debate over disabled parking

[Janet-M]

You are quite correct .. @ Robin9342

the post I was referring to has now been removed .

[yourbank]

Thank you Janet M and seftonview for the links.

[legalpickle]

Again, the logic escapes me. It seems to me you are implying that disabled people either should, or do, have more rights that able-bodied people. I thought this was about equality....

 

Whilst I fully support that disabled people should be given every assistance possible to enable them to access the same facilities as everyone else, I totally disagree that it is any less inconvenient for an able-bodied person to arrive at a car park and find no spaces!

 

seftonview has answered this better than I could. I do however want to say to Robin & Zamzara. Your responses show complete misunderstanding of what physically disabled people have to cope with.

 

I however cannot blame you. I was the same way and got punished with several difficulties, so much so that I am going to intensive physiotherapy now in order to be able to walk slowly. I am literally learning how to walk from scratch - something that is taken for granted when you can walk no problem.

 

Even when I can walk without crutches, i.e. have the ability to straighten my right leg, I will still be disabled due to other physical disabilities and that it is extremely unlikely that I will ever be able to walk without any difficulties - just like an able-bodied person - again.

 

A disabled person reaches a parking lot and finds no parking spaces, he/she has no choice but to either park completely illegally or drive away, due to the difficulties in reaching the destination. An able-bodied person can park another half a mile away without any difficulty, hence the reason disabled people are entitled to special parking places.

 

This is in no way discriminating against able-bodied people, trust me I would much rather be able to return my blue badge and go with friends [i don't have a driving licence or car] and be able to have them park a mile away or travel by public transport.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Rooster-UK
Reference to "normal" people

[Lula]

I would like to hear PT's opinion on this

[Conniff]

A disabled person reaches a parking lot and finds no parking spaces, he/she has no choice but to either park completely illegally or drive away, due to the difficulties in reaching the destination.

 

And if those same parking spaces are all taken up by blue badge holders, then what?

[seftonview]

And if those same parking spaces are all taken up by blue badge holders, then what?

 

Then it's probably a fair kop. Again, assuming there are sufficient spaces.

[Conniff]

I think the OP has continually pointed out his reasons .. how many times does he need to explain them to you ? would it help if I went back over the threads and get each of the post numbers for you ? or are you able to reread them yourself .

 

He is correct in saying that you are just trying to bait seen as the OP has gone out of his way to answer all your questions regardless of some of the nasty comments aimed .

 

I know the reason, what has not been explained is why they think they will win in court. These bays are not enforceable to disabled only so why does he think he is entitled to compensation because they were full?

[Lula]

Then it's probably a fair kop. Again, assuming there are sufficient spaces.

 

How would you work out what constitutes sufficient space? is there something proscribed?

[robin9342]

Your responses show complete misunderstanding of what physically disabled people have to cope with.

Not true. Although I am able bodied, I was a carer for a disabled relative (with a blue badge) until she passed away, involving weekly shopping trips by car to a large supermarket. So, I do understand. However, I, like others on this thread are simply trying to point out that whilst the OP has every right to go to court and claim that the supermarket has infringed their rights under the DDA, the outcome is far from certain.

 

Put simply, I am sure we all support facilities to allow disabled people equal access, in the end it is likely to come down to what the court considers reasonable. My opinion is that, rightly or wrongly, the court will decide the the supermarket has done all that it reasonably can. Of course, the OP's opinion is the opposite, hence has taken legal action.

[legalpickle]

I know the reason, what has not been explained is why they think they will win in court. These bays are not enforceable to disabled only so why does he think he is entitled to compensation because they were full?

 

 

1. I bet that most of the people who receive these tickets don't know that they're not enforceable so it acts as a deterrent. I am guessing that a good proportion pay up and don't contest them, so it is also financially viable for them to do this - even in the current way.

 

2. Parking attendants can be there and move people along. It happens in some stores, so it's obviously possible, and that does also act as a deterrent.

 

There are routes for them to ensure that the parking spaces - for the most part - are not used by people without a valid blue-badge with the disabled passenger in the car.

 

Also my understanding is that the way they issue the tickets is not enforceable, but that they could issue them in a way that was. I'm not going to get into a discussion on this bit, because with my other responses it's irrelevant and I'm not 100% sure on the exact way this would be done, but have heard that it is possible.

 

The OP is entitled to compensation because they have not done their utmost to prevent abuse of these spaces. If they had an armed robbery and the thieves took up those spaces - then I could accept why they didn't have any spaces for disabled people, but otherwise there is no excuse for having spaces being taken up by people without a valid blue-badge used with the disabled person either as a driver or passenger in the vehicle.

 

In response to Lula:

How would you work out what constitutes sufficient space? is there something proscribed?

 

I doubt there is a specific amount prescribed, but the retailer would have to have a policy in place for each store, which explains how the amount of spaces and locations are decided. Without a policy they are most likely in breach of the DDA.

 

A policy would logically have to be based on the average amount of people that come into the store, how many by public transport - on average, how many vehicles - again on average, size of store, parking spaces, local population, approximate local disabled population [is possible to obtain from local councils by a Freedom of Information Act request on how many blue badges have been issued] and so on and so forth. I'm sure that a retailer the size of Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury's and the others can afford to do such a calculation.

 

If they can show such a policy and calculation, together with evidence of enforcement and deterrent attendants, then they'd be complying with their obligations, otherwise they wouldn't.

[legalpickle]

Not true. Although I am able bodied, I was a carer for a disabled relative (with a blue badge) until she passed away, involving weekly shopping trips by car to a large supermarket. So, I do understand. However, I, like others on this thread are simply trying to point out that whilst the OP has every right to go to court and claim that the supermarket has infringed their rights under the DDA, the outcome is far from certain.

 

Put simply, I am sure we all support facilities to allow disabled people equal access, in the end it is likely to come down to what the court considers reasonable. My opinion is that, rightly or wrongly, the court will decide the the supermarket has done all that it reasonably can. Of course, the OP's opinion is the opposite, hence has taken legal action.

 

Read my post! I never said that you don't understand what disabled people have to go through, I said that your posts show a complete misunderstanding. There's a big difference, I don't know you personally so can't comment on the former.

[robin9342]

How would you work out what constitutes sufficient space? is there something proscribed?

I would think the supermarkets have checked census databases and calculated the percentage of disabled people and allowed for equivalent disabled bays. Although not an exact figure, I have to say I have only ever once seen a supermarket car park where every disabled bay is occupied by a blue badge holder.

 

Interestingly, I have seen an argument going on in a supermarket car park between a blue badge holder parked in a parent and child bay and a mother who arrived seconds later and was unable to park. The point is, both types of bay are equally un-enforceable.

 

This reminds me of the council "courtesy" disabled bays: The type where a disabled person can ask the council to paint a bay outside their house, but anyone (including non-badge holders and other disabled people) can park there without penalty. Do you consider that the council is acting outside the DDA?

[Rooster-UK]

Can we please keep the discussion on an impersonal basis.If the personal snipes continue, then I will have no alternative but to close the thread.You have already been asked on more than one occasion.Rooster-UK.

[robin9342]

Read my post! I never said that you don't understand what disabled people have to go through, I said that your posts show a complete misunderstanding. There's a big difference, I don't know you personally so can't comment on the former.

 

Please explain the difference between "you don't understand" and "you completely misunderstand" :confused:

[legalpickle]

Please explain the difference between "you don't understand" and "you completely misunderstand" :confused:

 

I never wrote "you completely misunderstand" which would be the same as "you don't understand", but I wrote "your posts show a complete misunderstanding". Big difference.

 

I am not taking a personal snipe at anyone and mean no insult to anyone, but do feel that some posts in this thread take a snipe at physically disabled people, and hence at me.

[seftonview]

How would you work out what constitutes sufficient space? is there something proscribed?

 

BS8300:2001 provides that for shopping, retail and leisure car parks with >200 spaces the minimum allocation of disabled parking spaces is four bays plus 4% of the total car park capacity.

 

However this has to be considered in line with the provisions of the DDA as well, so if this is the quantity provided but the spaces are over-subscribed further allocation would be considered a reasonable adjustment unless there was justification not to.

[Conniff]

One of my post was considered as personal by a poster, when all I was attempting to show was that the op had said they don't care if a person is disabled, all they care about is if they have a blue badge or not.

 

That, to me, is selfish

[legalpickle]

BS8300:2001 provides that for shopping, retail and leisure car parks with >200 spaces the minimum allocation of disabled parking spaces is four bays plus 4% of the total car park capacity.

 

However this has to be considered in line with the provisions of the DDA as well, so if this is the quantity provided but the spaces are over-subscribed further allocation would be considered a reasonable adjustment unless there was justification not to.

 

Interesting. Thank you for that seftonview.

 

I am sure however that there must be some form of calculation, that this is based on an average amount of blue-badge's awarded in the locality? For example if a Tesco is in an area with a larger amount of disabled people than average - that is clearly visible - wouldn't they from the start have to provision for more spaces?

 

Of course the effectiveness depends on the size of the lot. You can make the whole lot disabled spaces, but disabled people won't be able to walk from the other end to the store without assistance, so it will be a waste.

 

Is there a specific calculation based on the width & length of the parking lot [and height, in some cases] and proportion of disabled population?

 

It would be interesting to know.

[robin9342]

Um, sorry I'm still confused. Surely if I write something that shows a complete misunderstanding, then by definition, I must have completely misunderstood something. Which is the same as "I don't understand".....

 

Anyhow, I hope that none of my posts are construed as sniping, because all along I have simply been trying to convey an alternative point of view.

[Janet-M]

Going back on topic

 

don't you think the outcome to this will be very interesting .. if you agree with the claim or not .

 

 

I am very very interested in the outcome

[legalpickle]

Going back on topic

 

don't you think the outcome to this will be very interesting .. if you agree with the claim or not .

 

 

I am very very interested in the outcome

 

So am I. If seftonview succeeds I may try it myself!

[legalpickle]

Um, sorry I'm still confused. Surely if I write something that shows a complete misunderstanding, then by definition, I must have completely misunderstood something. Which is the same as "I don't understand".....

 

Anyhow, I hope that none of my posts are construed as sniping, because all along I have simply been trying to convey an alternative point of view.

 

This is off-topic, so this is my last response on the subject.

 

I disagree. One may have a sudden thought that does not reflect their true colours or may have not read the posts or considered the scenario at time of such a posting.

 

Continuing posts like that would demonstrate that the person had a complete misunderstanding, but I have not seen continuous posts of yours to be able to make this generalization.

 

Just like anybody who makes a negative statement about a Moslem will be considered by other Moslem's to be insulting all Moslem's, I consider the same is true here. If one makes a statement that I consider insults physically disabled people or misunderstands us as a group, I will be personally offended.

 

If that's a problem for you, then so be it, because that ain't going to change by me anytime soon.

 

Now we've both voiced our opinions, can we please get back on topic???

[Janet-M]

So am I. If seftonview succeeds I may try it myself!

If he succeeds , and I truly hope he does and others start claiming it may get them to do something and get all the lazy B******S who abuse facilities for disabled stopped.

 

Sometimes I have to leave my disabled son in the car as hes not up to a trek around the supermarket .If I can park in the disabled bays then I can shop and also watch him .If the spaces are taken by lazy g*ts using cash machine , running in for lottery ticket etc then I am unable to shop .I then have to return again with him later .

[robin9342]

Going back on topic

 

don't you think the outcome to this will be very interesting .. if you agree with the claim or not .

 

 

I am very very interested in the outcome

Without a doubt it will be interesting. If the OP wins, would it set a legal precedent that other stores must follow, or would disabled people have to take their chances in court each time?

[Janet-M]

a legal precedent can't be set in small claims court . so yes each time it will be down to the individual until the stores see sense .