Driver In Stand-Off Over Parking In Disabled Bay.

[andy-hughes]

Was he right to make a stand?

Should the towing company have backed down?

What do you think? Media URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30591166
Description:

[mikey4444]

We had quite a long debate on this yesterday AH !

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/ChatterBank/Question1388656.html

My response to your two questions are no, and no !

[SlackAlice]

If you haven't got the money to pay the 'fine' then don't park in the wrong place. Disabled bays are there for a reason, not an excuse for a lazy inconsiderate driver.

If I was driving the tow lorry I would have taken car and him back to the secure storage and left him there over Christmas and still wanted payment.

[andy-hughes]

Thanks Mikey - missed that one!

[mushroom25]

to the letter of the law, the enforcing authority can only tow a car if it's causing an obstruction, or has been abandoned. since it was in a designated parking bay (albeit a disabled bay) the first doesn't apply; for a car to be abandoned it has to have been in place for 8 hours, thus at the time the car was loaded on to the tow truck, the second didn't apply either.

whatever you think of this guy for parking in a disabled bay, the answers to your specific questions are "yes" and "yes".

[ummmm]

SlackAlice...you wouldn't really.:-)

[youngmafbog]

The man is a c*ck. Disabled spaces are there for a reason.

[dannyk13]

Mushroom 25. Have to disagree with you regarding not causing an obstuction. He was obstructing a legitimate user from using that space.

[jno]

it was obstructing disabled people from parking, which is the purpose of the bay.

[SlackAlice]

ummmm

Probably not, I would have let him reverse his car off the lorry but would have charged him £270 to use the ramps.

[mushroom25]

dannyk, jno - you're correct of course.

but that wouldn't happen to be the legal definition of "causing an obstruction", which is all to do with not impeding the flow of traffic. he wasn't, so that criteria was inapplicable in this case.

[dave50]

There are far too many disabled spaces in car parks. I have yet to see anywhere near all of them being full in any car park I have been to, even when there were no spaces anywhere else. Same goes for baby and toddler spaces (by the way why are these spaces always near the door? If you have a child with you does that mean you have lost the ability to walk?)

[mushroom25]

//If you have a child with you does that mean you have lost the ability to walk?//

this was explained on last night's thread - it's to do with the vulnerability of small children and their exposure to this risk of accident.

[New Judge]

Poor things. Don't know how many of us older folk managed to survive.

[mushroom25]

not sure about you NJ, but when I was young there weren't any out of town stores with car parks the size of an international airport (I can remember Sainsbury's being a marble countered high street general store).

so for "us older folk" the risk now being mitigated by provision of mother & baby parking simply didn't exist.

[ummmm]

Older folk used the high street and there was hardly any cars back then :-)

[dannyk13]

Mushroom25. Obstruction is not always to do with traffic movement. You can cause an obstruction of pavements, entrances to premises Etc.

[mushroom25]

indeed danny. but isn't that also to do with impeding traffic, whether wheeled or footed?

[dannyk13]

Under Road Traffic Acts, yes, but we are talking about a private car park.

[mushroom25]

no we're not - this transgression took place on a side street in Birmingham city centre.

[dannyk13]

Then in that case he was guilty of obstruction.