|What is Citynoise?..... Today's posts..... This month..... Recent Comments..... Contact..... RSS Feed.... Post your own Citynoise.....|
browse by city
The Anti-Sit, Part 2:
browse by author
Best Costco Moment of 2008
[previous] :: [next]
LMAO!!! I am SO proud to be that jerk. I even stopped the Pointe Claire public security officer who gave the ticket and asked him how he felt about giving the ticket. He was pretty professional and said he was just doing his job. But he also said some tickets are a little easier to hand out than others, and this was definitely one of them.
I smiled for the rest of the day.
This article has been viewed 34047 times in the last 6 years
Cartlegger: 25th Aug 2008 - 00:22 GMT
So is that YOUR car if You are the jerk, or have I misread.
but love the story no matter which is the case.
EvilGentleman: 25th Aug 2008 - 00:45 GMT
LOL! No, I am the jerk who took pictures of the other jerk's car and posted them online.
zagg: 25th Aug 2008 - 01:45 GMT
What an ass! I agree with joey - jerk should get 4 tickets for such an amazing and skillful parking job!
little ukraine: 25th Aug 2008 - 13:33 GMT
sad thing is the owner might very well be glad to pay the tickets just to be assured his or her precious car is safe.
EvilGentleman: 25th Aug 2008 - 13:58 GMT
Hopefully, he will forget to pay his tickets one day, and be led away in handcuffs... or towed.
Beardo: 25th Aug 2008 - 21:00 GMT
The only thing missing is wheelchair scuff on the side of his shinny new paint. Jerk off.
eyeofodin: 8th Sep 2008 - 07:52 GMT
but since it is such a nice car, he shouldn't have gotten tickets. I am all for the rich getting off easy. I mean, why change the way things have always been? stupid cop....
anon (modemcable042.35-201-24.mc.videotron.ca): 13th Oct 2008 - 14:22 GMT
really nice car....the person should have got 4 tickets, and they should have towed the car to Verdun...
grange: 2nd Nov 2008 - 05:55 GMT
Man oh man evil ,,,I sign in for the first time in 8 months and find this gem ...LOL....well Done !!!!
zagg: 2nd Nov 2008 - 07:31 GMT
So, I know I'm pretty immature, and I never noticed this the first 10 times I read this post but ... anyone else now see by parking exactly where it did, in the 2nd photograph ... the white car has a ... white penis?
Sorry, Zagg is going to go to bed now and sleep off her alcohol and exhaustion.
Mime: 3rd Nov 2008 - 11:27 GMT
Fortunately, the branched missed my bike but the main part where the branch joined the tree was resting comfortably between the side mirror and the window of the car next to me. I thought I'd be polite and move it so it didn't do anymore damage; as it was a windy day; and whilst moving it I noticed it left a big scratch on the passenger door. Oops but not really anyone's fault.
Then I noticed the hub cap, in the centre was the BMW logo...
devils advocate: 9th Feb 2009 - 03:50 GMT
While I agree that the guy deserves a ticket, I think all the glee is a little much.
Most of the time assholes decide to park like this because there are a number of other assholes who like to 'accidentally' bump their doors into people who have cars like these (they can afford to fix them after all). Plus while he definitly deserves the parking ticket for choosing to use a handicapped spot, I think someone should point out that he has parked in such a way that the other four spots are still very much accessible. In fact you'll notice that three of these spots do actually have other cars in them in your first photo, and all four spots have cars parked in them in the second to last picture.
So the person has parked their car in such a way as to keep anyone from scratching the paint, but has not actually prevented anyone with a handicapped permit from being able to park in any of the four spots, and in the name of _____, well I am not quite sure what, you have decided to publish his licence plate (a fairly serious privacy violation) on the internet.
I know this isn't the kind of comment that is going to go over with people well in here, but seriously posting the owner's licence plate on the internet with captions about how they are such an asshole, not cool. The only purpose served by that, is to allow people to track the owner down and do asshole things to them.
EvilGentleman: 10th Feb 2009 - 06:58 GMT
Yup. Ever wonder why those handicapped spots are so big? Wheelchairs, walkers and the like need space.
As for my being an asshole to that asshole, I agree. I am guilty as charged and damn proud of myself, if I may say so. Glee becomes me.
At least I was nice enough not to TYPE his plate number so that it would pop up in a Google search. And I did not key his precious paint job, either.
I have no sympathy for assholes that think they are too important to have to obey the rules of society. I was raised with a little concept known as consideration. He (or she) showed none, so why should I?
And this person is wealthy enough to afford this car, but cheap enough to shop at Costco. Probably needs to save his money to pay off his tickets, LOL.
If anyone does anything to him, that is his problem. I would never do any such thing. It's illegal, you know.
And I am definitely getting a laugh from the realization that you used the words internet and private in the same sentence, while discussing the rights of someone doing something illegal in a Costco parking lot.
Maybe we can just ask everyone to cover their eyes, hehe.
Peter: 10th Feb 2009 - 14:53 GMT
posting the owner's licence plate on the internet with captions about how they are such an asshole, not cool.
...yet strangely not really all that different from driving around with a visible plate in real-life, and parking your luxury car in 4 handicap spaces.
fairly serious privacy violation
i always laugh when people try to make the argument that taking a photo of something that happened in a 100% public area is a violation of privacy. lol. no, a violation of privacy is breaking into the guys garage and taking a photo of his license plate.
you may not be for reveling in it, but trying to play devil's advocate to rationalize such antisocial parking behavior is, well, silly, and no one is going to take you seriously with such comments.
devils advocate: 18th Feb 2009 - 06:16 GMT
I am back, and this time I have done some research. While I will admit right off the bat that my case file is loose as it is based off of a cable company broadcasting images online and on a TV channel the underlying principal applies. It is not legal to broadcast personal information such as licence plates on the internet or on TV by any federal agency, undertaking, or business. Laws like these are why shows blur personal details out.
Peter your example is ridiculous... breaking into someones garage isn't a privacy violation, its breaking and entering AND a privacy violation. Thats two different counts.
I was not seeking to rationalize his 'antisocial parking behaviour' I was simply trying to point out that the guy likely thought out a way to park without blocking the four spaces. If he was really trying to be antisocial he would have simply parked in one of the handicapped spots and said F*%K it.
Taking a photo of someone's identification information, like a licence plate and publishing it on the web or on TV is not legal. You may find it funny that I used the terms internet and private in the same sentence but the only reason I am doing so is because the photo puts the two together. The Assholes personal information is not by default connect to the internet, it took another 'admitted' asshole to put it there. ;)
An individual complained that a local cable company was improperly collecting personal information, by means of a video camera that it had installed outside of its office, and then broadcasting this information on its local television channel and Web site.
Jurisdiction: As of January 1, 2001, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (the Act) applies to any federal work, undertaking, or business. The Commissioner had jurisdiction in this case because a broadcasting company is a federal work, undertaking, or business as defined in the Act.
Application: Section 2 defines personal information to be "...information about an identifiable individual...".
Since it was not possible to identify an individual or discern a licence plate number on either the television channel or the Web site, the Commissioner determined that the information captured by the camera did not qualify as personal information for the purposes of the Act.
He therefore concluded that the complaint was not well-founded.
By extension, if it had been possible to identify an individual or discern a licence plate number the information captured (from a public space) would have then qualified as personal information for the purposes of the act and the complaint would have been well-founded.
So in this case if Mr. Asshole ever bothers to read citynoise and discovers that his licence plate has been published he would be well within his rights to take you to the privacy commission. If some "I hate rich snobs who park in handicapped spaces vigilante" decides to look up his personal information using any number of free online plate search tools and then "does anything to him," and it then comes out that Mr vigilante got that information from here it is your problem, or possibly Citynoise's problem for providing said vigilante with the information.
I find it odd how people can be so worked up about some rights and laws for one group (proper parking for the disabled) and yet at the same time completely disregard, even revel in the disregarding of the rights for another group (privacy rights for the individual).
You can claim that Mr Asshole gave up his right to privacy by parking in the middle of the handicapped spaces, but thats just rationalizing it for yourself. The only thing he gave up by parking in that spot was the right to not get a ticket.
Peter: 18th Feb 2009 - 14:48 GMT
youre just plain wrong, devil's advocate. drivers registrations are public record in almost every american state and canadian province. though its a bit of a gray area, youd be hard-pressed to prosectute it in court. search the web, there are only about a million sites that would disagree with you. you see, law provides for a loop-hole in regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy". if you take your car out of your garage and leave it out on public streets (or in a public lot, in this case), you have zero expectations of privacy and will be treated so by any court of law.
next time, instead of finding the one exception that might vaguely prove your point, pay attention to the majority of information that makes your point ludicrous.
EvilGentleman: 18th Feb 2009 - 16:07 GMT
Well, at least we get to have some fun debating, hehe.
If you want another good post with privacy issues, try A Homeless Man Sleeping with His Most Cherished Possession
I am not a Governmental agency or a business. I am a private individual. Does this change anything? I am honestly not sure. But based on the specificity of the defined jurisdiction you quoted, I suspect it makes a big difference.
As far as Citynoise goes, it is a USA-based personal blog site that has evolved into a generalized photoblog site that sells advertising space to earn a little extra cash to pay its bills. I highly doubt that Peter makes enough from it to be a wealthy man. I am not even certain that Peter makes any money off it at all. Citynoise is a labour of love.
Trying to apply a Canadian electronic privacy law to an American website would be difficult at best, and if any hotshot lawyer wants to set a precedent, I think they would be much more likely to start off with websites containing courtroom testimony under Canadian publication bans that are made available to Canadians via US internet servers. The Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka case comes to mind.
I think the most likely scenario is that sooner or later, someone who knows the driver of the car will say, "Hey dude, someone posted an embarassing photo of your plate online." And if that occurs, the driver will simply opt to get a different plate the next time he goes to register his car. The cost is still the same anyways.
Even if he decides to make a fuss, Citynoise can delete any and all material on its site at will. I imagine Peter would simply delete the photos with the plate, and send me an email. I would then upload the photos again, with the plate obscured in some manner, and ask Peter to edit the photo links to point at the newer photos.
But all of this is pointless. Before you can ever get to this point, think of the millions of personally identifying elements in photos posted on Facebook, MySpace, etc. If there is a license plate in the background, I doubt there was permission sought for the posting of the plate number online.
So go ahead, make a fuss. If anyone ever decides to take something of this sort to court, I am pretty sure that we will have the support of companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft etc, as they also have a serious interest in making sure nobody opens the Pandora's box of insisting on privacy rights intruding on public domain.
In Darien, Connecticut, I was sitting in a parking lot filming the local scenery with a video camera while waiting for my wife and kids to finish shopping. I saw a cop car sitting in line at a nearby drive-thru, and for some reason, instead of filming them, I asked permission first.
The cops thanked me for asking, because if I had filmed them without permission, they would have confiscated my video camera. Later on, I thought about it, and came to realization that they would have been breaking the law had they done that.
LET FREEDOM REIGN!
Peter: 18th Feb 2009 - 16:13 GMT
now im sort of hoping the bad parker emails me, hahaha. id love to discuss his parking job with him ;)
re: the cops... here are some interesting links:
sorry to take it further off-topic, but sometimes threads that lead to these sorts of discussions are the most interesting (and perhaps, ultimately, the most important).
thanks again for yet another thought-provoking post, eg :)
devils advocate: 17th Mar 2009 - 09:31 GMT
The article about the homeless man is an interesting one, and I would tend to agree with you that it is one of the best photos I have seen on Citynoise.
But there is a key difference between that photo and these. The viewer doesn't have any way to identify or look up the person in the photo unless they know him. You are right Evil in that you are not a governmental agency or business, but citynoise is an 'undertaking' as defined by the act.
Peter you state that my one exception that might vaguely prove my point is ludicrous and yet you don't bother to come up with anything to support your supposition, aside from the comment that “that there are about a million sites that disagree with me,” which means nothing since 90% of the web is opinion, and you don't bother to actually list any of said sites or counter information, and the news articles about a journalists right to shoot at public events isn't going to help you since the newspapers (businesses) that journalists work for would be editing identifiable information out of the photo. I think my case file from the privacy commission would apply here no?
You are also missing the point on the driver's registrations. While the data bases are public and searchable on the internet the identifying numbers are not, and are not supposed to be since they are 'information about an identifiable individual.' I can't say do a search for “pictures of asshole's licence plate numbers” so that I can look them up in one of said databases and send them hate mail... oh wait I can and the first hit is citynoise and this particular thread.
Your definition of reasonable expectation of privacy is a frightening one for sure. You are right I am sure that he would be being hard pressed to prosecute it in a court of law, that point is proven by how much the paparazzi get away with in the USA. Of course this particular definition of privacy;
..law provides for a loop-hole in regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy". if you take your car (or self) out of your garage and leave it out on public streets (or in a public lot, in this case), you have zero expectations of privacy and will be treated so by any court of law....
so really there isn't any argument against a big brother state is there anymore? I guess that if I step outside of my house then its perfectly fine for anyone to record anything I do and put it up on the internet or a viewing room to watch me is there?
I doubt that facebook would come to your rescue, since before you upload anything to it and the other sites you mentioned you have to state that you have permission to post said photo. Having permission to post said photo assumes that you have done your due diligence to insure that it conforms to the law.
Unlike most sites on the Web, Facebook limits access to site information by third party search engine "crawlers" (e.g. Google, Yahoo, Live Search, Ask). Facebook takes action to block access by these engines to personal information beyond your name, Profile picture and limited aggregated data about your Profile (e.g. number of Wall postings).
besides once you upload a picture to facebook you have given them the licence for the picture so they can do whatever the hell they want with it including smearing out the identifiable characteristics in it instead of spending money on a lawsuit.
All of this is to some extent moot, I didn't start off arguing the legal aspects of posting a person's private information on the web, I was questioning the motivation behind it. The fact that such a populist website that champions so many good causes could basically not give a shit that they are ignoring a very basic right is troublesome. I stated that I found it odd that people were revelling in the fact that this guy was getting what he deserved by having his identifiable information placed in an online forum that trumpets that he is an asshole. Sure post the photos of the car, talk about what an asshole he is, just don't make it simple for someone to track down his home address. Is anything actually being gained by leaving the plate number in the photo? Is it somehow integral?
Franny Wentzel: 17th Mar 2009 - 12:51 GMT
Just because you have someone's plate number it doesn't mean maybe his/her stupid girl/boyfriend or loser brother/sister in law or no good rotten demonspawn of his/hers didn't borrow the car that day and get this ticket.
Peter: 17th Mar 2009 - 13:20 GMT
see, theres the rub. its not someone's "private information". its their license plate, which is not only in the public domain, but clearly displayed to the public on a daily basis. its not like the person's name and address has been published or something. and unless this is your car (perhaps it is, as youre visiting from a quebec ip), id be more worried about "random nameless crusaders starting arguments online that make a much bigger deal of your license plate than would otherwise be made" than i would about the plate itself.
the reason why i didnt give you "specific" links is because a) i dont care that much about this increasingly rhetorical thread to put in my own time to dig up reasons and stats that youll just ignore anyway b) when theres a clear and obvious consensus (both legally and in terms of public opinion) backing my opinion, there is no need to prove anything c) youre an anonymous rabble-rouser who only drops in every month or so, so why bother?
beyond that, i guess its just that i dont get what your big hoot-n-holler is about, "devil's advocate". people drive their cars around in public every day, and thousands upon thousands of people can/do see their license plates.
how is putting it online any different?
also, you might like this link: ilpdb.com
or perhaps these:
Peter: 17th Mar 2009 - 14:06 GMT
furthermore, because almost all license plate data is within the public domain, pretty much anyone can search for it for a nominal processing fee:
anyone want to do a search for quebec license plate number 728 WHQ?
EvilGentleman: 17th Mar 2009 - 15:31 GMT
All this debate is irrelevant. I just happen to have a love of picking on arrogant assholes. That's all.
The driver of the car provided me with all the material, all I had to do was push the shutter button on my camera.
As far as the privacy issues go, it's a Costco parking lot. We are all subject to the same scrutiny and the possibility of being photographed. But most of us do not do such wonderful jobs of attracting negative attention to ourselves.
As far as any risks to the owner of the vehicle go, the only seriously dangerous thing is how we all continue to comment here, thus drawing more attention, and causing the page to appear higer up in ranked Google listings.
Someone would have to pretty messed up in the head to go and target some guy for a bad parking job. As a photoblogger, this was one of those "too good to resist" moments. In any other context, to actually seek this guy out and cause this guy harm would require a seriously deranged mind.
To any parking vigilantes out there, why not go after those idiots who manage to use up two spots downtown for their subcompact? Or better yet, the infamous double parker.
Peter... Typing the plate number like that... you bad ;)
devils advocate: 18th Mar 2009 - 05:28 GMT
ummm this link;
is pretty much exactly what I am talking about, albeit in internet parlance. Its pretty clear on why posting a persons licence plate online can lead to some scary shit. Stalkers are mentioned. Most of the other links just tell me about how easy it is, the 'How' link talks about deciding between hiring a private investigator or just doing it by yourself, the squidoo link is another 'how to use online data bases to research someones plate' article.
These examples don't really support posting a person's identifiable information or licence plate online. Canadian privacy legislation uses 'Since it was not possible to identify an individual or discern a licence plate number on either the television channel or the Web site' as it's main criteria in the case. Yes this is an American website, but this is the Montreal section so Canadian privacy legislation should be fair to mention. Sure, it is unlikely that anyone would ever start a court case over the images of this particular asshole being a jerk, but that doesn't make posting the guy's licence plate number (Name, address, etc.) ok. It's ok because I can get away with it?
I think that somewhere in the realm of a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' there is a difference between 'visible to anyone who happens to be in the immediate physical surroundings' and the entire internet. I think that, is essentially where we fundamentally disagree, my impression is that you don't think there is a difference between people being able to see your licence plate vs being able to google for it.
And while yes I don't post very often, I am actually a frequent visitor to citynoise, so while I may be a lurker I'm not a random nameless crusader, I mean seriously? how are most of the other handles on this site any less nameless? I just decided to express an opinion different from most of the others in this thread and then defend it, I didn't assume that you would just ignore the two minutes of research I did to support said defence.
Peter: 18th Mar 2009 - 13:07 GMT
at this point, im not sure what youre arguing. at first, it was merely that "this sort of post isnt cool". then it was some half-baked legal assumptions about it. weve all said our piece, i guess, so... back to regular programming ;)
EvilGentleman: 24th Mar 2009 - 03:23 GMT
Hmmmm... can I sue the government for causing mental anguish? All these laws confuse me...
devils advocate: 25th Mar 2009 - 19:16 GMT
My arguement (albeit expanded one) stays the same, both that its not cool and bordering on, if not is, a violation of privacy laws in the juristiction that it was taken. That it was weird to me that one could trumpet the rights of one group (those who have a right to those spaces) while violating the rights of another (privacy rights).
But your right, I think we've all said our peice so I'll go back to lurking. ;)
Peter: 25th Mar 2009 - 19:34 GMT
theres the rub. theres a big difference between you not liking something and it being illegal. apples and oranges much? what you think is cool or not is merely a matter of your opinion, and although you might consider it borderline in this case, the fact remains that its neither illegal nor by any means infringing on any individual's rights to privacy to post something displayed in public on the internet. so for me, the gripe is that you made a stink pretty much because someone disagreed with you about something theyre perfectly in the right to disagree with you about. lol.
all of that silliness aside, though, let me return to a major point i wanted to make, which is that if you think that any information you freely display in public (like a tag number, for example, or your commentary on this site or every time you walk past a security camera or any of a zillion other things) has any sort of privilege of privacy at all outside of what is clearly covered by specific privacy rights, you are mistaken.
like, for example, i know who else you have posted as on this site because you have publicly broadcast your IP address- much like a license-plate- to our server every time youve logged on. i also see that you log on from a bell canada ISP via a sympatico gateway, which isnt difficult to trace back to your physical billing address. see? youre practically handing me your identity and home address without even knowing it! i say if you think that such privacy invasion isnt cool, you consider getting a firmer grip on what info is available and rethinking how much of that personal information of yours youre putting out there without even being aware of it... because its not like im stealing it or posting it... youre just handing it right to me (and every other website you visit) without even thinking twice about it, and then trying to claim that its an invasion of your privacy that youve done so.
EvilGentleman: 29th Mar 2009 - 21:28 GMT
Well said, Peter.
Hence my first rebuttal posted on Feb 10th included the words,
"And I am definitely getting a laugh from the realization that you used the words internet and private in the same sentence, while discussing the rights of someone doing something illegal in a Costco parking lot."
David: 30th Mar 2009 - 02:30 GMT
That's good that it got a ticket for parking like that. How rude! It should have been towed!!!
devils advocate: 12th Apr 2009 - 19:32 GMT
not willing to let the argument drop Peter?
You are right my argument started off by saying simply that it isn't cool, you brought it to the legal argument with your assertion that 100% of what happens in the public realm is legal to post on the internet for the whole world.
Its not an opinion as to whether it is a privacy law violation. I am pretty sure that if you spoke to an actual Canadian lawyer they would tell you that it IS in violation of Canadian Privacy laws. I'm not making a 'stink' because you disagreed with me, I am making a 'stink' because I think its ridiculous that while citynoise appears to be a populist website that champions things like civil liberties etc. Privacy somehow doesn't doesn't fall into that category, or maybe the site don't think those things should apply to the supposedly wealthy. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the site doesn't actually give a shit about civil rights and liberties unless it suits.
If you had been paying attention to my earlier argument where I presented the case from the privacy commission it is pretty clearly outlined that businesses and undertakings (like for example a website) don't have a right to just post or "identify an individual or discern a licence plate number on either the television channel or the Web site" but you disagree. However its pretty clear that Canadian Privacy legislation leans more in my direction then yours. Which returns to my point, in the US maybe it is true that anything that happens outside is free game, but NOT in the jurisdiction that the photo was taken. I mean seriously... security cameras are specifically mentioned in the case study, yet you use them in your rebuttal.
From the research I have done on the Federal Privacy Commission website, it IS a violation, and I am talking about what is clearly covered by specific privacy rights as you say. The only reason that I have kept back from saying definitively that it is, is because I am not a lawyer or a judge. Its the same reason that you are not qualified to say that it isn't.
Congrats for your IP sleuthing. I am aware of how they work, I happened to discover a major hole in the network security for my university back in 1999 that handed out dorm room numbers when you pinged the ip. Your assertion that by giving you my IP address I am handing over my billing information and address is false. All I have given you is my IP address, one of many in Bell sympatico's network. I happed to have worked for Telecom companies and know for a fact that if Bell sympatico were to release my billing address to you without my permission then they would be in gross violation of both government privacy legislation and their own privacy policies. Something I could most definitely sue the pants off them for.
I mean seriously if it were as easy as you are trying to suggest then the record companies wouldn't be suing ISPs for the billing information of people who they want to go after for downloading music because down loaders would just be handing it to them wouldn't they?
Maybe I would be willing to concede your point if you actually presented any real evidence to support it.
Peter: 12th Apr 2009 - 20:29 GMT
sue me for "invasion of privacy", then, and see what happens.
then i rest my case.
now, you wanna keep beating this dead horse and whining about it? step up or buzz off.
EvilGentleman: 13th Apr 2009 - 00:38 GMT
Just to make this a little more interesting, I also give my full consent to Peter to release contact information regarding me, which he has on hand by way of prior communications we have made. But ONLY if contacted by a legal representative of the owner of the quadruple parked white Audi sportscar pictured above.
Peter may be supporting me by virtue of his defense of photography in public places, but I and I alone took these photos and posted them online, complete with plate number. A check of my Costco membership history will also show that I was shopping at Costco that day, and had a right to be in that parking lot at that moment in time.
Personally, I see no difference between this situation and a streaker on a college campus. And I seriously doubt anyone will allege that a streaker has the right to privacy while indecently exposing himself (or herself) in public. Why should someone committing a less serious offense be any different?
To tell you the truth, I could have just as easily waited by the side of the store till the driver returned, and then posted pictures of him discovering his ticket. In retrospect, I wish I had.
As least he's not as bad as the idiot driver in Motorist Vs Courier, whose face was posted here on citynoise by hool, and then taken without permission by the Toronto Star and plastered on their front page.
It was CBC News picking up on that story which first brought me to citynoise in the first place.
But hey, what would CanWest Publishing or CBC News know about Canadian copyright laws? I mean, they are just the largest newspaper publisher and the largest public broadcaster in Canada, so there is no way they could know more than you.
I am sure the billions of taxpayer dollars paid to CBC would have helped them afford lawyers who could uncover any privacy scandals, if there was one to be had. They would have loved a chance to burn the largest newspaper in Canada's largest city. Just imagine the competitive edge that would have given them.
So if you think that your points have any merit, I suggest you go after the Toronto Star first, for re-posting citynoise images of the face of a man assaulting a female bike courier.
Otherwise, stop wasting server space that Peter pays for out of his own pocket.
Mind you, the more you argue, the more people see these pictures, since many citynoisers check the "recent discussions" links regularly. So that means your actions are contributing to the "problem".
Hehe... put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.
Bill: 21st Apr 2009 - 14:20 GMT
People who can afford cars like this don't care about fines. They don't even pay car insurance because they have the cash in the bank to meet the minimum standards as required by law. They have their own lawyer who can get a ticket dismissed, and even if they don't the resulting fine is minimal relative to their income. The sneers and jeers they get when people see them? They don't care. They're little people, poor people. He's going to go back to the country club (where he pays $8000/mo just to be a member) and laugh it up with his buddies about how he got a great parking spot at the grocery store for only $200. That's probably cheaper then fixing a door ding on that car.
nh: 21st Apr 2009 - 14:32 GMT
well, he might be parking across 4 spaces, but he takes so little of each one of them, that in each one of this parking spots there is a parked car - as can be seen in your pictures... i am not saying that it is right to ocupy a handicapped space - but from a mere practical point of view - in this case all 4 of the spaces he took a part of are still available for parking.
Alephnul: 21st Apr 2009 - 15:10 GMT
The next time you see them do this you might want a more concrete souvenir than a digital photo. I suggest a windshield wiper arm. And just to make sure that you identify them properly next time you should tag them before releasing. Extending a car key from the side of your fist as you surreptitiously walk by is an easy and elegant way of identifying it for later study.
asel: 21st Apr 2009 - 15:11 GMT
the only proper answer: xkcd.com/562
Generate ME: 21st Apr 2009 - 15:50 GMT
if I had this car I would probably park the same way, avoiding other cars from scratching it, and if I can afford the car, I can afford the parking ticket..
Snapplecap: 21st Apr 2009 - 15:55 GMT
Oh please. If you can afford the car and the parking ticket, you can afford to get the scratches fixed (if it even really gets any). Parking like a douche is just inviting people to fuck with your ride.
nhek: 21st Apr 2009 - 15:56 GMT
well in each of the spots he took part of, there already is a parked car, so technically he did not occupy any disabled parking space - they were all already occupied. according to the second photograph he is taking maybe 5% from each of the spaces...
HatMan: 21st Apr 2009 - 16:15 GMT
Surely, the only proper answer is xkcd.com/81
Carny666: 21st Apr 2009 - 16:42 GMT
I bet the security guard wouldn't have given him a ticket if he parked (the same way) at the far end of the lot.. but noooo.. this douche parks like and ass right at the front door.
addictedtopixels: 21st Apr 2009 - 16:44 GMT
If you can afford an R8, a parking ticket doesn't mean crap. I would have done the same thing if I was him rather than have some dumbass soccer mom with her 5 wailing kids banging into my car.
EvilGentleman: 21st Apr 2009 - 17:01 GMT
Hmmmm... wonder why this page is suddenly generating so many hits? Someone must have put a link somewhere with a good deal of traffic.
I have a thought more making tickets more fun.
How about making tickets 1% of the listed value of the car? The Quebec government already has such lists, as they charge tax on used cars according to what the list price is, not according to the actual price paid.
So my 2002 Chevy van listed at $6000 would get me a $60 ticket, and this guy would pay... lemme google the prices... a new Audi R8 at the time this photo was taken had a list price starting at $139,000... so that means our "friend" would have been on the hook for $1390. Still not the end of the world for someone of his income level, but not exactly something he would want to do every day.
Catfactory: 21st Apr 2009 - 17:49 GMT
I saw this link on Reddit, EvilGentleman. Additionally, I think that's a fine idea you have Re: a ticket-price pro-rated on the cost of your car. I think they do that in places like Sweden or something.
EvilGentleman: 21st Apr 2009 - 18:48 GMT
Wow, can't believe I never heard of Reddit before... Browsing it now, pretty cool...
Tim: 7th May 2009 - 23:50 GMT
Good on him. You know, I think he knew the score, and that a lot of people are ridiculously self-righteous about handi-cap spaces. I've worked with a lot of disabled people, I have put my time and devotion to improving the lives of people with handicaps.
If this guy is another source of revenue for the municipal government, so be it. That many fewer provincial or tax dollars needed. (Or that many more road workers to lean on their shovels, heh.)
It's ok guys, really. It's getting late, it's late in the day.
Rodsigna: 8th May 2009 - 13:31 GMT
Maybe we're not getting the whole story here, there must be a reason why this jerk parks that way. Maybe some hadicapt parking spaces are never ever used on that parking lot and he was tired of being forced to park somewhere else. In any case, there are other ways to show your discontent.
Graz: 8th May 2009 - 15:43 GMT
Maybe reason he parked there, like that, is that the person is just an ass. As you go through the photo series, it's apparent that all the spaces are used by properly placarded vehicles. As for "ridiculously self-righteous about handi-cap spaces" people, I guess I fall into that category. After seeing my aunt struggle to park her modified van so that she can have enough room to use the lift in order for her to get herself in or out of the vehicle in her wheelchair, I would have been quite happy if EG had finished the story by saying that this car was towed by being dragged on a flatbed with the hook ripping the axle out from under the car. And don't think that I'm just hating on the owner of an expensive vehicle, I drive an expensive vehicle, but I don't believe that it puts me above others nor does it allow me to act like a tool on the road or in a parking lot.
Shaun: 8th May 2009 - 18:53 GMT
Awesome asshole move - People disrespect cars, I kinda don't blame him, but you are messin' with the disabled which is low.
I have (had) a really nice ride, so I used to park in two spots at the far corner of a parking lot (few cars, not to bother anyone) and as a result it got stolen (not being close to where there are lots of people watching for 'security').
People have ZERO respect for watching their doors and bumping into cars, scratching paint, etc - 'precious car or not' have respect and watch yourself around ANYONE's car (shit-mobile or not)
Devin: 11th May 2009 - 03:20 GMT
This is why i hate stupid audi drivers they think there VW is something special. Lambo, porsche, audi, bentley its all still a VW!
Hahaha: 11th May 2009 - 03:23 GMT
EvilGentleman: 12th May 2009 - 20:48 GMT
Thanks for the link, Hahaha. I commented there, but it's not up yet.
Al: 21st Jan 2010 - 21:48 GMT
This is PRICELESS! Personally, I think the owner got off easy. He or she could have well come back to a car with 4 flats and maybe even a few scratches thown in for good measure. Obviously, the owner could care less about the people that have a right to park in a special area with respect to their condition. This clown may have the money to pay for the ticket but I wonder what a reaction this person would have if he or she was strapped to a wheel chair. Just take a moment and think about it. Good luck when St. Peter makes his call. I only hope I'm there to see where he parks his presious wheels then.
Franny Wentzel: 21st Jan 2010 - 22:25 GMT
If you look again it looks like he's not so much taking up 4 spots but occupying space left over from the 4 remarkably generous handicapped spaces. Even if you've allow for wheelchair users that a lot of wasted real estate.
I would've still messed up his side view mirror settings if I'd been passing by like I do to the nimrods that half-park on the sidewalks here.
Atak AR: 21st Jan 2010 - 23:47 GMT
The catch is the douche-bag car. Someone parked like that in a Ford Fiesta? No problem. Some douchebag parking his $100,000+ car like that? Big problem!
HA!: 9th Feb 2010 - 22:45 GMT
I'm pretty sure the driver of this car is a woman, I see her driving around in it pretty often around the west island...4 tickets agreed, one for each space. karma's a bitch...to bad you can't ticket her for arrogance
Rob: 14th Mar 2010 - 15:36 GMT
I was once on a white line in a parking lot because the two cars next to me were parked wrong. when I came out, the other cars were gone, and now I looked like I couldn't park. some REALLY nice lady, (I assume it was), had written in lipstick (candy apple red), that I should "PARK COMME DU MONDE!" or Park properly. took 15 minutes to get that crap off my windshield....too bad this guy didn't get the same thing.
Dazed97213: 15th Apr 2010 - 13:03 GMT
Awesome picture. When you drive a car like that, you aren't concerned about tickets!
Oh, one question though...are people really, really big in Montreal? Because those are the biggest parking spaces I've ever seen in my entire life!!
dirtbiker77: 28th Jul 2010 - 18:00 GMT
no, french people in montreal are smaller ....only english people are fat ! lol take the TV show as a sample BIGGEST LOOSER !
Franny Wentzel: 28th Jul 2010 - 18:39 GMT
loose (loos) adj. loos-er, loos-est.
—loose v. loosed, loos0ing, loos0es.
lose (looz) v. lost (lôst, lÄst), los-ing, los-es.
agen bola indonesia: 27th Oct 2014 - 03:23 GMT
My Brother Recommended I Might Like This Web Site. He Was Totally Right. This Post Truly Made My Day.
hehe: 27th Oct 2014 - 03:25 GMT
My Brother Recommended I Might Like This Web Site. He Was Totally Right. This Post Truly Made My Day.
Comment on this article..
[previous] :: [next]
A Rare Ruin in Bushwick
from the archives
Best Costco Moment of 2008
concept and content © citynoise.org 2002 - 2012:: designed and maintained by
caveat: entries and comments on citynoise.org represent
the views of their respective authors; this is an open forum, open to
all relevant ideas,
and as such, sees minimal editorial interference. as such, all content
on this site remains property of its creator/author, and is therefore
protected by all applicable copyright laws.