She was taking up two spaces and only paying for one? And she’s mad? I’m not big on parking meters, but I’m not sure why she shouldn’t get the ticket. Maybe I’m missing something.

I think its a judgement issue, if it were a problem at the moment it was first written it should have been included. I this case I think it was out of line as so much of the lot was empty. Added in a day later looks like spite.

I agree with Doran. It looks like she was clearly taking up two spaces. Besides, if her husband is handicapped, they should have a blue handicap placard, and therefore can park for free in municipal metered spots (in street for sure, not sure about municipal lots – loophole for ticket?) in CA, not to mention a lot of other places non-handicap folks can’t park. I can’t imagine there weren’t any available blue spots at her final destination, but then again maybe not.

Fraz I think if you’d chanced upon this vehicle parked the way it was you’d have whipped out your cam and snapped yourself a parking tard pic and to hell with how empty the back of the lot was.

Since there was time left on the meter I’ll bet the ticket stated somewhere that it was for a space encroachment violation (or at least the corresponding code) and that it wasn’t “added in a day later” for spite.

Will, I guess we’ll never know, just giving you her story. All y’all can debate it how you want. She says she was only 2 inches over.

Parking ‘tard + improper ticketing = great blog post!

;)

Two inches over the line? One toke, maybe. In that second pic I’m seeing white divider line peeking out from a place under her car that’s FAR more than two inches deep. Just sayin’.

Whether you agree with this being a case of ticketing the day after out of spite or not, there’s a far more interesting aspect of this post. That second photo clearly shows her car considerably more than two inches over the line. There have been countless posts here about parking ‘tards, but how many of those photos were sent in by the person who actually parked the car? Awesome!

Yeah if that is 2 inches someone has a really inaccurate ruler. I think the photos hurt more than help, this is total parking tard material. If she needs extra space for her handicapped husband maybe the handicapped parking spots might be a good place to look for that. It doesn’t matter really how much or little she was in the other space, the point is she was enough in it that no one else could park there, and thus taking up two spots, and breaking the law and deserved the ticket. I only wish more parking tards got tickets for this crap.

While I also hate the “Parker” that obviously takes up two spaces as a “safety factor” for their own car…I made it a point to park a distance away on a large lot out of respect for others… Those parks designated for ‘handicapped’ were utilized. The meter was still running in spite of the fact the the ticket noted otherwise. Two inches… maybe I did need a ruler…but it sure wasn’t impeding any other car… the whole purpose for parking away….I do appreciate your comments! It all seemed a bit petty to me and I took the pics for exactly that reason!!!! I mean “In the name of justice” the meter ticket was waived–.. As for the pic showing over the line…I was merely showing that I wasn’t impeding anyone from actually using the adjacent space…and the perspective of my park as opposed to the surrounding cars.
Enough side…I guess I’ll pay that ticket!!!!!

After reading Berta’s comment, I have to ask: does anyone know what happens when the three or so handicapped spots are filled, and a fifth handicapped driver needs to park? Can they park like a tard IF THEY NEED TO (say, if they’re in a wheelchair or require a walker) and be exempt from parking tickets if they display a handicapped placard?

And how many of the handicap-sign-sporting vehicles parked in those spots in Berta’s lot, do you think, were ACTUALLY handicapped in a manner that necessitated a special spot–either for maneuverability or proximity to the building (closer spot = shorter walk for those who have difficulty walking, I learned this the fun hard way when my R.A. flared while I was a student at UCLA).

Michelle, the easiest answer is No. It is no different than a valid placard being used to park in the cross hatch marks next to a handicap stall. You would probably have a good argument if you were going to contest the citation. But then it is up to you to prove that an “emergency” existed, not just because there was not enough available parking. Disabled plates/placards allow parking in the marked stalls, in timed zones like green curbs and metered parking, and where certain types of permits are required. No parking in red zones, loading zones, or areas where all cars are required to be moved like street sweeping restrictions. Here is the DMV link, http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr07.htm

If there’s a lot of concern, you guys should really check out this blog:

http://badparking.wordpress.com/

Although I hate how those parking patrol cops are giving tickets for no apparent reason, that site makes you think twice when parking ;)

-Mike