To 'confront' this man when he asked for the priority seat on the bus

[YoJesse]

Me and Ds 3 were on a really packed bus, no seats left at all. I was standing and Ds was on one of the priority seats. The other 7 priority seats were taken up with what looked like young able bodied people and on Dad with a baby.

A man 50ish gets on, walks past all the other seats and says to me 'I'm disabled, can you move your son?' I got Ds up without questioning it but then I heard the Dad with the baby say to the man 'fucking hell, seriously mate?' This got me thinking that maybe it was a bit unfair so I tapped him on the shoulder and said 'as you can see I'm happy to give up the seat for you but as you can see there are lots of young, able looking people on the other priority seats, don't you think you should of asked them not my son?' He then goes off on one say ' I'm disabled, your son should be sitting in here in the first place etc' so I said that he is less able to stand on a moving bus than most other people so maybe he is entitled to the seat. The man got all sweaty and angry and I felt really uncomfortable so I got off.

Was I unreasonable to confront him?

Eugh. I should stop reading this thread.

Really curious to know what age people think a child can be considered sufficiently able-bodied to stand on a busy bus, though. When mine was two, I'd gladly accept a seat on the bus so I could take him on my lap - although I suppose he was fairly often in the buggy at that age which meant he generally had a seat as standard, unless I'd had to fold. But by the time he was three and mostly out of the buggy, he was perfectly stable standing if necessary, and so we stood if we had to. On trains especially, he was standing by choice a lot of the time (wandering from seat to seat when they were quiet, going to the toilet etc) so I was aware that he had good balance, and that I could catch him if there was a sudden lurch.

I get that all (able-bodied) young children are different, just as all (able-bodied) adults are different and have different levels of desire for a seat. When I've been standing on the tube already, I'm far less thrilled to stand on a busy bus; when DS is tired after nursery, he'd much more like a seat on the bus home etc. So I get that generalisations are tricky. But I'm curious about at what age people start to think that children are no longer 'more vulnerable' than adults, in this context? If the child was 4, 5, 6, 11? While the story a PP relayed about a man not giving up his priority seat to a 4yo on a train is horrible for his unpleasantness, I'm not sure id really expect to give up my seat to a child of that age.

This is a side issue to the wider point - OP was gratuitously unpleasant to a disabled man who wanted the seat to which he is 'entitled', regardless of whether he was particularly polite/forelock-tugging enough in his request for it. But I am really surprised at this notion that the child may have had a similar claim to priority seating, because it clashes so directly with my own current and fairly extensive experience of public transport with a 3yo.

Oh ok. People can't be parents and disabled. Ok then.

But you can empathise with mothers without alienating other groups.

And you know it may be a revelation to you but disabled people can be mothers too, or mothers can have disabled children!

Inkanta, I still have difficulty in understanding why you believe that the view that the rights of the disabled normally come ahead of those of small children is in any way controversial - and indeed why you assume that other mothers disagree with that view, when this thread demonstrates that that is not generally the case.

As you're back, perhaps you could also tell us why you don't think it would have been reasonable for OP to ask the other people to give her child a seat rather than confronting the disabled person?

OR be a disabled parent of disabled children, Sirzy

inkanta

I am a mother with a small child.

Am I allowed to use mumsnet?

And yes, where I see lousy attitudes to disability I do think that it is a part of my duty as a member of the human race to address it.

You seem to have a problem with that.

But it is your problem.

I don't have a problem with it.

And in addition inkanta to use words like "oppressive• I this situation is ironic in the true sense of the word.

It is people with disabilities who face oppression.

I can stand up for disability rights without being oppressive and I have done so.

There has been many posts where I have said it is not either/or. Perhaps re-read some of them?

NellWilsonsWhiteHair the vulnerability of a child standing on public transport is to do with their height and size far more than their balance - they cannot reach to hold on properly are landed on by other standing adults or in case of being thrown forward with force and hitting the next solid object with considerable impact, and they are more fragile if they . The danger is not from normal movement of the bus but from sudden braking - even adults can be thrown if they are not holding on when a bus driver has to emergency brake. There is a good degree of crash protection built into the seating on buses and buses are only safer than cars travelling on the same roads at the same speeds for seated passengers.

A child is not as safe as a fit and healthy adult until the child can reach, and have the strength to hold on, and arguably not absolutely on the same level til the age at which they are as safe as an adult in the front seat of a car - at the start of puberty.

It really is irrelevant whether 3 year olds like standing up - they might like playing chicken with moving traffic, but we wouldn't let them just because they like it...

This is only relevant to whether a child has any more need to be seated than a non disabled, non frail, non pregnant adult obviously. Children are still physically small and slight, who cannot reach to hold on and still have fragile skeletons, a high head to body weight ratio etc. are most certainly more vulnerable than an adult who has no disability, health problem or frailty to deal with when standing up on moving public transport, whether that fact suits adults who want 4 year olds to stand for them to sit because Manners (or want their 4 year old to stand for a healthy youngish adult who hasn't asked them to so that they will can preen about Manners) or not.

Sorry something weird happened to my text and a phrase jumped to the end of the sentance! That should read

they cannot reach to hold on properly and they are more fragile if they are landed on by other standing adults or in case of being thrown forward with force and hitting the next solid object with considerable impact.

"This is MUMSNET. That means it attracts MOTHERS with small children, and the parents' point of view, which may differ from the views of others and those with disabilities. "

No disabled people have ever been children, no disabled people have ever had children, no one (especially on MN with its very active SN section) has ever had a disabled child.

My own attitude derives from the 3yo in question growing up into a disabled teen. 3yo was a piece of cake...

inkanta I actually laughed out loud at your post.

I'm sorry but I'm thinking self awareness isn't your strong point.

You are arguing with everybody but you are not going to argue.

You've made some offensive assertions which have picked up by several respondents.

I do agree that's there's no point arguing with you though.

Why did you put "disabilities" into quotations marks? Why am I not doing "disabilities" any favours?

'inkanta I actually laughed out loud at your post.

I'm sorry but I'm thinking self awareness isn't your strong point. '

Here you go again! A snide snipey comment. Up thread this morning you called someone 'ignorant'. If you have a cause do you really think this discussion strategy of yours is helping.

No, I am not going to argue with you or anyone else about the ins and out of this opening post. It's all been done to death.

You are doing no favours to 'disabilities'.

Treating people with disabilities with respect should not be conditional.

What's really frightening is that these people have children who will be learning the message that they have priority over disabled people from them.

Fellow disabled posters it's gonna get worse out there...

Ok inkanta

I tried my best.

You have been offensive and insulting.

You haven't answered any questions about assertions you have made.

You haven't backed up your views with any evidence.

You've made disablist remarks.

But it's not you, it is the rest of us.

Yes, I have used the word ignorant. Ignorance is particularly difficult for people with disabilities to deal with.

My daughter with disabilities was 3 once :o
I've been on mumsnet with 13 years and the same discussions have always taken place, it's a shame. It's as though if you have a child with sn you belong to another group of mothers. You aren't just seen as a mother, which is indicative of a bigger insinuation really and it is ignorant.

Who would leave a disabled 3 yo on the bus seat then stand somewhere else? Surely you'd sit on that seat with them on your lap or between your legs standing up?

They are seats for 'disabilities' as Inkanta so eloquently writes. Not for children or able bodied people
The only people who sit in those seats are the disabled or self entitled.

' tried my best.

You have been offensive and insulting.

You haven't answered any questions about assertions you have made.

You haven't backed up your views with any evidence.

You've made disablist remarks.'

No, not true.

I have stood up to you

Look at you strategy here again - it's aggressive.

And it doesn't work on me.

Owllady Tue 05-Apr-16 13:59:48

"I've been on mumsnet with 13 years and the same discussions have always taken place, it's a shame. It's as though if you have a child with sn you belong to another group of mothers. You aren't just seen as a mother, which is indicative of a bigger insinuation really and it is ignorant."

This.

sorry if this has been said. the buses in my area have priority seats but there is a sticker on it that has a picture of a man with a walking stick= disabled... then a pregnant woman. and also a parent holding a baby. so does that mean all 3 of them people have a right to that priority seat?

Inkanta, you seem to have time to keep coming back here accusing everyone of being aggressive, but not to answer questions or to defend your viewpoint. Why? If you think that OP was right to confront the disabled man rather than the other people who were sitting down, why is that?

Why do you need to stand up to me inkanta

?

It a thread about people with disabilities and their entitlements.

I've made many statements about disability entitlements, the impact of disability on an individual and so on.

When I've encountered lack of knowledge (or ignorance) I've addressed that.

What are you standing up against exactly?

I know you won't answer as you've ignored every question any poster has asked of you.

The statement you made about me not using mumsnet because it was for mums of small children not disabled people (and I think that many of us got that meaning from you words even if I am paraphrasing) was very disturbing. Shocking even.

Perhaps it is me as a disabled parents standing up against you and all other forms of discrimination and abuse? .