this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
360 points (92.7% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
35045 readers
3 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The relationship is "you can ride a motorcycle (or tricycle in this case) and also be disabled, thereby being eligible to park there."
No one is eligible to park there. That's the point of the stripes. There is a perfectly good space for disabled right next to where they parked if they have a placard/plate.
I'm not defending their park job-- it's bad-- I'm just describing the relationship to the other person's "disabled veteran with a Harley" story, which is what the person I was replying to asked about.
Parked in the handicapped space, there is room for two more vehicles with side ramps. Parked where he is, there is still room for two vehicles with side ramps (both using the other ramp space, one pulled in, one backed in) plus room for a vehicle without a side ramp.
Parked the way you want, there is room for 3 vehicles. Parked the way he did, there is room for at least 4.
The only way he is an asshole is if he doesn't have a handicap sticker.
There's a reason they didn't make it a spot, so vehicles with wheelchair ramps can actually function. Otherwise there's not enough room and they'll be trapped in their vehicle. So considerate.
Ok. Go look at the image again, and this time, stop and think about it.
You are driving a vehicle equipped with a ramp on the left side. You certainly can't pull into this space; your ramp will be blocked by the trike. But, you can still back in to the space, and use the ramp access on the opposite side.
The alternative is that he takes the whole space, and you don't have a handicap space accessible to you at all.
And you are telling me that it is preferable for him to simply take the entire space he is entitled to take, rather than leave enough room for you to park as well?
Are you serious right now?
How do you know they're "entitled" to a handicap spot? There's no proof anywhere that the driver is eligible for handicap parking.
There is no indication that he isn't. Trikes are often ridden by handicapped riders.
If he isn't entitled to a spot, that's another issue.
Actually there is indication that he isn't, since no handicap permit is visible. "Trikes often being ridden by handicap riders" is just anecdotal bullshit that has no bearing on this discussion, idk why you brought it up since it's literally impossible from this pic to tell if the driver has a handicap or not. Not that it matters since they're not parked in any spot whatsoever.
Not being able to see the placard is not an indication that one does not exist. It's just "anecdotal bullshit that has no bearing on this discussion".
I addressed the possibility of the rider not having a handicap placard very early in this discussion. You are not raising any new issue here. I clearly specified from the start that my argument rested on the assumption that he is permitted to park in handicap spaces.
Again, he is parked in such a way as to maximize the number of accessible spots. Parking the way that you and others have argued he should would result in fewer spots available for other handicap drivers.
Your argument is authoritarian; my argument is utilitarian. Your argument is "do it that way because some painted line said so"; my argument is "do it this way because it is functionally, objectively, and mathematically superior."
It's a motor vehicles parked where one is not allowed to be parked, what does disability have to do with any of this?
I think what you're getting at is "disabled or not, parking on the painted margin is prohibited," which is correct as far as I know, but I think most people would think about it differently if the driver was disabled.
e.g. Someone with difficulty walking wanted to exercise their permission to park there so that they could be closer to the entrance, but still wanted to leave a wide spot open so another disabled driver could potentially use it. Still wrong, but many people would perceive that differently.
Again, not defending the behavior (and the driver likely wasn't disabled, just a jerk)... But surely you see how their disability status is relevant in a scenario concerning a disabled parking spot?
No, it's not relevant at all. It's not a parking spot, handicap or otherwise. You just can't park there, no one can.
"Der, there are three spaces. How dare he park in such a way that 4 vehicles can fit in them?!?" -- you, probably.
I think you're using the word "relevant" in an overly restrictive way. It can be relevant but still not justify the park job.