Parking spaces for parents

[Electric Skeptic]

At a number of malls here in Australia, we are starting to see, alongside the parking spaces reserved for the disabled, parking spaces reserved for "Parents with prams" (prams == strollers).

I (a non-parent) happily park in these spaces, ignoring the reservation, whenever I can (note: the Parents with prams spaces, not the disabled spaces) on the grounds that there is no reason I should be forced to yield a good parking space (or anything else) to them because of a choice they made voluntarily.

What are other people's thoughts about "Parents with prams" parking spaces?

 

[stan1980]

At a number of malls here in Australia, we are starting to see, alongside the parking spaces reserved for the disabled, parking spaces reserved for "Parents with prams" (prams == strollers).

I (a non-parent) happily park in these spaces, ignoring the reservation, whenever I can (note: the Parents with prams spaces, not the disabled spaces) on the grounds that there is no reason I should be forced to yield a good parking space (or anything else) to them because of a choice they made voluntarily.

What are other people's thoughts about "Parents with prams" parking spaces?

Depends how many spaces are left. If they are all empty i'll just say sod it and park in one. If there is only one or two left it's not going to kill me to park in a normal space and walk that extra 20 yards.

 

[flicka]

They had one up at my local Safeway for a couple weeks. I parked there because it was close and there are no laws that would have resulted in me getting a ticket anway. Now it just says it's for "quick pick ups" or something. I still park there because there because I'm usually pretty quick when I shop and signs don't have the power to ticket me.

 

[Criada]

We routinely have these in England, and when my children were smaller, I found them very useful.
Usually they are provided for safety reasons... they are near the store, and prevent small children having to cross busy car parks.
Being a parent is a choice... being a small child is not! And measures to keep them safe seem a good idea.

 

[Maren]

At a number of malls here in Australia, we are starting to see, alongside the parking spaces reserved for the disabled, parking spaces reserved for "Parents with prams" (prams == strollers).

I (a non-parent) happily park in these spaces, ignoring the reservation, whenever I can (note: the Parents with prams spaces, not the disabled spaces) on the grounds that there is no reason I should be forced to yield a good parking space (or anything else) to them because of a choice they made voluntarily.

What are other people's thoughts about "Parents with prams" parking spaces?

Personally, I find them annoying. In America, they are simply for "parents with small children" and doesn't say anything about stollers/prams. While I'm sure I would have appreciated them when I had small kids, I'll be first to admit that I never really needed them.

In fact, now that I am older and have arthritis, I would say they are needed far more frequently for older people who have difficulty getting around (but do not qualify as "handicapped") than for young people with children. I have a mother in this category, after a couple of knee replacements and a hip replacement she has significant pain trying to walk/stand for long periods. Yet, if we start having spots for "elderly with walkers/canes", who else will feel they need reserved spots added as well?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Personally, I find them annoying. In America, they are simply for "parents with small children" and doesn't say anything about stollers/prams. While I'm sure I would have appreciated them when I had small kids, I'll be first to admit that I never really needed them.

In fact, now that I am older and have arthritis, I would say they are needed far more frequently for older people who have difficulty getting around (but do not qualify as "handicapped") than for young people with children. I have a mother in this category, after a couple of knee replacements and a hip replacement she has significant pain trying to walk/stand for long periods. Yet, if we start having spots for "elderly with walkers/canes", who else will feel they need reserved spots added as well?

I would be perfectly happy giving up a great parking space to you with your arthritis or to your mum with her knee and hip problems. Those are things completely outside your control, about which you had no choice. Those of us who are more fortunate (at least for the time being) and are physically healthy can easily walk a few extra metres to make it easier for you.

But I resent - and refuse to comply with - having to give up parking spaces for someone because they made a choice to have children.

Similarly, while on public transport I am only too happy to give up my seat for the elderly or disabled, I refuse to stand for pregnant women. She chose to be pregnant; why should I stand because of her choice?

 

[quatona]

I would be perfectly happy giving up a great parking space to you with your arthritis or to your mum with her knee and hip problems. Those are things completely outside your control, about which you had no choice. Those of us who are more fortunate (at least for the time being) and are physically healthy can easily walk a few extra metres to make it easier for you.

But I resent - and refuse to comply with - having to give up parking spaces for someone because they made a choice to have children.

I wasn´t aware that we give honor, privileges, rewards, special rights, advantages (and also disadvantages or punishment) only to those who had no choice in what they have done. To me it seems that, typically, the very opposite is the case.
Thus, I feel your entire "choice" argument is completely besides the point and appeals to paradigms of society that don´t even exist.

She chose to be pregnant; why should I stand because of her choice?

I don´t think you are supposed to stand "because of her choice". There are several reasons conceivable for offering her your seat.
The societal reason would probably be something like "because her choice is a good choice for society and comes with particular hardships that we would like to help her with".
A personal reason would be: "I see you suffering at this moment, and I won´t allow some abstract rationalizations such as "can your suffering at this moment be blamed on a choice you once made?" keep me from acting upon my compassion and empathy."

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I wasn´t aware that we give honor, privileges, rewards, special rights, advantages (and also disadvantages or punishment) only to those who had no choice in what they have done. To me it seems that, typically, the very opposite is the case.

I don't really see how that's relevant. I am talking about my actions, not 'our' actions.

Thus, I feel your entire "choice" argument is completely besides the point and appeals to paradigms of society that don´t even exist.

It's not an argument or appeal to any paradigm. It's the reason for my actions.

I don´t think you are supposed to stand "because of her choice". There are several reasons conceivable for offering her your seat.
The societal reason would probably be something like "because her choice is a good choice for society and comes with particular hardships that we would like to help her with".

And my reason is that I wouldn't like to help her with it. Her choice, her problem.

A personal reason would be: "I see you suffering at this moment, and I won´t allow some abstract rationalizations such as "can your suffering at this moment be blamed on a choice you once made?" keep me from acting upon my compassion and empathy."

And a personal reason not to stand would be "I see you suffering at this moment, but I will allow the fact that you chose to be in the state where you would expect to suffer in this way keep me from acting upon my compassion and empathy."

 

[GrannieAnnie]

I've seen several of these and I think they are an excellent idea. As a grandparent I've helped my daughter with her two little boys when they were babies and it was difficult enough for both of us to watch the kids and the traffic and get the pram out of the car. There are dozens and dozens of ordinary places for "ordinary" people and I think it's only fair that young families have that extra space to keep their kids safe. I think it's inconsiderate to park in a parents place if you aren't a parent.

 

[Trashionista]

If the kids are very young and in strollers, I don't have a problem with it.

But not to take it off topic, but you can't go to the mall now and see people not try and get the closest parking spot to the mall. If people aren't willing to walk an extra 20 yards in nice weather, what kind of example are these parents teaching their kids when it comes to exercise?

A stroller is one thing. If the kids are walking and old enough to walk - no. No. The second mother has no use for a Parent's Parking Spot.

 

[quatona]

I don't really see how that's relevant. I am talking about my actions, not 'our' actions.

Well, ok. Your opinion is noted.
I don´t share it.

It's not an argument or appeal to any paradigm. It's the reason for my actions.

Ok. I was under the impression you wanted to discuss something.
If it was just about everyone hearing your opinion, fine.

And my reason is that I wouldn't like to help her with it. Her choice, her problem.

Your choice, your problem. I am not sure what you want me to do with it.
I simply doubt that you apply your underlying reasoning "whenever something is a choice I won´t help" consistently. If you do - what is there to discuss? I don´t find this principle reasonable, but such principles can hardly be discussed.
If you don´t apply it consistently it is not the powerful argument you use it as.

And a personal reason not to stand would be "I see you suffering at this moment, but I will allow the fact that you chose to be in the state where you would expect to suffer in this way keep me from acting upon my compassion and empathy."

Well, if it makes you happy...

 

[TexasSky]

To begin with your assumption that she made a choice to get pregnant may not be true at all. She may simply have chosen not to end a pregnancy.

Second, the reason for standing up for pregnant women on various methods of transportation is medical. Pregnancy throws people off balance, it adds weight, and falls are much more deadly to a pregnant woman and a child than they are to someone who is not pregnant.

The purpose of offering closer parking to parents is to protect children.

I don't understand your attitude at all. You sound angry that women get pregnant, or as if they are somehow imposing on your rights because they are pregnant.

Why not just be kind to your fellow human beings because it makes the world a nicer place to be?

 

[m9lc]

Umm, did you invest in the business and pay for the parking lot with those spaces? No? Then quit complaining.

If it bothers you so much, then start your own business without parking spots for parents. Until then, respect the choices of the business owner/corporation.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Well, ok. Your opinion is noted.
I don´t share it.

Good for you.

Ok. I was under the impression you wanted to discuss something.
If it was just about everyone hearing your opinion, fine.

This is called "discussion". You might want to learn that.

Your choice, your problem. I am not sure what you want me to do with it.

My choice, no problem. I don't want you to do anything with it.

I simply doubt that you apply your underlying reasoning "whenever something is a choice I won´t help" consistently.

Then normal discussion (remember? Did you learn it above) might include you citing other situations and asking. That would be a good way of alleviating your doubt.

If you do - what is there to discuss? I don´t find this principle reasonable, but such principles can hardly be discussed.

Can't they?

If you don´t apply it consistently it is not the powerful argument you use it as.

Yet again (as I said in my last post) it's not intended as an argument.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

To begin with your assumption that she made a choice to get pregnant may not be true at all. She may simply have chosen not to end a pregnancy.

Then she chose to remain pregnant. Same deal.

Second, the reason for standing up for pregnant women on various methods of transportation is medical. Pregnancy throws people off balance, it adds weight, and falls are much more deadly to a pregnant woman and a child than they are to someone who is not pregnant.

I know.

The purpose of offering closer parking to parents is to protect children.

Is it? Who told you that? The spaces here are unfailingly labled "Parents with prams", not "Parents with small children", which would seem reasonable if the intent was to protect children. If you have young children but none in a pram, in fact, you can't park in those spaces.

I don't understand your attitude at all.

What 'attitude'?

You sound angry that women get pregnant, or as if they are somehow imposing on your rights because they are pregnant.

Umm...no, I don't sound angry that women get pregnant, nor that they are somehow imposing on my rights because they are pregnant. It seems to me that you think because they are pregnant the world (including me) should go out of its way to help them out.

Why not just be kind to your fellow human beings because it makes the world a nicer place to be?

I am kind to my fellow human beings. I don't think giving up seats to people who are pregnant is 'kind' - I think it's unwarranted, same as I think giving up seats to non-pregnant healthy people is unwarranted.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Umm, did you invest in the business and pay for the parking lot with those spaces? No? Then quit complaining.

If it bothers you so much, then start your own business without parking spots for parents. Until then, respect the choices of the business owner/corporation.

Thanks for your suggestions.

 

[quatona]

This is called "discussion". You might want to learn that.

A discussion is the exchange of arguments. Your sole argument so far is 'If a choice on their part is involved, I won´t help'.
I find this argument unconvincing.
If you insist that this is a "winning" argument and you don´t want its validity investigated, then there is no ground for a discussion. All we can do is agree to disagree. You won´t stand up for a pregnant lady, and since there don´t seem to be any laws forcing you to do it I don´t see a problem, in the first place.

Then normal discussion (remember? Did you learn it above)

No, I couldn´t learn it above, since you didn´t even make the attempt to teach me something. You just said "this is called discussion".

might include you citing other situations and asking. That would be a good way of alleviating your doubt.

Fair enough.
Do you think people should be paid for their work only if the job was forced upon them, or do you think they should be payed even though they have chosen to do the job?

Yet again (as I said in my last post) it's not intended as an argument.

I am still under the impression that it is the only argument you have brought up so far: The distinction between chosen and non-chosen conditions.
But it wouldn´t be the first time I have missed a good argument.
So what is your argument for your position?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

A discussion is the exchange of arguments. Your sole argument so far is 'If a choice on their part is involved, I won´t help'.
I find this argument unconvincing.

I haven't made an argument. I have expressed my feelings.

If you insist that this is a "winning" argument and you don´t want its validity investigated, then there is no ground for a discussion. All we can do is agree to disagree.

I don't insist that it's a "winning" argument - I insist (for the third consecutive post) that it's not an argument at all.

You won´t stand up for a pregnant lady, and since there don´t seem to be any laws forcing you to do it I don´t see a problem, in the first place.

Great.

No, I couldn´t learn it above, since you didn´t even make the attempt to teach me something. You just said "this is called discussion".

Ah well, never mind.

Do you think people should be paid for their work only if the job was forced upon them, or do you think they should be payed even though they have chosen to do the job?

The latter.

I am still under the impression that it is the only argument you have brought up so far: The distinction between chosen and non-chosen conditions.

I have brought up no argument.

But it wouldn´t be the first time I have missed a good argument.
So what is your argument for your position?

I haven't made an argument for any position.

 

[CCGirl]

Our spots like this say "For parents with small children", so I naturally park there, whether or not my kids are with me. Nowhere on the sign does it say that the children must be present.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

First point: how do you know they chose?

Second point: it isn't for the parent it's for the child, and as has been said, being a child is NOT a choice.

Third point: you chose to drive. If you don't want to have to worry about parking don't drive.

Fourth point: don't be lazy. The only time I find it appropriate to park in a spot labeled specifically for another person is when there are really no other spots. Like my college campus. At certain points in the day there are literally NO parks for the next three blocks and there are people on campus forced to park next to fire lanes and in handicap spots and I honestly can't blame them. There were college student cars back up to the Target that's about a mile down the road.

That's also the only time I find appropriate to drive up and down the aisles searching for a park. I hate when people spend 20 minutes looking for a park close to the entrance instead of just parking in a space a little farther away. You save gas, reduce the amount of junk you're spewing into the air, and you save time, since it'll take you less time to get to the entrance.

Fifth point: I have a hard time believing this is any less than satire because otherwise you sound like a teenage who just stole a candy bar. "HEH HEH HEY GUYS I JUST STOLE THIS CANDY I STUCK IT TO THE MAN HEH HEH". Very mature.