Admittedly, I never thought I would hold a hearing that topped this one in terms of ridiculousness of the citizen’s defense. The next hearing I am sharing with you, however, just might have set the bar at a new height. A middle-aged man in a somewhat cheap suit scheduled a hearing to contest a ticket his daughter had gotten on his car for parking too far from the curb. Specifically, the officer had written that the vehicle’s right rear tire was more than 18 inches from the curb, which is a violation in this jurisdiction. The man’s first defense was that the front tire was much closer to the curb, and that this should be sufficient to dismiss the ticket. I explained that the proximity of the front tire to the curb was irrelevant because the vehicle had been ticketed for the placement of the rear tire, and in any event cars really shouldn’t be parked in such a crooked fashion. The man then demanded proof that the rear tire was too far, so I showed him this image, taken by the traffic officer:
If you’re a reader of this blog, you know that photographic evidence proving the case is nothing new. Here, the end of the gray cement and the start of the black asphalt is at exactly 18 inches, and because you can see a sliver of black beneath the tire, the car is clearly parked beyond that measurement. I showed this to the man and he considered it for a moment before unleashing what must be called the most absurd defense I have ever heard.
“Well, the top of the tire is closer than 18 inches from the curb.”
I’m sorry, what? The “top” of the tire? I asked for clarification, and he explained that, in the picture, although the bottom of the tire (where the tire meets the street) might be more than 18 inches from the curb, the top of the tire is much closer, “less then ten inches,” from the curb. I was fairly confused and asked for yet more clarification. Because I cannot do his craziness justice with words, I will show another picture explaining what he meant:
That’s right–because the “top” of the tire is closer to the curb IN THE PICTURE, that means it must be closer than 18 inches. Forget angle, forget perspective, forget geometry, that’s what this man was saying. I calmly informed him that I was slightly offended that he would even proffer such foolishness to me. He responded that I was yelling at him (I definitely was not) and that he would “report” me, whatever that means. I gave him one more chance to explain this line of defense, thinking that I had surely misunderstood him, but alas, upon further review, I had actually understood him perfectly. I asked him to leave.
Finding of Facts: When Respondent was shown the officer’s photograph at the hearing, Respondent employed a defense that can only be described as violative of geometry. Respondent demanded that the top of the tire was somehow closer to the curb that the bottom of the tire because of the angle at which the officer’s photograph was taken. In any event, the officer’s photograph is clear, and Respondent’s testimony does not have merit. I therefore find Respondent Liable for this citation.
Stunning. Dare I even ask what you think?
March 2, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Plainly this man’s explanation is wacky, but I am not sure that the photo doesn’t vindicate him or at least raise doubt about the distance from the curb to the tire. His tire appears to be slightly over the concrete curb, does it not? Can you see that the bottom bulge of the black tire is just a tad over the white of the curb concrete?
On another subject, to whom would an offended Mercedes driver report you?
December 20, 2010 at 10:12 am
Unfortunately the guy used the wrong measurement to show distance, and that’s his error. Looking at the picture, however, while a “sliver of black” may be viewable, the outer edge of the tire (which protrudes more towards the curb than the actual tire tread) looks like it might be falling right on or a little over the 18-inch mark.
If you place a vertical line against the outer edge of the tire in the photo, you can see it could be argued it intersects the ground within the 18-inch margin. Being so close I would personally let him off the ticket for this argument, but then again he used a completely different and illogical form of reasoning.
December 20, 2010 at 6:10 pm
I am curious as to how the law holds someone who is “right on the line” so to speak. I would imagine if it says “within 18 inches” and someone parks right at 18-inches, there could be some interpretation as to where exactly 18 inches starts and ends.
Where does the benefit of the doubt lie? I would imagine in the favor of the defendant, but I’m no judge…
September 9, 2011 at 9:28 am
From your point of photo you don’t see the very bottom point of the tire. The point one can see is slightly, very slightly, one inch higher than the point where the tire touches the ground. As the car is in the angle to the curb that lowest point might be within 18 inches. Or it mightn’t – the photo doesn’t prove neither.
If you want to ticket people for millimeters you should lay down on the ground exactly on that line and take a photo from under the car, then no doubts would be left.
The judge was wrong.
September 9, 2011 at 4:29 pm
No, YOU are wrong. So there. Really though, your interpretation of the law is unfortunately incorrect. If any portion of the tires adjacent to the curb are beyond eighteen inches from the curb, the vehicle is parked in violation.
October 22, 2011 at 8:27 pm
you are truly a retard and the reason “the law” is a joke. To bad there is no arguing with your kind. You just can not comprehend what we are trying to explain. If tickets need to be given for mere inches let alone centimeters. Then the man who wrote this ticket is a disgrace to law enforcement.
October 22, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Go back to France, which is where I assume you are from.
December 2, 2011 at 9:35 am
The argument made in defense was not a sound one, but the fact that people are getting ticketed over “a sliver” of gray is a joke. Obviously someone was bored or told to run up as many tickets as possible.