We've all heard of the term parking on pavement but so few of us actually know what the true definition is. The only frame of reference most people have is when they are offered this conspicuous charge when faced with a speeding ticket or some other moving violation. Section 1201 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law defines Parking on pavement as the following:
Stopping, standing, or parking outside of business or residence districts. (a) Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or main-traveled part of the highway when it is practicable to stop, park, or so leave such vehicle off such part of said highway, but in every event anunobstructed width of the highway opposite a standing vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles and a clear view of such stopped vehicles shall be available from a distance of two hundred feet in each direction upon such highway.
A typical example would be pulling your car off to the side of the Northway or other major highway and leaving it there to go sight-seeing.
A 1201(a) is the charge that most people wish to plead to when they receive a traffic ticket, especially when they are facing a charge that involves numerous points to their otherwise “spotless” drivers license.
A charge of parking on pavement is equivalent to a traditional parking ticket, such as parking on the wrong side of the street. The penalty comes with a fine and does not add any points to ones license. Another reason why this charge is so popular to plead to is because this violation does not appear on an individual's driving record. Hence, when authorities look at person's drivers abstract, which is basically a "rap sheet" of their driving history, nothing will appear pertaining to the charge.
Typically if a person has a clean driving record and the charge pending is not too extreme, an attorney can often negotiate a plea to parking on pavement.Some courts will offer a 1201(a), second offense if a driver has some recent infractions on their license or if the charge is a bit more severe. Parking on payment, second offense comes with a larger fine amount. It is still considered a non-moving violation and carries no points.
So if anyone has ever received a traffic ticket for speeding or some other moving violation and ultimately pled to a lesser charge, chances are “You parked on pavement.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for putting up this page -- I found it via search.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the existence of such a thing -- i.e. negotiating a speeding ticket down to something completely unrelated (not to mention absurd) -- undermine the credibility of the court?
Or am I being naive? I mean, is the court system full of such absurdity? (And I'm even speaking as someone whose work often involves the courts!)
P.S. I think most people DON'T know the phrase. I never heard of it till this week when I was in court for a different matter. It took great restraint not to burst out laughing as I heard one case after another where people were pleading guilty to "Parking on Pavement."
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think it is nice of court to agree to that option (they do not need to even when the prosecutor recommends it). I think the court is there to resolve disputes in amicable manner and this is a good example of court's good grace. Of course there are people who would take advantage but my understanding is that the law is there to prevent the innocent and the one who repents at all cost (punishing the guilty is the next priority). That is my understanding.
DeleteBy the way, I am typing this in just after getting myself a similar deal along with a defensive driving program and I gladly accepted that. It saves time for everybody involved and the courts can focus on more important things.
I feel good and also be careful that I am not going to speed again! I guess that is the whole purpose of justice, ain't it?
I think it is nice of court to agree to that option (they do not need to even when the prosecutor recommends it). I think the court is there to resolve disputes in amicable manner and this is a good example of court's good grace. Of course there are people who would take advantage but my understanding is that the law is there to prevent the innocent and the one who repents at all cost (punishing the guilty is the next priority). That is my understanding.
DeleteBy the way, I am typing this in just after getting myself a similar deal along with a defensive driving program and I gladly accepted that. It saves time for everybody involved and the courts can focus on more important things.
I feel good and also be careful that I am not going to speed again! I guess that is the whole purpose of justice, ain't it?
I think it is nice of court to agree to that option (they do not need to even when the prosecutor recommends it). I think the court is there to resolve disputes in amicable manner and thus us good example of court's good grace. Of course there are people who would take advantage but the law is there to prevent the innocent and the one who repents at all cost. That is my understanding.
DeleteBtw, I am typing this in just after getting myself a similar deal along with a defensive driving program and I gladly accepted that. It saves time for everybody involved and the courts can focus on more important things.
I feel good and also be careful that I am not going to speed again! I guess that is the whole purpose of justice, ain't it?