Question...

There are disabled people who can ride solo's.


G-S

 

The_usual_300+ posts castigating anyone who complains about a speeding
fine, you mean?

Hardly. If anything, in the situation at hand, extenuating circumstances
are being very much taken into account. If UB wasn't being such an
obtuse dickhead, and his offence so stupefying (there's a sign; "Two
arms? Two legs? They all work? Then don't park here, numbnuts!"), I
seriously doubt he'd be getting anything like the hard time he is.

If he'd come on and bally-hooed about being done for doing 120 in a
suburban school zone on the Monday following a Friday announcement of an
impending police blitz on speeding in school zones, the response he
received would quite likely have been the same.

 

If you had brought a disbabled sticker that you weren't entitled to then
not only are you placing them at risk you are also breaking another law
by displaying that sticker... and that extra breaking of law justifies
what you are doing how exactly?

Lets keep it simple for you ok (since you seem to be having trouble
understanding).

1. There are X disabled parking spots and X+Y disabled users of those spots.

2. There are Z people also using them that aren't entitled to use them.

3. X/(X+Y)*100 is a better percentage of 'not at risk' disabled persons
than is X/(X+Y+Z)*100.

4. By contributing to Z you make the percentage of available disabled
parking spaces lower and increase the risk factor.

nb. There could in theory be a special case where Y is negative and
(Y+Z)<X but I haven't seen it because disabled parking spots aren't that
common.

Stealing money off a disabled person isn't a good analogy, a more
appropriate
analogy is assaulting a disabled person where the assult can cause a
more serious injury.

G-S

 

It's really simple... the offence is "taking a disabled persons spot
without being a disabled person" not "taking a disabled persons spot".

They are different when written down and different in action...


G-S

 

Easily and they have done so and part of that is the increased fines
you've
come across.

Speaking as someone who has to transport a disabled person around there
would
be enough if people without disabled stickers weren't using the ones
that exist.


G-S

 

I never said it was, I implied that an able person taking a disabled spot
made the situation worse.

No answer eh...

It's a total of risk concept, you are making the risk factor higher.G-S

 

I carried walking sticks and wore a knee brace for months and months
after a serious bike accident, and yes I was riding a solo. This was
over 20 years ago when disabled bike parking bays were unheard of, but
it would have made my life a shit load easier at the time...


G-S

 

Nah, I tend to listen to what the majority of the people who's opinions
I respect are saying then I make up my own mind.

The difference is that you haven't realised that you are off by yourself
on this one, and no one agrees with you... [1]


G-S

[1] Being part of a majority is no reason to be assured one is correct,
but being a minority of one in a large group I'd at least be wondering
if I wasn't wrong *unlike you*

 

Eh?!!? How could an innocent person be harmed by someone else not wearing
a sealtbelt?
(Could the body fly through the windscreen and hit them or something?)

 

A crutch in the crutch?

 

Make it $100,000 for all I care; I'll never have to pay it so it can only
ever help me.

 

****!

 

1 Could be somebody's mother (daughters get harmed when mothers die).
Are you sure there is no cost to the community from a person's permanent
disablement?

2 Notice I didn't say "innocent". Harm is harm, even if self-inflicted.

3 It may not be the driver who is not wearing one, but it is the
driver's responsibility and the driver gets fined.

 

Except you were NEVER entitled to park there!

 

So because you've got friends and aquaintances who are dickheads, that
makes it OK for you to be a dickhead?

I guess I should have seen that coming, it's about as well thought out
as the rest of your "logic" in this thread...

big

 

Yeah they'd have to provide a SECOND disabled parking spot.

I can't make any sense of your logic Stephen. How are the two offences
related?
If someone doesn't wear an seat-belt on a trip there's a very, very tiny
chance (1 in a million?) that they, themselves will suffer an injury.
If someone prevents a needy person from using a disabled spot there's a
much greater chance that (1 in 100?) someone who's health is already frail
will be hurt.
How can you use one to justify the magnitude of penalty for the other?
Smacking yourself in the head with a hammer is penalty free. Smacking
someone who doesn't want to be smacked with the same hammer is gonna' cost
you heaps. Doesn't that make sense to you?

 

They're not, you're right. I'm saying that if you look at POSSIBLE
consequences, not wearing a seat bealt is a hell of a lot more serious
than any parking offence, yet the parking offence draws a higher
penalty. THAT doesn't make sense.

How does the CHANCE relate to the penalty? If there's a bigger chance of
consequences the penalty should be higher? That's YOUR logic.

Yes, but that's not what I'm saying.

 

I only have one word for you bully
****.

 

I'll tell you what, how about I agree not to jump on usenet and whine
about it when I break the law and actually get caught for it, and you do
the same? Sound fair?

Yeah, and I hear whining on usenet is the best way to get laws we don't
like changed these days too... I dunno why the NSWMCC bothers with all
that lobbying they do, they'd be much more effective if they spent that
time making dickheads of themselves in here...

big

 

So you also park in "Emergency vehicle only", "Police only", "Doctor only"
and no-standing and clearways too do you?
Drive in Bus Lanes and Bicycle Lanes and the wrong way up one-way streets?
Why not; it's only the Govt of the day telling you it's wrong!
C'mon man; make a stand for what you believe in!