Women-only parking bays in Perth CBD

[Metaphor]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/31337445/female-friendly-parking-bays-trialled-in-perth-cbd/

“Female-friendly” parking bays with better lighting and beefed-up closed circuit TV coverage are being trialled in Perth’s CBD.

The bays, which are marked by pink signs, walls and poles, are being rolled out for three months in the City of Perth’s Pier Street car park from next week.

The bays will not be policed and men will not be fined if they park in them. They are closer to entrances and exits, have better lighting and additional CCTV cameras have been installed to boost safety.

Of the carpark’s 700-plus bays 28 of them will be marked female-friendly.

Women-only parking bays exist in many other countries, including Germany, Austria and China. However, the trial is believed to be a WA first.

Some countries have experimented with making women-only parking bays wider than regular bays, prompting criticism for suggesting women cannot park as well as men.

The bays used in the Perth trial are the same size as regular bays.

Perth’s acting chief executive Martin Mileham said the aim of the trial was to offer more parking options to improve service and customer experience.

“This has been done overseas and the city is conducting this trial to determine if there's a demand for this type of service,” he said.

Mr Mileham said while the city would not be policing the bays it would encourage men to support the concept.

Diversity Network director Kristie Young said she was concerned the bays risked putting both men and women offside.

“Perhaps the bays would be better of being termed safe park bays for those individuals who are concerned for their security when utilising parking bays,” she said.

“A gender neutral colour could be used, such as orange. We cannot assume that women are the ones requiring such parking bays.

“There would likely be a myriad of individuals who would not feel safe using parking bays at certain times of the day, due to a number of different reasons.”

One wonders who comes up with such policies. Certainly actual objective levels of threat can't be the motivator, since men are more likely to be assaulted compared to women, and of those assaults, women are twice as likely to experience the assault in their own homes compared to men (making the parking location of their car less relevant to assault prevention).

It's a good job that the bays are not policed as such, since the city's actions appear to be a violation of the Sex Discrimination Act (1984) by discriminating by sex in the provision of goods and services.

 

[barbos]

"Parking lot" is called "parking bay" in Australia?

 

[Deepak]

"Parking lot" is called "parking bay" in Australia?

A parking bay is an individual unit in a Commonwealth lot.

 

[Metaphor]

"Parking lot" is called "parking bay" in Australia?

No. The collection of all the parking bays in a defined area is the parking lot.

 

[laughing dog]

It is pretty obvious that these "female friendly" spots are attempt to allay rape fears women may have in those parking areas. I find it difficult to get worry about whether or not parking bays should or should not be identified as for women or men. Nor upset about it.

 

[Axulus]

This fits perfectly with the fainting couch feminist trend. In a bizzare twist, it is seen as pro-female by certain feminists to treat women as delecate little flowers in need of extra protection in an already quite safe area.

This also fits in with the "safe space" idea, where certain women are seen as being unable bear to hear political disagreements they may find offensive and thus are in need of a "safe space" to protect them from it.

 

[barbos]

"Parking lot" is called "parking bay" in Australia?

No. The collection of all the parking bays in a defined area is the parking lot.

I see. It seems I have never heard people to refer to individual "bay" in US.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One wonders who comes up with such policies. Certainly actual objective levels of threat can't be the motivator, since men are more likely to be assaulted compared to women, and of those assaults, women are twice as likely to experience the assault in their own homes compared to men (making the parking location of their car less relevant to assault prevention).

It's a good job that the bays are not policed as such, since the city's actions appear to be a violation of the Sex Discrimination Act (1984) by discriminating by sex in the provision of goods and services.

It's not a matter of the overall risk of assault, but the risk of assault (probably sexual) in the parking lot. Thus you are attempting to rebut this with irrelevant data.

 

[Metaphor]

One wonders who comes up with such policies. Certainly actual objective levels of threat can't be the motivator, since men are more likely to be assaulted compared to women, and of those assaults, women are twice as likely to experience the assault in their own homes compared to men (making the parking location of their car less relevant to assault prevention).

It's a good job that the bays are not policed as such, since the city's actions appear to be a violation of the Sex Discrimination Act (1984) by discriminating by sex in the provision of goods and services.

It's not a matter of the overall risk of assault, but the risk of assault (probably sexual) in the parking lot. Thus you are attempting to rebut this with irrelevant data.

I already addressed that, Loren. Men are more likely to be assaulted and are more likely to have their assaults happen 'in the street' compared to women. See the Crime Victimisation Surveys from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Also, I'm not 'attempting to rebut' anything. I imagined a reason why these might have been dreamt up and trialled, since no concrete reason was provided.

From the article:

They are closer to entrances and exits, have better lighting and additional CCTV cameras have been installed to boost safety.

the aim of the trial was to offer more parking options to improve service and customer experience.

It seems to me that male drivers would also benefit from being closer to entrances, having better lighting, and additional CCTV cameras monitoring their safety.

 

[Metaphor]

It is pretty obvious that these "female friendly" spots are attempt to allay rape fears women may have in those parking areas. I find it difficult to get worry about whether or not parking bays should or should not be identified as for women or men. Nor upset about it.

Do you think anti-discrimination laws exist for a reason?

 

[bigfield]

:laughing-smiley-014

Piglet parking spaces!

It is pretty obvious that these "female friendly" spots are attempt to allay rape fears women may have in those parking areas.

[YOUTUBE]x64cy3Bcr98[/YOUTUBE]

 

[laughing dog]

It is pretty obvious that these "female friendly" spots are attempt to allay rape fears women may have in those parking areas. I find it difficult to get worry about whether or not parking bays should or should not be identified as for women or men. Nor upset about it.

Do you think anti-discrimination laws exist for a reason?

Yes.

Here are questions for you -
1) Are assault and rape the same thing?
2) Are the statistical likelihoods of being a rape victim different between men and women? What is that difference?
3) Is the statistical likelihood of a being raped in an unlit parking bay different for men and women? How different?


Finally, did you even bother to read your own OP article where indicates there is a good chance those parking spaces will not be designated for a specific gender, hence rendering your entire OP moot?

 

[Metaphor]

Here are questions for you -
1) Are assault and rape the same thing?

Rape and sexual assault are kinds of assault, but they are not the same thing.

2) Are the statistical likelihoods of being a rape victim different between men and women? What is that difference?

Yes, women are more likely to be victims of rape.

3) Is the statistical likelihood of a being raped in an unlit parking bay different for men and women? How different?

No idea, frankly. The 'stranger in the street' is the least common version of rape.

But I also don't know why these parking spots are justified on the grounds of 'allaying the fear of rape'. The article mentions 'safety', but not the specific kinds of crime that women, but not men, need to be protected from, in parking lots.

Finally, did you even bother to read your own OP article where indicates there is a good chance those parking spaces will not be designated for a specific gender, hence rendering your entire OP moot?

I'm sorry, but did YOU read it? There's no chance that they won't be designated to a specific gender, because they've already been designated to a specific gender.

Are you confusing the quotes advocating a different model with what has actually already happened?

But you do believe that anti-discrimination laws exist for a reason.

Do you believe that 'fear of rape in a parking lot' (whether congruent with the facts of rape or not) is a sufficient reason for the government to discriminate by gender?

 

[dismal]

But I also don't know why these parking spots are justified on the grounds of 'allaying the fear of rape'.

It seems more like they are advertising to rapists exactly where to go.

Unless the presumption is the rapists are the sort of rule-followers who will obey the female only rule.

 

[laughing dog]

Rape and sexual assault are kinds of assault, but they are not the same thing.

2) Are the statistical likelihoods of being a rape victim different between men and women? What is that difference?

Yes, women are more likely to be victims of rape.

3) Is the statistical likelihood of a being raped in an unlit parking bay different for men and women? How different?

No idea, frankly. The 'stranger in the street' is the least common version of rape.

From your answers, do you now realize your assault statistics are not terribly relevant?

But I also don't know why these parking spots are justified on the grounds of 'allaying the fear of rape'.

Seriously, you cannot figure this out?

The article mentions 'safety', but not the specific kinds of crime that women, but not men, need to be protected from, in parking lots.

Seriously, you cannot figure this out? Is it also possible that women are more likely to assaulted in a parking lot than a man?

I'm sorry, but did YOU read it? There's no chance that they won't be designated to a specific gender, because they've already been designated to a specific gender....

No chance? You are seriously claiming it is impossible that the comments by the diversity person will not lead to a change.

Moreover, since there is no enforcement whatsoever of this policy, what actual discrimination is occurring?

Are you confusing the quotes advocating a different model with what has actually already happened?

No, but apparently you are confused about the meaning of the term "no chance".

But you do believe that anti-discrimination laws exist for a reason.

Do you believe that 'fear of rape in a parking lot' (whether congruent with the facts of rape or not) is a sufficient reason for the government to discriminate by gender?

Yes. Do you also get upset if there parking bays specifically designated for people with disabilities? That is a form of discrimination.

 

[Playball40]

Disable spots differ in that you are not allowed to park in them UNLESS you are disabled. It seems to me the only difference with these spots is the color of the sign, given that they are not exclusive to women and men will not be penalized/cited for parking in them. Who cares if they want to paint the signs pink to give a false sense of security?

 

[ronburgundy]

It's not a matter of the overall risk of assault, but the risk of assault (probably sexual) in the parking lot. Thus you are attempting to rebut this with irrelevant data.

I already addressed that, Loren. Men are more likely to be assaulted and are more likely to have their assaults happen 'in the street' compared to women. See the Crime Victimisation Surveys from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

You didn't address it. "in the street" is not specifically in an enclosed parking garage which is the only place relevant to this issue. What % of male assaults occur is such garages while there are no bystanders? A huge percentage of "public" male assaults occur in bars and literally out on the open street or other places in full public view of other people. Most of them start as arguments that escalate into physical conflict and are not premeditated, especially if you exclude gang related assaults and gangs do not tend to hit the other gang when coming out of Nordstrom's or their job at the mall.

Google "parking garage rape" and you will get countless hit after hit referring to both the specific cases and general conclusions that parking garages are an especially likely place for stranger rapes. The fact that they are so frequently empty and people are alone going to their car makes them specifically used by predators seeking prey in a premeditated assault. Nearly all stranger rapes are premeditated assaults where a place like a garage is ideal. A far smaller % of assaults on men entail a predator premeditating an assault where the lie in wait in a secluded place for their victim.

They are closer to entrances and exits, have better lighting and additional CCTV cameras have been installed to boost safety.

the aim of the trial was to offer more parking options to improve service and customer experience.
It seems to me that male drivers would also benefit from being closer to entrances, having better lighting, and additional CCTV cameras monitoring their safety.

Of course they would, but not all parking spaces can be right next to entrances and exits. So, the question is whether the % of stranger rapes against women in parking garages when they are alone with no other bystanders around is higher than the % of assaults against men in that context. Whether it is empirically true or not (and it could easily be), the prevailing assumption is that such contexts are more associated with rape than assault on men.What really matters is that a huge % if not vast majority of women consciously fear getting raped when in that situation, whereas very few men probably do. From a fear reduction standpoint, the objective truth of the stats is irrelevant, only the fears, even if created by suspense fiction.

It is no more complicated than that and doesn't in any way make rape more important than assault, just assumed to be more impacted by this particular safety change.

 

[Metaphor]

From your answers, do you now realize your assault statistics are not terribly relevant?

No, I do not realise. Is rape the only kind if assault people should be concerned about? Were there any rapes at all in this particular parking garage that caused this policy, and would those rapes have been prevented by this policy?

Seriously, you cannot figure this out?

I cannot figure out why the 'fear' of some people in a demographic is enough for the State to discriminate by gender.

Seriously, you cannot figure this out? Is it also possible that women are more likely to assaulted in a parking lot than a man?

It's possible, but unlikely given the facts that we know about frequency and location of assaults and gender.

No chance? You are seriously claiming it is impossible that the comments by the diversity person will not lead to a change.

Oh I see. You meant to say 'this may not be a permanent policy'. You are correct. It may not be.

Moreover, since there is no enforcement whatsoever of this policy, what actual discrimination is occurring?

If the bays said 'Muslims only' and had the star and crescent painted on them, would you say no actual discrimination is occurring so what's the fuss about?

No, but apparently you are confused about the meaning of the term "no chance".

The policy is already in place. There is no chance the policy won't be put in place, because the moving finger, having writ, moves on.

Yes. Do you also get upset if there parking bays specifically designated for people with disabilities? That is a form of discrimination.

I was waiting for someone to compare women to the disabled.

No, I am not upset by disabled parking spots, because there is a good reason for disabled people to have larger parking bays closer to entrances and exits. And inclusion in the 'disabled' group is by evaluation by a doctor that you warrant a disabled parking sticker.

 

[Metaphor]

What really matters is that a huge % if not vast majority of women consciously fear getting raped when in that situation, whereas very few men probably do. From a fear reduction standpoint, the objective truth of the stats is irrelevant, only the fears, even if created by suspense fiction.

Please tell me what percentage of women fear getting raped in parking lots and that this fear is debilitating enough for the State to violate its own laws on gender discrimination.

You'll of course have statistics to back up your 'vast majority' statement.

 

[RavenSky]

Violating what laws

Per the portion of the article YOU quoted in the OP:

“Female-friendly” parking bays with better lighting and beefed-up closed circuit TV coverage are being trialled in Perth’s CBD... men will not be fined if they park in them.

"Female-friendly" is not the same as "female-only" and the article explicitly stated men can park in them too.