Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Technology

In New Zealand, a System To Watch for Disabled Parking Violators 551

cylonlover writes "What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? If you answered, 'It means I can park there as long as I'm going to be quick,' you're wrong — yet you're also far from alone. Every day in parking lots all over the world, non-disabled drivers regularly use spaces clearly reserved for the handicapped. They often get away with it, too, unless an attendant happens to check while their vehicle is parked there. Thanks to technology recently developed by New Zealand's Car Parking Technologies (CPT), however, those attendants could soon be notified the instant that a handicapped spot is improperly occupied."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In New Zealand, a System To Watch for Disabled Parking Violators

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01, 2012 @11:20PM (#38560500)

    What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? If you answered, 'It means I can park there as long as I'm going to be quick,' you're wrong — yet you're also far from alone. Every day in parking lots all over the world, non-disabled drivers regularly use spaces clearly reserved for the handicapped.

    Penn & Teller did a Bullshit! episode on handicapped parking [tubeplus.me] that's pretty interesting. As with all Bullshit! episodes, it's full of profanity, if that offends you.

    One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

    Thinking about it...

    Thinking about it...

    Continuing to think about it...

    Almost done thinking about it...

    There. Done thinking about it. You're still a cunt for parking there if you aren't disabled. Walk the extra dozen or so feet, it might do you some good.

  • by jamesh ( 87723 ) on Sunday January 01, 2012 @11:30PM (#38560538)

    Yup. I said it. Mod me down because it violates your PC ethics.

    But seriously, survival of the fittest. Those who cannot walk 50 feet should not be coddled. Half the time it is some overweight heifer who won't take care of herself. The other half it is just someone who survived to 70. But the bottom line is that I am a Darwinist and don't see why we make life easier for those who can't take care of themselves.

    Either be in shape or be part of a family network that will take care of you. If you can't do either, then don't go shopping. Simple as that. Survival of the fittest got us where we are today. Quit fucking with evolution.

    On the one hand I admire your willingness to admit an opinion (or I would if you put your name to it) that I suspect a lot of able bodied people keep to themselves, but I bet you'd feel different if you or someone you cared about suddenly developed some disease that greatly reduced your mobility.

    And even if Darwin was wanting to help evolution along, even he would be smart enough to know that letting a few arthritic 70 year olds die isn't going to make even the tiniest bit of difference to the process. If you want to help evolution along, maybe you should campaign for preventing people with inheritable diseases from passing those diseases on to their kids (either by genetic pre-testing or just stopping them having kids). The truth is that most disabled people aren't disabled because of some genetic trait, but because of some other unfortunate incident along the way.

    So maybe keep your unfortunate prejudices to yourself or at least stop pretending that you have evolution on your side.

  • by LordKronos ( 470910 ) on Sunday January 01, 2012 @11:34PM (#38560550)

    One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

    That's not interesting. Not even the slightest bit. So we over-assign handicapped spots to try and make sure that when several truly handicapped people are at the store, they don't have to park at the back of the lot because we tried to cut the number of spots close so that some non-handicapped lard-asses didn't have to walk an extra 25 feet. Big deal.

  • Re:Steve Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Genda ( 560240 ) <marietNO@SPAMgot.net> on Sunday January 01, 2012 @11:40PM (#38560596) Journal

    I don't know, the last couple years of his life, I think I could live with Steve getting a handicapped space. I've had a handicapped placard for over 10 years (after a major car accident.) I see people parking illegally all the time. Even when there is legal parking just a few spaces away. I'm lucky, I can walk a little ways (in spite of the severe pain.) There are many who are wheelchair bound who need the special large parking spaces to exit their vehicles. People who take those places because they are lazy or resent not those places not being used as often as regular space are arguing against showing the injured and handicapped special consideration in what amounts to one of the smallest possible ways. Its almost nothing to an able bodied person to walk a few yards more to a store entrance. For a number of handicapped people its the difference in being able to go to the store and not.

    It wouldn't hurt the world to develop a miniscule amount of compassion and human dignity. Sadly our society as a whole has been remiss in instilling these qualities in our children today.

  • the code by which animals live in the serengeti has nothing really to do with how or why human beings choose to order their societies

    but i'll be sure to kneecap you next time i see you walking down the street and just steal your stuff. i'm not interested in doing that, but since you are broadcasting to everyone that you believe this is the way society should be ordered: pure darwinism, then i'm just conforming to your wishes about how you think you should be treated

    and i look froward to your reply, in which you engage in hollywood fantasies about how well armed and prepared you are 24/7 to survive in such a world and how perfect you will be in deflecting my attack. because you are omniscient and omnipotent, apparently. seems to me that's an intellectual failure to understand your essential weaknesses as an individual human being

    so, maybe your professed darwinistic ideology really is evolution playing out: the less intelligent among us choosing a mode of "morality" that ensures your life (not my life, i'm not abiding by your beliefs) is brutish, mean, and short: darwinistic. thus ensuring you won't pass on your genes. and i, choosing the way of human morality, and respecting the physically weaker amongst us, who still contribute to society, and playing by the simple rules of decency and respect, amongst others playing by the same code of decency and respect, together, we will survive and define society, and reproduce this code

    because in the contest of survival in this world, a well coordinated group of physically weak and average intelligence homo sapiens, but respectful of each other and coordinating with each other, outcompetes the lone superstrong supersmart who do not work well in groups. enjoy your extinction, inferior homo sapiens. genetics is over. memetics is the new game. play catch up or die off

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01, 2012 @11:50PM (#38560656)

    While I can't speak for what the OP thinks about disabled people in general, I think the point to take from this would be that we could legitimately get away with having far fewer handicapped parking spaces without impacting the ability of handicapped people to find a reserved space when they need one.

    The legal specification of what percentage of handicapped spaces are required ought to be revisited to reflect reality.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01, 2012 @11:53PM (#38560686)

    Tell that to the disabled vet who got a leg blown off because he was fighting enemy troops after his comrade (they wanted his friend for a war trophy to behead.)

    Please. Go ahead. Visit your local VFW and tell them that handicapped vets should fend for themselves. Maybe an ex-marine might set the parent poster straight.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02, 2012 @12:01AM (#38560732)

    I don't know why you assume it would be good for business. The cost to put in a handicapped ramp may not be justified by returns, especially if it would lead me to increase prices and my competitor didn't make the same choice. Plus which, early adopters invariably pay more. The law is basically society getting together and saying "we want this to happen, but we realize nobody is going to make the sacrifices unless we make sure everyone makes them together".

    There are plenty of examples in game theory of agents acting independently in naked self-interest leading to pessimal outcomes for everyone. I don't know why it's so difficult for some people to wrap their heads around this idea. I don't have that big of a problem with greed and selfishness; I just have a problem with making it into a religion as a way of ameliorating cognitive dissonance.

  • by the simurgh ( 1327825 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @12:02AM (#38560744)
    i always assumed someday someone would get the intelligent idea of a making a small card and a parking meter type device which allows you to park in handicapped spot you could check the device and if the person used the card then it would say so. otherwise the device would display a message saying the driver was illegally parked. but then common sense doesn't seem to be in high supply and even though i drive an old clunker caddie i always park in the back that way i don't drive around for ten minutes trying to find a spot.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02, 2012 @12:06AM (#38560768)

    That goes for the cunts who use their relative's handicapped parking placard when they are driving their car and the person the placard was assigned too isn't in it. Yes, I've seen this a lot. It not only is illegal but makes people suspect that the handicapped are milking it.

  • by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @12:13AM (#38560800) Homepage

    You're still a cunt for parking there if you aren't disabled

    GP did not say he or she has ever parked in one. Didn't even hint that it would ever be OK for a non-handicapped person to park there. Your knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive to his or her post is inappropriate.

  • by inshreds ( 1813596 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @12:19AM (#38560838)
    Reading comments so far on this thread with people arguing about actual need for “walking disabled” parking spaces, I realize that this is just one of those topics you cannot possibly truly comprehend without being a disabled person. Sure, I understand that many parking spots may go unused and the there are of course those that abuse the system. However, there are also a large number of people, like me, that really need this kind of parking system. Nothing sucks more than trying to unload a 300 pound electric wheelchair when boxed in by two SUVs so close the doors cannot open. In addition, nothing sucks more than having to traipse across a large parking lot looking for a lost car when ever step you take puts you in excruciating pain. In fact, without this reserved parking system, I simply would not be able to go many places or partake in many activities. Even on a good day, it really is a confidence booster to know that if something goes wrong and I need to exit in a hurry that my car is right out front.

    This walking disabled parking system, while maybe not perfect, is in place to serve those that actually need it. Thus, the bottom line is that while you may not understand or agree with enforcement actions such as those now being enacted in New Zealand, there are many people with a legitimate need that will indeed benefit from it.
  • by LordKronos ( 470910 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @12:20AM (#38560844)

    He also finds it ironic, that there are disabled parks near supermarkets and department stores, fundamentally the kinds of stores where you'll be covering quite a distance moving around a large complex, there's not really much effort saved by having a disabled park close to the door.

    Many such stores have scooters once you get inside. However, distance to the building is only one factor. People in wheelchairs, people bent over walkers, and people moving slowly tend to be more difficult to spot and are more likely to be hit by someone backing out of a spot. Minimizing the number of cars they have to pass minimizes the chances of them getting hit. These same people (well, except the wheelchair-bound) are also more likely to fall and injure themselves on slippery pavement, so a shorter distance is safer there too. Some people's illnesses may make them more sensitive to heat and cold, so it's best to get them into the climate controlled environment as quickly as possible. I'm sure there are other reasons, too.

  • by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @12:36AM (#38560914) Homepage Journal

    You and your healthy wheelchair user friend are in error, on several accounts.
    It's much harder to use a wheelchair outdoors than indoors. On plain floors, good chairs pretty much roll themselves. Outdoors, not so much.
    My latest wheelchair had front wheels the size of (actually, they were) rollerblade wheels. Any outdoor rolling had to be done on the rear wheels only. Once indoor, though, I was as nimble as anyone else.

    Then there are people who tire easily. You can take a break inside in the store. Not so much in the parking lot, between well-meaners and drivers who back up without seeing someone lower than their car. And if on crutches or just hard of walking, are you OK with them resting against em your car, setting off the alarm?

    Risk of being run over is also a problem if you're just very slow due to your handicap. If it takes you ten minutes to walk to the front door, and you can't jump out of the way of cars that don't see you, it's by far safer to park up front.

    Then you are also wrong in assuming that all the handicapped traverse the entire store. Many of them go to the service desk and get assistance, some because the store is too big for them to handle with their handicap, and some because they can't reach what's on the top three levels of the shelves anyhow.
    In some cases, I went to the service counter because the stores had aisles and check-out spaces made for narrow shopping carts, and not modern wheelchairs with cambered wheels.
    When I was on crutches, it was also pretty difficult. I could push a cart around in the store, but across a parking lot where the cart may take off due to gravity? No chance in hell. Would you rather I asked a clerk to help me get my groceries to the handicap parking right by the entrance, or spend 10 minutes walking with me across the parking lot?

    Strange as it may sound, handicapped people are often just as insensitive as able bodied people, and sometimes even more so. Just because they have no problems traversing a big parking lot, they may think others who don't do so are lazy, without considering that they might not be as abled as them.

  • Re:Steve Jobs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02, 2012 @12:41AM (#38560948)

    Driving without the license plate was legal, parking in the handicap spot was not. Had I been in the area, I would have taken videos of Jobs parking and staying in the spot and sent them to the police and/or calling and reporting everytime the spot with illegaly filled. You don't need a license plate to be towed and good luck finding the car again after it's been removed. People who believe they're better than everyone else and act on those beliefs desevered to be bitchslapped every once in a while.

  • by skegg ( 666571 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @12:44AM (#38560972)

    As a healthy, able-bodied driver I have often noticed vacant spots that are designated for the disabled.

    And I thank God that I am a healthy, able-bodied driver who doesn't need to use those spots. I don't mind walking the extra 50m, 100m, 200m, ...

    For crying out loud, just:

    1. imagine the mall / shopping centre didn't provide parking spots for another 50 metres
    2. think of the extra walking distance as incidental exercise
    3. consider how useful it is for someone who needs to use those spots
    4. be thankful you don't need to use those spots

  • by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @01:07AM (#38561070) Homepage

    So we over-assign handicapped spots to try and make sure that when several truly handicapped people are at the store, they don't have to park at the back of the lot because we tried to cut the number of spots close so that some non-handicapped lard-asses didn't have to walk an extra 25 feet.

    One of the early commenters was advocating a Darwinian perspective. He or she is obviously a total douchebag. But I don't think it is so clear cut when questioning the allocation ratio.

    By your rationale (which I'm sure was not intended to be a bulletproof and thorough examination of the space -- I'm not trying to fault you), you could justify having half the parking lot be handicapped spaces. Clearly that would be an inefficient use of resources for all but the most handicap-focused retail centers.

    This would not be a problem if retailers chose to put the right number of handicapped spaces in, but they do not (probably don't have the data to do it, even if they were so inclined, but also the profit would act as a pressure against it), so we have to legislate the number. That is the good and right thing to do, IMO. Now we have a question, though: Should it be 10% of spaces, 1% of spaces, or 50% of spaces? Some other number? More than we have now? Less?

    Much like homeland security, the only politically acceptable answers are "more" and "the same amount as now." Such situations require that we rise above our immediate inclination to jump to the politically safe answer. That we resist the urge to puff up our sense of superiority by belittling those who present rational counterpoints. That we dispassionately consider the question.

    As GP pointed out, causal observation -- and even a slightly more formal investigation by a couple comedians -- seems to indicate that the measurement we used was off. We seem to have substantially overestimated the right number. Lazy lard-asses may have their own flawed estimate, but being as wrong as we seem to be is also sub-optimal.

    Also note that you may not see the problem that some do. Where I grew up, there was lots of cheap land, so there were never parking problems. The lazy lard-asses could always find plenty of parking even on a Saturday afternoon, and I felt exactly as you do about people who complained about the allocation ratio.

    Then I moved to NYC. And some years after that, San Francisco. Different story there. Seeing a big lot, completely full of cars, with people circling, spewing toxic gas, near-missing pedestrians who appear from behind cars without looking, while half a dozen spaces sit empty, is not uncommon.

    Seeing that scene replayed over and over and over never even remotely made me question the value of having handicapped parking spaces. But it did make me question the accuracy of the measurement used in estimating the allocation ratio.

    Waste is waste -- even when it is for such an obviously just cause as enabling handicapped people to participate more fully in our society.

  • by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @01:20AM (#38561144) Homepage

    >> Your knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive to his or her post is inappropriate.

    > You must be new here.

    I've been around long enough to get the running joke, and find it amusng.

    Still, though, I feel like replying:

    Not only am I not new here, I have frequently succumbed to the urge to spew some vitriol at someone I disagreed with. I'm fairly confident that I will again in the future. No, I'm not new to that experience from either side of the exchange, nor as a bystander.

    But I am trying to make it better. I'm trying to be better myself, and trying to find ways to communicate that message to our community, to make it stronger.

    See, the thing is, I've been thinking about social networks, and about how our society is being usurped by manipulative bastards in industry and government. Same forces as have existed for thousands of years, I guess, but this is my now. It seems to me the only way we can beat them is by ganging together with other rationalists and communicating. Then it hits me that this community, Slashdot, is already a powerful force in that space. Makes me want to find ways to be a better community member, and to help others see the same thing. Even if only by tiny steps.

  • by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @01:22AM (#38561158) Homepage Journal

    From what I've seen, most people with handicap stickers park in a way that tells you they're handicapped. Usually they're at a sharp angle off of the parallel from the lines or they park really close to another car. Even when it's a little compact car in a space reserved for a van with 5 or 6 feet clearance on all sides, so you know it's not because they need the extra room

    You "know" very little. Parking at an angle can be the only way to ensure that there will be space to get to the driver's seat with a wheelchair - there may be plenty of space now, but the wheelchair user has to think of what happens when the car next to him leaves and another one takes its place. You just don't know how close the person is going to park, likes or no. Parking at an angle makes it much more likely that you can get in and out.

  • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @02:40AM (#38561434) Homepage

    The handicap spots are full of assholes now, how do you think it'd be without penalties? Are shops going to piss off their customers with huge fines for their "dick move"? No. All that would happen is that all the healthy people would get to park a little closer (remember, distance fans out in a circle - there's a lot more spots in a 50 feet radius than a 20 feet radius) and handicapped people would be shit out of luck. Either hang in front of the closest spots waiting for one to clear - and those who need extra space for a wheelchair ramp would never get the double spot they need - or park far out with most everybody else. Those people are going to hurt more, perhaps make a condition worse and in the worst case say I can't get to the shop on my own, I need aid of some sort. And those costs are coming back to you either in form of more government programs or higher health insurance, the extra costs are getting passed to you. Enabling people to take care of themselves it usually one the of the best things you can do, both for them and you.

  • by Penguinshit ( 591885 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @03:08AM (#38561546) Homepage Journal
    This isn't free market. This is assisting the disabled who could be injured trying to access or, worse, permanently barred from accessing stores and services. In a perfect free market people are nothing but resources to be exploited and the disabled would be discarded like broken machinery. I resist that.
  • by GreenTech11 ( 1471589 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @03:30AM (#38561654)

    That's based on the incorrect assumption that the businesses will attempt to match the customer base demographics. Regardless of whether the business has 10% handicapped or 50% handicapped patrons, if they fill their parking areas regularly, the best option for them economically will be to have no handicapped bays. At their smallest a handicapped bay will take up a space equivalent to 1.5 regular bays, and will often be larger. Therefore, if they regularly run out of parking, then a way for the business to increase revenue would be to remove all disabled bays, and replace them with regular bays, thus increasing customer numbers. Sure, they'll lose a demographic, but they'll be replaced with other customers who'd normally bypass the store due to parking. Heck, depending on competition they may not even lose any business, if they're the only store offering a certain commodity, they'll retain the handicapped business, but they'll be forced to go outside peak times in order to get spaces that meet their needs.

    Economically, in most cases the best situation for a store is no handicapped bays, which is why government regulation is necessary.

  • by KDR_11k ( 778916 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @05:07AM (#38561932)

    1.) Why should the mall/shopping center be mandated by the government to do that on its private property?

    Because the mall wouldn't do it otherwise and we're past the days where disabled people are simply discarded by society.

  • by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Monday January 02, 2012 @05:25AM (#38562000)

    So the fact that a few able bodies people may have to wait a few minutes to find a space overrides the ability of a person in the wheelchair the ability to have a parking spot large enough to be able to get in and out of their vehicle? In the case of the able bodied person the issue is "I have to wait a few minutes". In the case of the person in the wheelchair it is "I have to go home".

    The two comedians did not do any "investigation" at all. The took a few pictures of parking spots and ranted. They did no investigation into the ration of used regular spaces vs used disabled spots at various times of the day and year. Empty disabled spots is not a problem if there are regular spots are available or soon to be available. Even if the lot is full a few empty disabled spots is not an issue.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...