Disabled spaces on private land

fisherjim

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

Fruitcake wrote: »

I don't understand why you think healthy young adults with healthy young children should be entitled to larger parking spaces QUOTE]

Read this very slowly and allow it the opportunity to sink in.

I'm saying parent and child spaces are sensible because they allow doors to be opened wider to avoid damage to other vehicles.

I'm specifically NOT excluding the possibility that this should be the case for other groups of people.

I really don't understand what the difficulty here for you is. Using your logic, parking would become a ridiculous free-for-all. Doubtless you would then be bleating about being parked half a mile from the store.

And you still haven't explained how the parking attendant knows who has parked legitimately in a P&C bay!

trisontana

fisherjim wrote: »

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

And you still haven't explained how the parking attendant knows who has parked legitimately in a P&C bay!

Especially when you have such rules as "parent and toddler", and and one which says the child must be under the age of (say) 10. How do you define a "toddler" and how can a parking attendant tell the actual age of a child?

Umkomaas

how can a parking attendant tell the actual age of a child?

I'm sure one of our esteemed ex-BPA members is working right now on a mathematical algorithm to do just that, as one of his contingency plans!

Fruitcake

trisontana wrote: »

fisherjim wrote: »

Especially when you have such rules as "parent and toddler", and and one which says the child must be under the age of (say) 10. How do you define a "toddler" and how can a parking attendant tell the actual age of a child?

Umkomaas wrote: »

I'm sure one of our esteemed ex-BPA members is working right now on a mathematical algorithm to do just that, as one of his contingency plans!

In one of our retail car parks the age limit for a child to be eligible for a driver to parking a parent and child bay is "under 12." When I was eleven I could run, jump, skip, hop, swim, climb trees, crawl through drains, ride a bike, play rugby, and swim. I had no problem getting in and out of a car.

Fruitcake

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

Fruitcake wrote: »

I don't understand why you think healthy young adults with healthy young children should be entitled to larger parking spaces QUOTE]

Read this very slowly and allow it the opportunity to sink in.

I'm saying parent and child spaces are sensible because they allow doors to be opened wider to avoid damage to other vehicles.

I'm specifically NOT excluding the possibility that this should be the case for other groups of people.

I really don't understand what the difficulty here for you is. Using your logic, parking would become a ridiculous free-for-all. Doubtless you would then be bleating about being parked half a mile from the store.

But why should wider spaces be limited to only those people with young children? That's what I can't understand. Everyone at some point could do with a bit more space around their car to enable them to open their doors fully so they don't cause damage to other vehicles. Wider spaces for those that need it would be sensible for all to use but obviously that is not always practical.

It makes sense to have wider bays for people with disabilities but I don't understand why a specific type of shopper should have exclusive use of wider bays when others that could also do with them are not permitted to do so.
A section of wider than normal bays for those that could do with them makes sense, but why limit their use to only parents with children. If there is enough room in a car park to put in a section of P and C bays, then there is room to label them differently and allow anyone that needs them to use them. Put them away from the entrance and you will possibly disuade people who don't need them from using them. I have never understood why P and C bays are generally near the shop entrance, and in many cases nearer than disabled bay.

Fruitcake

keepitlegal wrote: »

I am aware that BB's mean nothing in private car parks, the problem is the term 'disability', the BB scheme is for people who have either severe mobility problems or are blind, NOT for people who have any disability ie are deaf, have one arm or any other disability that is not connected to their mobility or vision.
It would appear from some of the posts that (in this instance) private car park owners are stuck between a rock and a hard place, they provide car parking for (disabled?) BB holders (as council car parks do) but they are damned if they try to maintain the same standards as council car parks, it's well known that disabled parking in private car parks is abused (see my opening post), it is also obvious by some of the posts that people will hide behind the EQ2010 claiming a disability, which in all fairness would have nothing to do with their requirement to have a larger than normal parking space.
I am however in total agreement that parking spaces need to be bigger but that is another argument.

Keepitlegal

I have no doubt that the use of disabled bays is abused by some people, as is the blue badge scheme.

As far as I am aware, to obtain a BB, an individual has to undergo an assesment of some description and if succesful, pays a fee to get the badge. A concession is offered by the issuing council, reciprocated across other councils, to allow some on street parking on yellow lines, or free or extra time for the same price in council run car parks.

None of this applies in a private car park. Nobody is assesed, no warrant (BB) is issued, no definition of what constitutes a disability exists. Therefore a parking company cannot apply the same rules or standards as a council, so they make up their own rules. This is where the problems start. I disagree that they are between a rock and a hard place. Whilst the BB scheme doesn't apply, the EA 2010 does, so all the PPC has to do is apply and obey the law. The problem comes where the PPC has arbitrarily decreed that only someone with a BB can park in a disabled bay and refuses to accept that any other law applies.

Use of ANPR equipment is absolutely useless for monitoring disabled bays. Boots on the ground can't determine whether someone is or isn't disabled, or if they are, to what extent they are disabled. They don't have the right to ask either.
Displaying a BB can't determine this either for that matter since it could belong to someone else who isn't in the vehicle. (This applies for on street or council run car parks as well but that could lead to prosecution if the perpertrator was caught.)

As I have already explained in a previous thread, it is perfectly legitimate for someone who is able bodied to park in a disabled bay without displaying a BB, and then collect someone who is disabled. Consequently the absence of a displayed BB does not mean that the car cannot be parked in a disabled bay for the use of a disabled person.

I don't know how the misuse of disabled bays can be prevented. I do know that PPCs do not care and all they want is your money. The easier the target the better.

Half_way

One issue with private vs council car parks is the conflict between the blue badge scheme and the Equalities act (EA)
Under the EA supermarkets, retail parks etc have to provide reasonable provision for those with disabilities, and in most cases this is done to an extent by providing disabled bays.
The issue here is that not everyone who falls under the EA provision may possess a blue badge, but yet supermarkets etc have to make provision.

The easiest option would be for someone to tell customer services that they have a disability and then for their vehicle to be whitelisted, for example if someone uses a disabled bay without a blue badge at a supermarket they should tell the customer service desk.

Another option would be a national database where people could register ( with some evidence ) and have their vehicle white listed, this would also help those with non visible disabilities such as dyspraxia, dyslexia and so on this was metioned on the Watchdog program where someone got 23 and 32 the wrong way round.

As for parent and child bays vs Disabled bays...
Disabled provision is a statutory requirement under the EA, parent and child bays are a gimmick that give people a false sense of entitlement to park in a disabled bay if there are no parent and child spaces available.
P&C bays are also a fairly recent 'innovation' and the sooner they are got rid of the better My parents never struggled to get my sibllings and myself in and out of the car seat when we were small and modern car seats are no less bulky than some of the ones that were around in the mid 1980's.seats

trisontana

Unless somebody knows any different, I don't think any council car park has P&C bays. As Half_Way says , they are just a marketing gimmick dreamt up by the supermarkets.

Half_way

And they can be quite proffitable ones as well, as far as im concerned i would happily park in one without a small child if there were no other practical options.
Disabled bays i wouldn't park in full stop, however there can be cases where disabled bays are badly laid out, and badly marked ( ie disabled bay sign hidden in overgrowth / faded markings etc)

As for the delebreate abusers ive got little time for those, as they give PPCs an excuse to exists and persecute all.
on one side you have the PPC, and on the other side you have someone who deliberately abuses disabled provision. neither side is good, however I would much prefer to see someone who deliberately abuses a space make a donation to a disabled charity/community transport group ( either in time or money ) than to give anything to a PPC, in fact making sure the PPC doesn't see any money at all is the preferable option in such as case.

fisherjim

As for P&C bays I don't see how a PPC can say they are charging you without scamming you!
Their parking scammer would need to see you get out of the car minus said ankle biter, and by default has allowed you to break the rules to give you a charge, much the same as the leaving the site scam!