Journalist Attacks Chiltern For Providing *Too Many* Disabled parking spaces

[spongsdad]

As the husband of a severely disabled wife, I would first of all ask posters to refer from ad hominem attacks on Isabel Oakeshott or indeed anyone else. She just happens to be mistaken and perhaps she sent the tweet on a bad day. For a relative few, the provision of disabled spaces is absolutely crucial. In my own case we need a wider space as my wife exits and enters the car by means of a powered seat which is wound in and out. The provision of disabled spaces is a vexed one and it can clearly be frustrating to able bodied drivers to find a car park full (apart from disabled spaces, that is) Invariably, spaces for disabled motorists are more readily found where parking is monitored and properly controlled. This does not usually apply in supermarket car parks for example, where we usually discover that, despite all the disabled bays being occupied, there are very few disabled people in the store itself. In other words, lazy drivers can, and do, abuse the provision of disabled spaces. I am not familiar with this particular car park, living as I do in the North west of England. Nor do I have an answer to the particular problem here, if indeed it is a problem. I would just ask for a degree of forbearance from able bodied drivers for those who necessarily need to park as closely as possible to the facilities they wish to use.
I would add two further points. In my view the criteria for granting blue badge applications has become noticeably more lax meaning that quite a number of people have a badge when they don't really need one Secondly because, when my wife is with me we absolutely need a disabled space, I never, but never, use a blue badge when she isn't with me. Indeed it is locked in the deepest recesses of her handbag, which as all men know is an area which is strictly off limits

 

[Peter Mugridge]

In my view the criteria for granting blue badge applications has become noticeably more lax meaning that quite a number of people have a badge when they don't really need one

It may soon be wider still...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42763767

People with hidden disabilities such as dementia and autism could be given blue badge parking permits in England under new government proposals.

The Department for Transport said that only some councils currently recognised hidden disabilities.

It said the proposed new policy was designed to provide "clear and consistent" guidelines.

Mental health campaigners welcomed the proposals for providing a "lifeline" to many people with hidden disabilities.

It is hoped the proposals, being put to an eight-week consultation, would create parity in the treatment of physical and mental health.

If they go ahead, it will be the biggest change to the blue badge scheme since it was introduced in 1970.

 

[swt_passenger]

I believe the ratio in this particular car park is around 1:25 i.e. for every 100 standard spaces there are 4 disabled spaces. Which presumably reflects some sort of national rules/ guidelines.

Post 18 suggests well above your 4%.
But I’d estimated wrong, I thought there were only about 20 normal rows, and didn’t notice all the spaces round the edge

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Oxfordshire policy is for 6% in non-residential developments.

 

[The Ham]

As the husband of a severely disabled wife, I would first of all ask posters to refer from ad hominem attacks on Isabel Oakeshott or indeed anyone else. She just happens to be mistaken and perhaps she sent the tweet on a bad day. For a relative few, the provision of disabled spaces is absolutely crucial. In my own case we need a wider space as my wife exits and enters the car by means of a powered seat which is wound in and out. The provision of disabled spaces is a vexed one and it can clearly be frustrating to able bodied drivers to find a car park full (apart from disabled spaces, that is) Invariably, spaces for disabled motorists are more readily found where parking is monitored and properly controlled. This does not usually apply in supermarket car parks for example, where we usually discover that, despite all the disabled bays being occupied, there are very few disabled people in the store itself. In other words, lazy drivers can, and do, abuse the provision of disabled spaces. I am not familiar with this particular car park, living as I do in the North west of England. Nor do I have an answer to the particular problem here, if indeed it is a problem. I would just ask for a degree of forbearance from able bodied drivers for those who necessarily need to park as closely as possible to the facilities they wish to use.
I would add two further points. In my view the criteria for granting blue badge applications has become noticeably more lax meaning that quite a number of people have a badge when they don't really need one Secondly because, when my wife is with me we absolutely need a disabled space, I never, but never, use a blue badge when she isn't with me. Indeed it is locked in the deepest recesses of her handbag, which as all men know is an area which is strictly off limits

The misuse of supermarket spaces is rife, so much so that sometimes there's blue badge holders in parent and child spaces in our local supermarket (not sure if the do so deliberately or just due to lack of disabled spaces, but on the last occurrence the parent and child space being occupied was marginally closer than the two empty disabled bays, with no parent spaces available, I accept that this may not have been the case when the car parked. However the problem is that this can then lead to parents thinking "you park in our spaces, we'll park in yours".)

There's often calls for parent and child spaces to be located a little further from the store so that they aren't used by lazy people, as for those with small babies in car seats it's very hard getting them out in a normal space and the distance to the store is less of a problem, although would still need to be on/near a walkway for those with toddlers. Although those stores who say that those with a child up to 12 don't help matters as that's quite a lot of people, personally when it's just me and my 6 year old I would be inclined to just use general space, epically in car parks which are known to be busy.

 

[Ianno87]

The misuse of supermarket spaces is rife, so much so that sometimes there's blue badge holders in parent and child spaces in our local supermarket (not sure if the do so deliberately or just due to lack of disabled spaces, but on the last occurrence the parent and child space being occupied was marginally closer than the two empty disabled bays, with no parent spaces available, I accept that this may not have been the case when the car parked. However the problem is that this can then lead to parents thinking "you park in our spaces, we'll park in yours".)

There's often calls for parent and child spaces to be located a little further from the store so that they aren't used by lazy people, as for those with small babies in car seats it's very hard getting them out in a normal space and the distance to the store is less of a problem, although would still need to be on/near a walkway for those with toddlers. Although those stores who say that those with a child up to 12 don't help matters as that's quite a lot of people, personally when it's just me and my 6 year old I would be inclined to just use general space, epically in car parks which are known to be busy.

As a regular legitimite user of parent & child spaces, agree that putting them right at the store front is what triggers abuse of them.

I'm not fussed about being right by the entrance, don't see why its necessary. Just want a slightly wider space, a safe area to load/unload and a well segregated walk to the store entrance. If they are on a normal car park row, availability is much less of a problem.

 

[jimm]

The service has indeed gone to pot, with large numbers of delays and cancellations.

But people with mobility restrictions already have to drive to Parkway, due to the lengthy ramps with no lift following redoubling at the station in question, and the absence of either regular trains or disabled bays at other nearby stations.

There was never a chance that there were going to be lifts at Charlbury station - it's in an AONB. I can only imagine the uproar there would have been if something like the Axminster footbridge (built at much the same time) or the recently-installed one at Goring & Streatley had been proposed there - it would also have loomed over a Grade II listed Brunel station into the bargain.

And while mentioning Charlbury, it is probably worth pointing out that the number of disabled parking bays provided there when the car park was extended in 2012 was later reduced - because most of them weren't being used. In order to do this, the TOC has to monitor usage over a specified period, then seek consent.

There is a similar over-provision at Hanborough, but until GWR installs the new ticket office and staff are on site on a regular basis, they don't have the monitoring records to be able to change things there.

In the case of Oxford Parkway, I suspect a reduction may well happen at some point, even if it has to wait until after the first phase of East West Rail is running. Miss Oakeshott makes a fair point about the lack of vehicles parked in the disabled spaces - something that anyone who uses the station can observe whenever they go there, but she chose to obscure this by throwing in the silly stuff about political correctness.

That should not get us away from the basic fact that most of those disabled parking spaces have not seen a car since the day they were marked out and never will on current evidence. It would be perfectly reasonable to turn a number of the spaces furthest from the station building into normal parking bays - and I say that as someone with a relation who has a blue badge.

 

[Tio Terry]

The DfT have, along with the TOC's, provided their ruling on the provision of parking spaces at stations. This is also mandated by the Technical Standard for Interoperability for Persons with Reduced Mobility. If you Google Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations you will find it. Section C covers car parks and monitoring of usage of spaces.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's another possibility here of course, that the railway carpark has already got a pre-planned expansion permitted, and the proportion is good for further additions to the main area, without modifications.

 

[70014IronDuke]

.... I would first of all ask posters to refer from ad hominem attacks on Isabel Oakeshott or indeed anyone else.

I agree.

She just happens to be mistaken and perhaps she sent the tweet on a bad day ......

Totally disagree. She is supposed to be a professional journalist, isn't she? Therefore she should not reporting some sort of personal grievance due to having 'a bad day'. And as a professional journalist, she should think thrice about the time of day and if she might be seeing things at an abnormal time, not flinging it out unthinkingly to the public before checking.

All that may be ok for ordinary mortals, but not for her. No.

 

[Ianno87]

There's another possibility here of course, that the railway carpark has already got a pre-planned expansion permitted, and the proportion is good for further additions to the main area, without modifications.

See where you're coming from, but burning off white paint then applying some yellow paint is not exactly a huge expense in the grand scheme of things.

 

[goblinuser]

It may soon be wider still...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42763767

I thought the blue badge concept was about distances, hence why it applies only to physical impairment.

 

[spongsdad]

I thought the blue badge concept was about distances, hence why it applies only to physical impairment.

You are absolutely correct; that was the original concept. Indeed it was more particular even than that. Physical impairment meant an inability to walk more than a short distance. So, for example, you might need a prosthetic arm to drive but that would not of itself entitle you to a blue badge. On the other hand someone with a severe respiratory problem might well have an entitlement because of an impaired ability to walk.

 

[Senex]

You are absolutely correct; that was the original concept. Indeed it was more particular even than that. Physical impairment meant an inability to walk more than a short distance. So, for example, you might need a prosthetic arm to drive but that would not of itself entitle you to a blue badge. On the other hand someone with a severe respiratory problem might well have an entitlement because of an impaired ability to walk.

If I remember rightly, the criteria used to be very clearly set out. Yet where I live you can routinely see people who can walk significant distances or even actuall run using blue badges, others who use the badges for commuter parking by moving the car round a corner and later back every three hours, and even some cases where the able-bodied spouse is using the disabled partner’s badge without the latter being present.

 

[Antman]

Former East Lothian Courier, Edinburgh Evening News, Daily Record, Sunday Mirror, Evening Standard, The Sunday Times & Daily Mail journalist Isabel Oakeshott has attacked Chiltern for providing too many disabled spaces describing them as "a triumph of political correctness over common sense"

Utterly nasty piece of work. There must be about 800 "standard" spaces, so it's hardly an outrageous ratio.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-43128494

The only nastiness I see is the vitriol and bile directed at Isabel Oakeshott for expressing her opinion which I neither agree nor disagree with because I don't know the car park in question. My late father was wheelchair bound in his latter years and if he were here today I'm damn sure he wouldn't have been offended so I'm at a loss to understand why anybody else should be. A complete non story in my opinion.

 

[jimm]

I agree.

Totally disagree. She is supposed to be a professional journalist, isn't she? Therefore she should not reporting some sort of personal grievance due to having 'a bad day'. And as a professional journalist, she should think thrice about the time of day and if she might be seeing things at an abnormal time, not flinging it out unthinkingly to the public before checking.

All that may be ok for ordinary mortals, but not for her. No.

What do you mean reporting? It was an eight-word tweet - not an article in a newspaper or on a website.

She was not seeing anything abnormal, as anyone who actually uses this station will tell you. I use it on occasion and at any time of the day, week, month or year, that section of the car park is almost entirely devoid of parked vehicles, except for a handful left in the spaces closest to the station building - just as her photo shows.

 

[PeterC]

If I remember rightly, the criteria used to be very clearly set out. Yet where I live you can routinely see people who can walk significant distances or even actuall run using blue badges, others who use the badges for commuter parking by moving the car round a corner and later back every three hours, and even some cases where the able-bodied spouse is using the disabled partner’s badge without the latter being present.

I recall seeing a car with a blue badge parked on a yellow line opposite where I was working for well over the permitted time. The traffic warden (back when they were employed by the police) had noted the times and was about to issue a ticket when a man came running up. When questioned he insisted that he was entitled to use it the car belonged to his disabled father. He was told in no uncertain terms that not only would be be prosecuted but his father had committed an offence by permitting the badge to be misused as well.

On the other hand I regularly had to drive my late mother and legitimately parked in disabled bays or on a single yellow. However when the time came to return to the car she would sometimes be in pain and I would have to fetch the car, drive round to pick her up. Don't be too quick to judge if you see somebody running up to a car with a blue badge.

 

[AM9]

I recall seeing a car with a blue badge parked on a yellow line opposite where I was working for well over the permitted time. The traffic warden (back when they were employed by the police) had noted the times and was about to issue a ticket when a man came running up. When questioned he insisted that he was entitled to use it the car belonged to his disabled father. He was told in no uncertain terms that not only would be be prosecuted but his father had committed an offence by permitting the badge to be misused as well.

On the other hand I regularly had to drive my late mother and legitimately parked in disabled bays or on a single yellow. However when the time came to return to the car she would sometimes be in pain and I would have to fetch the car, drive round to pick her up. Don't be too quick to judge if you see somebody running up to a car with a blue badge.

If he is/was prosecuted, a court would expect the evidence to be presented and the circumstances to be declared (both under oath) and a judgement made pased on that declaration vs the evidence. The traffic warden was stating the reason why it was being referred to a court which he is entitled to do. PeterC isn't making a judgement, he is just recalling what happened at the scene.

 

[work-traveller]

My local West Midlands commuter station has a little over 160 parking spaces with a standard provision of blue badge spaces. About 18 months ago I completed an online franchise survey, in which I noted that the standard spaces are filled every week day with approximately a further 40-50 cars parked on nearby residential roads. At the same time the blue badge spaces are (anecdotally) no more than 50% utilised at any time.
I therefore suggested that they contribute to relieving the daily parking problems by reassigning a modest number of blue badge spaces to a larger number of standard spaces.
About 4 months, amongst other station improvements, the TOC did exactly what I suggested. The re-assigned spaces are now filled on a daily basis and the remaining blue badge spaces are still never full.
A reasonable approach is to install a standard proportion of blue badge spaces and then, based on observation, vary the number of spaces to fit the useage of the car park.

 

[tbtc]

The photo was misleadingly framed to make it look bad; there are 41 disabled spaces out of 815, so there are in fact 5% which is about right (and may even be a minimum standard?)

I'm surprised there have been almost fifty comments after yours, since it answers the point of the thread.

(though I take the point that potential future expansion of a car park may mean an apparent over-provision of "disabled" spots in the early years)

 

[gallafent]

And unfortunately, there are some who abuse the right to park on yellow lines by parking in the most stupid locations - e.g. at road junctions, making it difficult or dangerous for other road users.

Imdeed. Several blue-badge cars were parked on the double yellows on George Street in St. Alban's yesterday afternoon, near the junction with A5183 / Verulam Road, for example. As I was walking past, a lorry wishing to make the right turn into George Street from the A5183 was unable to do so (and wouldn't have been able to get down the road even if it had been able to make the turn). Not ideal. No idea if/how he was eventually able to get to his destination. Triple yellows, anyone? Some places have double reds, of course, which I assume even blue-badge holders aren't allowed to stop on, but are for rather a different purpose from just stopping (most) parking.

 

[The Ham]

Imdeed. Several blue-badge cars were parked on the double yellows on George Street in St. Alban's yesterday afternoon, near the junction with A5183 / Verulam Road, for example. As I was walking past, a lorry wishing to make the right turn into George Street from the A5183 was unable to do so (and wouldn't have been able to get down the road even if it had been able to make the turn). Not ideal. No idea if/how he was eventually able to get to his destination. Triple yellows, anyone? Some places have double reds, of course, which I assume even blue-badge holders aren't allowed to stop on, but are for rather a different purpose from just stopping (most) parking.

If there's loading restrictions (stripes on the kerbs) then blue badge holders can't park there.

There's some coastal towns where every junction is protected by loading restrictions for this very reason.

 

[Taunton]

I believe the ratio in this particular car park is around 1:25 i.e. for every 100 standard spaces there are 4 disabled spaces. Which presumably reflects some sort of national rules/ guidelines.

If you look at the Google Earth view of the car park I linked to in post #22, you will find there it shows 3 disabled and about 500 other cars in the car park. There are about 150 empty spaces as well. Someone can actually count them up if so inclined. This goes along with the journalist's photo. So in practice about 1% of the demand is for disabled parking. I would be pretty confident that all 3 are valid; in practice I find very little abuse of such spaces, which this photo bears out. But whatever the proportion is of licensed drivers who are blue badge, the proportion of demand, as here, is quite different.

Cutting back the 36 spaces to say 10 seems reasonable, especially as this releases some 40 additional standard spaces, which do not need the buffers. Just because national guidelines have led to considerable wastage at all times is no reason to stick to them.

 

[Tio Terry]

"Just because national guidelines have led to considerable wastage at all times is no reason to stick to them."

Please see post 38. The DfT guidance for Station Design makes reference to BS8300, this, in turn, say's what needs to be done in order to vary the usual provision of PRM parking spaces. All the procedures are there, all that's required is for the TOC(s) to apply them.

 

[The Ham]

"Just because national guidelines have led to considerable wastage at all times is no reason to stick to them."

Please see post 38. The DfT guidance for Station Design makes reference to BS8300, this, in turn, say's what needs to be done in order to vary the usual provision of PRM parking spaces. All the procedures are there, all that's required is for the TOC(s) to apply them.

Quite, as I said earlier it's better to provide too much and then reduce it than to try and provide more at a later date.

 

[Sebastian O]

The woman is an utter pig - her hateful opinions shouldn’t be picked up by anyone.

She rose to fame with her hatchet job of saying David Cameron had intercourse with a pigs head and clearly her standard of journalism hasn’t gotten any better.

 

[6Gman]

If you look at the Google Earth view of the car park I linked to in post #22, you will find there it shows 3 disabled and about 500 other cars in the car park. There are about 150 empty spaces as well. Someone can actually count them up if so inclined. This goes along with the journalist's photo. So in practice about 1% of the demand is for disabled parking. I would be pretty confident that all 3 are valid; in practice I find very little abuse of such spaces, which this photo bears out. But whatever the proportion is of licensed drivers who are blue badge, the proportion of demand, as here, is quite different.

Cutting back the 36 spaces to say 10 seems reasonable, especially as this releases some 40 additional standard spaces, which do not need the buffers. Just because national guidelines have led to considerable wastage at all times is no reason to stick to them.

I have no idea what level of provision is appropriate at that specific location, but would suggest that a single photograph taken at (obviously) one specific time may not be representative. A photograph taken at 0830 might show a different pattern from one taken at 1130; weekdays may be different from weekends. Start with a standard provision; review; then change if appropriate.

 

[MML]

I would have thought 18 disabled spaces in the first row would have been enough.
Second row could be switched to Premium Parking for those wishing to buy for reserved space for a season ticket holder.
Any regular disabled users could also reserve these assuming the spacing and yellow hatching was left unchanged.
The 5 spaces in the 3rd row could be returned to standard parking for 7 or maybe 8 cars.
And the whole of the 4th row which is currently for motorcycles could be transferred to standard parking with the motorcycle spaces using the cul-de-sac area bottom right.

 

[Taunton]

I have no idea what level of provision is appropriate at that specific location, but would suggest that a single photograph taken at (obviously) one specific time may not be representative. A photograph taken at 0830 might show a different pattern from one taken at 1130.

Well Google Earth sent their photo aircraft up either side of midday, to minimise the shadowing, at which time it's more likely that disabled travellers will have arrived than at 0830.

It's all a bit disappointing here, though sadly typical on this subject, that no matter how much practical evidence and experience is shown by those with professional knowledge of demand etc, and indeed also with personal experience of dealing with the less able in our population, there is always a cohort who poo-pooh any such information, and try and make them out as anti-disabled. See some of the posts above. Quite frankly, if/when I become less able as well, I would be somewhat embarrassed by such apologists supposedly speaking on my behalf.

 

[Antman]

The woman is an utter pig - her hateful opinions shouldn’t be picked up by anyone.

She rose to fame with her hatchet job of saying David Cameron had intercourse with a pigs head and clearly her standard of journalism hasn’t gotten any better.

Quite honestly you sound like the hateful one.

It was a tweet, nothing to do with journalism. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what she said but I'll most certainly defend her right to say it.