Hacker News Reader

Comment by blotter_paper | Hacker News Reader

What bizarre machinations of Moloch; "we decided to fine you, but then we decided to not fine you, so we had to settle on fining you as little as possible while still fining you because we have to fine you or there wouldn't be a reason for this sub-sub-department of us to exist."

View on HN

The question is, does it significantly reduce the number of people overstaying on the parking spot? A good use of parking meters is to ensure shared access to a limited parking resource. You can't just park your car all day there. You have to keep going back every hour to fill the meter, which means that you will usually leave and let someone else park there for a while.

The amount of the fine is irrelevant. It's just an annoyance to ensure that you realise the need to share the resource. If it does that, then the smaller the fine, the better.

Bureaucracy being lenient and reasonable can look a little dystopian. I'll take it.

Yeah. I'd like to have seen how that compromised between business owners and the traffic police was negotiated.

I think the "fine" was the cost of feeding the meter. To be paid if the person wants or not.

That could be the rationale, but I doubt it. Seems more likely they were trying to keep their target numbers up (they're not allowed to call them "quotas" anymore). An officer with low numbers gets passed up for promotion. A department with low numbers gets passed up for budget increases. Gotta keep writing tickets, or there isn't a reason to exist anymore...

I think it's more likely that the business community told the traffic police to piss off. This was a financially distressed community whose main street business district is trying to bounce back.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com