They'll say it's about safety but it's always about revenue - pretty hard to contest a fine if you aren't aware of it until two weeks later. Then good luck proving anything.
Try 6 weeks later. My wife got one in a commuter car park for parking rear to kerb instead of front to kerb, along with every other car in the car park. She hadn’t even seen the sign despite being parked right under it, but as there was no paper ticket and she didn’t get the fine for 6 weeks, I was worried there would more of them coming as she had no idea she’d been fined.
In the location she was in, there’s not actually any reason to park the car front to kerb.
Silly question but I thought rear to kerb is almost always safer. What instances would front to kerb be safer over a rear to kerb (unless it's 45 deg angle parking?)
It was in this car park…nearly all the cars you see are illegally parked (on both sides!). $160 fine for every car, every day
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Xh6sFqEKgxsAtMfM8?g_st=ic
That's crazy. The front to kerb sign is like every 25 metres. Would be so easy not to spot that. I also don't think I've ever seen one of those signs that was front to kerb and not rear to kerb.
I've always just assumed angled parking is nose in and perpendicular parking is nose or rear in. That rule only exists to raise revenue and it should be banned...the law should change to only allow mandating nose in parking for angled parking.
Forcing rear in on perpendicular parking is acceptable as it at least has some safety statistics and logic backing up that rule.
What’s worse is the signs are spaced quite far apart along the fence, so it’s easy to not see the sign. That didn’t apply to my wife as she parked right under the sign 😂
In this car park though, I don’t understand the logic for the front to kerb.
It is safer rear to curb.
In the UK, driving a company's vehicle, especially a commercial vehicle, a lot of the companies have a policy to park with the front facing out/ reverse in.
They have this rule as data shows far less accidents, especially on commercial vehicles such as vans. It’s safer driving out a spot for visibility than reversing out.
I think it's to do with an emergency site exit requirement.
If everyone is parked facing outwards there is far less conjestion when everyone leaves at once
The usual justification I've heard for it is if there are services that could be damaged on the wall in front of the car park - less chance of someone running into them nose in. That being said, from the street view of it, that doesn't apply here.
I’m just as baffled as my wife here. The parking on the opposite side to the fence is also front to kerb for no obvious reason.
You can go there any day and maybe 80% of the cars are parked rear to kerb, so the parking ranger just comes around and it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. The only saving grace with the poor signage is that it’s impossible for the ranger to take a photo of a car in violation if they can’t get a photo of the sign in view at the same time as the car.
Could be for the drivers of massively lifted utes that if they reversed in and messed it up they could actually climb the concrete part of the wall, bend over the fence, and end up on the rail track.
Because some people legitimately don't like backing up into a tight parking space, because you want the boot to be facing away from the curb because main access is via carpark lanes, etc etc.
Just because it's safer doesn't mean it's more convenient in some cases. The commentor didn't say anything about it being safer, just that there was no reason not to.
I think this one is actually Transport NSW as it’s a train station. IMHO that makes it even worse as these are all rail commuters so they are there every day.
Luckily we have so far only received one ticket, but we have to wait 6 weeks to know for sure because she can’t recall whether she parked that way in those spots other times.
I wonder what notifications there are outside of the Service NSW app, I personally use that app so would presumably get a push notification. Other people may not use that app and I know if I didn't use the app and I just got a text message (I barely check my emails anymore due to spam) I would ignore it as I would think it was a scam...because this is exactly the way scammers have been targeting all of us.
That said, councils have no ability to refuse state governments, the government can literally appoint someone to run the council as local government only exists at the pleasure of the state governments and is actually just used to protect state governments from pressure and local electoral issues causing potential loss of seats for MPs.
Before I read the article I had the same opinion but it says they issue multiple warnings before sending a fine? Seems a bit more reasonable than I thought.
No, they don’t. You just get a fine in the mail 6 weeks later and scratch your head trying to figure out where you were parked at the time. You can search for the photo online
By stealth ticketing, some people had been issued multiple infringement notices before they even realised an offence had been committed.
So.... basically trying to get as many hits as possible out of each offender.
By removing immediate notification it becomes impossible for people issued notices to gather evidence to challenge the fine.
No surprise there. *Totally* just looking out for parking ranger safety.
It's so annoying and frivolous.
I live in an apartment and I keep getting fines from the RTA addressed to a different person. I sent them back with a "return to sender" even after 10 letters they keep sending so I just discard them.
I get random crap still 5+ years later from previous renters/owners. It's morons too lazy to update their details. I did the return to sender thing for a year then gave up on whatever was still coming. If they haven't updated their details for it, it must not be important to them.
I did the forward mail thing for a year after moving and changed addresses for mail I got, but honestly fuck knows who sends me shit anymore, if my old addresses are still getting Oxfam letters because they refuse to stop sending snail mail even though I stopped donating.
It's not about ranger safety. The rangers are still walking about, and it's obvious what they're doing (issuing infringements). I fail to see how the extra minute or so printing out the infringement notice and putting it on the windscreen endangers rangers in any significant way.
What this is is about reducing the number of tickets that are contested in court. It'd be easy to see this if we compare the rates at which tickets from the ticketless councils are contested in court when compared to ones from ones that issue tickets. If you receive the notice a number of weeks later, the parking conditions may have changed/the driver is no longer in the area/etc. If someone is issued an infringement, they can gather evidence to support their contesting the ticket at that time.
Bruh, I know where every speed camera is in the Sydney highway tunnel system except for the cross city tunnel.
It no excuse for speeding, but it’s positioned right at the exit of an off ramp, where people doing 55 in the right lane leave the left open (nothing illegal about it but shit annoying)
It’s also at the bottom of the hill, so got caught twice hitting a couple of km over 80 (under 85) as i move around and accelerate down the hill to avoid slowmos
They didn’t appear or show on my service NSW app till 2 weeks after the event, pretty sure I’ve made it past the date of the first and last one so it should just be 2.
Like I said lesson learnt, but if it was an immediate notice or within 24 hours that would have been nicer. And maybe for speed cameras to not enforce within 4km/h of the speed limit unless it’s a school or residential area. Otherwise I’m just looking at my Speedo half the time instead of the road (chucked an aftermarket GPS Speedo on the dash at the windscreen level, but doesn’t help in tunnels obv)
Just like tolls, the tunnel ones are pretty much cash raisers too. The M8 is set out a bit better, but most are still in areas that are perfect for when you are merging, or there is sections that people for sure will overtake someone sitting 5km under that then speeds up, all while not being marked except for the initial sign before the tunnel
Is it really that hard to offer an instantaneous digital alternative? Every licence plate is tied to an identity in a government database. Just let people attach a phone number or email of their choice to it and receive the notification there.
If you are worried about safety add a 1 hour delay so the ranger is gone from the area before they get the notice.
Yeah make it instant so you can run out and abuse the guy... Sounds like a good idea, because I know a hell of a lot of people who'd do just that. They can just delay it 4 hours or so.
I dont know who is downvoting this opinion, cause its right. There should be enough time for the guy to move on to another section. Is a 15m delay really going to make it harder to fight the ticket?
What's safer? Working in pairs dishing out tickets physically or person driving around in the containment of their own secure car?
It's the later. If they work in pairs that's just doubling the targets.
What's safer? Giving parking fines or not giving out parking fines?
It's the later. Having fines infinitely increases targets
But fines are needed I hear you cry. Yes paper tickets which are instant are needed. People need to be aware of the fine
It sounds more like you're searching for an excuse when there isn't really one. Rules/laws only work when enforced. Enforcing ones for vehicles means fines/demerits. It doesn't matter how they're given, just that they are. Sure giving them out on a massive delay and stacking up enough to make someone lose a license is bad, but I believe they have systems in place to prevent that already.
Just read through this thread and you'll see all the people "surprised" their loved one who broke a rule didn't get more then one ticket for the same infraction... wonder why?
Most people getting caught up in this sort of thing know they're doing the wrong thing and are just looking for excuses that it's not their fault and they shouldn't have to deal with it.
Or maybe instead of being regressive, maybe people should be progressive and argue for more innovative ways to instantly tell people they've been fined. Like an email, or a website.
The best of both worlds.
You’re being downvoted, but there is no real excuse in this day and age of digital everything for them to take weeks to send out the fine : a script could easily be run to scan number plates against rego, issue a fine and then send instant notification to the contact listed on the rego.
As others have said, it’s about revenue raising with deniability
The response from the city council was equally as infuriating stating they get consistent training in “health and safety”. Like, fuck off.. just have some common courtesy.
The last time I got a parking ticket, it was like the ranger was trying to goad me in to a reaction. It was probably 5 years ago; but I still remember his gleeful grin and “It’s a big one!” etc. being called after me as I walked away from him. I just rolled my eyes. Perhaps they need training in conflict avoidance.
I got one a year ago, despite having a visitors permit clearly displayed on the dashboard. Only way I knew a ticket was coming was because I spotted the chalk on the tyre. If they'd had to stick a ticket under the windscreen wiper there is no way you can argue the permit wasn't there. A year later I'm still trying to fight it on principle.
The ticketless approach is a joke and is purely to sting people multiple times, when they are unaware of the initial ticket.
They could have used an example of the typical Sydney parking signs that has four signs and about 18 different parking timings/days limits rather than a simple type.
Kinda hypocritical of the state government to criticise council when they do it too.
How’s it any different to speed, red light, mobile phone and seatbelt cameras. Nobody is getting notified of those offences until way after the fact.
And that's one of the reasons I object to the existence of speed cameras, red light cameras, and mobile phone/seatbelt cameras.
Sending someone a fine weeks after the fact is not about safety, it's about revenue raising. Especially because if something was so dangerous it needed to fined, it should have been dealt with on the spot - after all, waiting weeks to fine someone for something that's allegedly dangerous just shows it's not *really* dangerous since the act didn't hurt anyone at the time and wasn't important enough to bother with chasing up until weeks later.
> waiting weeks to fine someone for something that's allegedly dangerous just shows it's not really dangerous since the act didn't hurt anyone at the time and wasn't important enough to bother with chasing up until weeks later.
This is absurd logic, you seriously cannot believe this nonsense? Just because you were speeding and didn't get into an accident doesn't automatically make speeding a safe and fine thing to do, same with running a red, same with using your phone while driving/not wearing a seatbelt, they're all objectively harmful things to do that lead to awful outcomes.
Just because they don't always doesn't mean that it should just be allowed, or are you arguing they should only be able to fine Tim for blasting through a red once he's t-boned and killed someone? Bffr.
Running a red light is very obviously likely to kill or injure someone. Driving at 67km/h on a dual-lane road with a 60km/h limit is not.
And we managed for nearly a century without red light cameras and people didn't treat red lights as optional, because they knew running one would result in injury or worse, and their insurance wouldn't cover them either.
> Driving at 67km/h on a dual-lane road with a 60km/h limit is not.
You can't be ticketed for that, and going 10km/h over is objectively dangerous and massively increases the likelihood of you killing or injuring someone, the science on this has been know for literal decades, it's what informs the speed limits.
> And we managed for nearly a century without red light cameras and people didn't treat red lights as optional, because they knew running one would result in injury or worse, and their insurance wouldn't cover them either.
And if you look at the statistics, deaths by motor vehicle were enormous back then and since the introduction of red light cameras and a culture that doesn't treat it as a normal or good, the injury and death rates have plummeted. We also managed without seatbelts before their introduction, doesn't mean that they aren't a fantastic safety tool.
With this current system they don't even leave their vehicles usually.
They also utilise vehicles with ANPR now.
Council vehicle fitted with cameras drives down street automatically registering number plates and GPS position which goes into database, they can then drive back down later and it figures out what vehicles have overstayed.
That's what I was going to say. A place I lived at had issues with people illegally parking around there. I found that supposedly councils can have parking rangers check it as part of their route, but when I discussed with Strata they told me the council said they didn't have enough people/time to have rangers check our spot that'd only take a few minutes. Sure could be BS, but also could just be the fact that not that many people do the job and having to do it manually would take ages in some big car parks, let alone all the streets in the area.
Driving around with a scanner sounds like a pretty good way to enforce parking times and potentially booking those parked illegally in some way. I guess it also defeats the "go out and wipe off the chalk" or "roll the vehicle to hit the chalk mark".
This is some surveillance state shit.
I remember when I was in LA many years ago I thought they had a pretty cool system. In front of each park was a meter, kind of like the old school ones you put coins into (but it wasn't they were digital) and they had a light on top - green for paid, and red for expired. The meter people would drive on what looked like golf carts, all around the streets, and if they say a red light on the meter they could easily jump out and issue the ticket. It just seemed to me to be a really well thought out system.
Prefer this over other systems to be honest, just needs to get audited often enough to prove it's accurate and actually refund people if it's found to be inaccurate.
Seen wind blow off tickets, seen people get pissed off at inspectors ECT.
But for this, councils and governments also need to improve on public transport and parking as a whole. Around here, there are two parking lots, but only 100 cars total, and one is always closed off from public use anyhow. It has an hour of park time but the problem is its location, it takes you almost 20 minutes just to get to a shop that isn't a restaurant. So it spends most of its time half empty.
And then there're a few spots near businesses that during your work day, you have to go out and move to a new space to avoid tickets because there is nowhere else to park, unless you want to add an hour walk from a residential area.
Most of you seem to think it's okay to harass rangers. But when you drive around and can't find a park when you need it or find your way blocked, you'd complain as well.
Now if you get fined unjustly, that's another thing but if they're just fining the privileged idiots who think they are above the rules set so everyone can enjoy the facilities, it's necessary.
Exactly right. There’s several streets near me where about 70% of the parkers think its fine and dandy for them to park illegally half on the footpath because the roads are narrow enough that they worry about their cars being dinged. Guess what: instead of blocking the way for pedestrians, especially those with prams, wheelchairs etc., how about you buy a more narrow car or simply don’t own one if you’re going to live in the inner west one block from a train station and 20 bus routes if your house doesn’t come with off street parking???
If you're rising above the average, enough to get noticed by the state government, then something you are doing is wrong. You're so far outside the average you've either screwed up your parking badly, or you're issuing illegitimate fines. There isn't a lot of leeway there.
The issue is not raising the fines but not issuing physical tickets right there and then because of safety issues and the delay in informing those who made the violations, not because it was above average of fines - which is not an issue in itself. There's nothing that says parking violations has to be proportionally the same everywhere. Some areas will have a lot of them and it's all part of a system to manage traffic and give everyone a chance to park. It's not perfect and there may even be abuses, but if there's no enforcement, we won't have any sort of order.
If you read some of the other posts, a guy and his Uni mates collected all the tickets left in cars by the ranger, caught up to him and started intimidating him. This was a guy doing his job in 32 degree heat.
What is needed is probably a faster turnaround for issuing those tickets or for people to be aware enough not to part illegally in the first place. Perhaps photographs for evidence. If physical tickets are required, those whose jobs it is to issue those tickets do not deserve intimidation.
>But when you drive around and can't find a park when you need it or find your way blocked, you'd complain as well.
Except those things have never been an issue for me or anyone else I know, which really just proves parking wardens aren't doing anything of benefit to society.
It's because they're doing their jobs that it's not an issue. If people find they can park at 15 min zones with no consequence, they would and no one else will be able to use it for instance.
>In a letter to mayors, Ms Houssos said the absence of tickets made it difficult for a driver to gather evidence to challenge a fine.
Boom tish. They don't want people to be able to challenge the fine.
They make mistakes sometimes. I have a residential parking permit, valid, properly applied (duh), in the right zone.
I got a ticket two months ago and they REJECTED my review because I didn’t have photographic evidence the permit was affixed properly at the time of the “offence”. The ranger deliberately took a photo where you can’t see my windscreen.
Now I have to waste time, and take a day off work, showing up in court. The thing is these systems have flaws, mistakes, or rangers trying to meet a quota ticketing people parking legally. Checks and balances, like a paper notification, help protect against that.
The permit is a sticker attached to your windscreen. It's not something you apply on or off. It's also tamper evident, if you try to remove it, it leaves residue and is destroyed. (I know this because it's my third year with the permit; it renews annually).
I've been parking in the same area for nearly 3 years now, and I was absolutely lucid to be getting a ticket for parking in a place I'm entitled to park at.
I got a fine notice in the mail in Brisbane a while back from when I was legally parked in front of a meter. I was lucky because I paid the meter with my credit card, and was able to show that I paid the exact amount for one hour of parking, to a parking meter in that suburb, less than an hour before the fine was issued. If it had been back in the days of coin-operated meters, or if they'd tried to do me for any other kind of parking offence, I'd have had no way to contest it.
I am sure most fines are completely deserved but mistakes or malicious fines happen, and lack of accountability invites abuse.
Just saw the Hills Council ranger driving around Rouse Hill Town Centre in their special car with full sensor and camera rig on top. Didn’t slow down - just maximum tickets with least amount of effort. What a joke.
Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. If the state government is so against it, maybe they should give up their speed cameras, redlight cameras, mobile phone cameras and put cops back out on patrol instead.
I mean the broader practice of punitive revenue raising rather than paid parking, driven by state governments seeking extra revenue due to how tax is divvied between federal and state. $380 fine and 10 demerit points for a mobile phone camera flagging a driver eating banana bread comes to mind.
I think in the ACT, if you don’t pay your parking fine(s) within 28 days, your licence is suspended. That’s a good incentive to pay your ticket(s), but it’s also concerning the potential for people to driving around on a suspended licence and the legal implications if in an accident etc.
A friend got one in Port Macquarie for overstaying when she didn't, she was parked for 10 minutes in a 30 minutes spot and have video evidence and witnesses of her leaving work, driving out of the property and returning all within 20 minutes. The council would not cancel the fine, she took it to court and the court still wouldn't find that it was falsely issued.
If they find one fault with their system, all tickets ever issued can be challenged I guess.
They're just money grubbing cunts.
Years ago when I lived in Glebe and they offered *one parking permit per household even if your name was on the lease with another* I got $2500 of parking fines in one year.
There was **no parking** on my street for me (after my flatties GF nabbed the parking permit without telling me) before 9pm and the car had to be moved hourly by 8am.
Between that and a similar situation in Surry Hills at work (I used to ride to work when I found an unmetered park at home.... When I could I rode) I got so fed up I left and haven't been back.
On the unmetered park... There was ONE car park behind a pub on my street. As you can imagine it was sought after. One time my car was parked there (for a week--that's what you do) , a resident of the street, and the workers at the pub called the police to come remove/ticket my registered vehicle.
I just happened to see the cops milling around and asked them if I could help them? ... I own it yes. I live here. Yes. It's registered and roadworthy. Yes.
They left but not before I asked them why they were looking at my car in particular. Turns out the staff at the pub liked to park *their cars* there because you know... It was the only free car park in Glebe essentially.
So I went into the pub and got into a mild discussion with the bar staff who said "We didn't know it was yours (regular) but where are we supposed to park?".
"I fucken live on this street. You work here. Don't go trying to get my car towed ever again. I know the parking situation is shit but it's a public car spot on a public street. Whoever is in the park, owns it."
"We can't afford the parking around here", was their response.
"Welcome to my world". I said.
Sydney parking is a joke. It's just revenue raising for the most part.
> Years ago when I lived in Glebe and they offered one parking permit per household even if your name was on the lease with another
This information was available to you before you signed the lease, and you still moved in with more vehicles than you could store?
TBH we just assumed that if your name on the lease you'd get a car park. What I fucking idiot I am! And no Einstein they don't provide that info on the fucking leases! Rea's tend to have their influence and at the front door. They're not really in collab with the fucking parking Gestapo are they!?
And yeah when paying through the nose to live somewhere, people in a car orientated culture who have to go to work to support themselves (hence the fucking car) sometimes assume that they'll be able to park their car!
But no you're right. Good argument. Especially in a thread relating to how parking is revenue raising.
So I take your contention is, in an overheated housing market (as it was then too) that one is to choose between housing and the ability to travel to your employment? Can't have both?
Privileged thinking as some other muppet said.
Good work. Wake up.
You lived in an area where the average car ownership is 0.9 per household, and you owned two.
Where the median person doesn't drive to work.
In a massively expensive suburb.
Where parking permit information is available to google.
And you call other people privileged?
Pot, meet kettle.
[You can search ](https://www.realestate.com.au/rent/in-glebe,+nsw+2037/list-1?numParkingSpaces=2&activeSort=price-asc&source=refinement) housing and parking simultaneously.
You can have housing and storage of your private property simultaneously. You just have to google it.
It's like all the morons near me who rent a place, but can't fit their vehicle in the garage or have multiple vehicles, but with a busy street. So they illegally park, get fines, cry about it. Dude, you chose to rent when you knew you couldn't park your vehicles properly, you made a poor choice, no one else did, park on the street or eat the fines.
In dense areas, free street parking is an incredibly inefficient use of space and amounts to thousands of dollars of annual subsidy for car owners. We don’t allow residents to store anything else in the public roadway such as wardrobes, desks etc. so you really need to acknowledge that being allowed to do so for even a single multi tonne metal box is already a very privileged position.
TBH we just assumed that if your name on the lease you'd get a car park. What I fucking idiot I am! And no Einstein they don't provide that info on the fucking leases! Rea's tend to have their influence and at the front door. They're not really in collab with the fucking parking Gestapo are they!?
And yeah when paying through the nose to live somewhere, people in a car orientated culture who have to go to work to support themselves (hence the fucking car) sometimes assume that they'll be able to park their car!
But no you're right. Good argument. Especially in a thread relating to how parking is revenue raising.
So I take your contention is, in an overheated housing market (as it was then too) that one is to choose between housing and the ability to travel to your employment? Can't have both?
Privileged thinking as some other muppet said.
Good work. Wake up.
I specifically rented in locations which enabled me to get to work without a car for over a decade. It’s a simple mindset shift that far too many people forget is possible. But then again, I grew up walking and using public transport too, not ferried everywhere in a car. 🤷♀️
No see, you are privileged to have built your life around transport and the fact parking is limited in some areas.
Unlike that wanker who isn't privileged to live in an inner city suburb and drive everywhere without thinking out the consequences.
> TBH we just assumed that if your name on the lease you'd get a car park.
Apart from don't assume.
Think it out for a second.
What would unscrupulous people do to game such a system? They'd get as many people on the lease as possible.
NSW there is no minimum age that can sign a lease. You can get your child to co sign a lease as it is in thier benefit. And bam, extra parking permit.
Uni students share house gets the actual leaseholder and their parents to cosign.
And suddenly you have 3x the permits as there are spaces on the street and you'd be ranting about paying for a permit but never getting a spot anyway.
The only parking ticket I’ve ever received I was incorrectly issued. 2 hour parking area, I was parked for less than 30 minutes. I gathered my Google location history and successfully had the fine withdrawn (no apology mind you, the fuckers)
Point is - My google history auto wipes every few days. I wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on if they mail that shit out, and the kicker is they wouldn’t have any proof either! A photo of a car parked? Do they take one time stamped before and after? No of course not, my word versus theirs and they would win.
This is where the culture of being an overly obedient society gets rather annoying. For example, it doesn't matter how punative and ridiculous speeding fines are, or how speed traps are deployed, there's always an active attitude of "if you don't speed then you have nothing to worry about".
I've lost family in car fatalities where they were doing everything right, and my family will still detest this attitude of blind obedience without a 2nd thought.
Do these get sent from the infringement processing bureau?
If so, why not prevent those councils from being allowed to receive the money?
Surely removing the incentive (the money) will cause them to change their behaviour?
Paid parking and parking tickets are like crack cocaine to councils.
Once they get a taste of that sweet sweet revenue they will never roll it back, even if it's proven to be detrimental to business.
Go on, show me the study where paid parking attracts customers?
I'd love to show you the study that says that local CBDs with short parking turnover are flourishing against large shopping centres that have 3hr free parking. But not surprisingly, it doesn't exist.
You make the first claim, you provide the first source.
[Pitt street westfield](https://www.scentregroup.com/our-customers/westfield-destinations/westfield-eastgardens), annual turnover 1.08 billion. Annual visitors 30 million.
Eastgardens westfield, 0.67 billion. Annual Visitors 10.6 million
So 3 hour free parking is still paid parking and encourages parking turnover that is good for businesses.
3 hour free parking is a good thing (compared to free unlimited parking)
3 hour free parking is still paid parking? No its not, its free. The clue is in the word Free.
You keep arguing about parking turnover, but I never argued against it or said anything about free unlimited parking.
My comment was about councils not giving up parking revenue. Paid short duration parking isn't good for business and does nothing for turnover. It's purely a revenue stream for councils.
> Paid short duration parking isn't good for business and does nothing for turnover.
Again. Prove it.
> It's purely a revenue stream for councils.
And why is that a bad thing? They own the land, they built the parking spot.
Why should my council rates go to subsidising your lifestyle choices?
So parking turnover argument fails so just start saying hypocritical random shit?
We, being the ratepayers paid for the infrastructure including roads, footpaths, parking spots, street furniture, street lights, bike paths, libraries, all of it. Are you advocating everything be user pays or just cherry picking the stuff you don't care about? If your using any part of that infrastructure then someone else's council rates are subsidizing your lifestyle choices too.
[Again](https://www.passportinc.com/blog/the-benefits-of-increased-parking-turnover/) [you](https://www.sightline.org/2012/03/28/is-metered-parking-boosting-business/) [have](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096969891100124X) yet to back up your claims while i've repeatedly provided sources.
> Are you advocating everything be user pays or just cherry picking the stuff you don't care about?
I'm advocating a policy that allows infra be available to use for everyone.
Without paid parking you have streets monopolised by the first person to get there in the morning and then everyone else misses out.
You are intentionally conflating timed parking with paid parking to continually argue against something I never said. You can have timed street parking without paid parking. We had it for decades and it worked fine.
I've had my license suspended so many times the past few years since this was introduced because I never fucking know I've been fined.
(I have a motorbike with a dead starter motor and I can't move it, there was a period where I was getting fined every day for over a month)
What may happen, and it's already happening in the Sydney CBD, is that more parking zones will shift from local council to Properties NSW enforcement. I'm old enough to remember when parking officers were all NSW Police before it was turned over to council, and if councils want to be dicks about it, their revenue stream can be taken away.
It is assault. You came in as a gang and threatening which is really what you wanted to do. This is just someone doing their job.
Turn the situation around and you will see how threatening that act would be if you were the ranger. You're lucky you didn't get charged. Assaulting a public servant doing their duties carries a specific criminal charge.
This is what some people don't get, battery is the actual act of hitting someone, assault is a separate charge and deosnt involve the actual physical portion, it is the fear of the violence.
Well, they think as long as they don't touch someone, they're not breaking the law. Intimidating people with numbers and a threat of violence is criminal enough.
You didn't have to. A group of you confronting him is enough. It's like suddenly appearing to someone in a dark alley. The threat is implied.
You undid all of his work. That is harassment on top. How would you feel if someone went to your workplace and doing something similar?
You yourself said it was a 32 degree day and he was out working in that heat. How will people be able to have their fair go at parking if all the people can just park as long as they want? The parking limits are there to make it fair. You just think some people have the privilege to ignore the rules.
Vulnerable people with cars parked illegally? What of the other vulnerable people who need a park to see a doctor or some other appointment? When do they get their chance, boss?
Well get on to your counselors and the state government. Bloke is just doing his job. Can you not see any possible reason for that area not being a parking zone?
Were you trying to stand over and intimidate them?
Yes/no?
Don't answer, I don't trust you.
But whatever the truth is, determines whether what you did was larrikin fucking about or actually not ok at all.
If you weren't trying to intimidate them then the charge is ridiculous. Sorry you had to deal with that crap.
If it was racially motivated vindictiveness that ranger can get fucked. Given the state of the place I'm sure that bullshit happens all the time.
That's bullshit they even state before that it was 45 incidents to now 30 incidents. That's barely a drop, that could have been caused by an aggressive staff member resigning.
This might be a mad suggestion, but what if we cover our license plates when the car is parked? Rangers driving around with camera rigs to automatically track and report parking infringements would fail. The question is, have they made a law against that?
Some of those rules are very confusing... the rule about plate lights seems to say they must be illuminated, but not by projecting white light - not sure how you are supposed to illuminate something without projecting light.
Probably should have got a scientist or engineer to help the lawyers draft that one. The diagrams showing the viewing angles for plates are also confusing.
I'm not going to argue that any government regulation is clear and illuminating (tee hee) but it's obviously true that covering your license for the purpose of stymying parking enforcement is illegal.
The article says the NSW government introduced the system. Can't they just take it away?
I believe this is also in Qld. I received a fine in the mail 6 weeks later with it being doubled with "search fees" because I'm in NSW.
They had to check a whole 7 additional databases, you're lucky it was only double
One day we will have the technology to type a number plate into a database seven times. What a glorious day that will be.
They'll say it's about safety but it's always about revenue - pretty hard to contest a fine if you aren't aware of it until two weeks later. Then good luck proving anything.
[удалено]
Thats Australian governance at every level "fuck over the citizens at all costs"
Isn't the story about different levels of government fighting over whether to implement this or not?
Australia is culturally, an agricultural nation. Just now the humans are the cattle.
They can't raise taxes so this is what they've turned to. Legislated gaslighting.
Try 6 weeks later. My wife got one in a commuter car park for parking rear to kerb instead of front to kerb, along with every other car in the car park. She hadn’t even seen the sign despite being parked right under it, but as there was no paper ticket and she didn’t get the fine for 6 weeks, I was worried there would more of them coming as she had no idea she’d been fined. In the location she was in, there’s not actually any reason to park the car front to kerb.
Silly question but I thought rear to kerb is almost always safer. What instances would front to kerb be safer over a rear to kerb (unless it's 45 deg angle parking?)
It was in this car park…nearly all the cars you see are illegally parked (on both sides!). $160 fine for every car, every day https://maps.app.goo.gl/Xh6sFqEKgxsAtMfM8?g_st=ic
That's crazy. The front to kerb sign is like every 25 metres. Would be so easy not to spot that. I also don't think I've ever seen one of those signs that was front to kerb and not rear to kerb.
I've always just assumed angled parking is nose in and perpendicular parking is nose or rear in. That rule only exists to raise revenue and it should be banned...the law should change to only allow mandating nose in parking for angled parking. Forcing rear in on perpendicular parking is acceptable as it at least has some safety statistics and logic backing up that rule.
What’s worse is the signs are spaced quite far apart along the fence, so it’s easy to not see the sign. That didn’t apply to my wife as she parked right under the sign 😂 In this car park though, I don’t understand the logic for the front to kerb.
I do: Revenue. Literally no other reason for this stupid shit
It is safer rear to curb. In the UK, driving a company's vehicle, especially a commercial vehicle, a lot of the companies have a policy to park with the front facing out/ reverse in. They have this rule as data shows far less accidents, especially on commercial vehicles such as vans. It’s safer driving out a spot for visibility than reversing out.
I think it's to do with an emergency site exit requirement. If everyone is parked facing outwards there is far less conjestion when everyone leaves at once
The usual justification I've heard for it is if there are services that could be damaged on the wall in front of the car park - less chance of someone running into them nose in. That being said, from the street view of it, that doesn't apply here.
I’m just as baffled as my wife here. The parking on the opposite side to the fence is also front to kerb for no obvious reason. You can go there any day and maybe 80% of the cars are parked rear to kerb, so the parking ranger just comes around and it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. The only saving grace with the poor signage is that it’s impossible for the ranger to take a photo of a car in violation if they can’t get a photo of the sign in view at the same time as the car.
Could be for the drivers of massively lifted utes that if they reversed in and messed it up they could actually climb the concrete part of the wall, bend over the fence, and end up on the rail track.
Because some people legitimately don't like backing up into a tight parking space, because you want the boot to be facing away from the curb because main access is via carpark lanes, etc etc. Just because it's safer doesn't mean it's more convenient in some cases. The commentor didn't say anything about it being safer, just that there was no reason not to.
That's basically a legalised scam run by council.
I think this one is actually Transport NSW as it’s a train station. IMHO that makes it even worse as these are all rail commuters so they are there every day. Luckily we have so far only received one ticket, but we have to wait 6 weeks to know for sure because she can’t recall whether she parked that way in those spots other times.
I wonder what notifications there are outside of the Service NSW app, I personally use that app so would presumably get a push notification. Other people may not use that app and I know if I didn't use the app and I just got a text message (I barely check my emails anymore due to spam) I would ignore it as I would think it was a scam...because this is exactly the way scammers have been targeting all of us. That said, councils have no ability to refuse state governments, the government can literally appoint someone to run the council as local government only exists at the pleasure of the state governments and is actually just used to protect state governments from pressure and local electoral issues causing potential loss of seats for MPs.
The Rangers photograph the car and the signage, and or the meter expiration data. If you have grounds to contest it'll be in the photos?
Before I read the article I had the same opinion but it says they issue multiple warnings before sending a fine? Seems a bit more reasonable than I thought.
They absolutely do not issue warnings as standard practice. Park 15 minutes over the time when the car comes back, expect a fine over $100
I’m just going off what the article says so if that’s true then yeah I agree it’s bullshit. I know they definitely don’t issue warnings in QLD.
No, they don’t. You just get a fine in the mail 6 weeks later and scratch your head trying to figure out where you were parked at the time. You can search for the photo online
By stealth ticketing, some people had been issued multiple infringement notices before they even realised an offence had been committed. So.... basically trying to get as many hits as possible out of each offender. By removing immediate notification it becomes impossible for people issued notices to gather evidence to challenge the fine. No surprise there. *Totally* just looking out for parking ranger safety.
It's so annoying and frivolous. I live in an apartment and I keep getting fines from the RTA addressed to a different person. I sent them back with a "return to sender" even after 10 letters they keep sending so I just discard them.
I get random crap still 5+ years later from previous renters/owners. It's morons too lazy to update their details. I did the return to sender thing for a year then gave up on whatever was still coming. If they haven't updated their details for it, it must not be important to them.
I did the forward mail thing for a year after moving and changed addresses for mail I got, but honestly fuck knows who sends me shit anymore, if my old addresses are still getting Oxfam letters because they refuse to stop sending snail mail even though I stopped donating.
It's not about ranger safety. The rangers are still walking about, and it's obvious what they're doing (issuing infringements). I fail to see how the extra minute or so printing out the infringement notice and putting it on the windscreen endangers rangers in any significant way. What this is is about reducing the number of tickets that are contested in court. It'd be easy to see this if we compare the rates at which tickets from the ticketless councils are contested in court when compared to ones from ones that issue tickets. If you receive the notice a number of weeks later, the parking conditions may have changed/the driver is no longer in the area/etc. If someone is issued an infringement, they can gather evidence to support their contesting the ticket at that time.
I thought that "stealthing" was illegal! "Big fucks little"
Bruh, I know where every speed camera is in the Sydney highway tunnel system except for the cross city tunnel. It no excuse for speeding, but it’s positioned right at the exit of an off ramp, where people doing 55 in the right lane leave the left open (nothing illegal about it but shit annoying) It’s also at the bottom of the hill, so got caught twice hitting a couple of km over 80 (under 85) as i move around and accelerate down the hill to avoid slowmos They didn’t appear or show on my service NSW app till 2 weeks after the event, pretty sure I’ve made it past the date of the first and last one so it should just be 2. Like I said lesson learnt, but if it was an immediate notice or within 24 hours that would have been nicer. And maybe for speed cameras to not enforce within 4km/h of the speed limit unless it’s a school or residential area. Otherwise I’m just looking at my Speedo half the time instead of the road (chucked an aftermarket GPS Speedo on the dash at the windscreen level, but doesn’t help in tunnels obv) Just like tolls, the tunnel ones are pretty much cash raisers too. The M8 is set out a bit better, but most are still in areas that are perfect for when you are merging, or there is sections that people for sure will overtake someone sitting 5km under that then speeds up, all while not being marked except for the initial sign before the tunnel
Parking fines mate.
if you're not pushing 10km over the limit on a Sydney road you're basically parked
Is it really that hard to offer an instantaneous digital alternative? Every licence plate is tied to an identity in a government database. Just let people attach a phone number or email of their choice to it and receive the notification there. If you are worried about safety add a 1 hour delay so the ranger is gone from the area before they get the notice.
Yeah i really seems like this is something that should be instant.
Yeah make it instant so you can run out and abuse the guy... Sounds like a good idea, because I know a hell of a lot of people who'd do just that. They can just delay it 4 hours or so.
I dont know who is downvoting this opinion, cause its right. There should be enough time for the guy to move on to another section. Is a 15m delay really going to make it harder to fight the ticket?
I mentioned this before I scrolled to your comment. You said it better though.
If they were concerned for the safety of rangers they'd send them out to work in pairs
Also, if the state government actually wanted it to stop they'd make it a law instead of a request
What's safer? Working in pairs dishing out tickets physically or person driving around in the containment of their own secure car? It's the later. If they work in pairs that's just doubling the targets.
What's safer? Giving parking fines or not giving out parking fines? It's the later. Having fines infinitely increases targets But fines are needed I hear you cry. Yes paper tickets which are instant are needed. People need to be aware of the fine
It sounds more like you're searching for an excuse when there isn't really one. Rules/laws only work when enforced. Enforcing ones for vehicles means fines/demerits. It doesn't matter how they're given, just that they are. Sure giving them out on a massive delay and stacking up enough to make someone lose a license is bad, but I believe they have systems in place to prevent that already. Just read through this thread and you'll see all the people "surprised" their loved one who broke a rule didn't get more then one ticket for the same infraction... wonder why? Most people getting caught up in this sort of thing know they're doing the wrong thing and are just looking for excuses that it's not their fault and they shouldn't have to deal with it.
Or maybe instead of being regressive, maybe people should be progressive and argue for more innovative ways to instantly tell people they've been fined. Like an email, or a website. The best of both worlds.
You’re being downvoted, but there is no real excuse in this day and age of digital everything for them to take weeks to send out the fine : a script could easily be run to scan number plates against rego, issue a fine and then send instant notification to the contact listed on the rego. As others have said, it’s about revenue raising with deniability
How would you email the person who is driving the car at that specific time?
Parking fines don't tend to be issued to people who are driving. They're called parking fines not driving fines.
The driver parks the car. How do you issue them the fine?
"Safety" is why they don't leave a note after reversing into you either. https://youtu.be/GMkTLm6UyxA?si=0CykGqy8nDpCrz0v
Jeez.... That's pretty bad. I thought it was gonna be them not realising.... Yeah...... Nah.
The response from the city council was equally as infuriating stating they get consistent training in “health and safety”. Like, fuck off.. just have some common courtesy.
The last time I got a parking ticket, it was like the ranger was trying to goad me in to a reaction. It was probably 5 years ago; but I still remember his gleeful grin and “It’s a big one!” etc. being called after me as I walked away from him. I just rolled my eyes. Perhaps they need training in conflict avoidance.
He probably was made up of 50% arsehole and 50% "looking for a workers comp retirement".
This will show them for not letting me on the force.
[It's already in the system.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cinvIr-O1k8)
Okay. So cut their funding and support.
It already has been cut, just an excuse for them to go even harder with fines.
I got one a year ago, despite having a visitors permit clearly displayed on the dashboard. Only way I knew a ticket was coming was because I spotted the chalk on the tyre. If they'd had to stick a ticket under the windscreen wiper there is no way you can argue the permit wasn't there. A year later I'm still trying to fight it on principle. The ticketless approach is a joke and is purely to sting people multiple times, when they are unaware of the initial ticket.
They could have used an example of the typical Sydney parking signs that has four signs and about 18 different parking timings/days limits rather than a simple type.
Kinda hypocritical of the state government to criticise council when they do it too. How’s it any different to speed, red light, mobile phone and seatbelt cameras. Nobody is getting notified of those offences until way after the fact.
And that's one of the reasons I object to the existence of speed cameras, red light cameras, and mobile phone/seatbelt cameras. Sending someone a fine weeks after the fact is not about safety, it's about revenue raising. Especially because if something was so dangerous it needed to fined, it should have been dealt with on the spot - after all, waiting weeks to fine someone for something that's allegedly dangerous just shows it's not *really* dangerous since the act didn't hurt anyone at the time and wasn't important enough to bother with chasing up until weeks later.
> waiting weeks to fine someone for something that's allegedly dangerous just shows it's not really dangerous since the act didn't hurt anyone at the time and wasn't important enough to bother with chasing up until weeks later. This is absurd logic, you seriously cannot believe this nonsense? Just because you were speeding and didn't get into an accident doesn't automatically make speeding a safe and fine thing to do, same with running a red, same with using your phone while driving/not wearing a seatbelt, they're all objectively harmful things to do that lead to awful outcomes. Just because they don't always doesn't mean that it should just be allowed, or are you arguing they should only be able to fine Tim for blasting through a red once he's t-boned and killed someone? Bffr.
Running a red light is very obviously likely to kill or injure someone. Driving at 67km/h on a dual-lane road with a 60km/h limit is not. And we managed for nearly a century without red light cameras and people didn't treat red lights as optional, because they knew running one would result in injury or worse, and their insurance wouldn't cover them either.
> Driving at 67km/h on a dual-lane road with a 60km/h limit is not. You can't be ticketed for that, and going 10km/h over is objectively dangerous and massively increases the likelihood of you killing or injuring someone, the science on this has been know for literal decades, it's what informs the speed limits. > And we managed for nearly a century without red light cameras and people didn't treat red lights as optional, because they knew running one would result in injury or worse, and their insurance wouldn't cover them either. And if you look at the statistics, deaths by motor vehicle were enormous back then and since the introduction of red light cameras and a culture that doesn't treat it as a normal or good, the injury and death rates have plummeted. We also managed without seatbelts before their introduction, doesn't mean that they aren't a fantastic safety tool.
You absolutely can be fined for doing 67km/h on a 60km/h road. Lots of people have been.
I mean I don’t have a problem with road safety cameras, keeps you honest when you can’t see cops, I was more pointing out the hypocrisy.
What a total fraud by the councils!
Doesn't this sort of incentivize people to assault the rangers when they're spotted in public? It only takes 8 assaults a year.
With this current system they don't even leave their vehicles usually. They also utilise vehicles with ANPR now. Council vehicle fitted with cameras drives down street automatically registering number plates and GPS position which goes into database, they can then drive back down later and it figures out what vehicles have overstayed.
I mean, that does sound really efficient.
That's what I was going to say. A place I lived at had issues with people illegally parking around there. I found that supposedly councils can have parking rangers check it as part of their route, but when I discussed with Strata they told me the council said they didn't have enough people/time to have rangers check our spot that'd only take a few minutes. Sure could be BS, but also could just be the fact that not that many people do the job and having to do it manually would take ages in some big car parks, let alone all the streets in the area. Driving around with a scanner sounds like a pretty good way to enforce parking times and potentially booking those parked illegally in some way. I guess it also defeats the "go out and wipe off the chalk" or "roll the vehicle to hit the chalk mark".
This is some surveillance state shit. I remember when I was in LA many years ago I thought they had a pretty cool system. In front of each park was a meter, kind of like the old school ones you put coins into (but it wasn't they were digital) and they had a light on top - green for paid, and red for expired. The meter people would drive on what looked like golf carts, all around the streets, and if they say a red light on the meter they could easily jump out and issue the ticket. It just seemed to me to be a really well thought out system.
They have this at some councils in NZ except they transmit remotely so no attendance is needed.
Works for paid parking, not for time limited parking. Also all the crying in this thread is about people not attending issuing paper tickets.
Don’t see why it couldn’t work for time limited parking. It’s just a fancy occupancy sensor in any case.
Prefer this over other systems to be honest, just needs to get audited often enough to prove it's accurate and actually refund people if it's found to be inaccurate. Seen wind blow off tickets, seen people get pissed off at inspectors ECT. But for this, councils and governments also need to improve on public transport and parking as a whole. Around here, there are two parking lots, but only 100 cars total, and one is always closed off from public use anyhow. It has an hour of park time but the problem is its location, it takes you almost 20 minutes just to get to a shop that isn't a restaurant. So it spends most of its time half empty. And then there're a few spots near businesses that during your work day, you have to go out and move to a new space to avoid tickets because there is nowhere else to park, unless you want to add an hour walk from a residential area.
> It only takes 8 assaults a year. What does that mean?
So the state gov is getting rid of ticketless speed cameras too, right?
Speed cameras are fine, they just need to flash. None of these no flash cameras.
Surprised havnt moved to image tech that iPhone and apple use. Take a photo but also make a small 2-3 clip. gives extra evidence if disputed
Most of you seem to think it's okay to harass rangers. But when you drive around and can't find a park when you need it or find your way blocked, you'd complain as well. Now if you get fined unjustly, that's another thing but if they're just fining the privileged idiots who think they are above the rules set so everyone can enjoy the facilities, it's necessary.
Exactly right. There’s several streets near me where about 70% of the parkers think its fine and dandy for them to park illegally half on the footpath because the roads are narrow enough that they worry about their cars being dinged. Guess what: instead of blocking the way for pedestrians, especially those with prams, wheelchairs etc., how about you buy a more narrow car or simply don’t own one if you’re going to live in the inner west one block from a train station and 20 bus routes if your house doesn’t come with off street parking???
If they're issuing the most fines, it's very unlikely that they're just fining privileged idiots, though.
They were fining people who are legitimately parked or some people are allowed to park illegally?
If you're rising above the average, enough to get noticed by the state government, then something you are doing is wrong. You're so far outside the average you've either screwed up your parking badly, or you're issuing illegitimate fines. There isn't a lot of leeway there.
The issue is not raising the fines but not issuing physical tickets right there and then because of safety issues and the delay in informing those who made the violations, not because it was above average of fines - which is not an issue in itself. There's nothing that says parking violations has to be proportionally the same everywhere. Some areas will have a lot of them and it's all part of a system to manage traffic and give everyone a chance to park. It's not perfect and there may even be abuses, but if there's no enforcement, we won't have any sort of order.
but you don't have a chance to defend yourself if you don't know for 2-3 weeks. They should require a physical ticket
If you read some of the other posts, a guy and his Uni mates collected all the tickets left in cars by the ranger, caught up to him and started intimidating him. This was a guy doing his job in 32 degree heat. What is needed is probably a faster turnaround for issuing those tickets or for people to be aware enough not to part illegally in the first place. Perhaps photographs for evidence. If physical tickets are required, those whose jobs it is to issue those tickets do not deserve intimidation.
>But when you drive around and can't find a park when you need it or find your way blocked, you'd complain as well. Except those things have never been an issue for me or anyone else I know, which really just proves parking wardens aren't doing anything of benefit to society.
It's because they're doing their jobs that it's not an issue. If people find they can park at 15 min zones with no consequence, they would and no one else will be able to use it for instance.
>In a letter to mayors, Ms Houssos said the absence of tickets made it difficult for a driver to gather evidence to challenge a fine. Boom tish. They don't want people to be able to challenge the fine.
Exactly!
Mad idea, follow the parking rules and not get fined.
They make mistakes sometimes. I have a residential parking permit, valid, properly applied (duh), in the right zone. I got a ticket two months ago and they REJECTED my review because I didn’t have photographic evidence the permit was affixed properly at the time of the “offence”. The ranger deliberately took a photo where you can’t see my windscreen. Now I have to waste time, and take a day off work, showing up in court. The thing is these systems have flaws, mistakes, or rangers trying to meet a quota ticketing people parking legally. Checks and balances, like a paper notification, help protect against that.
Sounds like someone forgot to put up their permit one time...
The permit is a sticker attached to your windscreen. It's not something you apply on or off. It's also tamper evident, if you try to remove it, it leaves residue and is destroyed. (I know this because it's my third year with the permit; it renews annually). I've been parking in the same area for nearly 3 years now, and I was absolutely lucid to be getting a ticket for parking in a place I'm entitled to park at.
I got a fine notice in the mail in Brisbane a while back from when I was legally parked in front of a meter. I was lucky because I paid the meter with my credit card, and was able to show that I paid the exact amount for one hour of parking, to a parking meter in that suburb, less than an hour before the fine was issued. If it had been back in the days of coin-operated meters, or if they'd tried to do me for any other kind of parking offence, I'd have had no way to contest it. I am sure most fines are completely deserved but mistakes or malicious fines happen, and lack of accountability invites abuse.
Absolutely. Card payments and phones have lead to a wonderful ability to fight back against unfair fines.
The article says it’s a money spinner but I couldn’t see where it compared to before doing ticketless fines, so not sure how they can make that claim.
Just saw the Hills Council ranger driving around Rouse Hill Town Centre in their special car with full sensor and camera rig on top. Didn’t slow down - just maximum tickets with least amount of effort. What a joke.
You shouldn't have the right to park your private car on public land for free.
Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. If the state government is so against it, maybe they should give up their speed cameras, redlight cameras, mobile phone cameras and put cops back out on patrol instead.
Tax reform so that state governments don't feel the urgency to pilfer residents, anyone? Anyone?
So you shouldn't have to pay for parking anywhere?
I mean the broader practice of punitive revenue raising rather than paid parking, driven by state governments seeking extra revenue due to how tax is divvied between federal and state. $380 fine and 10 demerit points for a mobile phone camera flagging a driver eating banana bread comes to mind.
They should replace the fines with points off your license. At the moment parking fines are just an inflated and unevenly applied fee for parking.
I think in the ACT, if you don’t pay your parking fine(s) within 28 days, your licence is suspended. That’s a good incentive to pay your ticket(s), but it’s also concerning the potential for people to driving around on a suspended licence and the legal implications if in an accident etc.
A friend got one in Port Macquarie for overstaying when she didn't, she was parked for 10 minutes in a 30 minutes spot and have video evidence and witnesses of her leaving work, driving out of the property and returning all within 20 minutes. The council would not cancel the fine, she took it to court and the court still wouldn't find that it was falsely issued. If they find one fault with their system, all tickets ever issued can be challenged I guess. They're just money grubbing cunts.
Years ago when I lived in Glebe and they offered *one parking permit per household even if your name was on the lease with another* I got $2500 of parking fines in one year. There was **no parking** on my street for me (after my flatties GF nabbed the parking permit without telling me) before 9pm and the car had to be moved hourly by 8am. Between that and a similar situation in Surry Hills at work (I used to ride to work when I found an unmetered park at home.... When I could I rode) I got so fed up I left and haven't been back. On the unmetered park... There was ONE car park behind a pub on my street. As you can imagine it was sought after. One time my car was parked there (for a week--that's what you do) , a resident of the street, and the workers at the pub called the police to come remove/ticket my registered vehicle. I just happened to see the cops milling around and asked them if I could help them? ... I own it yes. I live here. Yes. It's registered and roadworthy. Yes. They left but not before I asked them why they were looking at my car in particular. Turns out the staff at the pub liked to park *their cars* there because you know... It was the only free car park in Glebe essentially. So I went into the pub and got into a mild discussion with the bar staff who said "We didn't know it was yours (regular) but where are we supposed to park?". "I fucken live on this street. You work here. Don't go trying to get my car towed ever again. I know the parking situation is shit but it's a public car spot on a public street. Whoever is in the park, owns it." "We can't afford the parking around here", was their response. "Welcome to my world". I said. Sydney parking is a joke. It's just revenue raising for the most part.
> Years ago when I lived in Glebe and they offered one parking permit per household even if your name was on the lease with another This information was available to you before you signed the lease, and you still moved in with more vehicles than you could store?
TBH we just assumed that if your name on the lease you'd get a car park. What I fucking idiot I am! And no Einstein they don't provide that info on the fucking leases! Rea's tend to have their influence and at the front door. They're not really in collab with the fucking parking Gestapo are they!? And yeah when paying through the nose to live somewhere, people in a car orientated culture who have to go to work to support themselves (hence the fucking car) sometimes assume that they'll be able to park their car! But no you're right. Good argument. Especially in a thread relating to how parking is revenue raising. So I take your contention is, in an overheated housing market (as it was then too) that one is to choose between housing and the ability to travel to your employment? Can't have both? Privileged thinking as some other muppet said. Good work. Wake up.
You lived in an area where the average car ownership is 0.9 per household, and you owned two. Where the median person doesn't drive to work. In a massively expensive suburb. Where parking permit information is available to google. And you call other people privileged? Pot, meet kettle. [You can search ](https://www.realestate.com.au/rent/in-glebe,+nsw+2037/list-1?numParkingSpaces=2&activeSort=price-asc&source=refinement) housing and parking simultaneously. You can have housing and storage of your private property simultaneously. You just have to google it.
It's like all the morons near me who rent a place, but can't fit their vehicle in the garage or have multiple vehicles, but with a busy street. So they illegally park, get fines, cry about it. Dude, you chose to rent when you knew you couldn't park your vehicles properly, you made a poor choice, no one else did, park on the street or eat the fines.
In dense areas, free street parking is an incredibly inefficient use of space and amounts to thousands of dollars of annual subsidy for car owners. We don’t allow residents to store anything else in the public roadway such as wardrobes, desks etc. so you really need to acknowledge that being allowed to do so for even a single multi tonne metal box is already a very privileged position.
TBH we just assumed that if your name on the lease you'd get a car park. What I fucking idiot I am! And no Einstein they don't provide that info on the fucking leases! Rea's tend to have their influence and at the front door. They're not really in collab with the fucking parking Gestapo are they!? And yeah when paying through the nose to live somewhere, people in a car orientated culture who have to go to work to support themselves (hence the fucking car) sometimes assume that they'll be able to park their car! But no you're right. Good argument. Especially in a thread relating to how parking is revenue raising. So I take your contention is, in an overheated housing market (as it was then too) that one is to choose between housing and the ability to travel to your employment? Can't have both? Privileged thinking as some other muppet said. Good work. Wake up.
I specifically rented in locations which enabled me to get to work without a car for over a decade. It’s a simple mindset shift that far too many people forget is possible. But then again, I grew up walking and using public transport too, not ferried everywhere in a car. 🤷♀️
No see, you are privileged to have built your life around transport and the fact parking is limited in some areas. Unlike that wanker who isn't privileged to live in an inner city suburb and drive everywhere without thinking out the consequences.
> TBH we just assumed that if your name on the lease you'd get a car park. Apart from don't assume. Think it out for a second. What would unscrupulous people do to game such a system? They'd get as many people on the lease as possible. NSW there is no minimum age that can sign a lease. You can get your child to co sign a lease as it is in thier benefit. And bam, extra parking permit. Uni students share house gets the actual leaseholder and their parents to cosign. And suddenly you have 3x the permits as there are spaces on the street and you'd be ranting about paying for a permit but never getting a spot anyway.
The only parking ticket I’ve ever received I was incorrectly issued. 2 hour parking area, I was parked for less than 30 minutes. I gathered my Google location history and successfully had the fine withdrawn (no apology mind you, the fuckers) Point is - My google history auto wipes every few days. I wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on if they mail that shit out, and the kicker is they wouldn’t have any proof either! A photo of a car parked? Do they take one time stamped before and after? No of course not, my word versus theirs and they would win.
This is where the culture of being an overly obedient society gets rather annoying. For example, it doesn't matter how punative and ridiculous speeding fines are, or how speed traps are deployed, there's always an active attitude of "if you don't speed then you have nothing to worry about". I've lost family in car fatalities where they were doing everything right, and my family will still detest this attitude of blind obedience without a 2nd thought.
Do these get sent from the infringement processing bureau? If so, why not prevent those councils from being allowed to receive the money? Surely removing the incentive (the money) will cause them to change their behaviour?
Paid parking and parking tickets are like crack cocaine to councils. Once they get a taste of that sweet sweet revenue they will never roll it back, even if it's proven to be detrimental to business.
> even if it's proven to be detrimental to business. Go on. Show me the studies where encouraging faster parking turnover is bad for business.
Go on, show me the study where paid parking attracts customers? I'd love to show you the study that says that local CBDs with short parking turnover are flourishing against large shopping centres that have 3hr free parking. But not surprisingly, it doesn't exist.
You make the first claim, you provide the first source. [Pitt street westfield](https://www.scentregroup.com/our-customers/westfield-destinations/westfield-eastgardens), annual turnover 1.08 billion. Annual visitors 30 million. Eastgardens westfield, 0.67 billion. Annual Visitors 10.6 million
So 3 hour free parking is still paid parking and encourages parking turnover that is good for businesses. 3 hour free parking is a good thing (compared to free unlimited parking)
3 hour free parking is still paid parking? No its not, its free. The clue is in the word Free. You keep arguing about parking turnover, but I never argued against it or said anything about free unlimited parking. My comment was about councils not giving up parking revenue. Paid short duration parking isn't good for business and does nothing for turnover. It's purely a revenue stream for councils.
> Paid short duration parking isn't good for business and does nothing for turnover. Again. Prove it. > It's purely a revenue stream for councils. And why is that a bad thing? They own the land, they built the parking spot. Why should my council rates go to subsidising your lifestyle choices?
So parking turnover argument fails so just start saying hypocritical random shit? We, being the ratepayers paid for the infrastructure including roads, footpaths, parking spots, street furniture, street lights, bike paths, libraries, all of it. Are you advocating everything be user pays or just cherry picking the stuff you don't care about? If your using any part of that infrastructure then someone else's council rates are subsidizing your lifestyle choices too.
[Again](https://www.passportinc.com/blog/the-benefits-of-increased-parking-turnover/) [you](https://www.sightline.org/2012/03/28/is-metered-parking-boosting-business/) [have](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096969891100124X) yet to back up your claims while i've repeatedly provided sources. > Are you advocating everything be user pays or just cherry picking the stuff you don't care about? I'm advocating a policy that allows infra be available to use for everyone. Without paid parking you have streets monopolised by the first person to get there in the morning and then everyone else misses out.
You are intentionally conflating timed parking with paid parking to continually argue against something I never said. You can have timed street parking without paid parking. We had it for decades and it worked fine.
> You can have timed street parking without paid parking. And what happens when you go over the time limit? You pay. Paid parking.
In QLD the state government can sack a council if they want to. Does NSW have that power?
Parking inspectors should be concerned about their safety. Absolute scum
I assumed people became rangers because the have a kink for being sceamed at.
I've had my license suspended so many times the past few years since this was introduced because I never fucking know I've been fined. (I have a motorbike with a dead starter motor and I can't move it, there was a period where I was getting fined every day for over a month)
What may happen, and it's already happening in the Sydney CBD, is that more parking zones will shift from local council to Properties NSW enforcement. I'm old enough to remember when parking officers were all NSW Police before it was turned over to council, and if councils want to be dicks about it, their revenue stream can be taken away.
Greedy bastards.
[удалено]
It is assault. You came in as a gang and threatening which is really what you wanted to do. This is just someone doing their job. Turn the situation around and you will see how threatening that act would be if you were the ranger. You're lucky you didn't get charged. Assaulting a public servant doing their duties carries a specific criminal charge.
This is what some people don't get, battery is the actual act of hitting someone, assault is a separate charge and deosnt involve the actual physical portion, it is the fear of the violence.
Well, they think as long as they don't touch someone, they're not breaking the law. Intimidating people with numbers and a threat of violence is criminal enough.
[удалено]
You didn't have to. A group of you confronting him is enough. It's like suddenly appearing to someone in a dark alley. The threat is implied. You undid all of his work. That is harassment on top. How would you feel if someone went to your workplace and doing something similar? You yourself said it was a 32 degree day and he was out working in that heat. How will people be able to have their fair go at parking if all the people can just park as long as they want? The parking limits are there to make it fair. You just think some people have the privilege to ignore the rules.
[удалено]
Vulnerable people with cars parked illegally? What of the other vulnerable people who need a park to see a doctor or some other appointment? When do they get their chance, boss?
[удалено]
Well get on to your counselors and the state government. Bloke is just doing his job. Can you not see any possible reason for that area not being a parking zone?
[удалено]
Are they able to park in front of their houses? It's the boomers again of course.
Were you trying to stand over and intimidate them? Yes/no? Don't answer, I don't trust you. But whatever the truth is, determines whether what you did was larrikin fucking about or actually not ok at all.
[удалено]
If you weren't trying to intimidate them then the charge is ridiculous. Sorry you had to deal with that crap. If it was racially motivated vindictiveness that ranger can get fucked. Given the state of the place I'm sure that bullshit happens all the time.
[удалено]
Yeah, but I was asking what your intent was anyway. I'm glad reason prevailed.
> "You dropped these, don't worry, we'll bin them for you," That's good stuff!
When one's revenue depends on someone else's misery. We have our system.
That's bullshit they even state before that it was 45 incidents to now 30 incidents. That's barely a drop, that could have been caused by an aggressive staff member resigning.
The worst was removing the need for the parking inspectors to use a ticket as a fine
This might be a mad suggestion, but what if we cover our license plates when the car is parked? Rangers driving around with camera rigs to automatically track and report parking infringements would fail. The question is, have they made a law against that?
https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/vehicle-registration/vehicle-number-plates/displaying-number-plates
Some of those rules are very confusing... the rule about plate lights seems to say they must be illuminated, but not by projecting white light - not sure how you are supposed to illuminate something without projecting light. Probably should have got a scientist or engineer to help the lawyers draft that one. The diagrams showing the viewing angles for plates are also confusing.
I'm not going to argue that any government regulation is clear and illuminating (tee hee) but it's obviously true that covering your license for the purpose of stymying parking enforcement is illegal.