×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In New Zealand, a System To Watch for Disabled Parking Violators

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the allocation-problems dept.

Transportation 551

cylonlover writes "What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? If you answered, 'It means I can park there as long as I'm going to be quick,' you're wrong — yet you're also far from alone. Every day in parking lots all over the world, non-disabled drivers regularly use spaces clearly reserved for the handicapped. They often get away with it, too, unless an attendant happens to check while their vehicle is parked there. Thanks to technology recently developed by New Zealand's Car Parking Technologies (CPT), however, those attendants could soon be notified the instant that a handicapped spot is improperly occupied."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

551 comments

P&T on handicapped parking (3, Interesting)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560462)

What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? If you answered, 'It means I can park there as long as I'm going to be quick,' you're wrong — yet you're also far from alone. Every day in parking lots all over the world, non-disabled drivers regularly use spaces clearly reserved for the handicapped.

Penn & Teller did a Bullshit! episode on handicapped parking [tubeplus.me] that's pretty interesting. As with all Bullshit! episodes, it's full of profanity, if that offends you.

One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560500)

What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? If you answered, 'It means I can park there as long as I'm going to be quick,' you're wrong — yet you're also far from alone. Every day in parking lots all over the world, non-disabled drivers regularly use spaces clearly reserved for the handicapped.

Penn & Teller did a Bullshit! episode on handicapped parking [tubeplus.me] that's pretty interesting. As with all Bullshit! episodes, it's full of profanity, if that offends you.

One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

Thinking about it...

Thinking about it...

Continuing to think about it...

Almost done thinking about it...

There. Done thinking about it. You're still a cunt for parking there if you aren't disabled. Walk the extra dozen or so feet, it might do you some good.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560558)

"How dare you use an empty parking spot, you cunt! The government says those spaces are for people who 'have trouble managing money' or 'have difficulty using a telephone!'"

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560656)

While I can't speak for what the OP thinks about disabled people in general, I think the point to take from this would be that we could legitimately get away with having far fewer handicapped parking spaces without impacting the ability of handicapped people to find a reserved space when they need one.

The legal specification of what percentage of handicapped spaces are required ought to be revisited to reflect reality.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (5, Interesting)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560774)

I would counter, as a handicapped person, that there are too few. While there may be empty reserved slots much of the time, the "subscription rate" is for the busy times. I have been to places during holidays and other usually busy times where the reserved spots are all legitimately used.

Then there are times I have returned to my car where some asshole, not content with illegitimately filling a handicap spot, parked in the slot marked for where my access ramp would extend out the side. No matter how many times I activated the hydraulic ramp it wouldn't clear the now-scratched-and -dented side of the asshole's car.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560934)

Perhaps a parking lot could have a number of spots that are reserved for handicap only during hour x through y(in addition to permanent spots). If an able bodied person parks their car is parked there they must remove it before the hour of x. It shouldn't be too confusing as there are already school zones with different speed limits during certain hours.

As for a-holes that park in the area reserved for an access ramp I don't think a lot could be done. Have parking stops in the way so a car can't pull in, or maybe wheel chair access ramp should be able to shoot flaming thermite out the side and onto the offending car.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (3, Insightful)

the simurgh (1327825) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560744)

i always assumed someday someone would get the intelligent idea of a making a small card and a parking meter type device which allows you to park in handicapped spot you could check the device and if the person used the card then it would say so. otherwise the device would display a message saying the driver was illegally parked. but then common sense doesn't seem to be in high supply and even though i drive an old clunker caddie i always park in the back that way i don't drive around for ten minutes trying to find a spot.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560768)

That goes for the cunts who use their relative's handicapped parking placard when they are driving their car and the person the placard was assigned too isn't in it. Yes, I've seen this a lot. It not only is illegal but makes people suspect that the handicapped are milking it.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (2, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560800)

You're still a cunt for parking there if you aren't disabled

GP did not say he or she has ever parked in one. Didn't even hint that it would ever be OK for a non-handicapped person to park there. Your knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive to his or her post is inappropriate.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (1, Flamebait)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560938)

Your knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive to his or her post is inappropriate.

You must be new here.

Strat

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (2, Funny)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560940)

There. Done thinking about it. You're still a cunt for parking there if you aren't disabled. Walk the extra dozen or so feet, it might do you some good.

I agree.

On the other, here in CA they give out the placards for obesity. If you are obese, you should be given a placard that forces you to park at the other end of the supermarket lot so you can get a whole 0.1 miles of walking in before buying 2 dozen bacon-wrapped-cupcakes.

So yeah, you are a cunt if you park in handicapped spots and deprive someone that legitimately needs it. On the other hand, you are a cunt if you neglect (or even just destroy) you entire body and then expect society to accommodate you in the consequences of your own decision making.

[ And no, I don't propose that I can tell the difference in all cases. Nor do I think we need to start policing people's lifestyle choices. I'm just expressing the pretty common feeling among the conscientious that we are subsidizing risks taken by everyone else -- it's as if everyone had to pitch in to fix property damage in car crashes without regard to whose fault the crash was. There are unavoidable crashes/illnesses and there are avoidable ones -- a fair society should pitch in for the former but not the latter. ]

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560510)

One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

Exactly how often do you notice full parking spots?

Heck, I might as well say that half of the parking spots in the nearby lot are empty, so they should just build something there.

Wait, no, that doesn't work.

But I've seen quite a few times where all the handicapped spaces were full, and sometimes that's fine, but sometimes not, with my mother's health, sometimes she feels up to the further walk, and sometimes not.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (0)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560566)

Out of curiosity, if your mother has difficulty walking, why isn't she using a wheelchair?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560594)

Troll, perhaps it's because she's trying to avoid letting her body slip any more than it has already. You know, the whole mantra of "you give up; you die."

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560606)

I'm not the AC you asked, but it seem to be human nature to not want to give in and submit to your disability.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (2)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560676)

I'm not the AC you asked, but it seem to be human nature to not want to give in and submit to your disability.

If only we'd add "inability to follow simple, easily understood instructions unassisted" and "unwillingness to first try Googling it" to the list of known disabilities...

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560678)

I did not specify her health status, but believe it or not, not every disability which qualifies for a handicapped tag necessitates or even encourages a wheelchair.

In her case, the disability is not constant, but somewhat variable. She has had multiple heart surgeries (most of which originated from rheumatic fever in her youth, but others from well, correcting mistakes such as a bad ICD wire), a broken knee (from water spilled at her job.).

Some days she feels more exhausted than others. Some days her knee bothers her more than others. What to do, what to do?

One of the things I do when driving her is use the handicapped spaces, if she says she feels tired that day. I have no problem with this, as she clearly merits the tag. I may also bring her a shopping cart which she uses over a cane or a wheelchair or scooter. And she really hated it when Wal-Mart took out their benches for a brief period, and is quite happy they brought them back.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (5, Interesting)

the Dragonweaver (460267) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560748)

A number of people who are disabled are not visibly disabled. For example, my husband's niece suffered from life-threatening asthma as a child—and by that, I mean there was a point when her immune system collapsed due to the drugs they had her on to keep her breathing. There was no outward sign that she couldn't walk far, so people would give her family dirty looks for parking (legally) in the handicapped spots. But she couldn't walk the length of a parking lot.

Now, she was a child, so a wheelchair might have been worthwhile in a number of situations. But imagine an adult in the same situation. The effort of lifting a wheelchair out of a car would be beyond them, and the method of propulsion wouldn't be any easier than walking. So they'd be better off walking the short distance inside, where they could sit down and wait until they felt well enough to walk further.

And if someone thinks they'd be better off staying at home, you've never been in contact with someone with chronic illness. It's isolating enough without being trapped at home.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560810)

I check disabled/handicapped spots everywhere I go, all the time. I did a paper on HC spot occupancy rates in sixth grade, and have been near-reflexively checking ever since.

In the intervening ~20 years, I have NEVER seen a parking lot with >2 HC spots where all were occupied. I have, on countless occasions, seen 6-20 HC spots at major stores, all empty.

I'd be very interested in seeing a national survey/study in HC spot usage. I'd imagine we have between 2X and 4X more than needed. It'll never be done, though, since HC, like elderly, have a disproportionate voter per capita rate. Nobody in DC picks on the handicapped!

(Posted AC to avoid a similar karma effect)

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (2)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560916)

As a handicapped person, I see all the spots full quite often, particularly at peak times (dinner time at restaurants, holidays at stores, etc..)

I go to the local walmart 3 times a week, and they have dozens of spots, and nearly all of them (if not all of them) are full every time i go.

I would really have to question whether you really look all the time. Those of us that actually need the spots find them to usually be in insufficient numbers.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (2)

deniable (76198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560926)

Well, this tech should be able to do it. A side effect of monitoring the bays is that you get stats on usage.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (5, Insightful)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560550)

One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

That's not interesting. Not even the slightest bit. So we over-assign handicapped spots to try and make sure that when several truly handicapped people are at the store, they don't have to park at the back of the lot because we tried to cut the number of spots close so that some non-handicapped lard-asses didn't have to walk an extra 25 feet. Big deal.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560648)

Actually, where I live, handicapped people can sue under the ADA if a store has too few handicapped spots. Too few is relative. A store can have 10 handicapped spots in front, but if handicapped guy #11 tries to park and can't find a space, he can/will sue.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (3, Interesting)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560806)

Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

That's not interesting. Not even the slightest bit. So we over-assign handicapped spots to try and make sure that when several truly handicapped people are at the store...

I thoroughly believe that we should have spaces available for those who need it, as well as other appropriate accommodations. But I think the GP brings up a larger issue, which is when it gets to be too much -- when laws and attempts to accommodate are so important due to political correctness that they trump reason.

For example, I remember hearing a news story a year or two back about a guy who was going around some state (I think California) and suing any business that didn't follow rather restrictive and arbitrary laws about accommodations to the letter. He would just show up in a town, wander around, and a month later, half a dozen businesses would get threatened with a lawsuit. Often, because of space issues or building design issues or whatever, the businesses couldn't actually put in whatever random accommodation, so they would settle -- effectively paying shake-down money to this guy.

Is this common? I don't know. The news story mentioned one other lawyer accused of doing a similar scheme. But our collective sensitivity to the issue led to irrational laws that support such behavior.

Another personal anecdote: a few years back I was meeting up with some people to go on a short road trip outside of a building in an area with limited parking. We had three cars, one of which was parked in front of a fire hydrant too close to an intersection, one of which was parked in a loading/tow zone, and one parked in a handicapped spot. (There were two handicapped spots there, and the other was empty: in fact, these spots weren't convenient to any important buildings, so I'm not sure I had ever seen cars parked there.) All had flashers on, and we were only there for a couple minutes. It was obvious we were packing stuff in cars and were all there with the cars, and if two cars had suddenly shown up for the handicapped spots, we would have gladly moved.

A police car drives by. They stop and ask about the car in the spot. We explain the situation -- that we're loading up, there's another empty space, we'll be gone in a minute, etc. They don't care: we have to move. They say nothing about the two other cars parked illegally, including the one that was actually a traffic safety hazard.

So, we pull the car out of the space and also into an illegal parking spot too close to an intersection. That satisfies the police, and they drive away.

Again, I'm all for providing accommodations. But when law enforcement is happier with cars stopped in hazardous No Parking zones rather than take up one of two empty handicapped spaces that are never used anyway, something's a little amiss.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560828)

Why not make them all handicapped spaces then? Fuck everyone else as long as the 1 in 100,000 person isn't troubled. And if folks say "fuck it" when they can't find parking at your store and go somewhere else you can cry me a river.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560832)

Likewise, I'm happy to walk the extra distance knowing that people who actually need to park close are able to.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560552)

If the spots were always full, that would indicate that there are either just barely enough or not enough spaces.

Then again, where I live, there are often long stretches of road which have no cars. So I should drive however I want most of the time, because if I'm not weaving all over the place driving like a maniac, it's just wasted roadway. And most of the time a lot of the radio frequency isn't used, so it should be just fine if I run a pirate radio station using a junk-ass tuner that bleeds all over the place. And office buildings! They're empty at night, so it's ok if I jimmie the locks and go download porn all night. All that wasted bandwidth capability; it could be *used*!

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (1)

Prosthetic_Lips (971097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560968)

I see you are trolling, but you bring up a valid point in your first sentence.

"barely enough or not enough spaces" -- do you *want* the government to mandate *more* unused parking spaces?

But seriously, the time when I really notice all the spots being full (my wife has an on-off disability and has a disabled permit that we rarely use) is Sunday afternoon at popular restaurants. Yes, I live in the South, and many people leave church and go to a restaurant for lunch afterward. I wonder if some of these people only "get out" once a week, and take advantage of being out to go to a nice lunch.

I think the time when the spots are all full are during peak times. If you were to go an hour or two later, they would be mostly empty, just like the rest of the parking lot.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (3, Informative)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560664)

Friend of mine is in a wheelchair. Doesn't give a fuck about disabled parking spaces, parks anywhere, wheels along happily. This may contribute to the appearance of disabled parks being apparently empty.

He also finds it ironic, that there are disabled parks near supermarkets and department stores, fundamentally the kinds of stores where you'll be covering quite a distance moving around a large complex, there's not really much effort saved by having a disabled park close to the door.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560738)

Thats what gets to me. There are twice as many "Elderly persons" car parks outside my local super market than "Parents" car parks.
The elderly parks are mostly empty while the parents car parks are mostly full. The old people are still going to have to walk around the entire super market, so why can't they cross the carpark like other people? Parents however have little kids to manage who haven't spent the last 70 years of their life not being hit by a car and its safer to not have to cross the carpark.
Interestingly there are few disabled carparks. Probably 4 disabled, 6 parents, 10 elderly out of about 200 spaces.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (4, Interesting)

Mistlefoot (636417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560742)

As someone who provided care for a wheelchair bound gentleman "Gord" I have spent much thought on this.

Gord was greatly affected by temperature and his body was slow to warm or cool if he got cold. Parking close to a door to get him inside or outside quickly was very important for his comfort. A larger then normal size parking spot was also needed so that his life could be lowered and he could actually be helped out of the van.

How would your friend in the wheelchair be able to get back into his vehicle if someone parked too close to his door? He wouldn't. And as he would likely have hand activated driving controls it's not like he could just have someone move his car for him. So I don't believe your friend does this or is as confined to a wheelchair as you imply.
There are many disabled people who can walk or move in some fashion around a large "store" but still can't carry bags or push carts long distances.

When I would head into a store or bank or shop while working for Gord I would consider whether or not it were best to use a handicapped spot. Considerations would include:
1) How much time would Gord spend alone in the van (Gord was prone to seizures and had full time attendants as he could not be alone for long periods of time
2) How many free handicapped spots were free. Not much sense in "stealing" a normal spot, forcing a healthy person to use an even further away spot while 4 handicapped spots were empty. Conversely, there was not much sense in using the last (or only) handicapped spot if there was a normal spot available within a reasonable distance.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (2)

As_I_Please (471684) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560754)

It's not just about being closer to the building. Parking spaces for the disabled also tend to be wider to allow those with wheelchairs, crutches, and other aids to more easily exit their vehicle. If you can't find a space with an empty spot next to it, how is someone in a wheelchair supposed to get out of their car?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (3, Informative)

phantomlord (38815) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560778)

As I said on the Steve Jobs story a couple months ago, the biggest thing for me isn't so much where the spots are located as the simple fact that I need to make sure I have room to get a wheelchair between my vehicle and the one on my passenger side so I can transfer my disabled father into it. Handicapped spots are either wider or have markings between them to provide that room. If you think it's a pain in the ass when you come back to your car to find that someone has parked so close you can't open the door, try doing that with someone in a wheelchair. Worse, try do it in a busy parking lot (my dad's been sideswiped in his chair before despite the fact that he was wearing a bright red jacket.)

As someone that frequently parks in handicapped spots, my area (Western NY*) seems to have an amazing lack of them. It's often difficult to find open spots at grocery stores, doctors offices, etc. A few times a month, I'll end up deliberately parking at the far side of the parking lot precisely so I'll have room for the wheelchair because the closer spots are all taken. I try not to be that dick that parks in a way that takes up two spaces, though every now and then in lots or fields without markings, I'm forced to do that too because of the desire for some drivers to park touching the mirror of the car next to them.

* At one point, I think is was the American Fact Finder part of the census that listed this general area with a ridiculous amount of something like 37% of the population being classified as disabled. Granted, that's not all physical disabilities, but it stuck with me because the number seems so absurd. When it eclipses 50%, does being disabled become the norm with the super-abled being classified as the different ones?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (4, Insightful)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560844)

He also finds it ironic, that there are disabled parks near supermarkets and department stores, fundamentally the kinds of stores where you'll be covering quite a distance moving around a large complex, there's not really much effort saved by having a disabled park close to the door.

Many such stores have scooters once you get inside. However, distance to the building is only one factor. People in wheelchairs, people bent over walkers, and people moving slowly tend to be more difficult to spot and are more likely to be hit by someone backing out of a spot. Minimizing the number of cars they have to pass minimizes the chances of them getting hit. These same people (well, except the wheelchair-bound) are also more likely to fall and injure themselves on slippery pavement, so a shorter distance is safer there too. Some people's illnesses may make them more sensitive to heat and cold, so it's best to get them into the climate controlled environment as quickly as possible. I'm sure there are other reasons, too.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560888)

Your friend is annoyingly reasonable. Please ask him to sue someone ASAP.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (5, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560914)

You and your healthy wheelchair user friend are in error, on several accounts.
It's much harder to use a wheelchair outdoors than indoors. On plain floors, good chairs pretty much roll themselves. Outdoors, not so much.
My latest wheelchair had front wheels the size of (actually, they were) rollerblade wheels. Any outdoor rolling had to be done on the rear wheels only. Once indoor, though, I was as nimble as anyone else.

Then there are people who tire easily. You can take a break inside in the store. Not so much in the parking lot, between well-meaners and drivers who back up without seeing someone lower than their car. And if on crutches or just hard of walking, are you OK with them resting against em your car, setting off the alarm?

Risk of being run over is also a problem if you're just very slow due to your handicap. If it takes you ten minutes to walk to the front door, and you can't jump out of the way of cars that don't see you, it's by far safer to park up front.

Then you are also wrong in assuming that all the handicapped traverse the entire store. Many of them go to the service desk and get assistance, some because the store is too big for them to handle with their handicap, and some because they can't reach what's on the top three levels of the shelves anyhow.
In some cases, I went to the service counter because the stores had aisles and check-out spaces made for narrow shopping carts, and not modern wheelchairs with cambered wheels.
When I was on crutches, it was also pretty difficult. I could push a cart around in the store, but across a parking lot where the cart may take off due to gravity? No chance in hell. Would you rather I asked a clerk to help me get my groceries to the handicap parking right by the entrance, or spend 10 minutes walking with me across the parking lot?

Strange as it may sound, handicapped people are often just as insensitive as able bodied people, and sometimes even more so. Just because they have no problems traversing a big parking lot, they may think others who don't do so are lazy, without considering that they might not be as abled as them.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (4, Funny)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560734)

The other day I caught a handicapped person parking in one of OUR parking spaces, and I beat the shit out of him.

Just kidding. I've been unable to walk without difficulty (before my hip replacements), and those handicap spaces were a godsend. Stay out of them if you don't need them!

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (1)

hrvatska (790627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560762)

What I've noticed is that different types of establishments are more likely to have their handicapped spots utilized than others. The grocery store I frequent and the big box retailers like Target or Walmart are more likely to have people using their handicap spaces than a hardware store like Home Depot or Lowes. But even still, I do frequently notice people in the handicapped spaces at Home Depot and Lowes, so it's not like they're not used, just usually not filled. But just like the number of non-disabled spaces available are almost always more than enough, it seems reasonable that the number of disabled spaces should have some excess for the rare times when there's high demand. It doesn't bother me in the least that some people might have to walk an extra fifty feet to insure that a small number of spaces are available for the disabled.

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560950)

One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty.

They are empty by design. That way, when a handicapped person drives up he can find a place to park. They wouldn't be very useful to handicapped people if they were always full.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Just something to think about.

Wait, you think that the phenomenon of empty parking places for the handicapped is "something to think about"? Really? These are the things you think about?

Re:P&T on handicapped parking (3, Insightful)

skegg (666571) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560972)

As a healthy, able-bodied driver I have often noticed vacant spots that are designated for the disabled.

And I thank God that I am a healthy, able-bodied driver who doesn't need to use those spots. I don't mind walking the extra 50m, 100m, 200m, ...

For crying out loud, just:

1. imagine the mall / shopping centre didn't provide parking spots for another 50 metres
2. think of the extra walking distance as incidental exercise
3. consider how useful it is for someone who needs to use those spots
4. be thankful you don't need to use those spots

Steve Jobs (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560470)

Good thing Steve Jobs (infamous handicap parking spot taker) is gone before this could come to the states.

Re:Steve Jobs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560502)

Wouldn't matter - he was supposedly using a loophole in the law that allowed him to do it as long as he had no license plates - which he never did because he got a new car every 6 months.

Re:Steve Jobs (4, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560546)

Didn't that just stop him getting identified? They could still clamp his wheels.

A few anonymous calls to the police like "I saw some guys of middle eastern appearance get out of this car, unscrew the number plates, and drive off really fast in another car" would take care of the problem pretty quickly.

Re:Steve Jobs (2)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560760)

No, I remember hearing that what he did was technically legal. I think you (if you lived where Jobs lived) are allowed to have a car without a license plate within some grace period of first buying it.

Re:Steve Jobs (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560948)

Driving without the license plate was legal, parking in the handicap spot was not. Had I been in the area, I would have taken videos of Jobs parking and staying in the spot and sent them to the police and/or calling and reporting everytime the spot with illegaly filled. You don't need a license plate to be towed and good luck finding the car again after it's been removed. People who believe they're better than everyone else and act on those beliefs desevered to be bitchslapped every once in a while.

Re:Steve Jobs (5, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560596)

I don't know, the last couple years of his life, I think I could live with Steve getting a handicapped space. I've had a handicapped placard for over 10 years (after a major car accident.) I see people parking illegally all the time. Even when there is legal parking just a few spaces away. I'm lucky, I can walk a little ways (in spite of the severe pain.) There are many who are wheelchair bound who need the special large parking spaces to exit their vehicles. People who take those places because they are lazy or resent not those places not being used as often as regular space are arguing against showing the injured and handicapped special consideration in what amounts to one of the smallest possible ways. Its almost nothing to an able bodied person to walk a few yards more to a store entrance. For a number of handicapped people its the difference in being able to go to the store and not.

It wouldn't hurt the world to develop a miniscule amount of compassion and human dignity. Sadly our society as a whole has been remiss in instilling these qualities in our children today.

Re:Steve Jobs (5, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560772)

It wouldn't hurt the world to develop a miniscule amount of compassion and human dignity. Sadly our society as a whole has been remiss in instilling these qualities in our children today.

There are two major obstacles. 1) Most people want power, it is glorified, and neither for any noble reason. 2) The primary way power is expressed is by disrespecting, subjugating, or mistreating someone who is expected to have to take it. It's why so many politicians and executives are sociopaths.

The saner and healthier you are as a person, the less desire you have to manipulate and control people and activities which don't concern you and don't pose any sort of danger. That kind of self-importance doesn't appeal to people who have the human qualities you mention. It's just that living in this sort of hierarchical system, where most people are petty or psychotic, and witnessing all of the injustice will greatly test those qualities.

So we end up needing to write laws to try to force people to have certain behaviors instead of it happening in a natural kind of way that comes from an ability to consider someone other than yourself. I like the contrast Aristotle provided when he said, "I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." That's the humanized way. The other way is more like a machine executing programmed instructions.

Re:Steve Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560804)

It wouldn't hurt the world to develop a miniscule amount of compassion and human dignity.

Passing laws that force people to treat others a certain way and punish them if they don't is going to have the opposite effect you're looking for.

that will get you out of jail time for parking the (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560764)

Yes you can go to jail for people who abuse it what some who really needed that space but did not get do to jobs may of called the cops and at very least got it towed or maybe even have jobs go to jail.

Tired of coddling to disabled (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560482)

Yup. I said it. Mod me down because it violates your PC ethics.

But seriously, survival of the fittest. Those who cannot walk 50 feet should not be coddled. Half the time it is some overweight heifer who won't take care of herself. The other half it is just someone who survived to 70. But the bottom line is that I am a Darwinist and don't see why we make life easier for those who can't take care of themselves.

Either be in shape or be part of a family network that will take care of you. If you can't do either, then don't go shopping. Simple as that. Survival of the fittest got us where we are today. Quit fucking with evolution.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560504)

I hope you remember this next time you want to call the police. If you can't fend off armed robbers yourself then you deserve to die. Survival of the fittest.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560702)

If armed robbers invade my property, I'll eliminate the threat with my gun--unless politically correct assholes like you take gun rights away too.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled (2)

Vylen (800165) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560526)

Except, in some cases, people need the wide space offered by the disabled parking spot for things like crutches or wheelchairs or whatever. Sure you might be able to get a person out into a wheelchair in a normal (tight) spot, but thats clearly without risks and would obviously be really difficult.

So, disabled spaces aren't always about walking distance, but about space around the vehicle.

It's the same thing with "Parents with Prams" parking spots - unless you want to discriminate against them as well?

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled (-1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560622)

Businesses will offer spaces to the handicapped on their own because it's good for business. They don't need a government mandate or the installation of hidden sensors so the government can file tickets and collect another revenue source.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560674)

And non-handicapped people will still park there and render them useless. What's your point?

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560732)

I don't know why you assume it would be good for business. The cost to put in a handicapped ramp may not be justified by returns, especially if it would lead me to increase prices and my competitor didn't make the same choice. Plus which, early adopters invariably pay more. The law is basically society getting together and saying "we want this to happen, but we realize nobody is going to make the sacrifices unless we make sure everyone makes them together".

There are plenty of examples in game theory of agents acting independently in naked self-interest leading to pessimal outcomes for everyone. I don't know why it's so difficult for some people to wrap their heads around this idea. I don't have that big of a problem with greed and selfishness; I just have a problem with making it into a religion as a way of ameliorating cognitive dissonance.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled (2)

As_I_Please (471684) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560822)

Businesses will offer spaces to the handicapped on their own because it's good for business.

No, they won't. There aren't enough handicapped customers to justify--profit-wise--the reduced number of parking spaces due to the greater width and restrictions of handicapped spaces. When markets forces fail to produce a desired outcome (i.e., allowing the disabled to participate in commerce), legislation can (and sometimes does) correct the failure.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled (5, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560538)

Yup. I said it. Mod me down because it violates your PC ethics.

But seriously, survival of the fittest. Those who cannot walk 50 feet should not be coddled. Half the time it is some overweight heifer who won't take care of herself. The other half it is just someone who survived to 70. But the bottom line is that I am a Darwinist and don't see why we make life easier for those who can't take care of themselves.

Either be in shape or be part of a family network that will take care of you. If you can't do either, then don't go shopping. Simple as that. Survival of the fittest got us where we are today. Quit fucking with evolution.

On the one hand I admire your willingness to admit an opinion (or I would if you put your name to it) that I suspect a lot of able bodied people keep to themselves, but I bet you'd feel different if you or someone you cared about suddenly developed some disease that greatly reduced your mobility.

And even if Darwin was wanting to help evolution along, even he would be smart enough to know that letting a few arthritic 70 year olds die isn't going to make even the tiniest bit of difference to the process. If you want to help evolution along, maybe you should campaign for preventing people with inheritable diseases from passing those diseases on to their kids (either by genetic pre-testing or just stopping them having kids). The truth is that most disabled people aren't disabled because of some genetic trait, but because of some other unfortunate incident along the way.

So maybe keep your unfortunate prejudices to yourself or at least stop pretending that you have evolution on your side.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled (1, Troll)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560846)

While the OP incorrectly calls on Darwin to make his point, there is a subtle wider issue that is not getting the same attention.

What does it mean to be disabled?

This may just be my own prejudice creeping out but I have a .... acquaintance who gets government assistance because of her obesity. She also gets government assistance because she's a single mother, jobless, and whatnot, but best of all do you know what her 1 year old baby's favourite meal is? KFC Chicken Nuggets. But that's not my biggest gripe. My biggest gripe is that she also has a disabled parking permit and again gets another government check for a disease that some people think doesn't really exists and is all in the patients head [wikipedia.org]. Naturally doctors are reluctant to diagnose this "disease" and 10 different doctors told her she's as healthy as a grossly overweight person can get. Doctor 11 caved and now she gets to park her perfectly abled body in a disabled carpark and spend my tax dollars on more Macdonalds.

Another thing unrelated to disabled people, why do shopping centres reserve spots right next to disabled people for parents with prams? If a mother can spend 3 hours pushing a pram through the shopping centre she can spend the extra 1 minute pushing it to her car. In this country though the parents with prams reservation isn't legally enforceable.

The OP may have originally invoked Darwin in a way that offends, but as a society on the whole we are being coddled.

Fibromyalgia is real (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560932)

a disease that some people think doesn't really exists and is all in the patients head

I used to work with someone who had fibromyalgia. It cleared up once she switched from tap water to bottled water. Perhaps she was reacting adversely to one of the additives in the local city water.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560632)

You are not a "Darwinist" (whatever that means). You know nothing of his theories.

I say this as a reader of his work, and two trips to Galapagos (sure, tell me that means nothing - you've never been there).

You might as well have said "I am a Nazi, and don't see why we don't exterminate those who are weak."

Retard - hope you don't reproduce.

natural morality is not human morality (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560644)

the code by which animals live in the serengeti has nothing really to do with how or why human beings choose to order their societies

but i'll be sure to kneecap you next time i see you walking down the street and just steal your stuff. i'm not interested in doing that, but since you are broadcasting to everyone that you believe this is the way society should be ordered: pure darwinism, then i'm just conforming to your wishes about how you think you should be treated

and i look froward to your reply, in which you engage in hollywood fantasies about how well armed and prepared you are 24/7 to survive in such a world and how perfect you will be in deflecting my attack. because you are omniscient and omnipotent, apparently. seems to me that's an intellectual failure to understand your essential weaknesses as an individual human being

so, maybe your professed darwinistic ideology really is evolution playing out: the less intelligent among us choosing a mode of "morality" that ensures your life (not my life, i'm not abiding by your beliefs) is brutish, mean, and short: darwinistic. thus ensuring you won't pass on your genes. and i, choosing the way of human morality, and respecting the physically weaker amongst us, who still contribute to society, and playing by the simple rules of decency and respect, amongst others playing by the same code of decency and respect, together, we will survive and define society, and reproduce this code

because in the contest of survival in this world, a well coordinated group of physically weak and average intelligence homo sapiens, but respectful of each other and coordinating with each other, outcompetes the lone superstrong supersmart who do not work well in groups. enjoy your extinction, inferior homo sapiens. genetics is over. memetics is the new game. play catch up or die off

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560686)

Tell that to the disabled vet who got a leg blown off because he was fighting enemy troops after his comrade (they wanted his friend for a war trophy to behead.)

Please. Go ahead. Visit your local VFW and tell them that handicapped vets should fend for themselves. Maybe an ex-marine might set the parent poster straight.

Re:Tired of coddling to disabled (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560876)

You're probably young and healthy now. But I predict you're going to be the whiniest, most demanding, most self-entitled old geezer at the nursing home, and when you finally kick the bucket, the staff will throw a party.

not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occupied (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560520)

now with there was 1 common tag that was easy to get in all citys and was easy to use in rented cars then that's ok but to say some from a city with out a electronic tag is parking improperly is not a good idea. Why should some have to go out of there way just to visit a different city?

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560564)

You're jumping to conclusions. No electronic tag = attendant notified = attendant checks it out, a fine isn't automatically issued.

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560570)

now with there was 1 common tag that was easy to get in all citys and was easy to use in rented cars then that's ok but to say some from a city with out a electronic tag is parking improperly is not a good idea. Why should some have to go out of there way just to visit a different city?

It's a means to identify someone who may be parked there illegally. If the traffic cop comes by and see's a legitimate non-electronic tag i doubt he/she is going to write a ticket.

It's only going to become a problem in phase 2 when sharp spikes leap out of the ground and puncture the tyres of cars without an electronic tag.

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup (5, Funny)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560690)

It's only going to become a problem in phase 2 when sharp spikes leap out of the ground and puncture the tyres of cars without an electronic tag.

No need to go for the tyres, go for the feet. That way, you know they are now disabled, no need for a ticket.

Re:not haveing a electronic tag = improperly occup (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560788)

Traffic cop? you say that like you don't know New Zealand councils hire private companies to patrol the streets handing out tickets for commission.

Good for New Zealand! (2)

rts008 (812749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560540)

I hope this works, then goes global.

Re:Good for New Zealand! (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560586)

Did you know there was a drop in employment of the handicapped after the ADA was signed into law? This stuff doesn't work.

It's just another revenue source; the government wants to easily collect more $250 fines. Here's hoping it does not work and does not go global.

Re:Good for New Zealand! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560624)

Did you know there was a spike in people willing to say they had a disability after they could no longer be mistreated for having one without there being legal consequences?

Re:Good for New Zealand! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560636)

Did you know there was a drop in employment of the handicapped after the ADA was signed into law?

Cite? I wouldn't be surprised if it changed short-term as businesses were learning the ins and outs of the law, but I'm not aware of long-term statistics. For that matter it might be difficult to assess.

It's just another revenue source; the government wants to easily collect more $250 fines.

I have disabled family members and friends who have personally benefitted from the law in general, and from the presence of handicapped parking spaces specifically. You may do the cost/benefit analysis and not agree with it, that's fair, but it's not "just another revenue source".

Re:Good for New Zealand! (5, Informative)

capedgirardeau (531367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560798)

To say the employment of the handicapped declined after passage of the ADA is a great oversimplification.

For example there was a concomitant reclassification of non-disabled people as disable for a number of reasons, the major one being the cutting of welfare benefits which encouraged non-employable people to seek out disabled classification.

That made it look like there was a decrease in employment for employed handicapped folks but that actually turns out not to be the case. The level of employment for previously employed handicapped folks stayed the same or possible increased slightly.

As with most things it is not as simple as a half sentence talking point.

This 2002 follow up (PDF alert) to the MIT 2001 paper that made the claim in the first place, examines in greater detail what possibly occurred:
http://people.virginia.edu/~sns5r/microwkshp/EmpADA_3_02.pdf [virginia.edu]

Re:Good for New Zealand! (0)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560854)

Did you know there was a drop in employment of the handicapped after the ADA was signed into law?

[citation needed]

Re:Good for New Zealand! (3, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560824)

The simple answer is just to use fines. No really. Violations of this really aren't a huge problem for instance in Canada, they do happen but ask yourself. If you get caught, is a $5k first offence worth it? Is a $10k second offence worth it? That includes using fake, and placards that are not for the person. In most places that I've seen across the US, and other places the fines are pathetic. $100, 200, and so on.

Not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560588)

Not in the UK, anyway. An average-sized UK supermarket will have maybe 50 disabled spaces and 500-600 normal spaces. Despite many people parking in the disabled bays who are clearly not disabled, there are always disabled spaces available. Nobody ever gets busted in out-of-town locations.

So it seems that providing a large excess of disabled spaces is cheaper than enforcing the law. It's probably cheaper than this system, too.

And conversely... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560610)

It is absolutely ridiculous when handicapped patrons park in non-handicapped parking locations. I can't park in your spots so don't park in mine. Just do away with their crap; it won't kill anyone to hobble (or roll) an extra 30 feet.

Re:And conversely... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560680)

It is absolutely ridiculous when handicapped patrons park in non-handicapped parking locations. I can't park in your spots so don't park in mine. Just do away with their crap; it won't kill anyone to hobble (or roll) an extra 30 feet.

Handicapped spots should actually be farther away. We have to walk from our cars, those bloody cripples are on wheels and can just cruise up to the door!

Unnessesary and harmful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560630)

I hate it when stricter enforcement of rules is implemented without an actual reasoning behind it.
There are so many rules in our society that only make sense because they are not really enforced. Like the penalty for walking over a red light. Or handicapped parking violations.

It makes absolutely no sense to reserve the best parking spot all day long when most of the time nobody will park there anyway. Having it empty 90% of the time is a total waste. The only reason it works decently well now is that people don't follow the rules all the time so it doesn't get wasted all day long.

Let's also do it for people who park in fire lanes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560638)

The self-centered aholes that park in front of the store or bank because they're too lazy or inconsiderate to walk a little farther.

I'm more interested in combating fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560646)

Don't know what the situation is like in New Zealand but I know Ontario's handicap permit system is rife with fraudulently obtained or counterfeit permits.

Intrusiveness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560654)

And yet another grain of sand to add to the mountain of discontent that anal observation causes the public...

Technology used the right way is a tool; when abused, it causes strife and should be considered a weapon.

Revenue Raising, or a real need? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560684)

Revenue Raising.

I'd rather know the real impact - how many times a disabled person is inconvenienced by this. This may be as meaningful as "safety" (ha ha) cameras. What's worse, in Australia, the majority of revenue from speed cameras doesn't go to improving roads.

For the record, I have never parked in a handicapped space... however, I am sick of revenue raising thinly veiled as social conscience.

Oh yeah, if you're a police officer, and you're going to feed me shit about speed cameras making a difference, then f*** you in advance. Read the international studies dispelling the myth - there are plenty of them.

AC

The Slippery Slope (1)

hutsell (1228828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560712)

From the Summary:

What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? ...

The sign means you're unable to walk; requiring additional space to allow you to be able to access your wheel chair when you get in or out of your vehicle.

people in wheelchairs needs the bigger spaces to h (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560728)

people in wheelchairs needs the bigger spaces to have to room to get out of the car.

They don't need a tag (0)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560770)

From what I've seen, most people with handicap stickers park in a way that tells you they're handicapped. Usually they're at a sharp angle off of the parallel from the lines or they park really close to another car. Even when it's a little compact car in a space reserved for a van with 5 or 6 feet clearance on all sides, so you know it's not because they need the extra room. And then there's the people with handicapped stickers who just stay in their car in the spot while someone without any handicaps runs inside for them. People with the stickers who either shouldn't be driving or else shouldn't have the sticker in the first place are a bigger problem than people who steal a handicapped spot without having the sticker.

Fun anecdote. In college, I broke my leg and was in a wheelchair for three months. The officer (state school, so the campus cops were state troopers with all of the training and abilities that go with it) still wouldn't let me have a handicap sticker. He was fired less than a year later for stealing donuts from the local gas station.

These spaces suck! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560808)

The morbidly obese have even less distance to walk!

Easy Solution (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560814)

If they're parked in a handicapped spot and aren't really handicapped, just break their leg! There! Now they're handicapped and can park there! Problem solved!

Bear the burden before passing judement (5, Insightful)

inshreds (1813596) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560838)

Reading comments so far on this thread with people arguing about actual need for “walking disabled” parking spaces, I realize that this is just one of those topics you cannot possibly truly comprehend without being a disabled person. Sure, I understand that many parking spots may go unused and the there are of course those that abuse the system. However, there are also a large number of people, like me, that really need this kind of parking system. Nothing sucks more than trying to unload a 300 pound electric wheelchair when boxed in by two SUVs so close the doors cannot open. In addition, nothing sucks more than having to traipse across a large parking lot looking for a lost car when ever step you take puts you in excruciating pain. In fact, without this reserved parking system, I simply would not be able to go many places or partake in many activities. Even on a good day, it really is a confidence booster to know that if something goes wrong and I need to exit in a hurry that my car is right out front.

This walking disabled parking system, while maybe not perfect, is in place to serve those that actually need it. Thus, the bottom line is that while you may not understand or agree with enforcement actions such as those now being enacted in New Zealand, there are many people with a legitimate need that will indeed benefit from it.

You know what burns me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560880)

When a disabled guy parks in a standard space! Can we ticket them?

Now we need cameras in toilet stalls (4, Interesting)

grimsnaggle (1320777) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560886)

I propose cameras pointed in to toilet stalls with 24/7 monitoring to ensure that handicapped toilet stalls aren't abused by those able-bodied assholes. We'll also need to amend the building code to increase the total number of available stalls to ensure that the population is appropriately served.

I was on the building planning committee for a new building at Stanford. The bathrooms are comically large because of handicap access requirements. Despite consuming 800 square feet, there are only six total stalls. The same building also has two handicapped parking spots out front, out of four parking spots total.

Given that the population served is, on average, 22 years old and in excellent health, these measures seem inappropriate. Things would be completely different if this were a retirement home.

Not a smart solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560942)

The problem with this is that the harm done by parking in a disabled space is proportional to how long you are parked there. Under the old system, so was your probability of getting a fine. So a person parking in a disabled space for a short amount of time has a small chance of getting a fine, but is not doing much harm.

This system ignores this fact, and spends (probably) disproportionate resources on the people who do the least harm. Compare it with a system designed especially to catch people who cheated a few dollars on their tax.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...