4 ms·

I'm a placard holder and I think this article is full of horrible ideas. The fee, the weird limitations on metered parking use for people with particular disabi

I'm a placard holder and I think this article is full of horrible ideas. The fee, the weird limitations on metered parking use for people with particular disabilities or impairments, but most of all the way the article uncritically invites people to scrutinize placard holders and try to tell by looking at them if they are "really disabled" or not. With the existing laws, placards must be renewed every 2 years. If the DMV is issuing renewals to dead people as the article claims, that seems fixable without screwing the rest of us over.

turc1656 9y ago
Most of the suggestions I found to make sense and be very reasonable. The issue raised is reminiscent of how the number of people on disability dramatically rose during the financial crisis. And that's the sort of thing that's actually much worse because it's incredibly costly to society. But it's not just that one time period. As this link shows (http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/) that correlation of disability with the employment rate is nothing new. But back to the main point here - for purposes of disability parking, in nearly every case someone should be able to look to see if someone is actually disabled. Again, this is for the purposes of having that placard, nothing else. That's because the reason for having that placard is to make the distance walked shorter for those who really need it. It should be obvious to anyone looking if someone may be having a much tougher time walking than the average person. For those on disability for legitimate reasons but may not have trouble walking - guess what, they don't need the placard and can walk the extra 100 or 200 feet. What we're talking about here is something that should be visibly verifiable in the overwhelming majority of cases.
- scblock 9y ago
  If you look at some of the other comments on this thread you'll see people with direct experience showing that you're wrong about it being "visibly verifiable". I hope you rethink your assumptions about others.
  - turc1656 9y ago
    The language I used clearly is not all-or-nothing. I said the overwhelming majority of cases. What you are referring to is an edge case - a situation that is more rare than the far more common situations. It should be clear that I acknowledge that not every situation is visibly verifiable from what I wrote.
nether 9y ago
Are you a placard holder in California? Are you ok with people using their dead grandmother's placard to get a disabled spot, making you park at a non-disabled spot far away?

turc1656 9y ago

Most of the suggestions I found to make sense and be very reasonable. The issue raised is reminiscent of how the number of people on disability dramatically rose during the financial crisis. And that's the sort of thing that's actually much worse because it's incredibly costly to society. But it's not just that one time period. As this link shows (http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/) that correlation of disability with the employment rate is nothing new. But back to the main point here - for purposes of disability parking, in nearly every case someone should be able to look to see if someone is actually disabled. Again, this is for the purposes of having that placard, nothing else. That's because the reason for having that placard is to make the distance walked shorter for those who really need it. It should be obvious to anyone looking if someone may be having a much tougher time walking than the average person. For those on disability for legitimate reasons but may not have trouble walking - guess what, they don't need the placard and can walk the extra 100 or 200 feet. What we're talking about here is something that should be visibly verifiable in the overwhelming majority of cases.

scblock 9y ago
If you look at some of the other comments on this thread you'll see people with direct experience showing that you're wrong about it being "visibly verifiable". I hope you rethink your assumptions about others.
- turc1656 9y ago
  The language I used clearly is not all-or-nothing. I said the overwhelming majority of cases. What you are referring to is an edge case - a situation that is more rare than the far more common situations. It should be clear that I acknowledge that not every situation is visibly verifiable from what I wrote.

nether 9y ago

Are you a placard holder in California? Are you ok with people using their dead grandmother's placard to get a disabled spot, making you park at a non-disabled spot far away?