« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER NINE: CONCLUSIONS
9.1 The Study
The objectives of this research have been to investigate and review measures used to combat the abuse of parking facilities for disabled people, and to put forward good practice guidance. This has been based on a thorough review of the evidence through both desk based research and consultation with car park providers who have implemented intervention measures, and consultation with disabled people and non-disabled people (including those who have abused reserved parking facilities), on the most effective measures that can be used in off-street car parks in Scotland. More specifically, the research evaluated their effectiveness, practical considerations and constraints in different contexts. Furthermore, the research explored psychological and other factors that can influence the abuse of off-street parking facilities for disabled people.
Previous chapters have demonstrated that there are a number of factors influencing abuse, which can vary by context (type of facility), demand and capacity, and the design of the car park. Chapter three showed that people who abuse parking facilities for disabled people can be divided into five different groups based on their behaviour and attitudes towards the provision of reserved parking facilities, and chapter four described the factors that motivate them to misuse these facilities. Whilst a key objective of the research has been to build on existing knowledge of the psychological factors influencing abuse, the research has identified that abuse can be attributed to a number of other factors in relation to bay design, social factors, mobility, journey purpose, cost of parking, environmental conditions, and the type of enforcement in place at a facility.
Chapter six confirmed that abuse of reserved parking facilities can prevent disabled people from accessing a service, which raises important issues in relation to service providers' compliance with disability discrimination legislation. There was a call for intervention for the enforcement of reserved parking facilities for disabled people by service users (disabled and non-disabled people) and organisations representing the interests of disabled people, consulted during the study. Chapter seven compared different contexts for intervention, drawing on previous evidence, and evidence from the case study evaluation, on where intervention measures have been effective. This highlighted the key issues and considerations for intervention relevant to different types of facility - the case studies showed that service providers had varied degrees of success in applying enforcement measures.
Finally, all the evidence obtained from the case studies in Scotland and from previous research elsewhere in the UK has been summarised in chapter eight, to highlight the effectiveness, practical considerations and constraints, in relation to each of the possible intervention measures, as a reference for service providers.
The overall conclusions of this study are provided below.
9.2 The factors influencing abuse and key considerations for intervention
The abuse of off-street parking facilities reserved for disabled people, whilst perceived as being fairly widespread, varies in terms of the context of the parking facilities provided, the design and capacity of the car park, and the demand for parking. The research has found abuse to be more evident in heavily used car parks in comparison with car parks that are rarely at capacity. There is also evidence to suggest that there is a greater propensity for people to abuse reserved parking facilities in supermarkets/retail parks than in any other context, because there is a perception amongst non-disabled people (bay abusers) that more parking bays are reserved for disabled people than there are actually seen to be used by disabled people.
The design of car parks has been shown to play an important role in levels of abuse and the possibilities for enforcement. The comparison between the NHS hospital case study sites reviewed in the research has shown that much inappropriate parking is due to small and badly designed car parks and the extent to which hospital policy influences capacity. The pressure on parking can be exacerbated by a high number of staff travelling by car, limited public transport links, and the high volume of out patients attending. Another aspect that has increased pressure on hospital car parks is the fact that some of them are non-charging, and therefore tend to be used by people with no connection to the hospital. Newer hospitals (e.g. Wishaw, Lanarkshire), on the other hand, have applied a more integrated approach, with one main general entrance and one segregated parking area for Blue Badge holders, making enforcement easier and more cost-effective.
Furthermore, the research findings reveal that attitudes to, and understanding of, disability vary by the type of facility that is associated with the car park, which greatly influences the use of parking bays. For example, the research has found that non-disabled service users generally have more consideration for the needs of disabled people at hospitals, than in other contexts, as the expectation is that the demand by disabled people for the bays is higher.
One general conclusion of the research is that the sample of 33 participants who stated that they had abused parking facilities intended for use by disabled people, at some point, could be divided into four groups, according to their attitudes and the reasons underlying their use of such facilities. These groups have been described in chapter three and have been categorised as those 'in denial' of their actions, 'reluctant' abusers, 'justified' abusers, and 'persistent' abusers. This latter group admitted to using disabled people's parking bays on a regular basis, and therefore pose a real threat to disabled people's access to services. Some participants in this group had also committed other traffic and parking offences, such as speeding, parking on double yellow lines, and not paying parking fines. Of all the types of abuser identified in this study, careful consideration needs to be given to influencing the behaviour of people in this group (persistent abusers), as their reactions to interventions show that they would be most likely to ignore intervention measures, unless there were major consequences for them.
A fifth group was highlighted by the case study site providers and other stakeholders as being misusers and fraudulent users of the Blue Badge. As the study focused primarily on off-street parking, it did not evaluate misuse of the Blue Badge, but it has been raised as a major issue for providers of off-street car parks to consider.
In addition to car park design and capacity, the research has identified that abuse can be motivated by the following:
- Social factors - some car parks become anti-social environments at night time; there could also be a lack of understanding of disability among members of the public who might see other people using reserved bays who do not appear to have a disability, and people might be inclined to follow the behaviour of other drivers and might see abuse as being acceptable if the practice appears to go unpunished.
- Reduced mobility - some people who do not qualify for a Blue Badge, including those with temporary disabilities and permanent medical conditions, nevertheless consider that they have a mobility problem, and so feel they are entitled to park in reserved bays.
- Journey purpose - some journeys have increased pressure for parking somewhere, e.g. hospital trips, travelling with small children, and work-related journeys.
- Bay design - the width and position of bays in relation to the destination could make it convenient or attractive to people who want to collect heavy shopping, get children safely in and out of the vehicle, quickly nip in and out of shops, or feel safe from personal attack. Bays that are positioned close to facilities such as ATM machines, might have an increased probability of abuse. Also, potential abusers might think it is acceptable to park in a bay where the provision of reserved parking appears to exceed demand.
- Signage and bay markings - poor signage and inconsistent bay markings could lead to people using the bays inadvertently.
- Cost of parking - free parking for disabled people appears to encourage some non-disabled people to feel that abuse of such facilities is justified.
- Environmental - inclement weather encourages abuse.
- Lack of enforcement - the lack of visible intervention or clear signage to warn drivers not to park inappropriately, or to advise of the consequences of abuse, could clearly have an impact on people's decisions on whether or not to use a reserved bay. Furthermore, the research indicates that service users generally do not expect to be penalised for misusing disabled person's parking bays in off-street car parks, which might be an indication of their awareness of the current legal situation.
- Psychological - behaviour (whether or not a person abuses reserved parking bays) could be greatly dependent on a person's conscience; for example, whether or not the possible impacts of bay abuse on a disabled person are considered before he or she uses the bay. Some participants in this study (bay abusers) stated that they would not use a reserved bay if they thought that there was a possibility that a disabled person might be affected in a negative way.
Generally, it was a widely held view amongst the service users and providers consulted in the study that, for any intervention measure to be effective, it must have consequences.
9.3 Effectiveness of measures and their appropriateness in different contexts
The evidence from this study is that there is no single method that would be appropriate and effective in all situations. The approach to enforcement should be relevant to the context and type of facility, design of the car park and the resources available to carry out monitoring and enforcement.
Car park management
A patrolled car park is most effective when the site is integrated and where there is one single entry point to the reserved bays that are segregated from the rest of the car park. The opportunity for direct, face-to-face involvement with a parking attendant, together with signs adjacent to parking bays warning of the imposition of a fine, does seem to reduce abuse. At a municipal car park in Edinburgh city centre, minimal abuse is reported and has been attributed to the constant visible presence of a parking attendant and a customer services desk situated next to the area of reserved parking bays.
Barrier systems
In sites where there are limited resources available and regular monitoring by staff is not possible, barrier systems could offer the best solution. Although this measure would also depend on the design and size of the car park - the electronic barrier is best implemented with segregated Blue Badge parking areas in a large car park. Alternatively, in smaller car parks a provider might consider installing a remote controlled mini-barrier system in individual bays, but this is shown to be only practical for sites that have a 'closed' membership. With both barrier systems, careful attention needs to be given to how authorised users would access the reserved parking bays - one option is for disabled people to register with the service provider for an entry card or obtain the entry card on arrival. Barrier systems were regarded by the research participants of this study as the clearest and fairest intervention measure. Furthermore, they offer the only means of preventing all types of abuse and appear to be the only solution to preventing 'persistent' abusers.
Automatic Number Plate Recognition
Supermarket providers have realised that the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition ( ANPR) camera technology works well in monitoring the use of segregated parking areas for registered disabled customers and in dealing with the problem on the spot, without the need to penalise customers. This is particularly important for the retail sector where the aim is to attract as many customers as possible. This relies on 'live' monitoring, otherwise the action caught on camera would need to be followed up with a warning, or penalty.
With ANPR there is no requirement for staff to regularly monitor the car park or confront potentially aggressive service users, which precludes the issue of health and safety. This could also be a potential solution in train station car parks, where the personal security of staff in confronting offenders has been raised as an issue of concern, and has been a barrier to enforcement. In order for ANPR to work, the car park needs to have a single entry point, or at least very few entry points, to a car park, so that this point can be policed by CCTV camera. A main advantage that has been associated with ANPR for the enforcement of reserved parking facilities is that the technology cannot be tampered with, and therefore the abuse cannot be denied. It has been proposed by service users and providers consulted during this study that ANPR technology should also be used to address the issue of stolen or traded Blue Badges and other permits.
Imposition of fines
The research has shown that the imposition of fines could be effective in reducing inappropriate parking, but this might depend on whether the fine is enforced by a parking attendant or a traffic warden. The comparison of municipal parking in Edinburgh and Inverness has also shown that the compliance of paying fixed penalty fines is lower in Edinburgh, where parking has been decriminalised, than it is in Inverness, where parking is still dealt with by the city's traffic wardens. The lack of compliance in off-street car parks could be a direct result of service users being aware of the legal situation. Emerging as a major inhibiting factor on attempts to enforce the provision of reserved spaces for disabled people has been the fact that such facilities are not enforceable in law when they are provided in a private car park, unless the provider applies for a Traffic Regulation Order ( TRO). It should be noted that a TRO is only applied for making fines legally enforceable - it does not provide a means of preventing abuse. However, the research has found that it is unlikely that an off-street provider would want to apply for a TRO. Given that private car park providers can issue penalty charges to users of the car park anyway, there is a feeling among some that there is no need for a TRO, even though fines issued are not legally enforceable without one. From discussions with site providers and other stakeholders it emerged that the application, enforcement and parameters of a TRO (including costs, maintenance, potential changes to the value of the land etc) need further clarification among service providers
'Charging for all'
One of the main factors influencing abuse was free parking. The introduction of a 'charging for all' policy for parking at Ninewells hospital has resulted in a substantial reduction in the occurrence of abuse at these sites. However, consideration should be given to offering concessions to disabled users if a disabled person needs to visit the facility for medical reasons.
Advisory measures
Measures including bay design and automated electronic announcements, although essential in preventing 'accidental' abuse, was shown to have little impact on preventing other types of abuse, when used on their own.
Overall, the findings reveal that the effectiveness of intervention measures and their public acceptability are likely to depend upon the following:
- The visibility of measures - measures are likely to be more effective if they are seen in use, therefore sending a clear message to people thinking of parking inappropriately.
- Clear signage - a consistent theme across the interviews with service users was that there should be clear signage and warnings of the possible consequences of inappropriate parking, which, it was felt, would deter potential abusers, and make measures fair and just.
- The possibility of flexibility - service users felt that allowances should be made for people who need to use an accessible parking space as a result of reduced mobility (temporary disabilities or permanent disabilities that do not fall within the eligibility criteria of the Blue Badge), or travelling with small children.
- Revenue generated from fixed penalty fines, and other measures e.g. vehicle removal should not appear to be 'extortionate'.
- More extreme measures such as vehicle removal should only be introduced after warnings and tickets have been issued, and should only be targeted at 'persistent' abusers.
- Awareness of the legal situation - evidence from the interviews with service users indicate that abusers do not expect to be penalised for using disabled people's parking facilities in off-street car parks which could be a result of the following: because they are aware that fines in off-street car parks are not normally legally enforceable; or because they are unaware that service providers are legally obligated (under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005) to monitor and enforce parking facilities that are reserved for disabled people.
« Previous | Contents | Next »