SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the not-as-entertaining-as-godzilla-v-mothra dept.
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
A disabled man has won a Supreme Court case after a dispute with a woman with a buggy over wheelchair space on a bus.
[...] Wheelchair user Doug Paulley brought his case after he was refused entry to a FirstGroup bus in 2012, when a mother with a pushchair refused to move.
[...] The court said the company should consider further steps to persuade non-wheelchair users to move, without making it a legal duty to move them.
[...] However, the judgement fell short of making it a legal requirement for bus companies to compel non-wheelchair passengers to move from the space.
[Continues...]
The case was triggered when Mr Paulley, from Wetherby, West Yorkshire, attempted to board a bus operated by FirstGroup which had a sign saying: "Please give up this space if needed for a wheelchair user."
Mr Paulley was left at the stop because a woman with a sleeping baby in a pushchair refused to move out of the designated area when asked by the bus driver. She said the buggy would not fold.
He had argued FirstGroup's "requesting, not requiring" policy was discriminatory.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:45AM
The mother could hold the baby and sit/stand somewhere else. A baby stroller is a convenience, so if it cannot be accommodated then the people using them can find other convenient methods of transportation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:21AM
How about "The stroller requires the same space as another paying customer, therefore please remit an additional full-fare for transportation of the stroller". The baby, if carried, rides free. No different than if you carried a package. But if you loaded additional packages you are not carrying, its freight. And charged.
Wheelchair is same as person, as person is sitting in the chair. If the person decides not to sit in the chair once boarded and placed, additional fare as well.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:39PM
FWIW she claimed that the buggy could not fold up.
The court's decision seems odd. If the mother wasn't lying, then either the guy in the wheelchair gets to ride or the mother and baby do, but not both. So someone gets left at the bus stop, and both of them are in equal need of the bus. The proposed solution, to shame the mother into getting off, seems cruel if she has no choice, and likely to spark a complaint against the driver.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:07PM
or the mother and baby do
I see it as woman/baby plus the buggy. The presence of the buggy prevented the man in the wheelchair from taking the bus.
I'd want to prioritize not kicking someone off the bus, but the man is limited in his options due to things outside of his control while the woman could not use a buggy or use one that folds. The buggy is not only non-essential but it is also a temporary (due to the child's age) convenience; therefore any inconvenience would also only be temporary.
Prioritizing wheelchair use over non-foldable buggies would provide an incentive to use the more accommodating foldable alternative.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by choose another one on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:42PM
Actually (if you read the judgement - it's para 3, so not far in) the guy actually _was_ capable of getting out of the wheelchair himself, sitting in a normal seat, AND folding his wheelchair. In that sense he was more able than the mother with the buggy.
The driver wouldn't let him do that because the wheelchair would then be "unsecured". Strikes me that, even if folded, the buggy would also be unsecured, and just as big a risk/problem.
I think this is probably the real issue, but he was probably advised he didn't have a hope in hell of winning on it. The driver was playing the rule book and being a jobsworth (possibly reacting against this passengers attitude) - since the government guidance says: "A wheelchair user must only be carried if there is a wheelchair space available". Now to me, that just doesn't apply to someone who can get out of their wheelchair, fold it, and sit in a normal seat (kinda like someone with a buggy...) - but I suspect the driver took the view that if you get on and demand the wheelchair space you better be a "wheelchair user"...