Attended Service NSW to renew my autistic child’s disability parking permit, but her application was refused. Was informed that new policy regulations state that all applicants with mental disabilities, behavioural problems and autism will no longer be issued with permits. Will only accept applications which state person has a physical disabilitiy ie unable to walk. Seeking feedback, has this been an issue for others attempting to renew?

I'm surprised that she had a permit in the first place. Surely it always applied to physical problems. Autism doesn't stop people from being able to walk.

I believe that the rules are different state
by state and therefore they probably may vary.
However ask to see someone in charge and don't
be put off by any rude person. If your child is
in danger because their behaviour is unpredictable
you definitely are entitled to a disabled parking
permit.

All The Best.

I disagree completely Foxy.

I have a disabled parking permit as I can not walk more than 50 yards with my knees. Even if I can get one of the 4 bays at our large supermarket, I still need to find an abandoned trolley to lean on, to make it from the front door of the complex to the supermarket. I also need the wide bay to be able to open the door wide enough to get out of, or into the car, with knees that won't bend.

I often have to wait 15 minutes or more for a disabled bay to become available, only to find someone else has been waiting patiently even longer.

These are for people unable to exit their car in a narrow bay, or who can not walk any distance. They should not be available for any other reason.

Perhaps the recently emerging mother & stroller bays could be offered to mothers of autistic kids, but disabled bays are not simply for convenience, but to fulfil a real need.

I agree, as much as it is not charitable to reject someone, for any reason, I find that emotion aside, it has to be enforced.
I too have an ACROD permit, and I am fortunate that amongst my 'toys', I have kitted myself out with one of those Toyota Commuter mini bus, ex taxi people movers with the rear electric/hydraulic lift.
Which houses my two gophers.
I have designed my life and lifestyle around convenience, and so I am lucky to afford myself choices.
In doing so, if need be I can choose which means of transport best suites on the day.
If I use the van I can park anywhere.
If instead I feel the need for one of my other 'toys'/cars, I would need the ACROD.
I have lower back, hips, knee and ankle problems.
I also can't walk more than about 50metres without burning and excruciating pain from all these joints at the same time.
I already have a mechanical aortic valve, and that was an epic.
I don't want to undergo any more surgery if I don't have to, so I bear the pain if I misjudge a trip out, and realise too late I went past my pain PNR.
That's my punishment for not assessing the situation better before I set off.
Still, I'm thankful for the gophers, if nothing else it allows the ACROD bays to be available for someone more deserving or in need than myself.
I must say, if I get caught out at a shopping centre, I use the shopping trolley to help with the pains, by leaning or resting on them as if a 'walking frame'.
It does relieve the pains a little, depending on the design of the trolley and how much weight or force I can put on the trolley.
As to the author of this post, I understand the terms of reference for ACROD permits, and I'm sorry but I can see, whether by semantics or design, your child does not qualify for an ACROD.
However, I do believe she qualifies for the child parking bays.

Thanks for the thread and please forgive the few rude folk, first in NSW at least far too many ignore those spots and use the when they should not
many who do have mobility issues will not get such a card because your fitness to drive comes under investigation.
If some thing can be miss used you can bank on governments doing it
if the impairment includes difficulty's in walking because of fear or failure to understand you would think they should have given you the card.

There are way too many able-bodied who use these permts.

There is nobody more despised than those who misuse disabled car parks. Anyone who does not have a physical impairment has no right to a disabled car park. There are too many GPs approving applications for permits, and this is why there had to be a crackdown. Some bludgers hand the one permit around for the use of family and friends.

While autism is a problem, there is no logical reason for the sufferer to have one. Should they even be driving? In SA, you can be fined for illegally using a disabled car park. I would have miscreants put in stocks to be pelted by passes by.

as I said forgive the few nasty people
yes as Foxy said you should get the permit.
And no they are not just for drivers, as you know it is to park a car carrying a holder.
yes too too many use it who should not, highlight non-permit holders that however is not the subject

Belly,

Can you explain your statement that a person with autism should have a disabled parking permit? I cannot think of any connection between autism and parking.

Autistic people can usually walk with no problems, so no disabled parking permit, if they also cannot walk then that is a whole new reason for a permit, but has nothing to do with autism.

The following link just may shed some light on
this issue:

http://leader-messenger.whereilive.com.au/news/story/big-autism-win/

My apologies I gave the wrong link.

Here it is again:

http://a4.org.au/node/278

When reserved parking places are increased sufficiently to take care of all the new applications, where will the rest of us park?

I have problems with my legs, but as walking, as an exercise, is part of the treatment I don't qualify, however, I did have a permit for a while, whilst my wife was on crutches for a foot injury; it was mightily convenient but was only used when she was in the car as, being a nurse, she was against any improper use of the permit, (not that I wasn't tempted!!).

Is Mise,

Your wife sounds lovely.

What a surprise! Belly is unable to give reasons why an autistic person should be given a disabled car park permit.

IF our author is still around please do not let the rude dude put you of.
As you will know, just about any one will too, the illness can bring about great fear and often the simple act of walking in a crowd can hurt , even bring on some thing much worse
I know a couple of heros who love their child and want to help in every way.
Intelligent thought would say targeting those who use them without the right to are the ones we should target.

Still no answer, Belly. You don't know what “just about anyone knows”. Where does your claimed knowledge of autism come from. What do you actually know, given that you left school very early and cannot read very well, given your posts. You “know a couple of heros who love their child and want to help in every way.” What does that mean? What relevance does it have to your claimed knowledge of a very complex condition like autism. Then you go off on “targeting those who use them without the right to are the ones we should target”, whatever that means. People with autism no longer have the right.

All I requested of you was to explain your unsupported statement: “ ….that a person with autism should have a disabled parking permit?”

You clearly do not have a clue. You just think it would be ‘nice’.

I have to say that I don't know why ‘Autismum’, not a regular poster, engaged OLO with her problem in the first place, just to get platitudes and sympathy and no useful information whatsoever. The authority concerned has told her what the situation is, and that should have been the end of it. We don't even know where the woman lives. What on earth did she think she would get from us! Perhaps, like many people, a bit of a whinge helps in some way: as it is with people sounding off on talkback radio? No matter what the reason, she will not have a permit to park in disability parks. End of.

The link that I gave explains quite quite well how
disabled parking permits were granted for
autism. And under what circumstances. A change of rules
will be implemented in the future. Anybody interested
in really knowing the why's and where-fores - only has
to read that link. Or alternatively can Google the
subject for themselves.

Dear Belly,

You might appreciate this quote from Anthony Liccione:

"There are 4 kinds of people to avoid in the world:
the assholes, the asswipes, the ass-kissers, and those
that just will sh## all over you."

cont'd ...

My apologies for the profanity but under the
circumstances I felt it was deserved.

That won't make "Dear Belly" look any brighter.

I'm starting to get the distinct impression that ttbn has a bit of a crush on Belly. It's kind of sweet, in a way.

ttbn is a shoe in for all three category's Foxy

"Your wife sounds lovely."

Thank you, Foxy, she is and we have just celebrated 25 happy years together.

I just heard the bulk of the OLO commenters puke.
You just refuse to stop your love-in campaign.
Firstly Foxy, your link is not relevant.
The applicants, fudged their reasons for acceptance under the relevant act.
They did not prove their case, as it was never tested, only taken at their word, and because they made such a lot of noise.
It had more to do with WHO they knew than what the true facts were.
Using the pathetic excuse and reasoning that the child became stressed if they took too long to find a parking space is absolute BS, and you are complicit in the deceit and lies, if you dis-agree.
The answer should have been, 'how does the child know, when it's taking too long'?
And why isn't mum simply get the first available bay?
NO, because SHE is LAZY and doesn't want to walk any further than the ACROD, because why should she when others don't have to.
Now we're seeing a clearer picture of Foxy and her true persona.
ACROD for autism?
You all have rocks in your head.
If the individual also suffered a lower physical impairment, and was visibly handicapped, which developed into pain at any attempt to walk, I would be the first to issue the ACROD.

ALTRAV if any thing I say is true you can bet you NEVER EVER speak on behalf of most here.
For that we should all be proud
Autism, a cruel thing has many side effects and some include a wish to not be with other people.
It can include reactions to walking on foot paths and a need to park as close as possible to wanted places
too think sufferers have to be confronted by your open bigotry is well, sadly not unexpected
take the medication

Belly, again with the bleeding heart stories.
You would never make it, if you were in charge of anything.
You don't just cave in to demands because YOU feel sorry for someone.
Autism is whatever it is, and unless you know the case in question, intimately, I would council you to not predicate to me or anyone else what THEY should do.
No-one hates rules more than me, and as such, if it were up to me I would issue the ACROD, but based on the reasoning given, they don't qualify, so just accept it and move on.
The reason YOUR elk must not be in charge of anything is that you make decisions based on emotion and not reason.
People way smarter and more informed than you debate these issues and come up with an equitable solution.
Then you come along with your fact-less and baseless reasoning and we have to cede to your version of events, because you don't think it's fair?
Well that just shows you and your lot up, and the difference between left and right.
We can remain impartial and make a decision based on set rules and guidelines.
You and your lot make decisions based on what YOU think should happen, which is based on your lack of courage to 'suck it up' and feeling sorry for the applicant.
In haste to oppose my views, you completely ignored my previous comments about, if the person is suffering some physical impairment of the lower body and experiences difficulty and/or pain walking, then they would qualify.
This was NOT the case here, or they would have had medical evidence from the appropriate medical institutions to corroborate their story/application.
So belly again, you lose, so blow it out your ear, read the text before you rush to make your inane and irrelevant rants.

Dear Belly,

Gotta laugh at posters who have delusions of
adequacy.

Best to ignore.

Is Mise,

Congratulations on your 25th Wedding Anniversary!

25 years is really quite impressive.
It calls for something truly festive!

All The Best To You Both!

Foxy, your 'bitchy' attitude does you no good, and it's not you.
Fact; If you disagree with a comment you respond with clarification or corrections as to why you feel the commentor has erred.
Not in the fashion you have done for so long.
I have listed my faults and flaws previously on OLO, so they are well and truly documented and known to one and all.
You see you can't even read people correctly.
I don't have visions of adequacy, I leave that to you and your lot.
I have, historical evidence of superiority, which none of you can even come close to.
I suggest if you wish to delve into my psyche, you first delve into yours and compare what you find with what is really going on out there.
Your prostrations are moot as they are not indicative of mainstream society.
I am happy to give you a detailed description of my life and my achievements, which by the way, have benefited people, not only in Australia, but overseas as well.
I KNOW I have performed way beyond adequate.
Don't you?

Foxy quite right time I grew up I know better than to return serve

Dear Belly,

We have to fight the urge to respond. The
old adage tells us - don't argue with idiots -
they'll drag you down to their level and beat you by
experience.

There's certain posts on this forum - that I simply don't
bother reading when I see who it is. I just scroll past.

I'm too busy - they can feed their own egos.
I don't dislike them - I simply don't respect them.

Foxy true and I am far too often wrong.read every thing, but admit avoid some.
In the end self confidence is often badly miss placed

Foxy, you have fallen somewhat from your position of mother goose, judging by your vitriol.
You make unconfirmed self righteous statements about the attitude of some, without as much as a hint of actual reason or dialogue to confirm or prove your opinion.
If you do not give a satisfactory rebuttal to the claim by others, it leaves you 'out in the cold'.
Perhaps it is best that you ignore those of us more adept in matters of life and wisdom and stick with those things more to do with domestics and fantasy.
It is a shame to not have someone with such unrealistic, innocent and puerile opinions around to expound these matters in an environment of great rapport.

ALTRAV,

The following link may help you:

http://personalexcellence.co/blog/empty-vessels/

It's worth a read because even the nicest people
have their limits.

Foxy, again you come up with cliche's, but nowhere are facts to be seen. OK, here it is.
I will debunk your attempt at once more trying to put me down, when you have not a scintilla of evidence or facts to bolster your posture.
I will destroy your link and show it for what it is.
It is someones medium to sell their particular propaganda for money.
To begin:
1. My mind is one of the most fertile and active, and there is more going on up there than I care to imagine, in that it has me continually searching for answers.
2. My heart is full of love for those I love and full of hate for those I hate, yet there is always room for those in between.
3. My life is so full of ALL that it has to offer, so much so it is overflowing.
4. As for my spirit, because I am a realist I know myself and who I am. I have always been full of hope and a yearning for the truth.
5. AH now, self worth. This is an easy one. Because there are so many people who are actually 'worthless', it is not too hard for me to find my level of 'self worth'.
I judge a persons 'worth' by his maturity, flexibility and ability to reason.
Normally one would rely on others to judge their self worth.
I realised a long time ago, a glaring lack of peers.
Having the capacity to assess people, it is not hard for me to find my level of self worth.
Now Foxy, let us see what YOUR answers to this same test are.
Looking forward to your answers.

To the threads author thank you we tried
Hope you understand in every pond there will be mud
Come back
But as the thread has become a point proving one aimed at verbally trouncing those who have other opinions it is time to leave

"Other opinions".

The so called poster had NO opinions. She was just looking for sympathy and a good whinge.

ALTRAV,

The internet doesn't just offer opportunities for
self glorification and praise or abuse, you know.
It also offers opportunities to learn.
Hence my link to you.
I thought it may be useful. (An occupational habit -
in providing information). The rest was up to you.

But of course minds are like parachutes - they only
function when they are open

Thanks Foxy, one way of avoiding insulting is to do as I said in my last post.

Dear Belly,

Thank You for the advice.

Will do.

To the author, please pay no attention to those people who are too gutless to tell you the truth.
By telling you the truth, will save you a lot of pain and anguish based on false hopes.
By these people 'being nice' to you, are in fact only upsetting you further, because they are encouraging you to believe that what you seek is possible, when on the face of it, and by your own admission, it is not.
Now the fact that you do not accept the 'decision of the umpire', is of your doing and opinion.
So unless you want to force a legal and political showdown to get your way, it is quite clear to everyone that the rules state clearly that an ACROD is specifically designed for the use of someone with 'physical' disabilities, or more precisely, lower body, dissability .
Never mind the example given, it was a very irresponsible attempted at giving you a false hope.
The situations surrounding the example in question are not the same as yours, and even then I doubt you could succeed, because the terms of reference are very clear, ie; if the applicant is not physically impaired so as to suffer pain from walking further than a prescribed distance, they are NOT eligible for an ACROD permit.
Now, if you feel you or your daughter are being aggrieved, may I offer a word of advice.
If you are able to convince the department that your daughter cannot walk any further than a few steps before she starts to feel pain, you may stand a chance.
Trying to go the way of lobbying and writing letters and so on is just a waste of time.
On the other hand finding a way to comply with the terms of reference will get immediate action.

Dear Autismum,

As the link that I gave you earlier clearly states -
Helen Howson and Allison Dix have successfully
lobbied the Federal Government to have non-physical
disabilities recognised in a New Australian Disability
Parking Scheme.

Announced a month ago the new permits can now be issued for
people with significant medical conditions or disabilities
and this will now draw up the hardship criteria allowing
a broader range of disabilities to be eligible.

The National Scheme is set to replace 100 different schemes
across the country with a guarantee that nobody will be
worse off. This was a step towards overcoming discrimination
against people with intellectual disabilities.

As was pointed out - "Disability doesn't just mean you have
a physical impairment, that you have a walking stick or
a wheelchair."

The National Scheme has now been referred to the Australian
Transport Council for endorsement and will be running by
the end of the year!"

Glad that I could bring you the good news!

Foxy well done and thank you!

Foxy, again you give false hopes.
I have, not seconds ago, finished talking to our WA ACROD people and read your information, word for word to them.
The person I was talking to categorically stated that is and will not be the case here in WA and several other states, even though I cautioned her that anything Canberra does overrides the states.
Her response was, 'well not on this one, we have very strict rules and regulations and we adhere to them, very carefully'.
WA has not even heard of this change.
It is possible that it may be incorporated in with the 'aged' parking, or the 'baby and pram' parking.
She was in disbelief over the fact that these two women could effect such a change so easily.
As I said, they must have known someone.
But let's see how far it gets.
I know that EVERYONE I have spoken to about this will not allow it to happen, for obvious reasons, they will be following this with interest.
Some, like me will be contacting ACROD to voice their dis-like for the idea.
So as I said, another case where you have given false and misleading information which leads to false hope.
Unless the author is in the same state as the two women in question and her childs disabilities are the same as the other two, she cannot qualify for ACROD.
But given that politics is so fickle and constantly making bad decisions, nothing surprises me any more.

ALTRAV,

Here is the link again:

http://a4.org.au/node/278

It is self explanatory and gives all the details.

See you on another discussion.

Mum is 76 and on a 'Zimmer Frame' so daughter gets a 'disabled parking permit'. Parks the Range Rover in the disabled space, minus mum, before running off to the gym for her daily work out. Then off to work, parking in another disabled space, very convenient its down stairs from her city office. Always mindful to display Mums 'Disabled Permit', don't want to break the law, and cop a find now do we. Mums at home all day watching telly, she can't go out, cause she ain't gotta car!

OK Paul, I'll bite.
I'm looking for a laugh.
So what's your point apart from telling an all too typical story.
Oh I get it, she's driving a Range Rover, so she must be a 'rich bitch'.
Well if it makes you feel better here, pick on me, I also drive a Range Rover, a couple of Bentleys, even more Rolls Royce's, I won't go on you've made your pathetic prejudices quite clear.
And you pick on a woman to make your point, you sad little insignificant man.
You suffer from small man, small mind syndrome.
Look it up.

//I (ALTRAV) also drive a Range Rover, a couple of Bentleys, even more Rolls Royce's,// Where is the Ferrari? In for service. Is it the chauffeur's day off.

Some people are delusional. Sorry parking attendant at Prestige Parking.

Paul, I did have a chauffeur for a while, as a matter of fact. Now I'm retired I have no need for him.
He was a very nice guy.
Used to be an alcoholic, no one would hire him, I thought he was OK.
I was right.
As for Ferrari's no thanks, I had my 'E' Types, Maserati Merak.
Not into sports cars any more, apart from the fact I find them hard to get in and out of, I prefer the more comfortable luxury cars these days.
No seriously, these days the cars I described are some of my current toys.
I don't need to exaggerate to make a point Paul.
There is no chance we will ever meet so what would be the point of lying to you.
I'm sorry I was answering your post not thinking you would even think that I would lie to you.
As I don't think you really care how many Rollers or Bentleys I have, I suppose I should have been a little more suspicious of your post.
AH well, C'EST LA VIE.