Word of warning to fitness addicts

bmaxi

Makes you wonder just how good an idea joining a fitness club is when you need to park in disabled bays. :mad:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13530473@N03/

foggy_lad

bmaxi wrote: »

Makes you wonder just how good an idea joining a fitness club is when you need to park in disabled bays. :mad:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13530473@N03/

"I swear I was bringing my dear old Ma shopping your honour, and she has one of them 'park anywhere for free' blue cards".

monument

Thread re-opened as I'm convinced the OP did check for blue sticker.

Hilly Bill

Still looks legally parked.

bmaxi

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Still looks legally parked.

Perhaps you could elaborate on that perception.

bigar

This picture show a car parked in a disabled zone and it has some advertisement for a gym on it. It does not show if the car is owned by a disabled or able person.

So what is your point exactly? If you work for a gym, you cannot be disabled? Was the car parked there illegally? When you join this gym they force/allow you to park in disabled parking spots?

What warning would this give to "fitness addicts"? This/A gym is so bad for you that you become disabled?

Hilly Bill

bmaxi wrote: »

Perhaps you could elaborate on that perception.

Whats to elaborate?

hardCopy

bmaxi wrote: »

Perhaps you could elaborate on that perception.

Do disabled stickers have any legal standing in a private car park?

bigar

hardCopy wrote: »

Do disabled stickers have any legal standing in a private car park?

Very good point and I would say "no".

It is mainly a service they want to provide and look sympathetic to the public; same reason they have those ridiculous family car spaces.

However, as it is a private car park and it is likely patrolled by a private company, they can clamp your car and force you to pay as you were parked "illegally".

I wonder what would happen if it would go to court.

Sponge25

He probably has a handicapped passenger. Man I got a mad brain block there and forget how to spell passenger. lol!

bigar

Sponge25 wrote: »

He probably has a handicapped passenger. Man I got a mad brain block there and forget how to spell passenger. lol!

Well, with the information provided we do not really know. The OP has still to reveal the reason for this thread. :rolleyes:

bmaxi

Firstly, the car did not display any disabled permit, I checked all round it before I took the picture. Secondly the disabled badge carries no privileges under road traffic law in a private car park, those privileges are extended by the people who control the car park and in some places will lead to the car being clamped. Thirdly, the fact I picked that particular car was my attempt at irony which has obviously sailed a couple of feet above a few heads, i.e. that somebody advertising the benefits of joining a fitness club could not walk the extra few feet from other vacant spaces but rather would force another, who possibly would find great difficulty in walking that distance, to do so. Just an example of selfishness, nothing more, the same as can be seen on streets all over the country. Disabled bays are placed where they are and are larger than other bays for a reason.

Hilly Bill

bmaxi wrote: »

Firstly, the car did not display any disabled permit, I checked all round it before I took the picture. Secondly the disabled badge carries no privileges under road traffic law in a private car park, those privileges are extended by the people who control the car park and in some places will lead to the car being clamped. Thirdly, the fact I picked that particular car was my attempt at irony which has obviously sailed a couple of feet above a few heads, i.e. that somebody advertising the benefits of joining a fitness club could not walk the extra few feet from other vacant spaces but rather would force another, who possibly would find great difficulty in walking that distance, to do so. Just an example of selfishness, nothing more, the same as can be seen on streets all over the country. Disabled bays are placed where they are and are larger than other bays for a reason.

There was at least one other disabled spot closer to the shop than that car. The car park looked empty. If there was a car waiting to use the space then i can understand you taking the pic but since there wasnt ........

Let me get this right, you saw a car parked in a disabled spot, you walked around it to check for the blue badge, you then got into your car to drive past the back of it to take the picture. Why didnt you then drive around the front and take a picture that would have backed up your argument?

StreetLight

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Why didnt you then drive around the front and take a picture that would have backed up your argument?

Maybe because a shot from the rear is the only one which can clearly show the disabled icon marked on the ground?

Hilly Bill

StreetLight wrote: »

Maybe because a shot from the rear is the only one which can clearly show the disabled icon marked on the ground?

Im not disputing if the car is parked in a disabled spot.

bmaxi

Hilly Bill wrote: »

There was at least one other disabled spot closer to the shop than that car. The car park looked empty. If there was a car waiting to use the space then i can understand you taking the pic but since there wasnt ........

Let me get this right, you saw a car parked in a disabled spot, you walked around it to check for the blue badge, you then got into your car to drive past the back of it to take the picture. Why didnt you then drive around the front and take a picture that would have backed up your argument?

It would appear that you are one of those upon whom the irony in the op is lost, further dissection of the op would render it moot.
On the substantive issue, if you can envisage any situation where it is acceptable for disabled bays to be occupied by anyone other than those for whom they were intended then clearly any further discussion with you on the subject is pointless.

Hilly Bill

bmaxi wrote: »

It would appear that you are one of those upon whom the irony in the op is lost, further dissection of the op would render it moot.
On the substantive issue, if you can envisage any situation where it is acceptable for disabled bays to be occupied by anyone other than those for whom they were intended then clearly any further discussion with you on the subject is pointless.

Where was the irony? Disabled people use gyms as well. The car park looks empty .spots closer to the shops available. You still havent provided evidence that the car didnt have the right to be there. What is the warning to fitness addicts? Dont park in a disabled spot !

LXFlyer

To be fair OP, until you stated that there was no blue badge in the car window, I thought the same as Hilly Bill.

There is nothing to say that disabled people don't use or work at gyms. It could have been quite conceivable that the car had been driven by a disabled person.

I do take on board your bona fides in saying there was no badge, and as such the car would have been parked in the wrong place.

However, without you making that clear statement regarding the lack of a badge, I'd actually say that my initial reaction was that prejudices regarding disabled people were coming out in by discounting that a disabled person could have been working at the gym.

You really ought to have made it clear that there was no badge visible anywhere in the first post.

Either way, if there was no badge, the driver is clearly in the wrong.

bmaxi

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Where was the irony? Disabled people use gyms as well. The car park looks empty .spots closer to the shops available. You still havent provided evidence that the car didnt have the right to be there. What is the warning to fitness addicts? Dont park in a disabled spot !

As I said, if irony has to be explained then you are just not getting it, I will however try.
The irony, as I see it, is that somebody who advocates others to become fit, considers himself so incapacitated that he needs to park in an area designated for those who are chronically unfit.
You'll just have to take my word that the car had no blue badge, I wouldn't have posted otherwise. If, hypothetically, I had posted pictures of all the other windows, would it be your opinion that he had a right to park there?

foggy_lad

bmaxi wrote: »

As I said, if irony has to be explained then you are just not getting it, I will however try.
The irony, as I see it, is that somebody who advocates others to become fit, considers himself so incapacitated that he needs to park in an area designated for those who are chronically unfit.
You'll just have to take my word that the car had no blue badge, I wouldn't have posted otherwise. If, hypothetically, I had posted pictures of all the other windows, would it be your opinion that he had a right to park there?

Oh ok so being disabled is not a disability now but just laziness?


Take a trip out to the car parks in the airport any day of the week and see the collection of large SUVs and other hugely expensive vehicles all displaying disabled parking cards, is there any checks done on the people parking in these spaces to ensure they are eligible to use these spaces?

LXFlyer

bmaxi wrote: »

As I said, if irony has to be explained then you are just not getting it, I will however try.
The irony, as I see it, is that somebody who advocates others to become fit, considers himself so incapacitated that he needs to park in an area designated for those who are chronically unfit.
You'll just have to take my word that the car had no blue badge, I wouldn't have posted otherwise. If, hypothetically, I had posted pictures of all the other windows, would it be your opinion that he had a right to park there?

Ignoring the lack of a blue badge for a moment and assume there was one, then I'm afraid I don't share your irony.

The driver could still be incapacitated and need to use a wheelchair and still work at a gym and drive that car. He would then be perfectly entitled to use that parking spot.

There is a significant difference between being fit and being disabled.

I think you should reflect on that, because frankly there seems to be some prejudices coming out on your part.

Peppa Pig

lxflyer wrote: »

the lack of a blue badge .....

.....He would then be perfectly entitled to use that parking spot.

The badge quite clearly states that to park in a disabled spot the car must have a valid badge clearly displayed with the date visible.

Not showing your badge means you cannot use a disabled spot. I got clamped in Liffey Valley for the date not being visible. The clamper was still there and I showed him the badge and proved I was allowed to park there.
I still had to pay the release fee.

bmaxi

lxflyer wrote: »

Ignoring the lack of a blue badge for a moment and assume there was one, then I'm afraid I don't share your irony.

The driver could still be incapacitated and need to use a wheelchair and still work at a gym and drive that car. He would then be perfectly entitled to use that parking spot.

There is a significant difference between being fit and being disabled.

I think you should reflect on that, because frankly there seems to be some prejudices coming out on your part.

Had there been a blue badge there would have been no basis for the thread. I don't know what prejudices you refer to . If you mean I may have a thing about people parking in disabled bays without entitlement, then you are absolutely right but if anything, the prejudices in this thread are mostly in the opposite direction.

bmaxi

foggy_lad wrote: »

Oh ok so being disabled is not a disability now but just laziness?


Take a trip out to the car parks in the airport any day of the week and see the collection of large SUVs and other hugely expensive vehicles all displaying disabled parking cards, is there any checks done on the people parking in these spaces to ensure they are eligible to use these spaces?

First of all, disability is no respecter of circumstances, indeed our last government had a disabled minister but I will agree there can be abuse of the system and this is a source of annoyance because only certifiably disabled people can qualify for a blue badge. It is to be assumed then that these abusers if abusers they are, have a disabled member of their family and really should show respect for other disabled people.

LXFlyer

Peppa Pig wrote: »

The badge quite clearly states that to park in a disabled spot the car must have a valid badge clearly displayed with the date visible.

Not showing your badge means you cannot use a disabled spot. I got clamped in Liffey Valley for the date not being visible. The clamper was still there and I showed him the badge and proved I was allowed to park there.
I still had to pay the release fee.

I clearly said:

Ignoring the lack of a blue badge for a moment and assume there was one

I fully understand that you cannot use it without a badge and totally agree with that.

I was suggesting that the OP was being rather prejudicial in suggesting that it was unlikely that a disabled person could have been driving that car.

LXFlyer

bmaxi wrote: »

Had there been a blue badge there would have been no basis for the thread. I don't know what prejudices you refer to . If you mean I may have a thing about people parking in disabled bays without entitlement, then you are absolutely right but if anything, the prejudices in this thread are mostly in the opposite direction.

First off you didn't make it clear about that badge at first.

What I was referring to was that initially it appeared to me that you saw the car in that space, with the advert for a gym on the back, and automatically assumed that the driver could not be disabled and made the post.

I'm saying that it is perfectly possible that disabled people DO work for the gym, and that the photo alone would not have been proof that the car was not being driven by a disabled person.

You subsequently confirmed that there was no blue badge in sight (which would say to me that of course it should not be parked there) - but you didn't say that from the outset.

My comment about prejudices refers to the apparent conclusion that disabled people don't work in/use gyms - which is not the case.

Iwannahurl

It's pretty clear what the OP is trying to say, imo.

Driver of SUV plastered with advertising for fitness centre is so lazy and so averse to walking that they park (evidently without a permit) in a disabled parking bay rather than a proper space slightly further away, which might result in their having to walk a few extra metres.

The irony is obvious, and if there was no blue badge on display then the offence is obvious too.

Reminds me of this popular pic:

bmaxi

lxflyer wrote: »

First off you didn't make it clear about that badge at first.

What I was referring to was that initially it appeared to me that you saw the car in that space, with the advert for a gym on the back, and automatically assumed that the driver could not be disabled and made the post.

I'm saying that it is perfectly possible that disabled people DO work for the gym, and that the photo alone would not have been proof that the car was not being driven by a disabled person.

You subsequently confirmed that there was no blue badge in sight (which would say to me that of course it should not be parked there) - but you didn't say that from the outset.

My comment about prejudices refers to the apparent conclusion that disabled people don't work in/use gyms - which is not the case.

I admit that I didn't make it clear about the blue badge at the outset and that was an oversight on my part which I subsequently corrected. I am the least likely person to have
prejudices against disabled people and I'm fully aware that they can have jobs in all sorts of places and possibly benefit from exercise within their capabilities. Not relevant to this instance IMO.

corktina

foggy_lad wrote: »

Oh ok so being disabled is not a disability now but just laziness?


Take a trip out to the car parks in the airport any day of the week and see the collection of large SUVs and other hugely expensive vehicles all displaying disabled parking cards, is there any checks done on the people parking in these spaces to ensure they are eligible to use these spaces?

disgraceful, it's not allowed to be rich and disabled.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

Oh ok so being disabled is not a disability now but just laziness?


Take a trip out to the car parks in the airport any day of the week and see the collection of large SUVs and other hugely expensive vehicles all displaying disabled parking cards, is there any checks done on the people parking in these spaces to ensure they are eligible to use these spaces?

So disabled people can't have SUVs or other hugely expensive vehicles ?

Seems to me it would be discriminatory to go out to the Airport or anywhere else and check peoples eligibility to a disabled sticker based on the type of vehicle they can afford to drive.

foggy_lad

Considering none of the vehicles were modified in any way it would appear a lot of people are taking advantage of the priority and often free parking allowed by the blue card but to use this parking permit the named disabled person must be carried in the vehicle or either being dropped off or collected. it gstrikes me as very unusual that all the disabled spaces in the airport are taken up with cars that are clearly not being driven by disabled persons.

the main condition for issue of a parking permit is that the person must be incapable of walking any distance unaided.
http://www.iwa.ie/services/motoring/disabled-parking-permit-scheme

The 2010 regulations state that a Disabled Parking Permit is granted to:

a person with a permanent condition or disability that severely restricts their ability to walk

This statutory definition is inclusive of a range of conditions which restrict mobility, for example lung and heart conditions.

bmaxi

foggy_lad wrote: »

Considering none of the vehicles were modified in any way it would appear a lot of people are taking advantage of the priority and often free parking allowed by the blue card but to use this parking permit the named disabled person must be carried in the vehicle or either being dropped off or collected. it gstrikes me as very unusual that all the disabled spaces in the airport are taken up with cars that are clearly not being driven by disabled persons.

the main condition for issue of a parking permit is that the person must be incapable of walking any distance unaided.
http://www.iwa.ie/services/motoring/disabled-parking-permit-scheme

I think you are being a little too cynical here. It's not a condition of qualification for a blue badge that a car needs to be modified in any way and often, people who have had brain damaged children for instance, will have been awarded considerable damages by the courts to care for the child during it's lifetime. Those people will tend to buy people carriers and SUVs for the sheer space and convenience of moving all the necessary equipment and mobility aids around, so while BMWs and SUVs may be responsible for a lot of breaches of the RTA, owning one does not make you immune to the misfortune of disability.
In my experience, it's the drivers of those SUVs and other cars and have no blue badge yet still park in disabled bays, bus stops, loading bays etc. who are the real problem.

bigar

bmaxi wrote: »

As I said, if irony has to be explained then you are just not getting it, I will however try.

Irony is a hard thing to get right. You unfortunately did not succeed with our initial post.

bmaxi

bigar wrote: »

Irony is a hard thing to get right. You unfortunately did not succeed with our initial post.

I would say that's subjective. That's the way with irony, some get it, some don't, better luck next time.

Hilly Bill

bmaxi wrote: »

As I said, if irony has to be explained then you are just not getting it, I will however try.
The irony, as I see it, is that somebody who advocates others to become fit, considers himself so incapacitated that he needs to park in an area designated for those who are chronically unfit.
You'll just have to take my word that the car had no blue badge, I wouldn't have posted otherwise. If, hypothetically, I had posted pictures of all the other windows, would it be your opinion that he had a right to park there?[/QUOTE]

Only if the pic showed the blue card on the dash. If you had posted an additional picture of a lack of the card on the dash then i would have agreed that the car shouldnt have parked there , but you didnt. From your pic the car looks legally parked, the ads on the back does not mean the driver is a fitness addict or able bodied or lazy so why did you try and imply that he or she was?

Hilly Bill

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's pretty clear what the OP is trying to say, imo.

Driver of SUV plastered with advertising for fitness centre is so lazy and so averse to walking that they park (evidently without a permit) in a disabled parking bay rather than a proper space slightly further away, which might result in their having to walk a few extra metres.

The irony is obvious, and if there was no blue badge on display then the offence is obvious too.

Reminds me of this popular pic:

Its the same in car parks of gyms, they will try and park as close to the front door as possible and then go and run or walk on the treadmills

LXFlyer

Hilly Bill wrote: »

bmaxi wrote: »

As I said, if irony has to be explained then you are just not getting it, I will however try.
The irony, as I see it, is that somebody who advocates others to become fit, considers himself so incapacitated that he needs to park in an area designated for those who are chronically unfit.
You'll just have to take my word that the car had no blue badge, I wouldn't have posted otherwise. If, hypothetically, I had posted pictures of all the other windows, would it be your opinion that he had a right to park there?[/QUOTE]

Only if the pic showed the blue card on the dash. If you had posted an additional picture of a lack of the card on the dash then i would have agreed that the car shouldnt have parked there , but you didnt. From your pic the car looks legally parked, the ads on the back does not mean the driver is a fitness addict or able bodied or lazy so why did you try and imply that he or she was?

To be fair - I think bmaxi has already accepted that he should have made the lack of a badge clear in the opening post and that he wasn't clear enough - I don't think flogging a dead horse is worthwhile at this stage.

Hilly Bill

foggy_lad wrote: »

Considering none of the vehicles were modified in any way it would appear a lot of people are taking advantage of the priority and often free parking allowed by the blue card but to use this parking permit the named disabled person must be carried in the vehicle or either being dropped off or collected. it gstrikes me as very unusual that all the disabled spaces in the airport are taken up with cars that are clearly not being driven by disabled persons.

the main condition for issue of a parking permit is that the person must be incapable of walking any distance unaided.
http://www.iwa.ie/services/motoring/disabled-parking-permit-scheme

How can you tell who is driving it if its parked and nobody in it?

Hilly Bill

lxflyer wrote: »

Hilly Bill wrote: »

To be fair - I think bmaxi has already accepted that he should have made the lack of a badge clear in the opening post and that he wasn't clear enough - I don't think flogging a dead horse is worthwhile at this stage.

Fair point but only replying to his post.

Peppa Pig

foggy_lad wrote: »

the main condition for issue of a parking permit is that the person must be incapable of walking any distance unaided.
http://www.iwa.ie/services/motoring/disabled-parking-permit-scheme

Don't know how you come to that conclusion. There are three conditions in that link
1. Primary Medical Cert holder
2. Registered blind
3. "a person with a permanent condition or disability that severely restricts their ability to walk"

Nothing about unaided - I have a badge and can walk unaided, just not very far without having to stop.

On the point of the airport I have noticed a lot of big new cars in the disabled spaces with no badges. Last time I had to get a normal space :mad:
However I have never seen anyone there park a car with a blue badge that looked like they didn't need it. Not saying it doesn't happen but it does not appear to be widespread.

hardCopy

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its the same in car parks of gyms, they will try and park as close to the front door as possible and then go and run or walk on the treadmills

Westwood Gym in Clontarf is the worst for this.

They have an overflow carpark about 150 metres from the front gate but people would rather queue in the bus lane to park in the main carpark. They end up blocking traffic and hogging the path and could be queuing for 15 minutes to get in. People do this even in dry weather.

bmaxi

Peppa Pig wrote: »

On the point of the airport I have noticed a lot of big new cars in the disabled spaces with no badges. Last time I had to get a normal space :mad:

And why do they do that? Because they can. Just like every other part of the RTA except motor tax and speeding and on occasion drink driving. No policing.
Most people will steer clear of bus lanes, clearways, loading bays, disabled bays etc.because they are inherently law abiding but also because, in the unlikely event they are caught and prosecuted, the penalty will have a significant effect on them. There is however, a certain section of our population who, whether by being well connected or just by having the brass neck and the means to shrug off any penalty as being 'one of those things", flaunt every rule in the book.

Peppa Pig

bmaxi wrote: »

And why do they do that? Because they can.

I contacted DAA through the intercom thing beside the pay station and told them what had happened. The clampers arrived a few minutes later, but I don't know if this would stop them in future.
There seemed to be a lot of well dressed gentlemen with golf clubs hurrying towards the terminal.

But as you say, it was probably worth it to pay the fine on their return rather than miss their pre-flight drinks in the corporate lounge.

Meanwhile my passenger (who also has walking difficulties) and I had to walk in the rain back to my car.

That's why it is irrelevant if there were other disabled spaces in the photo in the OP.

bmaxi

Peppa Pig wrote: »

But as you say, it was probably worth it to pay the fine on their return rather than miss their pre-flight drinks in the corporate lounge.

More likely submit it as an expense to the entertainment account, or maybe they were golfing with Padraig O'Riordain. :rolleyes:

bmaxi

Hilly Bill wrote: »

bmaxi wrote: »

As I said, if irony has to be explained then you are just not getting it, I will however try.
The irony, as I see it, is that somebody who advocates others to become fit, considers himself so incapacitated that he needs to park in an area designated for those who are chronically unfit.
You'll just have to take my word that the car had no blue badge, I wouldn't have posted otherwise. If, hypothetically, I had posted pictures of all the other windows, would it be your opinion that he had a right to park there?[/QUOTE]

Only if the pic showed the blue card on the dash. If you had posted an additional picture of a lack of the card on the dash then i would have agreed that the car shouldnt have parked there , but you didnt. From your pic the car looks legally parked, the ads on the back does not mean the driver is a fitness addict or able bodied or lazy so why did you try and imply that he or she was?

I've given my word, if that's not good enough then until somebody invents a time machine there is no remedy to the situation.

Iwannahurl

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its the same in car parks of gyms, they will try and park as close to the front door as possible and then go and run or walk on the treadmills

I know of someone who drives less than 1.5km to a running track, despite the fact that their workplace is connected to said track by roughly the same length of footpath. They are not alone...

Iwannahurl

Peppa Pig wrote: »

I contacted DAA through the intercom thing beside the pay station and told them what had happened. The clampers arrived a few minutes later, but I don't know if this would stop them in future.
There seemed to be a lot of well dressed gentlemen with golf clubs hurrying towards the terminal.

But as you say, it was probably worth it to pay the fine on their return rather than miss their pre-flight drinks in the corporate lounge.

Meanwhile my passenger (who also has walking difficulties) and I had to walk in the rain back to my car.

That's why it is irrelevant if there were other disabled spaces in the photo in the OP.

If you have enough money then paying a fine for illegal/obnoxious parking can be regarded as a fee for a service, in this case not having to waste time walking. Unfortunately, in most cases offenders are not caught.

In the case of illegal parking in Disabled parking spaces on public roads, Penalty Points would reduce such behaviour PDQ, but unfortunately that is problematic currently. In 2005, in a submission to the Dept of Transport, the National Disability Authority proposed that Penalty Points be applied to parking in disabled bays and on footpaths.

The proposal was vetoed by An Garda Siochana, I've been told. The problem (not insurmountable, imo) is that Local Authority parking wardens can only issue parking tickets, while AGS can issue both parking tickets and Penalty Points.

In the absence of effective enforcement, there is an astonishing -- indeed depressing -- lack of awareness regarding the effects on disabled people and their relatives/carers of abuse or under-provision of 'Blue Badge' spaces.

Non-availability of disabled parking bays in particular locations can result in significant delay for permit-holders, or even the cancellation of medical appointments, meetings, social engagements etc.

A crew of documentary-makers produced a video in Galway, in an attempt to raise awareness of the access difficulties faced by mobility-impaired people. It's called Welcome To Our World.

bmaxi

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If you have enough money then paying a fine for illegal/obnoxious parking can be regarded as a fee for a service, in this case not having to waste time walking. Unfortunately, in most cases offenders are not caught.

In the case of illegal parking in Disabled parking spaces on public roads, Penalty Points would reduce such behaviour PDQ, but unfortunately that is problematic currently. In 2005, in a submission to the Dept of Transport, the National Disability Authority proposed that Penalty Points be applied to parking in disabled bays and on footpaths.

The proposal was vetoed by An Garda Siochana, I've been told. The problem (not insurmountable, imo) is that Local Authority parking wardens can only issue parking tickets, while AGS can issue both parking tickets and Penalty Points.

In the absence of effective enforcement, there is an astonishing -- indeed depressing -- lack of awareness regarding the effects on disabled people and their relatives/carers of abuse or under-provision of 'Blue Badge' spaces.

Non-availability of disabled parking bays in particular locations can result in significant delay for permit-holders, or even the cancellation of medical appointments, meetings, social engagements etc.

A crew of documentary-makers produced a video in Galway, in an attempt to raise awareness of the access difficulties faced by mobility-impaired people. It's called Welcome To Our World.

It's not just the absence of effective enforcement it's the presence of disinterest in RTA enforcement by members of AGS. I've lost count of the times I've seen Gardaí ignore illegal and potentially life threatening situations. I don't know what their brief is when they sign on for their shift but upholding the law and attending to the needs of the general public seems to be far down the list of priorities, much like their political masters.

Iwannahurl

They have a magnificent get-out clause, called the power of discretion.

I heard a senior Garda describe that a while back as "their greatest power".

Effectively they are perfectly free to ignore cases of routine law-breaking. In my experience that means it can be very difficult to persuade AGS to deal with everyday problems such as obstruction of footpaths and Disabled parking bays. Additionally, you will see AGS vehicles parked in a similar fashion, most often on footpaths but also occasionally in Blue Badge spaces. There was a thread for that sort of thing in the Motors forum.

smellmepower

Tonne of paperwork involved for 'properly' dealing with the most trivial of matters,if Gardai spent their shifts enforcing parking laws and the like it would involve them sitting at a desk in the station for the majority of it.

Then people would be complaining about there not being enough Guards around when you need them or the usual ''having nothing better to be doing/should be out catching real criminals''etc.

Most regular non traffic corps Guards I know only enforce traffic stuff (besides drink driving) when the person they are dealing with is known to them as a bit of a scumbag.

bmaxi

smellmepower wrote: »

Tonne of paperwork involved for 'properly' dealing with the most trivial of matters,if Gardai spent their shifts enforcing parking laws and the like it would involve them sitting at a desk in the station for the majority of it.

Then people would be complaining about there not being enough Guards around when you need them or the usual ''having nothing better to be doing/should be out catching real criminals''etc.

Most regular non traffic corps Guards I know only enforce traffic stuff (besides drink driving) when the person they are dealing with is known to them as a bit of a scumbag.

Traffic Wardens issue parking tickets all day long, how much time do they spend sitting in the office doing paperwork. It's an on the spot fine.