Why would someone get a fine when using a disabled parking space when the disabled person is not in the car?
An article in LA Times about someone parking on a disabled parking space without the disabled person being in the car:
(...) I saw a woman pull into a disabled parking space and begin to
exit her car.
Two men in plain clothes flashed badges as they approached the car.
One of them asked to see the registration slip that went with the
disabled placard that hung from the driver’s rearview mirror.
It turned out that the placard was in the name of her son, but he
wasn’t in the car. So the officers confiscated the placard, which her
son will have to reapply for, and wrote her a citation.
I have a hard time understanding how one can get a citation for this? My wife is disabled (in France, so the laws may vary) and I sometimes park, alone, in the disabled spot in order to bring her to the car (or wait for her to come).
The disabled parking space is there to help disabled people, when they arrive to the place, but also when they leave from it. Both do not always happen in sequence (I can drop someone off, or wait for someone to get to the car).
I would be ideally interested in a French (or EU) perspective (but still keeping it open as the article is from the US)
united-states driving france disabilities
asked 2 days ago
WoJWoJ
35749
|
show 8 more comments
An article in LA Times about someone parking on a disabled parking space without the disabled person being in the car:
(...) I saw a woman pull into a disabled parking space and begin to
exit her car.
Two men in plain clothes flashed badges as they approached the car.
One of them asked to see the registration slip that went with the
disabled placard that hung from the driver’s rearview mirror.
It turned out that the placard was in the name of her son, but he
wasn’t in the car. So the officers confiscated the placard, which her
son will have to reapply for, and wrote her a citation.
I have a hard time understanding how one can get a citation for this? My wife is disabled (in France, so the laws may vary) and I sometimes park, alone, in the disabled spot in order to bring her to the car (or wait for her to come).
The disabled parking space is there to help disabled people, when they arrive to the place, but also when they leave from it. Both do not always happen in sequence (I can drop someone off, or wait for someone to get to the car).
I would be ideally interested in a French (or EU) perspective (but still keeping it open as the article is from the US)
united-states driving france disabilities
asked 2 days ago
WoJWoJ
35749
19
While it makes sense to me that the women should be fined if she used the disabled placard without her son benefiting it does concern me that the officers were so quick to pounce on her. Not all disabilities are obvious and harassing disabled individuals making them prove their disabilities seems like a pretty harmful experience to someone with a disability. I'd rather risk someone abusing the disabled parking then risk harassing legitimate disabled individuals. Likewise taking the son's placard away due to mother's abuse seems to be harming someone with legitimate need unduly.
– dsollen
2 days ago
14
@dsollen While in general I agree with you, disabled parking spots are a limited resource. I'm not disabled, but I would think people would rather be stopped occasionally rather than not have a spot at all.
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
9
@dsollen I had the same initial reaction to the son losing the placard, but I think it might be appropriate. It's his placard to use or abuse as he chooses, and he may have chosen to abuse it by giving it to someone else. If she took it without his knowledge, only then would I agree the punishment is undue.
– Nuclear Wang
2 days ago
10
@dsollen My son is disabled, we use a blue badge (UK version of a placard). I would far rather justify its use every time we park, than have to turn around and go home because people are taking up the limited spaces without cause. Also, in the guidance we received when we got the Blue Badge, it specified that if it was used improperly it would be confiscated and we would need to reapply.
– Phil
yesterday
4
@dsollen As the article states, they're checking to see that the placard is issued to the person using it, not that the person is actually disabled (certification of disability status is done by medical professionals of your choice before you apply for the placard in California). They're not testing you in the middle of the parking lot to see whether you're really disabled; they're checking to see whether you're using somebody else's placard: "about 30% of the time, the placard is stolen, altered or issued to someone else, not necessarily among the living."
– Zach Lipton
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
An article in LA Times about someone parking on a disabled parking space without the disabled person being in the car:
(...) I saw a woman pull into a disabled parking space and begin to
exit her car.
Two men in plain clothes flashed badges as they approached the car.
One of them asked to see the registration slip that went with the
disabled placard that hung from the driver’s rearview mirror.
It turned out that the placard was in the name of her son, but he
wasn’t in the car. So the officers confiscated the placard, which her
son will have to reapply for, and wrote her a citation.
I have a hard time understanding how one can get a citation for this? My wife is disabled (in France, so the laws may vary) and I sometimes park, alone, in the disabled spot in order to bring her to the car (or wait for her to come).
The disabled parking space is there to help disabled people, when they arrive to the place, but also when they leave from it. Both do not always happen in sequence (I can drop someone off, or wait for someone to get to the car).
I would be ideally interested in a French (or EU) perspective (but still keeping it open as the article is from the US)
united-states driving france disabilities
asked 2 days ago
WoJWoJ
35749
An article in LA Times about someone parking on a disabled parking space without the disabled person being in the car:
(...) I saw a woman pull into a disabled parking space and begin to
exit her car.
Two men in plain clothes flashed badges as they approached the car.
One of them asked to see the registration slip that went with the
disabled placard that hung from the driver’s rearview mirror.
It turned out that the placard was in the name of her son, but he
wasn’t in the car. So the officers confiscated the placard, which her
son will have to reapply for, and wrote her a citation.
I have a hard time understanding how one can get a citation for this? My wife is disabled (in France, so the laws may vary) and I sometimes park, alone, in the disabled spot in order to bring her to the car (or wait for her to come).
The disabled parking space is there to help disabled people, when they arrive to the place, but also when they leave from it. Both do not always happen in sequence (I can drop someone off, or wait for someone to get to the car).
I would be ideally interested in a French (or EU) perspective (but still keeping it open as the article is from the US)
united-states driving france disabilities
united-states driving france disabilities
asked 2 days ago
WoJWoJ
35749
asked 2 days ago
WoJWoJ
35749
edited 2 days ago
WoJ
asked 2 days ago
WoJWoJ
35749
asked 2 days ago
WoJWoJ
35749
asked 2 days ago
WoJWoJ
35749
35749
19
While it makes sense to me that the women should be fined if she used the disabled placard without her son benefiting it does concern me that the officers were so quick to pounce on her. Not all disabilities are obvious and harassing disabled individuals making them prove their disabilities seems like a pretty harmful experience to someone with a disability. I'd rather risk someone abusing the disabled parking then risk harassing legitimate disabled individuals. Likewise taking the son's placard away due to mother's abuse seems to be harming someone with legitimate need unduly.
– dsollen
2 days ago
14
@dsollen While in general I agree with you, disabled parking spots are a limited resource. I'm not disabled, but I would think people would rather be stopped occasionally rather than not have a spot at all.
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
9
@dsollen I had the same initial reaction to the son losing the placard, but I think it might be appropriate. It's his placard to use or abuse as he chooses, and he may have chosen to abuse it by giving it to someone else. If she took it without his knowledge, only then would I agree the punishment is undue.
– Nuclear Wang
2 days ago
10
@dsollen My son is disabled, we use a blue badge (UK version of a placard). I would far rather justify its use every time we park, than have to turn around and go home because people are taking up the limited spaces without cause. Also, in the guidance we received when we got the Blue Badge, it specified that if it was used improperly it would be confiscated and we would need to reapply.
– Phil
yesterday
4
@dsollen As the article states, they're checking to see that the placard is issued to the person using it, not that the person is actually disabled (certification of disability status is done by medical professionals of your choice before you apply for the placard in California). They're not testing you in the middle of the parking lot to see whether you're really disabled; they're checking to see whether you're using somebody else's placard: "about 30% of the time, the placard is stolen, altered or issued to someone else, not necessarily among the living."
– Zach Lipton
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
19
While it makes sense to me that the women should be fined if she used the disabled placard without her son benefiting it does concern me that the officers were so quick to pounce on her. Not all disabilities are obvious and harassing disabled individuals making them prove their disabilities seems like a pretty harmful experience to someone with a disability. I'd rather risk someone abusing the disabled parking then risk harassing legitimate disabled individuals. Likewise taking the son's placard away due to mother's abuse seems to be harming someone with legitimate need unduly.
– dsollen
2 days ago
14
@dsollen While in general I agree with you, disabled parking spots are a limited resource. I'm not disabled, but I would think people would rather be stopped occasionally rather than not have a spot at all.
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
9
@dsollen I had the same initial reaction to the son losing the placard, but I think it might be appropriate. It's his placard to use or abuse as he chooses, and he may have chosen to abuse it by giving it to someone else. If she took it without his knowledge, only then would I agree the punishment is undue.
– Nuclear Wang
2 days ago
10
@dsollen My son is disabled, we use a blue badge (UK version of a placard). I would far rather justify its use every time we park, than have to turn around and go home because people are taking up the limited spaces without cause. Also, in the guidance we received when we got the Blue Badge, it specified that if it was used improperly it would be confiscated and we would need to reapply.
– Phil
yesterday
4
@dsollen As the article states, they're checking to see that the placard is issued to the person using it, not that the person is actually disabled (certification of disability status is done by medical professionals of your choice before you apply for the placard in California). They're not testing you in the middle of the parking lot to see whether you're really disabled; they're checking to see whether you're using somebody else's placard: "about 30% of the time, the placard is stolen, altered or issued to someone else, not necessarily among the living."
– Zach Lipton
yesterday
19
19
While it makes sense to me that the women should be fined if she used the disabled placard without her son benefiting it does concern me that the officers were so quick to pounce on her. Not all disabilities are obvious and harassing disabled individuals making them prove their disabilities seems like a pretty harmful experience to someone with a disability. I'd rather risk someone abusing the disabled parking then risk harassing legitimate disabled individuals. Likewise taking the son's placard away due to mother's abuse seems to be harming someone with legitimate need unduly.
– dsollen
2 days ago
While it makes sense to me that the women should be fined if she used the disabled placard without her son benefiting it does concern me that the officers were so quick to pounce on her. Not all disabilities are obvious and harassing disabled individuals making them prove their disabilities seems like a pretty harmful experience to someone with a disability. I'd rather risk someone abusing the disabled parking then risk harassing legitimate disabled individuals. Likewise taking the son's placard away due to mother's abuse seems to be harming someone with legitimate need unduly.
– dsollen
2 days ago
14
14
@dsollen While in general I agree with you, disabled parking spots are a limited resource. I'm not disabled, but I would think people would rather be stopped occasionally rather than not have a spot at all.
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
@dsollen While in general I agree with you, disabled parking spots are a limited resource. I'm not disabled, but I would think people would rather be stopped occasionally rather than not have a spot at all.
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
9
9
@dsollen I had the same initial reaction to the son losing the placard, but I think it might be appropriate. It's his placard to use or abuse as he chooses, and he may have chosen to abuse it by giving it to someone else. If she took it without his knowledge, only then would I agree the punishment is undue.
– Nuclear Wang
2 days ago
@dsollen I had the same initial reaction to the son losing the placard, but I think it might be appropriate. It's his placard to use or abuse as he chooses, and he may have chosen to abuse it by giving it to someone else. If she took it without his knowledge, only then would I agree the punishment is undue.
– Nuclear Wang
2 days ago
10
10
@dsollen My son is disabled, we use a blue badge (UK version of a placard). I would far rather justify its use every time we park, than have to turn around and go home because people are taking up the limited spaces without cause. Also, in the guidance we received when we got the Blue Badge, it specified that if it was used improperly it would be confiscated and we would need to reapply.
– Phil
yesterday
@dsollen My son is disabled, we use a blue badge (UK version of a placard). I would far rather justify its use every time we park, than have to turn around and go home because people are taking up the limited spaces without cause. Also, in the guidance we received when we got the Blue Badge, it specified that if it was used improperly it would be confiscated and we would need to reapply.
– Phil
yesterday
4
4
@dsollen As the article states, they're checking to see that the placard is issued to the person using it, not that the person is actually disabled (certification of disability status is done by medical professionals of your choice before you apply for the placard in California). They're not testing you in the middle of the parking lot to see whether you're really disabled; they're checking to see whether you're using somebody else's placard: "about 30% of the time, the placard is stolen, altered or issued to someone else, not necessarily among the living."
– Zach Lipton
yesterday
@dsollen As the article states, they're checking to see that the placard is issued to the person using it, not that the person is actually disabled (certification of disability status is done by medical professionals of your choice before you apply for the placard in California). They're not testing you in the middle of the parking lot to see whether you're really disabled; they're checking to see whether you're using somebody else's placard: "about 30% of the time, the placard is stolen, altered or issued to someone else, not necessarily among the living."
– Zach Lipton
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked.
California code has this to say:
A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit
another person to use the placard only while in the presence or
reasonable proximity of the disabled person for the purpose of
transporting the disabled person.
So as long as the disabled person is within a "reasonable proximity", and the placard is being used to transport them, they do not have to be inside the car to make using the placard legitimate. In this case, the woman was just transporting herself and using the placard anyway, which is illegal.
answered 2 days ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
68167
I can see how this answer would justify a fine or whatever the punishment is for parking in that spot without a permit. But I don't see how it justifies confiscating the placard which doesn't belong to the offender but rather belongs to a disabled person who is one of the people who these rules are intended to protect in the first place.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
@kasperd The presumption is that the disabled person permitted the placard to be used in this manner, and thus was complicit. If the disabled person wants to claim that the placard was stolen / used without permission / etc., that may be grounds for having it returned / reissued.
– GrandOpener
10 hours ago
@GrandOpener We don't have enough information to know. To me it sounded more likely that the placard simply was in the car because it was the car he'd usually be using it in. And he had given them permission to use the card but not explicitly given them permision to use the placard which just happened to be in the car. And maybe the mother didn't understand the rules and though the permit had been granted to the car rather than to a person. But then again we don't know, so maybe there was a good reason.
– kasperd
10 hours ago
@kasperd The "presumption" I was talking about is of the law in general--I make no assumption about the people described in the LA Times article. Either the placard is under control of its owner and being used with permission (the "presumed" case, barring any accusation) or it is stolen/used without permission.
– GrandOpener
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Had the driver been able to prove that they were picking up the disabled person, the ticket should never have been issued and the permit never confiscated. It would have made sense if the disabled person was proved to be somewhere else at that time. I think in most countries the pass isn't necessarily for the driver, but for the vehicle to be used to transport a disabled person, in order they can get out and visit shops, etc.As in the card is for the person, who can use it in whichever vehicle they are being ferried round in.
What I can't understand is a vehicle with a disabled badge carrying the disabled person, parking in a disabled bay, and the driver doing the shopping while the disabled person sits in the car.
In England, it's common for abuse of disabled parking spaces, and nothing appears to be done. In France, it's extremely rare to see them abused. Folklore has it that large stickers can be put on the windscreen of those who shouldn't be using them.
edited 4 hours ago
Tim
1032
answered yesterday
timtim
511
New contributor
tim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
In the UK Blue Badges are issued to the disabled person not a particular car or driver. This means for example we can pick up friend in another town and take her shopping in our car, parking in disabled bays, if her husband is away on business in his. Part of the problem with regard disabled bays in supermarkets etc. in the UK is that these are private property it's not a criminal matter in the UK.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/parking-tickets/… The police will not issue fines.
– Sarriesfan
yesterday
3
Last week I watched someone without a badge park up in a disabled bay (one of few) at the local Waitrose and rush into the shop. Clearly his urgent needs trumped those of any disabled people who may wish to visit the shop. Minutes later I found myself behind him at the lottery ticket kiosk, which was being held up by a silly woman who didn't seem to understand how to efficiently perform a shopping trip; when the bloke eventually reached the front and the lottery machine had self-disabled ten seconds prior due to the imminence of the weekly draw, I felt a great sense of joy. :)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
yesterday
2
Shopping while the disabled person stays in the car is a reasonable use of the space as otherwise they are left in the car for a longer time.
– Ian Turton
yesterday
2
@IanTurton That seems like a pretty marginal justification ... a couple of minutes compared to the time it takes to ship is small.
– Azor Ahai
yesterday
1
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to be using a disabled parking spot even if the disabled person is staying in the car. Unexpected events could happen meaning the person would need to leave the car. And without the extra space available in the disabled spot the person might not be able to leave the car.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked.
California code has this to say:
A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit
another person to use the placard only while in the presence or
reasonable proximity of the disabled person for the purpose of
transporting the disabled person.
So as long as the disabled person is within a "reasonable proximity", and the placard is being used to transport them, they do not have to be inside the car to make using the placard legitimate. In this case, the woman was just transporting herself and using the placard anyway, which is illegal.
answered 2 days ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
68167
I can see how this answer would justify a fine or whatever the punishment is for parking in that spot without a permit. But I don't see how it justifies confiscating the placard which doesn't belong to the offender but rather belongs to a disabled person who is one of the people who these rules are intended to protect in the first place.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
@kasperd The presumption is that the disabled person permitted the placard to be used in this manner, and thus was complicit. If the disabled person wants to claim that the placard was stolen / used without permission / etc., that may be grounds for having it returned / reissued.
– GrandOpener
10 hours ago
@GrandOpener We don't have enough information to know. To me it sounded more likely that the placard simply was in the car because it was the car he'd usually be using it in. And he had given them permission to use the card but not explicitly given them permision to use the placard which just happened to be in the car. And maybe the mother didn't understand the rules and though the permit had been granted to the car rather than to a person. But then again we don't know, so maybe there was a good reason.
– kasperd
10 hours ago
@kasperd The "presumption" I was talking about is of the law in general--I make no assumption about the people described in the LA Times article. Either the placard is under control of its owner and being used with permission (the "presumed" case, barring any accusation) or it is stolen/used without permission.
– GrandOpener
7 hours ago
add a comment |
There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked.
California code has this to say:
A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit
another person to use the placard only while in the presence or
reasonable proximity of the disabled person for the purpose of
transporting the disabled person.
So as long as the disabled person is within a "reasonable proximity", and the placard is being used to transport them, they do not have to be inside the car to make using the placard legitimate. In this case, the woman was just transporting herself and using the placard anyway, which is illegal.
answered 2 days ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
68167
I can see how this answer would justify a fine or whatever the punishment is for parking in that spot without a permit. But I don't see how it justifies confiscating the placard which doesn't belong to the offender but rather belongs to a disabled person who is one of the people who these rules are intended to protect in the first place.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
@kasperd The presumption is that the disabled person permitted the placard to be used in this manner, and thus was complicit. If the disabled person wants to claim that the placard was stolen / used without permission / etc., that may be grounds for having it returned / reissued.
– GrandOpener
10 hours ago
@GrandOpener We don't have enough information to know. To me it sounded more likely that the placard simply was in the car because it was the car he'd usually be using it in. And he had given them permission to use the card but not explicitly given them permision to use the placard which just happened to be in the car. And maybe the mother didn't understand the rules and though the permit had been granted to the car rather than to a person. But then again we don't know, so maybe there was a good reason.
– kasperd
10 hours ago
@kasperd The "presumption" I was talking about is of the law in general--I make no assumption about the people described in the LA Times article. Either the placard is under control of its owner and being used with permission (the "presumed" case, barring any accusation) or it is stolen/used without permission.
– GrandOpener
7 hours ago
add a comment |
There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked.
California code has this to say:
A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit
another person to use the placard only while in the presence or
reasonable proximity of the disabled person for the purpose of
transporting the disabled person.
So as long as the disabled person is within a "reasonable proximity", and the placard is being used to transport them, they do not have to be inside the car to make using the placard legitimate. In this case, the woman was just transporting herself and using the placard anyway, which is illegal.
answered 2 days ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
68167
There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked.
California code has this to say:
A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit
another person to use the placard only while in the presence or
reasonable proximity of the disabled person for the purpose of
transporting the disabled person.
So as long as the disabled person is within a "reasonable proximity", and the placard is being used to transport them, they do not have to be inside the car to make using the placard legitimate. In this case, the woman was just transporting herself and using the placard anyway, which is illegal.
answered 2 days ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
68167
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
68167
answered 2 days ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
68167
answered 2 days ago
Nuclear WangNuclear Wang
68167
68167
I can see how this answer would justify a fine or whatever the punishment is for parking in that spot without a permit. But I don't see how it justifies confiscating the placard which doesn't belong to the offender but rather belongs to a disabled person who is one of the people who these rules are intended to protect in the first place.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
@kasperd The presumption is that the disabled person permitted the placard to be used in this manner, and thus was complicit. If the disabled person wants to claim that the placard was stolen / used without permission / etc., that may be grounds for having it returned / reissued.
– GrandOpener
10 hours ago
@GrandOpener We don't have enough information to know. To me it sounded more likely that the placard simply was in the car because it was the car he'd usually be using it in. And he had given them permission to use the card but not explicitly given them permision to use the placard which just happened to be in the car. And maybe the mother didn't understand the rules and though the permit had been granted to the car rather than to a person. But then again we don't know, so maybe there was a good reason.
– kasperd
10 hours ago
@kasperd The "presumption" I was talking about is of the law in general--I make no assumption about the people described in the LA Times article. Either the placard is under control of its owner and being used with permission (the "presumed" case, barring any accusation) or it is stolen/used without permission.
– GrandOpener
7 hours ago
add a comment |
I can see how this answer would justify a fine or whatever the punishment is for parking in that spot without a permit. But I don't see how it justifies confiscating the placard which doesn't belong to the offender but rather belongs to a disabled person who is one of the people who these rules are intended to protect in the first place.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
@kasperd The presumption is that the disabled person permitted the placard to be used in this manner, and thus was complicit. If the disabled person wants to claim that the placard was stolen / used without permission / etc., that may be grounds for having it returned / reissued.
– GrandOpener
10 hours ago
@GrandOpener We don't have enough information to know. To me it sounded more likely that the placard simply was in the car because it was the car he'd usually be using it in. And he had given them permission to use the card but not explicitly given them permision to use the placard which just happened to be in the car. And maybe the mother didn't understand the rules and though the permit had been granted to the car rather than to a person. But then again we don't know, so maybe there was a good reason.
– kasperd
10 hours ago
@kasperd The "presumption" I was talking about is of the law in general--I make no assumption about the people described in the LA Times article. Either the placard is under control of its owner and being used with permission (the "presumed" case, barring any accusation) or it is stolen/used without permission.
– GrandOpener
7 hours ago
I can see how this answer would justify a fine or whatever the punishment is for parking in that spot without a permit. But I don't see how it justifies confiscating the placard which doesn't belong to the offender but rather belongs to a disabled person who is one of the people who these rules are intended to protect in the first place.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
I can see how this answer would justify a fine or whatever the punishment is for parking in that spot without a permit. But I don't see how it justifies confiscating the placard which doesn't belong to the offender but rather belongs to a disabled person who is one of the people who these rules are intended to protect in the first place.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
@kasperd The presumption is that the disabled person permitted the placard to be used in this manner, and thus was complicit. If the disabled person wants to claim that the placard was stolen / used without permission / etc., that may be grounds for having it returned / reissued.
– GrandOpener
10 hours ago
@kasperd The presumption is that the disabled person permitted the placard to be used in this manner, and thus was complicit. If the disabled person wants to claim that the placard was stolen / used without permission / etc., that may be grounds for having it returned / reissued.
– GrandOpener
10 hours ago
@GrandOpener We don't have enough information to know. To me it sounded more likely that the placard simply was in the car because it was the car he'd usually be using it in. And he had given them permission to use the card but not explicitly given them permision to use the placard which just happened to be in the car. And maybe the mother didn't understand the rules and though the permit had been granted to the car rather than to a person. But then again we don't know, so maybe there was a good reason.
– kasperd
10 hours ago
@GrandOpener We don't have enough information to know. To me it sounded more likely that the placard simply was in the car because it was the car he'd usually be using it in. And he had given them permission to use the card but not explicitly given them permision to use the placard which just happened to be in the car. And maybe the mother didn't understand the rules and though the permit had been granted to the car rather than to a person. But then again we don't know, so maybe there was a good reason.
– kasperd
10 hours ago
@kasperd The "presumption" I was talking about is of the law in general--I make no assumption about the people described in the LA Times article. Either the placard is under control of its owner and being used with permission (the "presumed" case, barring any accusation) or it is stolen/used without permission.
– GrandOpener
7 hours ago
@kasperd The "presumption" I was talking about is of the law in general--I make no assumption about the people described in the LA Times article. Either the placard is under control of its owner and being used with permission (the "presumed" case, barring any accusation) or it is stolen/used without permission.
– GrandOpener
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Had the driver been able to prove that they were picking up the disabled person, the ticket should never have been issued and the permit never confiscated. It would have made sense if the disabled person was proved to be somewhere else at that time. I think in most countries the pass isn't necessarily for the driver, but for the vehicle to be used to transport a disabled person, in order they can get out and visit shops, etc.As in the card is for the person, who can use it in whichever vehicle they are being ferried round in.
What I can't understand is a vehicle with a disabled badge carrying the disabled person, parking in a disabled bay, and the driver doing the shopping while the disabled person sits in the car.
In England, it's common for abuse of disabled parking spaces, and nothing appears to be done. In France, it's extremely rare to see them abused. Folklore has it that large stickers can be put on the windscreen of those who shouldn't be using them.
edited 4 hours ago
Tim
1032
answered yesterday
timtim
511
New contributor
tim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
In the UK Blue Badges are issued to the disabled person not a particular car or driver. This means for example we can pick up friend in another town and take her shopping in our car, parking in disabled bays, if her husband is away on business in his. Part of the problem with regard disabled bays in supermarkets etc. in the UK is that these are private property it's not a criminal matter in the UK.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/parking-tickets/… The police will not issue fines.
– Sarriesfan
yesterday
3
Last week I watched someone without a badge park up in a disabled bay (one of few) at the local Waitrose and rush into the shop. Clearly his urgent needs trumped those of any disabled people who may wish to visit the shop. Minutes later I found myself behind him at the lottery ticket kiosk, which was being held up by a silly woman who didn't seem to understand how to efficiently perform a shopping trip; when the bloke eventually reached the front and the lottery machine had self-disabled ten seconds prior due to the imminence of the weekly draw, I felt a great sense of joy. :)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
yesterday
2
Shopping while the disabled person stays in the car is a reasonable use of the space as otherwise they are left in the car for a longer time.
– Ian Turton
yesterday
2
@IanTurton That seems like a pretty marginal justification ... a couple of minutes compared to the time it takes to ship is small.
– Azor Ahai
yesterday
1
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to be using a disabled parking spot even if the disabled person is staying in the car. Unexpected events could happen meaning the person would need to leave the car. And without the extra space available in the disabled spot the person might not be able to leave the car.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
Had the driver been able to prove that they were picking up the disabled person, the ticket should never have been issued and the permit never confiscated. It would have made sense if the disabled person was proved to be somewhere else at that time. I think in most countries the pass isn't necessarily for the driver, but for the vehicle to be used to transport a disabled person, in order they can get out and visit shops, etc.As in the card is for the person, who can use it in whichever vehicle they are being ferried round in.
What I can't understand is a vehicle with a disabled badge carrying the disabled person, parking in a disabled bay, and the driver doing the shopping while the disabled person sits in the car.
In England, it's common for abuse of disabled parking spaces, and nothing appears to be done. In France, it's extremely rare to see them abused. Folklore has it that large stickers can be put on the windscreen of those who shouldn't be using them.
edited 4 hours ago
Tim
1032
answered yesterday
timtim
511
New contributor
tim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
In the UK Blue Badges are issued to the disabled person not a particular car or driver. This means for example we can pick up friend in another town and take her shopping in our car, parking in disabled bays, if her husband is away on business in his. Part of the problem with regard disabled bays in supermarkets etc. in the UK is that these are private property it's not a criminal matter in the UK.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/parking-tickets/… The police will not issue fines.
– Sarriesfan
yesterday
3
Last week I watched someone without a badge park up in a disabled bay (one of few) at the local Waitrose and rush into the shop. Clearly his urgent needs trumped those of any disabled people who may wish to visit the shop. Minutes later I found myself behind him at the lottery ticket kiosk, which was being held up by a silly woman who didn't seem to understand how to efficiently perform a shopping trip; when the bloke eventually reached the front and the lottery machine had self-disabled ten seconds prior due to the imminence of the weekly draw, I felt a great sense of joy. :)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
yesterday
2
Shopping while the disabled person stays in the car is a reasonable use of the space as otherwise they are left in the car for a longer time.
– Ian Turton
yesterday
2
@IanTurton That seems like a pretty marginal justification ... a couple of minutes compared to the time it takes to ship is small.
– Azor Ahai
yesterday
1
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to be using a disabled parking spot even if the disabled person is staying in the car. Unexpected events could happen meaning the person would need to leave the car. And without the extra space available in the disabled spot the person might not be able to leave the car.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
Had the driver been able to prove that they were picking up the disabled person, the ticket should never have been issued and the permit never confiscated. It would have made sense if the disabled person was proved to be somewhere else at that time. I think in most countries the pass isn't necessarily for the driver, but for the vehicle to be used to transport a disabled person, in order they can get out and visit shops, etc.As in the card is for the person, who can use it in whichever vehicle they are being ferried round in.
What I can't understand is a vehicle with a disabled badge carrying the disabled person, parking in a disabled bay, and the driver doing the shopping while the disabled person sits in the car.
In England, it's common for abuse of disabled parking spaces, and nothing appears to be done. In France, it's extremely rare to see them abused. Folklore has it that large stickers can be put on the windscreen of those who shouldn't be using them.
edited 4 hours ago
Tim
1032
answered yesterday
timtim
511
New contributor
tim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Had the driver been able to prove that they were picking up the disabled person, the ticket should never have been issued and the permit never confiscated. It would have made sense if the disabled person was proved to be somewhere else at that time. I think in most countries the pass isn't necessarily for the driver, but for the vehicle to be used to transport a disabled person, in order they can get out and visit shops, etc.As in the card is for the person, who can use it in whichever vehicle they are being ferried round in.
What I can't understand is a vehicle with a disabled badge carrying the disabled person, parking in a disabled bay, and the driver doing the shopping while the disabled person sits in the car.
In England, it's common for abuse of disabled parking spaces, and nothing appears to be done. In France, it's extremely rare to see them abused. Folklore has it that large stickers can be put on the windscreen of those who shouldn't be using them.
edited 4 hours ago
Tim
1032
answered yesterday
timtim
511
New contributor
tim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 4 hours ago
Tim
1032
edited 4 hours ago
Tim
1032
edited 4 hours ago
Tim
1032
1032
answered yesterday
timtim
511
New contributor
tim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
timtim
511
answered yesterday
timtim
511
511
New contributor
tim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
tim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
tim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
In the UK Blue Badges are issued to the disabled person not a particular car or driver. This means for example we can pick up friend in another town and take her shopping in our car, parking in disabled bays, if her husband is away on business in his. Part of the problem with regard disabled bays in supermarkets etc. in the UK is that these are private property it's not a criminal matter in the UK.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/parking-tickets/… The police will not issue fines.
– Sarriesfan
yesterday
3
Last week I watched someone without a badge park up in a disabled bay (one of few) at the local Waitrose and rush into the shop. Clearly his urgent needs trumped those of any disabled people who may wish to visit the shop. Minutes later I found myself behind him at the lottery ticket kiosk, which was being held up by a silly woman who didn't seem to understand how to efficiently perform a shopping trip; when the bloke eventually reached the front and the lottery machine had self-disabled ten seconds prior due to the imminence of the weekly draw, I felt a great sense of joy. :)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
yesterday
2
Shopping while the disabled person stays in the car is a reasonable use of the space as otherwise they are left in the car for a longer time.
– Ian Turton
yesterday
2
@IanTurton That seems like a pretty marginal justification ... a couple of minutes compared to the time it takes to ship is small.
– Azor Ahai
yesterday
1
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to be using a disabled parking spot even if the disabled person is staying in the car. Unexpected events could happen meaning the person would need to leave the car. And without the extra space available in the disabled spot the person might not be able to leave the car.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
1
In the UK Blue Badges are issued to the disabled person not a particular car or driver. This means for example we can pick up friend in another town and take her shopping in our car, parking in disabled bays, if her husband is away on business in his. Part of the problem with regard disabled bays in supermarkets etc. in the UK is that these are private property it's not a criminal matter in the UK.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/parking-tickets/… The police will not issue fines.
– Sarriesfan
yesterday
3
Last week I watched someone without a badge park up in a disabled bay (one of few) at the local Waitrose and rush into the shop. Clearly his urgent needs trumped those of any disabled people who may wish to visit the shop. Minutes later I found myself behind him at the lottery ticket kiosk, which was being held up by a silly woman who didn't seem to understand how to efficiently perform a shopping trip; when the bloke eventually reached the front and the lottery machine had self-disabled ten seconds prior due to the imminence of the weekly draw, I felt a great sense of joy. :)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
yesterday
2
Shopping while the disabled person stays in the car is a reasonable use of the space as otherwise they are left in the car for a longer time.
– Ian Turton
yesterday
2
@IanTurton That seems like a pretty marginal justification ... a couple of minutes compared to the time it takes to ship is small.
– Azor Ahai
yesterday
1
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to be using a disabled parking spot even if the disabled person is staying in the car. Unexpected events could happen meaning the person would need to leave the car. And without the extra space available in the disabled spot the person might not be able to leave the car.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
1
1
In the UK Blue Badges are issued to the disabled person not a particular car or driver. This means for example we can pick up friend in another town and take her shopping in our car, parking in disabled bays, if her husband is away on business in his. Part of the problem with regard disabled bays in supermarkets etc. in the UK is that these are private property it's not a criminal matter in the UK.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/parking-tickets/… The police will not issue fines.
– Sarriesfan
yesterday
In the UK Blue Badges are issued to the disabled person not a particular car or driver. This means for example we can pick up friend in another town and take her shopping in our car, parking in disabled bays, if her husband is away on business in his. Part of the problem with regard disabled bays in supermarkets etc. in the UK is that these are private property it's not a criminal matter in the UK.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/parking-tickets/… The police will not issue fines.
– Sarriesfan
yesterday
3
3
Last week I watched someone without a badge park up in a disabled bay (one of few) at the local Waitrose and rush into the shop. Clearly his urgent needs trumped those of any disabled people who may wish to visit the shop. Minutes later I found myself behind him at the lottery ticket kiosk, which was being held up by a silly woman who didn't seem to understand how to efficiently perform a shopping trip; when the bloke eventually reached the front and the lottery machine had self-disabled ten seconds prior due to the imminence of the weekly draw, I felt a great sense of joy. :)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
yesterday
Last week I watched someone without a badge park up in a disabled bay (one of few) at the local Waitrose and rush into the shop. Clearly his urgent needs trumped those of any disabled people who may wish to visit the shop. Minutes later I found myself behind him at the lottery ticket kiosk, which was being held up by a silly woman who didn't seem to understand how to efficiently perform a shopping trip; when the bloke eventually reached the front and the lottery machine had self-disabled ten seconds prior due to the imminence of the weekly draw, I felt a great sense of joy. :)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
yesterday
2
2
Shopping while the disabled person stays in the car is a reasonable use of the space as otherwise they are left in the car for a longer time.
– Ian Turton
yesterday
Shopping while the disabled person stays in the car is a reasonable use of the space as otherwise they are left in the car for a longer time.
– Ian Turton
yesterday
2
2
@IanTurton That seems like a pretty marginal justification ... a couple of minutes compared to the time it takes to ship is small.
– Azor Ahai
yesterday
@IanTurton That seems like a pretty marginal justification ... a couple of minutes compared to the time it takes to ship is small.
– Azor Ahai
yesterday
1
1
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to be using a disabled parking spot even if the disabled person is staying in the car. Unexpected events could happen meaning the person would need to leave the car. And without the extra space available in the disabled spot the person might not be able to leave the car.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to be using a disabled parking spot even if the disabled person is staying in the car. Unexpected events could happen meaning the person would need to leave the car. And without the extra space available in the disabled spot the person might not be able to leave the car.
– kasperd
13 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
19
While it makes sense to me that the women should be fined if she used the disabled placard without her son benefiting it does concern me that the officers were so quick to pounce on her. Not all disabilities are obvious and harassing disabled individuals making them prove their disabilities seems like a pretty harmful experience to someone with a disability. I'd rather risk someone abusing the disabled parking then risk harassing legitimate disabled individuals. Likewise taking the son's placard away due to mother's abuse seems to be harming someone with legitimate need unduly.
– dsollen
2 days ago
14
@dsollen While in general I agree with you, disabled parking spots are a limited resource. I'm not disabled, but I would think people would rather be stopped occasionally rather than not have a spot at all.
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
9
@dsollen I had the same initial reaction to the son losing the placard, but I think it might be appropriate. It's his placard to use or abuse as he chooses, and he may have chosen to abuse it by giving it to someone else. If she took it without his knowledge, only then would I agree the punishment is undue.
– Nuclear Wang
2 days ago
10
@dsollen My son is disabled, we use a blue badge (UK version of a placard). I would far rather justify its use every time we park, than have to turn around and go home because people are taking up the limited spaces without cause. Also, in the guidance we received when we got the Blue Badge, it specified that if it was used improperly it would be confiscated and we would need to reapply.
– Phil
yesterday
4
@dsollen As the article states, they're checking to see that the placard is issued to the person using it, not that the person is actually disabled (certification of disability status is done by medical professionals of your choice before you apply for the placard in California). They're not testing you in the middle of the parking lot to see whether you're really disabled; they're checking to see whether you're using somebody else's placard: "about 30% of the time, the placard is stolen, altered or issued to someone else, not necessarily among the living."
– Zach Lipton
yesterday