A study on why people abuse handicapped parking

Abstract

Illegal use of handicapped parking is a major problem affecting the lives of approximately 72% of the estimated 43 million Americans whom rely on private automobiles for their transportation (Fletcher, 1997). Past research shows that inappropriate use of handicapped parking spaces occurs frequently, with consistent reports indicating the majority of cars parked in these reserved spaces are parked there illegally (Cope & Allred , 1990; Fletcher, 1997). Most studies have focused on determining violation rates using observational methods (Cope & Allred, 1990; Taylor, 1998). Some studies have shown that legal and social sanctions are only moderately effective in changing people’s parking habits (Cope & Allred, 1990; Cope, Lanier, & Allred, 1995; Fletcher, 1997). Very few studies have looked at the reasons people give for abusing handicapped parking (Cope & Allred, 1990). In order to promote more compliance with handicapped parking law, it is critical to understand what motivates people to park illegally. This thesis examined “why” people abuse handicapped parking. More specifically, the purpose was to determine what factors influence individuals’ decision to illegally park in handicapped parking spaces. The factors examined were demographics, attitudes towards individuals with disabilities, attitudes towards handicapped parking, and convenience. The study involved a researcher-developed survey called the “Handicapped Parking Questionnaire” which was mailed to 250 residents in the Menomonie area who were systematically selected from the telephone directory. The survey was created to determine the number of reported handicapped parking violators, as well as to determine if demographics, convenience, attitudes toward persons with disability or toward handicapped parking played a role in respondents parking behavior. Results determined only 6 (5.5%) of the 109 respondents reported violating handicapped parking. Due to such a low number of reported violators there was insufficient data to complete a T test analysis to determine whether there were meaningful differences between the violators and total sample. When item analysis was completed however, evidence was found to support response differences for certain survey items. Additional evidence obtained through qualitative measures found the primary reason reported violators gave for abusing handicapped parking was convenience. Results showed surprisingly positive attitudes within the general public and violator groups. Rate of violation was far lower than would be predicted from past studies. Additional data was sought from local law enforcement that supported the observed compliance with handicapped parking law. The setting of the study in a small town appeared to be one plausible explanation for these positive results. Additional research would be advisable to replicate the study to determine if these results are robust in other locations. If such research does demonstrate that residents in similar locations are more compliant, it would be wise to find out what such communities are doing right. Rehabilitation professionals and policy makers may also wish to consider advocating for the addition of more handicapped parking spaces since both violators and the general sample indicated that there was insufficient handicapped parking available.