But you said negligence in driving a car such that it would touch another vehicle IS a criminal act, and prosecutable under the law (and thus a source of income just as redlight cameras have proven to be so, um, so "helpful" to city coffers).
Horrible Parking............
- Thread starter HighestOfHigh
- Start date
Someone was filming it because it was a Rolls-Royce Phantom. It just so happened that he caught the Rolls being parked in a careless manner. I fail to see how you finding this video means this kind of parking is common place in London. Also, what is your experience of London? How often have you been? How can you possibly pass judgement? I'm speaking from experience, being British, and knowing that this kind of behaviour would certainly raise a few eyebrows.
Are you actually READING my posts?! When referring to "police getting involved" I was quite clearly talking about when damage to property has occured! Why do you keep bringing running red lights and speeding up?
OK. Let me break it down for you so it's simple for you to understand.
Running red lights, speeding etc. This is a road traffic offence and is therefore subject to on the spot fines or whatever the process the police have in their powers, be that a court case if the offence is deemed serious enough. In a lot of countries, offences like this carry fines which is a revenue source, and because of this the process of prosecution is made as simple as possible in order to deal with the thousands of offences which occur on a weekly basis. Certain people, such as police officers, are given powers to give on the spot fines in order to speed this process up futher.
When damage to property has occured, depending on the circumstances, this is a civil offence, and therefore the police will often not get involved. An example of this would be damaging somebody else's car whilst parking, or a minor road traffic accident. The reason the police will not get involved is because this is not in the public's interest and they do not have the resources. It DOES NOT, however, mean an offence has not been committed. It just means that unless it goes to court in a private prosecution, there will be no redress.
Police WILL get involved in road traffic accidents when one of the parties drives away without exchanging insurance details, or one or all of the drivers are suspected of being intoxicated, or somebody has been injured or killed. This then becomes subject to a police investigation and if enough evidence is gathered, a public prosecution.
Now, if I had enough evidence, and a big enough bank balance, I could take somebody to a private prosecution if I suspected them of damaging my car due to negligence when parking. The judge would not throw this out of court by saying "but you live in New York. Everybody does this". An offence has been committed and they will have to pay. If I took somebody to court because somebody looked at me the wrong way whilst walking down the street (also a risk in New York), no matter how much money I had, the judge would throw this out of court immediately because no offence has taken place.
Is this simple enough for you to understand?
Yes it is.
,
Yes it is, although know the difference between public and private prosecution.
,
Now you're making things up. Where did I say that a successful prosecution of somebody who damaged somebody else's car would be a source of income for the city's coffers?
And if you think a Rolls driver is that careless, what makes you think a Mondeo, Civic or Prius driver wouldn't be even more careless? The simple fact is, you cannot point to lack of your seeing something as evidence that it does not happen. It could simply be that you don't frequent the part of town where this happens more commonly.
Why do I keep bringing it up? Because it should be an easily enforced method of raising revenue not terribly different from redlight cameras! Jesus, how hard is it for you to understand this? This gets back to my point about your earlier post:
"...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."
Show me WHERE in the highway code, as it relates to the city of New York, that making contact with other cars is a punishable offense (even when no damage is done; damage itself, we have already agreed, is not the only litmus test for whether police will get involved via citation or report to DMV). If you can find it, why do you suppose NYC doesn't prosecute? Erm...could it be (as I've said and you now agree) that practically no one in NYC gives a shit?? Not even the police or parking officials who would definitely be in a position to profit from rigid enforcement.
Second point you need to show is the nature of the damage caused by this very manuever. From what I can see, this guy is merely gently nudging the other vehicles; he hasn't got any running space to do any damage worth mentioning. If it's "common decency" within certain areas of NYC and other municipalities that this is acceptable, then why are you getting your panties in such a twist just thinking about it? Clearly, your idea of "common decency" does not mesh 100% with another locality. Mine doesn't either (as I've said, this shows a lack of respect for personal property and believe it may be an infraction in the highway code which it is upon you to prove), but so what?
All that other legal jibberish I already knew, so thanks for proving yet again that you like to waste your time.
What is it about my statements regarding:
1) a defendant facing both civil and criminal prosecution (in this case, through revenue-raising citations), and
2) the list of citations possible in a redlight-running case, differentiated from civil redress for property damage
that makes you think I'm not aware of the different avenues of prosecution?
Where did I say that you said it? Please. Learn to read. I said specifically some posts ago:
"Where are the officers that are writing tickets for this; it should be a massive cash cow for all of these municipalities."
SEE?? Tickets! Not prosecution as a civil matter between private properties. So it makes me wonder if you've not been paying attention when you followed that up with:
"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?"
It would appear that it is you who is confusing "criminal" vs "civil"; "criminal" in this instance clearly has to do with dispute between the defendant and the goverment, not between private parties ("civil"). I never said the municipality would receive money from a decision between private parties. Why would you think that, when I had clearly mentioned tickets, which has nothing to do with disputes between private parties?
MikeJ
M-Power Meister
If you're ready to drive around looking for a space, fine. As long as you don't do it on the expense of other car owners, that is. And yes, there's always the risk of someone bumping into your car. However, there's a massive difference between someone doing it accidentally and someone doing it on purpose.
Why don't you go back to my original post and read it a few more times.
If you hit your head against a wall, that's just stupid. If you hit someone else's head against the same wall, that's a criminal offence, even if you hurt yourself in the process.
I don't know about you, but, depending on which big city it would be and where I'd be going, I'd use a combination of the following: My own two feet, bus, subway, train, plane, rental car.
So, you didn't actually answer my question with regards your experience of London? Oh dear. I have extensive experience of both cities and I can assure you, London is not like New York. Rome and Milan is. Not London.
What could be an "easily enforced method of raising revenue not terribly different from redlight cameras"? Ticketing people for bad parking and touching other people's cars?
Because your posts shows a complete lack of understanding of any of it.
Seriously, WTF? I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about now.
Using any number of the thousands of already-installed CCTVs. And any costs incurred from installing more should easily be recouped through ticketing revenue. My guess is that since you haven't found that part of the highway code, either
A) it doesn't exist, in which case you pulled that legal requirement out of your ass (and it would thus be very difficult for the city to enforce a rule that doesn't even exist), or
B) it does exist and since it's rarely enforced, we can make a reasonable assumption no one gives a crap, not even the people who would be in a position to benefit financially (the city)
How would my posts show a complete lack of understanding of any of it, if my posts included both of those points listed??
You have no idea? That implies you haven't even been paying attention to your own posts, let alone mine. In a nutshell, you said:
"Now you're making things up. Where did I say that a successful prosecution of somebody who damaged somebody else's car would be a source of income for the city's coffers?"
Now, where did I say that you said a successful prosecution of somebody who damaged somebody else's car would be a source of income for the city's coffers??? I never made any such implication, and made it clear in my original post that the revenue would be raised through tickets. Not via civil suits between private individuals! It was precisely at that point that you jumped to some asinine conclusion and muddled civil vs criminal in the process. Because if I mentioned "tickets" (and I surely did), then that obviously refers to dispute between gov't and defendant, not between private individuals ("civil"). Got it?? If you still don't get it, then please make good on your previous threat to quit wasting your time and quit reading/posting.
Are you seriously telling me you don't think there is a law regarding this?
The offence being committed when somebody parks a car and doesn't report any damage caused is called "hit-and-run". This is the act of causing (or contributing to) a traffic accident (such as colliding with a person or a fixture), and failing to stop and identify oneself afterwards. It is considered a crime in most jurisdictions. In the United States, penalties (and the definition) of hit-and-run vary from state to state. For example, in Virginia, the crime is a felony if the accident causes death, injury, or damage to attended property in excess of a certain dollar amount; otherwise, it is a misdemeanor. In Texas, the crime is a third degree felony if the accident involves a fatality or serious bodily injury. Accidents causing less serious injuries are punishable by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for not more than five years or confinement in the county jail for not more than one year and/or a fine not to exceed $5,000. Accidents causing $200 or more in total damages without injuries are punishable by a class B misdemeanor, and accidents causing less than $200 in total damages are a class C misdemeanor.
If you're interested in further reading and reference to New York specifically, here is the link.
Hit and Run Laws in New York
1. Property damage. a. Any person operating a motor vehicle who, knowing or having cause to know that damage has been caused to the real property or to the personal property, not including animals, of another, due to an incident involving the motor vehicle operated by such person shall, before leaving the place where the damage occurred, stop, exhibit his or her license and insurance identification card for such vehicle, when such card is required pursuant to articles six and eight of this chapter, and give his or her name, residence, including street and number, insurance carrier and insurance identification information including but not limited to the number and effective dates of said individual's insurance policy, and license number to the party sustaining the damage, or in case the person sustaining the damage is not present at the place where the damage occurred then he or she shall report the same as soon as physically able to the nearest police station, or judicial officer.
Now, in answer to why nobody is apparently prosecuted (and issuing a ticket is just another form of prosecution) in New York, is for the reasons I've tried to explain to you already. With only a finite amount of resources available, the authorities have to decide which prosecutions to proceed with, and which are not really in the public interest. Hence, at one end of the spectrum you have hit and runs where somebody is killed - the authorities proceed with charges. At the other end of the spectrum you have a parking infringement where damage has been caused and they haven't exchanged insurance details. Of course nobody is going to decide to go ahead with a public prosecution for such an offence which is only a class C misdemeanour. However, it does not mean that an offence has not been committed. If somebody had the inclination and the finances available they could take it to a private prosecution. However, the costs involved would make this rather silly also.
I sincerely hope you don't have a driving license as you seem to think it's OK to damage somebody else's car and not report it.
Simply because I'm asking for proof of damage, that means I think it's OK to damage someone else's car and not report it?? Only a complete doofus would seem to jump to such an absurd conclusion.I sincerely hope you don't have a driving license as you seem to think it's OK to damage somebody else's car and not report it.
I already know about the laws regarding hit & run. This is not the same as your (as yet documented) claim in the highway code that it is illegal for another car to touch another car. The passage you cited there specifically mentions damage. Now, tell me All-Knowing One, what damage was specifically caused by the instance in this video? Show it to me, and THEN we'll discuss whether an offense has been comitted and whether NY's hit-and-run law even applies.
I seriously cannot believe someone could be so stupid. Are you seriously asking me where it says that it's illegal for one car to touch another car? Seriously?
Did you miss lesson number one on learning to drive?You Sir, don't have the slightest clue about what you're talking about.
What is the point of this post? Seriously, don't mean to have a go at you but if you don't like it just don't click on the thread.
I'm just not prepared to let Guibo carry on spouting absolute crap and that it's perfectly acceptable to drive your car into somebody else's.
Cashmere
RPM Ruler
I imagined you would be intellectually smart enough to know that neither of you are going to change the other's opinion regardless of how much e-hate you spew but hey, if it gets you through the day, proceed with pleasure. I shall not intervene
It's a bit of an easy way out to say "difference of opinion" and "agree to disagree". Why should people just rollover and let the lowest common denominator win? Guibo is out and out wrong. This isn't about whether somebody prefers blue to red or whether X looks better than Y. I'm not the sort of person who will just let idiocy have a voice and therefore a sense of legitimacy. It's this apathy of something which is wrong which is why Guibo seemingly thinks it's not just acceptable, but not even an offence to bump your car into somebody elses! If enough people turn a blind eye and accept it eventually it becomes the norm.
Ultimate Car Guy
Porsche Perfektionist
You have two options to choose from, guys:
1. The thread gets locked
2. You stop this pointless discussion and debate something more meaningfull instead
Your choise
What the hell Giannis!
Why are you stopping this? Its not a pointless discussion and its not getting inappropriate.
Let it continue. I'm actually learning a lot about US law from reading these posts.
I have already agreed it may very well be illegal. You are writing as if it is in fact illegal in NY; if that is so, please provide the proof. (And when you do, we can laugh at the gravity of this moral outrage by the mere fact that nobody gives a crap, not even the police.) You seem to want to back this up with the hit-and-run law, but as that passage deals specifically with damages incurred after the fact, you can't use that. You'd have to prove that damage occurred, and specifically in the case of this video, if any damage whatsoever resulted from this particular act of nudging. You are claiming with 100% certainty that this is a case of hit-and-run. Well, prove it.I seriously cannot believe someone could be so stupid. Are you seriously asking me where it says that it's illegal for one car to touch another car? Seriously?
You Sir, don't have the slightest clue about what you're talking about.
"When in Rome..." As I said, I personally would be offended if this happened to my car in my neighborhood. But I don't own a craptastic appliance SUV/minivan in a city where it's understood among residents that this commonly happens and is understood to be accepted practice among residents in the name of convenience. Ask yourself this: If the residents aren't outraged, if the police don't give a crap, then why should outsiders looking in be so outraged? I'm not saying that it's right. I'm saying nobody who lives in a city like that, who parks his car on the street like that, should be shocked. What you consider to be a universally-applicable moral outrage might just be considered nothing more than a minor nuisance, exchanged for the expediency of convenient parking, and is understood as acceptable as "common sense" within this particular community.
This video made the news in NY, and specifically on CBS NY. The fact that this video is even making the news is evidence enough that this kind of extreme parking isn't normal. Here is the link:
'Extreme Parking' Caught On Tape In Bushwick, Brooklyn « CBS New York
But I'll leave you with a quote from the police.
Police say "if you hit another car and leave the scene, you could receive a ticket". Note they don't say "damage". Just hitting is enough.
Which ties in with the hit and run laws of NY which I have already outlined.
Still, I accept that there are just some people who will never accept what you say, even when you present them with the bare facts they requested. So that's me out. I just hope to God Guibo does not park his car anywhere near mine next week when I'm on the Upper West Side.
