I assume that he accepts that he is in a minority of one for good reason.
Well you know what they say Dod - "Assume makes an ass out of u and me".
My basic view of the situation hasn't changed, although having read the post from wheypat I accept that some autistic people may have a genuine need to use a disabled parking space ("DPS").
I fully accept that any `officially' disabled person is legally entitled to use a DPS. It logically follows that any disabled person should be able to park on yellow lines for up to 3 hours.
However, there are many types of disability, and not all of them result in impaired mobility. Depression is a disability, but I can't see why a physically fit depressed person would need to use a disabled parking spot any more than someone not suffering from depression.
Likewise, while some autistic people may reasonably need to use a DPS there are probably many who don't.
The point I was making was simply that disabled people should exercise their judgment in the same way as anyone else, and take into account the needs of other disabled people. So in a busy supermarket car park someone who's physically fit but suffering from a mental disability might take the view that they could perfectly well park in an ordinary parking space, leaving the DPS free for people with physical disability.
It's really not all that important to me, which is why I wasn't going to bother replying. However, I don't like having an incorrect assumption made that a lack of response to a contrary argument automatically means that I've accepted that contrary argument and fallen on my sword.
And by way of a postscript it would appear that I'm actually in a minority of 3!
