« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER THREE: BEHAVIOURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PEOPLE WHO ABUSE PARKING FACILITIES FOR DISABLED PEOPLE
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the behavioural characteristics of the research participants who had abused parking facilities for disabled people. The participants from the depth interviews (33 in total) were recruited at each of the case study test sites in which they had responded to a survey where they had admitted to using bays reserved for disabled people at least once in the past. The participants can be categorised into four main groupings according to their behaviour (frequency of abuse) and the factors that motivated them to abuse parking facilities for disabled people. In addition, a fifth category of abuser has been considered based on the findings of the focus groups with disabled people and the stakeholder workshops.
Group 1: Abusers 'in denial'
Three participants admitted to having used a disabled person's parking facility during the screening interview but then denied their behaviour when asked again at the main interview. However, they indicated circumstances in which they would consider it to be justified, for example, for attending medical appointments and when travelling with small child(ren) and when no parent and child parking bays are available. Participants in this group were likely to have used disabled people's parking facilities once or twice and had a low propensity to re-offend if confronted with an enforcement measure. They were generally aware and respectful of disabled people's needs.
Group 2: Reluctant Abusers
Three participants fell into this category. This group had admitted to having abused disabled people's parking facilities once or twice, and stated that they would be reluctant to re-offend. The reasons underlying abuse included attending medical appointments at hospitals where parking is limited, reduced mobility, and collecting heavy goods. Participants had used disabled people's parking facilities only in circumstances in which they considered there to be no impact on disabled people, or when they had been given permission by the site provider; however, they were very reluctant to use them again. Like the former category of abusers, they were embarrassed by their actions and were likely to be deterred from using disabled people's parking bays by the possibility of confrontation.
Group 3: Justified Abusers
Eleven participants fell within this category, and included people who had used disabled people's parking facilities for reasons which they considered to be justifiable. This group can be split into the following three sub-groups:
(a) Participants who parked in reserved bays unknowingly, e.g. because of poor bay design, and unclear markings and signs, and would not have used the bay if they were aware of its purpose. This group has a low propensity to re-offend.
(b) Participants who parked in reserved bays because they believed they had a genuine need, or should be entitled to them, because they are entitled to use other reserved parking facilities such as parent and child, or staff parking. Most participants in this group used disabled people's parking facilities when they had problems accessing parking bays which they were entitled to use, e.g. as a result of limited capacity of parking for staff at hospitals (Monklands and Ninewells), abuse of parent and child parking facilities at supermarkets and retail parks. They were generally aware of the needs of disabled people, but felt that they also had justifiable need to use reserved parking facilities and were unlikely to move their vehicle out of a disabled person's reserved bay should a disabled person need to use it. This group had a high propensity to use disabled people's parking facilities under these circumstances on a regular basis.
(c) Participants who have a temporary disability or have reduced mobility as a result of a permanent medical condition, or who care for people with reduced mobility but are not entitled to use a Blue Badge (this group includes those who work in Social Services, with responsibility for children and teenagers with behavioural problems). Other participants who fell within this group included those who used disabled people's parking bays to enhance their feeling of personal security in large car parks at night time. This group used disabled people's parking facilities only when they needed them, and, unlike the previous group, put the needs of disabled people before their own, and considered the impacts on disabled people in their decision to park. This group had a medium to high propensity to re-offend, but only in circumstances in which there are no perceived negative impacts on disabled people.
Group 4: Persistent Abusers
This group accounted for the majority of the sample of reserved bay abusers (sixteen participants) and they admitted to using disabled people's parking facilities on a regular basis. A key factor that motivated this group to use reserved parking facilities related to bay design and position - participants in this group had a high propensity to park in bays that offered the most convenience to them, in terms of walking distance to destination, protecting their vehicle, and cost. This group was likely to have committed other traffic and parking offences (speeding, not wearing a seat belt whilst driving, inappropriate on- and off-street parking), and had a high propensity to re-offend, despite the threat of being penalised with fines, or having their vehicle removed, etc. They did not necessarily consider the risks and impacts of their actions and claimed to be 'under pressure' to park because their journeys were work-related or they were travelling with their children, and often the value of the bay was more important to them than the consequences.
Group 5: 'Blue Badge' Abusers
The 'Blue Badge' abuser was highlighted by participants present at the stakeholder workshops and by participants of the focus groups with disabled people.
Due to high levels of fraudulent use of the Blue Badge (many are stolen each year), it was thought by the workshop participants that many people may see a non-disabled person misusing a reserved parking bay, so other members of the public feel that they have the right to do so as well. One Local Authority representative noted that Blue Badges are now more desirable than tax discs, as they enable people to park almost anywhere for free. It was highlighted that, at present, it is difficult to spot fraudulent use of the Blue Badge, as each Local Authority has a different design, and, for security reasons, the Badge is displayed face down, making it vulnerable to fraud. It was pointed out that Blue Badge holders are rarely asked to show their Badge for inspection, and those that use the Badge fraudulently are aware of the legal issues surrounding the Blue Badge and who has powers to inspect it. It was felt strongly that the difficulty in spotting fraudulent use of the Badge leads to higher levels of abuse.
Nearly all disabled participants of the focus groups believed that abuse of the Blue Badge was a major problem that needs to be addressed. The general perception was that there is currently widespread misuse of Blue Badges by relatives/carers of Blue Badge holders. This perception was verified by some participants within these focus groups, who, as relatives of Blue Badge holders, had wrongly thought that it was acceptable for a carer of a Blue Badge holder to use the Blue Badge for making journeys on behalf the holder, as well as when travelling with the holder.
« Previous | Contents | Next »