29 December 2013

Parking 2013 Greatest Hits. June.

| johnboy
Join the conversation
56

As we work down to the end of the year we present four great parking pictures from each month.

June gave us:


1) Darrell had a real corker from Hobart Place:

bad parking

2) Matt discovered an unusual level of affirmative action in ACT Policing:

disabled parking

3) The Bus Driver found a real gem at Anzac Park West:

daewoo

4) Dilandau found that money maketh not the parker at the Belconnen Mall”

porsche

Stay tuned for the best of July tomorrow. Keep sending parking pictures in to images@the-riotact.com with the word “parking” in the subject line.

Join the conversation

56
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

c_c™ said :

Is it at all surprising the government doesn’t provide an efficient way of obtaining service for non-urgent issues, they can’t even do it for urgent issues. I recently found a public fixture leaking a large amount of water, rang ACTEW, who said ring the Government. Ring the Government, they say it’s a Federal fixture call the NCA. Ring the NCA, they finally send out their crack response team. Ideally the first people I rang would have had a procedure for passing on the report, rather than a citizen spending 20mins on the phone.

Erm, this of course was meant to be a reply to this thread: http://the-riotact.com/act-housing-maintenance-phone-number-not-working/122050

Perils of working in multiple tabs.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Ironically, today I parked at work between two cars which were not middled in their spots, opened my VW Polo door, got caught in a gust of wind and smacked into the door of the neighbouring car.

There was no noticeable damage but it was a lovely shiny new car and Roshen must have been sitting on my shoulder, so I left a note.

I haven’t heard from the owner yet – will let you know if I do.

Total Respect!

IrishPete said :

See also post number 51. Wind. Unintentional. Shit happens.

IP

S*** does happen IP, but if everyone does what Queen_of_the_Bun did today wouldn’t the world be a better place to live in?

zorro29 said :

Well this got heated…

My 2 cents re a few comments (including from IP): People shouldn’t have to expect their car will be dented, scratched or even touched by others. I love my car and have always been very protective of it. If I pay a lot of money for an item and keep it in good condition, why is it reasonable that someone who has no respect for others can ding it? Not in my world…people need to learn respect for others (and their property) and responsibility.

Because you are leaving it in a public place exposed to the elements.

Of course you should be able to expect everyone to be responsible and to have good insurance with limited excess.

But then there’s the real world that you actually live in, in which you make compromises every day, every hour, possibly even every minute. Like locking your front door, Locking your car. Where I live I don’t have to – jealous?

See also post number 51. Wind. Unintentional. Shit happens.

IP

c_c™ said :

Is it at all surprising the government doesn’t provide an efficient way of obtaining service for non-urgent issues, they can’t even do it for urgent issues. I recently found a public fixture leaking a large amount of water, rang ACTEW, who said ring the Government. Ring the Government, they say it’s a Federal fixture call the NCA. Ring the NCA, they finally send out their crack response team. Ideally the first people I rang would have had a procedure for passing on the report, rather than a citizen spending 20mins on the phone.

A decent public servant will take the responsibility from you – get all the details from you, a number to call you back on, and say “thanks, I’ll take it from here”. That’s what I used to do when I was in a phone answering role, unless the issue was way out of my area (which was rare; people generally don’t phone a service at random).

Is it at all surprising the government doesn’t provide an efficient way of obtaining service for non-urgent issues, they can’t even do it for urgent issues. I recently found a public fixture leaking a large amount of water, rang ACTEW, who said ring the Government. Ring the Government, they say it’s a Federal fixture call the NCA. Ring the NCA, they finally send out their crack response team. Ideally the first people I rang would have had a procedure for passing on the report, rather than a citizen spending 20mins on the phone.

Queen_of_the_Bun7:34 pm 06 Jan 14

roshen said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

If that’s your idea of a personal attack, you may be too sensitive for the interwebs. However, if you found that offensive, I apologise.

I have been googling “property damage laws” but am yet to find anywhere that states that accidental damage from opening a car door constitutes a criminal offence. If it is that easy to google, perhaps you could provide me with a link.

Look I’m not sensitive and no offence was taken but lets just say I came back with another insinuating comment about the way you live your life, then I’d think the argument will tangent off to somewhere inappropriate. I’m just trying to keep the argument on topic that’s all.

Nothing is available on google that I can see that specifically deals with this type of property damage, but I’m pretty sure that since a car is someone’s property it should come under the general property damage laws.

Ironically, today I parked at work between two cars which were not middled in their spots, opened my VW Polo door, got caught in a gust of wind and smacked into the door of the neighbouring car.

There was no noticeable damage but it was a lovely shiny new car and Roshen must have been sitting on my shoulder, so I left a note.

I haven’t heard from the owner yet – will let you know if I do.

Clown Killer1:38 pm 06 Jan 14

I’m assuming all this debate is in reference to the picture of the Porsche.

Just for the record, it’s not parked on a pedestrian crossing. Diagonal white stripes dont mean anything other than the car park owners hope that the area would be kept clear.

The park might be illegal if there are signs requiring drivers to ‘park in marked bays only’.

Seriously though guys, give it a rest – do you want this to become a Mully?

Well this got heated…

My 2 cents re a few comments (including from IP): People shouldn’t have to expect their car will be dented, scratched or even touched by others. I love my car and have always been very protective of it. If I pay a lot of money for an item and keep it in good condition, why is it reasonable that someone who has no respect for others can ding it? Not in my world…people need to learn respect for others (and their property) and responsibility.

Are you folks still going at it hammer and tongs?

Of course property damage is a criminal offence, but most crimes require some intent. So accidental damage probably wouldn’t come under it.

Leaving the scene of a traffic accident is an offence, I think, but whether opening a car door into another car would count, I don’t know. (Car door scratches and scrapes are probably the least annoying though – bumper scrapes and bullbar scrapes would be much more annoying and financially damaging).

But something doesn’t have to be criminalised to be wrong – civil action would always be an option, if you could identify the perpetrator. Dash cameras may increase the likelihood of this, though you would probably still have get a court order for the government to release the identify of the owner of a car based on its registration plate. It probably wouldn’t be worth the time, cost and effort for minor damage, but if people started doing it and others became generally aware that they might be chased by the owner of the damaged car, then the occurrence might reduce.

IP

roshen said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Anecdotal evidence does not make facts.

Now please post a source of your claims of canberra car park apocalypse.

Cheers.

I know you’re big on “facts” but what are you trying to achieve here? I don’t think the argument is where you’re taking it.

But anyway, to answer your question I’ve found a few articles from insurance companies

AAMI: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aami.com.au%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffm%2Fnews%2FCarParks-TopSpotForAggressionAndBadManners.pdf&ei=H9zJUs67EKuXigfZiYH4DA&usg=AFQjCNEEwj6aNtccg_ZPGx8JE5zickl3_A&bvm=bv.58187178,d.dGI

This one’s from 2007 and say that in the ACT 81% of people do not provide details on car park damage.

Here are some others in different states.

http://www.suncorp.com.au/insurance/safer-roads/ninety-four-percent-drive-off-after-car-park-damage

http://www.nrma.com.au/honesty-not-policy-sydney-car-parks

http://www.sgio.com.au/wa/honesty-not-policy-wa-car-parks?sireq=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sgio.com.au%2Fwa%2Fhonesty-not-policy-wa-car-parks&simigvis=MS43OTguOTY3MzIyMzM5MjI1LjEzODg5NjEwNDQ1NjAuNjczMjZhZmM_*&sirefer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26frm%3D1%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26cad%3Drja%26ved%3D0CD8QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.sgio.com.au%252Fwa%252Fhonesty-not-policy-wa-car-parks%26ei%3DH9zJUs67EKuXigfZiYH4DA%26usg%3DAFQjCNEAmvpBQ9L4OaqdG_SH29ZsqZlljA%26bvm%3Dbv.58187178%2Cd.dGI

I think the issue with car park damage is big as several major insurance companies have released articles on it and the problem is widespread across Australia.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Anecdotal evidence does not make facts.

Now please post a source of your claims of canberra car park apocalypse.

Cheers.

I know you’re big on “facts” but what are you trying to achieve here? I don’t think the argument is where you’re taking it.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd8:17 am 06 Jan 14

roshen said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

You are a bell end(not a personal attack because it is fact).

You are crying about being attacked because you have zero argument. You are trying to defend a grade a tea bag and have been called out on it.

You still have not provided me with actual sources that there is a wide spread problem of cars getting damaged in Canberra car parks

Firstly, how have I had a zero argument? I’ve been answering all questions and there’s no doubt in peoples mind that damage to other people’s cars happen. My argument has always been that I understand and have no issues with this happening because of the damage that is done. Again, I would like to stress that I was not defending that driver as you have put it, but saying that if I saw it in person, I would have no issues with it and I stand by that.

I’ve also responded to your previous question when I said I’m not an insurance company but you can tell from other people that have posted with either personal experience or friends that this happens regularly. I don’t think the question is whether or not it happens because it does, the argument is that I don’t mind it happening whereas other people here do.

And I beg to differ when you call me a “bell end” and I do take that as a personal attack because it’s unsubstantiated. Why? Because I’ve been polite (bar a few sarcastic comments), I’ve answered everything thoroughly and honestly, I’ve refrained from name calling and I’ve respected other opinions.

If I may quote you again in Parking 2013 Greatest Hits. May you mentioned

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Yeah damn straight. I am a advocate for it to be legal to key cars if tea bags who think because they have a flash car, they should park over lines so no one can park next to them. In the very least, get a bunch of peeps to park them in.

Then a few days later you said to me:

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Honestly has never happened to my good self.

I do like your logic though. Peeps are assholes so I’m gonna be a asshole aswell.

Stay classy, champ.

I’m not quite sure that you’re quite the benchmark when it comes to rating the personalities of other people but I’ve respected your views and answered all your questions.

But in return, I don’t think you have responded to the acknowledgments that I presented to you earlier.

Anecdotal evidence does not make facts.

Now please post a source of your claims of canberra car park apocalypse.

Cheers.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

If that’s your idea of a personal attack, you may be too sensitive for the interwebs. However, if you found that offensive, I apologise.

I have been googling “property damage laws” but am yet to find anywhere that states that accidental damage from opening a car door constitutes a criminal offence. If it is that easy to google, perhaps you could provide me with a link.

Look I’m not sensitive and no offence was taken but lets just say I came back with another insinuating comment about the way you live your life, then I’d think the argument will tangent off to somewhere inappropriate. I’m just trying to keep the argument on topic that’s all.

Nothing is available on google that I can see that specifically deals with this type of property damage, but I’m pretty sure that since a car is someone’s property it should come under the general property damage laws.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

http://www.covercraft-pacificshop.com/carcovers/custom_fit_comparison.html

Thanks, I never knew car covers were anymore protective than a plastic bag. Point taken.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

You are a bell end(not a personal attack because it is fact).

You are crying about being attacked because you have zero argument. You are trying to defend a grade a tea bag and have been called out on it.

You still have not provided me with actual sources that there is a wide spread problem of cars getting damaged in Canberra car parks

Firstly, how have I had a zero argument? I’ve been answering all questions and there’s no doubt in peoples mind that damage to other people’s cars happen. My argument has always been that I understand and have no issues with this happening because of the damage that is done. Again, I would like to stress that I was not defending that driver as you have put it, but saying that if I saw it in person, I would have no issues with it and I stand by that.

I’ve also responded to your previous question when I said I’m not an insurance company but you can tell from other people that have posted with either personal experience or friends that this happens regularly. I don’t think the question is whether or not it happens because it does, the argument is that I don’t mind it happening whereas other people here do.

And I beg to differ when you call me a “bell end” and I do take that as a personal attack because it’s unsubstantiated. Why? Because I’ve been polite (bar a few sarcastic comments), I’ve answered everything thoroughly and honestly, I’ve refrained from name calling and I’ve respected other opinions.

If I may quote you again in Parking 2013 Greatest Hits. May you mentioned

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Yeah damn straight. I am a advocate for it to be legal to key cars if tea bags who think because they have a flash car, they should park over lines so no one can park next to them. In the very least, get a bunch of peeps to park them in.

Then a few days later you said to me:

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Honestly has never happened to my good self.

I do like your logic though. Peeps are assholes so I’m gonna be a asshole aswell.

Stay classy, champ.

I’m not quite sure that you’re quite the benchmark when it comes to rating the personalities of other people but I’ve respected your views and answered all your questions.

But in return, I don’t think you have responded to the acknowledgments that I presented to you earlier.

Queen_of_the_Bun2:32 pm 05 Jan 14

roshen said :

I know you want to have the last word – I can keep going until 5pm then I have a life to live….guess you’ll be going a lot longer than that.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Debates are great. When one person has to resort to claiming to being personally attacked because they can no longer come up with any arguments to defend their position, that’s pretty weak.

So can you tell me if your first comment was personal or not?

And how have used this as a replacement for my argument? I’ve stated this after stating my points.

And just one more point for you. Can you tell me what brand of car cover will withstand the force of door dings?

And if you google “property damage laws” you will find it coming up under the crimes ACT for different states.

If that’s your idea of a personal attack, you may be too sensitive for the interwebs. However, if you found that offensive, I apologise.

I have been googling “property damage laws” but am yet to find anywhere that states that accidental damage from opening a car door constitutes a criminal offence. If it is that easy to google, perhaps you could provide me with a link.

Queen_of_the_Bun2:09 pm 05 Jan 14

roshen said :

I know you want to have the last word – I can keep going until 5pm then I have a life to live….guess you’ll be going a lot longer than that.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Debates are great. When one person has to resort to claiming to being personally attacked because they can no longer come up with any arguments to defend their position, that’s pretty weak.

So can you tell me if your first comment was personal or not?

And how have used this as a replacement for my argument? I’ve stated this after stating my points.

And just one more point for you. Can you tell me what brand of car cover will withstand the force of door dings?

And if you google “property damage laws” you will find it coming up under the crimes ACT for different states.

http://www.covercraft-pacificshop.com/carcovers/custom_fit_comparison.html

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd1:19 pm 05 Jan 14

roshen said :

I know you want to have the last word – I can keep going until 5pm then I have a life to live….guess you’ll be going a lot longer than that.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Debates are great. When one person has to resort to claiming to being personally attacked because they can no longer come up with any arguments to defend their position, that’s pretty weak.

So can you tell me if your first comment was personal or not?

And how have used this as a replacement for my argument? I’ve stated this after stating my points.

And just one more point for you. Can you tell me what brand of car cover will withstand the force of door dings?

And if you google “property damage laws” you will find it coming up under the crimes ACT for different states.

You are a bell end(not a personal attack because it is fact).

You are crying about being attacked because you have zero argument. You are trying to defend a grade a tea bag and have been called out on it.

You still have not provided me with actual sources that there is a wide spread problem of cars getting damaged in Canberra car parks

I know you want to have the last word – I can keep going until 5pm then I have a life to live….guess you’ll be going a lot longer than that.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Debates are great. When one person has to resort to claiming to being personally attacked because they can no longer come up with any arguments to defend their position, that’s pretty weak.

So can you tell me if your first comment was personal or not?

And how have used this as a replacement for my argument? I’ve stated this after stating my points.

And just one more point for you. Can you tell me what brand of car cover will withstand the force of door dings?

And if you google “property damage laws” you will find it coming up under the crimes ACT for different states.

Queen_of_the_Bun9:13 am 05 Jan 14

roshen said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Ha, stuck at work for an hour longer than expected so:

Roshen, if you are not the driver, why do you take advice to the driver as being to you?

Also, why do you assume the driver is a him? Because women don’t drive Porsches? Because women don’t park on pedestrian crossings? Or because you know the driver personally?

As mentioned in my previous post, it would also be surprising that your “advice” was to that driver given that they probably haven’t read this post and your “advice was in direct response to mine.

And yes it was my mistake to say the driver was a male. I’m happy for you to keep on calling it a pedestrian crossing because that’s not the point. However, I’m just surprised by the attitude and level of attacks on people that have differing views. I’ve always kept my comments to the point and admitted where I’ve been wrong but it seems like the same level of respect isn’t always given.

Again, I’d appreciate a level headed argument but if you could please refrain from personal attacks or insinuations that would be much appreciated.

What personal attack? No-one on this site has attacked you, as far as I can tell. People have questioned your knowledge of the road rules and asked you to substantiate your claims of widespread criminal damage in car parks.

I have checked the road rules and cannot find a reference to opening your car door into another car as being a criminal offence.

My “advice” was to any driver who wants to protect their car from accidental damage in a car park. Why you read it as being about you is a matter for you.

Debates are great. When one person has to resort to claiming to being personally attacked because they can no longer come up with any arguments to defend their position, that’s pretty weak.

c_c™ said :

You can tell this guy doesn’t really understand the world around him and probably shouldn’t have a licence.

May I ask how you come to the conclusion that I cannot drive safely or within the law from my comments? Where have I mentioned that I have made these illegal parks or driven illegally?

You know there’s a difference between doing something and having no issues with it happening around you.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Ha, stuck at work for an hour longer than expected so:

Roshen, if you are not the driver, why do you take advice to the driver as being to you?

Also, why do you assume the driver is a him? Because women don’t drive Porsches? Because women don’t park on pedestrian crossings? Or because you know the driver personally?

As mentioned in my previous post, it would also be surprising that your “advice” was to that driver given that they probably haven’t read this post and your “advice was in direct response to mine.

And yes it was my mistake to say the driver was a male. I’m happy for you to keep on calling it a pedestrian crossing because that’s not the point. However, I’m just surprised by the attitude and level of attacks on people that have differing views. I’ve always kept my comments to the point and admitted where I’ve been wrong but it seems like the same level of respect isn’t always given.

Again, I’d appreciate a level headed argument but if you could please refrain from personal attacks or insinuations that would be much appreciated.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Yawn. For someone who doesn’t park like that, you are spending an extraordinary amount of time and energy defending the right of one driver to be a douchebag.

And my advice wasn’t for you – it was for any driver who wants to protect their car from accidental dings without going to the extreme of parking illegally and inconsiderately.

I know you want to have the last word – I can keep going until 5pm then I have a life to live….guess you’ll be going a lot longer than that.

Again, I’m not defending the right of anyone. I never said it was a “right” to park like that. I said I understand and have no issues with it.

It would also be surprising that your “advice” was to that driver given that they probably haven’t read this post and your “advice was in direct response to mine.

It’s all good to have your opinion but when you have to resort to personal attacks that’s pretty low.

Queen_of_the_Bun6:04 pm 04 Jan 14

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

roshen said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

It’s not a no-parking area, it’s a pedestrian crossing.

Maybe, instead of knowingly illegally inconveniencing the majority of other drivers using the pedestrian crossing to get back to their cars, the driver could carry a car cover with him/her and cover the car when it’s parked, minimising the chance of “criminal damage”. It only takes a minute to fit it over the car and means drivers can park legally and with peace of mind.

Um… it is a “no parking zone” NOT a “pedestrian crossing”. Last time I checked pedestrian crossings didn’t have diagonal lines.

No use giving me advice on how to park because I don’t do it, next time you see him maybe you can have a chat with him.

Yawn. For someone who doesn’t park like that, you are spending an extraordinary amount of time and energy defending the right of one driver to be a douchebag.

And my advice wasn’t for you – it was for any driver who wants to protect their car from accidental dings without going to the extreme of parking illegally and inconsiderately.

I know you want to have the last word – I can keep going until 5pm then I have a life to live….guess you’ll be going a lot longer than that.

Ha, stuck at work for an hour longer than expected so:

Roshen, if you are not the driver, why do you take advice to the driver as being to you?

Also, why do you assume the driver is a him? Because women don’t drive Porsches? Because women don’t park on pedestrian crossings? Or because you know the driver personally?

roshen said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

It’s not a no-parking area, it’s a pedestrian crossing.

Maybe, instead of knowingly illegally inconveniencing the majority of other drivers using the pedestrian crossing to get back to their cars, the driver could carry a car cover with him/her and cover the car when it’s parked, minimising the chance of “criminal damage”. It only takes a minute to fit it over the car and means drivers can park legally and with peace of mind.

Um… it is a “no parking zone” NOT a “pedestrian crossing”. Last time I checked pedestrian crossings didn’t have diagonal lines.

No use giving me advice on how to park because I don’t do it, next time you see him maybe you can have a chat with him.

You can tell this guy doesn’t really understand the world around him and probably shouldn’t have a licence.

Queen_of_the_Bun3:37 pm 04 Jan 14

roshen said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

It’s not a no-parking area, it’s a pedestrian crossing.

Maybe, instead of knowingly illegally inconveniencing the majority of other drivers using the pedestrian crossing to get back to their cars, the driver could carry a car cover with him/her and cover the car when it’s parked, minimising the chance of “criminal damage”. It only takes a minute to fit it over the car and means drivers can park legally and with peace of mind.

Um… it is a “no parking zone” NOT a “pedestrian crossing”. Last time I checked pedestrian crossings didn’t have diagonal lines.

No use giving me advice on how to park because I don’t do it, next time you see him maybe you can have a chat with him.

Yawn. For someone who doesn’t park like that, you are spending an extraordinary amount of time and energy defending the right of one driver to be a douchebag.

And my advice wasn’t for you – it was for any driver who wants to protect their car from accidental dings without going to the extreme of parking illegally and inconsiderately.

I know you want to have the last word – I can keep going until 5pm then I have a life to live….guess you’ll be going a lot longer than that.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

It’s not a no-parking area, it’s a pedestrian crossing.

Maybe, instead of knowingly illegally inconveniencing the majority of other drivers using the pedestrian crossing to get back to their cars, the driver could carry a car cover with him/her and cover the car when it’s parked, minimising the chance of “criminal damage”. It only takes a minute to fit it over the car and means drivers can park legally and with peace of mind.

Um… it is a “no parking zone” NOT a “pedestrian crossing”. Last time I checked pedestrian crossings didn’t have diagonal lines.

No use giving me advice on how to park because I don’t do it, next time you see him maybe you can have a chat with him.

Queen_of_the_Bun9:44 am 04 Jan 14

roshen said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

roshen said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

My thoughts exactly.

People generally don’t deliberately set out to open car doors into other cars, or run into them with a hard to control trolley. The fact that it happens sometimes doesn’t give any driver the right to park on a pedestrian crossing.

I’ve got a couple of dings in my doors and sure, I’m not happy about them. But parking in a way that inconveniences the majority is not the answer.

Yes, but good people usually leave notes when they damage other people’s cars. My comments were never “this is the answer” or “the way people should always park to avoid damage”. My comments were always, I understand why it’s done and I have no personal issue with it.

Good people don’t park on pedestrian crossings.

Did I make a representation on whether this driver was “good” or not? I just said I personally had no issues with it.

But seriously, if you want me to compare, his actions fare much less than those who cause permanent damage and financial loss. Yes, he’s parked illegally and he has reduced the size of the no parking zone area, but apart from inconveniencing people for 2 seconds if that, what else do pedestrians have to lose?

Legally, this guy can get booked and that’s a traffic offence if you like, but property damage (without leaving a note) is a criminal offence.

It’s not a no-parking area, it’s a pedestrian crossing.

Maybe, instead of knowingly illegally inconveniencing the majority of other drivers using the pedestrian crossing to get back to their cars, the driver could carry a car cover with him/her and cover the car when it’s parked, minimising the chance of “criminal damage”. It only takes a minute to fit it over the car and means drivers can park legally and with peace of mind.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

roshen said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

My thoughts exactly.

People generally don’t deliberately set out to open car doors into other cars, or run into them with a hard to control trolley. The fact that it happens sometimes doesn’t give any driver the right to park on a pedestrian crossing.

I’ve got a couple of dings in my doors and sure, I’m not happy about them. But parking in a way that inconveniences the majority is not the answer.

Yes, but good people usually leave notes when they damage other people’s cars. My comments were never “this is the answer” or “the way people should always park to avoid damage”. My comments were always, I understand why it’s done and I have no personal issue with it.

Good people don’t park on pedestrian crossings.

Did I make a representation on whether this driver was “good” or not? I just said I personally had no issues with it.

But seriously, if you want me to compare, his actions fare much less than those who cause permanent damage and financial loss. Yes, he’s parked illegally and he has reduced the size of the no parking zone area, but apart from inconveniencing people for 2 seconds if that, what else do pedestrians have to lose?

Legally, this guy can get booked and that’s a traffic offence if you like, but property damage (without leaving a note) is a criminal offence.

Queen_of_the_Bun7:14 pm 03 Jan 14

roshen said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

My thoughts exactly.

People generally don’t deliberately set out to open car doors into other cars, or run into them with a hard to control trolley. The fact that it happens sometimes doesn’t give any driver the right to park on a pedestrian crossing.

I’ve got a couple of dings in my doors and sure, I’m not happy about them. But parking in a way that inconveniences the majority is not the answer.

Yes, but good people usually leave notes when they damage other people’s cars. My comments were never “this is the answer” or “the way people should always park to avoid damage”. My comments were always, I understand why it’s done and I have no personal issue with it.

Good people don’t park on pedestrian crossings.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

My thoughts exactly.

People generally don’t deliberately set out to open car doors into other cars, or run into them with a hard to control trolley. The fact that it happens sometimes doesn’t give any driver the right to park on a pedestrian crossing.

I’ve got a couple of dings in my doors and sure, I’m not happy about them. But parking in a way that inconveniences the majority is not the answer.

Yes, but good people usually leave notes when they damage other people’s cars. My comments were never “this is the answer” or “the way people should always park to avoid damage”. My comments were always, I understand why it’s done and I have no personal issue with it.

Queen_of_the_Bun3:29 pm 03 Jan 14

MrBigEars said :

roshen said :

Flossie said :

And it’s not a zero sum game. Pointing out that parking like that makes the driver a douche, is not the same as simultaneously saying it’s okay for people to damage other people’s cars.

I agree with you there and at no time did I indicate that saying the driver was wrong meant that people agreed that it’s okay to damage other people’s cars. I said that there was a lack of acknowledgement in this regards and in general there was a “suck it up” attitude towards the people who’ve had their cars damaged.

If you think about it, why on the one hand are we trying to protect the pedestrian access (which is fine) and on the other hand not even giving the slightest bit of consideration to those that have suffered financial loss? It seems overly bias does it not?

I’m still surprised that you’re still arguing that this spanner is somehow protecting his vehicle by parking closer to a trolley bay, and in doing so reducing the margin in which to get trolleys into said bay. “Steers like a shopping trolley”.

My thoughts exactly.

People generally don’t deliberately set out to open car doors into other cars, or run into them with a hard to control trolley. The fact that it happens sometimes doesn’t give any driver the right to park on a pedestrian crossing.

I’ve got a couple of dings in my doors and sure, I’m not happy about them. But parking in a way that inconveniences the majority is not the answer.

roshen said :

Flossie said :

And it’s not a zero sum game. Pointing out that parking like that makes the driver a douche, is not the same as simultaneously saying it’s okay for people to damage other people’s cars.

I agree with you there and at no time did I indicate that saying the driver was wrong meant that people agreed that it’s okay to damage other people’s cars. I said that there was a lack of acknowledgement in this regards and in general there was a “suck it up” attitude towards the people who’ve had their cars damaged.

If you think about it, why on the one hand are we trying to protect the pedestrian access (which is fine) and on the other hand not even giving the slightest bit of consideration to those that have suffered financial loss? It seems overly bias does it not?

I’m still surprised that you’re still arguing that this spanner is somehow protecting his vehicle by parking closer to a trolley bay, and in doing so reducing the margin in which to get trolleys into said bay. “Steers like a shopping trolley”.

Flossie said :

And it’s not a zero sum game. Pointing out that parking like that makes the driver a douche, is not the same as simultaneously saying it’s okay for people to damage other people’s cars.

I agree with you there and at no time did I indicate that saying the driver was wrong meant that people agreed that it’s okay to damage other people’s cars. I said that there was a lack of acknowledgement in this regards and in general there was a “suck it up” attitude towards the people who’ve had their cars damaged.

If you think about it, why on the one hand are we trying to protect the pedestrian access (which is fine) and on the other hand not even giving the slightest bit of consideration to those that have suffered financial loss? It seems overly bias does it not?

Those diagonal stripes serve the same purpose as pedestrian crossing lines on the road. They indicate an area is designated for pedestrians. If you park on those stripes you are impeding pedestrian access. That makes anyone who does this a douche. No matter what they are driving.

And it’s not a zero sum game. Pointing out that parking like that makes the driver a douche, is not the same as simultaneously saying it’s okay for people to damage other people’s cars. There’s enough doucheness to go around and be allocated on merit.

tommo said :

roshen said :

This isn’t necessarily about driving nice cars you know, people who drive less expensive cars shouldn’t have to come back to their car and see damage.

So your whole argument seems to suggest that no one should have to park within the lines?
LOL, but lets play it out. Might as well remove the lines altogether, wait, now everyone has been parked in trying to get closest to the shops, oh and did I mention every cars gets several dents because no one has left enough space for others to get out or push trolleys/wheelchairs/etc.

You are right though, it is not only those with *nice* cars who do this. However a larger proportion of those with *nice* cars do it compared to those with more modest vehicles. For me though, the problem with those who have *nice* cars and behave like this is the money=entitlement attitude.

I’m not suggesting that everyone should do this but just stating that I understand why it happens and have no issues with this particular instance where I see adequate room left.

And how do you come to the conclusion that I would suggest that removing the lines is better? Where have I said anything about that? If this car had intruded onto the parking space next to his then he wouldn’t be leaving adequate room for another vehicle and hence my view would be different. My post wasn’t about encouraging illegal parking, it was trying explain that I understand and have no issues in this instance because of the idiots that have no respect for other people’s property.

I’m also not convinced about the money=entitlement attitude given we are living in Canberra and not Dubai. If there was that sort of attitude these driver’s wouldn’t be parking illegally like this (ie. defensively), they’d be parking on the curb outside the shopping mall and wait for the parking tickets to come.

But I guess you could be right in a sense because the nicer the car, the more likely the owner is going to care about it. It’d be the same for vintage or souped up cars which aren’t necessarily expensive but valued by their owners.

roshen said :

This isn’t necessarily about driving nice cars you know, people who drive less expensive cars shouldn’t have to come back to their car and see damage.

So your whole argument seems to suggest that no one should have to park within the lines?
LOL, but lets play it out. Might as well remove the lines altogether, wait, now everyone has been parked in trying to get closest to the shops, oh and did I mention every cars gets several dents because no one has left enough space for others to get out or push trolleys/wheelchairs/etc.

You are right though, it is not only those with *nice* cars who do this. However a larger proportion of those with *nice* cars do it compared to those with more modest vehicles. For me though, the problem with those who have *nice* cars and behave like this is the money=entitlement attitude.

IrishPete said :

roshen, you need to get some perspective. We do care about our cars. We also care about other people’s cars. But we also care about pedestrian access. Your right to drive a posh car is not more important than unimpeded pedestrian access to other parts of the car park. If you can’t understand that, you should probably hand your licence back. Park in the bays. End of story. It doesn’t matter how expensive your car is, it gives you no greater right to park illegally.

I have had damage to my car from other people’s doors. And it’s annoying, and I suck it up. That’s life. I had a speeding car with trailer smash my windscreen via flying rock one day, and I sucked it up. Did I mention I’d had the windscreen replaced the previous day for roadworthy inspection and was on my way for the re-inspection? Annoying, yes, but I sucked it up. There are things you can control and there are things you can’t, and when you learn some acceptance you will quite likely be a much happier person.

IP

IP, it seems you haven’t been reading my posts and that’s ok given that some of them are quite long. But to reiterate, I don’t drive a posh car and I did mention that my opinion did not just include the people who drove a posh car. I would have the same comment if I saw a toyota parked like that.

And I did mention early on that this Porsche driver may have overdone it a bit but my opinion is that I fully understand why they did it and I had no personal problems with it because there was enough room to allow for pedestrian traffic.

My other perspective was that these people need not park like that if everyone respected other people’s property, which they obviously don’t. So your view in impeding on pedestrian traffic is only a one sided view of this issue and does not cover the cause of the problem. If my licence should be taken away with this view then should everyone else here who accepts that it’s ok to damage other people’s property be restricted from leaving the house?

This post that you’ve just written is basically the second post (aside from Innovation’s) that acknowledges that there are people out there who don’t care and it’s not okay. If you read through the post, the attacks have been on the fact that pedestrian access is impeded on but not the core reason as to why.

No one seems to care that there’s damage to cars going on and the attitude to “suck it up” is more evident from you post. So may I ask why should people just “suck it up”? And if that was a legitimate argument then can I ask if why you didn’t suggest that the pedestrian’s should just “suck it up” and move on without complaining? On one side you’re telling people who suffer financial loss to suck it up, but it’s so not okay for other people who may be inconvenienced for 2 seconds of their life.

Everyone here is annoyed by the pedestrian issue and that’s fine but I don’t think it’s a balanced perspective to the issue of why cars park like this.

roshen said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

If you block a disabled persons access on purpose, then yes, total asshole.

So your assumption is that they did this solely to inconvenience disabled people or other pedestrians? Just curious, don’t you think disabled people would park in the designated spots closer to the entrance of the mall? Yes, maybe they’ve been filled up but as I said there’s a 1.5m gap there and that’s more than what they get next to their disabled parking spot.

I did acknowledge earlier that this driver may have overdone it a bit but given the space left I don’t see the issue given that I don’t think it impedes on pedestrian traffic.

But you haven’t seem to acknowledge that these people don’t do it for fun, they do it to avoid the true assholes who you have written off as the norm of society.

roshen, you need to get some perspective. We do care about our cars. We also care about other people’s cars. But we also care about pedestrian access. Your right to drive a posh car is not more important than unimpeded pedestrian access to other parts of the car park. If you can’t understand that, you should probably hand your licence back. Park in the bays. End of story. It doesn’t matter how expensive your car is, it gives you no greater right to park illegally.

I have had damage to my car from other people’s doors. And it’s annoying, and I suck it up. That’s life. I had a speeding car with trailer smash my windscreen via flying rock one day, and I sucked it up. Did I mention I’d had the windscreen replaced the previous day for roadworthy inspection and was on my way for the re-inspection? Annoying, yes, but I sucked it up. There are things you can control and there are things you can’t, and when you learn some acceptance you will quite likely be a much happier person.

IP

MrBigEars said :

It looks like the white van in 2) is parked diagonally across a disabled zone and (I assume) the access strip. Might give context to the police parking effort, or not.

I thought the same, saved the photo my hard drive, zoomed in on it, but still wasn’t sure enough to post about it… But when I zoomed in on the people beside the van, they aren’t police speaking to civvies, so I don’t think it directly relates to the police dodgy parking. Anyway, it would take a certain amount of guts to park in a disabled zoned to issue a ticket to someone parked in a disabled zone…

IP

It looks like the white van in 2) is parked diagonally across a disabled zone and (I assume) the access strip. Might give context to the police parking effort, or not.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

roshen said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

If you block a disabled persons access on purpose, then yes, total asshole.

So your assumption is that they did this solely to inconvenience disabled people or other pedestrians? Just curious, don’t you think disabled people would park in the designated spots closer to the entrance of the mall? Yes, maybe they’ve been filled up but as I said there’s a 1.5m gap there and that’s more than what they get next to their disabled parking spot.

I did acknowledge earlier that this driver may have overdone it a bit but given the space left I don’t see the issue given that I don’t think it impedes on pedestrian traffic.

But you haven’t seem to acknowledge that these people don’t do it for fun, they do it to avoid the true assholes who you have written off as the norm of society.

They new it would mess with wheelchairs, prams and trolleys, yet they parked there anyway. Asshole.

Also can you please provide a source on all the people who open doors onto others cars and what sort of damage it causes?

Again, how did they know it would mess with pedestrian access when there is sufficent room there and as mentioned previously, much more than a disabled person would get next to their spot. Would the mall be “messing” with pedestrians if they didn’t provide this no parking zone? This no parking zone doesn’t happen everywhere you know.

And you still have not acknowledge that the first intention of these people are not to annoy pedestrians, rather to defned themselves.

And it’s surprising that you still have not acknowledged that it’s the people who damage other people’s property (intentionally or not) and leaving no note, who are the people causing this issue. Are you continuing to suggest that their actions are ok?

So you want me to source “all” incidents of this. So I’m an insurance company now? Seriously if you’ve never heard of it or never seen cars with these dings then I’m surprised. So without me providing the so called evidence, then your conclusion is that they do it do annoy other people rather than protect themselves.

watto23 said :

No the driver is only thinking of himself and not others by parking the way he has. He (and you it seems) think he has left plenty of space, in which case he shouldn’t be too upset when the other side of the car gets scratched. People who park like this draw attention to themselves and will more likely get “accidental scratch marks” by other jerks who dislike this more than the rest of us.

I’ve never had a scratch mark or dent in my cars in 20+ yrs of driving in Canberra but I always manage to park in the lines and also away from others who can’t park (If i see a badly parked car next to a space, i move on to another).

So you’ve been lucky in your 20+ years, but are you saying that people who park like you will never get their car damaged? I actually park quite like you and generally park far away from the entrance of any shopping mall and at the end spots. To your surprise and maybe everyone elses here, I haven’t parked in a spot like this before, largely because I won’t park next to a shopping trolley return or anywhere near frequent pedestrian traffic. But I’ve still had one door open ding, one bumper scrape and one trolley mark in the last 12 months. So yes, I do understand why they park like this and am not upset when I see it.

And just for the record, I don’t drive a Porsche or an expensive car for that matter. I do take care of my car and, surprisingly, do get annoyed when I have to come back and see damage and no note from the perpetrator.

roshen said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

If you block a disabled persons access on purpose, then yes, total asshole.

So your assumption is that they did this solely to inconvenience disabled people or other pedestrians? Just curious, don’t you think disabled people would park in the designated spots closer to the entrance of the mall? Yes, maybe they’ve been filled up but as I said there’s a 1.5m gap there and that’s more than what they get next to their disabled parking spot.

I did acknowledge earlier that this driver may have overdone it a bit but given the space left I don’t see the issue given that I don’t think it impedes on pedestrian traffic.

But you haven’t seem to acknowledge that these people don’t do it for fun, they do it to avoid the true assholes who you have written off as the norm of society.

No the driver is only thinking of himself and not others by parking the way he has. He (and you it seems) think he has left plenty of space, in which case he shouldn’t be too upset when the other side of the car gets scratched. People who park like this draw attention to themselves and will more likely get “accidental scratch marks” by other jerks who dislike this more than the rest of us.

I’ve never had a scratch mark or dent in my cars in 20+ yrs of driving in Canberra but I always manage to park in the lines and also away from others who can’t park (If i see a badly parked car next to a space, i move on to another).

I’m not condoning their behaviour but I can understand why car owners, typically of expensive cars, park illegally to maintain a gap from other cars. A couple of weeks ago, our cheapish car was again side swiped in a busy car park and the driver left without leaving details. We’re talking about damage to several panels – not just a few dings – and presumably with such force and noise that surely others must have seen it happen.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd6:54 am 02 Jan 14

roshen said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

If you block a disabled persons access on purpose, then yes, total asshole.

So your assumption is that they did this solely to inconvenience disabled people or other pedestrians? Just curious, don’t you think disabled people would park in the designated spots closer to the entrance of the mall? Yes, maybe they’ve been filled up but as I said there’s a 1.5m gap there and that’s more than what they get next to their disabled parking spot.

I did acknowledge earlier that this driver may have overdone it a bit but given the space left I don’t see the issue given that I don’t think it impedes on pedestrian traffic.

But you haven’t seem to acknowledge that these people don’t do it for fun, they do it to avoid the true assholes who you have written off as the norm of society.

They new it would mess with wheelchairs, prams and trolleys, yet they parked there anyway. Asshole.

Also can you please provide a source on all the people who open doors onto others cars and what sort of damage it causes?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

If you block a disabled persons access on purpose, then yes, total asshole.

So your assumption is that they did this solely to inconvenience disabled people or other pedestrians? Just curious, don’t you think disabled people would park in the designated spots closer to the entrance of the mall? Yes, maybe they’ve been filled up but as I said there’s a 1.5m gap there and that’s more than what they get next to their disabled parking spot.

I did acknowledge earlier that this driver may have overdone it a bit but given the space left I don’t see the issue given that I don’t think it impedes on pedestrian traffic.

But you haven’t seem to acknowledge that these people don’t do it for fun, they do it to avoid the true assholes who you have written off as the norm of society.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd8:59 pm 01 Jan 14

roshen said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Honestly has never happened to my good self.

I do like your logic though. Peeps are assholes so I’m gonna be a asshole aswell.

Stay classy, champ.

And your logic is great too. Do you honestly think these drivers do it to annoy others or be your so called “assholes” or are they doing it just so they don’t have to come back to a damaged car? Would they do it if there was no one out there that would be “assholes” to them?

Just because it hasn’t happened to you means it doesn’t happen on a regular basis right?

IrishPete said :

Oh grow up, it’s a car not a Ming vase. If you don’t want marks on your car, wrap it in cotton wool and leave it at home in a garage where hail or falling twigs can’t get to it. By driving it to a car park you risk stone chips, sandblasting from dirt, bird droppings etc.

Nor does it help to up the ante and start referring to shopping trolley scratches and door-to-door contact as “hit and run”. Where I park most it is almost impossible to get in or out of a car without doors touching – if someone hasn’t parked well, it becomes impossible. And I’m thinner than most people.

By the way, the Porsche driver definitely has not left enough space for someone to get past with, say a side-by-side double buggy, or a shopping trolley and a couple of children. Never mind wheelchairs and the like. I used to know someone who had to push a wheelchair and a shopping trolley at the same time.

So I do hope they did get scratched for being so selfish, or do in the future.

IP.

Grow up? I think that’s something you should do. Bird droppings, sandblasting, hail, stone chips etc are the result of driving from your own free will and no one else’s fault. But are you trying to say that we should now be responsible for other people who do damage to our property?

If you saw someone damage your car and tried to walk off would you do nothing and accept that this is normal and you deserve it because this is the risk you take for driving your car out?

Just because you don’t care about your car doesn’t mean other people can’t care. And when they do care, your advice is to tell them not to drive it out because it’s “normal” that other people will damage it and it’s only their fault because they chose to drive it out?

And what do you want me to call it? Maybe it’s not technically “hit and run” but if you go and damage someone else’s property and leave without notifying them of your mistake then it is essentially the same thing isn’t it?

If you block a disabled persons access on purpose, then yes, total asshole.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Honestly has never happened to my good self.

I do like your logic though. Peeps are assholes so I’m gonna be a asshole aswell.

Stay classy, champ.

And your logic is great too. Do you honestly think these drivers do it to annoy others or be your so called “assholes” or are they doing it just so they don’t have to come back to a damaged car? Would they do it if there was no one out there that would be “assholes” to them?

Just because it hasn’t happened to you means it doesn’t happen on a regular basis right?

IrishPete said :

Oh grow up, it’s a car not a Ming vase. If you don’t want marks on your car, wrap it in cotton wool and leave it at home in a garage where hail or falling twigs can’t get to it. By driving it to a car park you risk stone chips, sandblasting from dirt, bird droppings etc.

Nor does it help to up the ante and start referring to shopping trolley scratches and door-to-door contact as “hit and run”. Where I park most it is almost impossible to get in or out of a car without doors touching – if someone hasn’t parked well, it becomes impossible. And I’m thinner than most people.

By the way, the Porsche driver definitely has not left enough space for someone to get past with, say a side-by-side double buggy, or a shopping trolley and a couple of children. Never mind wheelchairs and the like. I used to know someone who had to push a wheelchair and a shopping trolley at the same time.

So I do hope they did get scratched for being so selfish, or do in the future.

IP.

Grow up? I think that’s something you should do. Bird droppings, sandblasting, hail, stone chips etc are the result of driving from your own free will and no one else’s fault. But are you trying to say that we should now be responsible for other people who do damage to our property?

If you saw someone damage your car and tried to walk off would you do nothing and accept that this is normal and you deserve it because this is the risk you take for driving your car out?

Just because you don’t care about your car doesn’t mean other people can’t care. And when they do care, your advice is to tell them not to drive it out because it’s “normal” that other people will damage it and it’s only their fault because they chose to drive it out?

And what do you want me to call it? Maybe it’s not technically “hit and run” but if you go and damage someone else’s property and leave without notifying them of your mistake then it is essentially the same thing isn’t it?

Oh grow up, it’s a car not a Ming vase. If you don’t want marks on your car, wrap it in cotton wool and leave it at home in a garage where hail or falling twigs can’t get to it. By driving it to a car park you risk stone chips, sandblasting from dirt, bird droppings etc.

Nor does it help to up the ante and start referring to shopping trolley scratches and door-to-door contact as “hit and run”. Where I park most it is almost impossible to get in or out of a car without doors touching – if someone hasn’t parked well, it becomes impossible. And I’m thinner than most people.

By the way, the Porsche driver definitely has not left enough space for someone to get past with, say a side-by-side double buggy, or a shopping trolley and a couple of children. Never mind wheelchairs and the like. I used to know someone who had to push a wheelchair and a shopping trolley at the same time.

So I do hope they did get scratched for being so selfish, or do in the future.

IP.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd5:04 pm 01 Jan 14

Honestly has never happened to my good self.

I do like your logic though. Peeps are assholes so I’m gonna be a asshole aswell.

Stay classy, champ.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

roshen said :

c_c™ said :

roshen said :

I seriously don’t see what the issue is with the Porsche parking like that. Too many idiots open doors into other people’s cars so you can’t blame people trying to protect themselves.

1. If they’re that precious and can afford a Porsche, then perhaps best not to use it as their daily drive.

2. Those striped lines aren’t decorative, they’re presumably for a pedestrian walk way, in which case he/she may be impeding the passage of mobility impaired people or people with strollers, and now risks getting his vehicle dinged by a trolley anyway.

Do you think that people who drive nice cars don’t deserve to drive them daily without idiots doing damage to them?

Maybe the persons overdone it a bit but there’s still about 1.5m of gap there which is a lot more than some shops inside the mall, which people still seem to navigate their trolleys/prams/wheelchairs through quite comfortably.

roshen said :

I seriously don’t see what the issue is with the Porsche parking like that. Too many idiots open doors into other people’s cars so you can’t blame people trying to protect themselves.

What a load of bs.

Also, let’s restrict access to wheelchairs and prams, n biggie, right?

Read my second comment so my opinion is it’s no biggie given the room left is adequate. My point is, if the mall marked out the area to that smaller area left by the Porsche no one would be complaining that there’s not enough room.

If it is BS then why do you think so many people do it? I see people parking like this all the time and if people were more courteous and cared about other people’s property then no one would need to park like this.

Because they are scurmdorg self important bell ends who think rules don’t apply to them and screw who ever else it causes a issue for.

So it’s the people who are trying to protect themselves who are the Scumdogs? Not the idiots that don’t respect other people’s property? So you are all good for those people who open their doors into other people’s cars or scrape their cars and leave no note?

For a person to park like that that’s not particularly intruding on another person’s parking or the accessibility of pedestrians you seem to have made a particularly strong conclusion on their personality.

You might be ok but not everyone enjoys forking out $500 excess every now and then to fix up hit and run incidents.

This isn’t necessarily about driving nice cars you know, people who drive less expensive cars shouldn’t have to come back to their car and see damage.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd7:33 am 01 Jan 14

roshen said :

c_c™ said :

roshen said :

I seriously don’t see what the issue is with the Porsche parking like that. Too many idiots open doors into other people’s cars so you can’t blame people trying to protect themselves.

1. If they’re that precious and can afford a Porsche, then perhaps best not to use it as their daily drive.

2. Those striped lines aren’t decorative, they’re presumably for a pedestrian walk way, in which case he/she may be impeding the passage of mobility impaired people or people with strollers, and now risks getting his vehicle dinged by a trolley anyway.

Do you think that people who drive nice cars don’t deserve to drive them daily without idiots doing damage to them?

Maybe the persons overdone it a bit but there’s still about 1.5m of gap there which is a lot more than some shops inside the mall, which people still seem to navigate their trolleys/prams/wheelchairs through quite comfortably.

roshen said :

I seriously don’t see what the issue is with the Porsche parking like that. Too many idiots open doors into other people’s cars so you can’t blame people trying to protect themselves.

What a load of bs.

Also, let’s restrict access to wheelchairs and prams, n biggie, right?

Read my second comment so my opinion is it’s no biggie given the room left is adequate. My point is, if the mall marked out the area to that smaller area left by the Porsche no one would be complaining that there’s not enough room.

If it is BS then why do you think so many people do it? I see people parking like this all the time and if people were more courteous and cared about other people’s property then no one would need to park like this.

Because they are scurmdorg self important bell ends who think rules don’t apply to them and screw who ever else it causes a issue for.

c_c™ said :

roshen said :

I seriously don’t see what the issue is with the Porsche parking like that. Too many idiots open doors into other people’s cars so you can’t blame people trying to protect themselves.

1. If they’re that precious and can afford a Porsche, then perhaps best not to use it as their daily drive.

2. Those striped lines aren’t decorative, they’re presumably for a pedestrian walk way, in which case he/she may be impeding the passage of mobility impaired people or people with strollers, and now risks getting his vehicle dinged by a trolley anyway.

Do you think that people who drive nice cars don’t deserve to drive them daily without idiots doing damage to them?

Maybe the persons overdone it a bit but there’s still about 1.5m of gap there which is a lot more than some shops inside the mall, which people still seem to navigate their trolleys/prams/wheelchairs through quite comfortably.

roshen said :

I seriously don’t see what the issue is with the Porsche parking like that. Too many idiots open doors into other people’s cars so you can’t blame people trying to protect themselves.

What a load of bs.

Also, let’s restrict access to wheelchairs and prams, n biggie, right?

Read my second comment so my opinion is it’s no biggie given the room left is adequate. My point is, if the mall marked out the area to that smaller area left by the Porsche no one would be complaining that there’s not enough room.

If it is BS then why do you think so many people do it? I see people parking like this all the time and if people were more courteous and cared about other people’s property then no one would need to park like this.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd7:13 am 31 Dec 13

roshen said :

I seriously don’t see what the issue is with the Porsche parking like that. Too many idiots open doors into other people’s cars so you can’t blame people trying to protect themselves.

What a load of bs.

Also, let’s restrict access to wheelchairs and prams, n biggie, right?

roshen said :

I seriously don’t see what the issue is with the Porsche parking like that. Too many idiots open doors into other people’s cars so you can’t blame people trying to protect themselves.

1. If they’re that precious and can afford a Porsche, then perhaps best not to use it as their daily drive.

2. Those striped lines aren’t decorative, they’re presumably for a pedestrian walk way, in which case he/she may be impeding the passage of mobility impaired people or people with strollers, and now risks getting his vehicle dinged by a trolley anyway.

I seriously don’t see what the issue is with the Porsche parking like that. Too many idiots open doors into other people’s cars so you can’t blame people trying to protect themselves.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.