Wheel Chair vs Pushchairs

[Mr Jones]

Read an interesting article this morning:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-30001656

A court will decide whether wheelchair users have priority over pushchairs on buses, but how do you decide who is more entitled to the space?

In February 2012, wheelchair user Doug Paulley was not allowed to board a bus in Leeds because the wheelchair space was taken by a pushchair. The mother, not wanting to wake her sleeping baby, refused to move.

Paulley was left with no choice but to get off and wait for the next bus. That one was an hour away, and took him to the wrong side of the city. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. "That day in February resulted in me not using a bus again for a year. I lost all confidence and couldn't face it anymore," he said last year.

But did he have more of a right to the space than a mother not wanting to wake her sleeping child?

Read more in the link above.

I personally think this is a no brainer, the area is sectioned for disabled passengers. If it's not being use, other passengers should be allowed to use it but priority should always be disabled when one comes onboard the bus.

To hear that a mum with pushchair refusing to do so out of inconvenience is just plain selfish.

Now it's going to the high court, perhaps if First Bus appeals fail and put the onus back on the company, they (and other bus companies) will prioritise area for pushchairs. Or better still, run a bus more regularly or send suitable bus on routes where it's most likely to carry pushchairs i.e. those that goes to and from high street / commercial area.

 

[Diddums]

You choose to have kids, you don't choose to be in a wheelchair.

As you say, no brainer really. If you choose to have kids, then you need to adapt and live with that decision.

 

[pepp77]

The Wheelchair user should definitely have priority, after all no one asks to be in a wheelchair but having kids is a choice.

The signs on the bus even say move if a wheelchair user needs the space (at least they do on the buses I use).

 

[Rotty]

You choose to have kids, you don't choose to be in a wheelchair.

.

 

[Haggisman]

I wonder if Mr Paulley's reaction would have been different if it had been another wheelchair user in the space, which would ultimately have had the same outcome?

Whilst I agree that the mother should have moved (she could have easily carried the baby and folded the pushchair out of the way), I think this is more an indication that there possibly isn't enough provision for wheelchair users on public transport.

Edit: If First lose the appeal, also wonder how this could affect a bus which is completely full? Would people already on the bus actually be required to get off in order to make space for a wheelchair user? What sort of compensation would they be offered for doing so?

You choose to have kids, you don't choose to be in a wheelchair.

What if you "chose" to be in a wheelchair by driving like a **** or engaging in dangerous sporting activities?

 

[scorza]

I thought prams generally folded up? I know it's a bit of hassle but imo the woman could have done this so that the disabled bloke could have got on the bus.

 

[cheesyboy]

Depends how realistic it is for the pushchair to be moved elsewhere. Are there alternatives?

The space may be "for" wheelchairs, but is there another space for bus users with other specific needs to use?

As for the "you choose to have children" guys; come on, it's not quite as simple as that. Some people don't "choose" to have children, or "choose" to need to use public transport instead of a car, or others may "choose" a lifestyle which results in needing to use a wheelchair. There are going to be reasons for these needs, but the reason is irrelevant to the fact that the need exists and should be catered for.

Is it right that pushchair users may be unable to use buses because of having to give up space for wheelchair users? Who knows. What this is all really about is: should the bus company not make provision for both?

 

[benjii]

You choose to have kids, you don't choose to be in a wheelchair.

Couldn't agree more, this is the obvious logic to solve this problem.

 

[Cosimo]

You choose to have kids, you don't choose to be in a wheelchair.

 

[MooMoo444]

The other passengers should have voted her off the bus, it's extremely selfish to do that to someone disabled.

I wonder if Mr Paulley's reaction would have been different if it had been another wheelchair user in the space, which would ultimately have had the same outcome?

What does that have to do with anything? The guy doesn't want a space reserved for him. He just wanted to use the disabled area as it was intended.

 

[Burnsy2023]

You choose to have kids, you don't choose to be in a wheelchair.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, not everyone makes a conscious choice to have children.

 

[Haggisman]

What does that have to do with anything? The guy doesn't want a space reserved for him. He just wanted to use the disabled area as it was intended.

Because the outcome would have still been the same. He would have still had to wait an hour for the next bus to take him to the wrong side of the city, suffering the same "substantial disadvantage" compared to the non-disabled passengers. The logical solution to that would be to enable every seat on the bus to be able to act as a wheelchair space, in case a group of wheelchair users need to use the bus.

 

[Diddums]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, not everyone makes a conscious choice to have children.

Oh absolutely, it was very much a sweeping statement, not meant for every occasion. On the whole though, my point stands.

It's a tricky one though.

 

[jon86]

... Some people don't "choose" to have children, ...

I disagree. If a couple/single woman 'accidentally' has a child, it's their/her decision to take the risk of getting pregnant when they/she have/has sex, unprotected or not, with the exception of involuntary acts such as rape.

 

[randomshenans]

I think the wheelchairs have priority, but from experience of traveling with 3 kids, it can be a nightmare on busy public transport and a lot of people (over here, anyway) are just so ignorant.
Yea, we chose to have kids, but people generally don't need to be arse clowns.

 

[Diddums]

I understand that there will be times when you have no choice but to use public transport but those who have kids and rely on that as their only means of transport are nuts. I wouldn't even conside having a child if I didn't have a car.

 

[antijoke]

I disagree. If a couple/single woman 'accidentally' has a child, it's their/her decision to take the risk of getting pregnant when they/she have/has sex, unprotected or not, with the exception of involuntary acts such as rape.

I understand that there will be times when you have no choice but to use public transport but those who have kids and rely on that as their only means of transport are nuts. I wouldn't even conside having a child if I didn't have a car.

What the **** is this ****?

 

[Haggisman]

I understand that there will be times when you have no choice but to use public transport but those who have kids and rely on that as their only means of transport are nuts. I wouldn't even conside having a child if I didn't have a car.

I agree, but sometimes people's circumstances change outside of their control.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

You choose to have kids, you don't choose to be in a wheelchair.

As you say, no brainer really. If you choose to have kids, then you need to adapt and live with that decision.

+1

 

[Burnsy2023]

I disagree. If a couple/single woman 'accidentally' has a child, it's their/her decision to take the risk of getting pregnant when they/she have/has sex, unprotected or not, with the exception of involuntary acts such as rape.

You could say the same with some people who get disabled though. Played ruby and got an injury that resulted in you being paralyzed, clearly you made the choice to play and take the risk.

Clearly it's a completely flawed argument though.