Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Find SF parking cops

walzr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 498 posts

Re: Find SF parking cops

#301

Post by appreciatorBus »

carlob wrote: post #253
davmre wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you charge $10/hr, or whatever the market rate would be for street parking spots, you still need an enforcement mechanism to prevent people overstaying. In general, the idea of a "market rate" for any given property depends fundamentally on a system of property rights actually being enforced.

I've always wondered what the market rate for parking would be if you allowed for things other than parking like restaurant tables, a shed, a tiny skyscraper...

Exactly. It's not much of a market if 99% of potential uses of the land are prohibited.

Re: Find SF parking cops

#302

Post by YokoZar »

Lammy wrote: post #286
OJFord wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems weird to me (from nowhere near SF) that some of the cheapest things to do are to block fire stations, fire hydrants and 'fire lanes' (I assume that's like a bus lane but for fire engines, in places that's common enough for whatever reason, like right by a fire station?) - wheelchair/disability related stuff is much more penalised, but even all sorts of other 'regular' mis-parking seems for some reason slightly…

> Have I misunderstood? It doesn't count the glass shop bill when the fire fighters gleefully fuck up your car to run the hose between the side windows.

It's San Francisco, parking legally generally requires replacing at least one window.

Re: Find SF parking cops

#303

Post by appreciatorBus »

nick49488171 wrote: post #218
appreciatorBus wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just charge market rates for land. Overstaying (aka overconsumption) is mostly just a predictable consequence of selling something valuable at far below what its value.

Ah yes, the free market, which tends to always work in favor of the majority of people and common good.

The people own the land and as such, deserve to receive it's full value. Charging $0 is stealing from the people to give to car drivers.

Re: Find SF parking cops

#304

Post by lazide »

tjohns wrote: post #115
aidenn0 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it illegal to block bike lanes in SF? I ask because it is not illegal to do so in California, according to the learner's permit test my daughter recently took.

If so, then the DMV test is (presumably) wrong. California Vehicle Code §21211 says it's generally illegal to block a bike lane: "No person may place or park any bicycle, vehicle, or any other object upon any bikeway or bicycle path or trail, as specified in subdivision (a), which impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist unless the placement or parking is necessary for safe operation or i…

The CA drivers handbook has several issues like this. For instance, despite its insistence, it is not illegal to change lanes in an intersection.

It is however usually unwise/dickish to do so. Hence why it is in the test that way.

Re: Find SF parking cops

#305

Post by Lammy »

bee_rider wrote: post #298
Spivak wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brother in law is a firefighter, gleefully is exactly the correct term here. According to him getting to bust windows to run the hose is literally their favorite thing to do. To the point where even if they don't actually need to, or it would be slower, they'll still do it. It's apparently a matter of principle.

I think apsurd interpreted Lammy’s post as a complaint, like the firefighters are too gleeful. Then apsurd is pointing out that there’s no reason to complain, and they shouldn’t waste time with remorse. I don’t think Lammy actually meant it as a complaint, though, which ended up making apsurd’s correction confusing. Anyway, I think everyone in the thread agreed: park in front of the fire hydrant and nobody feels bad…

Correct; not a complaint :)

Re: Find SF parking cops

#306

Post by apsurd »

bee_rider wrote: post #298
Spivak wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brother in law is a firefighter, gleefully is exactly the correct term here. According to him getting to bust windows to run the hose is literally their favorite thing to do. To the point where even if they don't actually need to, or it would be slower, they'll still do it. It's apparently a matter of principle.

I think apsurd interpreted Lammy’s post as a complaint, like the firefighters are too gleeful. Then apsurd is pointing out that there’s no reason to complain, and they shouldn’t waste time with remorse. I don’t think Lammy actually meant it as a complaint, though, which ended up making apsurd’s correction confusing. Anyway, I think everyone in the thread agreed: park in front of the fire hydrant and nobody feels bad…

Yes exactly. Funny to read the discussion all on account of a single word.

this is why I come to HN

Re: Find SF parking cops

#308

Post by nodesocket »

$105 fine for street cleaning violation? What an absolute racket for the city. I used to live near Union Square 7+ years ago and left for greener pastures in the south. So glad I left when I did.

Re: Find SF parking cops

#309

Post by aendruk »

> In rare lightning speed, the SF government changed their site within hours of this site going live. I can't get data from it anymore.

Anyone have a screenshot?

Re: Find SF parking cops

#310

Post by xvedejas »

geor9e wrote: post #246

"each possible ticket number follows a pattern: add 11, except add 4 if the last digit is 6…Only God knows why" That pattern feels suspiciously like how a tacked-on modulo check-digit would act. It seems the real citation number, x, excludes the last digit, and you only needed to +1 increment to it. Then they tack on a last digit, a check-digit, of (x+1) mod 7. That would be the same pattern. The contract for the sys…

In college we discovered everyone's ID number was evenly divisible by 13. Presumably it's because that's the smallest number you'd need so that you could detect any one digit being incorrect, or two adjacent digits being swapped (I think?). Or that it's just very easy to implement the increment when assigning new numbers.
Post reply on HN