Definition: Given a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation, generate a suitable title that describes the main event/root cause of the situation. Imagine that the given text is a social media post, and you have to write the title of the post, so the users can decide to read the main text or not.
Input: My local Home Depot fixed and updated their parking lot a few months ago. Part of the work they did was rearranging the handicap spaces, making them more conveniently located. In every single new handicap spot there is a 7 foot pole with a "reserved parking" sign, in addition to the painted symbol in the space ([pics here](https://imgur.com/gallery/VEjUIPd)). 

The old spots look as if there was a clear, albeit very poor, attempt to grind off the old painted symbol. With the old spots they also left the old hatched space to give people room to get out of their cars, rather than redraw new lines. Because of this, I believe that shoppers often mistake the old spots for current handicap spaces and as a result the old spots are usually open.

Given all the information above, I normally park in the old handicap spaces because they're open, close to the door, and I am 100% certain that they're not meant to be current spaces.

You can probably see where this is going. I was at the store yesterday. Walking back to my car in the old handicap spot - obviously not being handicapped - a guy across the aisle says something to the effect of "Try parking in a normal spot next time, a-hole." I've noticed someone staring one other time too. FWIW, the new spaces have never been full when I've parked there, so I've never denied an actual disabled person closeness to the door. AITA?









parking in an old handicap spot that could reasonably be mistaken as a current handicap spot