I’m not saying not to break laws. I’m saying, if you break them, be an adult and own up to the consequences. If you get a ticket or disapproval from a person walking by, that’s part of the consequences.
The OP didn’t get a ticket or anything else. Someone just voiced their disapproval for his disregard for handicapped parking. And he went online to bitch about it.
Maybe they have but what they haven’t done is come here and name-call the person who noticed the rule “bending”.
No you are not. You’ve spent this whole thread trying to excuse away the reason there should be consequences. Getting called on your law-breaking is a consequence you will never be willing to accept.
For the record I don’t think your a troll or the worst person in the world but you are a lazy, self-important prick.
BTW, the point you say the OP was addressing is also wrong. The woman who (politely or not) pointed out that you were parked in a handicapped spot was not in the wrong, you were for doing it.
Yes, he’s wrong. He’s admitted he’s wrong. As long as he did not prevent anyone from parking there, as he has said, it was ok to load/unload from there.
However, Eonwe, you shouldn’t have bitched about the lady bitching at you. She had a point, and we should all look out for other people.
Maybe you should have asked her to stand there for a second while you finished up, just in case someone handicapped came by looking to use the spot?
So given that you claim have done this same thing three times, it seems to me this is more of a problem of incompetent enforcement and poor record keeping, as the alleged authorities are very clear that their mercy towards you is a one time only thing.
One more handicapped person here. I think about half the people in St. Petersburg have handicap plates or tags; to secure a handicapped parking spot at my local Publix means one has to arrive in the parking lot at least a half-hour before the store opens. Otherwise, it’s a crap shoot. The OP may be assured I’d be pissed to find a handicapped spot occupied by someone loading or unloading a car. Really pissed, as a mater of fact. It’s hard enough to get through the day as a handicapped person without someone making matters worse. I’ll also add that compared to many of the truly handicapped people I see in that Publix, I don’t have all that serious a handicap. I have trouble walking with a cane; without one, I can’t walk more that maybe twenty feet. I see people everyday who can’t walk at all. Leave the damn handicapped spots for those that really need them; I can get along with my cane but plenty of people cannot.
This is a misunderstanding of the point I was trying to make. In fact, I specifically said that, though I have ethical issues with handicap spots, I still don’t park in them because it is only potentially hurting people, it’s not doing anything to correct the law.The point I was trying to make is that, in general, I don’t have issue with people who violate laws for ethical reasons, and if you had violated the law because of ethical concerns, I could be more sympathetic. That said, I’m hardpressed to think of an ethical argument for parking in a handicapped spot.
However, your argument doesn’t involve ethics at all, it’s comparing a guaranteed small convenience for you to against low chance of a high inconvenience to others. Like it or not, this is generally against the social contract, especially when it comes to traffic. You know that guy who drives on the shoulder to get past a few cars so he can make a turn at the next light? You know that guy who is stuck in traffic but stops in the middle of an intersection so know one can pull in front of him, but blocks anyone that may want to turn left? Both of those people are making the same sort of value judgment, assuming there’s a very small chance that someone might need that shoulder for a few car lengths or someone might need to make that turn, and yet almost everyone I know would consider that jerkish and selfish behavior.
In short, I think you’re free to make those judgments as you see fit, afterall tweaking those variables will tip it in one direction or the other for different people in different circumstances. Just be aware that often those sorts of choices are often going to be seen as selfish or thoughtless choices by most people, especially when the personal gain is relatively small, like carrying equipment another 10-20 feet, or the potential impact on others is relatively large.
And I agree that she was being a little obnoxious about it. I don’t think it’s anyone’s place to self-righteously call someone out for a relatively minor offense, especially when no one is currently being affected. However, I still don’t think there’s any room for complaint since you admitted consciously violating the law. Yeah, she’s essentially being the grown-up version of a tattler there, but the reason you’re not getting sympathy in this thread is that your offense is generally perceived as worse than tattling.
Either way, I also have trouble getting on your side on this because I don’t think that getting called out on your behavior is an unforeseeable consequence of your choice. Say, for instance, that I’m driving around with an inspection sticker on my car that’s just a few days expired, maybe because I usually do it earlier in the month to avoid the longer wait but was too busy and by the end of the month I passed so I could save myself a little bit of time a few days later. Then let’s say a cop pulls me over for it. Sure, I’d be upset that he’s wasting my time on a minor offense that’s not affecting anyone, but it was also a foreseeable consequence of that choice, so I really have no one to blame but myself.
In short, she may have been a jerk about it, but if her being a jerk about it bothers you that much, maybe it’s something you should take into consideration next time you’re face with this decision.
It’s well established case law. See Tacitus vs. Caesar.
I think I understand your point, but I think you’re conflating ways of communicating with the message (and the intentions of the messenger). I mean, I can, to an extent, see what you mean when you say you have higher tolerance and respect for a person treating you with respect. On the other hand, you could just as easily say that a person slinging invective is more likely to be honest in their emotions and response, as compared to a calm person who could calculate their words more.
But even then, the content and the style really aren’t the same thing. You can’t assume incorrectness of view based on inappropriate style; someone who addresses you politely is no more likely to be correct, or to address you honestly, than someone who addresses you impolitely. Nor, likewise, does handling yourself respectably lend respectableness to your actual actions, right or wrong.
I don’t consider it hypocritical. I think there’s a mismatch there in which assumptions are made so as to support your side - but for the same reasons, that’s not proof of anything. Possibly it just appears hypocritical.
I’ve done exactly what Eonwe did. I parked in a disability spot in order to unload sound equipment.
I actually side with him on that if conditions are right. But instead of being pissed that I was called on it I’ve apologized and explained to the random critic the following:
I have a partner standing by the vehicle, ready to move it to make it available to those who need it.
There are other, closer disability parking spots available.
We are most certainly being assholes but for safety sake we would rather our electrical equipment not get rained on before we plug it in. Hopefully we can create a situation where everybody gets what they need.
-We are going as fast as safely allows
Yes mam, we apologize. We will move this vehicle ASAP.
As a guy with a brother who is wheelchair bound I thank you for defending this parking spot.
Most buildings aren’t designed with the idea that somebody may have to lug a half of a ton of equipment and delicate instruments into the customer area and then remove the same later.
I’ve parked on sidewalks, gulleys, and even once drove up the circular pedestrian ramps at the KC Royals Baseball stadium in order to get my equipment to the customer area. Not always popular with the early arrivals but it really is the quickest, least intrusive way to load/unload.
I empathize with Eonwe’s need to improvise and sometimes take unpopular measures to complete his task. But to get all pissed off when called on it is just being a dick.
Overkill.
Well, in this instance, the consequence was that someone called you on it. Why are you being such a pissy little bitch about it?
Actually, no. The **ADA formula tops out at two percent of all available parking spots **are marked for the disabled in an average parking lot. Since about 20 percent of the US population self-identifies as being disabled (irrespective of whether they all qualify under the law for a disabled parking tag), a 10-1 ratio of disabled vs available parking spots doesn’t point to a glut of them. Just the opposite. In fact, some jurisdictions allow disabled parking tags to caregivers as well, so the ratio could be much higher.
You broke the law. Then you publicly gloat about breaking the law and continue to defend that gloating. It’s not about me “winning.” It’s not even about losing. It’s about you being an asshole, gloating about being an asshole and then somehow defending being an asshole is positive character trait.
Your continued attempts at defending the indefensible may be a classic sign of the backfire effect.
Handicapped spots are there to help the disabled access the building safely and easily, not to compensate them for an otherwise difficult life. The OP was clearly handicapped by the heavy equipment, which made it difficult to safely and easily access the building. He’s not hurting anyone else (probably). What’s the big deal?
Look, stpauler, if you want me to spell out my moral code, and my “Universal ethical principles,” I’ll happily do so. But first, let me fix some of your errors.
Perhaps you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not talking about low/no impact to me (punishment avoidance), but low/no impact on other people. I thought that was clear, but maybe it wasn’t.
First of all, it’s less a red herring than analogies to stealing and anecdotes of kids beating up invalid grandmothers.
I know that no one in this thread has mentioned speeding, but I feel that it is safe to assert that it is an almost universal activity for drivers. I think it’s a pretty good example of a place where law, public good, personal judgment, self-interest, and choice all come into play.
Second of all, this has never been about my entitlement to anything, except in the narrow minds of those who can’t frame this issue in any context other than, “evil person shows his evilosity by stealing parking spot from handicapped people!” I am entitled to nothing. I was pissed off that it rained on my day off, it doesn’t mean I thought I was entitled to it.
Look, to you and everyone else who want to make this a referendum on my moral capacity: believe it or not, law and public policy are not always the best guides for morality. I am quite confident in my moral grounding, so when I make choices about how to act, I do so with consideration for the people around me first, and the law of the land second. Most of the time, they’re in accord anyway.
So, you tell me. What is the moral guide one should use in my situation? Wherever anyone puts up a blue sign is off limits to anyone without a corresponding tag? 24/7? In all situations and circumstances? When no one else is around and you can be sure to be aware of anyone else’s arrival? Why?
Here’s a thought for you. What if there were no handicapped parking spaces? I’d be just as quick to jump and move for someone who needed to be near the building, regardless of lack of tags or markings on the asphalt. I don’t need the law to force me to be considerate of others, but on the other hand I have minimal qualms about making my life easier if it costs no one else anything, regardless of the law.
Yep, and I accepted it. Doesn’t mean I have to feel happy about it.
Look, did you read the thread? There was no guy in the wheel chair who couldn’t get out of his car. Had there been said man in wheel chair, there would have been multiple other convenient, roomy, handicap-designated and accessible places for him to park.
The problem is that you and others are making up hypothetical consequences out of whole cloth based on something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike the situation in the OP. The truth that you stubbornly refuse to see is that there are times and situations when using a handicapped parking space does not cause an issue for anybody, and furthermore, an observant and aware person can reasonably be expected to be able to make that judgment.
You’re right, for a few reasons. 
But yes, it was kind of reactionary of me.
Well, who knows, it might have been someone posting in THIS VERY THREAD!!!
Or not. But anyway, yeah, I did forget one of the cardinal rules of posting on the SDMB, which is that if you’re going to bitch about someone, make darned sure you didn’t do anything questionable also, or the thread will turn back on you like that.
[quote=PlainJain**
No you are not. You’ve spent this whole thread trying to excuse away the reason there should be consequences. Getting called on your law-breaking is a consequence you will never be willing to accept.
[/quote]
For different meanings of accept, I guess. A few folks (including yourself) have said that the woman was right for saying what she did, and I shouldn’t have gotten so worked up about it. I suppose I agree with them. I accept that consequence’ she was right, after all, so I shouldn’t have gotten so annoyed with her. What I do not accept are the imaginary consequences that most of this thread has been about.
I think I get your point, but when the invective is the message, how can one take it seriously, or respond to it? If someone wants to explain why I’m wrong (as some have done) then I’d be open to discussion about it. But, when the functional purpose of the text is just to call me a jerk, I don’t know that I owe that person’s opinion much consideration.
The OP is neither handicapped nor disabled. The spots are not there to help him. There are many fine shops and stores that would be happy to sell him a hand truck if he finds it too difficult to move his gear the additional 15 feet it would have taken him to park in a regular spot.
I was once told by a firefighter that, essentially, he was (when driving a fire truck responding to a fire) allowed to run right over cars illegally parked in the fire lane.
Accordingly, I think people with handicapped plates also should be issued a bulldozer blade or cowcatcher or something, so that in the event that the OP miscalculates the utilization of said spaces, they can simply push his car out of the way.
I see your point, but I feel like this situation is different from your examples in two critical ways:
Being that guy who stops in the intersection when the light changes is directly affecting the cross traffic. The guy waiting at the light now can’t go. until the blocker’s line of traffic starts to move again. In my situation there was no other person.
Both of your examples (though mainly the second) have potential to cause physical danger to other people. My situation did no such thing. The guy who rides the curb is a jerk because he created a very hazardous situation.
Which is why most of us of sound mind keep those decisions to ourselves, while castigating the same decisions as made by others.
And I agree that she was being a little obnoxious about it. I don’t think it’s anyone’s place to self-righteously call someone out for a relatively minor offense, especially when no one is currently being affected. However, I still don’t think there’s any room for complaint since you admitted consciously violating the law. Yeah, she’s essentially being the grown-up version of a tattler there, but the reason you’re not getting sympathy in this thread is that your offense is generally perceived as worse than tattling.
Either way, I also have trouble getting on your side on this because I don’t think that getting called out on your behavior is an unforeseeable consequence of your choice. Say, for instance, that I’m driving around with an inspection sticker on my car that’s just a few days expired, maybe because I usually do it earlier in the month to avoid the longer wait but was too busy and by the end of the month I passed so I could save myself a little bit of time a few days later. Then let’s say a cop pulls me over for it. Sure, I’d be upset that he’s wasting my time on a minor offense that’s not affecting anyone, but it was also a foreseeable consequence of that choice, so I really have no one to blame but myself.
In short, she may have been a jerk about it, but if her being a jerk about it bothers you that much, maybe it’s something you should take into consideration next time you’re face with this decision.
[/QUOTE]
If there’s one thing this thread has convinced me of, it’s looking for a decent hand truck.
We have lots and lots of angry teenagers that want to break and vandalize things. We also have lots of assholes who like to park illegally. I think the solution to both problems is pass a law stating we will not prosecute anyone for vandalizing an illegally parked vehicle. We’d have gangs of teenagers who might be otherwise being a nuisance bringing forth justice for the handicapped.