In New Zealand, a System To Watch for Disabled Parking Violators

cylonlover writes "What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? If you answered, 'It means I can park there as long as I'm going to be quick,' you're wrong — yet you're also far from alone. Every day in parking lots all over the world, non-disabled drivers regularly use spaces clearly reserved for the handicapped. They often get away with it, too, unless an attendant happens to check while their vehicle is parked there. Thanks to technology recently developed by New Zealand's Car Parking Technologies (CPT), however, those attendants could soon be notified the instant that a handicapped spot is improperly occupied."

Comments

P&T on handicapped parking

[bonch]

What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? If you answered, 'It means I can park there as long as I'm going to be quick,' you're wrong — yet you're also far from alone. Every day in parking lots all over the world, non-disabled drivers regularly use spaces clearly reserved for the handicapped.

Penn & Teller did a Bullshit! episode on handicapped parking that's pretty interesting. As with all Bullshit! episodes, it's full of profanity, if that offends you.

One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Anonymous Coward]

What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? If you answered, 'It means I can park there as long as I'm going to be quick,' you're wrong — yet you're also far from alone. Every day in parking lots all over the world, non-disabled drivers regularly use spaces clearly reserved for the handicapped.

Penn & Teller did a Bullshit! episode on handicapped parking that's pretty interesting. As with all Bullshit! episodes, it's full of profanity, if that offends you.

One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

Thinking about it...

Thinking about it...

Continuing to think about it...

Almost done thinking about it...

There. Done thinking about it. You're still a cunt for parking there if you aren't disabled. Walk the extra dozen or so feet, it might do you some good.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

Exactly how often do you notice full parking spots?

Heck, I might as well say that half of the parking spots in the nearby lot are empty, so they should just build something there.

Wait, no, that doesn't work.

But I've seen quite a few times where all the handicapped spaces were full, and sometimes that's fine, but sometimes not, with my mother's health, sometimes she feels up to the further walk, and sometimes not.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[LordKronos]

One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

That's not interesting. Not even the slightest bit. So we over-assign handicapped spots to try and make sure that when several truly handicapped people are at the store, they don't have to park at the back of the lot because we tried to cut the number of spots close so that some non-handicapped lard-asses didn't have to walk an extra 25 feet. Big deal.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[LordKronos]

I'm not the AC you asked, but it seem to be human nature to not want to give in and submit to your disability.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Anonymous Coward]

While I can't speak for what the OP thinks about disabled people in general, I think the point to take from this would be that we could legitimately get away with having far fewer handicapped parking spaces without impacting the ability of handicapped people to find a reserved space when they need one.

The legal specification of what percentage of handicapped spaces are required ought to be revisited to reflect reality.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[w0mprat]

Friend of mine is in a wheelchair. Doesn't give a fuck about disabled parking spaces, parks anywhere, wheels along happily. This may contribute to the appearance of disabled parks being apparently empty.

He also finds it ironic, that there are disabled parks near supermarkets and department stores, fundamentally the kinds of stores where you'll be covering quite a distance moving around a large complex, there's not really much effort saved by having a disabled park close to the door.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[causality]

I'm not the AC you asked, but it seem to be human nature to not want to give in and submit to your disability.

If only we'd add "inability to follow simple, easily understood instructions unassisted" and "unwillingness to first try Googling it" to the list of known disabilities...

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not specify her health status, but believe it or not, not every disability which qualifies for a handicapped tag necessitates or even encourages a wheelchair.

In her case, the disability is not constant, but somewhat variable. She has had multiple heart surgeries (most of which originated from rheumatic fever in her youth, but others from well, correcting mistakes such as a bad ICD wire), a broken knee (from water spilled at her job.).

Some days she feels more exhausted than others. Some days her knee bothers her more than others. What to do, what to do?

One of the things I do when driving her is use the handicapped spaces, if she says she feels tired that day. I have no problem with this, as she clearly merits the tag. I may also bring her a shopping cart which she uses over a cane or a wheelchair or scooter. And she really hated it when Wal-Mart took out their benches for a brief period, and is quite happy they brought them back.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[reboot246]

The other day I caught a handicapped person parking in one of OUR parking spaces, and I beat the shit out of him.

Just kidding. I've been unable to walk without difficulty (before my hip replacements), and those handicap spaces were a godsend. Stay out of them if you don't need them!

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[viperidaenz]

Thats what gets to me. There are twice as many "Elderly persons" car parks outside my local super market than "Parents" car parks.
The elderly parks are mostly empty while the parents car parks are mostly full. The old people are still going to have to walk around the entire super market, so why can't they cross the carpark like other people? Parents however have little kids to manage who haven't spent the last 70 years of their life not being hit by a car and its safer to not have to cross the carpark.
Interestingly there are few disabled carparks. Probably 4 disabled, 6 parents, 10 elderly out of about 200 spaces.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Mistlefoot]

As someone who provided care for a wheelchair bound gentleman "Gord" I have spent much thought on this.

Gord was greatly affected by temperature and his body was slow to warm or cool if he got cold. Parking close to a door to get him inside or outside quickly was very important for his comfort. A larger then normal size parking spot was also needed so that his life could be lowered and he could actually be helped out of the van.

How would your friend in the wheelchair be able to get back into his vehicle if someone parked too close to his door? He wouldn't. And as he would likely have hand activated driving controls it's not like he could just have someone move his car for him. So I don't believe your friend does this or is as confined to a wheelchair as you imply.
There are many disabled people who can walk or move in some fashion around a large "store" but still can't carry bags or push carts long distances.

When I would head into a store or bank or shop while working for Gord I would consider whether or not it were best to use a handicapped spot. Considerations would include:
1) How much time would Gord spend alone in the van (Gord was prone to seizures and had full time attendants as he could not be alone for long periods of time
2) How many free handicapped spots were free. Not much sense in "stealing" a normal spot, forcing a healthy person to use an even further away spot while 4 handicapped spots were empty. Conversely, there was not much sense in using the last (or only) handicapped spot if there was a normal spot available within a reasonable distance.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[the simurgh]

i always assumed someday someone would get the intelligent idea of a making a small card and a parking meter type device which allows you to park in handicapped spot you could check the device and if the person used the card then it would say so. otherwise the device would display a message saying the driver was illegally parked. but then common sense doesn't seem to be in high supply and even though i drive an old clunker caddie i always park in the back that way i don't drive around for ten minutes trying to find a spot.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[the Dragonweaver]

A number of people who are disabled are not visibly disabled. For example, my husband's niece suffered from life-threatening asthma as a child—and by that, I mean there was a point when her immune system collapsed due to the drugs they had her on to keep her breathing. There was no outward sign that she couldn't walk far, so people would give her family dirty looks for parking (legally) in the handicapped spots. But she couldn't walk the length of a parking lot.

Now, she was a child, so a wheelchair might have been worthwhile in a number of situations. But imagine an adult in the same situation. The effort of lifting a wheelchair out of a car would be beyond them, and the method of propulsion wouldn't be any easier than walking. So they'd be better off walking the short distance inside, where they could sit down and wait until they felt well enough to walk further.

And if someone thinks they'd be better off staying at home, you've never been in contact with someone with chronic illness. It's isolating enough without being trapped at home.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[As_I_Please]

It's not just about being closer to the building. Parking spaces for the disabled also tend to be wider to allow those with wheelchairs, crutches, and other aids to more easily exit their vehicle. If you can't find a space with an empty spot next to it, how is someone in a wheelchair supposed to get out of their car?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[hrvatska]

What I've noticed is that different types of establishments are more likely to have their handicapped spots utilized than others. The grocery store I frequent and the big box retailers like Target or Walmart are more likely to have people using their handicap spaces than a hardware store like Home Depot or Lowes. But even still, I do frequently notice people in the handicapped spaces at Home Depot and Lowes, so it's not like they're not used, just usually not filled. But just like the number of non-disabled spaces available are almost always more than enough, it seems reasonable that the number of disabled spaces should have some excess for the rare times when there's high demand. It doesn't bother me in the least that some people might have to walk an extra fifty feet to insure that a small number of spaces are available for the disabled.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Anonymous Coward]

That goes for the cunts who use their relative's handicapped parking placard when they are driving their car and the person the placard was assigned too isn't in it. Yes, I've seen this a lot. It not only is illegal but makes people suspect that the handicapped are milking it.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Penguinshit]

I would counter, as a handicapped person, that there are too few. While there may be empty reserved slots much of the time, the "subscription rate" is for the busy times. I have been to places during holidays and other usually busy times where the reserved spots are all legitimately used.

Then there are times I have returned to my car where some asshole, not content with illegitimately filling a handicap spot, parked in the slot marked for where my access ramp would extend out the side. No matter how many times I activated the hydraulic ramp it wouldn't clear the now-scratched-and -dented side of the asshole's car.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[phantomlord]

As I said on the Steve Jobs story a couple months ago, the biggest thing for me isn't so much where the spots are located as the simple fact that I need to make sure I have room to get a wheelchair between my vehicle and the one on my passenger side so I can transfer my disabled father into it. Handicapped spots are either wider or have markings between them to provide that room. If you think it's a pain in the ass when you come back to your car to find that someone has parked so close you can't open the door, try doing that with someone in a wheelchair. Worse, try do it in a busy parking lot (my dad's been sideswiped in his chair before despite the fact that he was wearing a bright red jacket.)

As someone that frequently parks in handicapped spots, my area (Western NY*) seems to have an amazing lack of them. It's often difficult to find open spots at grocery stores, doctors offices, etc. A few times a month, I'll end up deliberately parking at the far side of the parking lot precisely so I'll have room for the wheelchair because the closer spots are all taken. I try not to be that dick that parks in a way that takes up two spaces, though every now and then in lots or fields without markings, I'm forced to do that too because of the desire for some drivers to park touching the mirror of the car next to them.

* At one point, I think is was the American Fact Finder part of the census that listed this general area with a ridiculous amount of something like 37% of the population being classified as disabled. Granted, that's not all physical disabilities, but it stuck with me because the number seems so absurd. When it eclipses 50%, does being disabled become the norm with the super-abled being classified as the different ones?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Bob9113]

You're still a cunt for parking there if you aren't disabled

GP did not say he or she has ever parked in one. Didn't even hint that it would ever be OK for a non-handicapped person to park there. Your knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive to his or her post is inappropriate.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AthanasiusKircher]

Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

That's not interesting. Not even the slightest bit. So we over-assign handicapped spots to try and make sure that when several truly handicapped people are at the store...

I thoroughly believe that we should have spaces available for those who need it, as well as other appropriate accommodations. But I think the GP brings up a larger issue, which is when it gets to be too much -- when laws and attempts to accommodate are so important due to political correctness that they trump reason.

For example, I remember hearing a news story a year or two back about a guy who was going around some state (I think California) and suing any business that didn't follow rather restrictive and arbitrary laws about accommodations to the letter. He would just show up in a town, wander around, and a month later, half a dozen businesses would get threatened with a lawsuit. Often, because of space issues or building design issues or whatever, the businesses couldn't actually put in whatever random accommodation, so they would settle -- effectively paying shake-down money to this guy.

Is this common? I don't know. The news story mentioned one other lawyer accused of doing a similar scheme. But our collective sensitivity to the issue led to irrational laws that support such behavior.

Another personal anecdote: a few years back I was meeting up with some people to go on a short road trip outside of a building in an area with limited parking. We had three cars, one of which was parked in front of a fire hydrant too close to an intersection, one of which was parked in a loading/tow zone, and one parked in a handicapped spot. (There were two handicapped spots there, and the other was empty: in fact, these spots weren't convenient to any important buildings, so I'm not sure I had ever seen cars parked there.) All had flashers on, and we were only there for a couple minutes. It was obvious we were packing stuff in cars and were all there with the cars, and if two cars had suddenly shown up for the handicapped spots, we would have gladly moved.

A police car drives by. They stop and ask about the car in the spot. We explain the situation -- that we're loading up, there's another empty space, we'll be gone in a minute, etc. They don't care: we have to move. They say nothing about the two other cars parked illegally, including the one that was actually a traffic safety hazard.

So, we pull the car out of the space and also into an illegal parking spot too close to an intersection. That satisfies the police, and they drive away.

Again, I'm all for providing accommodations. But when law enforcement is happier with cars stopped in hazardous No Parking zones rather than take up one of two empty handicapped spaces that are never used anyway, something's a little amiss.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[LordKronos]

He also finds it ironic, that there are disabled parks near supermarkets and department stores, fundamentally the kinds of stores where you'll be covering quite a distance moving around a large complex, there's not really much effort saved by having a disabled park close to the door.

Many such stores have scooters once you get inside. However, distance to the building is only one factor. People in wheelchairs, people bent over walkers, and people moving slowly tend to be more difficult to spot and are more likely to be hit by someone backing out of a spot. Minimizing the number of cars they have to pass minimizes the chances of them getting hit. These same people (well, except the wheelchair-bound) are also more likely to fall and injure themselves on slippery pavement, so a shorter distance is safer there too. Some people's illnesses may make them more sensitive to heat and cold, so it's best to get them into the climate controlled environment as quickly as possible. I'm sure there are other reasons, too.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Anonymous Coward]

Your friend is annoyingly reasonable. Please ask him to sue someone ASAP.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[arth1]

You and your healthy wheelchair user friend are in error, on several accounts.
It's much harder to use a wheelchair outdoors than indoors. On plain floors, good chairs pretty much roll themselves. Outdoors, not so much.
My latest wheelchair had front wheels the size of (actually, they were) rollerblade wheels. Any outdoor rolling had to be done on the rear wheels only. Once indoor, though, I was as nimble as anyone else.

Then there are people who tire easily. You can take a break inside in the store. Not so much in the parking lot, between well-meaners and drivers who back up without seeing someone lower than their car. And if on crutches or just hard of walking, are you OK with them resting against em your car, setting off the alarm?

Risk of being run over is also a problem if you're just very slow due to your handicap. If it takes you ten minutes to walk to the front door, and you can't jump out of the way of cars that don't see you, it's by far safer to park up front.

Then you are also wrong in assuming that all the handicapped traverse the entire store. Many of them go to the service desk and get assistance, some because the store is too big for them to handle with their handicap, and some because they can't reach what's on the top three levels of the shelves anyhow.
In some cases, I went to the service counter because the stores had aisles and check-out spaces made for narrow shopping carts, and not modern wheelchairs with cambered wheels.
When I was on crutches, it was also pretty difficult. I could push a cart around in the store, but across a parking lot where the cart may take off due to gravity? No chance in hell. Would you rather I asked a clerk to help me get my groceries to the handicap parking right by the entrance, or spend 10 minutes walking with me across the parking lot?

Strange as it may sound, handicapped people are often just as insensitive as able bodied people, and sometimes even more so. Just because they have no problems traversing a big parking lot, they may think others who don't do so are lazy, without considering that they might not be as abled as them.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[man_of_mr_e]

As a handicapped person, I see all the spots full quite often, particularly at peak times (dinner time at restaurants, holidays at stores, etc..)

I go to the local walmart 3 times a week, and they have dozens of spots, and nearly all of them (if not all of them) are full every time i go.

I would really have to question whether you really look all the time. Those of us that actually need the spots find them to usually be in insufficient numbers.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[deniable]

Well, this tech should be able to do it. A side effect of monitoring the bays is that you get stats on usage.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps a parking lot could have a number of spots that are reserved for handicap only during hour x through y(in addition to permanent spots). If an able bodied person parks their car is parked there they must remove it before the hour of x. It shouldn't be too confusing as there are already school zones with different speed limits during certain hours.

As for a-holes that park in the area reserved for an access ramp I don't think a lot could be done. Have parking stops in the way so a car can't pull in, or maybe wheel chair access ramp should be able to shoot flaming thermite out the side and onto the offending car.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[BlueStrat]

Your knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive to his or her post is inappropriate.

You must be new here.

Strat

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Wrath0fb0b]

There. Done thinking about it. You're still a cunt for parking there if you aren't disabled. Walk the extra dozen or so feet, it might do you some good.

I agree.

On the other, here in CA they give out the placards for obesity. If you are obese, you should be given a placard that forces you to park at the other end of the supermarket lot so you can get a whole 0.1 miles of walking in before buying 2 dozen bacon-wrapped-cupcakes.

So yeah, you are a cunt if you park in handicapped spots and deprive someone that legitimately needs it. On the other hand, you are a cunt if you neglect (or even just destroy) you entire body and then expect society to accommodate you in the consequences of your own decision making.

[ And no, I don't propose that I can tell the difference in all cases. Nor do I think we need to start policing people's lifestyle choices. I'm just expressing the pretty common feeling among the conscientious that we are subsidizing risks taken by everyone else -- it's as if everyone had to pitch in to fix property damage in car crashes without regard to whose fault the crash was. There are unavoidable crashes/illnesses and there are avoidable ones -- a fair society should pitch in for the former but not the latter. ]

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[PopeRatzo]

One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty.

They are empty by design. That way, when a handicapped person drives up he can find a place to park. They wouldn't be very useful to handicapped people if they were always full.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Just something to think about.

Wait, you think that the phenomenon of empty parking places for the handicapped is "something to think about"? Really? These are the things you think about?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Prosthetic_Lips]

I see you are trolling, but you bring up a valid point in your first sentence.

"barely enough or not enough spaces" -- do you *want* the government to mandate *more* unused parking spaces?

But seriously, the time when I really notice all the spots being full (my wife has an on-off disability and has a disabled permit that we rarely use) is Sunday afternoon at popular restaurants. Yes, I live in the South, and many people leave church and go to a restaurant for lunch afterward. I wonder if some of these people only "get out" once a week, and take advantage of being out to go to a nice lunch.

I think the time when the spots are all full are during peak times. If you were to go an hour or two later, they would be mostly empty, just like the rest of the parking lot.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[skegg]

As a healthy, able-bodied driver I have often noticed vacant spots that are designated for the disabled.

And I thank God that I am a healthy, able-bodied driver who doesn't need to use those spots. I don't mind walking the extra 50m, 100m, 200m, ...

For crying out loud, just:

1. imagine the mall / shopping centre didn't provide parking spots for another 50 metres
2. think of the extra walking distance as incidental exercise
3. consider how useful it is for someone who needs to use those spots
4. be thankful you don't need to use those spots

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[man_of_mr_e]

And I know a paraplegic that participates in athletics walking on his hands. Does that mean nobody should have wheelchairs?

Everyone is different. Some people are in good health otherwise, but have problems walking. Those kinds of people are often quite mobile in wheelchairs. Others have difficulty breathing and can't exert themselves too much. They can wander around a supermarket at a slow pace if they have to, but it's not the most comfortable thing in the world. Walking out of a supermarket, with bags of groceries and having to walk to the other end of the lot would just be too much.

Also, many of the larger complexes have motorized carts that they can sit in. You've seen them.

What about bad weather? If it's pouring down rain or snow, should someone that can barely walk have to traverse an entire parking lot, just because they can get around if they have to?

Its ridiculous to claim that just because some people who are disabled don't want or need such spaces that nobody does.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Lehk228]

too few is not "relative" it's a deterministic requirement straight out of the ADA. the law is the same everywherein the US, and a business would have to be run by knuckleheads to get caught with their pants down on it.

ADA PARKING CHART for lots between 501 and 1000 you must have 2% accessible, and so guy #11 could only sue if there were 550 or more spots in the lot

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[sunderland56]

There are twice as many "Elderly persons" car parks outside my local super market than "Parents" car parks.

Are they labelled "Parents" or "Adults with children"? I can see the accomodation for anyone (parent/sibling/relative/nanny) with young children in tow. But not just for being a parent.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[stms]

It's been a long time since I've seen the P&T episode about handicap parking but as I remember it was a fairly interesting episode. As I remember their point was that there should be handicap parking spaces but there shouldn't be government mandates telling you if you park there you should get a $500+ fine. Businesses should make handicap parking spaces because they want the business of handicap people, people shouldn't park there because that's kind of a dick move. If you think people to big of assholes to not park there without government mandates it'd be hard for me to argue with you. Either way still an interesting point.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Lehk228]

do you drive a flintstones car? or are you just so fat the effort to move the wheel and pedals makes you break out in sweat and get out of breath?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Oswald]

Wait, all the cool kids are including misogynistic slurs with their statements supporting the disabled. Where is your slur? Don't you want to be cool?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[sunderland56]

He also finds it ironic, that there are disabled parks near supermarkets and department stores, fundamentally the kinds of stores where you'll be covering quite a distance moving around a large complex, there's not really much effort saved by having a disabled park close to the door.

That depends on where you are. In the US northeast, you may be travelling a large distance in the nice dry heated indoors, but a parking spot near the door minimizes the distance you have to travel over ice and packed snow, or in driving rain, or in sub-zero temperatures. People with wheelchairs/walkers/canes do not fare well in icy parking lots, and wheelchairs in particular do not like getting drenched with rain.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[ATMAvatar]

Likely both the GP and yourself need to look more often. The trouble is that, as a non-handicapped driver, the GP is going to disproportionately notice the times when the spots are empty due to the annoyance. Similarly, as a handicapped driver, you are going to disproportionately remember the times when they are full.

In my personal experience, it is rare (if ever) that I see handicapped spots all full. Most of the time, there are 0-2 (out of 5-10+) spots filled, and then, it's about a 50/50 shot whether the cars have tags. I admit, I suffer the same bias as the GP, though. I would be curious to see some geniune statistics.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Anonymous Coward]

Walk the extra dozen or so feet, it might do you some good.

This sentence alone merits the +5 insightful that the post has gotten.

I've found that even during the Christmas season I can find a parking spot with no problem at any store: I just park far out. By the minute or two it takes to walk to the store is over, I've already passed by several harried drivers still waiting for close-in parking spaces. They'll still be waiting while I'm grabbing merchandise. The OCD drivers who compulsively circle the lot looking for a parking spot that satisfies their mistaken optimality paradigms may still be circling while I'm checking out. You think that sounds like hyperbole? Stand outside a Wal-Mart and watch. My mother is one of those OCD types; riding with her to a store is a hell of inefficiency, all to save walking the extra few yards in the parking lot before walking many more in the store or, more amusingly, mall.

By parking further out, you're also closer to the exit of the parking lot and will have less traffic to navigate to get in and out of the lot.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Bob9113]

So we over-assign handicapped spots to try and make sure that when several truly handicapped people are at the store, they don't have to park at the back of the lot because we tried to cut the number of spots close so that some non-handicapped lard-asses didn't have to walk an extra 25 feet.

One of the early commenters was advocating a Darwinian perspective. He or she is obviously a total douchebag. But I don't think it is so clear cut when questioning the allocation ratio.

By your rationale (which I'm sure was not intended to be a bulletproof and thorough examination of the space -- I'm not trying to fault you), you could justify having half the parking lot be handicapped spaces. Clearly that would be an inefficient use of resources for all but the most handicap-focused retail centers.

This would not be a problem if retailers chose to put the right number of handicapped spaces in, but they do not (probably don't have the data to do it, even if they were so inclined, but also the profit would act as a pressure against it), so we have to legislate the number. That is the good and right thing to do, IMO. Now we have a question, though: Should it be 10% of spaces, 1% of spaces, or 50% of spaces? Some other number? More than we have now? Less?

Much like homeland security, the only politically acceptable answers are "more" and "the same amount as now." Such situations require that we rise above our immediate inclination to jump to the politically safe answer. That we resist the urge to puff up our sense of superiority by belittling those who present rational counterpoints. That we dispassionately consider the question.

As GP pointed out, causal observation -- and even a slightly more formal investigation by a couple comedians -- seems to indicate that the measurement we used was off. We seem to have substantially overestimated the right number. Lazy lard-asses may have their own flawed estimate, but being as wrong as we seem to be is also sub-optimal.

Also note that you may not see the problem that some do. Where I grew up, there was lots of cheap land, so there were never parking problems. The lazy lard-asses could always find plenty of parking even on a Saturday afternoon, and I felt exactly as you do about people who complained about the allocation ratio.

Then I moved to NYC. And some years after that, San Francisco. Different story there. Seeing a big lot, completely full of cars, with people circling, spewing toxic gas, near-missing pedestrians who appear from behind cars without looking, while half a dozen spaces sit empty, is not uncommon.

Seeing that scene replayed over and over and over never even remotely made me question the value of having handicapped parking spaces. But it did make me question the accuracy of the measurement used in estimating the allocation ratio.

Waste is waste -- even when it is for such an obviously just cause as enabling handicapped people to participate more fully in our society.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[hedwards]

You haven't, but the reason why there are multiple spots isn't necessarily that straightforward. The problem is that they're allocated based upon peak need rather than based upon the average need. There are solutions to that such as allowing businesses to have disabled spots which are only reserved at certain times of the day.

I used to manage a loading dock a while back and what I'd see time and time again was where there would be no trucks in and all of a sudden within minutes the entire dock would be full. Same thing often times happens with parking spots, granted with a larger number it's less dramatic, but if you have particular spots that are special, those are the ones that will fill first typically and it takes several spaces to ensure that one spot will be unused.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Genda]

So at one level I can see your resentment. Its not fair to subsidize the irresponsible. My question is that when you see someone overweight coming out of a car in a handicapped parking place, do you even for one microsecond consider that their malady might be the reason for their obesity. I was in a car accident in 2002. I shattered my right leg, and had to have my right foot reattached. There is an 8 inch steel plate and over 2 dozen stainless steel screws in my ankle, leg and a 4 inch screw through my right knee where I suffered a plateau fracture of the right tibia, That is where the force of the impact is so great it splits the tibia down the middle like splitting a rail.

Before that, I'd won fitness awards. It was a long time I spent on my back, then a wheel chair, then crutches. I put on a lot of weight due to the sudden change in my lifestyle and the inability to stand on my bad leg. I'm only now (10 years later) at a point in my life where I think with the help of the right trainer/physical therapist I might be able to get myself back into shape. My leg however, will always hurt, and will never again function fully (unless the day comes that it can be replaced with a perfect working replica.) Do you see me as one of you lazy irresponsible fat bodies who doesn't deserve a placard?

Even when I get back down to my proper weight and fitness level, I will endure continuous pain and the inability to walk significant distances. You wouldn't be able to tell from a distance except perhaps by my slight limp or if you looked carefully you might notice something strange about the shape of my right ankle. Would you just assume I'm gaming the system, cheating you and the public in general. All I'm saying is rather than jumping to the worst conclusion immediately, perhaps you should stop for a second and ask yourself why that person has gotten a handicapped placard or license plate. Ultimately it takes a doctor to say a person needs it or not, though most doctors will lean towards the needs and want of the patient, a good doctor would almost certain say to a simply obese patient, get your fat ass to the furthest parking space and walk... its good for you. That is of course assuming they put their patient's well being ahead of looking good or making people happy. As well, you might just stop for a moment and wonder if an obese person would give up their placard in a heart beat to be fully healthy and vibrant again. I know I would.

Don't be so quick to judge, unless you've walked a mile on my crutches.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Anonymous Coward]

It really depends on the business. For whatever reason, I've always noticed that Walmart has more handicapped usage than other stores, which never seem to have more than one space being used. Where I work, I have never once seen them used, and I can see the handicapped spaces from the front counter.

What really grinds my gears, though, isn't handicapped spaces. It's those damned hybrid spaces. There's a Target in my town, and part of the agreement they signed with the city was that it would have forty hybrid and electric-only spaces in front, right next to the handicapped spaces. They never get used. They are a waste of space. I think it's particularly ironic that my parents, who have a car that gets better mileage than most hybrids, can't park in them. Why? It's a diesel, not a hybrid.

Why driving a certain kind of car should get you preferential treatment is beyond me, as it could be viewed as a form of discrimination--it punishes not only those who don't have a hybrid or electric car, but those who can't afford them either.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[hedwards]

I disagree with that. Handicap spots are not just a distance thing, they're also about having space for a wheel chair lift. So, rather than having one set of spaces reserved for wheel chairs and another set that are close for those that are unable to walk long distances they combine them and put them relatively close to the ramp.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[arth1]

How would your friend in the wheelchair be able to get back into his vehicle if someone parked too close to his door? He wouldn't

I can't speak for others, when someone parked too close, I have had to toss the chair in the rear hatch of the car and sit down on the ground and drag myself backwards with my hands to the driving seat. Very fun when there are puddles or ice. Once I even had to climb in the rear hatch of my (then) Honda and pull the wheelchair after me.[*]

No, far from all wheelchair users would be able to do either. A minority, if I were to guess.

[*] An asshole in a luxury car had parked in the shaded field right next to the handicap parking, so close to my car that even a normal person wouldn't have been able to get in or out. That shaded field is really too narrow for parking, cause that's not what it's for. She had parked so close that my bumper accidentally left a really long scratch on the side of her car when I backed out. Twice.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[an unsound mind]

I'm both obese and handicapped. These things are mostly unrelated. Applying your logic I don't know where I'd fit.

Also, your assumption that to be obese you have to eat things like "bacon wrapped cupcakes" is ridiculous. And makes you an asshole.

My obesity is from a disease that doesn't significantly restrict my ability to move. Quite a few people are obese due to no fault of their own. It isn't ever as simple as "just stop eating" - at the very least you have to make significant, painful changes to your diet.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Bob9113]

>> Your knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive to his or her post is inappropriate.

> You must be new here.

I've been around long enough to get the running joke, and find it amusng.

Still, though, I feel like replying:

Not only am I not new here, I have frequently succumbed to the urge to spew some vitriol at someone I disagreed with. I'm fairly confident that I will again in the future. No, I'm not new to that experience from either side of the exchange, nor as a bystander.

But I am trying to make it better. I'm trying to be better myself, and trying to find ways to communicate that message to our community, to make it stronger.

See, the thing is, I've been thinking about social networks, and about how our society is being usurped by manipulative bastards in industry and government. Same forces as have existed for thousands of years, I guess, but this is my now. It seems to me the only way we can beat them is by ganging together with other rationalists and communicating. Then it hits me that this community, Slashdot, is already a powerful force in that space. Makes me want to find ways to be a better community member, and to help others see the same thing. Even if only by tiny steps.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[man_of_mr_e]

I think the point is to encourage people to buy hybrids by offering them incentives. Special parking spaces are not discriminatory, unless it said "whites only" or "straights only" or "men only". As long as the requirement applies equally to all protected classes, then it's not discriminatory. Unfortunately, being poor is not a protected class.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[an unsound mind]

Oh god, benches when shopping. SUCH a lifesaver.

I don't need a wheelchair. I do need places to sit and rest while shopping, and even more importantly when waiting in line.

Shops having no place to sit really encourages me to not actually shop and to just pop in and be out as fast as I can.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[sdnoob]

illegal parking in handicapped spots is a problem just about everywhere.. and there aren't too many reserved spots either. if anything there isn't enough -- partly because of that illegal parking. but without adequate enforcement, adding more spots would just increase the occurrence of illegal parking in them.

the walmart here for instance, has about 15 reserved spots. during the day, most are always full (and during busy times they are full). and more often than not, there is at least one parked in one of those spots that shouldn't be... even though there *are* 'regular' spots closer to a door than the handicapped spots.

as a side note, another local store goes one further and has reserved spots for expectant mothers and elderly customers (not legally enforceable like a handicapped spot but still towable if you abuse the property owner's posted rules)

it should be noted that not everybody that qualifies for parking in a reserved handicapped spot, always parks in one (even if one is available). many also don't even get the necessary permit unless they require the extra room.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Martin Blank]

California was one of the pioneers of "public interest" lawsuits. The intention was good: allow those who see violations to sue to force corrections. This reduced the pressure on authorities to track every single possible infraction and encouraged those who should have followed the regulations to ensure that they did because additional eyes were on them.

Unfortunately, multiple law firms were using this as a money-making scheme, just as you described. It got so bad--people were being sued because their elevators were a quarter-inch narrower than prescribed under the law--that even those who supported the concept said that it couldn't be fairly implemented. The legislature responded by putting severe restrictions on it, and it's largely gone away.

Good intention, poor execution. But then, a lot of laws are like that.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing a big part of it. It's not OCD, it's misapplied competitiveness with the accompanying neurotransmitter squirt. You "win" if you get a closer-in space than most of the other people.

Silly? Maybe, but keep in mind that you're talking to a community where a substantial fraction spend a lot of time pressing buttons to acquire virtual currency that can only be spent to flip some bits that will let them acquire more virtual currency.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Smauler]

Don't be so quick to judge, unless you've walked a mile on my crutches.

First they steal your parking space, then you're giving them permission to take your crutches?!

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Martin Blank]

Unfortunately, the number of seriously obese people using those scooters has left a stigma to their use. It is not those disabled by injury or serious disease that use them most, but those who have allowed themselves to become fodder for comedians. Many handicapped people who do not have clear and obvious disabilities eschew their use for fear of being labeled part of this.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[WhatAreYouDoingHere]

I have NEVER seen a parking lot with >2 HC spots where all were occupied. I have, on countless occasions, seen 6-20 HC spots at major stores, all empty.

For a completely different perspective, come to Florida sometime. :)

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[martin-boundary]

It's not actually over-assigning. The spots get used regularly if you count time in days rather than minutes. Basically, the chance that a handicapped spot is used at least once (by someone deserving) in a day is pretty high for a busy place, but the chance that a random person will be in the area just when it happens to get used is very low.

To resolve the paradox, ask the question: Is a (regular) spot going to be used today? Is a (handicapped) spot going to be used today? In both cases the answer is about the same, and that means there's no overassignment at all, it's actually efficient on that scale.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Overly Critical Guy]

1.) Why should the mall/shopping center be mandated by the government to do that on its private property?
2.) It's not about having to walk farther.
3.) It's obviously not that useful if the vast majority of them are empty 24 hours a day because the government requires a minimum number based on the business size.
4.) Being thankful about that is irrelevant to the argument.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[mysidia]

No matter how many times I activated the hydraulic ramp it wouldn't clear the now-scratched-and -dented side of the asshole's car.

My suggestion would be to require by law that all handicapped parking zones be provided as parallel parking with a curb protecting the access ramp area on the passenger side.

Then it would not be possible to block the vehicle's access ramp.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Overly Critical Guy]

What a weird post. You're trying to be sarcastic, but everything you posted is true--if bathrooms are going unused, there's no reason to have so many, and if the building is low-traffic, there's no reason to have huge hallways. Unfortunately, applying the point of the OP, if the government mandated that you had to have so many bathrooms and a minimum hallway width based on the size of your business regardless if the space is actually used by anyone, you don't have a say.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm...non-handicapped people park in handicap spots WITH government mandated fines. I fail to see how removing said fines would make the situation better.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Ichijo]

I would counter, as a handicapped person, that there are too few... I have been to places during holidays and other usually busy times where the reserved spots are all legitimately used.

In a free market, efficient pricing prevents chronic shortages, no matter how little supply is available. A demand curve proves this.

Therefore, if not enough parking spaces are unoccupied, it's only because the price is too low. The right price for curb parking is the lowest price you can charge and still have one or two vacant spaces on every block.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Fnord666]

>> Your knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive to his or her post is inappropriate.

> You must be new here.

I've been around long enough to get the running joke, and find it amusng.

Still, though, I feel like replying:

Not only am I not new here, I have frequently succumbed to the urge to spew some vitriol at someone I disagreed with. I'm fairly confident that I will again in the future. No, I'm not new to that experience from either side of the exchange, nor as a bystander.

But I am trying to make it better. I'm trying to be better myself, and trying to find ways to communicate that message to our community, to make it stronger.

See, the thing is, I've been thinking about social networks, and about how our society is being usurped by manipulative bastards in industry and government. Same forces as have existed for thousands of years, I guess, but this is my now. It seems to me the only way we can beat them is by ganging together with other rationalists and communicating. Then it hits me that this community, Slashdot, is already a powerful force in that space. Makes me want to find ways to be a better community member, and to help others see the same thing. Even if only by tiny steps.

Honestly I think he meant it in the general sense referring to anyone who would park there when they did not have a disability that necessitated parking close to the door. I don't think he meant the parent poster. A friend of mine has MS. On a good day he parks in a normal spot. On a bad day that 100 feet can mean all the difference in the world.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[mysidia]

Why driving a certain kind of car should get you preferential treatment is beyond me, as it could be viewed as a form of discrimination--it punishes not only those who don't have a hybrid or electric car, but those who can't afford them either.

It would be interesting to see some sort of class action lawsuit on the subject.... for anticompetitive behavior / intrusion upon liberty / economic interference. With the tangible damages consisting of: cumulative cost of extra gallons of gasoline wasted/required to drive around looking for parking spots, with the lot densely populated solely due to the existence of discriminatory parking spots.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[TooMuchToDo]

Thanks for your post. I think it adds greatly to the conversation.

I'd like to ask an awkward question, and I ask only in the most informational of ways. If it were to help you lead a better life, would you have your right leg amputated and replaced with a prosthesis (simliar to the one in this image: http://rehab.ucla.edu/images/P/prosthetic-leg.jpg)?

Again, I don't think you're lazy, etc. Its clear your reduced mobility is caused by your accident. I'm just interested in your prospective.

Thanks for your time.
- Someone moving from IT into biomedical engineering.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[mysidia]

Special parking spaces are not discriminatory, unless it said "whites only" or "straights only" or "men only".

If 80% of Hybrid/Electric owners are white; if 10% of whites own hybrids, and less than 5% of non-whites do not own hybrids, then yes, it is discriminatory.

Discriminating against types of vehicles is discriminating against race, if there is a greater statistical tendency for members of certain races to own hybrids.

By the same token, if there is a type of car, car X, that 90% of gays own and only 10% of straights own, then banning that specific type of vehicle from a parking lot, or reserving spots for non car X, is discrimination against gays.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Ichijo]

If there aren't enough unoccupied spaces close to the entrance for everyone who wants one, it's only because they aren't priced efficiently. A demand curve proves this.

So a simple solution is to price each space according to demand such that there's always a space or two available in every parking aisle, and allow the handicapped to park anywhere for free.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[billstewart]

That's the advantage of using a cane - it's too hard to bash somebody's tail lights with a wheelchair...

Ok, I've never actually done that. And I don't use canes very often, just ever few years when I've broken a foot or toe or trashed my knee. On the other hand, the van I owned after college had a big jagged rusty gash along the side from when the previous owner had sideswiped something, and it's amazing how close you can park it to another car, even when they thought that by parking across two spaces they'd keep anybody else from parking near enough to scratch their car.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[mysidia]

A police car drives by. They stop and ask about the car in the spot. We explain the situation -- that we're loading up, there's another empty space, we'll be gone in a minute, etc. They don't care: we have to move. They say nothing about the two other cars parked illegally, including the one that was actually a traffic safety hazard.

They were doing you a favor, I suppose. In many cities, the right thing to do would be to get a permit and post signs 72 hours in advance to take legal parking spots out of service, by creating a "Temporary No parking zone" you can then use for your loading.

In any case... just taking the handicapped spot isn't legal. And the penalty for doing so is likely higher than having your car parked too close to an intersection.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Kjella]

The handicap spots are full of assholes now, how do you think it'd be without penalties? Are shops going to piss off their customers with huge fines for their "dick move"? No. All that would happen is that all the healthy people would get to park a little closer (remember, distance fans out in a circle - there's a lot more spots in a 50 feet radius than a 20 feet radius) and handicapped people would be shit out of luck. Either hang in front of the closest spots waiting for one to clear - and those who need extra space for a wheelchair ramp would never get the double spot they need - or park far out with most everybody else. Those people are going to hurt more, perhaps make a condition worse and in the worst case say I can't get to the shop on my own, I need aid of some sort. And those costs are coming back to you either in form of more government programs or higher health insurance, the extra costs are getting passed to you. Enabling people to take care of themselves it usually one the of the best things you can do, both for them and you.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[arth1]

My suggestion would be to require by law that all handicapped parking zones be provided as parallel parking with a curb protecting the access ramp area on the passenger side.

Then it would not be possible to block the vehicle's access ramp.

Have you tried traversing curbs in a wheelchair? A majority of wheelchair users can't.

I also question the wisdom of requiring that manual wheelchair using drivers now lift their wheelchair in and out into traffic. Also remember that with parallel parking, people can park pretty close to the front and rear of your car, so you may have to roll for quite a distance to get out of the road even if you don't get hit disembarking. In a vehicle so low that you don't see it over the hood of an SUV or out the rear window of any car.

No, truth to be told, I think it's better to have handicap parking with ample shaded areas between them, so people can safely get in and out of their cars.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[adolf]

5. Park far away, anyway, if able to.

I try to park up-hill, in a protected area (near a curb, if possible) away from common shopping cart trajectories. This generally puts me almost as far away from the building as possible.

The reasons are simple:

1. I'm lazy. And depending on the particular nature of my work, walking to/from the store might be the closest thing to actual exercise that I might experience that day.

2. I'm lazy. I'd rather spend a minute or two extra walking two/from the store, than possibly even more time fighting for a "good" space close to the building.

3. I'm lazy. I prefer to find an easy parking space where there are few pedestrians to dodge, and where I won't find myself needing to back up the car at all.

4. I'm lazy. Parking far away from others is cheap insurance against random accidental damage from carts and car doors. When/if I repaint my car, I want to have as few things to fix as possible.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[mysidia]

He also finds it ironic, that there are disabled parks near supermarkets and department stores, fundamentally the kinds of stores where you'll be covering quite a distance moving around a large complex, there's not really much effort saved by having a disabled park close to the door.

The important thing at such centers is not necessarily the exact location of the parking spot. Cars with disabled require a lot of extra space on the right side of the car for loading/unloading a wheelchair.

The handicapped perpendicular parking spots reserve enough area around the vehicle for loading and unloading, By including extra space between areas for cars, usually denoted by blue crosshatch, the 4 to 5 foot area beside the handicapped parking zone reserved for handicap unloading and loading.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[bemymonkey]

Depends. Is the rest of the parking lot full? Or are there empty spaces right next to the disabled spots?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

One of the issues is "disability" allows one a placard. There should be classes of handicap. "Can't use telephone" is a disability under ADA, but doesn't warrant closer parking. Missing both arms is a disability, but doesn't affect the ability to get from a spot at the door vs a spot at the back of the lot, though the extra space of the handicapped spots is nice. Some places (obviously not in the US) call them "mobility" spots and have restrictions based on mobility. That makes much more sense. People unable to walk 200 meters unassisted can get one, but those without issues traveling, regardless of other disabilities, are ineligible.

And it always surprises me the number of people who "earn" them who misuse them. If the handicapped person is driving someone else to run in the store, but he handicapped person does not get out of the car themselves, then they are not entitled to park there. If the handicapped person is sending someone else to run an errand for them, the person going can't use the placard, though I've been handed them by handicapped people for that reason more than once.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Phaedrus420]

Are you suggesting that we try and treat each other like human beings?
That's so crazy, it just might work!
Sorry, I'm just struggling for a way to say: "THIS!"
Now is ours, now.
Let's take good care of it.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

I'm in my 30s and recently had a stroke. I got a handicapped placard because I'd be subject to bouts of fatigue. Essentially, when my damaged brain had enough, I'd mostly fall asleep. I really wanted it to minimize the distance to the car I'd have to travel if I were far away when I had an issue. But getting out of the car, a fit, normal looking 30-something hopping out of a car with no limp, no visible issue, capable of running miles on a good day (and using it because at least soon after the stroke, the bad days were much more often and could start at any time). I never had anyone say anything, though, but some did look at me disapprovingly, but who cares about that...

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[stms]

I haven't seen that many non-handicap people parked in those spots now though I may have some observation bias. Like I said in my OP I don't think I can really argue against someone making the point that many more people would park in handicap parking spots if there weren't fines (and I was in no way saying that businesses would hand out any fines). I was making the point that it's kind of an interesting observation about human nature. I do agree with P&T's point that government mandated kindness is a stupid idea (though that's looking at the world through a very idealistic lens).

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Penguinshit]

This isn't free market. This is assisting the disabled who could be injured trying to access or, worse, permanently barred from accessing stores and services. In a perfect free market people are nothing but resources to be exploited and the disabled would be discarded like broken machinery. I resist that.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[arth1]

They are also pretty useless if you are on crutches or in a manual wheelchair. I sure wouldn't leave my crutches or wheelchair at the store entrance.

And yes, they do seem to be made for relatively healthy people, because they generally have a seat you can only stay on if your legs work well enough to provide some support. And in order to accommodate the obese, they generally also lack (or have had removed) any kind of side support, so they can only be used by people with hips that actually work to keep them upright.
Never mind that the cart part is so far away from the seat that you have to be able to bend forward quite a bit to use it. I have seen elderly people who have to exit the scooter to put things in the cart, then climb back up again.
Sure, they may be useful, but only for a minority of those with mobility issues.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Ichijo]

In a perfect free market people are nothing but resources to be exploited and the disabled would be discarded like broken machinery.

Why would their money not spend the same as anyone else's?

We could make the accommodation that they would never have to spend more for a parking space close to the entrance than an able-bodied person would spend for a spot farther away. This way, the free market is mostly preserved, without the inefficiency of the "one price fits all" model, which just doesn't work very well in the real world.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[darth dickinson]

I think at least in the US its on a state-by-state, or maybe a county-by-county basis. My wife has to use a walker because of a chronic back condition, and I know the handicapped form specifically states that you have to be unable to walk more than 40 feet without assistance, or stopping to rest. Of course, I guess the morbidly obese would qualify for them, under that criteria.

And I make it a point that if I am driving alone, or she's not going in, to *not* park in the handicapped space even though I have the tag for it. That's just hte right thing to do IMO.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[riverat1]

What really grinds my gears, though, isn't handicapped spaces. It's those damned hybrid spaces.

Build it and they will come.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[jklovanc]

The Bullshit episode is itself Bullshit. Lets go through a few points.
1. Can we legislate compassion? No. Legislation can codify individual right as seen by those with compassion. For those without compassion it changes the decision from "is it the right thing to do" to "will I be penalized if I don't". The ADA is there for the people without compassion and/or understanding of the issues that disabled people deal with every day. Laws are not there for the average person; they are there to codify what is unacceptable.

2. The show focused on parking spaces and chastised the ADA for "inflating the number of people with disabilities". The ADA covers many more issues than physical access. We all know about the issues with web sites and accessibility.

3. When showing empty disabled parking spaces the camera never pans around to the rest of the parking lot to see how empty the rest of the lot is. Too many disabled spots is only an issue if the rest of the lot is full.

4. The farce with the iron lung just stupid. People in iron lungs do not go out and parading one around the street is ludicrous. They keep asking "Where do we draw the line?". We draw the line at wheelchairs and scooters as they are commonly used by people to interact with society. They seem to imply that since we can not accommodate all disabilities we do not need to accommodate any disabilities. That is completely false logic. We accommodate what is reasonable in a compassionate mind.

5. They talk about making everyone equal; excellent distortion. No two people are absolutely equal as they point out. It is not about being equal but about equal access. If we can create equal access with ramps and special parking spots I say we do it.

6. The say that if one company does not provide equal access then someone else down the street will. They are correct that accessibility changes cost money. When a company installs these attributes their prices will go up. Therefore because one company has enough compassion to accommodate disabilities they are now less economically viable. By legislating those accommodations all companies have a level playing field.

7. The fact that one disabled lawyer threatened an entire town with lawsuits has nothing to do with the usefulness of the ADA. It is simply misuse of the law and we have no idea whether or not any of the threatened suits would ever get to court or be ruled in favour of. By that logic we should strike down rape laws because there are several well documented cases of rape charges being filed by jilted lovers. Every law can be misused but that does not mean that the law is bad.

8. Finally and most importantly they use the definition of disability and imply that anyone with any disability would qualify for a disabled parking permit. That is completely false. this is the application form in California for a disabled parking permit. Notice that all the qualifications concern physical limitations that interfere with mobility. So no, someone with dyslexia would not get a disabled parking permit.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I would counter, as a handicapped person, that there are too few.

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. What makes me crazy is hospitals. Around where I live, the requirement for number of handicapped spaces seems to be the same for hospitals as for all other businesses. While some businesses could make do with less, I'd say every hospital in my area needs four times as many handicapped spaces as they actually have. I have a disabled sister and have to drive her around quite a bit and we can usually find a spot...but not at hospitals. They all seem to always be full.

You'd think the people that make the rules would realize that there's a higher percentage of handicapped folks visiting hospitals than the grocery store.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[mysidia]

I also question the wisdom of requiring that manual wheelchair using drivers now lift their wheelchair in and out into traffic.

Who said anything about lifting a wheelchair in or out of traffic?

As long as the road is wide enough, with the white line for the left travel lane drawn far enough from the curb, there is plenty of space between the unloading area, and any traffic.

people can park pretty close to the front and rear of your car, so you may have to roll for quite a distance to get out of the road even if you don't get hit disembarking.

Not if the blue box around the parking spot is drawn with sufficient length and height.

If a car parks too close to front or back to fit a wheelchair, then they will be illegally parked, and therefore get a ticket or get towed off....

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Penguinshit]

because in a free market their money is more expensive to obtain with the requirements of investments in special access in order to obtain their money.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[GreenTech11]

I feel safe in saying that in most countries, if you're at risk of having a seizure, then your license is automatically suspended. However, driving is rarely a physically demanding activity, and there is no reason why a severe asthmatic, a paraplegic, or an excessively sweaty person cannot drive, even if they cannot then "walk a short distance with breaking sweat". Considering that we regularly allow people with raised levels of visual and cognitive impairment to drive home from the pub, there is no reason why those whose physical disability impacts to no extent of their ability to control a car should not be allowed to drive.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[arth1]

Some places (obviously not in the US) call them "mobility" spots and have restrictions based on mobility. That makes much more sense. People unable to walk 200 meters unassisted can get one, but those without issues traveling, regardless of other disabilities, are ineligible.

The problem with clear-cut peg hole rules is that they ignore that people aren't pegs. I can walk. And I can see. But I can't walk and see at the same time. I can't get a handicap permit because I can walk, because that's all the rules care about. Never mind that that won't help me - I am unable to cross a street, and am in danger in any parking lot, but not because of mobility, but because I can't see whether there's traffic.

I think a better rule would be that all permits should be applied for through a doctor, who can plead the medical necessity by describing the actual need.

If the handicapped person is driving someone else to run in the store, but he handicapped person does not get out of the car themselves, then they are not entitled to park there.

Yes, but looks can deceive. I had a friend (rest in peace) who was a hemophiliac. He could not drive a car because of his disease, but he could walk very short distances. When his companion parked his car and waited while he was shopping, there was often verbal abuse from people who just didn't get it - the handicapped person really was using the store, and required a close parking space.

Again, things are seldom black and white, and judging people based on fixed rules will always hurt those who least can afford to be hurt. In my opinion, it's better to let a hundred people who might not need a permit get it, than to refuse a single person who does need it.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Bob9113]

A friend of mine has MS. On a good day he parks in a normal spot. On a bad day that 100 feet can mean all the difference in the world.

Can you explain to me why you included that in your post? Has anyone in this thread suggested that there should be no handicapped spaces?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

Because walking is good for her, but only the optimal amount, and to much is then bad for you again. Did your grandparents die in car crashes? Because most old people I know with mobility issues do everything they can to stay out of wheelchairs.

Or to directly answer your question:
Because she doesn't want to.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[man_of_mr_e]

That's a lot of ifs. Even if they were true, and there is no evidence to suggest it is, it's still not discriminatory in the legal sense.

Sorry, it's just not.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

I have a handicapped placard (I am not a "handicapped person" as you identify yourself, but I am a person with a handicap). I've never gone to a parking lot to find all the spaces filled. Perhaps the issue is that I don't go to Wal-Mart.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Windows Breaker G4]

I work for a guy who is in a wheel chair, thus he has a ramp van, let's say there are no handicap spots open, so he parks in a normal spot, then someone parks next to him so he can't use the ramp to get back in his van. If anything there should be more.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

too few is not "relative" it's a deterministic requirement straight out of the ADA. the law is the same everywherein the US, and a business would have to be run by knuckleheads to get caught with their pants down on it.

Both true and wrong at the same time. I haven't read ADA, but most laws don't include indemnification in them. That means that if you do something solely to conform to regulations, that doesn't mean you can't be successfully sued anyway. So having the "minimum" number of designated spots doesn't mean you can't be sued for discrimination if you somehow knew that would be insufficient. Though I've not specifically looked at the ADA to see if it includes indemnification. In fact, the chart you linked to indicates "minimum" implying there are instances where more may be required or desirable.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[arth1]

There doesn't have to be an injury - some obesity is also caused by diseases or conditions. Pituitary gland problems (think Andre the Giant), for example, or hyperthyroidism, or diseases where the treatment requires high doses of corticosteroids.

And, in some cases, obesity isn't a problem, but another condition is. (Imagine a sumo wrestler who's contracted Parkinson's.)

In most cases, obesity is the fault of the obese, but we don't know that for sure by looking at individuals, and shouldn't judge them before we actually know.

And even when it is the fault of the obese, do we really want to judge them? How about top athletes, who on average die much younger than others, should we withhold aid from them too? Where do we place limits on whether a conscious choice should disqualify people? Because someone chose to work in a coal mine, he shouldn't get aid? Or someone who chose to be in the military? It's a slippery slope, and I'm not sure I want to be on it...

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[KDR_11k]

Without some statistics we can't make any links between hybrid ownership and protected classes. Before we can make such links we should assume that there is no strong correlation.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[viperidaenz]

They have a picture of a pram instead of a wheel chair. They are spaces where you don't have to cross the path of moving vehicles to get to the store.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

They are labeled "parents with children" around here but there is no legal standing to them such that you can't be fined for parking in one, possibly towed, though I haven't ever heard of that happening, and I don't think an aunt out with nieces would run into any trouble. It certainly isn't "single parents without custody" spots.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

1) How much time would Gord spend alone in the van (Gord was prone to seizures and had full time attendants as he could not be alone for long periods of time

You do realize it's a violation of the placard rules to park in a handicapped spot if Gord does not exit the vehicle, right? They are there, not for his safety (ensuring your timely return in case of an incidnet) but for his ability to get to the businesses.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

Handicapped spots are not there for safety, but access. Don't blame me, I didn't write the laws.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[BlueStrat]

>> Your knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive to his or her post is inappropriate.

> You must be new here.

I've been around long enough to get the running joke, and find it amusng.

Still, though, I feel like replying:

Not only am I not new here, I have frequently succumbed to the urge to spew some vitriol at someone I disagreed with. I'm fairly confident that I will again in the future. No, I'm not new to that experience from either side of the exchange, nor as a bystander.

But I am trying to make it better. I'm trying to be better myself, and trying to find ways to communicate that message to our community, to make it stronger.

See, the thing is, I've been thinking about social networks, and about how our society is being usurped by manipulative bastards in industry and government. Same forces as have existed for thousands of years, I guess, but this is my now. It seems to me the only way we can beat them is by ganging together with other rationalists and communicating. Then it hits me that this community, Slashdot, is already a powerful force in that space. Makes me want to find ways to be a better community member, and to help others see the same thing. Even if only by tiny steps.

Honestly I think he meant it in the general sense referring to anyone who would park there when they did not have a disability that necessitated parking close to the door. I don't think he meant the parent poster. A friend of mine has MS. On a good day he parks in a normal spot. On a bad day that 100 feet can mean all the difference in the world.

Honestly, all *I* meant was to note the irony contained in the post I replied to, as a "knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive is an all-too frequent occurrence on /..

Apparently it's still enough to earn a "Flamebait" mod.

Strat

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[sjames]

For borderline cases, I imagine it may psychologically represent giving up. If it's not powered, it's probably about as strenuous as walking. If it is powered, it's probably quite expensive, especially when you consider you might have to get a new car to be able to use it. In other cases, the bit of exercise from walking may be beneficial.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

And I know a paraplegic that participates in athletics walking on his hands.

I must not know the terms. I thought paraplegic meant paralysis, and the only image that comes to mind for walking on hands with unusable legs is upside down with floppy legs, which isn't very practical. So "double amputee" would be the term for the only "walking on hands" that makes sense. Even if the legs were taken after paralysis (or because of it), they wouldn't be a paraplegic because you can't paralyze what isn't there, right?

What about bad weather? If it's pouring down rain or snow, should someone that can barely walk have to traverse an entire parking lot, just because they can get around if they have to?

All you need for a placard is a doctor's note, and in Alaska, I know a few doctors that will give them to anyone old. My mother was complaining to me that she had to take the paperwork and not file it to get the doctor off her back. A broken hip for someone 70+ is often a death sentence, and there's lots of ice in Alaska, so handicapped parking saves lives (according to the doctor). I'm sure that doctor isn't the only one.

Disclaimer: I have a handicapped placard and am not disabled (I had a temporary disability that is better now).

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[slugstone]

Have you seen how people drive down the road. A lot of them do not care if you are able body and legitimate in a crosswalk. I would hate having a handicap trying just to cross the road.

As side note, I have seem a lot of people who claim have a handicap, but do not need the little blue sticker. Oh do not worry I have a disability.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[KDR_11k]

1.) Why should the mall/shopping center be mandated by the government to do that on its private property?

Because the mall wouldn't do it otherwise and we're past the days where disabled people are simply discarded by society.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[flyingfsck]

Yeah, but 'a quarter inch' could mean that a wheel chair cannot get through the damn door. I have assisted friends and I can say that it would be very trying to negotiate a blocked parking slot, lifting a heavy disabled person in and out of a truck, up and down stairs and then having the chair stuck in a door too - I have had all those problems at one time or another, though fortunately not all at the same time.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[jklovanc]

So a couple of lawyers misuse a law to extort money and couple of police officers do not completely apply the traffic laws has nothing at all to do with the value of the ADA. The fact that the ADA requires parking spots large enough to allow someone in a wheelchair enough room to get in and out of a vehicle is a good thing.

Any law can be misused but that does not mean that the law is irrational. Are rape laws irrational just because they are some times used by jilted lovers to effect revenge? No. It is not the ADA that is the problem it is the lawyers who extort money from people and the people who would rather knuckle under than band together and fight that are the problems. Since none of these "cases" have even been filed there is no way to know that they would ever succeed. I bet if someone who was warned looked hard enough he could find someone to work probono on the case. There is also a case for suing the lawyer for harassment and extortion. They could also file a complaint with the Bar for unethical practices and the lawyers may be disbarred.

Generalizing the thoughts of all law enforcement from the actions of two officers is not valid. The thing that "is amiss" the the two officers and not the laws.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[jklovanc]

There is also a big difference between suing someone to fix an issue and threatening to sue someone if they do not pay them. The former can be a good thing; the latter is mearly extortion and fixes nothing.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[arth1]

If the government wasn't regulating these parking spots, businesses would provide their own specialized parking to attract customers, and it would be matched to the number of handicapped customers they're actually receiving.

No, they wouldn't. The reason I can say this with certainty is because the stores did not have them before the ADA.

Use that thing on top of your shoulders. If you're a store owner and have the choice between having two parking spaces for handicapped people, which will be occupied 10% of the day, by customers who spend twice as long per dollar they spend, or having three regular parking spaces that will be occupied 90% of the day, what would you choose? Goodbye, handicap parking.

Plus, if the stores made handicap parking, there would be no legislation to ensure that they actually were empty when a handicapped person needed them. A store isn't going to fine its customers! So even if the store made handicap spaces, they would be taken up by regular customers. Again, the handicapped who really need the parking spaces lose.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[jklovanc]

So the fact that a few able bodies people may have to wait a few minutes to find a space overrides the ability of a person in the wheelchair the ability to have a parking spot large enough to be able to get in and out of their vehicle? In the case of the able bodied person the issue is "I have to wait a few minutes". In the case of the person in the wheelchair it is "I have to go home".

The two comedians did not do any "investigation" at all. The took a few pictures of parking spots and ranted. They did no investigation into the ration of used regular spaces vs used disabled spots at various times of the day and year. Empty disabled spots is not a problem if there are regular spots are available or soon to be available. Even if the lot is full a few empty disabled spots is not an issue.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[KingAlanI]

the first post links to a video of the whole episode, was interesting material.
yeah, there was a libertarian streak, and the argument that you can't mandate compassion (two things that your post addresses, so you seem to remember it fairly well)

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[KingAlanI]

For example, I remember hearing a news story a year or two back about a guy who was going around some state (I think California) and suing any business that didn't follow rather restrictive and arbitrary laws about accommodations to the letter. He would just show up in a town, wander around, and a month later, half a dozen businesses would get threatened with a lawsuit. Often, because of space issues or building design issues or whatever, the businesses couldn't actually put in whatever random accommodation, so they would settle -- effectively paying shake-down money to this guy.

this was precisely one of the things in the Penn & Teller video linked in the first post.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[arth1]

Also, and some people might find this hard to stomach, but Greg Perry doesn't speak for the handicapped.
He has a permanent birth condition, and has the same mobility as he always have had. He is normal within the parameters of being Greg Perry. For him, a close parking space is a question of convenience, like for most people, not one of necessity.

For someone who can't ambulate like they once could, or who is in excruciating pain, the situation is very different.
In short, Greg Perry appears to me to be a selfish jerk. And this shouldn't surprise anyone, because able bodied people don't have a monopoly on being jerks or lacking empathy for those worse off.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

I can walk. And I can see. But I can't walk and see at the same time. I can't get a handicap permit because I can walk, because that's all the rules care about.

The rules state "Are unable to walk more than 200 metres unassisted because of the nature or severity of your condition." So your eyes stopping working the moment your legs are moving would be sufficient, depending on the doctor. If you've tried and failed to get one, go somewhere else and ask. Or maybe there is some doubt as to your condition, as I've never heard of someone going blind while walking.

Yes, but looks can deceive.

I was talking about who was entitled, not what people may perceive from a situation. I never got anyone saying anything to me, but I got dirty looks parking in a handicapped parking spot. I'm 30-something, fit, and with no visible handicap at all (in shape to run miles, if need be), but still legally handicapped at the time I got the permit.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[arth1]

I have a handicapped placard (I am not a "handicapped person" as you identify yourself, but I am a person with a handicap). I've never gone to a parking lot to find all the spaces filled.

This is a good thing, not a bad thing. You should, hopefully, find at least two empty handicap parking spaces. Why two? Because with only one empty handicap parking space, there will be none left once you have parked, and a handicapped person who arrives after you won't be able to park.

Yes, folks, you see empty handicap parking spaces. That's the purpose of them. If they weren't empty, people who need them would not be able to park. Or, to put it another way, as long as there are empty regular parking spaces, there should also be empty handicap parking spaces. Ideally, both should fill at the same time.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Hognoxious]

As long as the road is wide enough, with the white line for the left travel lane drawn far enough from the curb, there is plenty of space between the unloading area, and any traffic.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that the disabled space should be recessed like a little bay (i.e the sidewalk at that point should be narrower) to allow a zone between the car in front and the one behind? The problem is that parallel parking would be extremely difficult without a lot of room in front & behind.

Or are you suggesting that a line be drawn - along the whole road - a few feet out from the line of parked vehicles, i.e. one and a half widths from the kerb? One, that's wasting a lot of space. Two, drivers will pay about as much notice to it as they do to other road markings such as cycle lanes, i.e. none.

And yes, I did see the proviso "as long as the road is wide enough". In a lot of cities it isn't.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[arth1]

The rules state "Are unable to walk more than 200 metres unassisted because of the nature or severity of your condition." So your eyes stopping working the moment your legs are moving would be sufficient, depending on the doctor. If you've tried and failed to get one, go somewhere else and ask. Or maybe there is some doubt as to your condition, as I've never heard of someone going blind while walking.

Neck injury. When I stand or walk, I look straight down, and the visual cone means I can see the feet of people about 2m in front of me, slightly more to the sides. Anything further away or higher up, I just can't see. Which makes traversing a large parking lot or crossing a street rather challenging.
When I recline, like when I drive, I can see just fine. OK, I can't see the ceiling of the car, but that's not a requirement for driving.

The laws where I am state:

A qualifying disability is one or more of the following impairments, disabilities, or conditions that affect mobility and are permanent in nature:

1 Use of portable oxygen.
Nope.
2 Legal blindness.
Nope. 20/15 vision.
3 Limited use, or no use, of one or both legs.
Nope.
4 Inability to walk 200 feet without stopping.
Nope. I can walk for miles.
5 A neuro-muscular dysfunction that severely limits mobility.
Nope.
6 A Class III or IV cardiac condition (American Heart Association standards).
Nope.
7 Severe limitation in the ability to walk due to an arthritic, neurological or orthopedic condition.
Nope.
8 Restriction because of lung disease to such an extent that forced (respiratory) expiratory volume for one second, when measured by spirometry, is less than one liter, or the arterial oxygen tension is less than sixty mm/hg of room air at rest.
Nope.

In short, I do not qualify, and the doctors can't do anything about it. The letter of the law doesn't allow for exceptions. Again, the problem is making rules based on restrictive pigeonholing.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Hognoxious]

As long as the road is wide enough, with the white line for the left travel lane drawn far enough from the curb, there is plenty of space between the unloading area, and any traffic.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that the disabled space should be recessed like a little bay (i.e the sidewalk at that point should be narrower) to allow a zone between the car in front and the one behind? The problem is that parallel parking would be extremely difficult without a lot of room in front & behind.

Or are you suggesting that a line be drawn - along the whole road - a few feet out from the line of parked vehicles, i.e. one and a half widths from the kerb? One, that's wasting a lot of space. Two, drivers will pay about as much notice to it as they do to other road markings such as cycle lanes, i.e. none. Not to mention that cyclists will use it as a cycle lane.

And yes, I did see the proviso "as long as the road is wide enough". In a lot of cities it isn't.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[IndustrialComplex]

The rules are the rules, and woe be to anyone who breaks them, or worse, suggests that they be relaxed.

My dorm had this issue:

1. The minimum number of handicapped spaces is set by the size of the parking lot.
2. This parking lot was oddly shaped. About 12 spots near the dorm, a long path area (with curb parking) and then 500 more spaces about 0.5km away.

The result is that all of the parking spaces next to the dorm were required to be handicapped spaces. This really sucks when you LIVE in that location and you have no option to unload groceries (Campus parking ticketers don't care that you are carrying up your food). You can see how annoying it would be if you had to make multiple trips to unload your car.

What really got me was this: No one in the dorm was disabled. Not a single person. So every single parking space less than 0.5km from the dorm was reserved for non-existent people.

It would have been very nice if these rules were flexible for businesses (like requiring a minimum of 1 for a visitor, and scaling it up to accommodate any disabled resident if they moved in. Unfortunately the laws are very draconian in both interpretation and punishment.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Hognoxious]

I got a handicapped placard because I'd be subject to bouts of fatigue. Essentially, when my damaged brain had enough, I'd mostly fall asleep

If your tendency to doze off is bad enough that you can't walk an extra twenty metres, it's bad enough that you shouldn't be driving.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Hognoxious]

It isn't ever as simple as "just stop eating" - at the very least you have to make significant, painful changes to your diet.

Unless you can photosynthesize then yes, it is as simple as eating less.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[jrumney]

I would counter, as a handicapped person, that there are too few. While there may be empty reserved slots much of the time, the "subscription rate" is for the busy times. I have been to places during holidays and other usually busy times where the reserved spots are all legitimately used.

I suspect most people's judgement is somewhat clouded by the fact that they pick the park closest to the door, then note that all the normal parks they walk past on their way in are full, while there are plenty of empty handicap spaces, and completely ignoring the rest of the empty carpark that they drove through on their couple of rounds of the carpark to make sure they got the closest park to the door.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Hognoxious]

As I remember their point was that there should be handicap parking spaces but there shouldn't be government mandates telling you if you park there you should get a $500+ fine.

That's exactly equivalent to there not being handicapped (note and learn the adjectival form) spaces.

For example, if there are one-way streets but no sanction for driving down them the wrong way, then effectively they're two-way streets.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[hedleyroos]

I can't believe we're even discussing this. FFS just have one or two disabled bays in every parking area close to the entrance. No need to debate it - it's the right thing to do. And leave the penalty system in place. From experience it mostly works and gets progressively more useless as the area becomes poorer / less educated.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Gordonjcp]

Why would you want to give people an incentive to own a thirsty, inefficient hybrid car, though? Get these gas-guzzlers off the road!

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Cyberax]

Because special arrangements for disabled people do not always pay off.

Yours faithfully, Captain Obvious.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[hattig]

Actually the problem here is that there is no parking bay for unloading goods (i.e., a 10 minute stay).

Of course I find it odd (as a non-American) that students can afford the luxury of a car. Walking twenty minutes with the shopping from the stores was common for me, and pretty much everybody else I went to university with. I guess the real issue is that in a society where you need a car, however much the cost of having a car is, you can't afford to not have one.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[hattig]

Meanwhile I am already in the store shopping because I went straight for an obvious empty space and was parked and on my way to the store as they were on the first round of the car park. I'm also first out of the car park when I leave. I simply don't understand people who spend time trying to find a car parking space thirty yards closer to the entrance.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[GameboyRMH]

Another advantage of parking further out is that your car is less likely to be damaged since people will be less likely to park next to you.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[hattig]

If you can't see more than 2m in front of you, then you are pretty fucking blind. In this case you can't see because of a neck injury (as opposed to other physical ailments like cataracts, etc).

So go and get yourself registered blind, and refuse to leave until they accept that your injury makes you effectively blind (and/or affects your mobility). Do your eye test standing up.

You might want to employ an advocate to plead your case.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[hattig]

Most non-disabled people don't understand disability. They probably think they do, but they certainly don't understand intermittent disabilities or non-visible disabilities or illnesses until they experience it themselves or have someone close experience it. Most people don't undertake any form of reflective practice on their actions and choices throughout the day either. Every so often you will read a story about someone with a mild motor function disability get arrested and put in the cells for being drunk (when they hadn't been drinking), and I doubt that the policemen that did that were ever disciplined or forced to reflect on their assumptions.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[LordKronos]

I have seen elderly people who have to exit the scooter to put things in the cart, then climb back up again.

So you've seen people who could potentially be handicapped on these scooters? Well, that was my point. They can be one reason why it's useful to have someone park close and not have to walk far, even at a store where you traditionally would have to do a ton of walking.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[jbengt]

What does spending have to do with it? Handicap parking spaces are more often in free parking lots at shopping malls and office buildings. Street parking rarely, if ever, has reserved accessible spaces. Pay parking lots have essentially the same issues as free parking lots.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Anonymous Cowpat]

As long as the requirement applies equally to all protected classes, then it's not discriminatory

it is discriminatory. It's just not illegal.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AngryDeuce]

Although this can backfire, as certain people (my brother, for instance), when he spies one of those "my car is so amazing I'm going to park across 3 spaces in the back of the lot" situations makes it a point to properly park in a space directly next to said car regardless of how many spaces there are closer.

Some people may consider it a dick move, but based on the nasty comments that he's gotten from those people the few times I was present and there was actually a confrontation about it, I'd say it's a dick move against a dickhead that thinks he's special, so it's hard to feel too bad about it. It's also funny how many people feel they are entitled to a 50 foot buffer around their car just because it cost more money than others.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[CohibaVancouver]

Street parking rarely, if ever, has reserved accessible spaces

Bzzzt. Thank you for playing. Here's one of many examples from my city (Vancouver, Canada):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XmgrJ99G4Vs/Tice-jsqlKI/AAAAAAAAASE/wR-wsve4Iq0/s1600/Vancouver%2B225.JPG

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[CohibaVancouver]

Not the best for health

Actually, the latest science suggests you may outlive us all (provided you're eating vitamins, iron and minerals etc.)

http://www.gizmag.com/dietary-restriction-aging-and-disease/13436/

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[sribe]

On the other, here in CA they give out the placards for obesity.

Are you sure about that? I'd like to see a reference. Perhaps they give them out to people with pituitary adenomas--people who happen to be obese because of their disease, and also happen to have small & shrinking heart muscle, and severely compromised adrenal function, and can literally drop dead if they stress their bodies a little too much.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[kk5wa]

A lot of problems with law enforcement is that they are not properly trained on what the laws actually say. They think that they have limited or no jurisdiction over parking spots on arguably private property.

In my state, we sometimes do presentations to LE on what the law actually says. Once a parking spot gets designated as a handicapped spot, it becomes subject to the laws of the state or the local municipality...not Wal-Mart or the mall or Starbucks. And once we tell them that all of the fine goes to the local municipality, they generally start enforcing the law almost gladly. This is the law about actually displaying a permit when parked in a handicapped spot, not determining if someone is disabled enough to park in the spot.

But sometimes not. In our town the school system is the biggest violator. We actually have photos of the school cops parked in handicapped spots.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AthanasiusKircher]

In many cities, the right thing to do would be to get a permit and post signs 72 hours in advance to take legal parking spots out of service, by creating a "Temporary No parking zone" you can then use for your loading.

Seriously? We had about 9 people meeting up at a spot to head out on a road trip. This was just an informal thing. We had to do it at that location because some equipment was in the building there. All the cars arrived and left within 5-7 minutes. I'm not exaggerating. For that, you want us to go to the trouble of going to City Hall and putting up "No Parking" signs (which will inevitably inconvenience a lot of people that day... or inconvenience us, since when I've put up such signs when I was moving in the past, I had to call the police each time to get them to move the cars that didn't heed the temporary no parking signs)?

In any case... just taking the handicapped spot isn't legal.

I agree. But we weren't permanently parked in the spot. At best, we were "stopped" in the spot for a couple minutes.

And the penalty for doing so is likely higher than having your car parked too close to an intersection.

That is undoubtedly true. So, in your world, all we should care about are the meaningless numbers made up regarding fine values, rather than what actually matters to public safety? Cars that obstruct view by being too close to an intersection are an actual safety hazard, even if they are only parked there for a few minutes. That's why those are often no only "no parking" but also "no stopping" zones. There was no hazard created by a car parked in the handicapped space for a couple minutes, and we would have gladly relocated it if anyone came along.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[theun4gven]

If none of those spots were handicap you would probably still be in the same situation. In a 512 space lot, with twelve being close and the rest a half kilometer away, what do you think the chances are of ever finding an open spot up front?

Now technically there would still be a chance, but realistically those spots would be filled nearly all of the time and, in my experience, usually by the people who very rarely ever drive.

The correct solution here, as mentioned above, would be to create a 10-minute unloading zone or similar.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Tacvek]

I've never heard of such a condition (blind when walking, can see when stationary) before. What causes that?

However, if the rules were written properly you would not be excluded simply because you could not reliably walk X distance to a building unassisted without taking frequent (and dangerous) breaks to allow you to see.

You are right about black and whie rules, but that would be easy to fix in this case. Simply have the rules for automatic approval be black and white, permitting others to petition a board of multiple physicians if they believe they should be allowed the placard, despite not meeting the automatic eligibility rules. If the board of physicians concur that granting a placard would be beneficial (rather than abusive), they would be empowered to do so.

That is simple and fair, yet would cut back on quite a bit of abuse. (In my area people with no real disability are known to doctor shop until they find one what is willing to prescribe them a placard. A board of multiple physicians would mitigate such abuse.)

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AthanasiusKircher]

Any law can be misused but that does not mean that the law is irrational.

I never even mentioned the ADA directly. I never said it was irrational as a whole. In fact, as I said multiple times, I firmly believe that accommodations should be provided for people when possible and reasonable. What I did say is that people who look at the law need to be reasonable.

Since none of these "cases" have even been filed there is no way to know that they would ever succeed.

Umm, some did succeed. That doesn't mean that they would succeed in all the places that it is threatened, but do you seriously think that no one has ever sued a business for an ADA violation and succeeded?

Generalizing the thoughts of all law enforcement from the actions of two officers is not valid. The thing that "is amiss" the the two officers and not the laws.

I didn't generalize about the thoughts of all law enforcement from what I clearly identified as an "anecdote." Did you? I have more anecdotal accounts from friends if you'd like... but that wouldn't constitute evidence of what "all law enforcement" think, either.

If I were to generalize about what was going on, it wouldn't be anything about the ADA, but rather about the potential for fine revenue. Either they were overly sensitive to the plight of the handicapped (possible) or they were paying closer attention to handicapped spots because of the greater fines involved (also possible, and quite likely). Probably both.

In my city, parking too close to hydrants, too close to intersections, etc. is far too common. But no one ever gets ticketed for it, because unless it's particularly egregious, someone would have to get a tape measure and check the distance (my city long ago stopped properly painting sidewalks around such things to let you know where you can't park). Every single day on my street, directly across from my house, an illegal spot that can't exist (because it is between a fire hydrant and an intersection) is filled with a car. Those cars are never ticketed.

Until recently, the fine for street cleaning was higher than both of those other fines. I think they finally raised the fire hydrant fine, but parking too close to an intersection (and obstructing visibility) is still only about half a street cleaning fine. So who do you think they pay attention to? The city makes over 1/3 of its revenue from street cleaning fines, so that's what the law enforcement is interested in... not public safety. And yes, I will generalize about that, since it is demonstrably true. The city council folks admit that they make a great portion of their budget from street cleaning, and they know it's one of the easiest things to ticket for (because the irregular schedule for it is arcane enough that people forget about it).

Ultimately, most of these things are about money, and lawsuits and fines for handicapped violations tend to bring greater rewards than most. That I will generalize about. And that's the problem here. We should be weighing a lot of factors reasonably, but that often doesn't happen around the ADA and disabled policies.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Lusa]

I count that as a valid reason for douchebag parking

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[BronsCon]

And the rest of the spots? Those are taken, as well, at those times, aren't they?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[BronsCon]

Street parking rarely, if ever, has reserved accessible spaces.

Emphasis mine. Please note that "rarely" != "never"; the buzzer and counterexample were unnecessary, as the poster to whom you are responding already acknowledged that those spaces exist, while stating that they are, indeed, rare.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Windows Breaker G4]

As in it's acceptable to block someone in?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[BronsCon]

No, that's trying to push someone out from in front of your car door; but, though you're pushing them hard enough that their ribs are cracking, you're unable to move them and they're refusing to move themselves.

Read what you replied to again.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Our community hospital provides free valet...

Great idea and a workable solution to the problem.

Valet parking at the hospital where my sister must go for any procedure done by her primary physician is USD$14. There is no free parking; park it yourself in the inconvenient garage with the long walk (even from the handicapped spaces) and you pay USD$12.

For some people, the garage makes sense. If you're going to be in the hospital for a long time or visiting daily for quite a stretch, you can get a slightly discounted parking pass.

For most people, though, this system actually works worse than if they didn't have valet parking at all. Since there's only a $2 difference, everybody uses the valet. That means the valet drop-off area is jammed all day, with traffic backing up into the street. People get frustrated by the waits and by the drivers ahead of them who can never seem to figure out that they need to pull as far forward in the drop-off area as possible so as to relieve congestion in the street. Frustrated drivers making sudden lunges for position while sick people in wheelchairs and on walkers are navigating the area is a recipe for disaster.

I could rant for an hour about the idiotic design of that place.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Martin Blank]

The regulations usually leave plenty of room for that. California's regulations match those of the ADA, requiring at least 36 inches and in many cases much more. I've seen some large wheelchairs, but none that could not pass through a 35.75" doorway. The problem, though, wasn't so much that quarter inch. It was the lawyers that would go around with a tape measure looking for that quarter-inch discrepancy and then filing suit against a small business owner who could either fight it for thousands of dollars or settle for a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars and still have to pay to fix the problem. The polite solution is to notify the owner that he's out of compliance and suggest that he get it fixed before someone sues him.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[nahdude812]

Like most P&T Bullshit! episodes, they have some valid points, and they are way off base on a lot of others. For example, complaining that drive-up ATMs have braille on them - seriously do they think that the laws should go into fantastic specifics as to exactly when each handicapped function should and should not be made available? Not only does that kind of legal complexity opens loop holes which greedy and crafty people exploit to avoid their civic responsibility, but earlier in the same episode, Penn is complaining that the ADA laws are already too complex. So which is it, are they too complex and should be simplified, or are they too simple and should be drafted in greater detail?

Also, chances are that even if there was an exception for drive-up ATMs having braille, they'd still have braille on the drive-up ATMs anyway so they didn't have to differentiate on a variety of manufacturing aspects from those ATMs on which braille makes more sense. Finally, consider a visually impaired person could be a passenger in the rear of a car, and fully capable of taking advantage of a drive-up ATM without being the driver. So it's not even like there's no way a blind person could ever use such an ATM.

WRT empty handicapped parking... Having empty handicapped parking spots is appropriate and correct. The number of spots is based on maximum capacity of the lot, have you seen otherwise 100% full lots with more than one or two empty handicapped spots? Is it really that inconvenient to walk a few more feet past an empty specialty spot if you're healthy?

Here's the thing, when the lot gets really full for you, you might have to park pretty far away, and spend 2 more minutes walking to the store. The handicapped person whose spots are all gone has to choose between going home or risking substantial injury by traversing farther than is safe, or perhaps they can't exit their vehicle at all because they needed the extra space around their vehicle for a wheelchair lift, etc. We were shopping at a large mall over this past holiday (formerly held the title of the largest mall in the world prior to Mall of America); we had to park way out in overflow parking. I only saw one empty handicapped spot, and I felt like that was too few - normal ebb and flow of people will mean that someone goes home without having gotten Christmas presents for their kids that day. At the same time I saw three cars with no visible placard parked in some of those spaces. Fortunately there was a cop present who had observed the same thing and was in the process of writing them up while we were going in. I really hope those guys got towed.

That said, I don't think this system is perfect, but the problem is not that handicapped parking capacity planning errors on the high end rather than the low end, it's that gaining access to this system is far too easy. I used to work with some folks who had gotten handicapped placards, and would boast about how they cheated the system to get them. One of them had simply had a leg injury and had been given a 'temporary' tag, which is supposedly only good for a certain amount of time. She continued using it for several years after her validity period and had yet to be caught. Plus one woman whose husband was disabled who used his placard without him present frequently as a matter of parking convenience. Basically they understood that they didn't really need this access, but they exploited how easy it is to acquire it and potentially put people legitimately in need at risk of not being able to use it.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[BronsCon]

You really think your body absorbs everything you put into it? What are you shitting out, then?

Your body takes what it thinks it needs and shits out the rest. When your eating habits are irregular, your body thinks it needs to prepare for impending famine, so it takes more and shits out less; that's when you start getting fat.

If you can't eat a regular diet at regular intervals, limiting your intake is the only way to prevent this; of course, that further reinforces your body's notion that you'll be running out of food soon, so it will store every extra calorie it can.

Now, I'm no scientist, but I can back this up with personal experience. I stayed at 132lb for 12 years, regardless of how much I ate or how active I was. There were months where I would sit around all day, not lift a god damned finger, and eat 10k calories most days. No weight gain during those months. There were months that I would be super active and only take in 2-3k calories. No weight loss during those months. Why? Because I ate nutritionally balanced meals on a fairly regular schedule, with light snacks between meals.

That means I always ate breakfast within 30min of waking, lunch 5hr after, and dinner 5hr after that. Assuming I was waking at 7:30AM, that means I was eating at 8AM, 11AM, and 6PM. If I wake earlier or later, my mealtimes would be adjusted; and I never had an issue should I eat a half hour earlier or later.

Then, my lifestyle changed and I was no longer able to keep with that schedule. I put on 61lb in 2 months before I was able to get back on that meal schedule. That was 7 years ago and I still haven't lost most of that weight, though I am down to 177lb (from 193) due to adding a regular exercise routine 30min after dinner 2 months ago.

You'll want to talk to a physician and a dietician, make sure they know about each other and know to communicate with each other, to figure out what "balanced meal" means for you. Once you do that, start eating on a regular schedule (from waking time, not based on a 24hr clock) and you'll find that, after a short while, your weight will stabilize, regardless of caloric intake or activity. Then, you'll find as I'm finding, if you're active 30-60min after eating, your body will start to work itself toward its ideal weight, though this process is much slower than weight gain. Also, planning for exercise will help you limit your intake during those meals after which you intend to exercise; you'll eventually learn that it's uncomfortable to get up and move a lot after overeating. While, as I laid out above, that doesn't have an effect on weight gain if you're eating the right foods at the right times, it does affect weight loss.

I'm not the only person I know who uses this diet successfully, but I don't have the same level of details about others as I do about my own experience, so I can't recount their details for you. You'll just have to take my word for it, or try it yourself for a year.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[demonlapin]

Find a different doctor. You clearly qualify under #7. Your ability to walk is limited to places where there is no risk of being run over. Or buy a mirror.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[jklovanc]

I never even mentioned the ADA directly. I never said it was irrational as a whole. In fact, as I said multiple times, I firmly believe that accommodations should be provided for people when possible and reasonable. What I did say is that people who look at the law need to be reasonable.

Considering that the "Bulshit" program's topic was the ADA and the lawyers are threatening ADA lawsuits what laws, other than the ADA, were you referring to as "irrational laws"? Who do you think should be the arbiter as to what accommodations are "possible and reasonable"? Should it be the business owner who's main concern is maximizing his profit and not the issues of disabled people? That is why we have laws like the ADA; they define what is "reasonable and possible".

Umm, some did succeed. That doesn't mean that they would succeed in all the places that it is threatened, but do you seriously think that no one has ever sued a business for an ADA violation and succeeded?

If by succeed you mean the target paid to make the plaintiff go away you would be correct. This is not how it is supposed to work as nothing gets fixed and the issue still exists. Why does this happen? Fear, ignorance and false thrift from the target. If by succeed you mean a business get threatened with a suit, fixes the situation and the lawsuit goes away, you are probably right. Since the issue is fixed I do not see a problem with that. If you mean a suit get filed in court, goes to trial,ruled in favour of the plaintiff and the issue fixed you are probably correct too. These cases are how the law is supposed to work as the accessibility issue is solved. The fact that it went to court is an issue with the business owner not complying with the law. If you mean a lawyer demanding money to go away, the case going to court and the lawyer being awarded his demands I see no evidence of that happening. This is what the lawyer was attempting to do to the town and what I was referring to.
Many of these extortionist threats happened years ago and the regulations have recently changed so that the practice has almost completely disappeared. The fact that it did happen does not mean it is still happening.

I didn't generalize about the thoughts of all law enforcement from what I clearly identified as an "anecdote." Did you? I have more anecdotal accounts from friends if you'd like... but that wouldn't constitute evidence of what "all law enforcement" think, either.

Here is your original quote;" But when law enforcement is happier with cars stopped in hazardous No Parking zones rather than take up one of two empty handicapped spaces that are never used anyway, something's a little amiss." By not qualifying what you mean by "law enforcement" with words like "some", "few", "many", etc it semantically implies that you mean all law enforcement.

If I were to generalize about what was going on, it wouldn't be anything about the ADA, but rather about the potential for fine revenue. Either they were overly sensitive to the plight of the handicapped (possible) or they were paying closer attention to handicapped spots because of the greater fines involved (also possible, and quite likely). Probably both.

There is also a third alternative in that police in your city may be responsible for handicap parking violations while Parking Authority may be responsible for all other violations.

Sorry but the rest of you post is a tirade about unequal application of laws and has nothing to do with the topic of conversation which is the need for disabled parking spaces and the need for enforcement so they are available to disabled people.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Bob9113]

Clearly the correct allocation is "current usage + 1", which is not all that implausible with something a simple as a lighted sign over an ultrasonic/magnetic/etc.

Love the rough concept, particularly for high value real-estate -- which is where the abstract problem is a real practical issue. The signs would be expensive, but if the real estate is high value it is a justifiable expense.

Obviously lots of implementation issues, large and small alike, but that is the kinds of answers we should be going for. Smart things to make our world better.

Unfortunately it's not allowed under the ADA rules -- you must use a static allocation

Those are changeable. It's hard, sure, but if you come up with a solution that everyone sees as a win, that sort of change actually goes pretty smoothly. Your idea seems to fit that in some cases. And it has the added advantage that some sign manufacturer is going to land the contract and make a killing, so you could get him to grease his senator (haha, only serious).

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[porges]

The old people are still going to have to walk around the entire super market, so why can't they cross the carpark like other people?

Or, "They're going to have to struggle to walk around in the store, let's give them a break by not making them struggle just to get into the store."

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[ArsenneLupin]

I think the point is to encourage people to buy hybrids by offering them incentives. Special parking spaces are not discriminatory, unless it said "whites only" or "straights only" or "men only".

But if it says "women only", then they are ok?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[ecorona]

> Absolutely. Especially when the most prolific computer book author in the industry, who is also handicapped, argues against them That guy is an asshole. Straight and simple. Would you like to know why? See, my girlfriend has a disability and actually needs a van accessible spot or she is TRAPPED IN HER CAR. Then she sees this asshole talking against handicap parking spots that she needs the way you and I need tires on our cars to use it. Without these spots she wouldn't be able to go anywhere. Here's the kicker, this asshole is disabled but he DOESN'T NEED a van accessible spot to exit his vehicle! So yes, it's much easier for him to speak out against these spots when he isn't 100% dependent on them to do anything other than stay home all day without the help of others. He's throwing other people who need handicap spots under the bus on that one.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[ArsenneLupin]

California was one of the pioneers of "public interest" lawsuits. The intention was good: allow those who see violations to sue to force corrections. This reduced the pressure on authorities to track every single possible infraction and encouraged those who should have followed the regulations to ensure that they did because additional eyes were on them.

Germany has such a thing too ("Abmanhnungen"), and always had...

Unfortunately, multiple law firms were using this as a money-making scheme, just as you described. It got so bad--people were being sued because their elevators were a quarter-inch narrower than prescribed under the law--that even those who supported the concept said that it couldn't be fairly implemented. The legislature responded by putting severe restrictions on it, and it's largely gone away.

.. unfortunately, in Germany, this law hasn't gone away. However one of the worst sharks to have abused this has committed suicide 2 years ago, and the country has now become a much better place. Enjoy your time in hell!

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[mysidia]

Or are you suggesting that a line be drawn - along the whole road - a few feet out from the line of parked vehicles, i.e. one and a half widths from the kerb?

I am suggesting the white line indicating the edge of the travel lane by the store front be drawn a few feet out from the line of parked vehicles, with concrete periodic pylons in between some parking slots. A car trying to use the walk area as a travel lane, would incur some serious damage.

Anyways, when converting handicap spots into parallel would be done in a parking lot, and bicycle traffic is rare in such places.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[mysidia]

That is undoubtedly true. So, in your world, all we should care about are the meaningless numbers made up regarding fine values, rather than what actually matters to public safety?

I'm not saying that's all you should care about.

But until you go to your legislator and get the law changed, you shouldn't think badly about the officers' choice; they're just doing their job as an agent of the law, and a cog in the machine, and doing it correctly.

The higher fine amounts / higher penalty amounts tell officers which laws are more important than others. Obviously if it was more important to not have vehicles in the no stopping zone than to have vehicles temporarily parked in handicapped, the law would apply a higher fine to the former.

If the law is mistaken, it should be a simple matter to take your complaint to your local legislators and get the law fixed, to allow temporary parking in a handicap spot, with an attended vehicle, or decrease the penalty relative to the penalty for stopping in no stopping/hazard zones.

Oh... you say you'd move your car for a handicap person, but by the time you could do so, it could have been too late, and you could have already inconvenienced them.

Also, your comment/excuse to the officer might be the same type of excuse than an inconsiderate person (who wouldn't move) would use. "I'll just be here for 5 more minutes. I will move for the handicap person when I am done... they can just go around a few times"

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Xacid]

"I can walk. And I can see. But I can't walk and see at the same time."

Ok, I'm curious. I've never heard of this. Mind sharing details?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[jbengt]

too few is not "relative" it's a deterministic requirement straight out of the ADA. the law is the same everywherein the US, and a business would have to be run by knuckleheads to get caught with their pants down on it.

Both true and wrong at the same time. I haven't read ADA, but most laws don't include indemnification in them. That means that if you do something solely to conform to regulations, that doesn't mean you can't be successfully sued anyway.

From what I remember from a professional liability insurance seminar several years ago, parent is correct. Not following the ADAAG would easily get you in trouble, but following them would not necessarily be sufficient to keep you out of court, nor would it ensure that you prevail in a lawsuit.

From the Justice Department publications "2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design" :

35.151 New construction and alterations.

(a) Design and construction.

(1) Each facility or part of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public entity shall be designed and constructed in such manner that the facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if the construction was commenced after January 26, 1992.

And :

The 2010 Standards set minimum requirements – both scoping and technical – for newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

[emphasis added]

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[man_of_mr_e]

I have no idea what is and isn't legal in germany in this regard.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Firethorn]

In the USA, it's fairly normal for teens to get a permit at 15, license at 16. As such, it's fairly traditional for parents to provide a kid's first car. Mine cost $250, near 20 years ago. Equivalent today is more like $1k, which gets you a basic, fairly reliable older car.

Oddly enough, many 'poor' types actually have more vehicles due to buying so cheap that they're no longer reliable, thus needing a 'spare'.

It's a luxury, yes. But one that many can afford with a part time job to pay for the insurance and gas.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Firethorn]

His further explanation is that, due to neck injury, his head is permanently tilted down. From the description, open your mouth a bit, then tilt your head until your chin hits your chest. Try to walk while keeping your head in that position.

Sounds like a weird injury, but plausible.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Firethorn]

You really think your body absorbs everything you put into it? What are you shitting out, then?

Doesn't follow from his statement. Unless you're eating indigestible cardboard, your body is very good at extracting useful materials, and as far as it's concerned, calories, whether they be carbs, fats, or proteins, are useful.

There IS a top end of what the 'average' digestive tract can handle, so it is possible to overwhelm it, but that's generally tough - you're pushing vomiting, painful feelings of 'full', etc...

You are right about not making your body think your starving is a good thing, but I'm finding eating balanced meals while keeping a food log to keep my calories under control is working well. I'm naturally tending towards meals that are the most 'filling' to me without excess calories. I'm halfway to my initial goal, the top end of 'normal' for my height. If my waist isn't good then, I'll keep going, but I lose pounds a lot faster than inches, so it's easier to track.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

Here, people who have strokes lose their licenses for a minimum of 28 days for that reason. But this was about parking, where you could have presumed someone else drove. But I did get my placard while suspended from driving. And no, I'm personally incapable of falling asleep at the wheel. I also have never in my life fallen asleep while reading or watching TV or a movie.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

I'm with demonlapin, I think you could argue a qualification under 5 and 7. Under #5, your muscles are unable to lift your head, impairing your head mobility (though in neck injuries, it's likely a skeletal issue, not explicitly covered, but you have to think creatively sometimes). Under #7, not being able to see while standing is a "severe limitation" and is an orthopedic condition. If you've tried and been denied, then you had a prick for a doctor. My mother was offered one by her doctor essentially under #7, as being old is an orthopedic condition that impairs the ability to walk. She didn't ask and essentially took the paperwork and discarded it, as she didn't feel comfortable using it for that reason, though she is 70+ and lives in Alaska, where falls are common on ice and a broken hip at 70+ is very debilitating, which is why the doctor hands them out like candy. It's all at the doctor's discretion, and there's no reason they couldn't qualify you under #2, #5, or #7 if they felt like it. Much like people shop for doctors to prescribe the right drugs, you should shop doctors for a handicapped placard, if you feel you really need one.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Firethorn]

The signs would be expensive, but if the real estate is high value it is a justifiable expense.

If the real estate is valuable enough, why not have ZERO handicapped spots, plus a valet service that is free to handicapped placard holders?

Of course, now I'm thinking of the Japanese car parking machine - which uses a robot to slide your car into a multi-story parking lot, almost like a vending machine.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Kalriath]

Who cares? They're not parked in a handicapped spot, they're parked in a "DO NOT PARK HERE, RESERVED FOR ADJOINING CAR'S ACCESS RAMP" spot. Which for obvious reasons you shouldn't park in. And he gets the right to damage that property because it's where his access ramp needs to open into so that he can get into his own vehicle - via the space reserved just for his access ramp.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Firethorn]

If Gord is prone to seizures, yet doesn't have enough attendants so that he can still be covered while one runs into the store, I can easily believe that the attendant parking in a handicapped spot is for Gord - enabling the attendant to at least be quicker, perhaps even keep Gord in sight while in the store so he knows if there is a problem.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Kalriath]

Um, neck injuries are orthopedic. And if it's not due to the bones/joints, then you clearly qualify under either neurological or neuro-muscular conditions. Your doctor sucks if they can't justify that.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[CohibaVancouver]

That's why I said one of MANY examples...

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Firethorn]

WRT empty handicapped parking... Having empty handicapped parking spots is appropriate and correct. The number of spots is based on maximum capacity of the lot, have you seen otherwise 100% full lots with more than one or two empty handicapped spots? Is it really that inconvenient to walk a few more feet past an empty specialty spot if you're healthy?

Yes, actually I have. Lot 100% full except for the handicapped spots, 100% empty.

My issues with the ADA are ones of efficiency, flexibility, abuse, and lawsuits, not the idea in general. The number of parking spots marked handicapped should be more flexible. There should be valet options. Some effort should be paid to keeping it all financially reasonable, doctors should be a touch more discriminating For example, in the P&T episode, rather than paying off the 'disabled' lawyer, the correct course should be
1. The disabled party has to inform the business of the problem - the business looks to get a fix. No increasing penalties for not paying him off in a day - that should have gotten that lawyer disbarred.
2. If no fix is proposed after a reasonable time - and I'm thinking a month, minimum, or the proposal isn't acceptable, then it can progress to lawsuit stage.
3. In the lawsuit stage, the max the client can get is legal fees - and if he's a lawyer doing his own case, his hours aren't billable. The court's primary focus is determining whether the problem can be fixed reasonably, and forcing the business to do the reasonable fix. For example, if it's a M&P business in the 2nd floor of a 100 year old building, and the fix would be $1M when the business barely clears $100k, it's not reasonable to fix. The handicapped person then bears their side of the legal costs because, well, they should have realized that no, installing an elevator isn't that cheap.

But asking a M&P hardware store, much less a home depot type store, to put in a ramp, isn't that unreasonable.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[arth1]

Um, neck injuries are orthopedic.

Yes, but the qualifying orthopedic injuries and conditions are specifically limited to those that reduce the ability to walk. Nothing else.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Macgrrl]

This!

The only time this doesn't work for me is in the pre-christmas shopping periods where even the spots furtherest away from the shops are filled. I try to get all my holiday shopping done early so I can avoid this if at all possible.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[syousef]

illegal parking in handicapped spots is a problem just about everywhere.. and there aren't too many reserved spots either. if anything there isn't enough -- partly because of that illegal parking. but without adequate enforcement, adding more spots would just increase the occurrence of illegal parking in them.

Simple solution: If someone who isn't handicapped parks in one, make them handicapped.

I am of course joking - I'm not that barbaric. But it is frustrating to see people enjoying the benefits of a civilized society while unwilling to pay for that in any way...they're happy to collect when it's their turn to benefit, and will tell you how unfair it is if they don't get what is coming to them under the rules...but ask them to go out of their way to provide benefits for others and they'll scream bloody murder then try to fight, sneak, or steal their way out of not doing what's required.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[syousef]

Where I live they have such cards and handicapped people are suppose to display them when parking in a handicapped spot, otherwise a fine is issued. (No meters etc - that would add cost and there are usually ways around them). So what happens? Corruption! People find any way they can to obtain such a card - from exaggerating injuries, to faking cards etc. etc.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[BronsCon]

In one of many cities. I, personally, had never seen a metered handicap space until your post, in 30 years of life. I'd say seeing something once in 30 years makes it pretty rare on a global scale, regardless how prevalent that thing may be in one location, or a handful thereof.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[arth1]

Ok, I'm curious. I've never heard of this. Mind sharing details?

Strong kyphosis in the neck. I can look forwards when I sit, but when I stand or walk, I can't see more than a couple of meters in front of me.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Macgrrl]

My husband suffers from periodic seizures, they can leave him mildly aphashic or at best stuttering, he gets balance issues which means he can often not walk without support and caan experience memory loss.

He had an experience last year where he was heading home from work and had a seizure in transit. He was catching public transport and there was a problem on the train line causing everyone to be disembarked. He tried to get a taxi home, he asked the driver how much it would cost for him to get to our suburb, the driver told him, he gave the driver the money, and the driver pulled out leaving him on the curb with no cash.

He managed to stumble to a chemist and pass out there, they answered his mobile that I had been frantically calling for 30 minutes and I was able to arrange for someone to pick him up.

Our charitable explanation is the taxi driver thought he was drunk and didn't want to be clearing drunk vomit out of the back of his car. But either way it was despicable behaviour.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[syousef]

I agree.

On the other, here in CA they give out the placards for obesity. If you are obese, you should be given a placard that forces you to park at the other end of the supermarket lot so you can get a whole 0.1 miles of walking in before buying 2 dozen bacon-wrapped-cupcakes.

I'm obese. Have been since about age 3. I've lost weight a couple of times in my life. Most recently over the last few months after being diagnosed with diabetes (in my mid 30s...but hey that's my fault because I'm fat right. Never mind that since both parents are diabetic my odds of getting type 2 diabetes are 75%...it's much easier to blame it on my weight). I've lost about 15kg in about 6 months (well mostly in the first 4 while trying to cut out all carbs and discovering that it ages me to the point where I need a nap by midday....but anyway). There's a

While I accept I'm responsible.

First I have a bad ankle (well both actually but one is worse). At age 15 I went ice skating and bent it badly. Nothing showed up on the X-rays. Fast forward about a decade and a half and I'm told that one of the bones in my ankle had blood supply cut off and is dead and that I need to have the ankle fused post haste or I won't be walking by Christmas....that was 5 years ago. Both ankles are arthritic. No I haven't had the worse one fused. I looked into it it's a horrible option and a last resort. The pain would be back 10 fold in 5-7 years if the operation took (30% failure rate, 3-6 months on my back and no weight on it at all. can't afford that!). Some days walking a kilometer leaves me in agony. I got to be on a boat on new years day for a couple of hours and I won't tell you what that did to my ankles.

So do some exercise that doesn't involve the ankle you say? Swimming should be perfect....well yes except that I get terrible ear infections and have never found earplugs that are effective. I admit I could do upper body workouts and upper body cardio, and one day I might. No doubt I'll injure something else. Have to find the time with young kids and a wife who has her own medical issues, a full time job that takes up 60 hours of my week, chores etc. Then add to that that I HATE boring repedative excercise and well...it's hard to get motivated.

Finally, I'm always hungry. I mean that half an hour after a large meal I'm often starving. There are exceptions but they're rare. Usually I have to simply distract myself as much as I can so I'm not thinking about food. Even then I could be eating in the background unless I control myself. I resort to huge bowls of salad - a whole iceberg lettuce, 5-6 tomatoes, 3 cucumbers, 1 onion, 70g of fetta cheese, a jar of spanish olive. That will typically fill me so I don't think about food for maybe an hour. Any time I mention this to a doctor they try to get me to see a shrink. That's just bullshit. It doesn't matter if I'm happy or sad, up or down, stressed or relaxed, doing well or doing badly. The hunger is physical.

Do I use disabled parking spots? No, not yet. I don't need them yet. Will I? Most certainly. Will I enjoy self-riteous pricks who have no idea what my life is like telling me the reason I'm in pain is that I'm worthless, glutenous and lazy. Hell no.

By the way I hope but doubt you realize that some of those who are obese have other issues and forcing them to walk would see them in an emergency room.

It's funny. A smoker or alcoholic or serial sun tanner will often get much more sympathy than an obese person because we have a built in revulsion to fat in this society and perhaps in our inate psyches. Few people are without any vices at all.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[syousef]

So at one level I can see your resentment. Its not fair to subsidize the irresponsible.

In a civilized society everyone is subsidized (otherwise it's law of the jungle). Also most people have vices of one kind or another.

I guess it takes the village to raise the self entitled idiot.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[syousef]

I got a handicapped placard because I'd be subject to bouts of fatigue. Essentially, when my damaged brain had enough, I'd mostly fall asleep

If your tendency to doze off is bad enough that you can't walk an extra twenty metres, it's bad enough that you shouldn't be driving.

Where I live at least in a large shopping center that distance can be 300-400 meters. Be fair.

That said if he dozes off without warning, that is a driving safety issue. But even 3 minutes warning is enough to pull over usually, but not enough to get to your car 400m away.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[syousef]

It isn't ever as simple as "just stop eating" - at the very least you have to make significant, painful changes to your diet.

Unless you can photosynthesize then yes, it is as simple as eating less.

Imagine being at your hungriest ALL THE TIME. Now try resisting the temptation of food ALL THE TIME.

I can eat a large meal - I'm talking big ass bowl of salad - whole lettuce, 6 tomatoes, 3 cucumbers, 1 onion, jar of olives, 70g of fetta and be hungry an hour later. I can do the same with most foods but I'm trying to choose healthier options most of the time now. I've lost 15kg - but it's taken months and I know keeping it off is the harder part.

Not everyone is the same. Just because YOU can control your weight, the assumption that it is just as easy (or not much harder) for others is ridiculous. What you've said is the equivalent of an Olympic runner saying that anyone could run as fast if they just trained. It's not true.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[syousef]

For example, I remember hearing a news story a year or two back about a guy who was going around some state (I think California) and suing any business that didn't follow rather restrictive and arbitrary laws about accommodations to the letter. He would just show up in a town, wander around, and a month later, half a dozen businesses would get threatened with a lawsuit. Often, because of space issues or building design issues or whatever, the businesses couldn't actually put in whatever random accommodation, so they would settle -- effectively paying shake-down money to this guy.

this was precisely one of the things in the Penn & Teller video linked in the first post.

Sounds like BS to me! What's to stop another guy doing the same to them? No point in paying shake-down money if someone else can come in and demand the same. It's often called "protection" money for a reason. The guy extorting you offers to stop others doing the same.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[syousef]

The old people are still going to have to walk around the entire super market, so why can't they cross the carpark like other people? Parents however have little kids to manage who haven't spent the last 70 years of their life not being hit by a car and its safer to not have to cross the carpark.

...and how do you think these kids learn if they're wrapped in cotton wool. I have a 3 year old and a 1 year old. The 3 year old knows to stand where he's told in a car park or hold an adult's hand even if he's smack bang in the middle of having a tantrum. The 1 year old isn't old enough and so she's either in hand or in our arms in a car park. Likewise I'm not in favour of school zones. Children need to learn about danger in order to progress towards adulthood, and when they don't know about danger the false sense of security of accomodating them without fully removing the danger does a lot more harm than good. I see to many teenagers who should know much better wandering out in front of cars without looking because they're so use to living in a place where the fault is placed on the driver even if they are being idiots.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[viperidaenz]

My 2 year old isn't quite so disciplined. I prefer not to teach him about danger by letting him roam free amongst 1500kg child flatteners. When I was a child drivers could see out their back windows when they reverse out of a carpark without the need for an optional reversing camera in their 2 metre tall SUV.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[nahdude812]

But your example pulled from the Bullshit! episode of the disabled lawyer who sued every business in a small town - even P&T recognize that this guy is a lawsuit troll. They specifically point out how he chose amounts small enough that the cost of defending against the suit is likely to exceed the cost of paying up. And they specifically point out that he was indiscriminate in whom he sent threatening letters - even showing a business which has been ADA compliant since before there was an ADA, which got the same letter as the rest of the businesses in town.

Lawsuit-happy lawyers is no more a problem with the ADA than the RIAA is a problem with the Internet. As long as there are laws, there will be people who will try to sue who have no good case. The problem is with the US legal system which doesn't do enough to protect against frivolous lawsuits. This crappy example of the "abuseability" of ADA laws is an excellent example I end up frustrated and annoyed with most Bullshit! episodes even when I strongly agree with their agenda for that episode. They do a terrible job of making their case by including this kind of non-example.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[jklovanc]

I have thought about it and I will repeat myself; an able bodied person will need to wait a few minutes or park further away while a wheelchair bound person will have to go home if there is not a space available. The issue isn't when the lot is empty it is when it is full. The requirements for a lot with 100 spaces is 4. Say the average person takes 30 minutes in the store. If the requirements are met a disabled spot will come up every 7.5 minutes and a regular spot will come up every 19 seconds. Say the number of required spots was cut in half to 2. The wait time for a handicap spot would be 15 minutes while the wait time for a regular spot would be 18 seconds. So reducing the number of disabled spots by half you have save each able bodied driver one second. If there were no disabled spots the mobility impaired driver would have to go home; he can not get out of his van while an able bodied driver would wait 18 seconds. No difference to the able bodied driver and in-access to the mobility impaired driver. Not much benefit for such a loss to disabled people. I say again one or two spots in a crowed lot is not going to make much of a difference to able bodied drivers but is very important to mobility impaired drivers.

To those who say that they could be parking in that spot instead of driving around I say that that spot would probably have been taken by the other able bodied person who saw it two minutes ago and you would still be in the same spot and you convenience is outweighed by the needs of the mobility impaired driver that may arrive in the next few minutes.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[GameboyRMH]

I didn't say park badly, just further out.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[toddestan]

As far as I know, the law specifies a minimum number of handicapped parking spots, but no maximum. So I would ask why the hospital simply doesn't increase the number of handicapped spots if they are needed.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[toddestan]

I think the point is to get people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, not necessarily hybrids. If they wanted to do it right, the spots would be open for a 40+ MPG Honda CRX, but closed to vehicles like the giant 20 MPG Yukon hybrid.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Mistlefoot]

I do realize that it is NOT a violation of the placard rules to park in a handicapped spot if Gord did not exit the vehicle.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/app.shtml

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Xacid]

Oh wow - thanks for the info. I often find myself amazed at the diversity of the people on slashdot and the random things I learn from them.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Demolition]

Just wait until you or someone you know becomes physically disabled. You'll be singing a different tune.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[syousef]

My 2 year old isn't quite so disciplined. I prefer not to teach him about danger by letting him roam free amongst 1500kg child flatteners. When I was a child drivers could see out their back windows when they reverse out of a carpark without the need for an optional reversing camera in their 2 metre tall SUV.

Then don't let him roam free. That is the point. If my son didn't have his head screwed on right, he'd be in my hand the whole time. ,,,and don't kid yourself - old cars were MUCH less safe than new ones. It's just that every kid injured wasn't reported on the news as a tragedy and a reason for new laws/fines, gadgets to be bought and taxes to be collected.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[hairyfish]

there was often verbal abuse from people who just didn't get it

OMGZ call the cops. If you want to see humanity at it's worst, just watch the general over-reaction to someone parking in a disabled spot when they're not supposed to. I've seen otherwise rational people lose their shit for no real reason simply because the disabled parking spot has become the 21st century version of Mother Mary's vagina. You would get less grief if you actually assaulted a disabled person than if you parked in their parking space.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[RockDoctor]

The legal specification of what percentage of handicapped spaces are required ought to be revisited to reflect reality.

Yes. For a city with (say) 5000 handicapped drivers, then the first 5000 parking places of each parking lot should be reserved for disabled drivers, and only then should parking places be made available for non-disabled drivers.

Let the able-bodied lard-arses get some exercise.

(I speak as an able-bodied lard arse. With a driving license, and a car and, on most days, an all-day bus ticket. It's quicker and easier going into town on the bus than driving into town and attempting to find a parking place. As it should be.)

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[tehcyder]

It may be news to you but not everything can or should be defined in cash terms. Things like slavery or child labour weren't outlawed because they were having a negative impact on the slave owners' or employers' cash flow.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

It is a violation in other places. The ones I've handled (including my own) have arrived with instructions that indicate so, but a look online doesn't reveal those "warnings" in on any page I can find at the moment.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

Not by law. The one I've seen for Alaska specifically said that driving a disabled person to the pharmacy, parking in a handicapped spot, running in and getting medication for the disabled person and running back out is explicitly illegal. The "safety" or "convenience"of the disabled person is irrelevant to the law. It's about accessibility *only*.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[tehcyder]

It's been a long time since I've seen the P&T episode about handicap parking but as I remember it was a fairly interesting episode. As I remember their point was that there should be handicap parking spaces but there shouldn't be government mandates telling you if you park there you should get a $500+ fine. Businesses should make handicap parking spaces because they want the business of handicap people, people shouldn't park there because that's kind of a dick move. If you think people to big of assholes to not park there without government mandates it'd be hard for me to argue with you. Either way still an interesting point.

It is a pretty feeble argument to say that you shouldn't need laws because everyone should just be nice to each other. It's an extension of the extreme libertarian "everything bad is caused by government interfering in the free market, therefore if we abolished government and laws everything would be perfect" argument.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Wrath0fb0b]

So at one level I can see your resentment. Its not fair to subsidize the irresponsible. My question is that when you see someone overweight coming out of a car in a handicapped parking place, do you even for one microsecond consider that their malady might be the reason for their obesity.

Of course I do. Hence my ending parenthetical about being unable to distinguish between self-inflicted disability and otherwise.

You have to admit though, that in the space of obese people, you are the exceptional case. For every obese person that has gone through what you did, there are plenty more who inflicted it on themselves. This is not an insult to you in any possible way, it's just a fact.

Ultimately it takes a doctor to say a person needs it or not, though most doctors will lean towards the needs and want of the patient, a good doctor would almost certain say to a simply obese patient, get your fat ass to the furthest parking space and walk... its good for you.

That's a joke right? I wish I could have such faith in doctors, in reality here there are scandals after scandals of doctors that will affirm (under oath) that individuals are sick for the purpose of getting them State benifits/pensions/disability. Some of them give out placards and disability letters for a fee. Sometimes, you find individuals who have a doctor's affirmation that they are disabled taking part in bodybuilding competitions!

In fact, as a legitimately disabled person, I reckon you should be more outraged about those doctors than the rest of us, since they are diluting your benefits!

[1] http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-27/new-york-rail-workers-sought-1-billion-for-fake-disabilities-u-s-says
[2] http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-06/news/29859246_1_pension-scandal-pension-abuse-tax-free-pension

TL;DR version: a doctor's note means nothing except a compliant doctor.

Don't be so quick to judge, unless you've walked a mile on my crutches.

I don't think I judged. If it came off that way, I apologize and clarify that it was not my intent.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Wrath0fb0b]

In a civilized society everyone is subsidized (otherwise it's law of the jungle). Also most people have vices of one kind or another.

Where do I sign up for subsidized motorcycle insurance for my crotch rocket?!

Here I was riding a regular motorcycle like an idiot when I could apparently ride a far more powerful and fun cycle for no additional cost!

[ I should also inquire with my insurance company why it would cost thousands more to insure the sportbike given that apparently I'm entitled to the same rate no matter what risk I take! ]

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Firethorn]

It might be 'by law', but well, I tend to view obeying the law as optional - as long as you're willing to pay the consequences. Basically, the trade-off is worth it. Using handicapped spots to keep an eye on Gord for a store run might not be 'legal', but as long as there's still handicapped spots open, I'd see most people giving them a bye for the most part, and it might be worth the chance of a $250 fine. UPS/Fedex drivers risk parking fines all the time - the fines are, on average, less than the extra hours they'd have to pay people, much less when you add the extra vehicles that would be needed in.

If nothing else - them using excess handicapped spots keeps normal spots open for me. Basically, the laws need tweaking. Perhaps fewer handicapped spots, more 10-15 min loading zones. Maybe even dual-purpose spots, though that would be abusable.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Slashdot Parent]

As far as businesses making themselves accessible because they want the business of handicapped people, good luck with that. It's usually much cheaper to just write off that small percentage of the population. Building ramps, widening doors, remodeling bathrooms, etc., all cost a lot of money. Many businesses would simply tell the handicapped people of the world to take their crutches and shove 'em.

Also, I agree that people shouldn't abuse the handicapped spots, and I think for the most part they don't. But then, why rant about enforcement? If people did behave correctly, no enforcement would be needed.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Slashdot Parent]

yeah, there was a libertarian streak, and the argument that you can't mandate compassion (two things that your post addresses, so you seem to remember it fairly well)

I don't think anybody is trying to mandate compassion. The idea is to mandate a place for handicapped people to park their cars so they can use the same stores that we use.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[LunaticTippy]

Cars for teenagers are an extravagance. Insurance alone is a couple thousand a year if you're lucky. I got a car when I was 15, I saved up for years for it. When I went to college I decided the several thousand a year in costs weren't worth it. All the college towns I've visited have had all the necessities within easy biking or walking distance.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[LunaticTippy]

Prosthetics have come a long way from peg legs, but nobody would ever choose one over a partially working limb. Between phantom pain, skin problems at the prosthetic juncture, and the higher visibility it would be a tough decision to justify.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Interesting observation and question.

I can see why at one hospital. The handicapped spaces are the closest, but they're still across the street in a parking garage. The farthest-away handicap spot is more than a block. Adding more is just adding more ridiculousness to an already ludicrous layout.

I actually discussed this with my sister and came up with one theory. At the majority of hospitals we know that have this problem, all the spaces that are next to the building are handicapped reserved. They seem to be loathe to set up spaces in the rest of the lot, spaces that would require wheelchair users to cross lanes of traffic. I can sort of see that thinking, even if I don't agree. Under that theory, a building that wanted to maximize the number of handicapped spaces would be limited to how many linear feet of building-bordering space can be set aside for parking. Take away the entrances, crosswalks, loading docks, and service areas and there's not enough perimeter left for sufficient reserved spaces.

The above is the best theory we can come up with. It's still just a wild guess. If somebody actually understands the thinking here, feel free to chime in.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[syousef]

In a civilized society everyone is subsidized (otherwise it's law of the jungle). Also most people have vices of one kind or another.

Where do I sign up for subsidized motorcycle insurance for my crotch rocket?!

Here I was riding a regular motorcycle like an idiot when I could apparently ride a far more powerful and fun cycle for no additional cost!

[ I should also inquire with my insurance company why it would cost thousands more to insure the sportbike given that apparently I'm entitled to the same rate no matter what risk I take! ]

Reductio ad absurdum is a pissweak way to argue. You already are subsidized. Motorcycles are tolerated and legal even though the accident rate and the medical burden on society is much higher than for cars.

Strawman is an even weaker way to argue. At no stage did I say no matter what choices you made you should be charged "the same rate". Obese people are charged higher rates for medical, income and life insurance, find it more difficult to get work because they are seen as a medical risk etc.

Try making an actual argument that is logically defensible.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Firethorn]

Couple thousand? 'If you're lucky'? More like 'If your parents are bad drivers, you drive a newer vehicle, in a bad area, and don't shop around'.

Also, you assume on going to a 'college town'. Many people, even today, don't go to college. While I went to college, I didn't live/work within easy biking distance, especially in winter. The bus actually cost more than the gas to go places, and I worked.

It's a luxury more than an 'extravagence'. It's even one that most kids from middle class backgrounds can afford.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[LunaticTippy]

Everyone has different priorities. I considered ease of commute when getting a room or a job or a relocation and never had a problem. I saw a lot of my friends put more priority on having a car, and it made them happy, but they didn't delude themselves about the total cost. The money adds up and is part of why I own a few houses now.

Insurance may be cheaper where you are, where I grew up that was how much insurance was. According to this the average cost of a teenager policy is $2267, this is for someone who like myself was unable to use their parents policy.

You seem strangely defensive about owning a car. It is fine, I own one myself now, but I realize how much it costs. When I talk to young people about cars I try to mention my experiences. So many people regard a car as a necessity when it isn't. Seeing it as a necessity makes all the costs seem unavoidable and prevents some people from bothering to add them up. It is amazing how quickly the repairs, maintenance, accessories, and fuel add up. The average household spends 15% on car ownership, the 2nd largest expenditure. You can get quite a head start if you think logically about it.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Firethorn]

Well, of course my priorities were different - I lived where I could get free housing, which, as the #1 normal expense, justifies a car. I've added all the expenses up - and I try to get a lot of teens to put off the car for a little bit; especially the 'getting a loan for an overpriced used car from a dealer' version.

BTW, I think car ownership is getting pushed to #3 - healthcare has passed it by.

I'd love to do without a car - but I'm in Alaska, and it's a 20 mile commute to work.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[LunaticTippy]

Those used car loan places sure rip people off. It's so sad to see someone finance several thousand on a $500 car at 25%. You're right that health care is taking over the #2 spot.

I figure nearly everyone in rural areas needs a car, probably Alaska even in the city. I like the idea of renting a car when needed for lots of situations. I probably need a car for 5 hours a month, it'd be nice if I could rent one at fair rates and little hassle. I've tried sharing a car with friends but that is a minefield.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Lehk228]

they are the minimum requirements, in order to be compliant with the ADA (which is the law under which you could be sued if your accommodations were inadequate) you have to do at least those amounts, it's minimum and not a set amount because a business can choose to have more instead, either because they cater to a population with more than average handicapped customers, or to simplify an expected increase in parking lot space (store opens with just the front lot completed with 500 spaces, expects the back lot to be done after the winter is over with another 250 spaces, builds initial lot to spec for 750 so changes are not needed when the back lot opens.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Lehk228]

the ADA is the law which they would be suing you under, so no you could not be successfully sued for a feature that was in compliance with the ADA requirements

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

You are incorrect. HIPAA is one of the few laws with indemnification in it. That is, if you comply with HIPAA regulations (all of them) and some breach occurs, then you can not be held liable. This was done as an exception to the general way of doing it because it was a tech law, and lawmakers don't know tech, so, rather than "do all this and still get sued" they made it "do all this and you'll not get sued." But plenty of other laws set out violations, lots of them, and no indemnification. So having the "minimum" number of spots at the local Bingo hall meets one requirement to not be in violation, but if the owners of the building know for a fact that there are 10 handicapped people that come play Bingo every Saturday night and puts in only the 3 "minimum" spaces he is in violation of other parts of the law by knowingly and deliberately raising hurdles for handicapped people. Just like you can still get a ticket for "illegal lane change" if you aren't speeding. There is nothing you can do while driving (short of being a cop) that will indemnify you of any other infractions. By far, that's the most common way of writing laws. It works that way for building codes. If you follow all codes and still have a knowingly unsafe building, they can condemn you anyway, after all, it's explicitly unsafe.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[Lehk228]

i assure you that you are wrong, the ADA sets the requirements, if you comply with the ADA you can't be sued(successfully) under the ADA. you could be sued under other laws, but the ADA is the only set of federal laws saying how many handicapped spaces you have to have,

Re:P&T on handicapped parking

[AK Marc]

You can assure me I am wrong, but unless you can point out the indemnification clause in the law, I'll assume it doesn't have one, making me right and you wrong. The law specifies minimums that you must have or you'll be explicitly violating the law. But that doesn't prove your place is handicapped accessible, and you can be held liable under other parts, even for "not enough handicapped parking" even if you meet the minimums laid out in the law.

Steve Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing Steve Jobs (infamous handicap parking spot taker) is gone before this could come to the states.

Re:Steve Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't matter - he was supposedly using a loophole in the law that allowed him to do it as long as he had no license plates - which he never did because he got a new car every 6 months.

Re:Steve Jobs

[TheLink]

Steve Jobs was born with an impaired conscience you insensitive clod!

Re:Steve Jobs

[jamesh]

Didn't that just stop him getting identified? They could still clamp his wheels.

A few anonymous calls to the police like "I saw some guys of middle eastern appearance get out of this car, unscrew the number plates, and drive off really fast in another car" would take care of the problem pretty quickly.

Re:Steve Jobs

[Genda]

I don't know, the last couple years of his life, I think I could live with Steve getting a handicapped space. I've had a handicapped placard for over 10 years (after a major car accident.) I see people parking illegally all the time. Even when there is legal parking just a few spaces away. I'm lucky, I can walk a little ways (in spite of the severe pain.) There are many who are wheelchair bound who need the special large parking spaces to exit their vehicles. People who take those places because they are lazy or resent not those places not being used as often as regular space are arguing against showing the injured and handicapped special consideration in what amounts to one of the smallest possible ways. Its almost nothing to an able bodied person to walk a few yards more to a store entrance. For a number of handicapped people its the difference in being able to go to the store and not.

It wouldn't hurt the world to develop a miniscule amount of compassion and human dignity. Sadly our society as a whole has been remiss in instilling these qualities in our children today.

Re:Steve Jobs

[Mitchell314]

No, I remember hearing that what he did was technically legal. I think you (if you lived where Jobs lived) are allowed to have a car without a license plate within some grace period of first buying it.

Re:Steve Jobs

[causality]

It wouldn't hurt the world to develop a miniscule amount of compassion and human dignity. Sadly our society as a whole has been remiss in instilling these qualities in our children today.

There are two major obstacles. 1) Most people want power, it is glorified, and neither for any noble reason. 2) The primary way power is expressed is by disrespecting, subjugating, or mistreating someone who is expected to have to take it. It's why so many politicians and executives are sociopaths.

The saner and healthier you are as a person, the less desire you have to manipulate and control people and activities which don't concern you and don't pose any sort of danger. That kind of self-importance doesn't appeal to people who have the human qualities you mention. It's just that living in this sort of hierarchical system, where most people are petty or psychotic, and witnessing all of the injustice will greatly test those qualities.

So we end up needing to write laws to try to force people to have certain behaviors instead of it happening in a natural kind of way that comes from an ability to consider someone other than yourself. I like the contrast Aristotle provided when he said, "I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." That's the humanized way. The other way is more like a machine executing programmed instructions.

Re:Steve Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving without the license plate was legal, parking in the handicap spot was not. Had I been in the area, I would have taken videos of Jobs parking and staying in the spot and sent them to the police and/or calling and reporting everytime the spot with illegaly filled. You don't need a license plate to be towed and good luck finding the car again after it's been removed. People who believe they're better than everyone else and act on those beliefs desevered to be bitchslapped every once in a while.

Re:Steve Jobs

[mattventura]

Driving without the license plate was legal, parking in the handicap spot was not. Had I been in the area, I would have taken videos of Jobs parking and staying in the spot and sent them to the police and/or calling and reporting everytime the spot with illegaly filled. You don't need a license plate to be towed and good luck finding the car again after it's been removed. People who believe they're better than everyone else and act on those beliefs desevered to be bitchslapped every once in a while.

So you would get fired from apple over a parking spot?

Re:Steve Jobs

[jamesh]

So you would get fired from apple over a parking spot?

Having "Got Steve Jobs car impounded" would go down quite well on a resume at a few potential employers I think :)

Re:Steve Jobs

[Wandering Idiot]

Passing laws that force people to treat others a certain way and punish them if they don't is going to have the opposite effect you're looking for

So, if we have punishments for murder, you're going to go on a killing spree just to teach us and our oppresive "rules" a lesson?

I smell a disconnected-from-reality libertarian. Sure is nice in that hypothetical utopia you've constructed in your head, along with the Marxists, and the Reactionary Monarchists, and everyone else who thinks all problems are nails and their one overly simplistic idea is a hammer. Too bad reality generally doesn't work that way, but why let that stop an excellent source of smugness?

Re:Steve Jobs

[hedwards]

That's not typically legal, you're supposed to have a temporary paper license in the back window until the license plates arrive. If you don't have even that I doubt very much that it's legal anywhere as the police have no way of identifying ownership of the car without examining the VIN.

Re:Steve Jobs

[Kagato]

Job's d-bag parking goes back to the 80's and 90's. Jean-Louis Gassee once commented "I didn't know you could use them for the emotionally handicapped".

One report says that an Apple Employee covered the Handicap logo with a Mercedes logo and Jobs was none too pleased. Would be interesting to know if he did that at Pixar as there doesn't seem to be many stories about Steve Jobs at Pixar.

Re:Steve Jobs

[Renraku]

In some cultures, you show how awesome you are by inconveniencing as many people as possible. It isn't unusual for someone to flat out park in the middle of a busy street, lock up, and walk into a shop. Thankfully they keep each other in check because someone will eventually be along that doesn't care to get a new dent in their bumper and will simply push the car off the road or otherwise mangle it.

A certain section of people here in the US do similar things, only not quite as illegal. I watched seven people at a table the other day all change their orders over and over every time a waiter came back to their table, and ended up leaving a bunch of non-restaurant trash on their table when they left..no tip, of course. Their bill was over $100 and they shorted the place on that too.

Re:Steve Jobs

[Martin Blank]

The VIN in the window is supposed to be visible to the outside so that police can do exactly that in part to match the vehicle to the plate but also for unplated cars. I don't know if it takes longer to run a VIN than a plate, though.

Re:Steve Jobs

[mysidia]

The point was it was legal to park in the spot during the grace period, before your plates are applied for and issued.

If the plate for your car has not been issued yet, how are the police going to know if it will be a handicap plate or not?

Re:Steve Jobs

[BenEnglishAtHome]

In some cultures, ...

Which ones? Seriously, I'd like to know. I've never seen such a thing.

Re:Steve Jobs

[RMingin]

Debunked:
http://www.snopes.com/glurge/fleming.asp

Your story, while cute, has no basis in fact.

Re:Steve Jobs

[ArsenneLupin]

Who said he worked at Apple? Maybe the AC worked for a neighboring company? Or maybe he intended to sent the video/report anonymously too...

Re:Steve Jobs

[GameboyRMH]

What a swell guy.

Re:Steve Jobs

[realityimpaired]

The point was it was legal to park in the spot during the grace period, before your plates are applied for and issued.

That seems like a bit of a stupid loophole... around here (Ontario, Canada), no plates = not on the road, and a very expensive fine + impounding of your car if you get caught without plates. You can get a 10-day permit from the ministry of transport while waiting for custom plates, but that needs to be on display in your windshield for the duration that you're using it. Most dealers will do the paperwork for new plates or transferring your existing plates as part of the purchase, and will have your plates installed on your car the day you pick it up. (or be ready with a screwdriver to transfer the plates from your old car to your new one if you're trading in an old car).

The 10-day permits are for people ordering custom plates, and for people doing a private sale, and you still need to have the temporary permit the day you buy the new car if you're going to have it on the road. You can have it towed wherever you want to go, but if it's moving under its own power, you must have a number plate.

My understanding was that most of the world works like this... correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but I have never owned a car in a jurisdiction that didn't work like that.

On the other hand... it's stupidly easy to get a handicap permit. I have one in my car because I occasionally drive my mother and grandmother around... my mother has bad knees (botched surgery) and can barely walk, and my grandmother is 89. So the family doctor issued a 5-year handicap parking permit for me to put in my car, even though I'm able-bodied. I'm honest about it, and only park in the spot when I'm driving one of those two, but wouldn't it have been a lot easier for Jobs to simply get a handicap permit? Especially considering his health problems later in life....

Re:Steve Jobs

[realityimpaired]

It's a DB query, from the same DB, and comes up on the same display form, so aside from the extra time typing the VIN versus the plate, it shouldn't take any longer to actually get the information. :)

Re:Steve Jobs

[mortonda]

I see people parking illegally all the time. Even when there is legal parking just a few spaces away. I'm lucky, I can walk a little ways (in spite of the severe pain.) There are many who are wheelchair bound who need the special large parking spaces to exit their vehicles.

At a local school, someone came up with a solution when the handicap spot was inappropriately used: They simply parked in the street right behind the car, trapping them in. The idiot had to sit there until the fellow with the handicap sticker got back and left. :D

Re:Steve Jobs

[Hatta]

In some cultures, you show how awesome you are by inconveniencing as many people as possible.

Oh, like Wall Street.

Re:Steve Jobs

[S.O.B.]

In California you must have a disabled persons placard or license plate BEFORE you can park in a handicapped parking spot. No placard or license plate, no parking.

If you are taking advantage of not having a licence plate during the grace period then you clearly DO NOT have a disabled persons license plate so you CAN NOT park in a handicapped parking spot.

The grace period was not intended to give the owner of the car a pass on every road infraction.

Jobs was just being his usual self-centred, douche bag self. Unfortunately, society seems to let self-centred, douche bags off the hook...if they're rich.

Re:Steve Jobs

[hedwards]

It's harder to read and requires that the officer be much closer to the vehicle. It's there for use during traffic stops. It isn't however a replacement for a license plate as you can't see it at all when a vehicle is in motion.

Re:Steve Jobs

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Interesting. Thanks.

Re:Steve Jobs

[LoRdTAW]

What always makes me laugh is how people circle near the doors of the store and look for a close spot. Around and around they go clogging the aisles waiting for someone to pull out of a spot. Meanwhile toward the end of the parking rows, far from the doors there are more parking spots then you can imagine. Lazy jerk-offs.

But when you look at all of the handicap spots near the doors and they are mostly empty. So no wonder why they always get filled by non handicap cars. But to be fair, many large parking lots have security who constantly check the handicap spots and call the police when they find a vehicle in violation.

Re:Steve Jobs

[syousef]

Driving without the license plate was legal, parking in the handicap spot was not. Had I been in the area, I would have taken videos of Jobs parking and staying in the spot and sent them to the police and/or calling and reporting everytime the spot with illegaly filled. You don't need a license plate to be towed and good luck finding the car again after it's been removed. People who believe they're better than everyone else and act on those beliefs desevered to be bitchslapped every once in a while.

Bonus points if you use a Mac and Final Cut Pro to do it!

not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occupied

[Joe_Dragon]

now with there was 1 common tag that was easy to get in all citys and was easy to use in rented cars then that's ok but to say some from a city with out a electronic tag is parking improperly is not a good idea. Why should some have to go out of there way just to visit a different city?

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Vylen]

Except, in some cases, people need the wide space offered by the disabled parking spot for things like crutches or wheelchairs or whatever. Sure you might be able to get a person out into a wheelchair in a normal (tight) spot, but thats clearly without risks and would obviously be really difficult.

So, disabled spaces aren't always about walking distance, but about space around the vehicle.

It's the same thing with "Parents with Prams" parking spots - unless you want to discriminate against them as well?

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[jamesh]

Yup. I said it. Mod me down because it violates your PC ethics.

But seriously, survival of the fittest. Those who cannot walk 50 feet should not be coddled. Half the time it is some overweight heifer who won't take care of herself. The other half it is just someone who survived to 70. But the bottom line is that I am a Darwinist and don't see why we make life easier for those who can't take care of themselves.

Either be in shape or be part of a family network that will take care of you. If you can't do either, then don't go shopping. Simple as that. Survival of the fittest got us where we are today. Quit fucking with evolution.

On the one hand I admire your willingness to admit an opinion (or I would if you put your name to it) that I suspect a lot of able bodied people keep to themselves, but I bet you'd feel different if you or someone you cared about suddenly developed some disease that greatly reduced your mobility.

And even if Darwin was wanting to help evolution along, even he would be smart enough to know that letting a few arthritic 70 year olds die isn't going to make even the tiniest bit of difference to the process. If you want to help evolution along, maybe you should campaign for preventing people with inheritable diseases from passing those diseases on to their kids (either by genetic pre-testing or just stopping them having kids). The truth is that most disabled people aren't disabled because of some genetic trait, but because of some other unfortunate incident along the way.

So maybe keep your unfortunate prejudices to yourself or at least stop pretending that you have evolution on your side.

Good for New Zealand!

[rts008]

I hope this works, then goes global.

Re:Good for New Zealand!

[Overly Critical Guy]

Did you know there was a drop in employment of the handicapped after the ADA was signed into law? This stuff doesn't work.

It's just another revenue source; the government wants to easily collect more $250 fines. Here's hoping it does not work and does not go global.

Re:Good for New Zealand!

[capedgirardeau]

To say the employment of the handicapped declined after passage of the ADA is a great oversimplification.

For example there was a concomitant reclassification of non-disabled people as disable for a number of reasons, the major one being the cutting of welfare benefits which encouraged non-employable people to seek out disabled classification.

That made it look like there was a decrease in employment for employed handicapped folks but that actually turns out not to be the case. The level of employment for previously employed handicapped folks stayed the same or possible increased slightly.

As with most things it is not as simple as a half sentence talking point.

This 2002 follow up (PDF alert) to the MIT 2001 paper that made the claim in the first place, examines in greater detail what possibly occurred:
http://people.virginia.edu/~sns5r/microwkshp/EmpADA_3_02.pdf

Re:Good for New Zealand!

[Mashiki]

The simple answer is just to use fines. No really. Violations of this really aren't a huge problem for instance in Canada, they do happen but ask yourself. If you get caught, is a $5k first offence worth it? Is a $10k second offence worth it? That includes using fake, and placards that are not for the person. In most places that I've seen across the US, and other places the fines are pathetic. $100, 200, and so on.

Re:Good for New Zealand!

[viperidaenz]

$150 in NZ and I imagine a big portion of that goes to the company hired to collect them.

Re:Good for New Zealand!

[definate]

I originally started reading this thinking "Of course the ADA has been effective", however by the end of it, I came to the conclusion that it's actually useless.

It was found that those with mental disorders and those with disabilities classified as "other" experienced a positive employment impact of the ADA. Workers with musculoskeletal and internal system disabilities did not experience any different employment probability growth than those without disabilities.

I didn't see them controlling for the increase in the amount of companies which cater to work specifically for the mentally disabled, nor the government incentives that companies which employ them receive. This may dramatically decrease the significance of the ADA.

Workers with musculoskeletal and internal system disabilities did not experience any different employment probability growth than those without disabilities.

So there was no change there.

The level of employment for previously employed handicapped folks stayed the same or possible increased slightly.

So these laws are likely useless and should be removed then, even if you do agree with them (which I think most would). The paper finishes arguing that we should treat this law not on its economic merits but its moral merits, however they are one and the same. If there is no economic change, then these morals are already held by everyone, or those who don't, aren't going to change, ergo, this is a useless piece of legislation.

On top of this, it is a bit harsh to label people who were not in the workforce and became disabled, as 'people who are doing it because of benefits', while that many be true in many cases, our knowledge of disabilities, especially mental disabilities is increasing every day. As such many of these people may be 'legitimate'.

As such, the case for the efficacy of the ADA gets increasingly weaker, where it's hard to argue that it provides any benefit. Especially given the social cost its implementation and regulation would impose.

All in all, this was very disappointing.

Re:Good for New Zealand!

[rohan972]

On top of this, it is a bit harsh to label people who were not in the workforce and became disabled, as 'people who are doing it because of benefits', while that many be true in many cases, our knowledge of disabilities, especially mental disabilities is increasing every day. As such many of these people may be 'legitimate'.

The parent poster said "the major one being the cutting of welfare benefits which encouraged non-employable people to seek out disabled classification". This would include people who would have been classified as disabled but didn't bother because they were getting benefits anyway. When the unemployment benefits were cut, those people applied for disability classification. I don't think the parent was criticizing them but saying the disability rate was under reported previously.

Re:Good for New Zealand!

[definate]

Ahhhh, okay. I read that differently. Though, I think the report was saying that. But perhaps I should re-read it with a different emphasis.

Re:Good for New Zealand!

[realityimpaired]

The simple answer is just to use fines. No really. Violations of this really aren't a huge problem for instance in Canada, they do happen but ask yourself. If you get caught, is a $5k first offence worth it? Is a $10k second offence worth it? That includes using fake, and placards that are not for the person. In most places that I've seen across the US, and other places the fines are pathetic. $100, 200, and so on.

Not sure what part of Canada you're in, but in Ontario the fine for parking in a handicapped spot without a permit is $305. I know, because my mother has a permit, and has had to go to city hall on several occasions to fight the fine when some idiot cop "didn't see" it or thought it was a fake. For that reason alone, I hope that this proposed system works... the permits are international, so it'll still create hassle for international travellers, but if it gives the locals an ability to have a transponder or RFID installed in their car in order to avoid that kind of hassle, then it's a good thing. That being said, the reason that we have permits tied to the person and not to the car in Ontario is that I occasionally drive my mother around, and we use her permit. If it was a transponder installed in the car, I'd have to borrow my dad's car and let him drive mine if I'm going to be driving my mother around and want to use the handicapped spaces.

$300 is not insignificant, and will serve as a deterrent to most people. But it's also small enough that most people are not going to go out of their way to fight it in court if they get caught... on the other hand, if you have $5000 on the line, you can bet that most people would hire a lawyer and take it to court.

Re:Good for New Zealand!

[misexistentialist]

Fines have to be proportional. So violations for speeding or DUI would have to be approaching $100k. Which is unreasonable.

Re:Good for New Zealand!

[sound vision]

I'm all for catching people who abuse reserved parking spaces and fining them, but $5,000 is excessive. That amounts to one-sixth of the median annual household income in the United States. Yeah, taking someone's parking spot is a dick move, but it's not dick enough to garnish a whole 2 months of their income. Unintended consequences - maybe his kid's guitar is gonna have to be pawned to make rent. Maybe that guy won't be able to afford a car repair, and loses his job because he can't get to work. For what? A parking space?

This sort of vindictive thinking you're displaying is the reason why we often have, for example, ridiculous sentencing guidelines for just about every crime, mandatory minimums, etc. (Judges who don't give a fuck also factor into this, and they display your same attitude.) This kind of thinking, when applied to matters of law and punishment, ruins lives. It's one of the things that contributes to us having the most incarcerated population of any developed nation, and one of the least effective justice systems.

Now, as far as what the proper amount of a parking fine should be, it should be proportional to your income. Consider my example in the first paragraph, then consider a millionaire like Steve Jobs - a $5k or even $10k fine really wouldn't punish him that much, relatively. Proportional fines would eliminate this discrepancy and bring that much more justice into our justice system. I'm really not sure why we don't have them already. But if you're going to go with a flat fine for whatever reason, I think $200-$500 would be a reasonable number. In my jurisdiction, the signs actually say "$500 MINIMUM FINE", if I remember correctly.

Re:Good for New Zealand!

[Mashiki]

That's the bylaw in various parts of Ontario. The HTA starts at $5k.

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup

[Kjella]

You're jumping to conclusions. No electronic tag = attendant notified = attendant checks it out, a fine isn't automatically issued.

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup

[jamesh]

now with there was 1 common tag that was easy to get in all citys and was easy to use in rented cars then that's ok but to say some from a city with out a electronic tag is parking improperly is not a good idea. Why should some have to go out of there way just to visit a different city?

It's a means to identify someone who may be parked there illegally. If the traffic cop comes by and see's a legitimate non-electronic tag i doubt he/she is going to write a ticket.

It's only going to become a problem in phase 2 when sharp spikes leap out of the ground and puncture the tyres of cars without an electronic tag.

natural morality is not human morality

[circletimessquare]

the code by which animals live in the serengeti has nothing really to do with how or why human beings choose to order their societies

but i'll be sure to kneecap you next time i see you walking down the street and just steal your stuff. i'm not interested in doing that, but since you are broadcasting to everyone that you believe this is the way society should be ordered: pure darwinism, then i'm just conforming to your wishes about how you think you should be treated

and i look froward to your reply, in which you engage in hollywood fantasies about how well armed and prepared you are 24/7 to survive in such a world and how perfect you will be in deflecting my attack. because you are omniscient and omnipotent, apparently. seems to me that's an intellectual failure to understand your essential weaknesses as an individual human being

so, maybe your professed darwinistic ideology really is evolution playing out: the less intelligent among us choosing a mode of "morality" that ensures your life (not my life, i'm not abiding by your beliefs) is brutish, mean, and short: darwinistic. thus ensuring you won't pass on your genes. and i, choosing the way of human morality, and respecting the physically weaker amongst us, who still contribute to society, and playing by the simple rules of decency and respect, amongst others playing by the same code of decency and respect, together, we will survive and define society, and reproduce this code

because in the contest of survival in this world, a well coordinated group of physically weak and average intelligence homo sapiens, but respectful of each other and coordinating with each other, outcompetes the lone superstrong supersmart who do not work well in groups. enjoy your extinction, inferior homo sapiens. genetics is over. memetics is the new game. play catch up or die off

Re:natural morality is not human morality

[circletimessquare]

physically inferior

for example, stephen hawking is worth more to society than 100,000 physically able randroids

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[icebraining]

And non-handicapped people will still park there and render them useless. What's your point?

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the disabled vet who got a leg blown off because he was fighting enemy troops after his comrade (they wanted his friend for a war trophy to behead.)

Please. Go ahead. Visit your local VFW and tell them that handicapped vets should fend for themselves. Maybe an ex-marine might set the parent poster straight.

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup

[rohan972]

It's only going to become a problem in phase 2 when sharp spikes leap out of the ground and puncture the tyres of cars without an electronic tag.

No need to go for the tyres, go for the feet. That way, you know they are now disabled, no need for a ticket.

The Slippery Slope

[hutsell]

From the Summary:

What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? ...

The sign means you're unable to walk; requiring additional space to allow you to be able to access your wheel chair when you get in or out of your vehicle.

people in wheelchairs needs the bigger spaces to h

[Joe_Dragon]

people in wheelchairs needs the bigger spaces to have to room to get out of the car.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why you assume it would be good for business. The cost to put in a handicapped ramp may not be justified by returns, especially if it would lead me to increase prices and my competitor didn't make the same choice. Plus which, early adopters invariably pay more. The law is basically society getting together and saying "we want this to happen, but we realize nobody is going to make the sacrifices unless we make sure everyone makes them together".

There are plenty of examples in game theory of agents acting independently in naked self-interest leading to pessimal outcomes for everyone. I don't know why it's so difficult for some people to wrap their heads around this idea. I don't have that big of a problem with greed and selfishness; I just have a problem with making it into a religion as a way of ameliorating cognitive dissonance.

that will get you out of jail time for parking the

[Joe_Dragon]

Yes you can go to jail for people who abuse it what some who really needed that space but did not get do to jobs may of called the cops and at very least got it towed or maybe even have jobs go to jail.

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup

[viperidaenz]

Traffic cop? you say that like you don't know New Zealand councils hire private companies to patrol the streets handing out tickets for commission.

Easy Solution

[Greyfox]

If they're parked in a handicapped spot and aren't really handicapped, just break their leg! There! Now they're handicapped and can park there! Problem solved!

Re:Easy Solution

[mysidia]

There! Now they're handicapped and can park there! Problem solved!

Not quite... Just becuase you're handicapped doesn't mean you can use the spot. You also need the paperwork in order, which generally requires a doctor's approval.

"Breaking the leg" doesn't make it legal or OK for them to be parked there.

assault, and intentionally breaking someone's leg is a form of torture; both assault and torture are heinous crimes, much more severe than illegitimately parking in a reserved disabled parking spot.

Although it does solve part of their problem -- now they can definitely legally get a pass, after their leg is treated, their doctor approves, and after they go through the bureaucratic process/fees that other disabled people with passes had to go through to get their pass.

Come to think of it... they might actually already have a disability, but didn't bother to go through the paperwork and get the stickers to make their parking there legal.

In which case, no breaking their leg doesn't make any headway towards solving their problem; other than possible coercive pressure, and the threat of assault..

Re:Easy Solution

[realityimpaired]

"Breaking the leg" doesn't make it legal or OK for them to be parked there.

To go a step further, around here a broken leg doesn't usually qualify you for a handicapped permit around here, either. It's something that will heal on its own, usually within a couple of months, and usually without any intervention beyond immobilization. If it requires surgery of some sort, you may or may not get a permit, but probably won't as that kind of surgery is usually done on an emergency basis, rather than on a waitlist.

I had a permit when I was waiting for knee surgery, but that was for a torn mcl, torn meniscus, and fractured patella... while that last bit qualifies as a "broken" leg, there was no immediate danger, nor danger of it healing improperly without getting the surgery earlier, so I was put on a wait list, and got a temporary handicapped permit (1 year). Still had to fill out the paperwork and get a letter from my doctor though.

Re:Easy Solution

[mysidia]

To go a step further, around here a broken leg doesn't usually qualify you for a handicapped permit around here, either. It's something that will heal on its own, usually within a couple of months, and usually without any intervention beyond immobilization.

Well, that sounds screwed up; the temporariness of the condition doesn't mean you aren't disabled, or shouldn't have the parking pass for the same reason.

I know someone who had a broken leg, and they got a temporary 2 month pass to be hung from their mirror. So I think the bit about "folks with broken legs cannot get one" is not quite right.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[As_I_Please]

Businesses will offer spaces to the handicapped on their own because it's good for business.

No, they won't. There aren't enough handicapped customers to justify--profit-wise--the reduced number of parking spaces due to the greater width and restrictions of handicapped spaces. When markets forces fail to produce a desired outcome (i.e., allowing the disabled to participate in commerce), legislation can (and sometimes does) correct the failure.

Bear the burden before passing judement

[inshreds]

Reading comments so far on this thread with people arguing about actual need for “walking disabled” parking spaces, I realize that this is just one of those topics you cannot possibly truly comprehend without being a disabled person. Sure, I understand that many parking spots may go unused and the there are of course those that abuse the system. However, there are also a large number of people, like me, that really need this kind of parking system. Nothing sucks more than trying to unload a 300 pound electric wheelchair when boxed in by two SUVs so close the doors cannot open. In addition, nothing sucks more than having to traipse across a large parking lot looking for a lost car when ever step you take puts you in excruciating pain. In fact, without this reserved parking system, I simply would not be able to go many places or partake in many activities. Even on a good day, it really is a confidence booster to know that if something goes wrong and I need to exit in a hurry that my car is right out front.

This walking disabled parking system, while maybe not perfect, is in place to serve those that actually need it. Thus, the bottom line is that while you may not understand or agree with enforcement actions such as those now being enacted in New Zealand, there are many people with a legitimate need that will indeed benefit from it.

Re:Bear the burden before passing judement

[arth1]

In addition, nothing sucks more than having to traipse across a large parking lot looking for a lost car when ever step you take puts you in excruciating pain

Indeed. Or, in my case, I used a wheelchair for several years, then managed to get up on crutches, and now I can do without them. Sometimes it's painful to walk, and sometimes not.
What I cannot do, though, is see more than 4 feet away when walking, due to a broken neck. I cannot possibly find my car in a large parking space without memorizing the number of steps to get to the correct lane, and approximately how many spots away the car is. If the lanes aren't marked, it's a no go.

It isn't much easier when in a wheelchair, because you then sit so low that you can't see over other cars - a healthy person can look over most smaller cars or through the windows of bigger ones to spot their own vehicle, but someone in a wheelchair just doesn't have that option.

There are so many things healthy people just don't consider, but take for granted.
To you healthy guys here: Spend just 24 hours with a wheel chair[*], and try to do all your normal tasks, including shopping, cooking, using payment terminals, taking a shower, brushing your teeth or getting in and out of your car. It may open your eyes. Even if you know it's just for 24 hours, you will discover lots of things you have taken for granted and never even considered might be a problem.

If you think you can stomach it, then repeat for some other handicaps - wear blindfolds for a full day, or one hand tied up, or diapers, or ...

[*]: I suggest with thumb tacks taped to your feet so you can't cheat and stand on them. Otherwise, you will cheat, the first time you have to go to the bathroom.

Re:Bear the burden before passing judement

[drinkypoo]

Nothing sucks more than trying to unload a 300 pound electric wheelchair when boxed in by two SUVs so close the doors cannot open. In addition, nothing sucks more than having to traipse across a large parking lot looking for a lost car when ever step you take puts you in excruciating pain.

Maybe we should have walking-only spaces up front for the disabled people who actually walk, and we can have room-to-unload-your-wheelchair spaces at more of a distance, so that those people who aren't walking anyway don't need to use up the parking spaces by the door.

This walking disabled parking system, while maybe not perfect, is in place to serve those that actually need it.

Can you get bullshit placards in NZ, too? In the USA I could probably get a placard even though I'm perfectly capable of walking across a parking lot, because I have asthma and legal obesity. Well, I might not be legally obese any more, but a few Big Macs followed by Big Naps ought to solve that...

Re:Bear the burden before passing judement

[wfstanle]

I had a stroke which left me with balance problems, My rehabilitation doctor wanted me to get a handicapped parking permit but I refused the offer but I can legitimately get a handicapped parking permit anytime I want onet. For me, it is a matter of pride that I can still get around without needing that consideration. It really irks me when I see people that are not disabled use the handicapped parking.

Re:Bear the burden before passing judement

[realityimpaired]

What I cannot do, though, is see more than 4 feet away when walking

Not to be a complete and total heartless bitch, but if you're impaired in that way (be it due to poor eyesight or broken neck or whatever), then should you be driving in the first place? The ability to look around and do a shoulder check is an important part to being able to drive safely....

I agree with your point about people suck, stealing handicapped spaces, and that people won't understand how important those spaces are until they need them for themselves, but it seems to me that you shouldn't be driving at all, and that the ability to remember where your parking space is should be mitigated by the fact that in order to park there you'd need somebody with you who should be able to remember that kind of information.

Re:Bear the burden before passing judement

[arth1]

Not to be a complete and total heartless bitch, but if you're impaired in that way (be it due to poor eyesight or broken neck or whatever), then should you be driving in the first place? The ability to look around and do a shoulder check is an important part to being able to drive safely....

No, I don't find you a complete and totally heartless bitch, just a typically uninformed and slightly stupid chav.

By your measure you should also prohibit pretty much every lorry on the road.

I can see just fine when sitting. As stated, I can't see the ceiling of the car, but that's not a requirement for driving. The average 50+ person has worse vision in a car than I do - do you want to ban all of them from driving too, because they have a worse field of view than I do?

but it seems to me that you shouldn't be driving at all

It seems to me that you shouldn't be using the internet at all, because the wall of your rectum impedes your vision.

Re:Bear the burden before passing judement

[realityimpaired]

Either you have the muscle strength needed to hold your head up and look around, or you don't. If you have that strength, you shouldn't need to be sitting in order to look around. More than that, if you need to prop your head up against the head restraint, then you're completely oblivious to the point of having a head restraint on the driver's seat. That is there to keep your head from jerking back and breaking your neck in a car accident, not to keep your head up so you can look around and drive safely. If you're leaning your head against the restraint in order to be able to drive, then you're not safe. I have nothing against handicapped people driving. I know several who do drive, with varying physical handicaps from people missing a leg or an arm all the way up to full paraplegics, and have nothing against these people driving, as long as they can do it safely, but the one thing that they all have in common is that they're able to hold their head up, unaided.

So again, either you have the strength to hold your own head up, in which case I'm at a loss as to why you can't see more than 4 feet ahead of you when on foot, or you shouldn't be driving. That has nothing to do with ignorance. It may seem a little callous to you, because I'd stoop to try to deny you your "right" to drive, but I'm concerned about everybody else on the road. Actually, I'd cite ignorance on your part, if you seriously believe that you can drive safely and get the situational awareness needed to drive safely when you don't have the strength to hold your own head up.

Re:Bear the burden before passing judement

[arth1]

You utter bullshit about something you know nothing about. A person with severe kyphosis can look straight ahead when sitting, but straight down when standing. Neck muscles have nothing to do with it - an orthopedic inability to straighten the upper part of the spine does.

Yes, this has a LOT to do with ignorance on your part. And not a little to do with stupidity too, it seems.

Re:Bear the burden before passing judement

[inshreds]

What you may not be considering is that a parking lot full of slow moving people is an extreme hazard all the way around. Cars backing out often cannot see wheelchairs. Plus, slow moving people with walkers or canes trying to navigate around fast cars and impatient drives is not safe either. Thus, again, while the system is not perfect, it is necessary.

Re:Bear the burden before passing judement

[realityimpaired]

You said your neck had been broken, not that your spine was fused. There is a *very* big difference between the two states, and any misunderstanding on that part is entirely your fault for not sharing extra information. The *normal* result of a badly broken neck (not counting death) is not a fused spine, it's damaged muscles and nerves in the neck, which limit muscle control. Immobilized and treated properly, the vertebra in the neck can actually heal quite well, with near full range of motion eventually being recovered. Perhaps you should have been clearer, as your problem is not that your neck had been broken, but that it didn't heal properly.

Actually, I still don't think you should be driving. That has nothing to do with your physical state, however, it's your mental state. You make too many assumptions about the information other people have, and that's dangerous behind the wheel of a car. You should always work under the assumption that everybody else on the road has no clue what's going on, and doesn't have any extra information that you didn't give them.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[thegarbz]

While the OP incorrectly calls on Darwin to make his point, there is a subtle wider issue that is not getting the same attention.

What does it mean to be disabled?

This may just be my own prejudice creeping out but I have a .... acquaintance who gets government assistance because of her obesity. She also gets government assistance because she's a single mother, jobless, and whatnot, but best of all do you know what her 1 year old baby's favourite meal is? KFC Chicken Nuggets. But that's not my biggest gripe. My biggest gripe is that she also has a disabled parking permit and again gets another government check for a disease that some people think doesn't really exists and is all in the patients head. Naturally doctors are reluctant to diagnose this "disease" and 10 different doctors told her she's as healthy as a grossly overweight person can get. Doctor 11 caved and now she gets to park her perfectly abled body in a disabled carpark and spend my tax dollars on more Macdonalds.

Another thing unrelated to disabled people, why do shopping centres reserve spots right next to disabled people for parents with prams? If a mother can spend 3 hours pushing a pram through the shopping centre she can spend the extra 1 minute pushing it to her car. In this country though the parents with prams reservation isn't legally enforceable.

The OP may have originally invoked Darwin in a way that offends, but as a society on the whole we are being coddled.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Daniel Dvorkin]

You're probably young and healthy now. But I predict you're going to be the whiniest, most demanding, most self-entitled old geezer at the nursing home, and when you finally kick the bucket, the staff will throw a party.

Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[grimsnaggle]

I propose cameras pointed in to toilet stalls with 24/7 monitoring to ensure that handicapped toilet stalls aren't abused by those able-bodied assholes. We'll also need to amend the building code to increase the total number of available stalls to ensure that the population is appropriately served.

I was on the building planning committee for a new building at Stanford. The bathrooms are comically large because of handicap access requirements. Despite consuming 800 square feet, there are only six total stalls. The same building also has two handicapped parking spots out front, out of four parking spots total.

Given that the population served is, on average, 22 years old and in excellent health, these measures seem inappropriate. Things would be completely different if this were a retirement home.

Re:Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[phantomlord]

On the flip side, there's a restaurant that I go to that has one male and one female bathroom. I've never been in the female one, but the male one is so small that, as an able-bodied person, _I_ can barely get in there. To get my dad in, I need to park his wheelchair out in front of the short, narrow hallway that leads to them, shimmy him down the hall, turn the knob on the door (ball handle, not a bar), and somehow manage to pull him in, turn him around, pull down his pants and sit him on the toilet. If I had to guess, I'd say the bathroom is about 4 feet by 4 feet (you can reach the opposite wall and the door to the left from the toilet).

Another restaurant that I used to manage was built in the 70s in a building that was originally designed to be a house. The bathrooms were about the same size but they were much "easier" to get to since the hallway wasn't as wide. In fact, there was no hallway, you had to go outside to get to the bathrooms. Fortunately, I convinced the owners that they needed to do something about that. The solution was to just make a single large handicap bathroom for each gender and as an added bonus, we added seating for another 40 people and an enclosed office and more dry storage in the basement.

Now, both buildings were grandfathered in since they were built before the ADA was passed... but that's part of why the ADA was passed. I'll also agree that the ADA goes too far in accommodation demands some respects.

Re:Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[Ichijo]

As long as there's nobody waiting to use a handicapped stall, what's the problem? If all the non-handicapped stalls are taken, is an able-bodied person supposed to wait for one to become available when the handicapped stall is empty?

Re:Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[phorm]

I've never seen anything that said the handicap stalls are reserved, unlike the parking spaces. That being said, I'm fairly sure there's no placard for using said stall.

When all stalls have been full, I've used the larger one. If somebody ever *did* get in my face about it, I'd be sure to have a long graphic discussion about the painful and disabling effects of explosive diarrhea...

Re:Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[phorm]

Which is worse, not being able to park, or sh*tting your pants?

If you can't find a non-handicap spot... no big deal, wait for one to become available. Not being able to find an available stall when you *really* have to go is a bit more urgent.

Re:Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[schn]

people get out of toilets in minutes not hours

Re:Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[jklovanc]

There is a huge difference between parking places and toilet stalls. Parking spaces are designated for disabled people because that allow access to the buildings and it is against the law for someone without a disabled parking permit to park there. Toilet stall are about accommodating disabilities and providing access to needed facilities. There is no law against an able bodied person using a stall that is designed for disabled access. The main difference being that a disabled person can wait their turn for a stall but may not be able to get into the building if they can not get in and out of their vehicle; waiting is much different that not having access.

The fact that the committee that you were on designed a stupid washroom may not be an issue with the legislation but with the committee's interpretation. It appears that every stall was designed to be wheelchair accessible. I checked a few building codes and most of them stated at least one stall must be accessible. In none did I see a requirement that all stalls be accessible.

Here are exerpts from the ADA;
"4.22.4 Water Closets. If toilet stalls are provided, then at least one shall be a standard toilet stall complying with 4.17; where 6 or more stalls are provided, in addition to the stall complying with 4.17.3, at least one stall 36 in (915 mm) wide with an outward swinging, self-closing door and parallel grab bars complying with Fig. 30(d) and 4.26 shall be provided. Water closets in such stalls shall comply with 4.16. If water closets are not in stalls, then at least one shall comply with 4.16."
Therefore complete requirements would be filled by two larger stalls and not all 6.

The parking issue is yet another isse with the design and not the rules. take a look at this. The requirements would be covered by one van accessible spot. The second spot is not required by the ADA. The fact that the average user is 22 and healthy does not mean that there are not at least a few users who would benefit from the accommodations. Access is not a question of averages but of people with issues.

Re:Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[grimsnaggle]

I said nothing that all six stalls were big, just that the bathroom was needlessly large. But we digress; size of the bathroom isn't the point. The point is that engineering everything to accommodate everyone is unrealistic. In a world of infinite variety, I can always come up with another edge case that will define another requirement. At some point it makes more sense to move the mobility solution closer to the person requiring the mobility, rather than bending infrastructure to fit around the edge case. If there's a worthwhile market, technology will grow to provide a solution.

Re:Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[Anonymous Coward]

So how many stalls were handicap accessible? Was it just one as GP states? Because if you did more than one then you only have yourselves to blame for exceeding the requirements.

What of your poor parking lot design you blamed on ADA requirements? You blame ADA that you had two handicapped spaces and then gloss over GP's point that you only needed one.

It sounds like the blame for poor space usage falls on the building planning committee's misinterpretation of ADA requirements rather than actual ADA requirements.

Re:Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[kk5wa]

A handicapped toilet stall (the king of poopin' stalls) does not require a permit to use, unlike a parking spot. Building codes (at least in the US) for new construction require access for the disabled, especially for public-use or gov't facilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act contains guidelines for ramps, doors, hallways, ratios of disabled-to-non-disabled parking spots, and yes, bathroom stalls. Most of the time someone involved with the construction of a facility that is supposed to be accessible just guesses at what is appropriate, and most of the time they get it wrong (angles of ramps, doors open wrong way, etc.).

A lot of fun can be had by calling people out who are parked illegally in a handicapped spot. They tend to go psycho on you the moment you question them.

Re:Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[jklovanc]

Here are a few issues with the "solution";
1. stair walking chairs are expensive and out of reach of many disabled persons on fixed income. I realize there is a burden on the building owner by a 1% one time increase is costs is easy to bear while a few months of income for a disabled person may not be.
2. Stair walking chairs are much more complex requiring increased maintenance and down time causing more of a financial burden and less available use.
3. Stair walking chairs are very sensitive to traction issues. Snow, Ice and even water will make them unusable.
4. Most stair walking chairs are very high when in climbing mode which makes them susceptible to tipping when windy or when jostled by crowds.
5. Ramps are not used exclusively by wheelchairs. People with walkers and canes often use the ramps as stairs can be painful or impossible.
6. People with mobility issues are not "edge cases". Anyone who reaches the age of 80 will probably have mobility issues and benefit from these kind of accommodations.
A expensive high tech, finicky, unstable chairs that do not cover all issues is not the alternative to a simple low tech ramp that accommodates more mobility issues..

Re:Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[realityimpaired]

On the flip side, there's a restaurant that I go to that has one male and one female bathroom. I've never been in the female one, but the male one is so small that, as an able-bodied person, _I_ can barely get in there. To get my dad in, I need to park his wheelchair out in front of the short, narrow hallway that leads to them, shimmy him down the hall, turn the knob on the door (ball handle, not a bar), and somehow manage to pull him in, turn him around, pull down his pants and sit him on the toilet. If I had to guess, I'd say the bathroom is about 4 feet by 4 feet (you can reach the opposite wall and the door to the left from the toilet).

The laws may be different in your neck of the woods, but in your situation I'd be asking a few pointed questions to the accessibility ombudsman, human rights commission, or whatever the equivalent is... I'd stop short of launching a lawsuit, but I know that around here there's laws in place that would require them to at least install rails and widen the door so his wheelchair could get in. Most building codes specify minimum width of doorways, too, and they may be in violation there, too.

Re:Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[dbet]

Handicap stalls in bathrooms aren't limited to handicap people, they're just accessible to handicap people. Just like the handicap line at my grocery store is used by everyone, but it's extra-wide for wheelchairs.

Re:Now we need cameras in toilet stalls

[publiclurker]

Somehow I get the feeling that the parent post is so full of shit that it actually takes him hours to go to the bathroom.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Daniel Dvorkin]

a disease that some people think doesn't really exists and is all in the patients head

Yes, some people think that. There is a technical medical term for those people: "idiots".

Fibromyalgia is real

[tepples]

a disease that some people think doesn't really exists and is all in the patients head

I used to work with someone who had fibromyalgia. It cleared up once she switched from tap water to bottled water. Perhaps she was reacting adversely to one of the additives in the local city water.

Re:Fibromyalgia is real

[GameboyRMH]

Bottled water is usually just tap water...

Re:Fibromyalgia is real

[DigiShaman]

Minus the additives?

Johnny Dangerously

[joeboomer628]

Danny Vermin: "I can park here, I am handicapped, I'm psychotic."

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup

[deniable]

Oh, we didn't see the permit. Fill in these forms and we'll waive the fine. Paying up would be easier.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[jamesh]

While the OP incorrectly calls on Darwin to make his point, there is a subtle wider issue that is not getting the same attention.

What does it mean to be disabled?

This may just be my own prejudice creeping out but I have a .... acquaintance who gets government assistance because of her obesity. She also gets government assistance because she's a single mother, jobless, and whatnot, but best of all do you know what her 1 year old baby's favourite meal is? KFC Chicken Nuggets. But that's not my biggest gripe. My biggest gripe is that she also has a disabled parking permit and again gets another government check for a disease that some people think doesn't really exists and is all in the patients head. Naturally doctors are reluctant to diagnose this "disease" and 10 different doctors told her she's as healthy as a grossly overweight person can get. Doctor 11 caved and now she gets to park her perfectly abled body in a disabled carpark and spend my tax dollars on more Macdonalds.

Another thing unrelated to disabled people, why do shopping centres reserve spots right next to disabled people for parents with prams? If a mother can spend 3 hours pushing a pram through the shopping centre she can spend the extra 1 minute pushing it to her car. In this country though the parents with prams reservation isn't legally enforceable.

The OP may have originally invoked Darwin in a way that offends, but as a society on the whole we are being coddled.

Just because a few fatties may or may not be exploiting a system designed to help people with a genuine need doesn't mean it's a completed screwed up system. If she really is exploiting the system then problem is the 11th doctor (and 12th, 13th etc she would have eventually found if the 11th hadn't played ball), not the existence of disabled parking spots. I think you're venting your frustration at the wrong target here.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Mitchell314]

It's not fucking with evolution. And no, you're not a "darwinist" (which is a derogatory term used by opponents of evolution, btw), as you have a very poor grasp of evolution. In other words you are either ignorant or, given your self description just a creationist troll, as I suspect. Or an out of place satire, but you'd you be parodying other than a certain strawman?

Teaching a troll would be a waste of bits, but for any confused readers, "survival of the fittest" is an old - arguable outdated - and highly informal reference to the ability to propagate ones genes to future generations. It also refers to populations in periods of time, not a specific individual living its life. If you as an individual break your arm, current evolutionary theory says little about your actual survival and absolutely nothing about that random circumstance (your child won't be born with a broken arm). What it does address is that genes to promote effective recovery are favored. Or genes that promote social bindings (such as general welfare to care for those in trouble), which is present in our and many other species.

Further more, the science of evolution does not say anything on how we should live, it's just an explanation and observation for how the biosphere got to where it is today, informally speaking (on a side note, that's why the Theory of Evolution is both referred to as scientific theory and scientific fact). How we organize our social structure is up to us, how we "should" organize our social structure is up to what we value. I'd say we value having a high standard of living, and thus try to extend that to as many people as possible (well, some of us, at any rate). So we do things like take care for the poor, the disabled, the old - and in turn hope that the same treatment comes to us when we need it. And in terms of the big picture, the survival of our species (or more specifically, our genes), all that effort spent on welfare isn't going to hurt it one damn bit. Meh, we might not have guaranteed survival in the bag, but compared to the other fauna, we've got it pretty damn good. Yeah, we could be wiped out by asteroid, atomic war, Justin Beiber clones, or a super bug - and it would take something of that magnitude to kick us off the list - but making handicap parking spots isn't going to affect the probability or outcome of that one bit.

And that's why I know any self-proclaimed social-darwinist doesn't understand two whits of evolution, basic biology, or social science.

-Yours truly,
Verbose Eye-Dee Ten Tee

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup

[jamesh]

Traffic cop? you say that like you don't know New Zealand councils hire private companies to patrol the streets handing out tickets for commission.

As long as they catch the people overstaying their time in a parking spot so I can find somewhere to park I don't really care about the semantics.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[man_of_mr_e]

Fibromyalgia is a real thing, but like many such diseases, there is no test for it and no way to "prove" it exists (at least not yet), so there will always be doubters. It's also quite possible that it's not any single disease, but rather can have multiple causes. Maybe it's not a diease at all, but symptoms of something else like an allergy or who knows what?

I have a disease like that. There's no test, and no cure. It's called Psoriatic Arthritis. Luckily, you can see the effects (swollen joints and ligaments among others), but there is no way to "prove" that you have it. That doesn't mean the pain isn't real, and certainly the physical deformation is real.

Now, whether or not your friend actually has Fibromyalgia or not is irrelevant. It's a real disease, and don't base your prejudice of your friend against it.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Prosthetic_Lips]

I concur. My wife has been diagnosed with Fibromyalgia; if it is "all in her head," then there is still something wrong physically. She gets shooting pains at times, gets the prickly skin associated with fever (but no fever), even claims at times that her hair hurts (again, I have had that when I am feverish).

Is she coddled? Sure. Maybe we should take away comfy couches, because those coddle us. And toothpaste. And running water (that coddles a LOT); we could just use wells, and boil / filter it if we don't like the smell / taste / whatever.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Toonol]

And the business can have them towed and collect a nice kickback from the impound fee...

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Lehk228]

you are not a "darwinist" you are a randroid. fuck you

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[hedwards]

Honestly, it gets really complicated really quickly. There are some things where there's not much argument to be had, if you can't walk or are blind or require assistance to live there's not going to be much argument.

However, if you're just missing a hand or a finger or have hearing in only one ear, that gets a bit murkier as those are things that people can and do live without, granted they aren't going to do everything without some adjustments, but they should be able to manage without too much help.

Re:They don't need a tag

[arth1]

From what I've seen, most people with handicap stickers park in a way that tells you they're handicapped. Usually they're at a sharp angle off of the parallel from the lines or they park really close to another car. Even when it's a little compact car in a space reserved for a van with 5 or 6 feet clearance on all sides, so you know it's not because they need the extra room

You "know" very little. Parking at an angle can be the only way to ensure that there will be space to get to the driver's seat with a wheelchair - there may be plenty of space now, but the wheelchair user has to think of what happens when the car next to him leaves and another one takes its place. You just don't know how close the person is going to park, likes or no. Parking at an angle makes it much more likely that you can get in and out.

handicap parking in the USA

[p51d007]

Needs to be overhauled. Daily I see people park in those spots and sprint into the stores. Now they may have them for elderly parents or what not, but, I really can't see the DMV giving out those placards as "handicap" for a MENTAL handicap! Doctors write scripts for people who do not need these things. At one university, the "who's who" people, when there is a concert, basketball game etc, clog up the handicap parking with their SUV's, caddy's etc.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Smauler]

Fibromyalgia is a real thing, but like many such diseases, there is no test for it and no way to "prove" it exists (at least not yet), so there will always be doubters.

Psychosomatic illnesses have been around for ever, and that is why there is such confusion. They tend to follow trends of what is currently in the news, rather than resulting from external effects upon patients. I'm not trying to diminish the symptoms.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking moron that doesn't understand evolution. You should be removed from the gene pool.

Technically, it was legal for him to park there

[tlambert]

He owned the building complex, and you are only required to have a legally mandated number of handicapped spots. Steve insured that there were more than the legally mandated number of spots available so that he was never in technical violation of the rules.

Here's the ADA requirements for parking spaces:

        http://www.ada.gov/adata1.htm

Here's a more accessible interpretation, with a table indicating the number of spots required per number of total parking spaces:

        http://en.allexperts.com/q/Disability-Law-917/Handicapped-Parking.htm

He was perfectly within his rights, so long as there was not a sufficient number of other people gaming the system at the same time. I suggest you avoid trying to do the same thing, unless you are the property owner and the single largest tax payer in a given municipality, however.

You'll likely eventually win, unless you are a total dick, but the lawyer costs will exceed just paying the fine, since it isn't a moving violation and therefore will only cost you the fine.

-- Terry

Re:Technically, it was legal for him to park there

[toddestan]

The law is pretty clear that one does not park in a marked handicapped spot, and doesn't provide any exceptions for property owners, largest taxpayers in a given municipality, lots with more than the minimum required parking spots, or giant douchebags. What Steve Jobs did was simply illegal.

Fire Department handling of cars in fire lanes

[billstewart]

The standard fire department protocol for dealing with a car that's parked in a fire lane if they get there and there's a fire is to break the windows and run the hose through the car, or else push it out of the way with a fire truck and then break the windows.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[m00sh]

Goodness me, two posts and both of you show tremendous lack of knowledge of how evolution works. This is why we have to teach evolution in school!

To the first poster, evolution only happens when there's selection pressure, i.e. large portion of the population is dying in their reproductive ages from something. If you're assuming that movement in the parking lots creates any sort of selection pressure and thus helps evolution, then it must resemble a scene from MW2.

Second poster, helping evolution does not mean reducing gene pool. The genes for inheritable diseases are usually recessive and when paired with a dominant one, it can be actually better than having two dominant ones. Like sickle cell anemia and malaria. Anyway, in times when there's no selection pressure, we should be maintaining as much a genetic diversity and as deep a gene pool as possible because when that selection pressure comes along, we don't know which gene in the gene pool is going to be the ones that takes us to the next step in the path of evolution.

In conclusion, you both misunderstand evolution.

Rare office with too many handicapped spaces

[billstewart]

I used to work in an office building that had been converted from a retail store. The parking lot was designed for retail, which was great - the worst space in the lot was still better than the best spaces in our main location. It had four handicapped spaces, and maybe once a month we'd have somebody park in one of them; my officemate joked that since he was deaf, he needed a handicapped space. So we had to walk 10 feet farther; no big deal.

But for retail use, that would have been about right, given the size of the store.

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup

[rohan972]

I didn't know having a shorter distance to the store was a fundamental right of the crippled.

If the store owner put the parking space there, it is their property rights that are relevant, if the law says they have to, it is a legislated right. Either way, the disabled have a right to that space and the able-bodied do not. Nothing to do with "fundamental rights".

There's no need for that complexity.

[billstewart]

If there's an unnecessary handicapped spot, able-bodied people have to walk at most one parking place farther (usually less.) But during the times of day when it's not very busy, the average able-bodied person already gets to walk less, because the parking lot's not very full, so they already win. And while the original article was about New Zealanders, we're Americans, and making us get extra exercise walking in from the parking lot is about the best National Health Care we're going to get.

Re:There's no need for that complexity.

[Penguinshit]

I would give quite a bit to have the option to walk.

Re:There's no need for that complexity.

[TheLink]

They seem to be making some progress on ALS:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Neurology/GeneralNeurology/28129
http://alsn.mda.org/news/ubiquilin-2-abnormalities-connected-als

Hopefully it'll be fast enough for you.

Re:There's no need for that complexity.

[Penguinshit]

Thanks! Better yet, look up Neuraltus and the exciting progress made with NP001.

Re:There's no need for that complexity.

[mfraz74]

And while the original article was about New Zealanders, we're Americans.

Speak for yourself, but I refuse to be bundled in with the assumption that everyone on here is American. Here in the UK, I found it amazing that it was OK for a disabled person to park in a parent & child space if the disabled spaces were used, but not the other way around.

Re:There's no need for that complexity.

[Lusa]

Possibly because disabled spots are regulated with certificates where parent and child are a convenience and are far easier to abuse. All you need is a child seat and any spot check is worthless. I've seen a disturbing number of invisible children here. Mind you, I've also seen parent and 16 year old child using such spots too :(

Re:There's no need for that complexity.

[skywire]

When a lot is otherwise full, the half dozen empty "handicapped spots" prevent half a dozen people from parking anywhere in the lot. In some cases that effectively prevents them from pursuing their business at the location at all, because the nearest alternative is literally kilometres away.

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup

[mysidia]

What they should do is have license plates with RFID and E-INK on them.

If you pull into a handicapped spot, the RFID tag identifies you, and if you're not authorized the E-INK display changes a portion of the license plate to say "ILLEGALLYPARKED IN HANDICAP"

And as soon as that happens, an officer can write the ticket at any time.

Re:They don't need a tag

[mysidia]

Fun anecdote. In college, I broke my leg and was in a wheelchair for three months. The officer (state school, so the campus cops were state troopers with all of the training and abilities that go with it) still wouldn't let me have a handicap sticker.

Uhuh... the thing to do would have been to get the paperwork for your state and talk to your doctor.

Campus cops don't make the decision about whether you need a parking pass or not. You should've followed your state's process, and gotten the stickers from your state's office of motor vehicles.

Re:Screw handicapped parking

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: You can't tell who is actually handicapped by looking at them, or watching them walk.

Re:No. No. No.

[arth1]

As long as one is within the lines, how is it not "correctly" when parking diagonally? It offends your esthetic sensibility?

As for "privilege", you have the PRIVILEGE of walking. Not a RIGHT. How about we take that away? If no one else volunteers, I'd be happy to take a wrench to your fucking kneecaps.

Re:You obviously didn't watch the linked video

[GreenTech11]

That's based on the incorrect assumption that the businesses will attempt to match the customer base demographics. Regardless of whether the business has 10% handicapped or 50% handicapped patrons, if they fill their parking areas regularly, the best option for them economically will be to have no handicapped bays. At their smallest a handicapped bay will take up a space equivalent to 1.5 regular bays, and will often be larger. Therefore, if they regularly run out of parking, then a way for the business to increase revenue would be to remove all disabled bays, and replace them with regular bays, thus increasing customer numbers. Sure, they'll lose a demographic, but they'll be replaced with other customers who'd normally bypass the store due to parking. Heck, depending on competition they may not even lose any business, if they're the only store offering a certain commodity, they'll retain the handicapped business, but they'll be forced to go outside peak times in order to get spaces that meet their needs.

Economically, in most cases the best situation for a store is no handicapped bays, which is why government regulation is necessary.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[kermidge]

How wonderfully brave of you to volunteer for down mods whilst posting as an anonymous coward. Yep, you'd make Darwin proud, you would. Were I less filled with seasonal bonhomie I'd consider you an excellent candidate for post-partum abortion. Meanwhile, I'll just take up my cane and move on.

just block traffic

[bmidgley]

Lawmakers have generally made the citation worse for parking in a handicap stall than parking in the middle of the road, blocking fire lanes, etc. Nothing like a financial incentive encouraging the best behavior in society.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[man_of_mr_e]

Most people, even hypocondriacs, can't fake all the symptoms accurately. What's known to the layman about these diseases is not the same as what the doctors know. You have to have very specific symptoms, and be able to talk about them in great detail, not just vaguely wave your hands.

Trust me, you can't easily fake the knowledge necessary from actual experience. You would have to be intimately familiar with someone who had the disease.

That doesn't mean it's beyond the realm of possibility, but if you go to that much trouble... you could fake a lot of things that are much better known and less work.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[thegarbz]

With all due respect for your wife, is she unable to walk?

Every time I see the said person with fibromyalgia she is out partying and getting drunk. The main point I was trying to make is that fibromyaligia is a disease which is an easy target for con artists looking for a government paycheck and a disabled sticker on their car.

I'm not arguing that some people don't suffer horribly from it, just that we lump everyone who has anything worse than a cough these days as disabled and give them benefits which they don't at all need.

started watching that

[KingAlanI]

started watching that, so far so good
it's a critical analysis of ADA in general

"Park Different"

[Tablizer]

an employee made such a sign for the lot

rephrasing

[KingAlanI]

so you're saying that they would have to bear the costs of access services themselves (whether as a consumer or on the job)

However, it seems like a chicken and egg problem if they're otherwise able to be productive. It may make sense for the government to force a solution to that if the market isn't. Nevertheless, it doesn't make sense to offload all the monetary costs onto those of sound mind and body.

Always disabled

[mwvdlee]

People who park in disabled spots are always disabled.
Either they're physically disabled or they're mentally disabled retards.

Re:Always disabled

[91degrees]

If there are 10 free spaces, and I take one of them, for 10 minutes, am I retarded?

Because unless a convention suddenly arrives I can't see the harm that it's doing.

Re:Always disabled

[mwvdlee]

Yes

Re:Always disabled

[91degrees]

Well, if you like, but unless you can give a reason, then that's just name calling, and you might as well call me a poopy-head.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[AK Marc]

The truth is that most disabled people aren't disabled because of some genetic trait, but because of some other unfortunate incident along the way.

Sometimes both. I have a disability due to an "unfortunate incident" along the way, but the cause of the incident may have been genetic. Where's that leave me?

classification

[KingAlanI]

I've long since suspected it makes sense to distinguish between physical and mental disabilities, handicapped parking seems like a prime example of where this would be relevant.

Re:classification

[AK Marc]

And with perhaps some "independence" scale. Under most rules, a completely blind person would be ineligible, as they can walk fine, even if unsafely in a parking lot (leaving aside how they get there in a car). But a sighted driver assisting a blind person could get them to the lot, and the blind person may be unable to get from the car to the store unassisted (satisfying the spirit, if not letter of the law). One of the issues is that safety is *never* taken into account, only access. That makes it silly. The fat people who can't walk because of personal choices can get a permit and the blind person can't. Whether the ailment is physical or mental is irrelevant to whether they "need" or "deserve" special treatment.

Re:classification

[KingAlanI]

yes, safety should be considered when determining whether the disability is relevant to parking lot navigation.
I figure physical disabilities are more relevant than mental disabilities to handicapped parking (in general)

Re:classification

[Lusa]

Can't say for elsewhere but in the UK the permit for parking is assigned to the person not the car so the spots can be used if anyone in the car needs it. However we do have a problem (no idea how large) of friends/family members taking the permit and using it without actually needing it. Spot checks will fail to spot a misused permit. It gets worse because trips with a permit holder may be one way, for example picking up someone from an appointment at the doctors. It's not always feasible to leave them on the pavement whilst a car is fetched. People disabled by choice should have restrictions placed on their use, like mandatory treatment (gym!) or they lose the permit.

Re:classification

[AK Marc]

It gets worse because trips with a permit holder may be one way, for example picking up someone from an appointment at the doctors. It's not always feasible to leave them on the pavement whilst a car is fetched.

Who is "parked" in a mobility spot? Nobody, and they are using the handicapped spots as a loading zone for a handicapped person? Then either the handicapped person takes the permit with them, or just unload/load them without a permit, as you aren't necessarily "parked". If they are having that problem on a regular basis, they should be able to figure out something.

Everywhere I've heard of has the permit attached to a person, not the car (even the places where you can get the disabled plates for the car, the ability to park in the handicapped spots is attached to the person, not the car, even if moving the plates is illegal and inconvenient).

Re:classification

[Macgrrl]

My husband suffers from periodic seizures that can leave him unable to walk without support due to balance issues and vision problems post-seizure. These seizures can be triggered aurally by high pitched noises - like the alarms that go off when people take tagged items through the security barriers at the local stores.

We don't have a disabililty tag for our car, and there have been more than a few occasions where I've had to abandon our shopping so I could assist him back to the car. He has a good 30+ kilos on me in weight, so it's a non-trivial exercise to get him across the car park - he's almost a dead weight at the time.

Over the last couple of years the shopping centre has been removing casual seating around the centre to make room for more retail kiosks. It makes it really difficult to find places for him to sit and rest and get himself back under control after a seizure. People can have tranisitory issues which affect their movement capability.

Re:classification

[AK Marc]

You could always take a pillow with you and just lay him down wherever the seizure strikes until he's recovered. And my condition isn't significantly different from that and Ive' got a tag. Perhaps you could shop doctors until one agrees that he isn't able to walk 200 yards unassisted (or whatever your local rules are) at times, and that may be sufficient.

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup

[KDR_11k]

So you want people to install an evil bit in their car?

further comments now that I finished watching it

[KingAlanI]

had a libertarian streak, I understand that's not surprising coming form these guys.
the video also argued that you can't legislate morality/compassion, and that good intentions don't necessarily work out as intended

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Another thing unrelated to disabled people, why do shopping centres reserve spots right next to disabled people for parents with prams? If a mother can spend 3 hours pushing a pram through the shopping centre she can spend the extra 1 minute pushing it to her car. In this country though the parents with prams reservation isn't legally enforceable.

Because it's convenient with extra space to load them (the children that is). It scratches up fewer other cars. And being able to tell the older children to go to the front of the car and stand on the pavement is a lot better (as in safer) than having them in the parking lot proper.

But don't worry. This is something you'll understand when you have kids yourself. You'll look back to the days before when you were ignorant and laugh. On the good days. Most days you'll look back and cry... (But don't despair, it'll get better. Pushing prams doesn't last that long.)

English language ambiguity?

[KingAlanI]

It seems like it could be a more-general use of "you".

Re:English language ambiguity?

[KingAlanI]

I admit there are few /. posters I know by name and posting style.

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup

[jamesh]

They are already doing this in Melbourne (Australia) for regular parking spots. Some spots have sensors which detect when a vehicle enters and leaves the spot, and car-mounted camera's drive around checking plates as well. It wouldn't be too hard to extend that to cars known to have permits or not.

I'm not sure though, even in Australia where I live, if the permits are linked to the vehicle or the person. The latter would make more sense (eg if you're helping a friend out by taking them to the shops in your car) but then it isn't possible to automatically process via camera (tags in Australia are mounted on the front windscreen which isn't normally visible from the road depending on how the car is parked).

The thing that really bugs me is the parents at my kids school who park in the disabled spots even when they don't have the disabled child/person with them and aren't picking them up or dropping them off. These are the same parents that will yell and scream at others if they dare use those spots when they shouldn't. Grrr.

backifiring bad apples

[KingAlanI]

so a ham-fisted government attempt to help a minority makes members of the majority less enthusiastic about helping that minority?
a few bad apples amongst the minority itself can also do this.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Neil Boekend]

The question you should ask yourself: is being able to walk the correct selection criteria? Ableness to walk is usefull, true, but are those unable to walk also unable to be usefull cogs in the great machine of society?
I would set the selection criterium to those to stupid to think about their theories and of those only those who also broadcast them.
Or those who miss certain brain functions (empathy for example) redering them unable to simply take care of the weaker parts of society.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[KingAlanI]

makes more sense if the disability in question is genetic. the cause of a nongenetic disability seems too distant to naturally select against.

about the military example

[KingAlanI]

well, injured veterans are amongst those disabled due to a nongenetic reason, so Darwin seems too distant even if one is concerned about such things.

Incidentally, monetary costs of the disability should be/are part of what the veteran is paid for his service.

PS
you mean Marine not currently on active duty? :P

pregnant women?

[KingAlanI]

I hope they stop giving disabled parking to pregnant women. Getting your stupid ass knocked up doesn't mean you deserve to park by the entrance.

would a social attitude against mothers/expectant mothers lower the birthrate? if so, is that what you want to happen?

if anything, first world nations seem to have too low of a birthrate (granted, a lower amount of people at a first world standard of living use more resources overall)

as for other types of transit...

[KingAlanI]

disabled access seems to be quite expensive for mass transit systems to provide, and yet they pay a LOWER fare.

Re:as for other types of transit...

[dkf]

disabled access seems to be quite expensive for mass transit systems to provide, and yet they pay a LOWER fare.

It's a moral decision by society overall to treat those who are less bodily able better. It's a mark of charity, and a sign that most people aren't just psychopathic jerks. (Moreover, it's cheaper to put in access to mass transit at the time it is being built than later on, and there are bus designs that have particularly low floors and hydraulic lowering mechanisms that make the bus easier to board for the disabled. Everyone else benefits too, except for bus owners who have to put up with a more capital-intensive operation that increases customer satisfaction...)

Re:as for other types of transit...

[KingAlanI]

yes, putting the features in the initial build is easier than remodeling/retrofitting

An idea

[xenobyte]

No matter what method you're going to use to detect violators, make sure the punishment is severe. Here's an idea:

First, separate the parking into privileged spots (which includes the handicapped spaces), normal spaces and way out in the most remote parts the penalty spaces. Checking the permits should use some form of electronic check that is always up to date, and could include license plate or license id displayed.

Now, if someone if found to be parked where he doesn't belong, this is what happens. The car is towed right away as a rush job (double the cost which the offender has to pay), a 24 hour lockout period at the impound lot (the car has to sit there minimum 24 hours before it can be released), a storage fee calculated on the number of 24 hours days, which means that violators have to pay for at least two days. Add to this a hefty fine, and last but not least a penalty mark, which means that for a period (6-12 months perhaps?) this car is only allowed to park in the penalty spaces or the regular spaces nearest the penalty spaces if they're all full.

Additional violations will double the fines each time, as well as the lockout period before the car can be released. The fines will go to a handicap organization chosen by the parking lot owner. Oh, and cars not claimed and paid for within 72 hours after the expiry of the lockout period are confiscated and sold at an auction. If this happen, the car is cleared from the penalty register unless the buyer is the previous owner or close family. If the car was a company car, the company that owns it are encouraged to sue the user for reimbursement for the cost of a new car. If they buy it back from the auction it will still be under penalty.

Making fake licenses or similar is counterfeiting and fraud and will be dealt with by the police, which usually means hard time.

Re:An idea

[russotto]

First, separate the parking into privileged spots (which includes the handicapped spaces), normal spaces and way out in the most remote parts the penalty spaces.

Already done in some parking lots, particularly grocery stores. First you have the handicapped spots. Then the pregnant woman spots. Then the elderly spots, then the parents spots. Then the employee of the month spot. Then, way out in the back, one spot partially blocked with snow, trash, broken shopping carts, or other debris, for an able-bodied person.

Re:An idea

[realityimpaired]

Now, if someone if found to be parked where he doesn't belong, this is what happens. The car is towed right away as a rush job (double the cost which the offender has to pay), a 24 hour lockout period at the impound lot (the car has to sit there minimum 24 hours before it can be released), a storage fee calculated on the number of 24 hours days, which means that violators have to pay for at least two days. Add to this a hefty fine, and last but not least a penalty mark, which means that for a period (6-12 months perhaps?) this car is only allowed to park in the penalty spaces or the regular spaces nearest the penalty spaces if they're all full.

Having had to fight a parking ticket for parking in the handicapped spot when I had a permit, because the cop was blind, or didn't feel like wiping the snow off the windshield to get a view of the permit which was on display on the dash (in a jurisdiction where they don't issue special license plates, only permits that you display in your windshield)... how about not? Fix the system so that stupid cops can't "accidentally" fill their quota by issuing incorrect citations, and maybe I'd support your draconian measures. But as long as there's room for that kind of human error, absolutely not. I refuse to be penalized for the stupidity of others.

Parking laws... not driving laws.

[leuk_he]

Over here the situation is that parking is governed by local authorities. However the road laws are country wide (/european).

You cannot restrict some kind of big cars (Hummer etc..) driving on the road in your city. The road is public, so no limit there. However the parking is a different kind. By limiting the number of parking spots, or kind of cars that can effectively park, you can limit the number of cars.

If you live in the center of a big city, and you have no way to park your car, you will not buy a car. If it is very expensive to park a car, you will think twice before buying it there, or buying a second car.

Ob

[Hognoxious]

in b4 "OMG 1984 5th amendment eleventyonehundr3d!!!!!!"

I've noticed here in the UK...

[Gordonjcp]

... that a lot of disabled spaces in supermarket carparks have a squarish orange pad bolted to the tarmac. It's not quite a foot square and a couple of inches thick. I did wonder if this was some sort of transponder sensor for disabled drivers to summon assistance, but no-one I know who has a disabled person parking permit has any such transponder or any idea what the pads do.

Maybe it just detects the presence or absence of a car, nothing more.

Re:I've noticed here in the UK...

[xSquaredAdmin]

Perhaps it's just a more permanent way of indicating that it's a handicapped spot? Wheelchair symbols painted onto the pavement like they have here in Canada can fade with time making it unclear that it is/was a spot. It's a bit harder to not notice when you've got a big orange thing sticking up from the pavement.

Re:I've noticed here in the UK...

[Gordonjcp]

It doesn't stick up very far, and they often don't have any markings on them. They also look "outside electronics-y" if you know what I mean.

Re:I've noticed here in the UK...

[trigpoint]

It doesn't stick up very far, and they often don't have any markings on them. They also look "outside electronics-y" if you know what I mean.

Have seen some, at ASDA, that give a verbal reminder when they detect a car parking in a disabled space.

Interesting, but limited method

[Hentes]

Most healthy people parking in those spots already have forged handicap cards, or real ones by bribing a doctor.

New Zealand Law Enforcement

[lewko]

Never mess with New Zealand Cops.

Re:They don't need a tag

[SJHillman]

Read my post again. I specifically covered the fact that even when in a van spot with five or six feet of clearance on all sides, some people still park at odd angles that usually but into the driving lane. A lot of times, it actually causes LESS clearance.

Re:No. No. No.

[SJHillman]

Because 1) it usually butts out of the designated space, either on the sides or into the driving lane of the lot and 2) just because you're still in the space doesn't mean it doesn't cause a pain in the ass for people on either side of you. Here's a fun exercise. Park your car in a space and have two friends park on either side of you as close as possible to your space without crossing the line. Unless you're a very small person you probably won't be able to get back into your car at all without going through the trunk.

Re:They don't need a tag

[SJHillman]

It was just for campus parking spots, which did go through that one particular sergeant. All I wanted was a temporary sticker for around campus which was well within his power. According to campus policy, all I needed was to prove I could not walk 500 feet. I couldn't walk 50 feet with the aid of crutches at that point.

Re:No. No. No.

[GameboyRMH]

They have the right to the whole space, they're oversized to allow easy access, so who cares if they park at an odd angle to ensure that they can get back into the car? as long as they're within the lines why is it a problem?

Both my cars are compact and I've still been boxed in by inconsiderate idiot drivers when parking well within the lines. One time I had to contort myself into the car through a tiny door gap (bystanders applauded) and another time I had to climb into my 4x4 through the back hatch. People who aren't so able-bodied don't even have those options, so if they get boxed in do they just have to wait until the owner(s) of the offending car(s) shows up?

a better system

[argStyopa]

You'd think by this time we could spend our efforts making better use of these spaces? Instead of a system that automatically watches and simply penalizes people who use these spots, how about a system that works on the opportunity-cost model? It would
a) monitor these parking places
b) if a valid handicap parking-user shows up and there are no spots available, anyone parked in them gets tagged and fined.

We've all been at shopping centers where there are dozens if not scores of empty handicap spots available, even during the crazy-busy shopping days at Christmas.

This would make these (generally unused) spots available for the sort of high-demand, short "I'm only going to be in there for 5 mins" things" BUT ALSO strongly penalize people who use them for anything more IF there is a valid handicap space user that needs it...

Re:a better system

[DemonCat]

"b) if a valid handicap parking-user shows up and there are no spots available, anyone parked in them gets tagged and fined."
If the space is improperly occupied when it's needed, the system has failed and you have a handicapped person who may be unable to attend the business or event they're trying to park at. The fine is only a deterrent to parking there. It does nothing to help a handicapped driver who can't buy groceries because someone was insensitive enough to take their parking space.

I've seen a lot of grousing here that handicapped spaces are usually empty. That how they're supposed to work. The idea is to have enough handicapped parking that the few who need it will always have a space open for them, so they don't have to circle the block 50 times, wait forever, or just come back later. When your mobility is impaired simple errands become arduous chores that don't need any further impediments. Making parking marginally less convenient for able-bodies persons makes it dramatically more accessible for who people who face severe challenges at basic daily tasks.

Re:a better system

[Macgrrl]

I have a friend with severe CFS and a few other issues to compound it. She has a motorised wheelchair, but even going to the Drs for an hour or so means days of recovery time.

While she may be at the extreme end of the spectrum (she's currently improving with new treatments, but spent years bed bound), coming back later is not always an option for some people. They may have used an irreplaceable percentage of the energy they had available to them for the day just getting there.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Hatta]

It's the same thing with "Parents with Prams" parking spots - unless you want to discriminate against them as well?

Actually, that's discrimination in favor of parents. Handicapped spots make sense, because disability is a tragedy and we want to help these unfortunate people out. Parenthood is not a tragedy, it's a choice, a choice that doesn't really benefit anyone but the parent. Why should we make special concessions for them?

I hope it's an active encryption id system

[BlueCoder]

A passive system like RFID is too easy to forge and copy. An active ID system uses active encryption for challenge and response. It can't be easily bypassed unless you can take apart an integrated circuit and read it's memory contents directly.

GPS

[nurb432]

Just stick GPS on every car and monitor all citizen movements. Then you will know when an 'unauthorized car' is in the wrong spot.

Oh, and you get to follow everyone around all the time and record them as a byproduct.. "Its for the kids" ya know.

Same punishment for carpool lane violators....

[zawarski]

... death penalty. That will make them think twice, as well as finally proving a credible argument for capital punishment as an effective deterrent!

Re:Id be OK with this if...

[bogie]

Whining that there are too many handicap parking spaces? What a douchebag. Boy do I hope karma comes up and bites you in the ass.

It will not work!

[wfstanle]

Sure! We intend to use the parking spot for only a minute or two but then reality sets in. The line at the cashier is long, or we get sidetracked by something and forget we are using a handicapped spot. A few minutes becomes much longer than we intended. Also, how is the cop going to know if this was actually the case. Imagine a cop writing a ticket. The offender was using the parking spot for more than a few minutes. Do you expect a cop to wait and waste his time to see if it was actually a few minutes. What would happen if the offender was there for a long time and the cop sees him just as he is pulling out of the spot? The offender avoids a ticket just by telling the officer that he was there for only a minute? The only enforceable way is to have an absolute ban on the non-disabled from using a handicapped spot.

Re:It will not work!

[argStyopa]

And man will never fly?

Seriously, we're talking in the OP about a monitoring system that detects cheaters. It wouldn't be significantly more complex to have a monitor AND LOGGING system, as well as an RFID that comes with your handicap-certification, which recognizes "oh, handicap-needing vehicle is here!"

And yeah, for the people that use those spaces, it IS a crap shoot.
If I drive up, and there are 20 empty handicap spaces, I have a pretty safe bet that they aren't all going to suddenly fill. But if 16 are full, I would be damn sure I get into and out of the space quickly if I dared use it at all.

The whole point is that someone who needs the space has one when they are there. Otherwise it's vacant, unused space that's usually the most premium, useful parking area in a lot. It's very primitive for us to accept that the only way to make sure the space is there is to totally ban non-handicap usage.

Bravo!

[wfstanle]

I couldn't have phrased it better.

Number of handicapped spots...

[Firethorn]

I'll actually agree with you - but with caveats.

Down around Sebring, FL, you have 10 rows of handicapped parking spots in front of Walmart, and it's not enough.

When they first put in the Gym at the military base I was stationed at, they put a dozen spots in - but off to the side. Please note that this is NOT a base where rehab takes place - I had been sufficiently injured to be disabled, I would have been moved to another base, such as Walter Reed(when it was still open). Even after they turned half of them into VIP spots(god forbid high ranking officers don't get a close spot so they don't have to walk too far before their workout), I never saw any cars parked there. Annoyance factor: The parking lot was frequently 100% full, except for those spots.

I'm at a new base now, and the handicapped spots (there are 3) ARE used, mostly by retirees. Not a problem - these are people working out what they can to keep what they can. Yes, the mere walk from/to the car ends up being a major workout, but that's life.

douchebag parking.

[Firethorn]

I'm thinking 'take two spots', perhaps at an angle such that nobody wants to park next to him.

I'd just stencil, very obviously, 'HANDICAPPED ACCESS RAMP: 6' CLEARANCE REQUIRED' on the side of the van where the ramp is.

so many posts, so little techy content

[pbjones]

I was here to see some technical discussion about the system used, and I find a big pile of crap about the use of parking spaces. where did all of the interesting people go?

Steve Jobs - used rich person's justification?

[Firethorn]

I figure that even if he got a violation ticket, he probably simply paid the fine as a 'business expense'. There are a lot of companies that pay any parking violation tickets for their employees - it's cheaper than them spending the time to find legal parking spots.

On Steve Jobs - consider that even if you got a $250 ticket every day, that's $91k/year in parking tickets. For somebody making >$10M/year, that's less than 1% of their income. At that income level, you're making like $5k/hour. So if you save more than 3 minutes for each $250 ticket, it's worth it.

Of course, it takes a bit of a dick of a cop to give the UPS/Fedex truck a parking ticket for parking right in front of a store, office building, or apartment complex, but it happens occasionally. I have more sympathy for those drivers than I do for Jobs.

Re:Id be OK with this if...

[JustNiz]

I'll even agree with you calling me a douchebag if you can successfully justify what the point is of having like 20 disabled spaces in front of most supermarkets when only 1 or 2 are literally ever used?
I fully agree with catering to an overhead for the off chance of double or even triple normal usage but this degree of PC extremity is ridiculous.
Even worse are the sanctimonious "hybrids only" spots now out front of Fresh n' Easy closest to the doors. Even disabled cant park in them if they're not also in a hybrid.
The PeeCee crap that you're so obviously a proponent of has gotten way out of hand.

Lawsuits in general

[Firethorn]

Lawsuit-happy lawyers is no more a problem with the ADA than the RIAA is a problem with the Internet. As long as there are laws, there will be people who will try to sue who have no good case. The problem is with the US legal system which doesn't do enough to protect against frivolous lawsuits.

Who's saying that I think that #3 shouldn't be on a wider basis? Heck, all of them, adjusted as appropriate? Unless an individual has actually suffered serious harm, I think that businesses need to be given a chance to correct something first.

In short, I agree.

Fluoridated tap water

[tepples]

Not everybody's tap water is treated with fluoride salts. I seem to remember that's what she was reacting to.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled

[Slashdot Parent]

With all due respect for your wife, is she unable to walk?

There's a difference between being unable to walk and unable to navigate a large parking lot safely. My wife has Multiple Sclerosis and now Cancer as well (come to think of it, I'm going to make her start buying lottery tickets). On good days, she can get around pretty well. You'd never even know she was sick. But on bad days, she can't get very far without having to take a rest. And it's not like there's a safe place for her to just sit down and take a rest in a parking lot. Also, it's not always clear what type of day she's going to have until it gets bad.

Every time I see the said person with fibromyalgia she is out partying and getting drunk. The main point I was trying to make is that fibromyaligia is a disease which is an easy target for con artists looking for a government paycheck and a disabled sticker on their car.

I'm not arguing that some people don't suffer horribly from it, just that we lump everyone who has anything worse than a cough these days as disabled and give them benefits which they don't at all need.

Your neighbor is malingering; we get that. Doesn't mean that everyone with a Fibro diagnosis has it for the purpose of scamming Uncle Sam. I believe that they legitimately "hurt", but there is no diagnostic for it yet.

FWIW, it's not like the diagnostics for other diseases are so cut and dried. For example, healthy individuals with no clinical Multiple Sclerosis symptoms (and who will never experience clinical MS symptoms) can have brain lesions show up on MRI that look exactly like MS lesions. My wife had her spleen removed because active cancer showed up there on a CT scan, but once pathology had a look at it, it was just a clump of blood vessels (I forget the exact name for it, but anyway, it was normal and harmless). Life isn't so simple as "if it shows up on imaging then it's there, otherwise you're a faker".

Re:They don't need a tag

[Slashdot Parent]

Fun anecdote. In college, I broke my leg and was in a wheelchair for three months. The officer (state school, so the campus cops were state troopers with all of the training and abilities that go with it) still wouldn't let me have a handicap sticker. He was fired less than a year later for stealing donuts from the local gas station.

He could not have issued you handicapped tags even if he wanted to, because police officers/rent-a-cops do not issue handicap tags. The DMV does, on advice from your doctor.

Perhaps this officer could have been more helpful and pointed you in the right direction, but by your account, it sounds like he wasn't interested in doing much protecting and serving.

Sorry, but you are confused.

[tlambert]

Sorry, but you are confused.

The fact that the general rule of thumb for parking enforcement officers is to ticket a car without a placard parked in a spot marked to require a placard doesn't impact whether or not that enforcement is legally mandated.

You are missing three crucial points:

(1) The Apple parking lots are clearly marked "private property" (try parking in them and walking to BJ's Restaurant and see what happens to your car).

(2) Parking enforcement on private property is only done as a result of a request from the property owner.

So yeah, you'll get towed if you park an unplacarded car in a spot marked to require a placard which happens to be on private property if there is a complaint by the property owner or one of their legally appointed representatives (such as corporate security). How likely is it that the property owner or one of their representatives to sic parking enforcement on themselves/their boss? How likely is it that someone else manning the cameras isn't going to say "Hey! They're towing the bosses car!" and put a stop to it, even if the act was done by a maverick as their way of resigning?

Public places of business, such as malls, will usually have blanket agreements with the local authorities, including profit sharing for ticketed violations. You'll usually get unconditionally ticketed there, but even then, there are generally "executive vehicle" bumper/windshield stickers issued to upper management in those places to exempt them from the rules.

-- Terry

Re:Sorry, but you are confused.

[toddestan]

Well, that's a bit different from what you were asserting above, but whatever.

I guess it boils down to relevant state or municipal laws. Around here, you are required to put the text "HANDICAPPED PARKING - STATE PERMIT REQUIRED - POLICE WILL ENFORCE." on handicapped parking signs, if said handicapped parking spot is required by law. And yes, the police are authorized to ticket vehicles who illegally park in handicapped spots regardless of whether or not the spot is on private property and whether or not the property owner requests enforcement. And yes, I know some people who tried to pull a 'Steve Jobs' and got slapped for it. A quick look at California's laws seems to say that in California the police don't enforce handicapped spots on private property unless the property owner requests, and even so, the property owner may still be responsible for removal of the offending vehicle(!). So with that, I suppose you might be right, in California you can park in handicapped spots so long as you are either the property owner, or at least with permission from the property owner in the sense that the property owner won't call the cops on you. Still doesn't save Steve Jobs from being a giant douchebag though.

Re:Screw handicapped parking

[LunaticTippy]

I had major foot surgery and was very grateful for handicapped parking. I filled out a form for a temporary (90 day) permit and my surgeon signed it when I scheduled the surgery. I had a handicapped tag from the DMV with the expiration date written on it. It sure came in handy. Getting around on crutches is a bitch. Eventually I figured out a better way to get around (a rollabout, sort of a tall skateboard) but when I used crutches every single step was pure misery.

If it hurts for you to walk, ask your doctor to sign the form for a temporary or permanent permit, depending on your situation. If your doctor refuses, I suspect your doctor isn't compassionate. I found a lot of doctors that didn't care about me before I found a keeper.

I learned that I needed to take charge of my well being. Nobody else suggested the rollabout, or the parking permit, or the special suction sleeve that allowed me to swim while wearing a cast. Those 3 things helped me so much and made a big difference.

I certainly understand your bitterness, being in pain is very tough. I am just trying to help.