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.

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

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...

 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)?

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.

 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...

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.

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.

 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 $$$ from a big company? Or more likely, his lawyer saw $$$?

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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?

 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).

 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.

He would not get as much sympathy, but seemingly is fine to do so.

Morally wrong as feth, but yeah.

 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.

 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.

 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.

I hear you. But why sue the bus company? Wouldn't you actually have to make a claim against the space jumper?

 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.

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).

 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

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).

 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.

You're arguing an affirmative duty to clear the seat. Evidently the court disagreed with you.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.