other car, and is a criminal act. Period.

So, because a lot of people do it, it's acceptable then? That's a pathetic and ignorant attitude, and if I caught someone with that attitude parking their car in this way, I wouldn't just "accept it" which is what you're suggesting.

I hire cars frequently in New York. If I return the hire car with scratches on the bumper, I have to pay for the damage. Do you think that is acceptable?

You're not understaning the point about the bird crap: It's about whether anyone has absolute property rights in a public setting, and what is a proper response to certain actions. The fact that driving and operation of a motor vehicle on public roads is a privelege should tell us there is no such absolute right.
Show me where it is stated that actions which merely risk damaging another's car is criminal. Then, go find me the damage that was actually done to this car.
I don't think it's acceptable that you would pay for the scratch, but I also think the 1" of room this guy was using wouldn't likely have left any scratch worth mentioning.
I also think it's pathetic and ignorant that you would
a) fail to acknowledge my prior comments about respect for personal property, and
b) think this is such an outrage when in many other metropolitan areas (Milan, Rome, London, Paris) similar parking methods are used, and even worse

Where did I suggest that you would accept it??
And this is about being a car enthusiast, when other members bring their car enthusiast activities into the discussion. Are you having problems with following the context of a discussion? If so, where is your outrage and talk of "complete and utter nonsense" when others suggest it is ok to physically kick someone's teeth in for this kind of behavior?

 

[Betty Swollocks]

You're not understaning the point about the bird crap: It's about whether anyone has absolute property rights in a public setting, and what is a proper response to certain actions. The fact that driving and operation of a motor vehicle on public roads is a privelege should tell us there is no such absolute right.

What in God's name are you talking about? Somebody is driving their car and knowingly making contact with somebody else's car. "Property rights"? As a driver you must not drive in a way which damages somebody else's property? I have absolutely no idea what you are arguing about here. I'm left gobsmacked by your viewpoint on this.

I completely agree that driving on public roads is a priviledge, which is why the person trying to park their car should not be making contact with the other cars. They have to abide by the highway code. If they are not able to do this then they should not have a license.

Show me where it is stated that actions which merely risk damaging another's car is criminal.

Seriously? What planet are you on? How about if I drive through a red light but don't hit anybody? Is that OK? How about if I drive home drunk but don't kill anybody? Something does not become "wrong" because there happens to be no bad outcome.

I also think it's pathetic and ignorant that you would
a) fail to acknowledge my prior comments about respect for personal property, and
b) think this is such an outrage when in many other metropolitan areas (Milan, Rome, London, Paris) similar parking methods are used, and even worse

Since when does that make it alright? I've been to Italy and I know exactly what you're talking about. And it's wrong for people to drive like that. Simply WRONG.

As for London. What utter claptrap. I've had experience of London on an almost weekly basis for the last 20 years. I have never seen parking like this. Never.

If so, where is your outrage and talk of "complete and utter nonsense" when others suggest it is ok to physically kick someone's teeth in for this kind of behavior?

What's that got to do with anything? I'm putting you straight about common decency. I don't give a toss what any other poster has said.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

This thread is certainly in the right forum. Stupid, stupid boy.

 

[mini_cooper4]

Hey guys I think we have some people that do this kind of parking around here.
Just a guess On the other hand... nobody will admit that

 

[Sunny]

I don't agree with Betty a whole lot, but this one I do. I am shocked there are car lovers here who seem to justify the behavior show in the video. I work two block from San Francisco financial district, parking is a night mare here, but that is no excuse to do this. I am not saying I have never bumped into other's bumpers, I have on rare occasions, but it is accidental (usually when pulling out of the steep inclines that plague SF), never a deliberate "space making" maneuver.

 

[Guibo]

What in God's name are you talking about? Somebody is driving their car and knowingly making contact with somebody else's car. "Property rights"? As a driver you must not drive in a way which damages somebody else's property? I have absolutely no idea what you are arguing about here. I'm left gobsmacked by your viewpoint on this.
I completely agree that driving on public roads is a priviledge, which is why the person trying to park their car should not be making contact with the other cars. They have to abide by the highway code. If they are not able to do this then they should not have a license.
Seriously? What planet are you on? How about if I drive through a red light but don't hit anybody? Is that OK? How about if I drive home drunk but don't kill anybody? Something does not become "wrong" because there happens to be no bad outcome.
Since when does that make it alright? I've been to Italy and I know exactly what you're talking about. And it's wrong for people to drive like that. Simply WRONG.
As for London. What utter claptrap. I've had experience of London on an almost weekly basis for the last 20 years. I have never seen parking like this. Never.
What's that got to do with anything? I'm putting you straight about common decency. I don't give a toss what any other poster has said.

What are you putting me straight about if I've already addressed common decency and respect for personal property? You don't give a toss what any other poster has said...is that your admission that you're singling me out?
If it is stated in the highway code that this is illegal, point it out for me. There is no shortage of CCTVs in these cities, so where are the prosecutions? Where are the officers that are writing tickets for this; it should be a massive cash cow for all of these municipalities. More to the point: Show me the damage that you are 100% sure must have been inflicted on these other vehicles.
Drunk driving and running red lights are straw man arguments. There are already laws on the books and red light cameras for the expressed purpose of enforcement. If there is even such provisions accounted for in the highway code of New York, why isn't it being enforced? And yes, drunk driving is exactly the same as pushing your way into a parking spot, LOL.

So by your logic, if you don't see it in London, it never happens? Talk about utter rubbish. In London for your viewing pleasure:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[K-A]

Who the hell cares if this is "par for the course" in whatever city?

That doesn't make it right! Can you imagine if our forefathers just thought to themselves, "well, this is how they do it, this is what's acceptable to this society, let's just leave things be"? We'd all still be bringing food in the form of each others human carcasses to our hairy wives.

 

[NarutoRamen]

The reason why I would be super-pissed at someone who did this. Money...But if this person didn't have insurance, I will beat the crap out of that person. Why? Let me put it this way.

On my 3er, my 6month insurance is around $700. Now, if someone were to hit my car and the damage is under $500, I have to pay out of pocket. I'm a college student with a nice car because I saved my money and work for my father. I'm not MADE of money. Also, if I call the insurance then regardless of it being my fault or not, and contrary to what ALL insurance companies say, they will raise the rates. Usually, they go up around 10-20%.

Is that clear enough now? It's the fact that some of us will go apeshit over an object, but rather how that object fits into our lives. I NEED my car, I have to drive to school, etc. So bastard hitting my car, because they can't park for sh!t, causes me a whole lot of headache than just "oh, they hit my car."

So if you don't understand this, then you must have a lot of money or a lot of time on your hands.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

If it is stated in the highway code that this is illegal, point it out for me. There is no shortage of CCTVs in these cities, so where are the prosecutions? Where are the officers that are writing tickets for this; it should be a massive cash cow for all of these municipalities.

You're just making yourself look naive and rather silly. I don't have time to discect every part of your post, and neither do I have the inclination, but I will answer this.

Why would a criminal case against somebody damaging somebody else's property be a cash cow for "municipalities"? Why would the municipality receive any money when it's a private matter? I private prosecution however would be fruitful if enough evidence was at hand and the victim had the money and will. You're right, it's obviously so common that this is unlikely to happen. It doesn't mean that it's not a crime though!

Anyway, this is a complete waste of time trying to convince somebody so foolish and so clearly lacking a basic understanding of law.

 

[Cashmere]

Hey guys I think we have some people that do this kind of parking around here.

lol, Im thinking the same thing. Reminded me of this classic scene from Police Academy:

 

[Guibo]

You're just making yourself look naive and rather silly. I don't have time to discect every part of your post, and neither do I have the inclination, but I will answer this.
Why would a criminal case against somebody damaging somebody else's property be a cash cow for "municipalities"? Why would the municipality receive any money when it's a private matter? I private prosecution however would be fruitful if enough evidence was at hand and the victim had the money and will. You're right, it's obviously so common that this is unlikely to happen. It doesn't mean that it's not a crime though!
Anyway, this is a complete waste of time trying to convince somebody so foolish and so clearly lacking a basic understanding of law.

Oh how ironic. What part of law says a defendant absolutely cannot be prosecuted both civilly and criminally? Let's use your redlight running as an example: You are quite so sure that a municipality would NOT prosecute for a clear-cut case of infraction captured on camera merely because a victim of the redlight runner has his car damaged and pursues his own course of litigation? Wrong. He can be penalized civilly and criminally as there are, essentially, two or three separate infractions being made (failure to stop, failure to yield, causing an accident, plus whatever monetary damages the victim is entitled to which it is not the job of the government to determine). Ask yourself if a drunk driver who maims someone and is successfully prosecuted for recovery of hospital bills and lost wages never pays a fine for the infraction or has his driving record unaffected.
You're seriously telling me that redlight cameras aren't a source of revenue for municipalities?

Who the hell cares if this is "par for the course" in whatever city?

That doesn't make it right! Can you imagine if our forefathers just thought to themselves, "well, this is how they do it, this is what's acceptable to this society, let's just leave things be"? We'd all still be bringing food in the form of each others human carcasses to our hairy wives.

Because nudging into a parking space is the same as cannibalism.

As far as hairy wives go, that's still par for the course in some societies. Who are we to judge or call it barbaric? In the larger scheme of things, who the hell cares that some New Yorker driving a Camry probably beats his own car up more than the SUV/minivan around him? As they say, "When in Rome..." Life's too short to be worrying of such things IMO. Then again, some of us don't have the attachments to material possessions that others might.

With regards to using a 3-Series for college, seriously, this kind of gentle nudging isn't going to stop anyone from going to school and if it does, I'd say there are far more serious problems going on. I understand the image one would like to maintain and the importance of keeping one's car pristine. I get it. That's not the issue as it relates to this video. It might also be difficult to finish out a term while being incarcerated for assault, assuming the driver doesn't shoot you first.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

So by your logic, if you don't see it in London, it never happens? Talk about utter rubbish. In London for your viewing pleasure:

Where did I say it never happens in London? I said I've never seen it, and just because you happen to have found a video, it doesn't mean it's common practice. You implied that New York is not alone in this attitude to parking cars and dragged London into it. Having extensive experience of driving in both cities I can assure you that it is NOT common practice in London. The fact that you think it is and think that throwing in a video is proof is sadly laughable.

The simple fact that you cannot seem to get your head around is that willful negligence whilst driving your car, and which causes damage, or risks causing damage to other people's property, is an offence. The degree to which people casually ignore this in New York is irrelevant! The reason the Police do not do anything is because it's not in the public interest to waste time on such incidents. Jesus. What about when somebody runs into the back of somebody else but nobody is injured, but damage is caused? Often the police don't get involved because it's a private matter. The only time they will get involved is when somebody is injured, somebody is drunk, or other such matter which then turns it from a civil offence to a criminal offence!

Now, you are clearly out of your depth so I suggest you run along and stop making a complete fool of yourself.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

You're seriously telling me that redlight cameras aren't a source of revenue for municipalities?

Er, no. I wasn't. If you read my post I was clearly stating that somebody damaging somebody else's car through bad parking is not a source of revenue for municipalities.

Of course running a red light is a source of revenue.

 

[Yaz]

What a completely idiotic statement. If he is not able to get his car in to the space without touching other people's cars, then the space isn't big enough! What part of this really, really simple concept do you not understand?!
I am stunned. Absolutely stunned. I'd love to think you were trolling but sadly I think you're not. I've never read such an idiotic post on GCF, and that's saying something. I really do not know where to begin to say what utter crap you're writing, so I'm not going to bother.

And don't patronise people by saying "this is NY, you don't understand". I've spent half my life in NY over the last ten years, and what you've written is utter crap.

But he proved you wrong and the car fits . Big deal he had to bump into other cars in order to get it. I already said it's expected if you're gonna park on a city street like NY's. I've said that I expect someone to bump into my car when I park on city streets, that's why I got bumper guards.

You've spent half of your life in NY and you're shocked to see someone bump their car into other cars when parallel parking? Now that made me laugh. When you OWN a car in NY or any other big city with no private garage and having to deal with alternate side parking every single day of the week, then come talk to me.

And I'll say it again, if you don't want anyone to bump/touch your car, then don't park it on public streets. How hard is it to understand that?

If there is a space for free, then what's the problem here? For me, the cost of a parking space is part of the unavoidable costs of motoring.

The 'illegal' part in this case comes from causing damage (scratches count). Whether he's causing damage to his own car is beside the point - he has the right to damage his own car as much as he wants to, but he has absolutely no right to do anything to other people's cars. As for myself... if I'm going somewhere where I'm unlikely to find a parking spot, I don't take the car. If I lived in NYC or any other big city, I probably wouldn't have a car in the city at all.

What if you wanna try to lower that cost of motoring by parking in a free spot? The catch is, someone is going to bump into your car. I take that risk everyday I park my car here in NYC and I know for sure someone is going bump into my car.

No, you said the parking is illegal.
What about the "damage" he's causing to his vehicle, or that doesn't count in your book because he has the right to cause that damage to his own car?

So, if I lived in a big city I shouldn't own or drive a car at all? I should just stay put in the city, and don't go anywhere?

Here's another one for you guys, don't watch if you can't stand watching someone bumping into other cars :

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[K-A]

I don't understand. Are you saying that because you shouldn't bang into other cars, you're akin to being handcuffed from driving in NYC? Or that because someone will bang their own car, it justifies them banging around others? Who cares what they do to their own cars, that's their choice, it's not their choice to harm others possessions.

I surely wouldn't park my car in NYC, nor would my car ever get near the vicinity of NYC, however, the debate here isn't about whether or not this happens in a big city, it's about whether it's right or not.

Personally, if I lived in NYC, I wouldn't understand the point of even having a nice car, if that's how it is out there. I'd just get the biggest, safest thing I could with the smallest wheels and largest tires (potholes).

And at least the driver in that video tried his best to get out without hitting the other cars. The guy in the first video had blatant disregard, PUSHING the other cars out of the way, very different story in both of these unfortunate cases.

 

[Guibo]

Where did I say it never happens in London? I said I've never seen it, and just because you happen to have found a video, it doesn't mean it's common practice.
The reason the Police do not do anything is because it's not in the public interest to waste time on such incidents. Jesus. What about when somebody runs into the back of somebody else but nobody is injured, but damage is caused? Often the police don't get involved because it's a private matter. The only time they will get involved is when somebody is injured, somebody is drunk, or other such matter which then turns it from a civil offence to a criminal offence!
Now, you are clearly out of your depth so I suggest you run along and stop making a complete fool of yourself.

Oh, right. I just happened to stumble upon the only instance of this ever happening in London and by chance, someone was filming it. Ask yourself if that makes any sense.
That's the only time the police get involved? BS! I've gotten plenty of speeding tickets in my lifetime (when no other cars were even around) to raise legitimate question as to who it is that's being a complete fool. You're seriously telling me municipalities ONLY get involved in redlight running infractions when someone gets hurt? Jesus, which sewer did you pull that one out of? I've been in cars where the driver was cited/fined for failing to come to a complete stop or failing to wear a seatbelt; at no point was anyone injured or any cars damaged. And why are you even replying to me? You said in your earlier post you're just wasting your time.