The NYPD Was Ticketing Legally Parked Cars; Open Data Put an End to It (tumblr.com)

Data analyst Ben Wellington claims that that the NYPD has been systematically ticketing legally parked cars for years. Doing so, he says, helps NYPD collect millions of dollars every year. In a blog post, Wellington notes about a change of law in 2008 (PDF) which allowed one in New York City to park their car in front of a sidewalk pedestrian ramp -- provided it's not connected to a crosswalk. Despite this, the NYPD continues to ticket people. To check how many more people are falling for this, Wellington looked into NYC's Open Data portal, and his findings are startling. In front of 575 Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn, which is in the middle of the block, with no crosswalk, over $48,000 in parking fines were issued in the last 2.5 years. He writes: 1705 Canton Avenue in Brooklyn, 273 Tickets, $45,045: Legal. 270-05 76 Avenue in Queens, 256 Tickets ($42,440) Legal. 143-49 Cherry Ave, Queens, 246 Tickets, ($40,590). Legal. A spot in Battery Park, ranked #16 on my list and the top spot in Manhattan, had 116 tickets ($19,140) and turned out to be legal.Wellington wrote to the NYPD about this, and he got the following response: Mr. Wellington's analysis identified errors the department made in issuing parking summonses. It appears to be a misunderstanding by officers on patrol of a recent, abstruse change in the parking rules. We appreciate Mr. Wellington bringing this anomaly to our attention. The department's internal analysis found that patrol officers who are unfamiliar with the change have observed vehicles parked in front of pedestrian ramps and issued a summons in error. When the rule changed in 2009 to allow for certain pedestrian ramps to be blocked by parked vehicles, the department focused training on traffic agents, who write the majority of summonses.

Comments

Of all the illegally parked cars in NY...

[Austerity Empowers]

I mean they could raise a fortune just ticketing double parked cars in Main St. Flushing, why be criminal about it all?

Re:Of all the illegally parked cars in NY...

[Anonymous Coward]

why be criminal about it all?

Because being criminal is how police be. It's the way of their kind.

Re: Power WILL be abused

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed there was no mention of refunding the illegal ticket fines. Typical, sure we'll try to get them to stop but why would you get any money back?

So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they refund people and wipe their record of the error?

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[iCEBaLM]

Technically, the people who paid the ticket agreed to do so, otherwise they could have went to court.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[Andy Dodd]

I don't think there's any "record" for parking tickets unless they are chronically unpaid.

Also, as the article author states, when these erroneous tickets have been challenged, the city did not fight them.

Of course, there are the people who didn't realize the rule changed and thought they were parking illegally...

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[Applehu Akbar]

Will they refund people and wipe their record of the error?

And your refund will be delivered by a shining maiden riding a unicorn.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[Krojack]

I'm thinking they will end up refunding or a class action suit will happen. It's the cops responsibility to know the laws they are writing out tickets for.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[Jason Levine]

I live in upstate NY, not NYC, but I think this is true. I was pulled over once for running a stop sign (I did the standard "rolling stop" that most people do) When I went into court, all people with offenses like mine were told to talk with a representative from the city who offered a reduction to "parking on the pavement." This carried a smaller fine and didn't go on your license. (It also meant people were less likely to challenge the tickets since they could just get off with a small fine instead of a drawn out legal proceeding which might result in a larger fine and points on your license.)

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[bondsbw]

It may depend on whether their agreement to pay is a plea of guilty vs. a plea of no-contest.

Plus, the perceived risk of losing in court combined with the inconvenience of showing up for court often outweighs the benefit of a successful outcome for many people. It should not be difficult to show a higher court how such illegal tickets amount to an abuse of power.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[Jason Levine]

Will they refund people and wipe their record of the error?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... Oh, wait. You're serious. Let me laugh harder. HA HA HAAAA HA HA HAAAAA HAAAAA!!!!!

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[bondsbw]

Of course, there are the people who didn't realize the rule changed and thought they were parking illegally...

Negligence of the law isn't a defense, in either direction.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[Dorianny]

It may depend on whether their agreement to pay is a plea of guilty vs. a plea of no-contest.

Plus, the perceived risk of losing in court combined with the inconvenience of showing up for court often outweighs the benefit of a successful outcome for many people. It should not be difficult to show a higher court how such illegal tickets amount to an abuse of power.

For parking ticket yuou agree to plead guilty and pay the fine or fight the ticket by going to the City's website and filling a form detailing why you are not guilty and uploading supporting evidence such as pictures. An administrative judge (Not and actual judge at all) will review your submission and make a judgment. Personally I fight every ticket I receive. The exorbitant fees are obviously not there as punitive measures but rather to fill the city coffers and I want to make it as difficult for them as possible.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[Agent0013]

I'm thinking they will end up refunding or a class action suit will happen. It's the cops responsibility to know the laws they are writing out tickets for.

Sorry, that is wrong. Courts have found that you cannot expect a police officer to know the law that they are enforcing. And if they make a mistake it is ok and they can proceed with your trial and incarceration. http://thinkprogress.org/justi...

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[Moof123]

There needs to be some incentive to fight bad tickets. Often the tickets cost less to pay than to fight. Winning against a disputed ticket should come with automatic restitution of a median day's pay (sort of how mileage reimbursements are a flat amount per mile).

Around here you have to show up to fight one. After waiting a long time to show you are present to argue it, you get put into a second line to eventually see the judge. You waste a whole day of work just to finally get in front of the judge. So frankly it is not worth it to fight most minor infractions.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[Anonymous Coward]

>commoners are just fucked

git gud connections, pleb

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[edtice1559]

New York is very good about letting you plea to parking on the pavement regardless of how severe your infraction is. In court, charges can only be reduced to a lesser charge included in the charged offense. In other states, parking on the pavement is not a lesser charge included within driving twice the speed limit or going through a stop sign, so the plea deals aren't as lenient. I am not a lawyer. I have lived in NJ and NY and I've been to traffic court for one minor infraction and an erroneous parking ticket. I did win the parking ticket case. They gave me a form letter that had a checkbox for "wrong defendant." That happens often enough that it isn't an exception case.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[SeaFox]

Courts have found that you cannot expect a police officer to know the law that they are enforcing.

Meanwhile, on the flip-side, ignorantia juris non excusat.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Isn't it the recipient's responsibility to confirm the ticket is valid and to contest it if it's invalid?

I'm not sure about New York, but in Chicago you can contest a ticket by mail. You just need to submit a letter to the court explaining why you think it should be invalidated; there's no court fees involved either. I've gotten several tickets dismissed by taking thirty minutes to write and mail a letter.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because a cop's job isn't to enforce the law. This is a widely held misconception.

A cop's job is to keep the peace. That's why they used to be (still are, occasionally) called 'peace officers'.

"Applying the law" is a job for the courts. A police officer is not a mobile, low-budget court. (Judge Dredd is that, but most cops understand that they're not Judge Dredd.) When the police officer has separated the brawling parties and done whatever it takes to prevent the fighting from breaking out again - their job is done, the rest is up to the lawyers.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[Agripa]

Technically, the people who paid the ticket agreed to do so, otherwise they could have went to court.

And paid an even larger fine, err, I mean fee for the privilege of contesting the ticket.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[meerling]

You mean that's how it's supposed to work, too bad the reality is different.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[meerling]

Unfortunately a judge disagrees with you on that, at least with regards to the cops.
I consider that cop to be conspirator of the bad cops out there as he is intentionally aiding them in their illegal activities and shielding them from prosecution for them.

Re:So how do they plain to fix wronged people?

[alexandru_preoteasa]

Praise the sun, instead!

Ignorance of the law

[Locke2005]

Ignorance of the law is an accepted excuse for law enforcement's mistakes, but not an acceptable excuse for the mistakes of people being punished by law enforcement. That's fair, right?

Re:Ignorance of the law

[myowntrueself]

Ignorance of the law is an accepted excuse for law enforcement's mistakes, but not an acceptable excuse for the mistakes of people being punished by law enforcement. That's fair, right?

At least in Toronto the city and the police just threw their arms up in the air and said "You know what? The laws and regulations concerning taxis are just so complicated we just don't know what the fuck to enforce so we aren't enforcing anything and uber can just carry right on."

This is a huge problem in North America; so many layers of laws and regulations and by-laws no one knows what the law is, not Joe public, not the cops, not the courts.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[twotacocombo]

This is a huge problem in North America; so many layers of laws and regulations and by-laws no one knows what the law is, not Joe public, not the cops, not the courts.

I'm assuming this is by design. When things are so complicated that it takes a lawyer many billable hours to figure out where you can legally park, it stacks the odds heavily in the citys favor and turns anything they want into an easy revenue stream. They may lose a few contested citations here and there, but the majority of people will grumble and just pay up. Until the police have to actively prove every ticket they write is legit, it's a guilty till proven innocent situation that most people aren't prepared to fight.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[Anon-Admin]

People laugh at me when I say it is a conflict of interest to have lawyers making laws. (Most elected officials are lawyers)

Well, this is what you get. It is advantageous for lawyers to make complicated laws so only they can figure them out.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[shawn2772]

This is a huge problem in North America; so many layers of laws and regulations and by-laws no one knows what the law is, not Joe public, not the cops, not the courts.

I'm assuming this is by design. When things are so complicated that it takes a lawyer many billable hours to figure out where you can legally park, it stacks the odds heavily in the citys favor and turns anything they want into an easy revenue stream.

I think Hanlon's Razor favors a different explanation, namely that the people who make the laws don't really understand them either. They make changes in a reactive manner when they see something that's a problem or doesn't make sense, and they apply a minimal patch to the law (avoiding refactoring) that appears to resolve the problem they're trying to address, in their jurisdiction. They also don't coordinate with higher or lower jurisdictions, and indeed don't necessarily even pay any attention to what those other jurisdictions are doing.

That sort of a process creates spaghetti law, just the way doing the same thing in software creates spaghetti code. Without careful attention to modularization, separation of concerns, without a willingness to refactor when necessary, and without extensive tests to validate that changes don't cause regressions, what you get is a mess.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[Shortguy881]

Most doctors, architects and engineers are trying to make the world a better place. Lawyers on the other hand...

Re:Ignorance of the law

[Stormy Dragon]

Money from fines should be distributed to the citizens as part of the tax process. e.g. if your municipality collected $10 million in fines last year and 1 million people live there, everyone gets $10 when they file their local taxes. Same process at state and federal level.

If tickets don't provide additional revenue, there's no incentive for abusive ticketing.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[LWATCDR]

The police do not judge you guilty or innocent. If an officer breaks a law that he did not know he was breaking then is as guilty as anyone.
In this case he made an error in writing the ticket but the person that got the ticket made an error in paying it.
If you bothered to take it to court you should win.
Of course now that they found the error the correct thing would be to refund all tickets that were paid in error.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[tnk1]

Maybe, but it is just as likely the problem is that lawmakers are great at making laws, but they rarely get credit for repealing old laws unless it is some sort of tax.

Ask your legislator about some law that was passed even 20 years ago, and unless it is on a hot button issue like taxes, abortion, gay marriage, or whatever, they won't know shit about it. That's how stupid blue laws and such stay on the books for years after everyone alive considers them quaint or even abhorrent when they find out about them. And no one pays much attention to something like traffic regulations unless they were elected on a traffic regulation reform platform or something.

Yes, there may be some intentional negligence out there for some ordinances, but more likely, it's just layered up over time.

   

Re:Ignorance of the law

[Livius]

That sort of a process creates spaghetti law, just the way doing the same thing in software creates spaghetti code.

In a way, the law is a lot like a software system that has undergone millions of upgrades, some minor, some major, and has been in continuous operation for several thousand years.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[Locke2005]

Equally hard for each, but the burden of proof is on the citizen, not the city. On the bright side, I got a ticket for "exceeding the maximum speed on a rural highway" thrown out on appeal by hiring a lawyer to challenge the cop in court to point out on a map where the "rural area" begins and ends. He couldn't, he just said, "We've always won these cases before!"

Re:Ignorance of the law

[mjwx]

I guess its up to the non American to play devils advocate and say the law is wrong. When "people" protest against an incorrect law they're "heroes".

When cops do it, they're villains.

For many people who are mobility impaired which is quite a few including old persons who are capable of assisted walking (read: with cane) but not capable of walking down ramps unassisted footpath ramps are a godsend they sorely need.

It was a law passed to appease lazy drivers at the expense of those who are most vulnerable.

And I say that as a 30-ish year old petrolhead. Seems those of us most addicted to the fast pedal (and three pedal cars) are the same as those who care most about those who are least able to move about. I'm happy to park a few metres further away if it means I dont inconvenience anyone, odd that... compared to the propaganda.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[Agripa]

This is a huge problem in North America; so many layers of laws and regulations and by-laws no one knows what the law is, not Joe public, not the cops, not the courts.

Think of it as an employment program for lawyers and law enforcement.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[Agripa]

Why do you assume it's so easy for the city to figure out when they can issue a citation but at the same time it's so hard for a citizen?

It would be a lot easier for the city to figure out its laws if the cost was born by the officers and courts enforcing them and not the individual citizens.

As it is right now, the law is unbounded and there are incentives to make it more complex.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[Agripa]

If tickets don't provide additional revenue, there's no incentive for abusive ticketing.

The city can just add processing fines, err, I mean processing fees to recover the cost and return a profit from enforcement.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[Agripa]

In this case he made an error in writing the ticket but the person that got the ticket made an error in paying it.

It is not an error in paying it when the fines, err, I mean feeds to contest the ticket are greater than the cost of the ticket.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[Immerman]

Which is why I'd love to see it written into the constitution that all laws automatically sunset after a few decades unless individually renewed. Not only does that ensure that only laws with ongoing political support will remain on the books, but it also puts a practical upper limit on the total number of laws that can exist at any one time. Even if it only averaged a minute apiece to "rubber stamp" laws into continuation, and congress worked full time doing nothing else without vacations, that'd still be only 120,000 laws per year that could be renewed, call it ~3 million total if they sunset after 30 years, and probably less than a tenth of that in practice. Contrast that with the current situation where nobody's sure just how many laws there are in the US, but gun laws alone are estimated to number around 20,000.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[sjames]

Doctors, architects, and engineers make rules to be followed by doctors, architects, and engineers respectively. Lawyers are making rules that they expect everyone to follow regardless of profession or ability to understand. I would call that a significant difference.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[sjames]

These particular ramps would be primarily 'useful' for jaywalking since they are mid block.

If the cops wish to protest, they need to at least mark them off as no parking.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[sjames]

The city defined the laws. If they did it so badly they can't explain it to their own cops, it's on them.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[sjames]

I don't know about New York, but in many places there are "court fees" that exceed most tickets that you have to pay if you contest it, win or lose.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the one that requires people with penises and testosterone who are sexually attracted to women to use the women's bathroom or locker room?

Re:Ignorance of the law

[tnk1]

Many laws do have sunset clauses, for instance the Patriot Act did. And it does help create new debate around existing provisions. Although, as you can see with the Patriot Act, sometimes they just get renewed.

I'd actually like to see something like a project to create a clean slate version of the various titles of the US Code. Once that was agreed on, we'd simply repeal an entire Title of the US Code and replace it with the refactored one. You'd need an independent commission to do that work, because it would likely take forever, but legal refactoring is important. Many of the famous law codes like Justinian's Law Code and the Napoleonic Code were restatements and refactors which were big steps forward for their time.

Re:Ignorance of the law

[catprog]

I would base the length of the time on how much support their was for the bill.

Majority = 1 years.
50% = 2 years

etc
etc

(Majority meaning people abstained, 50% means in a 99 seat house, 50 passed the bill)

Re:Ignorance of the law

[tepples]

Money from fines should be distributed to the citizens as part of the tax process

In effect, fines are already distributed to citizens when the taxing authority doesn't raise the tax rate for the tax year after the fines are collected and deposited to the general fund.

autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[Gravis Zero]

I'm looking forward to autonomous cars driving a stake into the hearts of vampiric police departments... but only after proclaiming, "here are your 30 pieces of silver, you Judas!" and dumping a bag of silver coins on their searing flesh. It really is the most satisfying way to pay parking tickets.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[Applehu Akbar]

I'm looking forward to autonomous cars driving a stake into the hearts of vampiric police departments... but only after proclaiming, "here are your 30 pieces of silver, you Judas!" and dumping a bag of silver coins on their searing flesh. It really is the most satisfying way to pay parking tickets.

This is actually what will happen. As cars go autonomous, the need for parking at the places you visit will diminish. It will take a generation, but eventually, so will parking at homes and places of work. Autonomous cars will 'rest' in off-street buffer lots and maintenance warehouses, and it will be No Parking forever citywide.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[Locke2005]

Wait... will autonomous cars just drive around the block until somebody leaves? Ever been on a street in San Francisco that turns from "No Parking" to "Parking" at 6pm? By 6:05, literally every parking spot is filled. It's truly a wonder to behold; people start circling the block at about 5:50, then it's a giant musical chairs game!

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[kimvette]

Idiot, the problem is they were parking legally.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[shawn2772]

Autonomous cars will 'rest' in off-street buffer lots and maintenance warehouses, and it will be No Parking forever citywide.

Yeah, because everyone who drives will be perfectly happy waiting half an hour for their car to return from "resting" before they can do something somewhere else.

No, there will never be "no parking citywide", because too many people need to park where they go. Not just delivery people who park while delivering things, but handicapped people.

As long as the car parks close enough that it can get to you within a few minutes, what's the problem? And if you're not going to be there that long, just have the car drop you off and circle the block.

As for handicapped people; there's no need for the *car* to park to help them. Indeed, they're best served by being delivered right to the doorstep. Same for deliveries, unless substantial unloading time is required, in which case the delivery vehicle will need a loading dock or other unloading zone, same as now. But that's loading/unloading, not parking.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[Agent0013]

You could call your car say, thirty mins before you want to leave downtown or have it pick you up at a give time...

Better to call it 45 minutes ahead of when you expect to leave and let it drive around the block for the extra time. That will just create more traffic and so the car will take longer to get to your destination. Better call it an hour ahead just to be safe.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[jratcliffe]

Except that fewer and fewer people will actually drive their own cars, they'll just subscribe to a car service. Owning your own car will become like owning your own light plane - something a few enthusiasts enjoy.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[whoever57]

Autonomous cars won't need to park in residential streets. They will return to base.

You don't think that you will actually own an autonomous car, do you? That would make no sense. No, instead, you will pay a monthly fee for an autonomous car service.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[whoever57]

Yeah, because everyone who drives will be perfectly happy waiting half an hour for their car to return from "resting"

Except that no one will wait for "their" car, because they won't own one. They will subscribe to a car service.

You book your ride for the next morning in advance. It can get there on time (depending on how much you pay for your service).

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[Obfuscant]

As long as the car parks close enough that it can get to you within a few minutes, what's the problem?

"Off-street buffer lots" are what we call, today, parking lots, using that kind of definition. To replace the on-street parking, there will have to be a lot more of them, and where do you get the space? From further away from the city. My point still stands, people will just love standing around on the sidewalk waiting for their cars to come back from "resting".

And if you're not going to be there that long, just have the car drop you off and circle the block.

Sometimes you don't know how long you are going to be there, sometimes you think it will be "not that long" and you find out it will be an hour. If there is a "circle the block" option, then you'll create an endless parade of empty cars circling the block, creating traffic issues, and delaying those "few minutes" away resting cars from getting back.

As for handicapped people; there's no need for the *car* to park to help them.

Why no, of course not. Just stop in the middle of the street and vomit forth the paraplegic and his wheelchair and let him get to the curb on his own. And have the arthritic people standing on the curb for half an hour waiting for their cars to come back ...

I sense a lack of compassion here. Is your desire for a neat and tidy autonomous future that strong?

Same for deliveries, unless substantial unloading time is required, in which case the delivery vehicle will need a loading dock or other unloading zone, same as now.

So a parcel delivery man needs a special parking place ("loading zone") so he can go up thirty floors to deliver his package? And it's not "parking" when he leaves the vehicle, even though it meets all the legal definitions of parking? It's now some magical "unloading space" instead of "parking space"?

Sorry. Your optimism over the death of parking in the city is not justified. Even before the age of the automobile, there were "parking spaces" for horses on-street. Not everyone took their trusty steeds to the stable, and they certainly didn't allow them to "autonomously" wander around until called.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[Obfuscant]

You don't think that you will actually own an autonomous car, do you? That would make no sense.

I'm sorry, what? Of course I'd own an autonomous car (WHEN and IF that becomes the only option for private transportation, that is). Why wouldn't I? I have things I keep in the car so they will be there when I need them. I have two radios installed so I can communicate when I need to. I sometimes need to go somewhere NOW, not after someone else gets done with the car. And sometimes I am the one who needs the car for a long time. It's an hour and a half to the closest major airport, which takes that car out of service for local users for three hours. Imagine my delight at calling for a "service car" after dining out with a date and finding that it was last used by a drunk who puked in the back seat.

Car services may be sufficient for some people, just like taxis are today. But not for everyone, and claiming it makes no sense to own one is ignoring that fact.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[jratcliffe]

Many people drive despite the difficulties involved in finding parking and the costs because they either need or simply enjoy the convenience. Many people don't take public transportation because it is inconvenient, and one of the big inconveniences is having to wait at a bus stop, sometimes for half an hour or more. (Our city bus system has some routes that are once an hour.) So no, waiting for your own car to show up, or waiting for the car service car to show up, are inconveniences which some people avoid by driving. That won't change in the brave new world of cars that are smarter than people.

Once the fleets get larger, this will be less and less of an issue. Think of how much time cars spend sitting in parking lots. If they were on the move the vast majority of the time, you would have much shorter wait times. Even now, with comparatively tiny fleets, I rarely wait more than 5 minutes for Uber.

You don't understand the GA marketplace, then. It's not just "a few enthusiasts" who use and own them. For some people they are a convenience -- just like having a car. For some people, they are a necessity. Yes, for some they are just a toy, but writing the entire fleet off as "a few enthusiasts" is silly.

OK, I'll rephrase: a few enthusiasts and a few niche applications. There are about 200k GA planes in the US. They completed about 18 million landings in 2012, total, or around 90 landings per plane. Even if we assume that each plane had four people aboard for every landing (a high assumption), that's 72M GA passengers, vs. well over 600M commercial passengers. Best case, GA is 12% of air passenger trips, and probably a lot lower than that.

Individual car ownership, like GA aircraft ownership, will certainly skew rural, where densities are so low that any sort of shared infrastructure transport system will be tough economically.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[bitingduck]

Or in an alternative version of the future, autonomous cars mean there are *more* cars on the road and it still takes about the same amount of time to get from point A to point B as it does now, it's just that the autonomy and networking enable the same roads to carry more traffic. The barrier to driving for many trips will be lower since the driver won't have to consider the stress of traffic as a reason not to go, and the cost of autonomous cars will be about the same relative to incomes as cars cost now.

Your vision is for very specific use cases and most likely is overlooking a lot of use cases that will push things in the opposite direction from what you imagine. Southern California is already a counterexample to your "only allow autonomous cars in the city". There is no central location that everyone commutes to from outlying burbs. It's a giant network of people with crisscrossing commutes and various bottlenecks, but DTLA isn't really that much of a central commute target, though it is a commute bottleneck.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[Applehu Akbar]

"Yeah, because everyone who drives will be perfectly happy waiting half an hour for their car to return from "resting" before they can do something somewhere else."

When cars go autonomous, they will be a lot more expensive than before, but increasingly electric/electronic and reliable, hence longer lasting, and cheap to operate without the wear-and-tear of being piloted by a bunch of amateurs with Dunning-Kruger driving skills.What this means is that cars will be owned by fleets, to be summoned by apps when you need one. No more "your car" at least for urban commuting.

Will it be more of a hassle to tap on "Need a car" as you check out at the 7-11, perhaps ticking the "Will Share" checkbox if all you are leaving with is a carton of milk? Perhaps, but compare it to owning, securing, maintaining, insuring, and parking a car in the city.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[Obfuscant]

All I am ignoring is your assertion that you need to own a car.

I didn't make that assertion. I made the assertion that it is ignorant to claim that there is no need to own an autnomous verhicle, and I gave you examples of what I do today with my car that I could not do with an autonomous "service" car.

All the issues you mention can and will be solved.

No, I'm sorry, they won't. I can point to one very simple issue that you ignored: radios. No car service is going to allow me to install them in every one of the vehicles they might supply, I can't afford to do that, and the agencies whose frequencies I use wouldn't allow it if I could.

The vision that I am looking at (and is being seriously considered by some major cities) is one in which only autonomous vehicles are allowed in the city.

How sad. And it doesn't speak to the claim you made that it makes no sense to own an autonomous vehicle. That's what I replied to.

Once you have that restriction in place, many things are possible.

Yes, and none of them negate the reasons I gave for why it can, and does, make sense to own your own autonomous vehicle. You ignored every one of them and started on a tangent of how cities might prohibit non-autonomous vehicles in their city. How does that change the logic of owning your own?

For example, lots of space is freed up because there is no longer a need for people to park their cars.

Space that will be taken by the large number of autonomous vehicles as they "rest" between calls. You gain nothing with regard to space, you just move it around a little bit. Considering the "drive around the block until I need you" option, you don't save much at all.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[Agripa]

No worries. They can use civil assets forfeiture to make up for the loss of ticket revenue. Invest in drug dog futures.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[blindseer]

Not only that but think of all the fuel burned too.

Just today I had to park for the day in a parking ramp, I don't typically park this long and so I didn't think much about my habit of parking where I normally park. I know some people will think I got off cheap but that 10' by 20' spot of concrete cost me $9. If I had a self driving car then it would have been cheaper for me to send my car home for the day. Now that's a lot of miles but if it saves me on parking fees, and puts my risk of a much more expensive parking ticket to zero, then it makes sense for me to send my car home.

There are no doubt other costs of sending an unoccupied car on a long distance trek to a "safe" place to park but I would not see them personally. To me the logical choice would be to send my car away and summon it about a half hour before I need it.

There is of course a better solution to all of this, put in enough parking spots and charge a reasonable fee for them. What is "reasonable"? That's difficult to say since pricing on any commodity is based on what people will bear. What happens with self driving cars is this pricing gets complicated. I can imagine someone buying a cornfield on the edge of town, cover it with gravel, and then rent space on it to park. With land like that much cheaper than an equal area downtown the costs to maintain would be quite low. The road to the field might be just a dirt road that meets the city in a residential area but if a bunch of people send their self driving cars to the cornfield every day then that road will suddenly have to carry a lot of traffic.

Self driving cars will make things very interesting.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[torkus]

'Reasonable' for a dedicated parking spot in Manhattan is about $500/month. There is no open cornfield on the 'edge of town' or quick way to get to one.

There's a world of difference between major metropolitan area like NYC, SF, LA, DC, etc. and a a medium size city in the middle of a much more open area (maybe Albany as an example).

Automated public/mass transit is a much better option in those cases - except for the not-so-minor problem of unions, corruption, and inefficient systems that make provide even better financial benefit to those who own/run them than they do for those who use them.

There's no valid reason that NYC or any other major city with established right of ways can't have fully automated subways or trains running 24/7 on a regular cadence - just running fewer cars at later hours. But nah...that would take away union jobs and we can't have that.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[torkus]

Isn't that exactly what a taxi does today?

(or uber, car service, etc.)

Granted it's not cheap, but then again neither is owning a car in NYC.

Re:autonomous cars can't arrive soon enough

[shawn2772]

Yes, autonomous taxis will clearly erase the need for chauffered taxis and much personal car ownership.

Government

[operagost]

Only government bureaucrats can claim that a one-sentence change in law back in 2008 is obscure and recent... and get away with it.

Imagine if the law had been changed in the reverse. Do you think that in 2016, claiming the law was "abstruse" or "recent" would get the ticket thrown out?

Re:Government

[squiggleslash]

In fairness, that law change looks absurd on the face of it and I'm not surprised the officers writing tickets - and the drivers who voluntarily paid the fines didn't realize this.

The fact both sides, drivers and police, thought a parking violation had been committed hints the law is actually wrong here and probably should be changed back.

Re:Government

[Sky Cry]

Wait, what? Voluntarily paid the fines? Many people don't consider paying fines something you do "voluntarily".

Democracy

[CauseBy]

This is democracy in action. It isn't perfect, but good luck trying to get a King to change like that.

I grew up in Anchorage in the 1990s. We were so fed up with overzealous parking enforcement that we disbanded the parking authority by referendum.

After that only uniformed police officers could write tickets. That was a much more tolerable and balanced level of enforcement.

Re:Democracy

[Solandri]

A better way would be to decouple fines from the government revenue stream. Instead of fines for things like parking tickets going into the city coffers, it goes into a trust fund. Every year on April 15, each tax filer gets a proportional share of the total value of that fund applied to their taxes. The fine is punishment for doing something which harms the public, and that money is redistributed to the public which was harmed. No middleman (government) manipulating it to their advantage.

The city no longer has an incentive to overzealously issue parking tickets, and manpower is instead devoted to things that matter, like violent crime and the occasional illegal parking which actually endangers people (parking in front of hydrants, blocking driveways, etc).

Re:Democracy

[ooloorie]

This is democracy in action. It isn't perfect, but good luck trying to get a King to change like that.

"Democracy" isn't supposed to involve having to fight an overbearing and corrupt government (nor is democracy supposed to be a tyranny of the majority, another common misconception).

Furthermore, kings historically have been quite concerned with corruption in their government, because, unlike politicians, they have to think in the long term, and when they lose the confidence of their people, it often cost them their heads.

The system is broken.

[iCEBaLM]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you're the government. There are so many laws the government can't even keep track of them all, how are regular people supposed to?

Combine this with the permission of police to lie as a matter of course, and we have a system that is way too top heavy.

Re:The system is broken.

[Zak3056]

The sad thing is that the Supreme Court ruled recently (last year, IIRC) that ignorance of the law is, indeed, an excuse if you are the police.

Some animals are, indeed, more equal than others.

In unrelated news

[ThatsNotPudding]

Data analyst Ben Wellington is now on the Terrorist Watch List, is randomly stopped and frisked on a daily basis, and selected for state tax audits every quarter.

Blocking a pedestrian ramp is a dickish move

[mysidia]

They need to fix the law back, so they can be ticketed appropriately.....

It was kind of stupid gov't in action enacting laws that allow vehicles to interfere with pedestrian access.

Not going to refund the money or expunge

[BitZtream]

the citation though, are they?

No, they aren't. They're going to keep all the money and leave it on their records.

Re:As if the Repukian...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not angry about the current political situation, you're either *REALLY* not paying attention, or getting paid by it.

Either way, fuck off for being glad people were beaten.

Summary really should have included the outcome

[drew_kime]

For those who don't RTFA they won't know that ...

In this case, the NYPD acknowledged the mistake, is retraining its officers and is putting in monitoring to limit this type of erroneous ticketing from happening in the future. In doing so, they have shown that they are ready and willing to work with the people of the city. And what better gift can we get from Open Data than that.

Speaking of abstruce

[dcooper_db9]

For those who don't have a dictionary handy it means "hard to understand".

But the law isn't hard to understand. Here's the section that applies:

A person may stop, stand or park a vehicle alongside or in a manner which obstructs a pedestrian ramp not located within such crosswalk, unless otherwise prohibited.

Nothing new. The fire hydrant zones are elastic.

[DutchUncle]

Parking is prohibited within 15 feet of a fire hydrant. (1) The edge of the sidewalk is usually painted yellow, BUT IT MAY NOT BE 15 FEET! It's up to YOU to figure it out. (2) Except it's really up to the police or traffic wardens. You can be 25 feet away and get a ticket. When you complain, with a photo, they'll simply point out that you could have taken the photo after moving your car.

Re:Power WILL be abused

[Agent0013]

On the one hand, I kinda agree with you. Let the cops issue whatever tickets they want, and let it be hashed out in the courts. It's no different from letting anyone sue anyone else for anything, and letting it get hashed out in the courts. On the other hand, then you get things like "I'm innocent, but it's too much of a hassle to prove, so I'll just pay the damn fine", and I feel that cops, or hell, government in general, should be held to a standard that discourages such practices.

And I also support the use of deadly force as self defense against the "mafia in blue". If they break the law so frequently with no consequences, then they are no longer the upholders of the law. They are just another criminal organization and defending yourself against them trying to kidnap or shoot you is perfectly acceptable.

Re:DO NOT BE ALARMED !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing so, he says, helps NYPD steal millions of dollars every year.

FTFY.

Re:As if the Repukian...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're claiming the people who were getting beaten are the most violent ones... You have a distorted sense of reality.

Only a ticket? Meh...

[damn_registrars]

I lived for a while in a place where car theft was legal - if you happened to own an impound lot. My car was stolen by such a lot owner from my reserved, paid, contract parking spot and the city wouldn't do shit to help me. I tried to report my car as stolen but the police would hear nothing of it. I had to pay a ransom to the thieves to get my car back, and the towing inspector refused to help as well. Being as the thieves had plenty of experience (and assistance) in the court system you can imagine how well that went as well...

Basically I would have much rather had a ticket. A ticket doesn't do front end damage to my car or force me to go through hell trying to pursue some semblance of justice. I've fought unjust traffic tickets before (and won) but the city wouldn't help me when my car was stolen by crooked bastards.

Re: All large unions are corrupt.End public unions

[GLMDesigns]

Which Republican was that? The same one that wanted to tax large bottles of soda, funds anti-gun legislation? That one? Yeah. Bloomberg is really popular among Republican circles.

Open Data Put an End to It. Not quite.

[bagofbeans]

Actually the city response was

... the department is also taking steps to digitally monitor these types of summonses to ensure that they are being issued correctly.

So, hopefully an end to it, but perhaps not.

Re:Power WILL be abused

[Zak3056]

On the one hand, I kinda agree with you. Let the cops issue whatever tickets they want, and let it be hashed out in the courts. It's no different from letting anyone sue anyone else for anything, and letting it get hashed out in the courts.

The problem is that court costs (which, IIRC, were only assessed in the past if you LOST your hearing) are now assessed by many courts regardless of outcome. So you can go to court (time off work, misc expenses like fuel, parking, etc) and "win" your case and get the $50 ticket thrown out, and be assessed with $125 of court costs. You come out far worse off than had you just paid the phony ticket to begin with.

Note - all numbers above are rectally extracted, but do reflect relative reality in many municipalities.

Re:If People Don't Know It

[Zak3056]

Then the cop's probably don't either. They are not lawyers and the myriad of byzantine laws and exceptions in any jurisdiction can hardly be comprehended by the judges and lawyers whose job it is to adjudicate them. I would guess it would be a legitimate mistake with the only exception would be meter maids who are supposed to know the scope of parking laws they enforce.

If cops don't know what the law is, why would they be writing citations for claimed infractions? How about "If you don't know that something is illegal, you don't write tickets/arrest people for it?" Will society collapse because of that?

No, these are only the unsafe ones.

[Anonymous Coward]

The city can paint a crosswalk if it wants the pedestrian ramp to not have cars parked against it. They can remove the paint when they change their mind. It's easy because it's just paint.

Bringing back the law would mean that undesirable pedestrian ramps need to be physically removed. (jackhammer it a bit, add a concrete form, pour concrete, wait, remove the form)

Re:No, these are only the unsafe ones.

[mysidia]

The city can paint a crosswalk if it wants the pedestrian ramp to not have cars parked against it.

That's silly, and shouldn't be necessary. Just because you have a ramp, doesn't necessarily mean this is where you cross: this could be an access area, for loading/unloading, and wheelchair access, for example.

Also, not all the pedestrian wheelchair ramps are on the street; these are also found in large open areas and parking lots. Attempting to paint a crosswalk would look alien and out of place, also, it would be quite a large amount of paint which is probably more expensive than a concrete mold.

Bringing back the law would mean that undesirable pedestrian ramps need to be physically removed.

What do you mean 'undesirable'? It's a safety hazard if they leave wheelchair ramps for disabled pedestrians in place that are not intended to be used, therefore, they must remove them or else maintain them properly.

Re: Power WILL be abused

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be no refund. There will be a lawsuit and the city will win. Their state reads more like "we know we were doing this, we got caught, we are sorry. we will do a better job of continuing to do this in a manner to not get caught."

Re:Only a ticket? Meh...

[edtice1559]

If you had a reserved, paid spot, did you try to recover from the entity who rented the spot to you. The towing company was likely a contractor to them. Not that it wouldn't still suck. I had my car towed once but I was parked wrong. It upset me terribly.

Should've noticed it themselves

[mi]

We appreciate Mr. Wellington bringing this anomaly to our attention

No, they most likely do not appreciate it.

More importantly, a fraction of ticketed car-owners must have appealed the summonses — and won. NYPD could — and therefor must — track the appeals and their results. Had they done so, they would've noticed the anomaly themselves.

Next in line — use FOIA to chart ticked-issuance per day of the month. This would finally establish — beyond doubt — whether or not police departments have ticket-quotas...

I've seen this

[Ugmo]

There was a sidewalk in Queens, NYC, NY with ramp in it for a driveway (well not a ramp but no curb so you could drive up it). The driveway was for a garage. The garage door had been walled up. The former garage was only a few feet from the street so a car could not pull up into the driveway anymore. If you parked in front of this non-garage you would get a parking ticket for blocking the non-driveway. Even if the front of your car extended over the non-driveway you would get a ticket for obstructing the non-driveway.

Re:Power WILL be abused

[spiritplumber]

I got one of these. Fight $120 ticket, waste all day, win, pay $105 court costs. I billed the DMV for my time at minimum wage but they never replied.

Re:Only a ticket? Meh...

[damn_registrars]

I tried, but they wouldn't help either. Said owner of spot was my landlord when I lived in a large apartment complex. The towing company was not strictly a contractor to them but rather a sub-contractor as it was the "security" company who was a contractor to the landlord and the towing company was - in theory - a subcontractor to the security company. Even though the documentation showed the towing company was there - inside the secured-access garage - first, the landlord wouldn't touch the matter.

Besides, going after my landlord could have had negative consequences that I was not at the time prepared to deal with.

Oh really?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"It appears to be a misunderstanding by officers on patrol of a recent, abstruse change in the parking rules."

Really? A "misunderstanding by officers"? You gonna stick with that answer?

Because when *I* break the law I don't get a pass because I "misunderstood" something. I mean, isn't it the police and judges who are the first to exclaim that "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

I'm sure they'll pay back all of the people they wrongly ticketed, and with interest too. (Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, who am I kidding!)

Call this what is is: naked, blatant revenue enhancement.

It Just Happened To Me

[hirschma]

Seriously - exact same situation - link below of legal parking spot.

I submitted evidence for an online hearing that included the blog post from TFA (plus a screen grab of that street view, plus the appropriate legal stuffs).

I'd love to know when Mr. Quant NYC submitted his findings. I got my ticket three weeks ago (and this Slashdot post was a reminder for me to fight it).

https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

P E R J U R Y !!

[redelm]

When a cop signs a ticket [summons] they are swearing they have observed the offense. Without sworn testimony, no default [missed appearance] judgement and punishment can be legally imposed. If a copy writes ticket s/he knows is bad, s/he's just committed perjury.

Unfortunately, prosecutors most places rely heavily on police to build their cases, so are extremely reluctant to prosecute police. When they must, they use clever ticks to sabotage their own cases (Rodney King). Clear corruption, albeit without bribes.

True errors are made in both directions -- when mistakes always run in the makers favor, it is something else.

Re:P E R J U R Y !!

[Agripa]

When a cop signs a ticket [summons] they are swearing they have observed the offense. Without sworn testimony, no default [missed appearance] judgement and punishment can be legally imposed. If a copy writes ticket s/he knows is bad, s/he's just committed perjury.

For my own edification I have sat in court monitoring the proceedings when cops testify to support their ticket. More than half of the time when challenged, they keep changing their answer until the judge finds one that is acceptable.

It wasn't just ticketing.

[jcr]

Those fuckers stole my car twice when I lived there, so I got hit with bullshit tickets plus towing fees.

-jcr

Re:Power WILL be abused

[Agripa]

The fines, err, I mean fees to contest the ticket in court are greater than the ticket cost.

Re:Only a ticket? Meh...

[Agripa]

I lived for a while in a place where car theft was legal - if you happened to own an impound lot. My car was stolen by such a lot owner from my reserved, paid, contract parking spot and the city wouldn't do shit to help me. I tried to report my car as stolen but the police would hear nothing of it. I had to pay a ransom to the thieves to get my car back, and the towing inspector refused to help as well. Being as the thieves had plenty of experience (and assistance) in the court system you can imagine how well that went as well...

I would approve of vigilant justice in this situation against the facilities and personnel.

Re:Only a ticket? Meh...

[damn_registrars]

I lived for a while in a place where car theft was legal - if you happened to own an impound lot. My car was stolen by such a lot owner from my reserved, paid, contract parking spot and the city wouldn't do shit to help me. I tried to report my car as stolen but the police would hear nothing of it. I had to pay a ransom to the thieves to get my car back, and the towing inspector refused to help as well. Being as the thieves had plenty of experience (and assistance) in the court system you can imagine how well that went as well...

I would approve of vigilant justice in this situation against the facilities and personnel.

There is a reason why the place has security cameras all over the place, and bullet proof glass in front of their cashier. They also kept the cars they knew owners would most likely want back kept in a locked garage (which - you guessed it - was also monitored by security cameras).

Re:Power WILL be abused

[meerling]

I guess you could take the cop that gave you a ticket under false pretenses to small claims court to be reimbursed for your court costs. (Not the time off work obviously.)
I don't know, it's just a wild guess. ianal

Re: All large unions are corrupt.End public unions

[meerling]

I agree with the other poster in that there should be some substantiation of that statement.
Yeah, I know, I'm rather lazy in providing them myself, but it's still true.

Parking in front of sidewalk ramps?

[OhHellWithIt]

Why the hell is NYC allowing people to park in front of sidewalk ramps? I'm not sure how it is in the Big Apple, but most jurisdictions do not mark crosswalks at every crosswalk, even though it's a logical and safe place for a person to cross the street, like a street corner. (This is why one should be suspicious when reading about an accident in which "the victim was not in a crosswalk"; odds are decent that it's because there are insufficient pedestrian accommodations on the road.) If it's OK for an able-bodied pedestrian to cross somewhere, there should be curb cuts so that a person in a wheelchair can do the same, and there shouldn't be a vehicle blocking it.

Pay back!

[martinfb]

I want my freakin' money back! I fought and lost a legally parked car violation! AND, pay for the wasted time and suffering!

Write to Congress

[NewYork]

http://www.petition2congress.c...

Re: Power WILL be abused

[Methadras]

Wait, so does ignorance of the law not being an excuse go both ways? If a LEO illegally issues a ticket because he doesn't know the law changed, then is the person who gets the ticket liable for the illegality and its payment? Simply paying it is like saying that it's an implied admission when none should have happened. The is another reason for me on why any laws that used 'implied' anything should be barred from usage.