ZedFourM said:
In your attempt to stop one form of accidental damage (car door being opened hitting your car), you are laying yourself open to a greatly increased possibility of having damage deliberately inflicted (by somebody who takes offence at your form of parking deciding to key your car).[/color]
You are quite right, I am not disagreeing with you - by parking over 2 spaces I am inviting retribution. Believe me, I've had this debate many times.
The way I see it....I goto a supermarket to buy stuff. I don't go there to get my car damaged. The supermarket avoid liability for their customers actions by displaying notices etc....but at the same time, don't provide wide enough parking bays. Well...they do - the parking bays are perfectly wide enough (even for me) if people park centrally in them, but most of the time they don't. This means one side is closer to the bay next to it etc.
Some supermarkets have started using 3rd party parking enforcement companies....but they are only interested in people who stay too long, or park over the white line (me!)....they are not interested in damage, which is fair enough, cos how do you actually prove someone caused a parking dink?
However, to enforce a ticket....which is actually an "invoice", they have to show a loss. In a free car park, they have not lost income. 99% of the time that I do it, I park well away from the entrance, and if the car park is busy, then I don't, cos I fully agree, it is ignorant if the car park is almost full for someone to take 2 spaces. In those instances, I would either stay in the car, or be on edge whilst in the shop.
Now then, I can sort of understand why people see a car over 2 spaces and think "ignorant sod" or "typical BMW driver" etc etc. But at what point does that turn into "I am now going to teach them a lesson and cause £100's of pounds of damage"? How is that justified? So I either park and risk a dink, or park defensively and risk a scratch? Seems the supermarkets are quite expensive.
