Oh dear.

[conuly]

Remember the woman who sends evidence about people who illegally park in handicapped spots?

Donovan McNabb and Jeremiah Trotter were found guilty of parking in handicapped spots. Their vehicles were photographed by Mary Ann Cottrell, who has made it her business to police the handicapped spots. I would suggest Ms. Cottrell look in the mirror before she takes another photo.

She has a handicapped license due to her caring for an adult child with autism. An individual with autism has complete mobility, and it is not necessary for them to use handicapped parking. Let those who are physically impaired use the spots, not Ms. Cottrell.

1. Stop it with the asinine phrase "adult child with autism". Just quit it.

2. You and I have no evidence that Ms. Cottrell's daughter does not, in fact, have any physical impairment.

3. Even if she did, she may still have a perfectly valid reason for using the handicapped spot - for example, if she gets lost very easily, as some people (me) do, due (I believe) to a spatial agnosia and bad sense of direction. That's for the courts to decide.

3.5 Which they already did, didn' they?

Shouldn't Ms. Cottrell be working or taking care of her handicapped kid instead of stalking the citizens of New Jersey?

I guess Ms. Cottrell didn't watch the Eagles play last season. Otherwise she would agree that McNabb definitely deserved a handicapped spot.

Humor as a defense mechanism. Never seen that one before.

Why would Donovan be so foolish as to contest a ticket for parking in a handicapped space?

He's a millionaire making more than enough to pay such a fine with the wages of an hour. Yet he brings a well-paid lawyer in to fight this fine. Why? Teammate Jeremiah Trotter isn't much better.

Exactly. He's just making himself look bad. *nodnodnod*

Three letters, two of which aren't worth the paper they're virtually printed on. *le sigh*

On a related note, about how many children under six do you have to have before a presumably non-disabling pregnancy justifies taking the handicapped spot? I'm not sure, but I think it *must* be more than just two.

Comments

[sunnydale47.livejournal.com]

I suppose the ostensible reason is that if the child has a meltdown she needs to be able to get him to the car fast, and I can kind of see that might possibly be a valid reason. (NB: Lots of deliberate weasel words in that sentence.)

But I'd like to know if she has ever used it when her child isn't with her, because she's "only going to be a few minutes" or "the only open spaces were too far away". I don't know about Pennsylvania, but in Maryland it's just as illegal to use someone else's handicapped tag -- even if it's on your car -- as it is to park in a handicap space without one. The person for whom the tag was issued must be in the car for its use to be legal.

But no cop will question that, of course. Since I have an invisible disability and often look perfectly fine even when I'm in severe pain, I always carry both of the forms that show my hang tags (one for each car) were issued to me. But in the 17 or so years since I've had them, I've never, ever, been asked to show them. So Ms. Cottrell can be quite confident she won't be asked whose tag it is either.

[conuly]

Her daughter is an adult, not a child. Just a note.

As for the rest, I assume she hasn't used the permit when she's not supposed to - that'd make her a bit hypocritical, wouldn't it?

[maelorin]

merely having the permit on display is usually considered sufficient -no one wants to get into deep pc doo doo for asking soemone to "show proof".

that said, how often do "handicapped spots" get policed and people fined for using them?

[maelorin]

she seems to perserverate over this whole issue somewhat. perhaps mrs cottrell is somewhat autistic herself?


i'm still bemused by the notion of an "adult child". surely she means an adult dependant? :)


as i understand, you cannot use children to justify taking a parking spot for which you have no permit. no matter how many you've popped out, or cart about with you.

[conuly]

She may well be. Of course, there's worse things to perseverate over than issues of massive social justice. *nodnodnod*

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

One's offspring is always one's child, no matter what the age.

I will always be my mother's child, even though I am now 31 and she and I have an adult relationship.

"Child" in the case of the phrase "adult child with autism" merely indicates a relationship, and *should* only be used when referring to a parent-child relationship. I'm sure conuly can cite instances where it's been used incorrectly, but this is how it should be used.

"adult dependant" would (a) broaden the scope to foster children and other non-offspring relationships and could include merely someone for whom you are a caretaker, and (b) introduce even more pejorative word "dependant" into the description.

By the way, I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone not to fight a ticket, even if he's a mega-millionaire. Annoying, sure. But it continues to bring celebrity focus on an important issue, and will help educate the inimical Ms. Cottrell about the proper procedure she needs to use to ticket these law-breakers, so she can tag more of them.

I'd be more interested in knowing if she finds that certain people are more likely to park illegally or not.

[literalgirl.livejournal.com]

I always WANTED one when Bolt was little, but couldn't get one (although I have other friends with autistic kids whose doctors DO give them the paperwork).

My reason? He was a runner. I mean a RUNNER. He was almost killed on TWO separate occasions (prior to his diagnosis) when friends of my mother had taken him out and not understood what I meant when I said "Hold his hand ALL THE TIME - no exceptions". Being in the handicapped space meant less chance of Bolt running out in front of cars, because they are often right next to the entrance. I had this relief for 3 or 4 months following knee surgery, and I always longed for the relative safety it offered.

And actually, Liane Holliday-Willey told me that I should get disabled tags because I used to lose my car (even in my office lot, where I worked for 5 years!). She said that, or to get a huge, red SUV like she had, that was hard to lose. :-)

For that problem (now that Bolt has outgrown being a runner - at 13!), I have a defense mechanism that works thusly: if I am in a parking structure, I always park on TOP, and if it's not multi-level, I try to always park on the end of a row, even if it's quite far from the entrance. This really helps with the getting lost.

[ladydiana.livejournal.com]

I have a friend who has a four year old who bolts into traffic.

I put him in a harness when I take him out, which, although he can slide it off his shoulders, he can't unbolt from around his waist.

People look at me strangely, but the kid is alive.

Of course, I think those only came out in the last 7 years, so your kid might have been "too early" for that, but I sympathise.

(/me drives a red SUV, and loses it anyway...)

[sayga.livejournal.com]

i couldn't resist commenting to one of the comments on that link to the handicapped-parking place taker. i just don't see how being pregnant justfies breaking the law.

[conuly]

Well, I took the liberty of checking out her journal. Which is fair... she did it to me first. (Don't comment, please - I like to limit my drama quotient.)

Apparently, what we're doing is "imposing our values on others without regard for situation or context".

The situation is that pregnant people are, by definition, speshul*, and are allowed to break whatever rule they want to make their lives easier. (This didn't work when certain parties tried it in the carpool lane, but I suppose it works when you're actually inconveniencing others, yes?)

*This is different from merely special by virtue of being obnoxious. I know plenty of non-speshul people who have been pregnant and *still* weren't obnoxious about it, but, apparently, her mother is just different.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how *not* to teach your children values.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I hate those attitudes. What, it might cost them an extra half hour, fifteen minute walk each way, maybe a potential temper tantrum... call it an extra hour of their lives. Well, great - suck it up. If I have to walk extra it'll cost me an extra few days, because that's what I need to recover from walking for twenty minutes. Plus, if I am already low on energy, it means I may end up having health problems wherever I am, and thus a) not be able to accomplish whatever I was there for b) have to do things that are socially awkward like lying down in public places (but it's less socially awkward than fainting).

My sister got a temp placard while she was pregnant. And if you feel the doctors in your area are unreasonably prejudiced against the potentially disabling aspects of being pregnant, by all means fight that. But stop taking spaces if you're not disabled. I don't have any sympathy for your "just five minutes" and not wanting to walk for ten minutes. And that's for one very simple reason: You can walk for 10 minutes.

You can, and you won't suffer any horrible consequences from it. In fact, for many of those people it will actively be good for them. It will improve their health. And it won't cause them agonizing pain.

Really, I'm too lawful for my own good. I'm stuck in limbo with so many of my benefits being based on vision, but needed for mobility issues. I'm not using my placard til I can sort it out, because technically I have it for blindness. But I'm uncertain on whether that's actually the right choice, since I'm damaging myself by not using it. But I really do like following the law. The tricky part is figuring out who to go to to get my placard for other reasons, since I don't really trust my GP to understand, and I'm about to probably lose my health insurance. Which means going out less often, because I truly can't handle the walking.

I just wish that every time someone parked in a handicapped spot without anyone handicapped being involved that they would then get the horrible leg pains that I get when I overwalk. Not anything too horrible... I wouldn't force on them all of my symptoms, but let them get the leg pains. Oh, and the inability to use my legs. So, they have to take itty, bitty steps and have trouble on staircases. They can also have the hip pain. Just a small fraction of what extra walking costs me. Every so often, if they get tired of that and want a change of pace, we can just trap them in their cars for awhile and pretend they need a wheelchair they can't exit the car with.

[conuly]

Did you tell her that?

[lizziey.livejournal.com]

You can, and you won't suffer any horrible consequences from it. In fact, for many of those people it will actively be good for them. It will improve their health. And it won't cause them agonizing pain.

Hm. I almost lost Topher, and ended up needing a cerclave (sp?) and bedrest for *months* after walking evryday with my older son. Not to mention the agonizing pains from the nerve Topher was lying on, causing my back and legs to get spasms. But, you know, its good for me, and won't cause horrible consequences.



Why is it some people who have disabilities think that other people may not have something as bad? Even, goodness forbid, pregnancy related? Pregnancy is *more than* difficult on my body. 2 out of 3 times, i cannot maintain the pregnancy, and the 1/3 of times I do, I am in the worst pain of my life. Labor is not nearly as bad as pregnancy, and in fact, i don't mind labor and delivery. Even unmedicated. But pregnancy in my body is simply debilitating.

[sunnydale47.livejournal.com]

I suppose the ostensible reason is that if the child has a meltdown she needs to be able to get him to the car fast, and I can kind of see that might possibly be a valid reason. (NB: Lots of deliberate weasel words in that sentence.)

But I'd like to know if she has ever used it when her child isn't with her, because she's "only going to be a few minutes" or "the only open spaces were too far away". I don't know about Pennsylvania, but in Maryland it's just as illegal to use someone else's handicapped tag -- even if it's on your car -- as it is to park in a handicap space without one. The person for whom the tag was issued must be in the car for its use to be legal.

But no cop will question that, of course. Since I have an invisible disability and often look perfectly fine even when I'm in severe pain, I always carry both of the forms that show my hang tags (one for each car) were issued to me. But in the 17 or so years since I've had them, I've never, ever, been asked to show them. So Ms. Cottrell can be quite confident she won't be asked whose tag it is either.

[conuly]

Her daughter is an adult, not a child. Just a note.

As for the rest, I assume she hasn't used the permit when she's not supposed to - that'd make her a bit hypocritical, wouldn't it?

[maelorin]

merely having the permit on display is usually considered sufficient -no one wants to get into deep pc doo doo for asking soemone to "show proof".

that said, how often do "handicapped spots" get policed and people fined for using them?

[maelorin]

she seems to perserverate over this whole issue somewhat. perhaps mrs cottrell is somewhat autistic herself?


i'm still bemused by the notion of an "adult child". surely she means an adult dependant? :)


as i understand, you cannot use children to justify taking a parking spot for which you have no permit. no matter how many you've popped out, or cart about with you.

[conuly]

She may well be. Of course, there's worse things to perseverate over than issues of massive social justice. *nodnodnod*

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

One's offspring is always one's child, no matter what the age.

I will always be my mother's child, even though I am now 31 and she and I have an adult relationship.

"Child" in the case of the phrase "adult child with autism" merely indicates a relationship, and *should* only be used when referring to a parent-child relationship. I'm sure conuly can cite instances where it's been used incorrectly, but this is how it should be used.

"adult dependant" would (a) broaden the scope to foster children and other non-offspring relationships and could include merely someone for whom you are a caretaker, and (b) introduce even more pejorative word "dependant" into the description.

By the way, I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone not to fight a ticket, even if he's a mega-millionaire. Annoying, sure. But it continues to bring celebrity focus on an important issue, and will help educate the inimical Ms. Cottrell about the proper procedure she needs to use to ticket these law-breakers, so she can tag more of them.

I'd be more interested in knowing if she finds that certain people are more likely to park illegally or not.

[literalgirl.livejournal.com]

I always WANTED one when Bolt was little, but couldn't get one (although I have other friends with autistic kids whose doctors DO give them the paperwork).

My reason? He was a runner. I mean a RUNNER. He was almost killed on TWO separate occasions (prior to his diagnosis) when friends of my mother had taken him out and not understood what I meant when I said "Hold his hand ALL THE TIME - no exceptions". Being in the handicapped space meant less chance of Bolt running out in front of cars, because they are often right next to the entrance. I had this relief for 3 or 4 months following knee surgery, and I always longed for the relative safety it offered.

And actually, Liane Holliday-Willey told me that I should get disabled tags because I used to lose my car (even in my office lot, where I worked for 5 years!). She said that, or to get a huge, red SUV like she had, that was hard to lose. :-)

For that problem (now that Bolt has outgrown being a runner - at 13!), I have a defense mechanism that works thusly: if I am in a parking structure, I always park on TOP, and if it's not multi-level, I try to always park on the end of a row, even if it's quite far from the entrance. This really helps with the getting lost.

[ladydiana.livejournal.com]

I have a friend who has a four year old who bolts into traffic.

I put him in a harness when I take him out, which, although he can slide it off his shoulders, he can't unbolt from around his waist.

People look at me strangely, but the kid is alive.

Of course, I think those only came out in the last 7 years, so your kid might have been "too early" for that, but I sympathise.

(/me drives a red SUV, and loses it anyway...)

[sayga.livejournal.com]

i couldn't resist commenting to one of the comments on that link to the handicapped-parking place taker. i just don't see how being pregnant justfies breaking the law.

[conuly]

Well, I took the liberty of checking out her journal. Which is fair... she did it to me first. (Don't comment, please - I like to limit my drama quotient.)

Apparently, what we're doing is "imposing our values on others without regard for situation or context".

The situation is that pregnant people are, by definition, speshul*, and are allowed to break whatever rule they want to make their lives easier. (This didn't work when certain parties tried it in the carpool lane, but I suppose it works when you're actually inconveniencing others, yes?)

*This is different from merely special by virtue of being obnoxious. I know plenty of non-speshul people who have been pregnant and *still* weren't obnoxious about it, but, apparently, her mother is just different.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how *not* to teach your children values.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I hate those attitudes. What, it might cost them an extra half hour, fifteen minute walk each way, maybe a potential temper tantrum... call it an extra hour of their lives. Well, great - suck it up. If I have to walk extra it'll cost me an extra few days, because that's what I need to recover from walking for twenty minutes. Plus, if I am already low on energy, it means I may end up having health problems wherever I am, and thus a) not be able to accomplish whatever I was there for b) have to do things that are socially awkward like lying down in public places (but it's less socially awkward than fainting).

My sister got a temp placard while she was pregnant. And if you feel the doctors in your area are unreasonably prejudiced against the potentially disabling aspects of being pregnant, by all means fight that. But stop taking spaces if you're not disabled. I don't have any sympathy for your "just five minutes" and not wanting to walk for ten minutes. And that's for one very simple reason: You can walk for 10 minutes.

You can, and you won't suffer any horrible consequences from it. In fact, for many of those people it will actively be good for them. It will improve their health. And it won't cause them agonizing pain.

Really, I'm too lawful for my own good. I'm stuck in limbo with so many of my benefits being based on vision, but needed for mobility issues. I'm not using my placard til I can sort it out, because technically I have it for blindness. But I'm uncertain on whether that's actually the right choice, since I'm damaging myself by not using it. But I really do like following the law. The tricky part is figuring out who to go to to get my placard for other reasons, since I don't really trust my GP to understand, and I'm about to probably lose my health insurance. Which means going out less often, because I truly can't handle the walking.

I just wish that every time someone parked in a handicapped spot without anyone handicapped being involved that they would then get the horrible leg pains that I get when I overwalk. Not anything too horrible... I wouldn't force on them all of my symptoms, but let them get the leg pains. Oh, and the inability to use my legs. So, they have to take itty, bitty steps and have trouble on staircases. They can also have the hip pain. Just a small fraction of what extra walking costs me. Every so often, if they get tired of that and want a change of pace, we can just trap them in their cars for awhile and pretend they need a wheelchair they can't exit the car with.

[conuly]

Did you tell her that?