Turn on thread page Beta

Should disabled people be allowed to park on doube yellow lines? watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't think disabled people were allowed to park on double yellows. Hence the reason for about 50% of the car park near where I live being made into disabled spaces...and filled by not a single one.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Revenge Is Yellow
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spotty Dog)
    Revenge Is Yellow
    Haha those are awesome.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=River85]Well exactly. There a range of disabilities, with large variations amongst them. Some will affect the ability to drive (in which case the DVLA is alereted) but, in many cases, the ability isn't affected.

    A driver with a disability can be as capable as any other driver. Often more so. Drunk, untaxed and uninsured drivers are a danger.[/QUOTE]

    How are disabled drivers more capable than a normal driver? Disabled people aren't excluded from being drunk drivers (and I also don't agree that untaxed and uninsured drivers are intrinsically dangerous).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tom//)
    im not saying that, i was saying just because someone is old it doesnt or shouldnt entitle them to a badge just for that.

    your grandma shouldnt be driving if shes had 4 heart attacks to be honest, thats just completely selfish
    Agreed, people shouldn't get badges just for being over the age of 70 or whatever. But they don't - there are strict regulations on who can have one and who can't.

    As for the heart attacks, they have been minor ones that have only been detected using an ECG after the event. Selfishness does not come into it - she needs that car to get out, and she is not a danger (as certified by her doctor). My grandpa can no longer drive her around due to dementia and being semi-bedridden (and a host of other problems).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lell)
    (Original post by River85)
    Well exactly. There a range of disabilities, with large variations amongst them. Some will affect the ability to drive (in which case the DVLA is alereted) but, in many cases, the ability isn't affected.

    A driver with a disability can be as capable as any other driver. Often more so. Drunk, untaxed and uninsured drivers are a danger.
    How are disabled drivers more capable than a normal driver? Disabled people aren't excluded from being drunk drivers (and I also don't agree that untaxed and uninsured drivers are intrinsically dangerous).
    The phrase wasn't more capable, it was as capable. Which is true, they are as capable as any other driver on the road.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spotty Dog)
    The phrase wasn't more capable, it was as capable. Which is true, they are as capable as any other driver on the road.
    I highlight the fact the phrase after said 'often more so'. I especially question the 'often'.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lell)
    How are disabled drivers more capable than a normal driver? Disabled people aren't excluded from being drunk drivers (and I also don't agree that untaxed and uninsured drivers are intrinsically dangerous).
    People who are untaxed don't show much respect for the road, seeing as they're not paying for any of it. Also, seeing as you can't be taxed without insurance...
    Uninsured people may not be more of a danger (although they might not be insured because they've got no license, have been forbidden to drive, have medical conditions that interfere with their driving, or have high premiums due to accidents) but have you ever been hit by one?
    The phrase 'Up **** creek without a paddle' springs to mind... Seeing as they won't payout for your damages, and nor will your insurance company.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lell)
    I highlight the fact the phrase after said 'often more so'. I especially question the 'often'.
    I believe the "often more so" links into the drunk/uninsured drivers part, not drivers in general.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QuantumTheory)
    People who are untaxed don't show much respect for the road, seeing as they're not paying for any of it. Also, seeing as you can't be taxed without insurance...
    Uninsured people may not be more of a danger (although they might not be insured because they've got no license, have been forbidden to drive, have medical conditions that interfere with their driving, or have high premiums due to accidents) but have you ever been hit by one?
    The phrase 'Up S**t creek without a paddle' springs to mind... Seeing as they won't payout for your damages, and nor will your insurance company.
    Do you have evidence that they don't respect the road? If I forgot to tax my vehicle for a couple of days (which I wouldn't) I would not start driving like a maniac for instance.

    I wasn't saying that uninsured people aren't a danger I was just disputing that the poster seemed to imply that they were intrinsically a danger. Also I've never been hit by an uninsured driver but yes I know what a HUGE inconvenience it would be. I wasn't saying it was cool to drive uninsured at all!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lell)
    How are disabled drivers more capable than a normal driver? Disabled people aren't excluded from being drunk drivers (and I also don't agree that untaxed and uninsured drivers are intrinsically dangerous).
    I said that disabled drivers are, at least as capable as a non-disabled driver. I also think that many, but not all, drivers with disabilities may be more careful and considerate, especially if there disability or medical condition was the result of an accident. But even if you don't agree with this, I don't think you can disagree on my main point (they are as capable as a non-disabled driver).

    Also, untaxed and uninsured drivers are often a danger. First of all, if an uninsured driver is involved in an accident or injures someone they are in deep do-do. Also, if someone is untaxed/unisured they are far more likely to be at fault in other areas (driving under the influence, drug possession, wanted for not appearing in court on another charge....) Ask any traffic cop.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spotty Dog)
    I believe the "often more so" links into the drunk/uninsured drivers part, not drivers in general.
    'Often' implying that there are a lot of able bodied people driving around drunk etc...I would like to see some evidence of that! Disabled people can be drunk drivers as well!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lell)
    'Often' implying that there are a lot of able bodied people driving around drunk etc...I would like to see some evidence of that! Disabled people can be drunk drivers as well!
    No it doesn't. It implies that, on one-to-one correspondence, disabled drivers are more capable than drunk drivers.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lell)
    'Often' implying that there are a lot of able bodied people driving around drunk etc...I would like to see some evidence of that! Disabled people can be drunk drivers as well!
    I really think you're reading too much into it.

    To clarify: -

    Disabled drivers are as capable as any other "non-disabled" driver. They too need to meet all medicial conditions and to have proven themselves as competent drivers.

    In my opinion, a good number of drivers with disabilities may be more considerate or careful for the reason I gave above. This is just my opinion (I've developed through my subjective experience).

    Someone who isn't taxed or insured is not always an added danger but they are just more likely to be at fault in other serious areas.

    This just goes back to the earier point that the thought of disabled people (who have ment all requirements sent by the DVLA and DSA) driving a car is horryfying. I think the large amount of drunk/untaxed/unisnured/drugged drivers (whether disabled or not) is far more frightening. Like I said, you'll come across a handful of these drivers in just a short suburban or urban road journey.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm, but many disabled people could well be on painkillers, sometimes strong ones. For a lot of people, strong painkillers + more than a small amount of alcohol = zonked out. So won't be moving to get in a car. Even on mild painkillers long term you need to avoid alcohol at all costs, as it can affect you more than someone who isn't.

    Plus any disabled person knows how much it effects your life, so much more than someone who isn't or hasn't been around disabled a lot, and are going to be a lot more scared (in general) of having an accident and losing more mobility.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Erm....because they have a disability and therefore can't drive? As a result they are at an instant disadvantage and therefore have to rely on it? Using public transport at full fare can be very expenisve. Many people (but not all) who have disabilities are also on low incomes.

    I'd much rather be able to drive than have a disability and medical condition and have a bus pass. Hopefully, in the next year or two, I will be allowed to drive.

    Also, very few people with disabilities also have free train and ferry travel. Especially elsewhere in the UK.
    I'm afraid I take exception to this.

    I understand that there are many difficulties faced by people who have disabilities not allowing them to do certain things, that are often not their choice. However, you're assuming that there is some kind of expectation that people should be able to travel freely from one place to another. I understand wanting to make sure the rights of disabled and abled people are equal that's definitely a very impotant - but I feel that giving disabled people more rights than an able bodied person is wrong. If people without disabilities do not have their transport funded, then I see no particular reason why people with disabilities should.

    But please, I'd like to be proven wrong
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavyS)
    I'm afraid I take exception to this.

    I understand that there are many difficulties faced by people who have disabilities not allowing them to do certain things, that are often not their choice. However, you're assuming that there is some kind of expectation that people should be able to travel freely from one place to another. I understand wanting to make sure the rights of disabled and abled people are equal that's definitely a very impotant - but I feel that giving disabled people more rights than an able bodied person is wrong. If people without disabilities do not have their transport funded, then I see no particular reason why people with disabilities should.

    But please, I'd like to be proven wrong
    First of all, it's not every single person with a disability. It's usually only for those who can't drive due to medical reasons or may qualify by some other mean (eg. mobility component of DLA). So it's not the case that all people with a disability have free travel. A fair number don't.

    One of the reasons is that they are often limited to public transport and are forced to use it. It can be particularly expensive, especially on a low income (which a fair number of those with disabilities have). Someone who owns a car and is able to drive obviously must have the money and have that freedom and independence that many with disabilities don't.

    It's also a quality of life issue. Many people (the elderly and a good number of those with disabilities) have a poor quality of life and can feel isolated from society. Having free bus travel (from this year, free national travel) helps to get them out and into society and improve their quality of life.

    I should also remind you that it's not only people with disabilities who are entitled to concessionary travel. Pensioners (do you begrudge all pensioners), children, teenagers and students can all have heavily subsidised or free bus travel in most areas of the country.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavyS)
    I understand wanting to make sure the rights of disabled and abled people are equal that's definitely a very impotant - but I feel that giving disabled people more rights than an able bodied person is wrong. If people without disabilities do not have their transport funded, then I see no particular reason why people with disabilities should.

    But please, I'd like to be proven wrong
    How as a disabled person do I get more rights than you?:confused:

    Having travel funded helps me like me who will never be able to legally drive and it's impossible for me to go out safely by myself if I want to walk everywhere. (it would cost me loads of money if I wasn't entitled to free travel)

    The bue badge is there for a reason and as someone who has zero depth perception, poor balance and can't see that far, it's the sort of thing that would help me an awful lot.

    As for the original question - a lot of it does depend on the disability. If it's one of those that would require someone to be near a vehicle or hospital a lot, then yes they should be allowed to park on yellow lines.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i completely agree that it is hard for diabled people driving. but that doesnt mean they shouldnt have to follow the rules. Yellow lines are put there as it is DANGEROUS to park there. Disabled people are going to cause acidents this way.

    Councils should make an effort for more disabled parking spaces - and then change the law about them parking on double yellows
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    First of all, it's not every single person with a disability. It's usually only for those who can't drive due to medical reasons or may qualify by some other mean (eg. mobility component of DLA). So it's not the case that all people with a disability have free travel. A fair number don't.

    One of the reasons is that they are often limited to public transport and are forced to use it. It can be particularly expensive, especially on a low income (which a fair number of those with disabilities have). Someone who owns a car and is able to drive obviously must have the money and have that freedom and independence that many with disabilities don't.

    It's also a quality of life issue. Many people (the elderly and a good number of those with disabilities) have a poor quality of life and can feel isolated from society. Having free bus travel (from this year, free national travel) helps to get them out and into society and improve their quality of life.

    I should also remind you that it's not only people with disabilities who are entitled to concessionary travel. Pensioners (do you begrudge all pensioners), children, teenagers and students can all have heavily subsidised or free bus travel in most areas of the country.
    I question your point about the funding issue. You claim that it can be expensive for those with disabilities, but those with disabilities get allowance for exactly that reason. To quote the government's website on disability living allowance:



    Disability Living Allowance has two parts called 'components':

    * a care component - if you need help looking after yourself or supervision to keep you safe
    * a mobility component - if you can't walk or need help getting around

    Some people will be entitled to receive just one component; others may get both.

    The care component and mobility component are paid at different rates depending on how your disability affects you.

    To me, that is a pretty clear message - for those people who have difficulty in moving around, they get a budget. I realise that life can be particularly hard, especially if you have no particular means of earning an income and have specific (often expensive) necessities that they need to buy. But we don't give those with a lower income lower bus rates - not everything in the country is means tested - and, although I can't claim to know anything about amount of eligibility of the grant that I've brought up, it does seem to me that it exists for the reason of making these sort of things more practical for those who need it.

    And with regards to your last question, if I'm being totally honest, I do somewhat begrudge the level of subsidies on the bus service for elderly people, but that's another discussion for another time

    (Original post by Titch89)
    How as a disabled person do I get more rights than you?:confused:

    Having travel funded helps me like me who will never be able to legally drive and it's impossible for me to go out safely by myself if I want to walk everywhere. (it would cost me loads of money if I wasn't entitled to free travel)

    The bue badge is there for a reason and as someone who has zero depth perception, poor balance and can't see that far, it's the sort of thing that would help me an awful lot.
    Firstly, that post was the first I had heard about free public transport travel for those with disabilities, so obviously I come with a slightly blinkered view, but you have the right to have subsidised public transport, which is something I do not. I do not necessarily think that whether you have an additional right is under debate - what I am suggesting could be objectionable is the right that you have. Secondly, I do not object to the blue badge in the slightest. It is particularly worthwhile to have spaces nearer to buildings and with more access room. These are cases where the people with disabilities are not necessarily able to get 'special privileges' but help those people take advantage of the priveleges that a person without disabilities wouldn't necessarily be able to take advantage of.

    I understand that in your case that free (or at least heavily subsidised) public funding is a massive help to you. However, I do not drive. It's mostly a choice of mine, but, because of my particularly awful practical skills and hand-eye co-ordination I don't think even if I tried I would necessarily pass. However, you claim, quite rightly, that it helps you get from A to B cheaply. If I wanted to get from A to B, then I would have to pay (unless I was willing to walk what it is often a very long way.) My line of reasoning is that both of us have the same options open to us, and I don't see why your travel should be free, and mine not.

    Please note, however, that I'm not trying to turn this into a "You get it so I want it!" paddy, but my logic is that I don't see how a person having disabilities should lead to them having access to free travel, especially considering that I, having the same options, do not.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 11, 2008
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.