Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

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.

 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

 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.

They can argue she broke her contract with them by engaging in antisocial behaviour.

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.

 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.

 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

 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.

 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.

 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.

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

 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.

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.

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,

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

Honestly, I think disabled people have it too good and we should punish them for being disabled.

 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...

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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).