# Parking signs cause confusion



## mark handler (Sep 29, 2013)

Parking signs cause confusion

By AMANDA FRIES

Observer-Dispatch

Posted Sep 29, 2013 @ 01:28 PM

Handicap parking spots at the Union Station caught the attention of Public Eye.

One resident said that it seems as though Utica's train station does not have the correct number of handicap accessible parking spots as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, or at the very least, signage creates confusion for some of the designated spots.

“I was forced to walk the 400 feet,” the resident said. “And I have a handicap (parking) permit.”

Mark Laramie, the Oneida County deputy commissioner of engineering, said there are 184 county-owned parking spaces around the train station.

Of those, he said 77 are employee-only parking.

Laramie said the county has designated 11 parking spaces as handicap accessible. That is five more than the minimum required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Upon visiting the train station, one area on the east side of Union Station near the train tracks, signs indicated that it's Oneida County employee parking only, creating confusion on whether the handicap accessible parking spots can be used by the public.

“There is a bit of confusion on how that signage is implied,” Laramie said.

Laramie said that he would forward communication to the commissioner for potentially changing the signs.

“For one of those three (parking spots), there is some confusion,” he said.

Laramie said contact would be made with the commissioner within the next couple of week

Public Eye: Handicap parking signs cause confusion - Utica, NY - The Observer-Dispatch, Utica, New York


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 29, 2013)

Go to Google street view and walk around the parking lot and you will see more problems than that. The striping is gone and nothing looks labeled correctly.

As for this: “I was forced to walk the 400 feet,” the resident said. “And I have a handicap (parking) permit.”

That's a big so what for me. 80% percent of those placards issued are bogus anyway.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 29, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> 80% percent of those placards issued are bogus anyway.
> 
> Brent.


And that number came from where?

Study: 25 Percent Of NYC Parking Placards Are Fake

http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/wpix-study-25-of-nyc-parking-placards-are-fake-20110427,0,3534228.story

The report's authors claim one in four of the 1,450 permits examined was a fake

http://www.wnyc.org/story/284275-report-finds-over-half-of-nyc-parking-placards-surveyed-are-either-bogus-or-used-improperly/


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 29, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> And that number come from where?


Feel free to adjust that anyway you want. One of my future posts will be a discussion on how many people are actually handicapped and are valid users, and how many are gaming the system. Disabled "enrollment" has skyrocketed since the recession started, and increased in rate again when unemployment benefits ran out, as people "had to do what they had to do".

Couple that with placards issued to families that have a valid handicapped person but use it for there own illegal benefits, as well as those that are issued to the, shall we say, less than disabled, and it would not surprise me to see 80%. I'm researching now.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-09/number-us-citizens-disability-now-larger-population-greece

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/04/08/how-americans-game-the-200-billion-a-year-disability-industrial-complex/

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 29, 2013)

So you just throw things/numbers out there that you know nothing about


----------



## mark handler (Sep 29, 2013)

With 1 in 10 California drivers now legally registered to carry the passes, transportation experts say abuse has become commonplace. At any given moment, on any given street, more than *a third of the vehicles displaying the tags -- and parking without paying -- are doing so illegally, say officials with the California Department of Motor Vehicles.*

Disabled parking placards: Fraudulent use of disabled parking passes explodes in last decade - Los Angeles Times

*No where close to 80 percent*


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 29, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> So you just throw things/numbers out there that you know nothing about


No. As with other subjects, I have a base of knowledge and working data to challenge what is presented as rote and fact.

I did throw that stat out as hyperbole (That means exaggeration Mark). But you caught me red handed. Let's be more reasonable and say 75%.

I know I'm close.

And yes, I mean out of 100 people with placards, 75 of them do not legitimately need them.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 29, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> \And yes, I mean out of 100 people with placards, 75 of them do not legitimately need them.
> 
> Brent.


You have no clue


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 29, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> With 1 in 10 California drivers now legally registered to carry the passes, transportation experts say abuse has become commonplace. At any given moment, on any given street, more than *a third of the vehicles displaying the tags -- and parking without paying -- are doing so illegally, say officials with the California Department of Motor Vehicles.*Disabled parking placards: Fraudulent use of disabled parking passes explodes in last decade - Los Angeles Times
> 
> *No where close to 80 percent*


Really? how do they know? Please site the study, because all I see is DMV officials "say".

I "say" it's 80% based on my scientific observations. Well, 75%

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 29, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> You have no clue


Don't be a weenie. Stay with us here, you were doing fine.

Upon further reflection, it looks like we have room to negotiate. We both agree the system allows fraud, but disagree to extent. I say 75%, your guys says "more than a third." Well, more than a third can be 33.34% up to 100%. So my range is more exact. So let's say maybe "they" say it's 35% and I'm at 75%.

So you want to go with 55%? So about half?

So Mark says half of the people with handicapper placards are bogus. I agree.

Brent.


----------



## ICE (Sep 29, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> But you caught me red handed.  Brent.


The Red Hand has long been a heraldic and cultural symbol of the northern Irish province of Ulster. One of the many myths as to its origin is the tale of how, in a boat race in which the first to touch the shore of Ulster was to become the province's ruler, one contestant guaranteed his win by cutting off his hand and throwing it to the shore ahead of his rivals. The potency of the symbol remains and is used in the Ulster flag, and as recently as the 1970s a group of Ulster loyalist paramilitaries named themselves the Red Hand Commandos.

Red-handed doesn't have a mythical origin however - it is a straightforward allusion to having blood on one's hands after the execution of a murder or a poaching session. The term originates, not from Northern Ireland, but from a country not so far from there, socially and geographically, that is, Scotland. An earlier form of 'red-handed', simply 'red hand', dates back to a usage in the Scottish Acts of Parliament of James I, 1432.


----------



## ICE (Sep 29, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Really? how do they know? Please site the study, because all I see is DMV officials "say".I "say" it's 80% based on my scientific observations. Well, 75%
> 
> Brent.


You can't always tell a person's disability just by looking.  I was solicited for funds by a well meaning organization that has the disabled doing the work.  Perhaps I was a bit rude in doing so, but I asked the gentleman what his disability was.  He replied that he is an alcoholic.  And I thought "See there, I never would have guessed".

Preferred parking for drunk people makes sense to me.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 29, 2013)

The Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA) has a three-part definition of disability.

Under ADA, an individual with a disability is a person who:

(1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; OR

(2) has a record of such an impairment; OR

(3) is regarded as having such an impairment.

A physical impairment is defined by ADA as "any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine."

Neither ADA nor the regulations that implement it list all the diseases or conditions that are covered, because it would be impossible to provide a comprehensive list, given the variety of possible impairments.

DMV disability is defined as the following:

Inability to walk 200 feet without stopping to rest

Inability to walk without the use of a brace, cane, crutch, wheelchair, or other device, or another person

Restricted by lung disease

Requires portable oxygen

Cardiac condition with Class III or Class IV limitations as defined by the American Heart Association

Visually handicapped

Severely limited in ability to walk because of an arthritic, neurological, or orthopedic condition

*I am glad Brent can identify all these, by sight, in people....*

Sorry being a alcoholic does not mean you are disabled.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 29, 2013)

Based on the above definitions Many people, including the police, have the *misconception* of misuse of the placards. That's why the doctors are responsible, not the computer pundits/couch potatoes.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 30, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> *I am glad Brent can identify all these, by sight, in people....*
> 
> Sorry being a alcoholic does not mean you are disabled.


Guess what Marky, I can. When a 94 celica pulls into a HC van spot, because it's the first one, and a fat hen and 4 curtain apes spill out and run into Chicken Wing joint while mom yammers on the phone, I call B.S.

When granny force feeds her land yacht into the last available HC spot then walks all over the Walmart for an hour shopping with no difficulty, I call B.S.

When some knucklehead gets out of his truck in the first HC spot at Home Depot, then proceeds to walk every isle, with his cane, and load his cart full of things to set his house on fire, I call B.S.

Furthermore, when I see all the van spots taken by A-holes, then the guy in a pickup with his wheelchair on a little crane can't use one of those spots for himself, I sometimes fantasize about hooking a chain to those cars and towing then out into a field somewhere.

There are disabled, and then there are users that ride that line for every advantage, ailment, discomfort and inconvenience.

Defend them sir. Be their advocate.

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 30, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> The Red Hand has long been a heraldic and cultural symbol of the northern Irish province of Ulster. One of the many myths as to its origin is the tale of how, in a boat race in which the first to touch the shore of Ulster was to become the province's ruler, one contestant guaranteed his win by cutting off his hand and throwing it to the shore ahead of his rivals. The potency of the symbol remains and is used in the Ulster flag, and as recently as the 1970s a group of Ulster loyalist paramilitaries named themselves the Red Hand Commandos.Red-handed doesn't have a mythical origin however - it is a straightforward allusion to having blood on one's hands after the execution of a murder or a poaching session. The term originates, not from Northern Ireland, but from a country not so far from there, socially and geographically, that is, Scotland. An earlier form of 'red-handed', simply 'red hand', dates back to a usage in the Scottish Acts of Parliament of James I, 1432.


I never did any of that. Not yet.

Brent


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 30, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Based on the above definitions Many people, including the police, have the *misconception* of misuse of the placards. That's why the doctors are responsible, not the computer pundits/couch potatoes.


Doctors huh? How do think the unscrupulous get the write-offs for those placards?

Nobody is that naive.

Brent.


----------



## Msradell (Sep 30, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Based on the above definitions Many people, including the police, have the *misconception* of misuse of the placards. That's why the doctors are responsible, not the computer pundits/couch potatoes.


Doctors are actually probably the biggest part of the problem.  They aren't going to say no to a patient who asks for a disability parking permit for fear of loosing the patient.  It doesn't hurt the doctor to give the person the permit authorization so why shouldn't he?  At least here in Kentucky it seems like every Lexus, Cadillac and Lincoln have a disabled parking permit supplied as standard equipment!  I'm sorry but why is it that everyone who has money is disabled?  I guess I'm doing something wrong because we have a 2007 handicapped Van, we should at least have a brand-new Honda or Toyota handicapped Van!


----------



## mark handler (Sep 30, 2013)

And you are looking at thecars and not the fact that maybe those people fall into one of the listed categories. And it may not be visible.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 30, 2013)

By not worrying about it removes the myopic from making that decision. It is a police, DMV, Court, and medical decision, Not a building issue.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 30, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> By not worrying about it removes the myopic from making that decision. It is a police, DMV, Court, and medical decision, Not a building issue.


The nearsightedness comes from just accepting things as they are with no analysis. We can agree its law, but sometimes it's  bad law. I like to argue it philosophically, and I do not just accept every premise set before me. I am a cynic. Rather than be myopic, I am looking way past the obvious to see if it is true or not.

You should try it sometime.

Brent


----------



## David Henderson (Sep 30, 2013)

Gents why worry about something not in your job description, let the people who can do something deal with it.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 30, 2013)

David Henderson said:
			
		

> Gents why worry about something not in your job description, let the people who can do something deal with it.


Because you learn something. If you use the internet and libraries you find many interesting things. I offer references, Mark offers references and bam, you have more knowledge than before.

It is a fun diversion and I hope inspires some thought outside the box. If you are uncomfortable with divergent opinion just ignore.

If I'm wrong or not tracking I want to know that too. I have learned a lot here and appreciate it.

Just telling me I'm wrong with nothing to back it up is a nogo though.

Brent


----------

