disabled and parents parking

Indie_Kid

jblack wrote: »

Surely stating the opposite is also rather sweeping too. Do you have absolute proof that 'weighty' people are that way due to a disability?

Medication taken for treatment of certain medical conditions can cause weight gain.

jblack_2

Your point being?

aloise

It must be so hard to have to park away from the main doors of the supermarket. Fancy having to walk all that way with a toddler and a baby. Get a grip,is it soooo important? you drove there, no hassle of buses and push chairs to try and struggle with. I can't believe how much some people.
expect today. A little bit of exercise won't kill you or your children. I think these place are ridiculous and unnecessary anyway. I managed with 5 under 7 without them, and had to struggle home with the shopping and kids in tow.

fluffnutter

I don't have a problem with P&C parking; I appreciate that the wider bays make it easier to get a baby or toddler in and out of their carseat. I think they should be as far away from the supermarket doors as possible. This will ensure that a) children get valuable exercise and b) there are always spaces available for the outraged parents who seem to forget that, unlike a disability, having children was their choice.

robin_banks

fluffnutter wrote: »

I don't have a problem with P&C parking; I appreciate that the wider bays make it easier to get a baby or toddler in and out of their carseat. I think they should be as far away from the supermarket doors as possible. This will ensure that a) children get valuable exercise and b) there are always spaces available for the outraged parents who seem to forget that, unlike a disability, having children was their choice.

Wouldn't be a problem if some 4 x 4 'Bertie Blunt' chose to adhere to speed limits and remember that their motor also has indicators in said car parks.

Rolandtheroadie

Just out of interest, is there any parents reading this forum who actually cares WHERE P&C spaces are? I have to admit, I use them if they're there and avaliable, but if i've got the "family" car with me and no kids (or if theres no p&c avaliable) I will park at a lane end or nearest a kerb anywhere in the store car park. Still only taking up 1 bay though.
I dont think parents want special treatment either (it's the supermarkets that supply the parking after all).
Just out of interest, those people that use them because "you chose to have children, why should you get special treatment" if they got rid of them all tomorrow, how would you protect your pride and joy? 2 bays? Move onto the disabled bays with some other justification?

Jomo

gregg1 wrote: »

Actually the ones at my local shopping mall do issue fines for people parking in the disabled spaces. They have parking attendants doing constant rounds to check that badges are displayed but you are right - that is the only place I have seen this happening - nowhere else seems to do anything about it.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean they can enforce the fine

trisontana

Jomo wrote: »

Maybe, but that doesn't mean they can enforce the fine

And it's not even a "fine".

snugglepet20

As a parent of 3 pre-schoolers, yes you do need wider spaces to fit the children in and out of the car and do their seatbelts etc without taking the paint off the car next to you! I am not bothered where they are on the car park and in fact it is better if they are at the back because there is more chance of them being available. I do not mind if a disabled person takes up the child space if they need to but if there weren't so many idiots abusing the system this wouldn't be an issue.

The idea is simply one of courtesy, not what you can get away with, whether fines are inforcable and so on. If you are an able-bodied person without a child in a carseat you do not need a special space and should not take one up. Try thinking how you would feel if every step caused you pain and someone in a sports car made you park 200 yards from the door.

gregg1

jblack wrote: »

Surely stating the opposite is also rather sweeping too. Do you have absolute proof that 'weighty' people are that way due to a disability?

I have disabled family members so please do not assume I am ignorant.

It's well known that being overweight is becoming a more and more common "illness" and a bigger burden on society. That is a fact.

My original statement;

However, being overweight due to self-inflicted overeating seems to be one of the 'biggest' claims of disability whenever I go to the supermarket.

What part of that statement is absolute????

I have not once stated that all fat people are that way due to over-indulgence. That would be akin to saying all people with cancer are that way because they smoke.

Where did I say that? I said I know of disabled people who have a weight problem due to their disability, that is a true statement. Nowhere did I state that applied to all overweight disabled people.

It beggers belief that you would make such an statement as you did if you have members of your family who are disabled.

What angers me is this common held belief that for the most part, overweight disabled people are disabled due to their weight. Without having access to their medical records no-one has the right to make such an assumption.

In answer to your question, I think if you read through the posts carefully, you will find a post from someone who has absolute proof that his weight has been affected by his disability.