This is where the OP is the most wrong. It’s not just a matter of being guaranteed a spot. It’s a matter of being guaranteed a spot they can use. A spot with a striped zone for loading and unloading a wheelchair. A spot with a curbcut to get the wheelchair onto the sidewalk, or so a person with a walker or cane doesn’t have to step up. By getting rid of these spots, you’d effectively be making some of these businesses completely inaccessible to some handicapped people. It’s not about special treatment, it’s about giving them a chance to use the business the same as everyone else!
I used to think this way too, until someone on this board (frankly, I don’t recall who) pointed out that a person’s disability may very well include difficulty or inability to wait for a toilet.
I’m of the “Suck it up, use the regular facilities, and remember that there but for the grace of God go you” mentality.
It’s one thing to choose the regular stall when you have a choice. It’s quite another thing when 50% of the toilets (1 out of 2) in the ladies room are unused and there’s a line 20 people long going out the door, with nary a wheelchair in sight.
I don’t mean to be cruel or uncaring, but man, if you can’t wait for someone to finish peeing, how do you successfully leave your home in the first place? It’s completely unrealistic to think that you will always (or even frequently) be able to just rush into an empty bathroom at a moment’s notice.
To the OP, and all others that have some trouble understanding the issue, I’d suggest contacting a local handicapped organisation, and ask them respectfully if you can talk to their members, or accompany them on an excursion, or maybe even borrow a wheelchair for one day. That can do wonders for perspective, to see the many difficulties handicapped people face daily at every turn while “normal” people don’t have to waste even one thought on.
See my response to Omniscient. Clearance and ramps aren’t just “good points,” they’re the main point. Doing away with handicapped spots wouldn’t mean disabled people would have to “wait like everyone else,” it means there’d be businesses they’d no longer be able to patronize. All things being equal, no, a handicapped person probably doesn’t need a “special” spot, if both spots were close to the door and had adequate clearance around them. But have you ever honestly seen a business with a set-up like you describe? All things are not equal.
This is a sensitive subject for some of us, because these questions always seem to come across as “it’s an inconvenience to me to give you an equal opportunity to use this business.” It’s not fair to society that one or two parking spaces are reserved for handicapped parking?? Guess what I learned a long time ago: life isn’t fair.
I’d sure like to visit one of these cities where the handicapped spots are always open. I swear, this must be the “van is always on the corner” phenomenon. Only it’s the “van is never/always in the parking spot.” When an able-bodied person looks at a handicapped spot, they only remember the times it was empty, whereas the disabled person only remembers the times they had to wait, or unload the wheelchair in the middle of the traffic lane, or give up and go to another business.
In the case of the urban convenience store with only a few parking spaces and time limits to use them I can’t see that they’d really gain anything by not having one spot designated as handicapped parking. In that case, in order to give all their customers equal access, they would have to leave enough clearance around all the spaces, which would probably eliminate one space entirely. No net gain. Also, if one of those spaces is being used by someone who requires more time, just to get into and out of the car, that’s more time that somebody else can’t park there. Again, no net gain.
And about the gas stations? I don’t think the OP meant reserved pumps, although that’s the way I read it at first, too. I think he meant parking spaces. I’m guessing the thinking there was the same as about the convenience store. There is a very limited number of spaces, should one of them be permanently reserved, if that means it’s seldom used? Especially since most people don’t park for very long at the gas station, so noone would have to wait long for a space to be empty.
You’re being daft. Nowhere has anyone suggested doing away with handicapped accessible parking. Everyone agrees that they should have spots which have curc cuts and loading areas. Not an issue at all.
We’re suggesting that perhaps handicapped people shouldn’t be the only ones who get to use said spots. Make them mandatory everywhere, fine, but let everyone use them and make the handicapped person wait in line just like the rest of the world. Now, if we’re talking about places with long term parking issues, that’s fine. Make them time restricted spots where prolonged parking by able bodied people is disallowed, thats logical. If it’s a place with a legitimate surplus of parking like your average Wal-Mart, then make them handicapped only, no problem there either. Still, in just about every establishment I frequent parking is at a super-premium and the blanket, inflexible application of the law is a hardship, and that less draconian implementation of the spirit of the law would be better.
Do you actually spend a good part of each day “waiting in line” for a parking space? That is, inching along, burning gas, fuming because you can’t get a sufficiently convenient spot?
How sad.
As I mentioned before, making them wait isn’t the same thing as the rest of us waiting. They have to wait for a particular spot to open up, while we get to take the very next available spot. Assume a 10:1 ratio of spots and they’ll have to wait an average of 10x as long as the rest of us. Not to mention that handicapped spots, being closer to the store, are premium spots, and will be snapped up right away, even when regular spots are available.
Make them openly available and I guarantee that those spots will get taken even when the store isn’t busy. We’re by nature lazy and selfish, give us a big honking spot close to the store, we’ll take it. Imagine going to that 7-11 when there are only 3 cars in the lot, but you have to wait for 10 minutes anyway for the only usable spot to open up. Oh, and you can’t dash into the store to ask the guy to move it either, you have to just sit idly for them to finish shopping.
That’s not to say there are no improvements to be had, but making the spots a free for all is not the answer.
I don’t think you’re quite “getting it” Omniscient.
Say there are 6 parking spaces, only one of which is suitable for handicapped parking / access, and there are 10 cars waiting in line, the third of which has a handicapped person. All 6 parking spaces are full.
The first two cars need only wait for any of the available spaces to become free and in they go. The third car, at the front of the line, has to hope the handicapped space becomes free … if another space becomes free, what do they do? Just sit there and wait, and wait, and wait … holding up the rest of the line? Or go round and try again, and again, and again … 
Pretty much, yeah. They wait, just like a mini-van waits for a non-compact only spot.
Which is more practical, making that handicapped person, who’s probably one of 15,000 customers, wait longer for his special spot; or making those 15,000 people all wait because you reduced this busy store’s parking from 6 to 5? Seriously, think about that.
Yeah it sucks, I have empathy for the disabled person and when it’s practical they should be accommodated. In the example you cite, it’s simply not practical. I fully submit that there is no one-size fits all solution here, but the one we use currently isn’t very well thought out.
In my experience, in large cities, businesses rarely make parking accommodations for staff, unless they are high-ranking corporate officers. The rest of us have to pay for our own parking or use public transportation.
And vendors just double park on the street in front of the establishment while loading/unloading.
Last year I severely sprained my ankle - I stood up from a chair and my leg had “gone to sleep”. I rolled over my ankle as I fell down and mangled it pretty severely (it is still stuffed a year later). The next day it was a huge production for me to move any distance at all. Every step, even with support, required me to experiment with positioning my foot and distributing my body weight so that I could make one more step.
Before going to the medical centre I checked with the road authority that I would be able to use one of the handicapped spaces by the clinic door. They informed me that if I used a handicapped spot without a sticker I would no doubt be fined. I explained that by the time I left I could have a medical certificate. No go. So I drove to the medical centre, ruefully eyed the 4 empty handicapped spots, parked as close as possible and then spent 20 minutes walking about 50 yards to the door.
I can certainly understand that the handicapped deserve some consideration but there are several places I go to regularly that have many handicapped spaces though none are ever being used by the handicapped. And I often get a laugh at the shopping mall seeing people, with stickers but far more mobile than me, parking in handicapped spaces that I passed in my car to limp by on foot.
I agree with the OP – an empty handicap space in an otherwise packed parking lot appears to be a wasted resource. But T-Square is right – trying to craft a law that allows people to use their good judgement doesn’t work. What if the lot fills up, a non-handicapped person uses the handicapped space, then a handicapped person comes along?
I think, as a society, we can afford to set aside some space for people who might need it worse than I do. If a packed parking lot is the worst problem I have today, it’s a very good day.
You do realize we pay for our handicapped placards, right? The state does hand them out for free. It may not be a lot of money, but it’s more than you pay for those non-handicapped spots. If you open up the handicapped spots for everyone, then what’s the point of even getting the placard? If we have to wait like everyone else, hell, wait longer because we have to wait for that one spot to open while other cars come and go, then what’s the point? Pay for the “priviledge” of waiting longer for the only spot we can use. That’s not well thought out.
I meant, the state does NOT hand them out for free.
You pay for the placard itself and the administrative red tape of managing the department. You do not pay for those spots. The businesses pay for those parking spots and by extension we all pay for them in the higher markup on the products we sell. In our example business with only 6 parking spots, he may lose 10% or more of his business due to his 17% reduction in parking, that cost is reflected in a not insignificant mark-up on all the products he sells. The more congested the place the more burdening the price of those high-value parking spots.
Don’t kid yourself, that fee you pay for your placard is infinitesimal compared to the real world value of all those parking spots society eats the cost of.
Like I said, they are a good thing, but the should be implemented in a more equitable and financially responsible manner.
Well, I’ll gladly pay my share to ensure that handicapped parking spaces remain as they are.
Guess I’m lots richer than you are! Then why am I unhappy that Houston’s Metro fares are going up in December?
I see your point, but I don’t see how. I don’t see why in your mind a less-than-perfect solution means a better solution hasn’t been thought of, as opposed to that a better solution doesn’t exist.
The fact is that as a society we have decided that the disabled or handicapped are entitled to equal access to goods and services as the rest of us. So other than making sure every spot is a handicapped spot, how can we accomplish that without reserving spots for the handicapped? If a handicapped person has to wait 10 times as long for the one space he/she can use to open up, when everyone else in queue can just take the next space – any space – in 1/10 the time, how is that equal access? Instead, we marginally inconvenience the 10 people who would have used the handicapped space, in order to convenience the one person who simply cannot shop without it. It that “equitable”? Well, to whom? Are you talking about equitable from the POV of the able-bodied, who are denied the convenience of a nice big close spot, or are you talking about equitable from the POV of the disabled person, who wants to shop in the same shop as the able-bodied, with the same ease of access and in the same amount of time?
There obviously are trade-offs in terms of economics, especially from the POV of a shopkeeper who must keep a prime spot “reserved” for the use of maybe two or three customers in a given day. But we have as a society decided that is a burden we are willing to impose to make sure the two or three customers who need that space in order to shop there can have it. I don’t see how you can give the disabled the “special treatment” they undeniably need in order to function on par with the rest of us, and also argue that “special treatment” isn’t being offered – it is. And there are those who will always argue that “special treatment” is by definition always unfair. But if that’s the best we can do, it’s the best we can do, and the fact that the solution isn’t perfect doesn’t mean a better solution exists. In this case, it doesn’t.
I can’t believe people think that the ability to park speedily supercedes the freakin’ COURTESY of giving disabled people designated spots, much less the law requiring them. If you yourself happen to OWN a business and the handicapped spots in front of your business are causing you to lose revenue I’m sure you can talk to the city and/or local advocacy groups for the disabled, but saying that you think they shouldn’t exist because you’re concerned about a shop-owner’s income is really really hard to believe. Especially if you’re a patron of that establishment who’s had to wait for a parking spot - you obviously can’t be objective about it.
Unless the handicapped are driving Vipers. Then it’s okay to abuse them.
