h a l f b a k e r yOn the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
I'm not sure how it works in other countries, but in the US a
handicapped-parking permit is a tag that hangs from the center
mirror of your car (in some states, Maine included, permanently
disabled folks can get a special license plate with the handicapped
logo).
Unfortunately, as we all know,
this does not stop those without
permits from parking in the reserved spaces. The only way to keep
them out for sure is with a gate. It doesn't have to be anything
heavy duty, just a lightweight aluminium frame with a small electric
motor to open and close it and a solenoid-activated latch. The only
way to open the gate is with an RFID embedded in the mirror tag or
the special plate. Obviously, somebody could bust the latch with a
crowbar, or ram the gate (but not without messing up their car), or
they could steal the chip from granny's permit tag--but they won't.
Assholes who park in reserved spaces do it because they're lazy.
The only problems with this concept are the usual three: setup
cost, added maintenance cost, and unnecessary meddling with
something that bugs the $#!t out of most of us but isn't really that
big a deal.
This post is an offshoot, so:
Disabled parking line [Akimbmidget]
Disabled_20parking_20line
Credit where due [Alterother, Oct 07 2011]
[link]
|
| |
This would need to have zero-downtime (or fail to an open state) or the handicapped person will be walking from the back of the lot. [+] |
|
| |
(But I see the bigger issue as people who coerce their doctors into giving them handicap tags when they don't really need them. See, for example, my neighbor who would be happy to have the luxury of a gated parking place wherever he goes.) |
|
| |
Agreed, but that's already kind of an issue. This could
make it worse, maybe. |
|
| |
I like the open-state failsafe, but the failure likely to occur
most often would probably be the solenoid, which means
the latch would not open to let the gate go into failsafe. |
|
| |
I'm tempted to fishbone this because businesses would inevitably be required to pay for it, or be taken to court for discrimination. Should businesses have to pay for an elaborate gate system, when it is only neccessary because of a few assholes who are breaking the law anyway? |
|
| |
Besides, there are usually way more handicapped spaces at the mall than there are handicapped people in the city. |
|
| |
// Should businesses have to pay for an elaborate gate
system, when it is only neccessary because of a few
assholes who are breaking the law anyway? // |
|
| |
No. But they can choose to pay for it. I never said this was
mandatory. |
|
| |
That is why I didn't fishbone it. However, even if it didn't start out as being mandatory it would most likely end up that way. |
|
| |
It doesn't need to be 100% effective in keeping
out
freeloaders: it just has to be an improvement on
the present system. It should also be no worse
than
the present system at letting in legitimate users,
and there, too, the present system is probably
less
than 100% effective. |
|
| |
[DIYMatt] An alternative system would be to
charge for parking -- price set at market rates,
which should ensure there are always just barely
enough open spaces to meet demand -- and give
the handicapped money, rather than RFID chips.
They can decide for themselves whether to spend
it on parking or beer. |
|
| |
But this would require that
prices for individual parking spaces vary
independently of each other. Maybe issue Lovely
Rita with
an auctioneer's gavel? |
|
| |
Cheaper, more efficient and more fun to simply mail
rolls of "Please don't park in disabled spaces,
shithead. Thank you." stickers to disabled drivers. |
|
| |
// or the handicapped person will be walking from the back of the lot // |
|
| |
Well actually no they won't, because they either can't walk that far, or are running on radials ... |
|
| |
// what is then needed is a way to keep grandma's perfectly healthy kids from using her disabled parking permit // |
|
| |
What is then needed is a way to keep grandma's perfectly healthy kids from picking her up from her residence despite the fact that she doesn't actually want to go out at all, and driving somewhere they want to go where parking is difficult, then using her disabled parking permit quite legitimately so as to secure a convenient parking spot, but then leaving her in the car while they go off to transact whatever business they are intent on. |
|
| |
The said aged relative has also been repeatedly used as a "free pass" to get into expensive attractions at a substantial discount, the offspring pushing her wheelchair representing themselves, somewhat mendaciously, as her "carer". Which is true; they care a lot that they can get away with not paying to go in. |
|
| |
The technique has been further extended to allow the "retired person's discount", offered in good faith by many retailers, to be used to allow the purchase of building materials, groceries and domestic furnishings in industrial quantities. |
|
| |
//If the person says he/she is waiting for someone,
then the parking enforcement agent tells the driver
he/she needs to move// |
|
| |
If the person says they were just in the store, but got
back to their car first and are now waiting for the rest
of their party, the agent then has to check parking lot
camera footage to verify the story? It's slippery down
the slope of increasingly complex regulations and their
enforcement... |
|
| |
Wait! Surely there is an opportunity here, rather
than a problem. |
|
| |
There are many old or otherwise disabled people
who sit at home all day, bored out of their
diminishing minds. I foresee the rise of a highly
successful agency which will allow subscribers to pair
up with the disabled, precisely in order to obtain
free or convenient parking, discounts and so forth. |
|
| |
What if the handicapped person was driven there and
doesn't have their own drivers license? (I'm not certain
about this, but I think those tags aren't contingent on
the person actually driving.) The agent couldn't make
them move the car in these cases. |
|
| |
And what if they bought a drink and finished it in the
store? There is no requirement that they keep the
receipt or the empty drink cup as proof, and the agent
therefore couldn't verify this purchase. |
|
| |
I'm just saying that some rules don't exist, not because
they're bad, but because the costs of enforcement are
too high. |
|
| |
The loss agent's wages come from the reduction in
revenue loss that theft would have caused. The
shopping cart cowboys similarly contribute to
revenues by having carts ready so that customers
don't get slowed down on their way in to buy
products. How does this mysterious "parking lot
attendant" contribute to revenue in a way that
will make up his/her paycheck? Or are these
wages largely an additional expense that the
business either generously pays or is required by
law to pay? |
|
| |
The photo ID handicapped tag is a good idea, but
the
attendant wouldn't happen. |
|
| |
Pointing out bugs in software isn't "wanting it to fail," is
it? If you make the cart herders do additional jobs, it
takes away from their primary job and is therefore an
additional expense. Bug in the software. Are you like
some big software corporations that would rather
ignore or cover up software bugs and security holes
rather than fix them? |
|
| |
Reduction in productivity (wrangling carts at a slower
rate) *is* an additional cost because they need more
time or more people to perform the same task. Giving
tech support agents the additional role of sales
representative is a cost/benefit decision based on how
it impacts revenue. It potentially increases revenue.
Giving cart cowboys the additional task of enforcing
handicap parking stalls in order to comply with a
government regulation would only be cost effective if
they were to be fined for not complying. |
|
| |
Why would a store care one way or the other who's parking in the handicapped spot ? as long as it's a customer. |
|
| |
//a store can be sued for not providing disability access
to disabled// |
|
| |
In the U.S. this is true of any building or facility,
according to the ADA. But "provision" of sufficient
spaces is different from policing customer use of the
provided spaces. Provision can be formulaic and easily
enforcable (by fines), while customer misuse of the
provided spaces is a law enforcement responsibility, not
that of the building owner/tenant. |
|
| |
// a law enforcement responsibility // |
|
| |
In many jurisdictions, it's not that simple. |
|
| |
Car parks are not the public highway; they are private land to which the public have access, subject to the terms and conditions set out by the owner - and the law also imposes reciprocal liabilities on the owner of the land. |
|
| |
If the car park owner (which is presumed to include "renter", "lessee", "landlord", etc. etc according to the Party of the First Part) puts up a sign that says "disabled parking only" then if a customer does not comply then the owner may (1) commence a civil case against the driver for damages, and (2) move the vehicle - as long as they do not damage it, which would render them and/or their servants or agents liable for prosecution for criminal damage. |
|
| |
But it is NOT a criminal offence to park in a disabled parking bay in a PRIVATE car park. |
|
| |
I love it when this happens. |
|
| |
Quite possibly true, [8th]. And the important word
there is "may". At least in the U.S. (again), the ADA
sets the law requiring disabled parking in publicly
accessible places, but it does not set up the
requirement that the owner/landlord/lessee patrol
and enforce its appropriate use. |
|
| |
//a civil case against the driver for damages// The
owner needs to prove damages,
for a civl suit, no? What's the loss, to the owner, if
an able bodied person parks in a handicapped space? |
|
| |
In Maine, according to the state DMV website, nothing; the
business or shared residence "provides" (by legal obligation)
the reserved spaces as a "courtesy" to "disabled persons"
but is not responsible for the public use (or misuse, or
abuse) of said spaces. The job of enforcing handicapped-
parking "accessibility" falls to the municipality in the case
of public and public access parking, or to the state in the
case of parking lots at state government buildings. |
|
| |
Owners of private parking areas are not obligated to
"provide" reserved parking spaces of any kind in Maine. |
|
| |
Yes, sorry, I failed to point out that the "legal obligation"
mentioned by the DMV website is from a federal law. I just
re-read my anno and I see how it could have been
confusing. |
|
| |
To clarify, for posterity's sake, the //federal law//
known as the //Americans with Disabilities Act// is
also called the ADA. And with that, we may bid this
thread adieu. |
|
| |
Sp: have. Here's a tissue. |
|
| |
If this requires much more clarification we're going to need
a bottle of windex. |
|
| |
Stop giving the handicapped the most desirable parking bays! This would greatly decrease the amount of "normal" people parking in the bays, if not eliminating it entirely. |
|
| |
It gets my goat to see the best spots go to people that, more often than not, get into another set of wheels to enter the store. I have to walk there, Goddammit! These people have clearly forgotten how difficult it is to actually walk. Rolling their merry way through life. I even use their toilets, and let me tell you they have it WAAAY better than us. |
|
| |
Let them whinge, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. |
|
| |
I love the fire, the passion! |
|
| |
... and he called you an a**hole, told you to f*ck off, slammed the phone down... and spent all day today composing an entirely fanciful account of his service call, which your boss will tell you about the day after you've forgotten all the details. |
|
| |
Oh, well [21Q...], that's a bit offsides. I mean, I don't mind ripping the ring out of those paras or quads, that "may", or "may NOT", have given a limb or three to uphold my constitutional right to be a prick. Or may have been debilitated by my DUI, court case pending (hold thumbs for me). But picking on blind folk, on mobile phone accessibility? Not even those that pickpocket dwarves, stoop that low. |
|
| |
Sorry to be insensitive, I didn't mean to say dwarves, I meant "little people". |
|
| |
Wow [21], I never saw that one coming. |
|
| |
I guess you didn't see eye to eye....baddum tish. |
|
| |
Sorry, couldn't get cornea than that. |
|
| |
"Will [4whom], the last remaining unboarded passenger on the direct non-stop super-express to Hell, please go Immediately, repeat IMMEDIATELY, to the departure gate, where his transportation is waiting ..." |
|
| |
Spare the rods, I suppose... |
|
| |
You're right, I acquiesce humour is not my strong point. |
|
| |
A much easier solution is a tiny camera embedded in
the sidewalk. Sends image of approaching license
plate. In 2002 I was working adjacent to a company
that developed LPR (licence plate recognition)
systems. |
|
| |
With today's low cost of high resolution cameras,
embedded computers and communications, you could
probably mass produce a product like that for a few
dollars each. Would be easily paid back by the fines. |
|
| |
End of laziness. And a good lesson for the young
generation (who are only at the beginning of the
process of growing their brains back). |
|
| |