Fines when parking in disabled car parks

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Fines when parking in disabled car parks

1 | 2 | 3

161 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#139900 23-Jun-2008 11:35

Gooseybhai:

Ive always pondered what happens if there is a legit user already using the space and another legit user is wanting to use that space?
It amuses me that you only ever really see one or two spaces reserved.

There is an allowance in both free and paid parks (upto p180) for those with CCS cards to park for twice the allowed time, so 20 minutes in a free 10min park or 360 minutes in a 180 minute paid park (and every other kind of park in between).

I've had cards twice in the past 3 years after having surgery and constantly found people parking in the spots who weren't disabled, especially after-hours in the city and by courier drivers or poeple waiting to pick people up. I say if the person is with the car or likely to return soon then ticket them and give them some demerit points, otherwise give them those and tow them as well (you can't tow a car with the owner present, just in case anyone was curious. can't remember the case name off the top of my head that established that though).

Professional drivers (taxi, courier etc) should get double the fine and demierit points for any roading and parking offences. So often I see courier vans parked in the middle of a lane on victoria st in Auckland city, as they're drivers go to collect parcels from the distribution centre.

You do get a few odd looks when being young and healthy looking, but I was only asked once by a parking warden as I sat in my car what was the reason I had the card, which I was ok with being asked (just doing his job).

Jonski

265 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31

#140134 24-Jun-2008 11:23

timbosan: Final comment - a LOT of the problems are made worse by lazy shop owners (Foodtown, Pack n save etc) who own a lof of these parks (the ones not in public parking areas) who do NOTHING to patrol the parks and make sure they are used properly, they are just as much at fault as the people parking there without permits.

Absolutely. I've spent a few months with a permit after smashing my knee (helo evac, bone graft, screws & plate...) and those times I arrived at the only disabled park for miles to see them occupied by illegitimate users, made me want to give up and go home. The supermarket carparks were often the worst. But I would double-park behind the offender, get out with my crutches and hobble over to "politely" (read: passive-aggressively) ask them to move. Then take my sweet time to get back into the car and give them room to get out. I was lucky I could use crutches, I wouldn't have been able to do it if I was in a 'chair.

One of the problems with enforcement is the offenders are often only there for a few minutes, which makes it hard to get a parking warden or whoever to give them what they deserve.

Perhaps CCS should distribute warning stickers to everyday people who care about these things that we could put on people's windows who have wrongly parked there. Of course, the stickers would be almost impossible to remove cleanly and annoy the heck out of those who get them.

Just my 2c...

Cheers
Jon

I reject your reality and substitute my own!
- Adam Savage, Mythbuster

cr250bromo

222 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 81

#140163 24-Jun-2008 13:05

I don't know why it's so important for able bodied people to park super close to the front door of the shop they are going to.

I wonder if I'm the only person who parks their car at the opposite end of the supermarket carpark, to keep it safe from errant trolleys and people opening doors into it, a 2 min walk will do me good - sorta funny seeing people waste lots of petrol and time driving around and around just to find a park close to the door! :D

AllNightNerding

411 posts

Ultimate Geek

#140218 24-Jun-2008 17:15

This is an extremly difficult thing to police, but I think that all fines in general, not just for disabled car parks. They should become a deterrent rather than an inconveniance. By this I mean that a fine for say $100 people while it will be a pain, people wont mind it that much. Because that for some people might just be the price that they will pay for a bit of fun.

So make it $1000 and then when people do get hit with a fine, they will have to go without somthing. and this goes for all fines I think.

-- Divett Enterprises -- The Power Of Tomorrow --

riahon

946 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 90

#140231 24-Jun-2008 17:39

I agree policing it would be hard. It was reported that the $150 fine was set so it could be recoverable. I think they are looking at it the wrong way. This is not a revenue gathering exercise but a detterant. Once people realise that $1000 is the penalty then I am sure people will stay away from the park (unless they have a permit of course). Also as stated, policing those that infringe if a website that was set up to post pics of shameful drivers it might build up a culture that unlawful parking is not tolerated we might actually reduce (eliminate is not possible I think) this from occurring.

ahmad

1937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 53
Inactive user

#140242 24-Jun-2008 18:29

I am in favour of the change BUT

I think that signage NEEDS to change as part of this.

It's not good enough that you have to learn about this (significant) change yourself. Yes, it's illegal, but with such a huge jump in the fine I think all spaces should have CLEAR signage warning of $150 penalties.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

scottjpalmer

6032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 790

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#141075 28-Jun-2008 17:59

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10518867

Uh oh, here we go again . . .

manhinli

2483 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4

Trusted

#141081 28-Jun-2008 18:23

Saw that on Yahoo!Xtra today...

A government not practising what they preach.

Find me on Twitter!

I posted 1, 2 x 10^3 times!

billgates

4706 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 672

Trusted

#141101 28-Jun-2008 20:05

I am totally against it. Before I explain why, I don't PERSONALLY park in disabled car parks and parked once like 3 years ago when it was raining very hard in front of a shopping centre. The reason why I am against it is because it violates freedom. Businesses should have the option to enforce fines by calling the local council if they wish to. Government should have no right to police it. If a business wishes not to enforce strictness with the disabled car parks then it's their choice and should be their choice because the country is all about freedom. If a disabled person gets the idea that a business is not interested in enforcing strictness on disabled carparks then he/she can take their businesss somewhere else, but putting a gun on the head of business and forcing them to provide with disabled carparks in new subdivisions is evil. It violates freedom.

It should be up to a business to decide whether they want disabled carparks or not. If they want one, they will have one if they really care about their customer service. Anyone ever looked up at the codes of who can get a disabled car park permit? Have a look, you will be surprised that how many people with what sort of non-life threatning or painless problems if they have to walk 10 metres from a non-disabled car parks can apply for a permit. I find this new law a joke and violation of freedom for busniesses to decide that what's best for their busniess.

In the same manner, I am also againsst the anti-smoking law that's in place for Bars and Restaurants. I don't smoke and never have smoked. But telling a business that Smokers are not allowed to smoke in their premises is just wrong. If a business felt that his business was going down due to the fact that non-smokers are not coming to his premises, he WOULD put up No Smoking sign in his premises. Putting a gun on his head telling smokers to smoke outside is again policing stupid laws which violates freedom for a business owner.

Do whatever you want to do man.

ahmad

1937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 53
Inactive user

#141104 28-Jun-2008 20:23

manhinli: Saw that on Yahoo!Xtra today...

A government not practising what they preach.

For the last 9 years right?

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 458

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#141110 28-Jun-2008 21:07

billgates: If a disabled person gets the idea that a business is not interested in enforcing strictness on disabled carparks then he/she can take their businesss somewhere else, but putting a gun on the head of business and forcing them to provide with disabled carparks in new subdivisions is evil. It violates freedom.

Understand where you are coming from, but without legislation businesses wouldn't provide disabled car parks.

Why? Disabled people make up a small percentage of their overall customers, so why cater to the minority? Legislation ensures those people in our society who are at a disadvantage at least have some help in their day to day lives.

Ask yourself, how many businesses exceed their legal requirements with disabled carparks. There wouldn't be many.

billgates: In the same manner, I am also againsst the anti-smoking law that's in place for Bars and Restaurants. I don't smoke and never have smoked. But telling a business that Smokers are not allowed to smoke in their premises is just wrong. If a business felt that his business was going down due to the fact that non-smokers are not coming to his premises, he WOULD put up No Smoking sign in his premises. Putting a gun on his head telling smokers to smoke outside is again policing stupid laws which violates freedom for a business owner.

I'm all for the anti-smoking law. Smokers are definitely a minority, and no bar would go smokefree if they didn't have to, as non-smokers have put up with smoking because it has always been like that.

I do think bars should be allowed to provide some indoor, sealed off smoking area.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

billgates

4706 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 672

Trusted

#141112 28-Jun-2008 21:14

nate:
billgates: If a disabled person gets the idea that a business is not interested in enforcing strictness on disabled carparks then he/she can take their businesss somewhere else, but putting a gun on the head of business and forcing them to provide with disabled carparks in new subdivisions is evil. It violates freedom.

Understand where you are coming from, but without legislation businesses wouldn't provide disabled car parks.

Why? Disabled people make up a small percentage of their overall customers, so why cater to the minority? Legislation ensures those people in our society who are at a disadvantage at least have some help in their day to day lives.

Ask yourself, how many businesses exceed their legal requirements with disabled carparks. There wouldn't be many.

billgates: In the same manner, I am also againsst the anti-smoking law that's in place for Bars and Restaurants. I don't smoke and never have smoked. But telling a business that Smokers are not allowed to smoke in their premises is just wrong. If a business felt that his business was going down due to the fact that non-smokers are not coming to his premises, he WOULD put up No Smoking sign in his premises. Putting a gun on his head telling smokers to smoke outside is again policing stupid laws which violates freedom for a business owner.

I'm all for the anti-smoking law. Smokers are definitely a minority, and no bar would go smokefree if they didn't have to, as non-smokers have put up with smoking because it has always been like that.

I do think bars should be allowed to provide some indoor, sealed off smoking area.

Sky City Casino in Auckland had the best idea when there was no non sense Anti-Smoking law. They had seprate gaming area for smokers and seprate for non-smokers. but if you use the same parallel that we both have used for the business that they would obviously put up non-smoking signs if they were losing business, you can always look at the disabled car parks in the same manner. A good business would provide one. All supermarkets do it because they want to cater for them as well.

Do whatever you want to do man.

Bung

6733 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2926

Subscriber

#141115 28-Jun-2008 21:30

manhinli: Saw that on Yahoo!Xtra today...

A government not practising what they preach.

A government or just some junior police demonstrating their usual degree of imagination?

Under the misleading headline "PM forces disabled man to walk" a Stuff article included

"A spokesman for Clark said she would seek an explanation from police over the incident.

"The Prime Minister was very shocked to hear about what happened. She had not been aware of the incident until The Press contacted her office.

"She will be seeking an explanation from police and also requesting that such a thing does not happen again," the spokesman said.

Canterbury police district commander Dave Cliff apologised."

ahmad

1937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 53
Inactive user

#141124 28-Jun-2008 22:58

billgates: Sky City Casino in Auckland had the best idea when there was no non sense Anti-Smoking law. They had seprate gaming area for smokers and seprate for non-smokers. but if you use the same parallel that we both have used for the business that they would obviously put up non-smoking signs if they were losing business, you can always look at the disabled car parks in the same manner. A good business would provide one. All supermarkets do it because they want to cater for them as well.

The best idea.......IF staff are allowed to choose whether they work in that area or not.

Which is why things like this get legislated for - people are made to work in such environments often under some kind of duress.

billgates

4706 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 672

Trusted

#141127 28-Jun-2008 23:24

ahmad:
billgates: Sky City Casino in Auckland had the best idea when there was no non sense Anti-Smoking law. They had seprate gaming area for smokers and seprate for non-smokers. but if you use the same parallel that we both have used for the business that they would obviously put up non-smoking signs if they were losing business, you can always look at the disabled car parks in the same manner. A good business would provide one. All supermarkets do it because they want to cater for them as well.

The best idea.......IF staff are allowed to choose whether they work in that area or not.

Which is why things like this get legislated for - people are made to work in such environments often under some kind of duress.

umm....no one was forced to work for them....leave anytime you wish to....bartenders in New York have worked for more than 40 years and few of them now are 75 years old never had any problem with smokers.

Do whatever you want to do man.

1 | 2 | 3