Mar. 6th, 2015 06:45 am
drplokta: (Default)
[personal profile] drplokta
So, the 20 minute free on-street parking in Canterbury that I use occasionally is about to become 30 minute parking. Which will actually be handy, since I park there while getting my hair cut, and 20 minutes is touch-and-go. But what happens now if I'm there for 30 minutes and 5 seconds -- can I claim over-zealous enforcement, and should there be some leeway on the leeway? What people really want is to have 10 minutes longer than they thought they had, and it's not actually possible to do that.

(no subject)

Date: 2015-03-06 08:04 am (UTC)
andrewducker: (Default)
From: [personal profile] andrewducker
Yeah, I was also baffled by that. In exactly the same way.

(no subject)

Date: 2015-03-06 07:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I am in favour of the change. It removes the need for clock synchronisation between me and the warden, and I'd have no objection to them hovering as the last few seconds of the grace period expires. I might abuse it a little by mentally adding 5 minutes to any parking period, but I don't think that will cause problems with availability.

(no subject)

Date: 2015-03-06 08:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I am not as concerned about legal appeals to fines as removing low level irritation about having to refer to my watch against a ticket that might be out a little, or my memory of when I arrived at a free space, that could be out a lot.

There is a danger of taking a legal/computer design approach to the problem, where rules are rules to be applied, when what is wanted is more fuzzy, to match human nature.

(no subject)

Date: 2015-03-06 08:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Indeed, it should not be legislation, just an enforced guideline, like the NACPO margins on speed limits. I guess the government feel that without legal weight some councils wouldn't adopt the spirit of the poliy

I don't know if they tried the softer approach before wheeling out the big stick.

(no subject)

Date: 2015-03-06 09:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
What might be the result is that enforcement will become rather more zealous, which I suspect is not what people were hoping for. As an analogy, in the OU we have word limits on essays. In recent years we've introduced a '10% over rule'. Now, I might have qualms about penalising someone for turning in 2001 words. I have no qualms at all for penalising someone who turns in 2201 words - they've had their leeway. So, transfer that to parking, and yes, you've got an extra 10 minutes, but you'd better be out at the end of that 10 minutes or face the consequences.

(no subject)

Date: 2015-03-06 11:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
But the essay upper limit is probably used as a guideline to length. I doubt tutors ask for error bars in their assignments "2000 words +- 10%", as its pompous. Handling people is not like specifying a system. Everyone should be encouraged to obey the spirit of the social contract, not obsess over the detail.

For essays, like parking and speeding, the leeway removes the grounds for appeal on nitpicking, which saves everyone's time.

(no subject)

Date: 2015-03-06 09:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
And if the council has the tiniest ounce of sense, your 20 minute parking will become 10 minute parking with 10 minutes' grace.

December 2016

2526 2728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags