Severe tire damage- how are these legal?

Factual Questions
41

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
Everyone keeps comparing this to a fence, but they’re leaving out the key detail
A fence truly intending to keep you out would have RAZOR WIRE on the top. This is perfectly legal since the Razor Wire is perfectly visible and is not actively harming anyone.
Once you do something extremely stupid, like trying to climb over the fence, you will be damaged. Your body will be damaged and your property (clothes) will be damaged. Yet… it’s ALL YOUR FAULT AND LEGAL!!!

Face it, you did a pretty stupid or careless thing by running over spikes. No matter how you twist shit around, the fact is it’s all your fault. Taking responsibility for your actions is part of being a grown-up. Stop looking for others to blame.
[/QUOTE]

No dodging responsibility, this is a hypothetical.

I agree about the fence totally, you can see the barbed wire. You cannot see the spikes you back over. You don’t even see them when you go over them, which if you could, at least would give you the mental image of the spikes, and what spikes can do to tires.

Jodi, I see your point about active/passive, but I personally don’t feel the distinction is relevant when the end result is, if you don’t follow the rules of the parking lot, you will suffer damage to your property, whether it be spikes or the manager runs out with a machete and slashes your tires.

Phase42, a barrier arm would serve the same purpose without damage.

42

[QUOTE=Jodi]
…What’s the problem grokking the difference between ACTIVELY DAMAGING someone’s property and warning them not to damage it themselves? I honestly don’t get what’s so hard about this. If YOU drive over a spike strip, YOU have damaged your car. It is NOT the same as breaking windows, keying the sides, slashing the tires, or any other action undertaken by SOMEONE ELSE.

The owner put the strip there not to damage cars, but to prevent people from illegally exiting the garage. If THEY damage their own cars, that’s on THEM – provided they are appropriately warned of the consequences of their own actions.
…

[/QUOTE]

It seems to me that the difference in scumpup’s example is that he can do something reasonable about the car staying overnight in his lot. He can have it towed. And he can stick the car owner with the bill for towing, and a bill for parking too long. When people drive the wrong way out of an unspiked parking lot and don’t pay, the lot owner has no method of redress. In the case of people who leave their car too long in a lot, you can’t smash the windows because you have a remedy that’s effective and much less excessive. With spikes, you can make the case that the person is prevented from leaving without paying. The lot owner is essentially giving himself some method of redress, of keeping the car there, and I bet the law says that’s OK. Smashing windows when you could’ve called a tow truck at the car owner’s expense makes you, in the eyes of the law, an excessive, vengeful guy who could’ve used other more reasonable methods.

43

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]

Phase42, a barrier arm would serve the same purpose without damage.
[/QUOTE]
Do you think so? Try busting through one with your car sometime and see if you don’t at least get some scratches on your paint.

44

[QUOTE=Lunar Saltlick]
It seems to me that the difference in scumpup’s example is that he can do something reasonable about the car staying overnight in his lot. He can have it towed. And he can stick the car owner with the bill for towing, and a bill for parking too long. When people drive the wrong way out of an unspiked parking lot and don’t pay, the lot owner has no method of redress. In the case of people who leave their car too long in a lot, you can’t smash the windows because you have a remedy that’s effective and much less excessive. With spikes, you can make the case that the person is prevented from leaving without paying. The lot owner is essentially giving himself some method of redress, of keeping the car there, and I bet the law says that’s OK. Smashing windows when you could’ve called a tow truck at the car owner’s expense makes you, in the eyes of the law, an excessive, vengeful guy who could’ve used other more reasonable methods.
[/QUOTE]

It may very well be legal, but my question is why?

Is there any other example of where a business owner can create a way to cause property damage to patrons who do not follow the rules of the establishment? Dine and dash, pump and dash, you have no other recourse but call the cops- why can parking lots dole out their own punishment?

45

[QUOTE=jharvey963]
A hijack, but it’s my first, so be gentle with me. :slight_smile:

I saw a picture of a Mercedes, illegally parked in front of a fire hydrant. The fire department had broken both driver and passenger side windows and ran a firehose through to get to the hydrant. I guess going over the car would have put to big of a kink in the hose.

J.
[/QUOTE]

Wasn’t that in* Backdraft*?

46

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
It may very well be legal, but my question is why?

Is there any other example of where a business owner can create a way to cause property damage to patrons who do not follow the rules of the establishment? Dine and dash, pump and dash, you have no other recourse but call the cops- why can parking lots dole out their own punishment?
[/QUOTE]

I’d say probably because it’s very doable, it doesn’t cause thousands of dollars of damage, but just a few hundred, and most legislators feel it’s not a very unreasonable method, given the number of people who would leave without paying if they could. Most restaurants and gas stations, someone’s sitting there watching. Often there’s more than one person watching. So eating and dashing or pumping and dashing isn’t at epidemic proportions. At plenty of big parking lots, especially late at night, if there was a way of sneaking out the back, no one would ever pay. No one. So, you get spikes, and legislators figure, OK, sounds reasonable.

47

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Phase42, a barrier arm would serve the same purpose without damage.
[/QUOTE]

It would also be more expensive to install, need more maintanance, be capable of malfunctioning, etc.

48

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Jodi, I see your point about active/passive, but I personally don’t feel the distinction is relevant when the end result is, if you don’t follow the rules of the parking lot, you will suffer damage to your property, whether it be spikes or the manager runs out with a machete and slashes your tires.
[/QUOTE]

It’s only relevant if you are able to see a difference between me poking you in the eye with a sharp stick as opposed to warning you not to do it yourself.

49

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
It may very well be legal, but my question is why?

Is there any other example of where a business owner can create a way to cause property damage to patrons who do not follow the rules of the establishment?
[/QUOTE]

Sure. Dye packs attached to clothes that must be removed when they are rung up. Exploding dye packs in money at banks.

50

[QUOTE=kidchameleon]
Sure. Dye packs attached to clothes that must be removed when they are rung up. Exploding dye packs in money at banks.
[/QUOTE]

Good points on that aspect. How about a business that sets up something to damage patrons for a mistake? I doubt there are stats on this, but I’m guessing the majority of these are accidents by honest patrons- surely there are not similar example of a business that punishes honest mistakes, even if one thinks the act is stupid?

51

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Is there any other example of where a business owner can create a way to cause property damage to patrons who do not follow the rules of the establishment?
[/QUOTE]

Any fence, or gate, or turnstile can cause damage to your car if you don’t follow the rules. Try to sneak behind another car that is going through a moving gate? You’re likely to have it drop across your hood. Explain to me how this is different then back up spikes? If you were following the rules (which are plainly available for you to see) you wouldn’t have that problem either.

Your main complain seems to be that they are hard to see. That’s why there are big friggin signs telling you not to back up! Suppose it was a wall that sprung up behind your car instead of the spikes. If you backed up into it you’d have similar damage, but you can’t claim to not see a big orange wall. Would this be OK by you?

52

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
The big difference is damage to property vs. damage to person. Killing your tires is more akin to rigging a booby trap that steals the shoes of nefarious trespassers. Is that legal?
[/QUOTE]

Yes. Make that no ;). If you catch a burgular in your home and hold a gun on him, then you demand his wallet, you’ll be charged with armed robbery.

53

In addition to making a dandy warning sign message, Severe Tire Damage was also the name of a band, located in (where else) California.

54

[QUOTE=Lunar Saltlick]
When people drive the wrong way out of an unspiked parking lot and don’t pay, the lot owner has no method of redress.
[/QUOTE]

Huh? Yes, they do. They can record the license plate information with a camera. It’s very easy to do these days, and I’ve seen such systems in place. It’s probably cheaper than installing the spikes.

Given the situation in the parking lot, is it reasonable to threaten a customer with damage that is greater than the amount owed? The most I’ve ever paid for a parking fee has been about $50. Tires for my truck cost $100 each, so the parking lot owner is threatening $200 worth of property damage (two tires) for a $50 bill? Does he have the right to do that? His claim is limited to the actual parking fee, nothing more.

As for signs, wouldn’t that sign need to be also placed at the entrance of the parking lot so a driver could decide if he wants to risk his tires for a parking spot?

55

[QUOTE=CairoCarol]
Ah, the memories. Thirty or more years ago my high school debate team took part in a tournament in the Boston area. The coach parked the school van in a commercial parking lot with “cars go in, but they don’t come out” systems blocking the points of egress that you were not supposed to use.

I no longer recall if there were posted hours of operation for the lot and we should have known better than to be out as late as we were, or whether the lot was supposed to be open 24/7 and somehow wasn’t, but the bottom line was, when we got back to the parking lot that evening, the proper exit from the lot was blocked and there were no staff on duty to help us out.

The ONLY way out was through the path of severe tire damage.

We searched the area, found a rusting “No Parking” sign and wrenched it off of its post, then found a garbage can lid or something similar as well. We took the two items to the spikes, lined the van up right at the edge so we knew exactly where to place the parking sign/garbage can lid for protection, and drove over the spikes.

It worked!! Barely. As I recall, the “No Parking” sign was completely impaled on the spikes. But, the van’s tires were okay, and we were out of the garage.

The amazing this is this all happened under adult supervision. (Although I don’t know what we were supposed to do; find a pay phone and call the police maybe, but although the details are hazy so many years later, as I recall we really didn’t feel that we had any choice.)

Good thing we did not get caught, though.

I wonder what the attendant who showed up in the morning thought.
[/QUOTE]

He’s likely to say “Hmmm. Looks like another of those danged high school debate team vans went and parked where they weren’t supposed to.” And then, with a amused grin, he removed the sign and the lid and put them back for the next clever coach to impress his/her team.
That would be my guess.

56

[QUOTE=Dag Otto]
Given the situation in the parking lot, is it reasonable to threaten a customer with damage that is greater than the amount owed? The most I’ve ever paid for a parking fee has been about $50. Tires for my truck cost $100 each, so the parking lot owner is threatening $200 worth of property damage (two tires) for a $50 bill? Does he have the right to do that? His claim is limited to the actual parking fee, nothing more.
[/quote]

Yes. He has the right to do that. Why wouldn’t he? It’s his garage. He is not threatening to damage your car. He is warning you tht YOU will damage your car if you drive over the strip. Why would he be responsible for your damages if you disregarded the signs and drove over the strip? He didn’t make you do it. He actually warned you not to. The parking fee could be 2 dollars and your tires worth $2000, and that still wouldn’t make it his fault YOU drove over the strip.

Where’s the risk to your tires to get to the parking spot? The risk only exists if you drive the wrong way over the tire strip placed at the wrong exit.

57

[QUOTE=Telemark]

Your main complain seems to be that they are hard to see. That’s why there are big friggin signs telling you not to back up! Suppose it was a wall that sprung up behind your car instead of the spikes. If you backed up into it you’d have similar damage, but you can’t claim to not see a big orange wall. Would this be OK by you?
[/QUOTE]

My point exactly- when you back up, you look in your rear-view mirror and would see the wall, same as if you are backing up in traffic or a queue of some type, you can see other cars, people, walls, etc.

If you grab your dry cleaning and run without paying the ten dollar tab, and leave a wallet with 500 bucks on the counter, can the dry cleaners keep your 500 bucks legally?

Also, if someone is trying to park and dash, and they get the tire damage and get caught, would the cops call this even, or still make them pay the bill?

58

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
surely there are not similar example of a business that punishes honest mistakes, even if one thinks the act is stupid?
[/QUOTE]

The business is not punishing an honest mistake. Driving over the spikes is the honest mistake in itself.

FWIW, there’s a set of such spikes in a (public, free) car park near here, preventing cars entering the wrong way. The only possible reason for them being there is that given by Phase42, to prevent a nasty head-on collision. At the location in question, exiting traffic is accelerating to join a major road, and a car incorrectly entering that way would also be going fairly fast. The warning to not drive in that way? Just a No Entry sign. Nothing else. Why should there be? If you’re that unobservant, you shouldn’t be behind the wheel.

59

Seems pretty straightforward to me. You are parking in someone’s private lot. You’re doing it of your own free will. You are not compelled in any way to enter that lot.

The owner of the lot makes it possible for you to leave in only the manner he or she prescribes. If you don’t, your car might get damaged. What’s illegal about that?

60

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
If you grab your dry cleaning and run without paying the ten dollar tab, and leave a wallet with 500 bucks on the counter, can the dry cleaners keep your 500 bucks legally?
[/QUOTE]

What the bloody hell does this have to do with anything?