OT - Parking scam at Lidl

[mike]

blah blah blah

It's the fate of geniuses not to be recognized in their own lifetimes. Poor John.

[Philip]

You obviously read bert666's postings very carefully in order to come to that conclusion - including the mention of being 6 months pregnant!

Now who's as thick as pigshit?!

[Derek Geldard]

So it is.

Derek

[Dave Plowman (News)]

If you have to pay to park and claim it back if and when you use the store, it would be safe to assume you can use the car park and not shop at the store. Sainsbury tend to do this where their store is close to a commuter station. At other branches they seem to be going for a fixed maximum term using numberplate recognition cameras.

I don't see anything wrong with a store operating their carparks how they want. They own them, after all. If you don't like how they do things use a different supermarket.

[John]

Well I'm obviously the only one who thinks the way I do so fair enough, I'll accept that I'm a weirdo or whatever but, I still say that it doesn't matter what "rules" apply or what you can and cannot do - to my way of thinking it's just morally wrong to park in a space meant for patrons of one business and then go elsewhere. The OP states "I've done my shopping in town and returned to shop in Lidl...".

I don't know Uttoxeter at all, but I'll bet that there's some sort of council-run or perhaps privately-run (think NCP or whatever) car park that would be more suited to "general shopping in town" that he could use first and then move on to Lidl. However, I'll also bet that the OP is parking at Lidl to avoid paying his dues elsewhere.

[Matty F]

A shop in NZ has changed their parking system to one where you get a ticket for free parking for half an hour. Unfortunately the machine is under cover in the dark, and the screen is backlit only when you press any button. If you don't spot which is the free button, you get to a menu that only accepts money. They don't seem to understand how stupid this is. I see lots of people doing without tickets as they don't understand the system.

[John Rumm]

If the shop allows the practice of using their car park and shopping elsewhere, then I can see no reason to object on moral grounds or otherwise. Especially if they either directly profit from the sale of parking, or indirectly by drawing customers to their shop.

If the shop prohibits the practice (and has always done so, and makes it clear that this is the case) then I accept your view is right and proper. (whether it is good business practice or PR for the company in question however is a different matter).

[John]

I see what you're saying but to me it's still not right. It's not about what the shop allows or doesn't allow, it's about the individual driver who chooses to do it. I just would not do it because I truly believe that parking spaces at a shop are for customers of that shop while they do their shopping in there. Once you've finished, you move on and let someone else use that space while they shop there. It's just common courtesy and good manners rather than the 'I'm alright Jack and stuff anyone else' attitude.

Another example - Round here we have a stretch of road, probably 500 metres, with a 'right turn only' lane and a 'straight ahead only' lane. I need to be going straight on so I sit in the queue and wait, as we all _know_ we should, then I see ill-mannered, inconsiderate bastards shooting down the 'turn right only' lane and forcing their way into the straight ahead queue as they get to the lights. But I won't do that. I refuse to behave that way because it's just not right. What gives them the right to get ahead at the expense of others? Nothing. They know they shouldn't do it, just as the OP knew he shouldn't do it.

[Tim Watts]

John wibbled on Saturday 17 July 2010 10:29

Another example - Round here we have a stretch of road, probably 500

I always make a point of not allowing those people to merge if they try to pull in front of me after such a stunt. And they know it. They usually fail to merge for many cars behind as everyone seems to take equal exception.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Close to here there's a 'cut through' with two width restrictions. You have to give way at the first one and have right of way at the second. Clearly marked. And many will try and bully their way through, especially by keeping close to the car in front. Being a short cut, it's fair to assume most have used it before. Black cabs are one of the worst obvious offenders.

[Clive George]

If the car park isn't full, what problem are you causing?

Agree that's bad, but it's not relevant to the point we're discussing. In this case they've gained and others have lost, in the parking question the OP has gained and nobody has lost.

[Steve Firth]

Oh, I bet they do.

Like the councils in the UK which choose to install pre-pay parking ticket machines and then make their fees such that no one is likely to have that amount of money in change unless they know the area well and have pre-prepared payment. This leaves the car driver with two choices, round up the 70/90p parking charge to £1 or risk not paying. Either way the council wins. They also win if the driver gets back to the car late.

My local council played fair for a time and changed the parking machines to "pay on exit" using machines that took credit/debit cards. They have recently ripped out these machines and have gone back to pre-pay stating that the pay on exit system didn't make as much money as the pre-pay not least because there was no chance to fine driver for being five minutes late. That's clear evidence that they don't want to be fair to the motorist, they just want to gouge as much as possible.

[John]

Maybe no problem at all but that's not the point. It's the mindset that you can do it, so you will do it. Like I keep saying, it's about manners, courtesy and principles. It's about the fact that you shouldn't even be thinking that it's OK to do it.

[Tim Streater]

Pay and display is a definite rip-off.

Then there's Lewes, where the signs distinguishing between Residents Only and Parking are small, look similar, and are high up on lamp posts.

[mike]

So are you saying that Lidl don't have the right to choose how their carpark should be used?

If the individual driver chooses something other than what you would choose, is that OK? Or is any choice other than the one you'd make a one-way ticket to the moral damnation?

[mike]

Once again, John, what manners, courtesy or principles are being undermined by occupying a small amount of tarmac temporarily in an empty carpark outside an empty supermarket?

[mike]

John, could you explain how your commitment to manners, courtesy and principles squares with coming on here and calling the OP a "tosser"?

Isn't your own hypocrisy as much a sign of moral turpitude as the behaviour you're criticising others for?

[Derek Geldard]

Total, absolute, utter and complete strawman.

Derek

[Man at B&Q]

No, it's the mindset that it's allowed and I can do it, so I will, which is perfectly acceptable.

Your example of of the lanes in the road covers the mindset that it is not allowed,according to the lane markings, but there's no physical barrier to stop it being done so I will do it.

Two completely different scenarios.

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

Third choice: keep some change in the car, especially when visiting unfamiliar territory. Not difficult for someone of your intelligence.

MBQ