George Osborne Caught Parking In Disabled Bay

Avoriaz

Lum wrote: »

..
They have in the past shat themselves while waiting for someone to finish having sex in the only wheelchair-accessible toilet in the building, and a similar issue could occur if the last accessible parking pay is occupied by a selfish able bodied git in a Range Rover.

The selfish able bodied git being the driver of course.

interstellaflyer

1886 wrote: »

When I go shopping etc. I usually have a look to see how many of the cars in disabled bays actually have disabled badges, usually about 70%. People are lazy, people don't care, people in the public eye are no different

Or many of these people may be disabled and know the law, the Blue Badge Scheme is not legally enforceable on private land so there is no obligation to display the badge. Also it could be argued that not everybody that has a Blue Badge is physically disabled to the extent that they couldn't use a normal parking space, I knew someone who was a local league football referee yet he had a Blue Badge, his disability was that he couldn't grip properly with his left had, he needed to drive an automatic and had a ball thing on the steering wheel. From what I see I personally feel that it's far too easy to get a Blue Badge, these spaces should be for people who need the extra room round the car ie wheel chair or walking frame access etc, sorry if it offends but if you can walk round town under your own steam and without the need of walking aids or a wheelchair, for an hour or so, you clearly do not need special parking facilities.

Avoriaz

Joe_Horner wrote: »

His driver, his responsibility......

That simply isn't true.

It might be partly true if he were a chauffeur personally employed by Osborne but this driver is a public employee.

Contrast this with Plebgate. Andrew Mitchell was criticised for reputedly telling a public employee officer how to do his job. Now Osborne is being criticised for not telling a public employee how to do his job. :rotfl:


If Osborne were traveling by taxi, would he be responsible for the actions of the taxi driver?

Portly_Pig

Avoriaz wrote: »

That simply isn't true.

It might be partly true if he were a chauffeur personally employed by Osborne but this driver is a public employee.

Contrast this with Plebgate. Andrew Mitchell was criticised for reputedly telling a public employee officer how to do his job. Now Osborne is being criticised for not telling a public employee how to do his job. :rotfl:


If Osborne were traveling by taxi, would he be responsible for the actions of the taxi driver?

Please tell us how Osbourne is responsible.

If the driver was caught speeding who would get the points?

Lum

interstellaflyer wrote: »

Or many of these people may be disabled and know the law, the Blue Badge Scheme is not legally enforceable on private land so there is no obligation to display the badge.

Absolutely true, and also if you're disabled and don't have a BB yet (e.g. because the local council lost your application form, as happened to us) you can still use them in a private car park because the equality act applies.

Also it could be argued that not everybody that has a Blue Badge is physically disabled to the extent that they couldn't use a normal parking space, I knew someone who was a local league football referee yet he had a Blue Badge, his disability was that he couldn't grip properly with his left had, he needed to drive an automatic and had a ball thing on the steering wheel.

Is it possible that he was unable to exercise the fine control needed to park in a normal space without hitting someone's car?

From what I see I personally feel that it's far too easy to get a Blue Badge, these spaces should be for people who need the extra room round the car ie wheel chair or walking frame access etc, sorry if it offends but if you can walk round town under your own steam and without the need of walking aids or a wheelchair, for an hour or so, you clearly do not need special parking facilities.

Careful about saying it's just for wheelchairs/frames. There are plenty of people who appear visibly fine, but can only walk a short distance. Hell what about epilepsy. You could go gallivanting about just fine for hours then have a fit and need to be carried back into the car and loaded in.

Personally I would like to see some disabled spaces at the middle/rear of the car park for people for whom distance isn't an issue but loading and transfer space is. I would happily park in one of those to unload my partner's chair and leave the front ones for people for whom distance is the issue.

Avoriaz wrote: »

Contrast this with Plebgate. Andrew Mitchell was criticised for reputedly telling a public employee officer how to do his job. Now Osborne is being criticised for not telling a public employee how to do his job. :rotfl:

Plebgate he was criticised for using that word which implies that Mr. Mitchell believes he is somehow superior to the copper, presumably due to his job.

This really isn't that dissimilar. "I'm important so the normal rules of a civilised society don't apply to me".

Of course, the bit we'll never know is why the driver chose to park in that space. The driver didn't even need to exit the car and so parking there was of no benefit to him. Was he in some way encouraged to park there and is now being thrown under the bus so Mr. Osbourne can save face?

Lum

Portly_Pig wrote: »

If the driver was caught speeding who would get the points?

If Mr. Osbourne had been yelling at the driver demanding that he drive faster then it would certainly be possible to prosecute him for SP54 Causing Or Permitting SP50, where SP50 is speeding on a motorway. If you were able to prove that he was complacent (admittedly difficult) then you could also go for an SP54.

The penalty for SP54 is the same as SP50.

prowla

Lum wrote: »

Personally I would like to see some disabled spaces at the middle/rear of the car park for people for whom distance isn't an issue but loading and transfer space is. I would happily park in one of those to unload my partner's chair and leave the front ones for people for whom distance is the issue.

I would like to see parking spaces big enough so that you can open the doors of your car properly, regardless of whether you are disabled, have children, or whatever.

it would also reduce the number on dings on the side of cars due to inconsiderate people parked adjacent who bang their doors against the neighbouring cars.

Portly_Pig

Lum wrote: »

If Mr. Osbourne had been yelling at the driver demanding that he drive faster then it would certainly be possible to prosecute him for SP54 Causing Or Permitting SP50, where SP50 is speeding on a motorway. If you were able to prove that he was complacent (admittedly difficult) then you could also go for an SP54.

The penalty for SP54 is the same as SP50.

If Osbourne was in the vehicle he is using it under use, cause or permit.

You can't permit some one to exceed the speed limit and is for using and causing I very much doubt there world be a prosecution as the offence is exceeding the speed limit not using a vehicle to exceed the limit.

steve-L

Lum wrote: »

Is it possible that he was unable to exercise the fine control needed to park in a normal space without hitting someone's car?

Completely possible, just unlikely like the millions of blue badge holders who have NO REQUIREMENT at ALL for a disabled parking space but use them anyway.

My father only ever used his as parking was tight at the squash club.(you might wonder why a squash club needs disabled spaces at all).. but he didn't use it to park in town as he would just run to town as it was only a couple of miles. (Still he got given a blue badge) as has my mother now who's only requirement is an automatic and power steering due to arthritis in her wrist.

She walks the dog upwards of 10 miles a day.... the longer walk across the car park doesn't kill her.... but she is allowed to park in the disabled bay if she wanted!

Derivative

Both of these are complete non-stories.

If someone is popping into a store and there are loads of disabled bays free then there is absolutely no reasonable grounds for complaint. No harm has been caused, no harm could have been caused.

Similarly, if someone misses a speed limit sign and ends up being 12% over the speed limit for a period of a few seconds, I couldn't care less.

I'd probably care more about someone spitting chewing gum on the path outside my house.