Actually, re-reading this thread made me think of a situation where I parked in a church parking lot (not to use the church).
It was about 2 years ago, they were repaving the parking lot in my apartment complex. We were told by the landlord to use the church parking lot across the street. Now, I have no idea what kind of arrangement my landlord made with the church, but I will tell you this: I was very careful to park far away from the church entrance so as to cause as little inconvenience as possible to church-goers. In my mind, I was a guest in that parking lot and courtesy dictated that I should have as much respect as possible for the church-goers who were the primary users of that lot. This also applies during the week, because there are many reasons why people would want to access a church during that time.
As far as double parking goes, I suppose it’s a matter of personal values, but as I mentioned before, I don’t have a problem with it as long as the driver remains in the immediate vicinity, ready to move his or her car on a minute or two’s notice. Perhaps this is a function of the fact that I live in the NYC area, where double parking is very common. But it’s happened many many times, especially in Manhattan, that I’ve been blocked in. As long as the driver moves his car within a minute or two (which is what happens 90% of the time) it doesn’t bother me at all. Because the reality is that, in such situations, the trouble that is saved for the double-parker far outweighs the minor inconvenience that is imposed on the one who is blocked in for a minute or two.
If the roles were reversed, I wouldn’t have said anything at all. If I (or my fellow church-goers) parked in a bank parking lot on a Sunday, I would try to show some respect for bank customers.
**
Gah. I kept my car in view at all times, and the moment I saw that someone needed to get out, I shoved all my papers in my bag and hurried out. It took less than a minute.
**
Then call a freakin’ ambulance. Or take my car out of gear and push it out of the way. I’d be happy to assist.
I think the thing that must be remembered is this: Even if the church had permission from the bank to park there, (which we DO NOT know at this point) do you really think that the bank wanted the church goers to park in ALL the spaces? To block the ATM spaces too? I don’t think so.
I also concede that in places like NYC, double-parking mght not be so uncommon. Not to excuse it, but since I know that there are “regional differences”, I’m willing to concede that it might not be so frowned upon in some areas. I’m from L.A., no one seems to double park there (it’s a rare thing in my sight, anyway). Whenever I think of double-parking, I think of NYC. Just like taking a taxi on a semi-regular basis just to get around town—that’s not an LA thing, it’s a NYC thing in my mind. YMMV.
First, I’ll refrain from commenting much on the whole “double parking” issue as I see it as being, under the circumstances listed, as a minor thing in the pantheon of life. Just something to deal with if you encounter it. As long as it doesn’t last for hours and you don’t have an emergency. If that’s the case, one certainly has recourse available.
But, here’s my question on the point that seems to be missed thus far… why was it necessary for THIS woman to point out lucwarm’s behavior if it was already in the process of being corrected? I never understand why some people think it’s their duty to call out the problems they see in everyone or everything else. And as a representative of whatever church, her whole attitude reeks of condescension, smugness and one-up-manship. All contrary to being charitable, as one would have hoped for directly leaving a service.
Secondly, I don’t think lucwarm responded snarkily to her. I think I might have responded similarly if confronted by someone other than the person(s)’ cars I’d blocked. Add to that, with or without an agreement between church and bank, lucwarm had a legitimate reason to be there (read: for the property’s intended purposes) and this woman knew that, although she followed up her superior remarks by using the ATM herself. The whole way 'round, she seemed to be the one out of line, IMHO.
People like that lady are annoying, to say the very least. She probably points out the person in line with 13 items versus 12.
For what it’s worth, going to this bank during window hours is too inconvenient. See, I work in New York City; this bank is in New Jersey. On weekends, however, the bank is very convenient, being near the junction of the New Jersey turnpike and Route 3, which leads to the Lincoln Tunnel.
I agree with Brutus. There’s no excuse, barring an emergency, for double parking.
I will say, however, in luc’s defense, people in Hoboken double park all the time, especially on Washington Street. Maybe he’s just used to more relaxed restrictions when it comes to double parking.
I have to agree with Brutus and JuanitaTech. Double parking is exceptionally rude and there is no excuse for it, except a literal life and death emergency. I don’t see how the lady’s response matters; she could have handled it a little more logically, but double parking’s still rude.
If the parking lot’s full, park somewhere else and walk. Inconvenience yourself, not others.
Oh, puhleeze, the guy was going to the damn ATM, not a movie! He should drive all around creation to find a spot because he might block someone in for all of 1 minute? I’m as much a parking nazi as the next guy (I HATE the people who park in the fire lane, hate! hate! hate!) but this is NOT a big deal at all. Especially since this was a parking lot and not a street, streets should not ever be blocked, parking lots aren’t quite as important. As long as you keep an eye on your car and move it post-haste, I don’t see the big deal.
BTW, the lady who’s car was “blocked” wasn’t even leaving! She was going to the ATM! He did not, at all, inconvenience her, not the slightest little bit. She did not have to wait a single solitary second for him, so she was NOT inconvenienced.
Maybe there’s no on-street parking in that neighborhood. IMHO, the church-goers are in the wrong for taking all the spaces. What if someone who is physically unable to walk very far has to use that particular ATM?
Interestingly, all the street parking in the area was taken too. Of course it’s true that I could have circled around for a while and eventually found something. So it’s true that I was potentially inconveniencing other people for the sake of my own convenience. However, when you balance the inconveniences – a 100% chance of an extra 10 or 15 minutes for me, versus a 10% (at most) chance of a loss of a minute or two for someone else – I think it’s not unreasonable, especially where the persons I am potentially inconviencing are using resources that are primarily there for MY convenience, not theirs.
As I noted above, part of this is that I don’t really have a problem with double parking as long as the double-parker is available to move his or her car promptly. (And isn’t seriously impeding traffic).
So there are some people here who think that double parking is inexcusable except in life or death emergencies. I find this attitude surprising, but I suppose it’s a matter of personal (and regional) values.
Jeff hit it on the nose. Possesing phyisical handicapps, having to walk an extra block would seriously inconvinence me.
If these “christians” (and followed His teachings, instead of being hyppocrites) then there would be no cars parked in the ATM slots.
Not only that, but the lady’s comments were rude, and uncalled for.
IMO dbl-pkng is generally to be avoided, and done only for VERY brief times with the driver in the very near vicinity - preferably within view/sight. Even if the dbl-pker knows they are in the vicinity, the blocked in person doesn’t. It is a terrible feeling to see your car blocked in.
If you do it, you should be prepared for the possibility of a snarky comment or 2. Same as if you put your feet up on the train seats, or pile up your packages taking 2 seats instead of 1.
I probably would have responded to her initial comment with a sarcastic, “Thanks, glad you liked it.”
It is odd that the folk wanting to get out had nothing to say, while this passerby felt the need to correct what she perceived as a breach of societal norms.
I think this is a good example of bending the rules to make everybody happy. Bank customers shouldn’t mind that church ladies saturate the parking lots on Sundays, and church ladies shouldn’t mind that an inconvenienced bank customer might still need to go to the bank.
And this is beside the point, but the bank was most certainly NOT closed in the sense that their ATM service (for which lucwarm is a paying customer) is available 24×7. If the bank has given church ladies carte blanche to park in all availble bank spaces, then lucwarm has a legitimate bone to pick with his bank.
Back to the point. Reasonable people should not get a bug up their ass when the situation could just as easily be handled with a little (very little, in this case) patience & understanding. The church lady should have seen the big picture about how everybody gets a little inconvenienced on Sundays, not just the little selfish picture where only she gets inconvenienced.
