35006
Post by: Medium of Death
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-30376446
Bus companies are not required by law to force parents with buggies to make way for wheelchair users in designated bays on vehicles, senior judges ruled.
First Bus appealed against a court ruling, won by a disabled man from West Yorkshire, that the firm's wheelchair policy was discriminatory.
Doug Paulley, 36, was denied access to a First bus to Leeds when a woman with a pushchair refused to move.
The Court of Appeal overturned a Leeds County Court judgement in his favour.
'Request not require'
Mr Paulley had attempted to board the bus in Wetherby to visit his parents in Leeds in February 2012.
But he was told to wait for another one when the woman with the pushchair refused to move because her baby was asleep.
First's policy was one of "requesting but not requiring" non-disabled travellers, including those with babies and pushchairs, to vacate space needed by a wheelchair user.
In September, a county court judge said the firm's policy was in breach of the Equality Act 2010.
Mr Paulley was awarded £5,500 damages.
But earlier, judges at the Court of Appeal ruled the "proper remedy" for wheelchair users to get improvements in such cases was to ask parliament.
Lord Justice Lewison said: "The judge seems to me to have thought that the needs of wheelchair users trumped all other considerations.
"If that is what he meant, I respectfully disagree."
line break
Clive Coleman, legal correspondent, BBC News
The net effect of this ruling is that if someone refuses to move from that designated, disabled, wheelchair-user bay on a bus or train then that is that.
The disabled wheelchair user will simply have to wait for the next bus or train.
Doug Paulley's lawyers have already sought a leave to appeal to the supreme court, the highest court in the land, for them to make a ruling on an issue which is of enormous importance to many, many disabled people in particular.
line break
Lord Justice Underhill said: "It has to be accepted that our conclusion and reasoning in this case means that wheelchair users will occasionally be prevented by other passengers from using the wheelchair space on the bus.
"I do not, however, believe that the fact that some passengers will - albeit rarely - act selfishly and irresponsibly is a sufficient reason for imposing on bus companies a legal responsibility for a situation which is not of their making and which they are not in a position to prevent."
Lady Justice Arden she did not underestimate the difficulties of travel for wheelchair users "or their frustration at the pace of change".
Andy Cole, of Leonard Cheshire Disability said, the charity was disappointed with the judgement and it did not provide "clarity and certainty for disabled bus passengers that the space they need will definitely be made available".
Mr Cole said if the case moved to the Supreme Court he hoped any judgement would provide that certainty.
What an utter joke. Yet more money wasted on fighting ridiculous court decisions.
First Bus confirmed for scum.
Absolutely furious.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Hopefully this means that I can drive without issue in bus lanes and other places designated for other road users (and hell, pedestrians!) while in my car 
20373
Post by: Inquisitor Lord Bane
If the bus was full and there wasn't anywhere else for her to go, thats understandable. "Sorry mate, we're full, gonna have to catch the next one." But if she simply didn't want to move because of a sleeping child (read: laziness), and the company backs her, screw them, gakky human beings all around 
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Key points here...
Lord Justice Underhill said: "It has to be accepted that our conclusion and reasoning in this case means that wheelchair users will occasionally be prevented by other passengers from using the wheelchair space on the bus.
"I do not, however, believe that the fact that some passengers will - albeit rarely - act selfishly and irresponsibly is a sufficient reason for imposing on bus companies a legal responsibility for a situation which is not of their making and which they are not in a position to prevent."
Of course the decision goes both ways. Sometimes a wheelchair user will be on the bus and can refuse to give up his space for a pushchair.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
It's a disabled space. A buggy can be folded.
I'm sorry that people see some kind of comparison between a wheelchair user and the inconvenience of having to fold a buggy.
It's yet another inconvenience in the lives of disabled people that would only result in a small inconvenience for able bodied people. Oh, you can't use your legs? Well I don't feel like folding this buggy down.
If he thinks people won't act selfishly when they aren't obliged to do something then the judge obviously hasn't used public transport or spent time much time among the people he makes decisions for.
Why should First Bus not have to cater to the need of its disabled customers when most other businesses do?
77922
Post by: Overread
I can see the justification for this and the reason why the Judge didn't want to enforce spaces set for Disabled people to be "always" applicable.
A full train or one where existing passengers (not disabled) are already using the disabled space and have no space to move to (save to leave the train) should indeed not be expected to vacate the train to allow the disabled person access. The disabled person simply has to wait for the next train - much like if you've large amounts of luggage, people or bikes and can't fit on the train you have to wait for the next one.
It is one of those grey areas though which is open to abuse on both sides; and certainly is ruled more so by social values than the pure letter of the law (since to do such would create a very complex legal situation). In that light it would seem fair to come down with the ruling that they have.
I do wonder if some kind of provision such as "unless there is suitable space for the person to move to upon the same vehicle" or some such might have been more fair. At the very least such a line would prevent the few from abusing this new ruling to be abusive to disabled users by deliberately blocking the disabled area. However I suspect that the ruling applies nationally and that service providers are still allowed to have their own rulings and policies for making space upon the vehicle (ergo you can take up the disabled spot, but whilst the disabled user has no legal "right" to the spot the train/bus company has the right to move you on if there is suitable space elsewhere).
18410
Post by: filbert
The salient point is that we shouldn't need legislation telling people to not be dicks and take up disabled spaces. Unfortunately, it is a bit of a sad indictment on our society that someone should feel the need to go to court in order to clarify this.
Both my parents are disabled and I have seen examples of this time and time again - it really boils my piss when I see people who are clearly able-bodied park in cripple spaces in the supermarket but it is a fact of life; people are lazy and selfish. Would that I could wish crippling anal cancer on them so they could get just a small measure of what it is like to struggle as a disabled person but sadly, relying on a sense of empathy is all there is and for some it is much lacking.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
For once the judge seems to have applied some common sense. While I have sympathy for the passenger who was unable to board the bus, there was already a paying passenger on the bus, it is unfortunate that they also had a pushchair with them that contained a sleeping child.
I have seen it from the other perspective when people with prams are refused because of lack of space on buses and trains.
Sometimes life sucks, but in this case it sucks equally for all.
Cheers
Andrew
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Nah, I wouldn't see it the same way. Like previous posters have said, the disabled person can't just fold up their disability and put it into the overhead storage and take a seat. If the baby has to wake up, that'll be inconvenient, but I imagine travelling long distances with a disability is already very unpleasant, so I think that lady was in the wrong for refusing the move.
In two minds about whether it needs to be legislated for, though.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
 AndrewC wrote:For once the judge seems to have applied some common sense. While I have sympathy for the passenger who was unable to board the bus, there was already a paying passenger on the bus, it is unfortunate that they also had a pushchair with them that contained a sleeping child.
I have seen it from the other perspective when people with prams are refused because of lack of space on buses and trains.
Sometimes life sucks, but in this case it sucks equally for all.
Cheers
Andrew
There would have been space if she had collapsed her 'pram' and picked up her baby. She simply refused because her pwecious widdle fing was sweepy time.
You decided to spawn, good for you. Contrary to parental belief, however, the rest of the world does still exist and does not, in fact, revolve around your larvae.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
And you've never been on a long bus journey with a screaming child in your ear.....
Cheers
Andrew
27151
Post by: streamdragon
No, just an 8 hour cross country flight. But hey, don't let the fact that you know nothing about me stop you from making snap judgments!
18375
Post by: AndrewC
 Da Boss wrote:Nah, I wouldn't see it the same way. Like previous posters have said, the disabled person can't just fold up their disability and put it into the overhead storage and take a seat. If the baby has to wake up, that'll be inconvenient, but I imagine travelling long distances with a disability is already very unpleasant, so I think that lady was in the wrong for refusing the move.
In two minds about whether it needs to be legislated for, though.
You're right, the lady was morally wrong not to make the effort to allow the wheelchair access. So why sue the bus company?
cheers
Andrew
Automatically Appended Next Post:  streamdragon wrote:No, just an 8 hour cross country flight. But hey, don't let the fact that you know nothing about me stop you from making snap judgments!
And this is why we need and irony emoticon. Did you not notice the extended dots?
And talking of snap judgements, how do we know the pushchair could collapse?
Cheers
Andrew
4042
Post by: Da Boss
The bus company could have told her she had to do it if she wanted to continue using the service. But I agree, suing the bus company isn't maybe the best route, but I don't see many other ways for the guy to get his voice heard about this.
25990
Post by: Chongara
I'm not really familiar with how things work in the UK. Does the bus company have the authority to physically force her from the space? If they do what's the liability if she or another injured by another passenger when she resists? It seems like their hands are rather tied short of involving the police in the matter.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
That is what they would probably have to do, yeah. They'd probably have to ask her, and if she refused, refund her the remainder of her journey and ask her to leave the bus. If she still refused, they would call the police.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
Da Boss wrote:The bus company could have told her she had to do it if she wanted to continue using the service. But I agree, suing the bus company isn't maybe the best route, but I don't see many other ways for the guy to get his voice heard about this.
There probably isn't any other way to get his voice heard in this matter, but this issue is about one persons rudeness to another, not the rsponsibilities of the bus company. They had already provided lowered access ways, and a clear space on the bus for wheelchairs/buggies, and I use that term because that's what most of the are labeled as. They had already met the requirements of the various disability acts. The driver did ask the mother to move, she refused. What does he do?
Cheers
Andrew
25990
Post by: Chongara
Da Boss wrote:That is what they would probably have to do, yeah. They'd probably have to ask her, and if she refused, refund her the remainder of her journey and ask her to leave the bus. If she still refused, they would call the police.
Refund? That seems asinine. She got what she paid for - a seat and wanted more, the wheelchair bay. It seems silly to give her a refund because she wanted more and better services for free.
Really it seems the wiser regulatory call here would be to simply bar all passengers without the proper certification from entering the space at all. That is if you're not in a wheelchair and you don't have ceritifcation of your condition you're barred from putting yourself or your possessions there in the first place. If the space is for wheelchairs fill it only with wheelchairs, it's a wheelchair space.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
Da Boss wrote:That is what they would probably have to do, yeah. They'd probably have to ask her, and if she refused, refund her the remainder of her journey and ask her to leave the bus. If she still refused, they would call the police.
But she has done nothing illegal. The police won't get involved, then again this would be a solved crime for their records, so yeah get SWAT to assault the bus.
They can't throw her off the bus, she has a valid ticket to travel against a passenger who didn't. So the bus company gets sued by a distraught mother.
Cheers
Andrew
25990
Post by: Chongara
AndrewC wrote: Da Boss wrote:That is what they would probably have to do, yeah. They'd probably have to ask her, and if she refused, refund her the remainder of her journey and ask her to leave the bus. If she still refused, they would call the police.
But she has done nothing illegal. The police won't get involved, then again this would be a solved crime for their records, so yeah get SWAT to assault the bus.
They can't throw her off the bus, she has a valid ticket to travel against a passenger who didn't. So the bus company gets sued by a distraught mother.
Cheers
Andrew
Then make it a crime. Put anything in the wheelchair bay get hit with $1,000 fine and 5 days jail time. That makes it a police matter.
It's not that quite severe here in the US, but the police can certainly kick someone off the bus. I know people who have been pulled off buses by cops here.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
The problem Chongara is that the disability laws require business owners to provide access and facilities for disabled people. But there are no laws from preventing able bodied people from using them.
Cheers
Andrew
4042
Post by: Da Boss
They can ask anyone to leave the bus at any time they want for antisocial behaviour, which is the very definition of what she was engaging in.
She doesn't have a fundamental legal right to their services just because she bought a ticket, and they could always refund her.
Used to work for a bus company and this was the standard procedure for when people were antisocial on buses, though we never had someone treat a disabled person like this, thankfully. Usually, the threat of police action and the fact that the bus will not move until it is resolved gets the antisocial person to rectify their behaviour. There is a lot the bus company can do to put pressure on customers to behave themselves properly.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
Da Boss wrote:They can ask anyone to leave the bus at any time they want for antisocial behaviour, which is the very definition of what she was engaging in.
She doesn't have a fundamental legal right to their services just because she bought a ticket, and they could always refund her.
Used to work for a bus company and this was the standard procedure for when people were antisocial on buses, though we never had someone treat a disabled person like this, thankfully. Usually, the threat of police action and the fact that the bus will not move until it is resolved gets the antisocial person to rectify their behaviour. There is a lot the bus company can do to put pressure on customers to behave themselves properly.
But is that a German bus company or a UK one?
Cheers
Andrew
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Irish bus company, but the basis for the laws is the same so I imagine it is similar in the UK.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Da Boss wrote:That is what they would probably have to do, yeah. They'd probably have to ask her, and if she refused, refund her the remainder of her journey and ask her to leave the bus. If she still refused, they would call the police.
So two people are kicked off because of one? Spock not pleased.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Yep, two people are kicked off because one of them is antisocial.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Da Boss wrote:Yep, two people are kicked off because one of them is antisocial.
Well, we could always let the baby stay. Plenty of people looking to adopt these days.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Da Boss wrote:Yep, two people are kicked off because one of them is antisocial.
Its not a law. Screw em, and by that I mean, I aint messin with no baby mamma! I didn't survive hyenadons by being a fool.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
Da Boss wrote:Irish bus company, but the basis for the laws is the same so I imagine it is similar in the UK.
In which case there may be a conflict with the consumer/trading laws which also cover travel tickets. i do know from my time in Germany that the laws were different from the UK laws, which is why I asked. Irish laws as opposed to NI laws may again be different. The basis may be the same, but the small print can be a bugger
Cheers
Andrew
221
Post by: Frazzled
She doesn't have a fundamental legal right to their services just because she bought a ticket, and they could always refund her.
Neither does he. Actually she may be able to avail herself of certain discriminatory laws as well. Don't mess with the baby mamma.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Not sure why people are mad at the bus company... Private spaces which have handicapped accessibility cannot force compliance the way a government parking space can.
If they had forced the mother to move, *SHE* could then sue the bus company and the case would have shown the same result: non-government handicapped accessibility cannot force someone to move.
Aside from parking spots, everything else is merely a suggestion or a social convention. If someone is using a handicapped Stall, the person in the wheelchair must wait. If someone sits in the seats at a theater 'next' to the handicapped empty space, then the wheelchair persons family will need to sit somewhere else.
In the US, Mothers with babies are also often catered to as a protected class equal to handicapped people. We have pregnant/newmother spots in parking lots and almost every 'please give up your seat for a elderly person' sign on buses and metros includes mothers with children.
If the Bus threw a mother with a child off a bus, the backlash would be huge and apparently she would be legally 'correct' if she sued them based upon the ruling of this case.
The Bus is in a no-win situation and except for handicapped spaces and the requirement to provide the possibility of accommodations, there is nothing guaranteeing an empty bathroom stall or seat on the bus/movie theater, simply that such a seat can exist.
221
Post by: Frazzled
nkelsch wrote:Not sure why people are mad at the bus company... Private spaces which have handicapped accessibility cannot force compliance the way a government parking space can.
If they had forced the mother to move, *SHE* could then sue the bus company and the case would have shown the same result: non-government handicapped accessibility cannot force someone to move.
Aside from parking spots, everything else is merely a suggestion or a social convention. If someone is using a handicapped Stall, the person in the wheelchair must wait. If someone sits in the seats at a theater 'next' to the handicapped empty space, then the wheelchair persons family will need to sit somewhere else.
In the US, Mothers with babies are also often catered to as a protected class equal to handicapped people. We have pregnant/newmother spots in parking lots and almost every 'please give up your seat for a elderly person' sign on buses and metros includes mothers with children.
If the Bus threw a mother with a child off a bus, the backlash would be huge and apparently she would be legally 'correct' if she sued them based upon the ruling of this case.
The Bus is in a no-win situation and except for handicapped spaces and the requirement to provide the possibility of accommodations, there is nothing guaranteeing an empty bathroom stall or seat on the bus/movie theater, simply that such a seat can exist.
What he said. 
18375
Post by: AndrewC
 Frazzled wrote:
She doesn't have a fundamental legal right to their services just because she bought a ticket, and they could always refund her.
Neither does he. Actually she may be able to avail herself of certain discriminatory laws as well. Don't mess with the baby mamma.
Actually yes she does. By selling a ticket they have agreed to transport her to her destination. If they kick her off, she can sue them for a refund + any expenses incurred to get her to her destination. But she would have to prove that she was removed from the bus unfairly/illegally. And I'd be prepared to bet that sitting quietly minding a sleeping baby and refusing to move that baby.... It would be kind of hard to prove that as antisocial behaviour.
Cheers
Andrew
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Da Boss wrote:
She doesn't have a fundamental legal right to their services just because she bought a ticket, and they could always refund her.
She kind of does. She has a contract with them. If they brake the contract she could theoretically sue for breach of contract, and any costs associated with this, so she could call a taxi and make the bus company pay. I say theoretically, because who is going to bother taking them to court over this.
I would say that whilst it may not be very nice, it falls far short of the legal definition of antisocial behavior.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
They can argue she broke her contract with them by engaging in antisocial behaviour.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Like I said, I would say it falls far below the legal definition of antisocial behavior. Whistling is annoying for many people, so is people using their phone on the bus, or having poor personal hygiene, but would a bus driver be in the right to throw someone off the bus for any of these? Asking the bus driver to throw her off is asking them to be the arbiter of petty legal disputes, which is exactly why the judges came to this judgments.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Da Boss wrote:They can argue she broke her contract with them by engaging in antisocial behaviour.
They could also argue the earth is flat and the sky is green. Would not mean the argument has merit or would win.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
Da Boss wrote:They can argue she broke her contract with them by engaging in antisocial behaviour.
And there's the problem, while refusing to move can be considered morally wrong, can you prove in a court of law that what she did was antisocial? Was she disturbing the other passengers around her? Was she causing a distraction to the driver? Was she drunk or disorderly? All she did was refuse to wake a sleeping baby and move her pushchair, which I assume was not causing an obstruction to other passengers because it was in a space reserved for wheelchairs and buggies.
Cheers
Andrew
443
Post by: skyth
 filbert wrote: it really boils my piss when I see people who are clearly able-bodied park in cripple spaces in the supermarket but it is a fact of life; people are lazy and selfish.
Just remember that a lot of the people that 'look' able-bodied actually aren't. My wife has a handicap tag that she uses and needs even though she's gotten comments from some cowards when I wasn't there that she didn't deserve it. It looks like her only problem is that she's overweight, but she has pain issues that make it so that she can't move that well for any length of time. She's stubborn and makes it look like she's fine, but she needs the shopping cart to hold her up while we're shopping or she won't make it through the store.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
AndrewC wrote: Da Boss wrote:They can argue she broke her contract with them by engaging in antisocial behaviour.
And there's the problem, while refusing to move can be considered morally wrong, can you prove in a court of law that what she did was antisocial? Was she disturbing the other passengers around her? Was she causing a distraction to the driver? Was she drunk or disorderly? All she did was refuse to wake a sleeping baby and move her pushchair, which I assume was not causing an obstruction to other passengers because it was in a space reserved for wheelchairs and buggies. Cheers Andrew
Where does it say that a disability bay is reserved for buggies? I would also like to see the bus in question and the signs on it. From what I can find, most things are that the space is for wheelchair users, but if none are there then buggies can occupy the spot. However, if a wheelchair user needs it, they're to fold the buggy.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Da Boss wrote:They can argue she broke her contract with them by engaging in antisocial behaviour.
Well thats certainly a unique defense to a contract claim.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
Check the wall, most of the buses around oxford have a notice on the wall stating that this space is reserved for wheelchairs and prams.
Cheers
Andrew
221
Post by: Frazzled
AndrewC wrote: Da Boss wrote:They can argue she broke her contract with them by engaging in antisocial behaviour.
And there's the problem, while refusing to move can be considered morally wrong, can you prove in a court of law that what she did was antisocial? Was she disturbing the other passengers around her? Was she causing a distraction to the driver? Was she drunk or disorderly? All she did was refuse to wake a sleeping baby and move her pushchair, which I assume was not causing an obstruction to other passengers because it was in a space reserved for wheelchairs and buggies.
Cheers
Andrew
Antisocial is not a valid argument in a contract dispute.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
And this was an Oxford bus with those signs on? Everything I've read about this case was it's a wheelchair bay, not a buggy bay, or a wheelchair/buggy bay.
Regardless, what someone said about "Folding up your disability" versus "Folding up your pram" was spot on.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
It depends on the terms and conditions of sale of the ticket. For the company I worked for, it absolutely was defense for throwing someone off the bus.
In fact, you could pretty much ask someone to leave for whistling, if you wanted to.
Of course, it might not work like that everywhere. But that was my experience when working for Bus Éireann,
221
Post by: Frazzled
Da Boss wrote:It depends on the terms and conditions of sale of the ticket. For the company I worked for, it absolutely was defense for throwing someone off the bus.
In fact, you could pretty much ask someone to leave for whistling, if you wanted to.
Of course, it might not work like that everywhere. But that was my experience when working for Bus Éireann,
Try it with a mom. just try it. The Tsunami sized gak storm you would find yourself in could only be classed as a Cat 5.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
From First's site:
Wheelchair users have priority use of the wheelchair space. If this is occupied with a buggy, standing passengers or otherwise full, and there is space elsewhere on the vehicle, the driver will ask that it is made free for a wheelchair user. Please note that the driver has no power to compel passengers to move in this way and is reliant upon the goodwill of the passengers concerned.
Unfortunately, if a fellow passenger refuses to move you will need to wait for the next bus.
This is a shame to be honest, but I can understand why the company doesn't want to deal with the PR nightmare of some selfish witch refusing to move their pram.
Frazzled wrote:
Try it with a mom. just try it. The Tsunami sized gak storm you would find yourself in could only be classed as a Cat 5.
Yes, they do like their entitlements.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 MrDwhitey wrote:From First's site:
Wheelchair users have priority use of the wheelchair space. If this is occupied with a buggy, standing passengers or otherwise full, and there is space elsewhere on the vehicle, the driver will ask that it is made free for a wheelchair user. Please note that the driver has no power to compel passengers to move in this way and is reliant upon the goodwill of the passengers concerned.
Unfortunately, if a fellow passenger refuses to move you will need to wait for the next bus.
This is a shame to be honest, but I can understand why the company doesn't want to deal with the PR nightmare of some selfish witch refusing to move their pram.
Frazzled wrote:
Try it with a mom. just try it. The Tsunami sized gak storm you would find yourself in could only be classed as a Cat 5.
Yes, they do like their entitlements.
Exactly.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Frazzled wrote: Da Boss wrote:It depends on the terms and conditions of sale of the ticket. For the company I worked for, it absolutely was defense for throwing someone off the bus.
In fact, you could pretty much ask someone to leave for whistling, if you wanted to.
Of course, it might not work like that everywhere. But that was my experience when working for Bus Éireann,
Try it with a mom. just try it. The Tsunami sized gak storm you would find yourself in could only be classed as a Cat 5.
Honestly think the mother would come out looking like a total donkey-cave for refusing to just take a different seat instead of taking up the wheelchair area. Don't imagine there would be any gakstorm because I think if pressure was put on her she would have folded up her push chair and sat in a chair, as she should have done without having to be asked. Also reckon she should be named in this case.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Da Boss wrote: Honestly think the mother would come out looking like a total donkey-cave for refusing to just take a different seat instead of taking up the wheelchair area. Don't imagine there would be any gakstorm because I think if pressure was put on her she would have folded up her push chair and sat in a chair, as she should have done without having to be asked. Also reckon she should be named in this case.
Exactly it. The moment a wheelchair appeared the woman should've, without being asked, promptly folded up the pram and dealt with the child. Instead she's a fething witch. Sadly, quite a few people are like that.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Da Boss wrote: Frazzled wrote: Da Boss wrote:It depends on the terms and conditions of sale of the ticket. For the company I worked for, it absolutely was defense for throwing someone off the bus.
In fact, you could pretty much ask someone to leave for whistling, if you wanted to.
Of course, it might not work like that everywhere. But that was my experience when working for Bus Éireann,
Try it with a mom. just try it. The Tsunami sized gak storm you would find yourself in could only be classed as a Cat 5.
Honestly think the mother would come out looking like a total donkey-cave for refusing to just take a different seat instead of taking up the wheelchair area. Don't imagine there would be any gakstorm because I think if pressure was put on her she would have folded up her push chair and sat in a chair, as she should have done without having to be asked.
I wouldn't take that bet. Mom gets on FB and its all over. bus driver insta- fired. Hell hath no fury like mother hens on FB.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Da Boss wrote:
Honestly think the mother would come out looking like a total donkey-cave for refusing to just take a different seat instead of taking up the wheelchair area. Don't imagine there would be any gakstorm because I think if pressure was put on her she would have folded up her push chair and sat in a chair, as she should have done without having to be asked. Also reckon she should be named in this case.
Exactly it. The moment a wheelchair appeared the woman should've, without being asked, promptly folded up the pram and dealt with the child.
Instead she's a fething witch. Sadly, quite a few people are like that.
Why? Why should she be inconvenienced? At the end of the day one or the other would be.
I just feel sorry for the driver, and for the passengers who lost valuable time for these losers.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Don't think many people would back her up, since she is totally in the wrong.
And why should she be inconvenienced? Jeez, do you hate disabled people or something? Cannot get my head around your stance here.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Honestly, I think disabled people have it too good and we should punish them for being disabled.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Da Boss wrote:Don't think many people would back her up, since she is totally in the wrong.
Why is she in the wrong. If the spot if for da Baby Mammas too then there's no issue. F the other she was there first.
And why should she be inconvenienced? Jeez, do you hate disabled people or something? Cannot get my head around your stance here.
Wo wo wo put your big girl panties on and not make it personal. Argue the item not the person.
1. I thought you knew, I hate everyone equally 
2. I'm just arguing a position between reading credit agreements...
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Frazzled wrote: Why is she in the wrong. If the spot if for da Baby Mammas too then there's no issue. F the other she was there first.
So you actually agree she was in the wrong and a witch then. Wheelchair users have priority use of the wheelchair space. If this is occupied with a buggy, standing passengers or otherwise full, and there is space elsewhere on the vehicle, the driver will ask that it is made free for a wheelchair user.
From the company itself. They actually do have buggy spaces too you know, I had a look. This was a wheelchair space, not a buggy space. I'm not arguing full on legal wrong here, I'm arguing "what a fething witch" wrong.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
But if she's got the option to take another seat, and he doesn't, it just makes sense that she should do it, so that the maximum number of people get to travel.
221
Post by: Frazzled
MrDwhitey wrote:Honestly, I think disabled people have it too good and we should punish them for being disabled.
Exactly. They get sit around in their cool alumunim strollers of death. Disabled, surely Britain's greatest menace.
You know if I saw a guy with hotrod flames painted on his chair, thats a man I would buy a drink.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Frazzled wrote: MrDwhitey wrote:Honestly, I think disabled people have it too good and we should punish them for being disabled.
Exactly. They get sit around in their cool alumunim strollers of death. Disabled, surely Britain's greatest menace.
The sad thing is, some people actually genuinely think like this. Or that a temporary mild inconvenience to themselves is on par with being permanently disabled. You know if I saw a guy with hotrod flames painted on his chair, thats a man I would buy a drink.
I shall have to get mine painted then. I mean, I have an airbrush, I could buy one of those flame templates.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Frazzled wrote: Da Boss wrote:Don't think many people would back her up, since she is totally in the wrong.
Why is she in the wrong. If the spot if for da Baby Mammas too then there's no issue. F the other she was there first.
A: It isn't a "Baby Mamma" spot, it's a wheelchair bay that she happened to decide to take up space in.
B: She can ride the bus without using the space, the person in the wheelchair can not.
C: Simply being there first gives her no particular moral standing.
At the end of the day he couldn't take the bus. Not because there wasn't room for him, not because somebody else would be unable to, or not even because somebody would be harmed in some way or deprived of something they paid for.
He couldn't take the bus simply because somebody decided that the space he needs, was the space she wants. When the space he needs is legally mandated to be there strictly because of the fact that he needs it. The fact that neither the bus company nor police have any authority to stop her from doing whatever she wants, doesn't make doing whatever she wants right.
EDIT: (I'm not convinced the fault lays with the bus company here, really. The issue is that the disability laws don't seem to have any teeth in this case).
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Honest Question, does this effect disabled parking?
Also...........This just confirms my dislike of some parents with kids, always thinking just because you had a baby, it makes you special
221
Post by: Frazzled
I shall have to get mine painted then. I mean, I have an airbrush, I could buy one of those flame templates.
I shall have to introduce you to something called Tennessee whisky...
4402
Post by: CptJake
MrDwhitey wrote:
Wheelchair users have priority use of the wheelchair space. If this is occupied with a buggy, standing passengers or otherwise full, and there is space elsewhere on the vehicle, the driver will ask that it is made free for a wheelchair user.
From the company itself. They actually do have buggy spaces too you know, I had a look. This was a wheelchair space, not a buggy space. I'm not arguing full on legal wrong here, I'm arguing "what a fething witch" wrong.
Anyone find anything stating there was indeed space on that bus for the lady to move to? And Anyone have any idea what kind of stroller she had and how much 'baby stuff' it was loaded with (some are NOT easy to unload and fold when filled with Baby and all the required accoutrements, especially for a single person traveling with the kid)?
18322
Post by: belial
Um well this might be fun.
I'm a bus driver.
This is one of those situations that drivers dread. I've had this exact situation happen so many times and I can tell you it ain't pretty.
First off, put yourself in the situation, do you really think that other passengers will back you up? They won't. They will blame you, the driver. You want to be the guy who gets out of his cab and has a quiet word, politely asking someone to move who wont? The complaints will state you swore and threatened the poor young mother. The wheelchair user will also complain if they can't get on. They will claim you swore, were rude etc etc. oh and just try getting the police, please do. I've had mothers spit in my face for daring to ask if they would mind moving so I could get someone on, despite the fact that they can move back to where they were once said person is on. Our buses have a space on both sides of the bus for buggies and wheelchairs, sometimes you need all that space to allow someone to turn a wheelchair. Not once in any of the situations where there has been a conflict has another passenger helped me. If a bus driver was to lay a finger on the mother, or the buggy, then all it would take was the mere mention of assault and its find a new job time.
does that make me 'scum' for not moving a woman and her baby? Am I also supposed to kick people off my bus if I'm at capacity and a wheelchair user wants to get on? Would you?
It's rush hour, you've been at work all day, your tired it's pouring it down with rain, I just bet you'll smile nicely and agree to leave the bus for someone else to get on in your place if I ask you nicely.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 belial wrote:Um well this might be fun.
I'm a bus driver.
This is one of those situations that drivers dread. I've had this exact situation happen so many times and I can tell you it ain't pretty.
First off, put yourself in the situation, do you really think that other passengers will back you up? They won't. They will blame you, the driver. You want to be the guy who gets out of his cab and has a quiet word, politely asking someone to move who wont? The complaints will state you swore and threatened the poor young mother. The wheelchair user will also complain if they can't get on. They will claim you swore, were rude etc etc. oh and just try getting the police, please do. I've had mothers spit in my face for daring to ask if they would mind moving so I could get someone on, despite the fact that they can move back to where they were once said person is on. Our buses have a space on both sides of the bus for buggies and wheelchairs, sometimes you need all that space to allow someone to turn a wheelchair. Not once in any of the situations where there has been a conflict has another passenger helped me. If a bus driver was to lay a finger on the mother, or the buggy, then all it would take was the mere mention of assault and its find a new job time.
does that make me 'scum' for not moving a woman and her baby? Am I also supposed to kick people off my bus if I'm at capacity and a wheelchair user wants to get on? Would you?
It's rush hour, you've been at work all day, your tired it's pouring it down with rain, I just bet you'll smile nicely and agree to leave the bus for someone else to get on in your place if I ask you nicely.
Riding a bus nearly every day I feelz for you. This is partially mitigated by your teletubby avatar however... 
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
I honestly can't blame the bus driver at all. It's an unwinnable situation for him.
Anyone find anything stating there was indeed space on that bus for the lady to move to? And Anyone have any idea what kind of stroller she had and how much 'baby stuff' it was loaded with (some are NOT easy to unload and fold when filled with Baby and all the required accoutrements, especially for a single person traveling with the kid)?
This is not known, the only reason given for the woman refusing was "not wanting to wake up the baby".
I'm liking the bus designs which have both a buggy and a disabled area, the buggy area having seats next to where the prams go.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I don't blame the driver either, if that is true it looks like you guys have crappier employment protections than your peers in Ireland, which is a shame.
I definitely blame the mother. And you know what? If there was no free seat, then someone else should have given theirs up for a woman with a small child.
It can't be that hard to figure this stuff out.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Da Boss wrote:
I definitely blame the mother. And you know what? If there was no free seat, then someone else should have given theirs up for a woman with a small child.
It can't be that hard to figure this stuff out.
A free seat may not have been enough for a woman with a small kid and a stroller full of 'stuff' you need when you have a small kid.
Was she on a tight schedule and could not afford to get off the bus and be late?
If she IS the one to blame, why was the bus company being sued? Perhaps because the guy in the wheel chair saw $$$ from a big company? Or more likely, his lawyer saw $$$?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Da Boss wrote:I don't blame the driver either, if that is true it looks like you guys have crappier employment protections than your peers in Ireland, which is a shame.
I definitely blame the mother. And you know what? If there was no free seat, then someone else should have given theirs up for a woman with a small child.
It can't be that hard to figure this stuff out.
Again, why? They paid for a spot. They boarded after looking and seeing there was a seat available. They did not board under the presumption they would be standing.
In my instance, because of my knees, standing for any period of time is very difficult. I won't stand. Good luck trying to get me to stand.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Yeah? I would stand, but I wouldn't expect an older person do do so. I would totally get up and offer my seat in that situation. That's just good manners if you are young and fit enough. I mean, I'm a godless atheist and I have that much social awareness.
Sure, if the bus was entirely full of old people or other people with babies, the disabled guy is going to have to wait for another bus. No one is actually saying someone should get booted off a full bus to make space for a disabled person.
25990
Post by: Chongara
 CptJake wrote: Da Boss wrote:
I definitely blame the mother. And you know what? If there was no free seat, then someone else should have given theirs up for a woman with a small child.
It can't be that hard to figure this stuff out.
A free seat may not have been enough for a woman with a small kid and a stroller full of 'stuff' you need when you have a small kid.
Was she on a tight schedule and could not afford to get off the bus and be late?
If she IS the one to blame, why was the bus company being sued? Perhaps because the guy in the wheel chair saw $$$ from a big company? Or more likely, his lawyer saw $$$?
In my mind, she should have to leave. She paid for and is entitled to a seat. If a seat is insufficient for her, then it is insufficient by virtue of her choice, stuff that presumably neither her nor the baby would cease to exist without. The seat is insufficient for the disabled person by virtue of their body, which they would cease to exist without. She has by her choices taken up a space mandated by regulation to be there for the express purpose of accommodating wheelchairs.
The law says that the buses must have accommodations for the disabled. It doesn't say "buses must have space for strollers, that maybe a person in a wheelchair can feel like it if the stroller people let them".
EDIT:
Sure, if the bus was entirely full of old people or other people with babies, the disabled guy is going to have to wait for another bus. No one is actually saying someone should get booted off a full bus to make space for a disabled person.
I'd argue there is no way this should have to happen. I can't park in the handicap space just because the rest of the parking lot is full. Non-disabled passengers shouldn't be able to take up space in the wheelchair area just because the rest of the bus is full. They should be forbidden from entering in the first place.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Good thing the 'in your mind' part will never have force of law behind it. She was a paid rider. The policies of the bus company covered her being there, and staying there.
25990
Post by: Chongara
CptJake wrote:Good thing the 'in your mind' part will never have force of law behind it. She was a paid rider. The policies of the bus company covered her being there, and staying there.
So. If I get on a bus and feel like taking a nap in the wheelchair area, I'm entitled to do that as well?
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Chongara wrote: CptJake wrote:Good thing the 'in your mind' part will never have force of law behind it. She was a paid rider. The policies of the bus company covered her being there, and staying there.
So. If I get on a bus and feel like taking a nap in the wheelchair area, I'm entitled to do that as well?
I think in the real world ( TM), we'd all move if we were in the spot and a wheelchair person came in (the buses I ride have fold back seats that clear a specific space for a wheelchair).
4402
Post by: CptJake
Chongara wrote: CptJake wrote:Good thing the 'in your mind' part will never have force of law behind it. She was a paid rider. The policies of the bus company covered her being there, and staying there.
So. If I get on a bus and feel like taking a nap in the wheelchair area, I'm entitled to do that as well?
I guess it would depend on if there was room for you to move to on the bus according to the company's posted policy.
Wheelchair users have priority use of the wheelchair space. If this is occupied with a buggy, standing passengers or otherwise full, and there is space elsewhere on the vehicle, the driver will ask that it is made free for a wheelchair user.
I doubt you would get as much sympathy as some poor lady trying to deal with her kid and a stroller full of stuff.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
He would not get as much sympathy, but seemingly is fine to do so.
Morally wrong as feth, but yeah.
25990
Post by: Chongara
CptJake wrote:
Wheelchair users have priority use of the wheelchair space. If this is occupied with a buggy, standing passengers or otherwise full, and there is space elsewhere on the vehicle, the driver will ask that it is made free for a wheelchair user.
I doubt you would get as much sympathy as some poor lady trying to deal with her kid and a stroller full of stuff.
Still given what we've seen here, I'd supposedly be in within my rights to say "No". I mean if we're taking the position that the bus company can't and shouldn't be able to ask paid riders to leave the wheel chair space, that I can say "No" and have my little nap can only be a good thing, yes?
I'd have to assume other people's lack of sympathy for mid-day rest can in that case only be a result of of their poor understanding of how the world should really work. I'm very thankful that their what they have in their minds will never have the force of law behind it.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
 skyth wrote: filbert wrote: it really boils my piss when I see people who are clearly able-bodied park in cripple spaces in the supermarket but it is a fact of life; people are lazy and selfish.
Just remember that a lot of the people that 'look' able-bodied actually aren't. My wife has a handicap tag that she uses and needs even though she's gotten comments from some cowards when I wasn't there that she didn't deserve it. It looks like her only problem is that she's overweight, but she has pain issues that make it so that she can't move that well for any length of time. She's stubborn and makes it look like she's fine, but she needs the shopping cart to hold her up while we're shopping or she won't make it through the store.
Exalted! I have a friend who is in a similar position and she is harassed frequently. She looks young, healthy and able-bodied but has horrible nerve pain which makes walking painful. Never judge people... You can never know what their issue is, and for those who have never had to experience chronic pain, especially walking pain, I hope you never have to.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
AndrewC wrote:For once the judge seems to have applied some common sense. While I have sympathy for the passenger who was unable to board the bus, there was already a paying passenger on the bus, it is unfortunate that they also had a pushchair with them that contained a sleeping child.
I have seen it from the other perspective when people with prams are refused because of lack of space on buses and trains.
Sometimes life sucks, but in this case it sucks equally for all.
Cheers
Andrew
The spaces on British buses are specifically designated for the use of disabled people in wheelchairs. Pushchairs can be folded up and stored in the conveniently available storage bay right next to the disabled space. This isn't "equality", it's the public transportation equivalent of some arsehole parking their car in the disabled bay at a supermarket because they've had a long day at work and can't be bothered parking further away. The person in the wheelchair needs access to that spot in order to access public transport, the lazy parent does not, and the only acceptable reason to tell a wheelchair user they can't user the space set aside for wheelchairs is if there's already another wheelchair user in it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I hear you. But why sue the bus company? Wouldn't you actually have to make a claim against the space jumper?
4402
Post by: CptJake
 Yodhrin wrote:
The spaces on British buses are specifically designated for the use of disabled people in wheelchairs. Pushchairs can be folded up and stored in the conveniently available storage bay right next to the disabled space. This isn't "equality", it's the public transportation equivalent of some arsehole parking their car in the disabled bay at a supermarket because they've had a long day at work and can't be bothered parking further away. The person in the wheelchair needs access to that spot in order to access public transport, the lazy parent does not, and the only acceptable reason to tell a wheelchair user they can't user the space set aside for wheelchairs is if there's already another wheelchair user in it.
At least here where I live, a parking space designated for handicapped cannot be legally occupied unless you have a handicap hang tag or license plate. If you park in one without that you get a $200 fine and will possibly have your vehicle towed. That is because the law is written that way, not just because folks like you have a strong opinion. Clearly, your opinion, though strong, is not backed up by the law in this case.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I think the real issue is, to use your example, why are they going after the parking lot provider? The bus company has the required seats (parking spaces).
18375
Post by: AndrewC
Yodhrin wrote: AndrewC wrote:For once the judge seems to have applied some common sense. While I have sympathy for the passenger who was unable to board the bus, there was already a paying passenger on the bus, it is unfortunate that they also had a pushchair with them that contained a sleeping child.
I have seen it from the other perspective when people with prams are refused because of lack of space on buses and trains.
Sometimes life sucks, but in this case it sucks equally for all.
Cheers
Andrew
The spaces on British buses are specifically designated for the use of disabled people in wheelchairs. Pushchairs can be folded up and stored in the conveniently available storage bay right next to the disabled space. This isn't "equality", it's the public transportation equivalent of some arsehole parking their car in the disabled bay at a supermarket because they've had a long day at work and can't be bothered parking further away. The person in the wheelchair needs access to that spot in order to access public transport, the lazy parent does not, and the only acceptable reason to tell a wheelchair user they can't user the space set aside for wheelchairs is if there's already another wheelchair user in it.
And do you know I don't disagree with anything that you write? But as we both know the parking restrictions in supermarkets are simp,y guidelines. TESCO can't even fine anyone who does so. Even more so are those idiots in their 4x4s who park in the disabled and parents only spaces because they don't want the paint scratched.
Though I do dispute the "lazy parent" tab ascribed to the mother. You have no proof that the woman didn't need the transport as much as the bloke. As I wrote earlier, morally wrong, but not illegal.
Cheers
Andrew
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Hey, I think we agree Andrew.
I consider it morally wrong, but by law it's not illegal.
Boiled down that's what I think (though I'm obviously somewhat vehement).
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
Frazzled wrote:I hear you. But why sue the bus company? Wouldn't you actually have to make a claim against the space jumper?
Answer below:
Frazzled wrote:nkelsch wrote:Not sure why people are mad at the bus company... Private spaces which have handicapped accessibility cannot force compliance the way a government parking space can.
If they had forced the mother to move, *SHE* could then sue the bus company and the case would have shown the same result: non-government handicapped accessibility cannot force someone to move.
Aside from parking spots, everything else is merely a suggestion or a social convention. If someone is using a handicapped Stall, the person in the wheelchair must wait. If someone sits in the seats at a theater 'next' to the handicapped empty space, then the wheelchair persons family will need to sit somewhere else.
In the US, Mothers with babies are also often catered to as a protected class equal to handicapped people. We have pregnant/newmother spots in parking lots and almost every 'please give up your seat for a elderly person' sign on buses and metros includes mothers with children.
If the Bus threw a mother with a child off a bus, the backlash would be huge and apparently she would be legally 'correct' if she sued them based upon the ruling of this case.
The Bus is in a no-win situation and except for handicapped spaces and the requirement to provide the possibility of accommodations, there is nothing guaranteeing an empty bathroom stall or seat on the bus/movie theater, simply that such a seat can exist.
What he said.
American law is not UK law - wheelchair access is a legal requirement, a convenient spot so you don't have to take time to fold up/store your pushchair is not.
 Steve steveson wrote:Like I said, I would say it falls far below the legal definition of antisocial behavior. Whistling is annoying for many people, so is people using their phone on the bus, or having poor personal hygiene, but would a bus driver be in the right to throw someone off the bus for any of these? Asking the bus driver to throw her off is asking them to be the arbiter of petty legal disputes, which is exactly why the judges came to this judgments.
Again, the difference is that the bus company have a legal requirement to provide wheelchair access, and none to provide lazy parents with a spot to park their sleeping spawn. This isn't a "petty legal dispute", it's emblematic of exactly the kind of selfish behaviour which required us as a society to implement laws about disability access in the first place - the able bodied almost always have another option even if it's marginally less convenient for them, the wheelchair user almost never does.
AndrewC wrote: Da Boss wrote:They can argue she broke her contract with them by engaging in antisocial behaviour.
And there's the problem, while refusing to move can be considered morally wrong, can you prove in a court of law that what she did was antisocial? Was she disturbing the other passengers around her? Was she causing a distraction to the driver? Was she drunk or disorderly? All she did was refuse to wake a sleeping baby and move her pushchair, which I assume was not causing an obstruction to other passengers because it was in a space reserved for wheelchairs and buggies.
Cheers
Andrew
*sigh* Again, no. By law reserved for wheelchairs, by company policy available for the use of pushchairs. These spots exist on buses, were actually designed into buses, because of wheelchair access laws, that is their only reason for being, and there is no such law relating to pushchairs. So, by refusing to vacate the space she was forcing the bus company to breach its legal responsibilities to offer wheelchair access, which is more than enough reason for them to invalidate any right she may feel she has because she paid for a ticket.
I know I keep repeating the same thing here, but others have said it before and it's evidently not getting through.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You're arguing an affirmative duty to clear the seat. Evidently the court disagreed with you.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
Frazzled wrote:You're arguing an affirmative duty to clear the seat. Evidently the court disagreed with you.
No, the court agreed, the first appeal judge disagreed. We'll see if the Supreme Court decides to side with the law, or with the appeal court judge's reinterpretation of the law.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Access does not equal availability.
Parking spaces have actual laws which fine users who use the space inappropriately. Apparently, the law does not have the same thing for other accessibility features like wider aisles, ramps and bathroom stalls. While accessibility must be provided, availability is not legally required and they are not legally restricted use otherwise the woman would be able to be fined for using the space on the bus which she clearly can't be.
Parking spots are the only thing where someone who is not legally handicapped and doesn't have credentials can be fined for using the accessibility. There is no law that makes sitting in a wheelchair accessibility seat or area actually against the law, simply it must exist for the law to be met. If it WAS against the law, what is the fine? Who enforces the fine? What kind of crime is it?
That is the meat of the law, if someone is using it, handicapped or not, the law is 'met' by waiting for the next bus. There is no fine to use the space on the bus and it is not actually illegal the same way a parking space is.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
nkelsch wrote:Access does not equal availability.
Parking spaces have actual laws which fine users who use the space inappropriately. Apparently, the law does not have the same thing for other accessibility features like wider aisles, ramps and bathroom stalls. While accessibility must be provided, availability is not legally required and they are not legally restricted use otherwise the woman would be able to be fined for using the space on the bus which she clearly can't be.
Parking spots are the only thing where someone who is not legally handicapped and doesn't have credentials can be fined for using the accessibility. There is no law that makes sitting in a wheelchair accessibility seat or area actually against the law, simply it must exist for the law to be met.
That is the meat of the law, if someone is using it, handicapped or not, the law is 'met' by waiting for the next bus. There is no fine to use the space on the bus and it is not actually illegal the same way a parking space is.
Actually no, prior to this appeal court ruling UK law did NOT work that way. The "meat" of the law was to provide access for disabled people by setting aside spaces specifically for the use of disabled people. That companies decided to allow pushchairs to use those spaces, and that the appeal court judge has decided to side with corporate babying of whingy lazy parents over the actual intent of the law doesn't change that.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Yodhrin wrote: Frazzled wrote:You're arguing an affirmative duty to clear the seat. Evidently the court disagreed with you.
No, the court agreed, the first appeal judge disagreed. We'll see if the Supreme Court decides to side with the law, or with the appeal court judge's reinterpretation of the law.
The court that matters is the highest court. Automatically Appended Next Post: Yodhrin wrote:nkelsch wrote:Access does not equal availability.
Parking spaces have actual laws which fine users who use the space inappropriately. Apparently, the law does not have the same thing for other accessibility features like wider aisles, ramps and bathroom stalls. While accessibility must be provided, availability is not legally required and they are not legally restricted use otherwise the woman would be able to be fined for using the space on the bus which she clearly can't be.
Parking spots are the only thing where someone who is not legally handicapped and doesn't have credentials can be fined for using the accessibility. There is no law that makes sitting in a wheelchair accessibility seat or area actually against the law, simply it must exist for the law to be met.
That is the meat of the law, if someone is using it, handicapped or not, the law is 'met' by waiting for the next bus. There is no fine to use the space on the bus and it is not actually illegal the same way a parking space is.
Actually no, prior to this appeal court ruling UK law did NOT work that way. The "meat" of the law was to provide access for disabled people by setting aside spaces specifically for the use of disabled people. That companies decided to allow pushchairs to use those spaces, and that the appeal court judge has decided to side with corporate babying of whingy lazy parents over the actual intent of the law doesn't change that.
Please show where enforcement of such was required by the bus company. Again the appellate court felt he's correct, and that your argument lacks merit.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
It seems reasonable to me, individuals have a right to deny a request to make way for a disabled person, but if they do then theyre gakky people. +1 for smaller government that doesnt enforce morality on behalf of its citizens.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
It's not about enforcing morality it's about helping make a disabled persons life a bit easier.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
chaos0xomega wrote:It seems reasonable to me, individuals have a right to deny a request to make way for a disabled person, but if they do then theyre gakky people. +1 for smaller government that doesnt enforce morality on behalf of its citizens.
what if you are like me with a bad knee that might get reinjured on the bus
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Yodhrin wrote: Frazzled wrote:I hear you. But why sue the bus company? Wouldn't you actually have to make a claim against the space jumper?
Answer below:
Frazzled wrote:nkelsch wrote:Not sure why people are mad at the bus company... Private spaces which have handicapped accessibility cannot force compliance the way a government parking space can.
If they had forced the mother to move, *SHE* could then sue the bus company and the case would have shown the same result: non-government handicapped accessibility cannot force someone to move.
Aside from parking spots, everything else is merely a suggestion or a social convention. If someone is using a handicapped Stall, the person in the wheelchair must wait. If someone sits in the seats at a theater 'next' to the handicapped empty space, then the wheelchair persons family will need to sit somewhere else.
In the US, Mothers with babies are also often catered to as a protected class equal to handicapped people. We have pregnant/newmother spots in parking lots and almost every 'please give up your seat for a elderly person' sign on buses and metros includes mothers with children.
If the Bus threw a mother with a child off a bus, the backlash would be huge and apparently she would be legally 'correct' if she sued them based upon the ruling of this case.
The Bus is in a no-win situation and except for handicapped spaces and the requirement to provide the possibility of accommodations, there is nothing guaranteeing an empty bathroom stall or seat on the bus/movie theater, simply that such a seat can exist.
What he said.
American law is not UK law - wheelchair access is a legal requirement, a convenient spot so you don't have to take time to fold up/store your pushchair is not.
Steve steveson wrote:Like I said, I would say it falls far below the legal definition of antisocial behavior. Whistling is annoying for many people, so is people using their phone on the bus, or having poor personal hygiene, but would a bus driver be in the right to throw someone off the bus for any of these? Asking the bus driver to throw her off is asking them to be the arbiter of petty legal disputes, which is exactly why the judges came to this judgments.
Again, the difference is that the bus company have a legal requirement to provide wheelchair access, and none to provide lazy parents with a spot to park their sleeping spawn. This isn't a "petty legal dispute", it's emblematic of exactly the kind of selfish behaviour which required us as a society to implement laws about disability access in the first place - the able bodied almost always have another option even if it's marginally less convenient for them, the wheelchair user almost never does.
AndrewC wrote: Da Boss wrote:They can argue she broke her contract with them by engaging in antisocial behaviour.
And there's the problem, while refusing to move can be considered morally wrong, can you prove in a court of law that what she did was antisocial? Was she disturbing the other passengers around her? Was she causing a distraction to the driver? Was she drunk or disorderly? All she did was refuse to wake a sleeping baby and move her pushchair, which I assume was not causing an obstruction to other passengers because it was in a space reserved for wheelchairs and buggies.
Cheers
Andrew
*sigh* Again, no. By law reserved for wheelchairs, by company policy available for the use of pushchairs. These spots exist on buses, were actually designed into buses, because of wheelchair access laws, that is their only reason for being, and there is no such law relating to pushchairs. So, by refusing to vacate the space she was forcing the bus company to breach its legal responsibilities to offer wheelchair access, which is more than enough reason for them to invalidate any right she may feel she has because she paid for a ticket.
I know I keep repeating the same thing here, but others have said it before and it's evidently not getting through.
1) by "petty legal dispute" I was referring to a discussion about antisocial behaviour.
2) I don't think you understand the law in the UK. The DDA says that the company must make reasonable adjustments for all disabled users. NOT that a space is put aside especaliy for wheelchair users. There are no "wheelchair access laws". I don't think you understand the requirements under the DDA, especially given that your interpretation is at odds with three appeals court judges. The question would be, is it reasonable to expect the person to move the pushchair, or force the driver to intervene?
At what point is it reasonable? Would it be reasonable for someone with autisum to expect somone to take a screaming child off the bus so as not to stress them? No, probably not. Is it reasonable to expect a space to be made avalable so that a wheelchair user can get their chair on the bus? Yes. Is it reasonable that they be expected to have other passangers get off the bus to let them on? Probably not, but may be in some cases. Is it reasonable to expect someone to collapse a push chair and possibly wake a baby? Well, that's what the case is about. What is reasonable. The DDA has very few absoultes in it.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 hotsauceman1 wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:It seems reasonable to me, individuals have a right to deny a request to make way for a disabled person, but if they do then theyre gakky people. +1 for smaller government that doesnt enforce morality on behalf of its citizens.
what if you are like me with a bad knee that might get reinjured on the bus
Your flag says you're American... Boostrap yourself a Diesel 4x4 pickup truck like the rest of us
7942
Post by: nkelsch
The only reason why it is illegal to park in a handicapped spot in the UK is there is a specific traffic statue which makes it so. The only 'requirement' is the accessibility be provided, spots, ramps, doors, bathrooms... not that others can't use them.
Only for parking is there an explicit law which makes it illegal to use it, and it is a traffic law.
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 = Makes facilities provide accommodations, does not restrict use of accommodations to handicapped people.
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 = Makes it illegal to park without the appropriate tag
Nothing makes it actually illegal to sit in a handicapped seat on a bus or bathroom or anywhere else an accommodation has been legally provided. They can put warning sings and tell people they can't sit there, but they are guidelines with no teeth. If you can't cite an explicit statue which makes it a criminal offense then it isn't actually illegal.
And how would they enforce it? Would people now need handicapped IDs they carry so they can be carded? If you don't have one, what is the fine? Do police need to ride every bus and train to enforce it or can bus drivers write citations?
It is a mess. Hence why the court said 'look, it feels wrong but it simply isn't illegal... take the next bus.'
16689
Post by: notprop
 Medium of Death wrote:It's not about enforcing morality it's about helping make a disabled persons life a bit easier.
Indeed and that's why the DDA regulations exist and millions of pound are spent making sure that the disabled are catered for in all aspects of infrastructure, public buildings and to some extent all new residential developments.
What we don't have and I would posit should not have is a positive preference for the disabled. Ie they trump all others. We have traditionally had designated places on public transport where the elderly, frail, pregnant and those with children where there are signs asking able bodied members of the public to give up their seats. This is entirely voluntary, to do otherwise would require establishing designations of level of need. It's not practical.
Should we ask passenger to leave a full bus to allow a disabled individual on. Meritable perhaps but highly unlikely and unfair.
77922
Post by: Overread
 notprop wrote: Medium of Death wrote:It's not about enforcing morality it's about helping make a disabled persons life a bit easier.
Indeed and that's why the DDA regulations exist and millions of pound are spent making sure that the disabled are catered for in all aspects of infrastructure, public buildings and to some extent all new residential developments.
What we don't have and I would posit should not have is a positive preference for the disabled. Ie they trump all others. We have traditionally had designated places on public transport where the elderly, frail, pregnant and those with children where there are signs asking able bodied members of the public to give up their seats. This is entirely voluntary, to do otherwise would require establishing designations of level of need. It's not practical.
Should we ask passenger to leave a full bus to allow a disabled individual on. Meritable perhaps but highly unlikely and unfair.
When my brother was in a wheelchair for a while the last thing he wanted was to be in the wheelchair and to be "different" to others. Special steats and such were already a kind of embarrassment to him - singling him out as different. The idea that someone else would have to get off the train to let him on would not have sat well with him at all and I suspect it would only have been with that person making the choice themselves and being insistent upon it that he'd have taken up any such offer.
If the law demanded that it be done then it would simply add insult.
By all means provide for the disabled, have legal requirements that mean that public transport and buildings have facilities to accommodate them; but only so that they can be as equal to the rest of us as possible. Because that is what many want, to be the same as much as possible.
And yes there will always be special situations - the time when the next train/buss might not have disabled access (older model) or other multiple situations we could debate over. In such cases though we shouldn't have to turn to the law all the time; society has to have some standards and strength of its own to function. And honestly in most cases people are, on the whole, obliging and understanding. Yep you get bad and selfish apples; but we should try and avoid having them rule us - because if we go down that path we throw away too much.
37231
Post by: d-usa
The physical presence of seats doesn't mean exclusive rights to those seats.
What if there were a couple of people in wheelchairs trying to ride the bus, but there were not enough spots for them? What if one of the guys in a wheel chair can walk a few steps and is able to walk a few steps and could sit in a regular seat with his chair folded up? Would somebody be required to get out of a non-handicapped spot to let him sit or is it just bad luck that "their" spots are all taken?
What if the woman who now has to hold her child doesn't have a spot to sit? Should she be able to sue because she was forced to stand while holding her child and nobody was forced to move out of their seat to make room for her? Should every other person in the buss be kicked off for anti-social behavior if nobody wants to let her sit? How do you determine who is the lowest person in the "I need to have a seat" hierarchy on that bus?
It's a dick move, but shouldn't be against the law.
34390
Post by: whembly
 d-usa wrote:The physical presence of seats doesn't mean exclusive rights to those seats.
What if there were a couple of people in wheelchairs trying to ride the bus, but there were not enough spots for them? What if one of the guys in a wheel chair can walk a few steps and is able to walk a few steps and could sit in a regular seat with his chair folded up? Would somebody be required to get out of a non-handicapped spot to let him sit or is it just bad luck that "their" spots are all taken?
What if the woman who now has to hold her child doesn't have a spot to sit? Should she be able to sue because she was forced to stand while holding her child and nobody was forced to move out of their seat to make room for her? Should every other person in the buss be kicked off for anti-social behavior if nobody wants to let her sit? How do you determine who is the lowest person in the "I need to have a seat" hierarchy on that bus?
It's a dick move, but shouldn't be against the law.
^ Total agreement with d-usa.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
d-usa wrote:
What if the woman who now has to hold her child doesn't have a spot to sit? Should she be able to sue because she was forced to stand while holding her child and nobody was forced to move out of their seat to make room for her?
It's a dick move, but shouldn't be against the law.
My guess is that this was simply not the case in the OP.
Don't get me wrong, if it's a case of "there's no seats left" then public safety dictates that whoever is currently not on the bus or train, etc. wait for the next one. If the bus is only half full, then someone who's only "claim" to a handicapped "seat" on a bus/train is that they might wake up a child, which would inconvenience them, then sorry, she should move out of the "handicapped seat" to allow another paying passenger on. The "single mother" in the OP was most likely sitting next to the stroller, and so already has a seat. Therefore, she'd be sitting in the seat she already had, holding her child instead of taking up more than twice the space of anyone else by having her child in the stroller. IMO, this also presents a pretty serious safety issue, as if there is any kind of accident involving the bus, there is no physical control of the child, which could cause further injury than if she had been held by the parent in the first place.
What if that handicapped person was trying to go to a doctor's appointment, and waiting for another bus makes them late?
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that if there's room, then make room for others. If there's no room then there's no room.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Do we know what kind of stroller it is? Many of them are not easily collapsible, especially for someone holding a baby in her other arm, assuming the baby was old enough to be held safely in one arm. If this was one of those monster Graco system strollers, was there even room to stow it?
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Ensis Ferrae wrote: d-usa wrote:
What if the woman who now has to hold her child doesn't have a spot to sit? Should she be able to sue because she was forced to stand while holding her child and nobody was forced to move out of their seat to make room for her?
It's a dick move, but shouldn't be against the law.
My guess is that this was simply not the case in the OP.
Don't get me wrong, if it's a case of "there's no seats left" then public safety dictates that whoever is currently not on the bus or train, etc. wait for the next one. If the bus is only half full, then someone who's only "claim" to a handicapped "seat" on a bus/train is that they might wake up a child, which would inconvenience them, then sorry, she should move out of the "handicapped seat" to allow another paying passenger on. The "single mother" in the OP was most likely sitting next to the stroller, and so already has a seat. Therefore, she'd be sitting in the seat she already had, holding her child instead of taking up more than twice the space of anyone else by having her child in the stroller. IMO, this also presents a pretty serious safety issue, as if there is any kind of accident involving the bus, there is no physical control of the child, which could cause further injury than if she had been held by the parent in the first place.
What if that handicapped person was trying to go to a doctor's appointment, and waiting for another bus makes them late?
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that if there's room, then make room for others. If there's no room then there's no room.
For me it's just a bit of a two-edged sword.
I'm not disagreeing that she shouldn't have moved. There may have been a case that the kid has not been feeling well and this is the first time it has actually slept all day, and in a case like that you might have a legitimate reason for not wanting to wake the baby. Not very likely though, so the decent thing would have been for her to move.
But at the same time there is no "punishment" system that should force her to move or get kicked off the bus, and there is no legal guarantee for the handicapped guy to have access to the provided wheelchair space.
Should people be forced to do the kind thing in a situation by threat of punishment? Nope.
Should people have decency and do what is right? Yes.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I looked at the bus today, they cite the law,and punishment for taking a disabled spot when someone needs it
91292
Post by: DarkLink
ADA likely requires them to have something posted. And even if a court overrules a law, it's not like the books get instantly written across the entire nation to reflect that ruling.
22639
Post by: Baragash
As someone who uses the bus every week to commute and takes my 1 year old out in her pram two days at the weekend because my wife works*, anyone who thinks that the BBC article contains anywhere near enough information to condemn the woman is just embarrassing themselves.
Whilst it's not as embarrassing as the BBC's piece on the "bedroom tax", it nicely continues the BBC's completely gak level of reporting on social issues. They should be prosecuted for wasting public money.
*I never take the pram on a bus because I'm not fething insane.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 Baragash wrote:As someone who uses the bus every week to commute and takes my 1 year old out in her pram two days at the weekend because my wife works*, anyone who thinks that the BBC article contains anywhere near enough information to condemn the woman is just embarrassing themselves.
Whilst it's not as embarrassing as the BBC's piece on the "bedroom tax", it nicely continues the BBC's completely gak level of reporting on social issues. They should be prosecuted for wasting public money.
*I never take the pram on a bus because I'm not fething insane.
Surely you should be able hold your baby in one hand, unload the stuff from the pram and then fold it and stow it and the stuff with the other hand and it wouldn't be a big issue at all, then reverse those actions when you reach your stop.
22639
Post by: Baragash
CptJake wrote: Baragash wrote:As someone who uses the bus every week to commute and takes my 1 year old out in her pram two days at the weekend because my wife works*, anyone who thinks that the BBC article contains anywhere near enough information to condemn the woman is just embarrassing themselves.
Whilst it's not as embarrassing as the BBC's piece on the "bedroom tax", it nicely continues the BBC's completely gak level of reporting on social issues. They should be prosecuted for wasting public money.
*I never take the pram on a bus because I'm not fething insane.
Surely you should be able hold your baby in one hand, unload the stuff from the pram and then fold it and stow it and the stuff with the other hand and it wouldn't be a big issue at all, then reverse those actions when you reach your stop.
Nah, I'd dump her on the floor and tell her I expect her to be a fast developer and it's high time she learnt to walk herself, now scoot, I haven't got all day. Darwinism in action.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Nah, I'd dump her on the floor and tell her I expect her to be a fast developer and it's high time she learnt to walk herself, now scoot, I haven't got all day. Darwinism in action.
Ah the Frazzled model of parenting. "If they aint in the coal mine earning by 8 then its too late."
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Don't get me wrong, if it's a case of "there's no seats left" then public safety dictates that whoever is currently not on the bus or train, etc. wait for the next one. If the bus is only half full, then someone who's only "claim" to a handicapped "seat" on a bus/train is that they might wake up a child, which would inconvenience them, then sorry, she should move out of the "handicapped seat" to allow another paying passenger on. The "single mother" in the OP was most likely sitting next to the stroller, and so already has a seat. Therefore, she'd be sitting in the seat she already had, holding her child instead of taking up more than twice the space of anyone else by having her child in the stroller. IMO, this also presents a pretty serious safety issue, as if there is any kind of accident involving the bus, there is no physical control of the child, which could cause further injury than if she had been held by the parent in the first place.
What if that handicapped person was trying to go to a doctor's appointment, and waiting for another bus makes them late?
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that if there's room, then make room for others. If there's no room then there's no room.
But here is the rub... We have car seats for a reason... because holding a child on your lap is dangerous and in an accident you could never hold on to them. If you don't have something which physically straps the child to you, it is not safe to hold them.
If I was on a bus or train with an infant, I would be damn sure to keep them in their car seat/stroller/babycarrier because in an accident they are safer there than in my arms. Many baby carriers have roll bars and are durable so even if thrown around, the child inside them will be virtually free farm harm. It is really the safest place for them when they won't provide seatbelts or car seats for children.
So If you told me to hold my baby on my lap or stand while holding my baby while on a train/bus, I would tell you to go to hell for putting my baby at unneeded risk. Of course I would probably not be a negligent parent by having the appropraite bus-riding equipment to keep the baby harnessed to myself, but considering the alternative, strapped into a wheel-locked stroller is safer than 'lap baby' or 'standing held baby'
Also, in some areas in is actually illegal for a bus to move with standing children or parents standing with children. So the bus will be forced to not move until someone gives up a seat.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Good points I didn't think about Nkelsch.
38888
Post by: Skinnereal
If this is an urban bus, it can probably carry an extra 15-30% people as standing-room only. Standing up on the upper deck is also normal. The numbers are stated right next to the door, with both with- and with-out a wheelchair.
Before wheelchair spaces were enforced, there was a shelf to stack pushchairs, and no-one thought to take one on unfolded. The only time pushchair-friendly areas existed on most UK buses is after wheelchair spaces appeared.
So, sitting with a child on the lap is normal and expected, but not often seen.
Coaches, that travel between towns and use motorways, have seatbelts these days, but bus-stop type buses still don't.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
nkelsch wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Don't get me wrong, if it's a case of "there's no seats left" then public safety dictates that whoever is currently not on the bus or train, etc. wait for the next one. If the bus is only half full, then someone who's only "claim" to a handicapped "seat" on a bus/train is that they might wake up a child, which would inconvenience them, then sorry, she should move out of the "handicapped seat" to allow another paying passenger on. The "single mother" in the OP was most likely sitting next to the stroller, and so already has a seat. Therefore, she'd be sitting in the seat she already had, holding her child instead of taking up more than twice the space of anyone else by having her child in the stroller. IMO, this also presents a pretty serious safety issue, as if there is any kind of accident involving the bus, there is no physical control of the child, which could cause further injury than if she had been held by the parent in the first place.
What if that handicapped person was trying to go to a doctor's appointment, and waiting for another bus makes them late?
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that if there's room, then make room for others. If there's no room then there's no room.
But here is the rub... We have car seats for a reason... because holding a child on your lap is dangerous and in an accident you could never hold on to them. If you don't have something which physically straps the child to you, it is not safe to hold them.
If I was on a bus or train with an infant, I would be damn sure to keep them in their car seat/stroller/babycarrier because in an accident they are safer there than in my arms. Many baby carriers have roll bars and are durable so even if thrown around, the child inside them will be virtually free farm harm. It is really the safest place for them when they won't provide seatbelts or car seats for children.
So If you told me to hold my baby on my lap or stand while holding my baby while on a train/bus, I would tell you to go to hell for putting my baby at unneeded risk. Of course I would probably not be a negligent parent by having the appropraite bus-riding equipment to keep the baby harnessed to myself, but considering the alternative, strapped into a wheel-locked stroller is safer than 'lap baby' or 'standing held baby'
Also, in some areas in is actually illegal for a bus to move with standing children or parents standing with children. So the bus will be forced to not move until someone gives up a seat.
If you're talking about a stroller where the car seat is locked in, or the child is in a car seat period, that's one thing, but if it's your run of the mill, "let's strap junior into this seat so they cant run off" type stroller, they are absolutely not crash tested, and not crash safe.
The situation in the OP sounds like the latter type of stroller, IMO.
18322
Post by: belial
 Skinnereal wrote:If this is an urban bus, it can probably carry an extra 15-30% people as standing-room only. Standing up on the upper deck is also normal. The numbers are stated right next to the door, with both with- and with-out a wheelchair.
Before wheelchair spaces were enforced, there was a shelf to stack pushchairs, and no-one thought to take one on unfolded. The only time pushchair-friendly areas existed on most UK buses is after wheelchair spaces appeared.
So, sitting with a child on the lap is normal and expected, but not often seen.
Coaches, that travel between towns and use motorways, have seatbelts these days, but bus-stop type buses still don't.
Standing up on the upper deck is illegal in the UK.
Babies on knees is a nightmare, brake to hard and you have a flying baby! Most people seem to assume that the laws of motion cease to work in a bus. Buses just stop automatically and nobody inside moves.
Had this today by the way. Kid ran straight out in front of my bus, had to slam on, flying baby.......
If baby had been in a buggy then minimal problems........
I know most of my disabled passengers by name you see them on a regular basis and I feel immensely ashamed when I have some scab on the bus who refuses to move just because they can refuse. Most parents are actually more than happy to move around. Some are just scum.
The original case raises for me one question, what was the lady planning on doing when she reached her destination? Presumably moving the baby, awake or not! Her behaviour stinks......
77922
Post by: Overread
CptJake wrote: Baragash wrote:As someone who uses the bus every week to commute and takes my 1 year old out in her pram two days at the weekend because my wife works*, anyone who thinks that the BBC article contains anywhere near enough information to condemn the woman is just embarrassing themselves.
Whilst it's not as embarrassing as the BBC's piece on the "bedroom tax", it nicely continues the BBC's completely gak level of reporting on social issues. They should be prosecuted for wasting public money.
*I never take the pram on a bus because I'm not fething insane.
Surely you should be able hold your baby in one hand, unload the stuff from the pram and then fold it and stow it and the stuff with the other hand and it wouldn't be a big issue at all, then reverse those actions when you reach your stop.
I recall when we were kids that the pram would be anything but that easy to simply fold down. Because your put shopping bags - bags of baby stuff - handbags - more shopping bags - umbrellas etc... Prams can become a very full item to the point where yeah you could collapse it; but then you'd need someone else to carry all the stuff that's just come off it.
443
Post by: skyth
Another thing to consider is that a screeching child is physically painful to me (and I would guess other people as well). Waking the baby could easily result in that.
38888
Post by: Skinnereal
I sit corrected
|
|
