Somewhat related - make sure you don’t try to skip past one of these:
(One more hypothetical) If a parking lot had a pay booth and an attendant and there were big bold signs stating “Please stop to pay attendant, if you fail to stop we reserve the right for him to jump out of the booth and slash your tires.” would it be legal of him to do so?
I pretty much agree with you, Jody, but haven’t you ever found a parking lot full after driving in?
Noooooo. But you see that’s not a parallel example, right? Because in the tire example, the garage isn’t trying to keep anything of yours, right? And in the wallet example, you haven’t done anything to damage your own property, right? You do see these differences?
The cops don’t make you pay the bill. They can arrest you if you’ve committed a crime (like theft of services), but they are not otherwise concerned about you, a private party, paying the garage, another private party. But are you still liable for the cost of the parking space? Of course you are. That’s the money you owe to the garage, and represents the benefit the garage realizes from renting the space. How does the fact that your tires are damaged benefit the garage? It doesn’t. You still owe the money.
You’re just dicking with me, aren’t you. 
Sure I have. So?
All the spike-sign combination is is a one-way barrier to vehicle traffic. Many barriers to vehicle traffic (most?) will cause damage to a car which tries to pass through it anyway: fences, gates, chains across the exit, what have you. Spike-sign barriers have the benefit (depending on the situation) of being asymmetric in their restrictiveness.
A manned swing-down barricade could perform the same function, but at considerably greater expense (the salary of the guy manning it). Suppose the guy manning the barrier is instructed to lift it to allow entering traffic to pass, but not exiting traffic - both are described by the following:[ul][]Visible and obvious. (This is why the sign is an integral part of the system.)[]Attempting to exit will cause damage to one’s vehicle - almost certainly in excess of the price of parking there.Entry is freely permitted (because the attendant will raise the barrier).[/ul]Seriously, I don’t see a difference. Around here, these things are fairly commonplace, and I’ve never seen one that didn’t have a BIG sign warning wrong-way traffic off, and warning right-way traffic not to back up. Driving over these spikes in the wrong direction requires an equal amount of oblivion as does trying to drive through a closed gate or lowered barricade, so I’m failing to see the merits of trying to distinguish between them. Both will result in a damaged car.
How do you get out? Pay and get your ticket validated?
I don’t use un-attended pay lots. But they look like they have ticket activated spikes or gates.
Right, but you can avoid the risk entirely if you are warned before you enter the lot. Generally, one does not expect to encounter a device explicitly designed to cause property damage to the customer’s property when entering a business. The business owner has a right to collect his fees, but there are ways to do this that are reasonable and do not cause property damage. Cameras are one way. Prepayment or a deposit is another. Hiring an attendant is a third way. All of these are normal business practices. Damaging personal property is not a normal business practice. Even if the customer’s actions cause the damage, the business owner has other methods available to ensure payment.
Sorry for the apparent non-sequitur-
It was a side comment on a previous post about the tire damage being waaaay excessive in relation to any parking fee, sort of like the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Probably 500 bucks in new tires over a parking fee.
And if most agree a barricade arm would serve the same purpose, or attendant, or many other things, but be lost cost-effective, wouldn’t it just be the “nice” thing to do, as a business owner?
I hate to say it, but… Cite?
There’s a lot of contention on either side here whether they should or should not be legal, but no proof (relevant laws, case histories) of if they are legal. Without those cites this is really turning into more of a debate.
Did you miss the part about the big friggin signs? If you can’t be bothered to take a reasonable interest in preserving your own property, that’s not my fault. Reading the posted signs about tire damage is reasonable thing to expect drivers to do. Just like they’re suppose to read the One Way signs.
Who are you to say what a “normal business practice is”? Do you have some great insight into parking garage business pracitices that indicates spike strips are disfavored, much less illegal? 'Cause the fact they are widely used seems to indicate they’re considered pretty normal. I find no more “risk” in a parking lot with a spike strip than I do in a parking lot surrounded by walls that will damage my car if I back into them. If you use the lot as intended and as anyone using the the brain God gave them would use it, then you never encounter any “risk.” So there’s no need to warn the customer at the entrance; the customer only needs to be warned at the point at which he/she is eminently to do something remarkably stupid and thereby damage their own car.
Cameras cost money and break. Attendants cost money. Prepayment is not feasible when you don’t know how long you’re going to be there. Deposits are a PITA. Spike strips do not cause damage during the collection of fees. They are not a means to collect fees at all. Are there other reasonable deterrents to theft and stupidity? Sure. But the owner is not required to choose the one you think is reasonable, or even the one that is most reasonable, so long as his choice is not unreasonable.
Sure. How do you get out? 
This is not my experience. AFAIK, spike strips are not generally used to regulate the “real” (as opposed to wrong) exit by ticket activation, because if you deploy the spikes to retract when the ticket is paid, the person might not wait long enough and drive over them, or they might malfunction and not retract, and in any event I imagine that sort of arrangement would be very expensive. Spike strips are generally used to prevent people from exiting through an entrance, both to prevent them from stealing parking and to prevent them from causing an accident with an incoming car. Whether or not the lot is attended doesn’t have a whole lot to do with it, so far as I know.
My cite for their legality is their ubiquitous use. I’d like to see someone come up with a cite for their illegality.
There’s not a law that specifically allows for every little thing, you know.
I worked at a grocery store with a door clearly marked “emergency exit only alarm will sound” in large letters on the door itself, and people still tried to exit it, either they are stupid, can’t read, preoccupied, whatever- but they didn’t get punished for a honest mistake.
Spike strips are for the sole benefit of the business owner, and at the possible severe detriment to the customer- how is that a good business practice?
We considerd using those (called “bullards” iirc) where I work. The idea was dropped after some research found that the results shown in that video were all too common. Did you notice that they usually came up when the vehicle was already pretty close? Many drivers didn’t realize that they were expected to stop, and couldn’t see the devices over their hood.
We went with gate arms instead, which usually take the brunt of the damage by simply breaking off.
the bullards are designed to stop vehicles, not warn them.
But the result that they were warned off – the alarm going off – did in fact occur. All of these spike strips that I’ve every seen are accompanied by BIG HONKIN’ SIGNS that tell you the consequences of your idiocy. You consider the results “punishment for an honest mistake.” Since I don’t see how anyone with a functioning brain stem could make such an “honest mistake,” I consider it more in the nature of a Stupid Tax, and I’m completely comfortable with that.
Betcha only do it once.
Thanks…I had forgotten that was the original question 
And I don’t see someone doing it automatically being stupid- how about tired, preoccupied, kids arguing in the back seat, etc.
BECAUSE it prevents people from (a) leaving without paying or (b) getting into a nasty head-on car crash. This benefits the business by (a) generating more profit and (b) avoiding lawsults. Both of those are good business practices.
The same way you do an un-manned lot with a lift gate.
If you have a problem with Severe Tire Damage in a parking lot where there are clear and bold warnings, then you’re really not going to like this .
As I understand it, they’re used to disable your vehicle in conjunction with a police pursuit, where, presumably, you’d get no warning.