Question...

I think you are confusing logic with emotion.
Emotionally is sounds really bad that some smart arse is stealing a disable
park from someone on life support who is going to die now that he has to
park around the corner. The facts of the matter don't quite match the
illusion.

 

Those people could park in the other disabled spots that were still
available. No problem.

 

Woah there Chief-o, this is getting a tad silly now.

Hammo

 

My point is that the offence is parking where not entitled. The implication
that the punishment should also include risking the life of a disabled
person is just stupid.

You jumped a long way from step 2 to step 3 here.Your first assumption is
that your little formula there is accepted standard of calculatiing risk.
The second is that there is any risk at all. The third is that even if there
was risk, even the highest amount of risk pales into comparison of actually
operating a vehicle on a public street which in itself is quite 'risky'. The
fourth is that even if we accept all of these assumptions, where is written
that that risk is mine or anyone else's other than the person themselves
responsibility.

There is simply no connection between an unavialable parking space and what
an individual chooses to do nextbecause of it. You can't say "oh that space
is taken, If I get runover by a bus today it that person's fault. That is a
weak argument.

 

Nope I think that sums his attitude up perfectly.

 

Far less sipid....?

 

People who comply with laws are selfish?!!?

 

UB is finding $384 to be very educational.

There are far worse things that can happen to people than being victims
of an armed robbery, but the armed robber will probably get 10 years in
prison.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

Ah, so if the spaces (there are 3 remember) are available on a regular
basis, then the council has also miscalculated and the situation is bad and
should be remedied. In effect all I have done is applied the remedy before
the council does.

 

No. It's not up to him, but if he's angling for SOME mediating
circumstances, then he COULD try arguing that - as far as he was
concerned - he couldn't see how that parking bay could POSSIBLY be used
by a disabled person. In other words, plead a little ignorance (even
though ignorance is not supposed to be a legal excuse).

---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
Before an accident, most city drivers say "****!", whereas most country drivers
say "Hang on to this stubby, mate, while I show you some awesome driving"
'81 Yamaha Virago (XV) 750H (work in progress)
'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

Perhaps they could just keep fining us for other stuff too. You might have
solved all the world's problems. Just keep fining everyone, that'll fix it.

 

Actually you don't have to be a disabled person to get a disabled sticker,
as other poster in this thread have noted.

 

Never mind a _little_ ignorance. He's planning to take it to court and
plead a whole lot of ignorance.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

If you hadn't noticed.. just about every criminal offence or
misdemeanour is punishable by a fine [and or some other punishment].
The intention is to hurt your wallet. $384 seems to be quite
appropriate in this case.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

....and to make your point you should keep parking there until they fix
it. Of course they won't know you're making a point if they're not
aware of your little protest. So you will have to advise them that you
are parking illegally on each occasion so that they take notice. Maybe
then, after you've amassed a few thousand dollars worth of unpaid fines,
I'd suggest 10 fines at a minimum - to make a point, you can have the
matter heard in court.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

Actually; the intention is to make sure you don't do it again!

 

I would love to be in the public gallery when he does, it would be a great
laugh.

Boxer

 

Yah, well I wasn't as seriously injured as some people.

Nice to see your "I couldn't give a shit about anyone else attitude is
holding up against all these caring influences..." *sigh*

G-S

 

Only if there are less of them than there are spots, that isn't the case in
most places where the unentitled public illegally take the spots.

G-S

 

No it logically follows if 1 is true.

It's a simplification *so you can understand it as I already pointed out*
*smiles*

The disabled representative groups believe so, so do most people I know.

That's a red herring, the amount of risk of operating the vehicle on a
public road isn't relevant to the 'risks under discusssion'.

Chain of responsibility applies. If you take a parking bay you are not
enitled to then you become part of that chain.

The connection is "if you take the space illegally then you change the
disabled persons options".

Really? So if you take the disabled space illegally and the disabled person
gets run over by a bus crossing the road from a 'abled' spot then you share
no respsponsibility for that happening... I disagree.

You are part of the chain of responsibility.


G-S