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.

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.

It's not about enforcing morality it's about helping make a disabled persons life a bit easier.

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

 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.

 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

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.'

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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?

 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.

I looked at the bus today, they cite the law,and punishment for taking a disabled spot when someone needs it

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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."

 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.

Good points I didn't think about Nkelsch.

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.

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.

 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......

 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.

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.

 belial wrote:
Standing up on the upper deck is illegal in the UK.

I sit corrected