[MeanPi2]

The US made a federal law awhile ago called the American Disabilities Act (ADA). A federal law in the US applies to all states and without mucking things up I'll leave it at that. The ADA law requires basically, far as I'm concerned, equal access to public transportation and buildings. I'm all for it, thanks to the ADA act when I'm drunk off my ass stumbling to the nearest open store for yet another beer, curbs can be a problem and physical danger. But thanks to the ADA act, corner curbs don't exist which makes alcoholism much safer.

But the point is, the ADA act made equal rights of accessability without special treatment. Now the city I'm intombed in I take the bus, and on the bus the seats reserved for the elderly are also the same seats flipped up for the wheelchairs. These particular seats, if the bus is full or not, are always cleared for the elderly wether they want them or not. Since I take buses that tend to be standing room only most of the time I always wondered if the bus was full, and the elderly/wheelchair seats were filled with the elderly, if a wheelchair patron was waiting at a stop- would that wheelchair be picked up, displacing the elderly to standing in the isle thereby recieveiving special treatment? Turns out the awnser is 'yes'. Finally, the bus was standing room only, the elderly were occupying their reserved seats and, when a wheelchair was waiting, the old people were kicked out of their seats to stand in the isle unless someone gave their seat up for them so a wheelchair could have their spot.

It's wrong, according to the ADA law, the old were displaced for the disabled which constitutes special treatment. Totally against the purpose of the ADA.

But is the fault with the driver that allowed the special treatment (and my entertainment watching 80+ year olds holding on for dear life standing in the isle trying not to break a hip without even falling down- It's not about me, I'm a horrible person and freely admit to that..) Or was it wrong of the trainers interpeting the ADA law? Or something else?

[hoopti]

I'm disabled. The government recognizes me as so, the insurance industry does, as does my wife, and I think I take her word over the others.

The intent was to remove barriers for folks with disabilities ot have access to the facilities normal folks take for granted. In total, I believe it works.

What still doesn't work is the common descent human courtesy. Example in the above letter, you see an elderly person "holding on for dear life" because the seats that were reserved for them were taken by a wheelchair. What happened to the day when someone with some courage and courtesy would have offered their seat to the elderly person? I know I would have simply because I'm still capable of standing and I know what she/he is going thorugh trying to get their body to do one thing and it won't, which usually results in either or both pain and injury.

That's hte way things work in the south. Courtesy isi still very visible. Perhaps even broader, we still believe in chivalry as well.

Hoop

[MeanPi2]

Hoopti, I believe in the intent of the ADA law and as stated previously competely support it. Equality of access is important. After all a human being is a human being.

However the ADA law, like most laws, is black and white. 'Courtesy' is grey-matter and not covered by the laws. It doesn't matter that no one gave up their seats to the displaced elderly because they didn't have to- weren't required to by law. By ADA law the person in the wheelchair should never have been picked up because the seats with posted signs stating they were for the elderly and handicapped were occupied by the elderly. When the elderly were displaced for someone in a wheelchair the ADA law was broken as the person in the wheelchair was given special treatment. A law is a law and common curtesy and 'chiveraly'(sp), dispite being reality, mean nothing.

My question is- what went wrong here? A driver put others in physical danger due to a law they apparenltly don't understand. Is it their fault, their trainers or ?

[hoopti]

So you're saying that because the limited number of seats available were taken they shouldn't have picked me up if I was in a wheelchair?

Ok, in reality I'm not, but I do use a cane and have difficulty standing. So they shouldn't have picked me up either?

And for the record, the goal of the law was actually much broader than to allow me equal access, it was to prohibit discrimination against me because I'm disabled. That precludes employers from refusing to hire me solely because I'm disabled unless putting me in a particular job put me in harm above that of other employees in the same role. An example would be me working as a steel worker.

It also prevents me from being discriminated against in any capacity because of my disaiblity. That includes being refused seats at a restaurant, and getting on the bus. That's why they had to pick him up. His trainers trained him perfectly.

Hoop

p.s. Courtesy is not legislated and should not be. It should be something we extend to those around us out of a sense of duty and honor, or should I say civility to our fellow man rather than something uncle sam makes us do.

[MeanPi2]

Hoopti, if you, claiming to now use a cane and having problems standing, were displaced from a seat clearly indicated as reserved for the use of the elderly AND handicapped to accomidate a wheelchair to take your spot so you had to try and stand in the isle and depend on the sympathy of others to give you their seat, that's wrong. The seats were reserved and shared between the elderly and handicapped- they had equal rights to those seats, basically first come first served. And they were full with the elderly who were kicked out in favor of a person in a wheelchair.

I've seen this also, alot: As someone who uses a cane as you claim you're entitled to a reserved seat, but if all those seats are full of those they're reserved for you won't get one- no one to kick out. And if all other seats are full you have a choice- stand in the isle hoping someone gives up their seat or wait for the next bus.

I know what the law states and know it very well. The one thing you're forgetting is the fact I stated already- the law prohibits special treatment for the handicapped (but thankfully you also stated about discrimiation being legal in employment because the law states if someone is handicapped in a way that they can't perform a job then they aren't equal to someone who can perform the job. Oops, guess there are limits to an equality law afterall). It's a law for equality and as such special treatment is NOT allowed. Those, who were already on the bus and had equal rights to the wheelchair spots were displaced, not to another seat since there weren't any but to standing in the isle.

Again something in the iterpitation of the law err'd in this situation with this driver. What happened?

A little more background on the driver in particular since I've ridden with the person more- a very by the book person in almost all respects, checks fares if they're expired and doesn't give a break if they are. A bus stop is the only place for boarding and unboarding, the person will not allow boarding or unboarding anywhere else even if on the otherside of a traffic light. The person is very by the book in all respects I've seen- but allowed a wheelchair special treatment. How did it happen?

As for curtesy.. it's pointless and can't be relied upon so a moot point. It'd be great if everyone was super to each other but we aren't. Curtesy is curtesy, if it happens great but anyone that expects it doesn't deserve it.

[hoopti]

You act like the fact that I use a cane doesn't mean that I'm handicapped? I use a cane because I have muscular power in my legs but no real way to control them as well as you do. So I use my cane as the third leg of a tripod in order to provide my balance.

And by the way, your by the book driver did it exactly by the book.

Finally, everyone should expect common courtesy from others. It's the only way a civil society acts. Obviously my friend, you're not from the south, where we still believe that courtesy should be extended to all, and at the same time, should be expect in every situation.

In reading your posts, its become clear that you're looking for the law as a method to discriminate instead of using the law as a means to protect my rights to be as equal as I can safely be.

Hoop

[MeanPi2]

Hoop, again, the law states: equal access without special treatment. A law is black and white unless it contains it's own written shades of grey which themselves are black and white. Common courtesy is not in the law or any laws- it's an unwritten law of society but in court it means nothing. If one of those elderly people that were displaced to the isle (or you since you're classified handicapped) fell down and broke a hip or something, according to the law that person could sue (and probably win- I'd have testified for them) because they were kicked out of a seat designated for both them AND the handicapped in favor of the handicapped which is considered, in the case I saw, special treatment: in this case discrimintion against the elderly. If the person who theoretically fell tried to sue anyone because they wouldn't give up their seat out of courtesy their case would probably be dismissed because courtesy is not a law (and I'd testify against them if they tried it).

So unfortunatly the by-the-book driver didn't do it by the book and opened the bus company up to a potentialy large lawsuit (I guess, don't have a copy of the bus companies book- only the law and experience being a former Greyhound driver).

As for me, Hoopti, you've determined I'm discriminating against the handicapped when I'm trying to figure out, according to the ADA law, how the elderly in this particular situation were discriminated against in favor of the handicapped. But I thank you for participating on this thread as you're helping to divulge just what went wrong.

So how or why, it seems to be, did a by the book driver so blatently violate the ADA law?

[hoopti]

The law doesn't state equal access without special treatment, it states equal access created by accomodation. And until you understand that point of the law, this discussion is useless.

I'm out of this discusion.

[Noratio]

Sounds like you need a law how to grab the handle on the door to fullfill the demands of law for how to open a door in a building with square corners but more than four of them. If building has even count of corners follow the law 12345/54321 §. In other cases person is allowed to use his/hers own judgement. If building has four square corners person should open the door with his/her left hand, in other cases right hand.

On the other day I was in a bus (not US) where a were a wheelchair and escort. Escort pushed wheelchair in corner so that heavy wheelchair wouldn't move, sat in front of him in a flipchair and wedged the wheelchair in position with his legs. Few stops later comes a woman with pram. Driver asks escort to move to make way to woman with pram (there were room enough allready). Escort says he can not hold wheelchair in place while standing, out they go. On the way back I saw them at end stop and went to same bus again. Guess what? Same driver. Escort refuses to stand and driver says they should have different wheelchair one that stays in its place. Now if anyone have nothing to do design a wheelchair that stays in place in a bus, lol, there sure ain't one, or write a law how to behave in a situation like this. Unfortunately the law would be freaking like one I described above.

Then I took a trip to other part of the country where people are rude and selfish, I knew it allready, but it surprised me the same, no one gave way to no one in any situation. Came to my mind that cause in first example with wheelchair and escort someone gave way to someone, it was not that bad after all. Lol.

[MeanPi2]

Hoop, about accomidation: have you bothered to read any of my messages through or just skim them for what you want to disagree with? Anyways, the law and other junk since it's come to it (sigh):

----------------------------
From the website of the city I suffer in stating how they comply with the ADA law:
"Every bus has a priority seating area for seniors and passengers with disabilities." And it's true. However it's flip-up seating shared with the elderly.

From http://www.fta.dot.gov/14534_5606_ENG_HTML.htm

"Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefitting From Federal Financial Assistance (Part 27)" (for anyone really bored that further investigates the spagetti ADA law you'll find it covers even those programs not 'receiving or benefitting from federal' [dough]

...

Everything below written not by me is enclosed in single quotes and [sic].

The following is the Federal Transportaion Agencys additions to the ADA law- the US Federal government is made up of many different agencies with some delegating over all and some only certian things (usually). Transportation requirements were passed to the FTA to add transportation specifics to the original ADA law outline, revised Oct 1,2003:

...

'SUBPART G - PROVISION OF SERVICE

37.167 Other service requirements'

...

'(j)(1) When an individual with a disability enters a vehicle, and because of a disability, the individual needs to sit in a seat or occupy a wheelchair securement location, the entity shall ask the following persion to move in order to allow the individual with a disability to occupy the seat or securement location:

(i) Individuals, except other individuals with a disability or elderly persons, sitting in a location designated as priority seating for elderly and handicapped persons (or other seat as necessary);

(ii) Individuals sitting in or a fold-down or other movable seat in a wheelchair securement location.

(2) This requirement applies to light rail, rapid rail, and commuter rail systems only to the extent practicable.

(3) The entity is not required to enforce the request that other passengers move from priority seating areas or wheelchair securement locations.

(4) In all signage designating priority seating areas for elderly persons or persons with disabilities, or designating wheelchair securement areas, the entity shall include language informing persons siting in these locations that they should comply with requests by transit provider personnel to vacate their seats to make room for an individual with a disability. This requirement applies to all fixed route vehicles when they are acquired by the entity or to new or replacement signage in the entity's existing fixed route vehicles.'

...

I'll explain the structure here. 37.167 is section 37 part 167 of Subpart G (of TITLE 49-Transportation- FTA's additions in the transportation sectors to comply with the base ADA law) which explains, obviously, rules governing provision of the service under ADA law. (j) is subsection j of 37.167 (which started with subsection a). (j)(1) stating people can be kicked out of designated seating has 2 exceptions to being kicked labeled (i) and (ii): (i) states the elderly can't be kicked and (i) takes precidence over (ii) dispite the fact the seats were fold-down to accomidate wheelchair individuals. (2) is confusing when read- it doesn't say it applies to buses, only rail systems when PRACTICLE and therefore not applicable. (3) which states the 'entity' (driver in this case) can request people move from reserved seating but isn't allowed to require they do so. I won't even comment on this as it's a timebomb that should never have been included in the law(ok, so I did comment on it), make up your own minds. And (4) was complied with for the situation- clearly visable signs stating the seats were reserved for both the elderly and handicapped.

...

The law was broken. This thread wasn't started trying to discover if the ADA law was broken or not (it's such a confusing mess I'm sure someone can find something within the ADA laws that can invalidate the laws above) but simply why it was broken. This entire thread, however, answers that one simple question.