School taxi - allowing a disabled 16 y.o to eat in taxi

Spook_ie

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/bus-eireann-ordered-to-pay-5k-to-autistic-boy-who-was-not-allowed-eat-toast-in-back-of-school-taxi-863835.html

Given that a taxi can refuse allowing food to be consumed without the consent of the driver

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/taxi-and-bus-licensing/taxi/spsv-driver-licensing/rights-and-responsibilities/

Right to refuse service
You may reasonably refuse:

To undertake journeys of more than 30km (in a taxi);
To allow passengers to consume food or drink in your vehicle;
To carry, or continue to carry, passengers who are acting in a disorderly, abusive or offensive manner; and
To carry, or continue to carry, passengers who are likely to soil or damage the vehicle.

Does the fact he allowed food to be consumed before do away with his rights to refuse now or in the future? Or does the fact of doing School Bus services invoke a whole new set of rules?

Peregrinus

This was a disability discrmination case. It's not the taxi driver who was sued here; it's BE. They were the ones with the responsibility to provide school transport suitable to the boy's needs. They contracted with a taxi driver who wouldn't allow eating in the car, which was not suitable to the boy's needs arising out of his disability. They could contract with people who were prepared to allow eating, and had done so in the past, so they couldn't say that it was unreasonably difficult to meet the boy's needs.

Rows Grower

Peregrinus wrote: »

This was a disability discrmination case. It's not the taxi driver who was sued here; it's BE. They were the ones with the responsibility to provide school transport suitable to the boy's needs. They contracted with a taxi driver who wouldn't allow eating in the car, which was not suitable to the boy's needs arising out of his disability. They could contract with people who were prepared to allow eating, and had done so in the past, so they couldn't say that it was unreasonably difficult to meet the boy's needs.

In all fairness it is a ridiculous award and I hope it is successfully appealed.

In my opinion the parents need to take ownership of this problem and teach their child that it is not allowed to eat breakfast in the back of a taxi.

We need to teach all our children no matter what their disabilities or disorders that they must have respect for other people and their property.

iamwhoiam

What a fuss over nothing . My granddaughter eats a slice of toast here , we get a few crumbs , we wipe them down , get a baby wipe and scoop them up !

Peregrinus

Rows Grower wrote: »

In all fairness it is a ridiculous award and I hope it is successfully appealed.

In my opinion the parents need to take ownership of this problem and teach their child that it is not allowed to eat breakfast in the back of a taxi.

We need to teach all our children no matter what their disabilities or disorders that they must have respect for other people and their property.

I think "other people" includes the boy, and a fairly minimal requirement for respecting him is that we recognise his disability and make reasonable accommodations for it. Allowing him to eat in a car is hardly radical; lots of people eat in cars, and nowadays they mostly come with coffee-cup holders, so it seems a widely socially accepted practice.

Rows Grower

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think "other people" includes the boy, and a fairly minimal requirement for respecting him is that we recognise his disability and make reasonable accommodations for it. Allowing him to eat in a car is hardly radical; lots of people eat in cars, and nowadays they mostly come with coffee-cup holders, so it seems a widely socially accepted practice.

You can think what you want.

He is already being recognised as disabled and more than reasonable accommodations have been made for him.

He doesn't have to use the bus service other kids use, a privately owned taxi picks him up and drops him off to minimize any trauma he might have to suffer by travelling with the kids he presumably shares a classroom with.

The taxi driver spent 60 grand on a new taxi and is being very reasonable to request that the lad changes his habit of eating his toast in the back of his taxi every morning.

"It seems a widely socially acceptable practice"?????????????

I really hope to God this judgement is appealed and over ruled.

Rows Grower

iamwhoiam wrote: »

What a fuss over nothing . My granddaughter eats a slice of toast here , we get a few crumbs , we wipe them down , get a baby wipe and scoop them up !

Couldn't agree more, that's what homes and parenting are all about.

BobMc

Rows Grower wrote: »

Couldn't agree more, that's what homes and parenting are all about.

"Parenting" is the key here, its lacking hugely in todays society

ohnonotgmail

Rows Grower wrote: »

You can think what you want.

He is already being recognised as disabled and more than reasonable accommodations have been made for him.

He doesn't have to use the bus service other kids use, a privately owned taxi picks him up and drops him off to minimize any trauma he might have to suffer by travelling with the kids he presumably shares a classroom with.

The taxi driver spent 60 grand on a new taxi and is being very reasonable to request that the lad changes his habit of eating his toast in the back of his taxi every morning.

"It seems a widely socially acceptable practice"?????????????

I really hope to God this judgement is appealed and over ruled.

Presumably you didnt read beyond the headline?

JMNolan

Rows Grower wrote: »

In all fairness it is a ridiculous award and I hope it is successfully appealed.

In my opinion the parents need to take ownership of this problem and teach their child that it is not allowed to eat breakfast in the back of a taxi.

We need to teach all our children no matter what their disabilities or disorders that they must have respect for other people and their property.

Exactly, and those kids in wheelchairs should be simple taught how to walk :rolleyes:

Rows Grower

JMNolan wrote: »

Exactly, and those kids in wheelchairs should be simple taught how to walk :rolleyes:

Great contribution to the thread, well done.

RocketRaccoon

This country really is the drizzling ****s nowadays, awarded damages for not being allowed eat in the back of a taxi?

Laneyh

How much mess would some toast generate? Of course all children need boundaries including those with disabilities but people with autism can be set back quite a bit when there is a change in their routine. A two minute blast of the portable vacuum and there would be no evidence of any toast being eaten

jam_mac_jam

I love the idea that you can just teach an autistic kid to abandon their routine and that it's just bad parenting.

mloc123

Laneyh wrote: »

How much mess would some toast generate?

My three year old can generate quite a mess from a slice of toast... it's the buttery fingers that does it

Apiarist

Rows Grower wrote: »

In all fairness it is a ridiculous award and I hope it is successfully appealed.

I hope you would read about autism and understand the condition since it is obvious you know nothing about it.

Rows Grower

victor8600 wrote: »

I hope you would read about autism and understand the condition since it is obvious you know nothing about it.

I have first hand experience of living with and caring for an autistic child.

frozenfrozen

The taxi driver is well within his rights to not allow someone to eat in his taxi. Someone could easily do damage with toast. I know that sounds ridiculous but you can't be expected to valet your rear seats after every trip, and if you did then you'd rightfully have to be compensated for it.

It's not the taxi drivers fault here, find someone else who will do it but you can't force him to allow eating in his taxi

Apiarist

Rows Grower wrote: »

I have first hand experience of living with and caring for an autistic child.

Really? Your caring approach for an autistic child seems to be to deny them their breakfast routine (and effectively preventing them from eating breakfast), just so that a taxi driver does not have to Hoover a few bread crumbs?

1982

Rows Grower wrote: »

I have first hand experience of living with and caring for an autistic child.

The fact you call him an austic child rather than a child with autism would make me question that.

Apiarist

frozenfrozen wrote: »

The taxi driver is well within his rights to not allow someone to eat in his taxi. Someone could easily do damage with toast. I know that sounds ridiculous but you can't be expected to valet your rear seats after every trip, and if you did then you'd rightfully have to be compensated for it.

It's not the taxi drivers fault here, find someone else who will do it but you can't force him to allow eating in his taxi

Read the thread from the beginning?

Peregrinus wrote: »

This was a disability discrmination case. It's not the taxi driver who was sued here; it's BE. They were the ones with the responsibility to provide school transport suitable to the boy's needs. They contracted with a taxi driver who wouldn't allow eating in the car, which was not suitable to the boy's needs arising out of his disability. They could contract with people who were prepared to allow eating, and had done so in the past, so they couldn't say that it was unreasonably difficult to meet the boy's needs.

Rows Grower

victor8600 wrote: »

Really? Your caring approach for an autistic child seems to be to deny them their breakfast routine (and effectively preventing them from eating breakfast), just so that a taxi driver does not have to Hoover a few bread crumbs?

Really.

Nermal

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think "other people" includes the boy, and a fairly minimal requirement for respecting him is that we recognise his disability and make reasonable accommodations for it.

Sending him to school in a taxi - let alone one that would let him eat along the way - already far oversteps the bounds of reasonable accommodation. It doesn't mean 'catering to his every whim in case he has a tantrum'.

myshirt

Total discrimination against this young child. These are extremely lucrative contracts remember. They seem to forget that in favour of their unrelenting self interest. /Mod deletion/ They've absolutely some brass neck to give out about this child eating his toast, particularly given the childs disability. Have we no sense of humanity any more?

I detail my car. Not a lot even know what detailing is. In short, I keep the car clean. But I would never, ever pull a disabled child up on eating some toast. They have enough daily challenges to be meeting than to be worrying about some crumbs. I'd be absolutely ashamed of myself, and these f#ckers should be as well. These type of stories boil the blood. The poor kid.

5k wasn't enough. There should be further punative damages. I remember the Rosario Donohoue / Carolan Coaches story a number of years ago where the driver punched a disabled child and it stuck with me. Where do these people get off? They take the shine off some very decent people who help out young kids.

myshirt

Rows Grower wrote: »

I have first hand experience of living with and caring for an autistic child.

I'd bet my left nut on it you don't.

98q76e12hrflnk

victor8600 wrote: »

Really? Your caring approach for an autistic child seems to be to deny them their breakfast routine (and effectively preventing them from eating breakfast), just so that a taxi driver does not have to Hoover a few bread crumbs?

So if you have autism that means you cannot change your routine at all?:rolleyes:

seamus

I expect the "right to refuse" quoted in the OP can be found to not apply to the situation quoted since this was a contracted regular service rather than an incidental hire.

The driver could have refused the contract initially, but given that he had previously permitted the consumption of food, his "right to refuse" on that ground was therefore waived for the duration of the contract.

Although as has been stated upthread, the issue was primarily with BÉ. When they became aware of this restriction, they should have terminated the contract with the taxi driver and found a new one.

Taxi driver comes across as a complete asshole.

Apiarist

Rows Grower wrote: »

Really.

I call BS on your "first hand experience".

Nermal wrote: »

Sending him to school in a taxi - let alone one that would let him eat along the way - already far oversteps the bounds of reasonable accommodation.

I would agree with you in general, but we do not know the specifics, so I would tend to agree with the judge in this case who presumably does know the details. In general, I would not advocate that every child with a disability be given a taxi to eat in. However, we do not know why the boy had to be taxied to school and why he had to eat in transit originally. What we do know is that breaking his routine would very likely cause him an unnecessary stress which could have been avoided if the new arrangement was made with the consideration of his needs.

98q76e12hrflnk

myshirt wrote: »

Total discrimination against this young child. These are extremely lucrative contracts remember. They seem to forget that in favour of their unrelenting self interest. Pure scumbags. They've absolutely some brass neck to give out about this child eating his toast, particularly given the childs disability. Have we no sense of humanity any more?

I detail my car. Not a lot even know what detailing is. In short, I keep the car clean. But I would never, ever pull a disabled child up on eating some toast. They have enough daily challenges to be meeting than to be worrying about some crumbs. I'd be absolutely ashamed of myself, and these f#ckers should be as well. These type of stories boil the blood. The poor kid.

5k wasn't enough. There should be further punative damages. I remember the Rosario Donohoue / Carolan Coaches story a number of years ago where the driver punched a disabled child and it stuck with me. Where do these people get off? They take the shine off some very decent people who help out young kids.

Are you actually being serious?

Rows Grower

You can believe what you want, it doesn't matter to me.

Plus I'd have no use for your left nut.



This was in reply to post 25 which I meant to quote as well but got distracted.

Sleeper12

Spook_ie wrote:

Does the fact he allowed food to be consumed before do away with his rights to refuse now or in the future? Or does the fact of doing School Bus services invoke a whole new set of rules?

A taxi driver can allow me to eat food yet refuse to let you eat food. Letting one eat doesn't mean they have to let everyone eat. A taxi at the start of the shift wants to keep the car clean and smell free. Towards the end of the shift they might relax the rules as they will need to clean the car at the end of the shift anyway.

It's their car and they get to make the rules.

Mitch Connor

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I love the idea that you can just teach an autistic kid to abandon their routine and that it's just bad parenting.

It can be tough to break them out of a particular routine, but it is far from impossible. If it is a regular school he attends you would have to think he suffers from changes to a routine on a daily basis.

I would also wonder why it is a routine, to be honest. Why was his routine not to eat breakfast at home before leaving, rather than in a taxi?

This screams of succesful compensation culture.

ohnonotgmail

Mitch Connor wrote: »

It can be tough to break them out of a particular routine, but it is far from impossible. If it is a regular school he attends you would have to think he suffers from changes to a routine on a daily basis.

I would also wonder why it is a routine, to be honest. Why was his routine not to eat breakfast at home before leaving, rather than in a taxi?

This screams of succesful compensation culture.

or perhaps you are not in possession of all the facts and the judge who made the decision is?

Apiarist

Talon Ambitious Tableware wrote: »

So if you have autism that means you cannot change your routine at all?:rolleyes:

Everyone is different. For some people changing a specific routine can be difficult. Do you think *you* are not set in your ways?

For example, if somebody puts lard on your toast, you may refuse to eat the toast because you want butter on it. For somebody else, putting either lard or butter makes no difference. Should they force you to eat the toast since for them you are just a spoiled child who gets upset over nothing?

1982

1982 wrote: »

The fact you call him an austic child rather than a child with autism would make me question that.

Why?
what difference does that make?

seamus

Sleeper12 wrote: »

A taxi driver can allow me to eat food yet refuse to let you eat food. Letting one eat doesn't mean they have to let everyone eat.

However, if you have a contracted service with that driver where he drives you on a schedule, then he doesn't get to make different rules up for every single trip. He can't allow you to eat in the taxi for a year and then one day change his mind.
You would have the right to terminate the contract without penalty.

The reverse is also true, if you never ate in the taxi, and after a year you asked if you could bring your sandwich, he can refuse and there's nothing you can do about it.

GreeBo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

or perhaps you are not in possession of all the facts and the judge who made the decision is?

There is no requirement to eat in the taxi, the child want burn eating in taxis so this was an allowance that soundly have started.

Is not the childs fault, it's the parents!

Carlos Orange

That isn't discrimination unless you redefine discrimination which people seem to be trying to do.

Mitch Connor

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

or perhaps you are not in possession of all the facts and the judge who made the decision is?

indeed.

Going on the information provided, it screams of succesful compensation culture.

The reasons given make little sense to me.

"due particular dietary requirements he would have his breakfast in the taxi en route, and where his breakfast included a slice of toast, a banana, and fruit juice."

I don't understand how this could be the case - and it also amounts to two different things when the argument comes to needing to keep him in a routine.

"his routine was an extremely important element of his life and where any changes in his routine could cause difficulty and regression in his development"

How could your diet require you to eat in a specific place?
Accepting that somehow that is the case, that is not the same as it simply being his routine to eat in the taxi and not following that routine would be upsetting.

nuac

Anybody can choke on anything even sitting at a table at home.

Unless the 16 y.o. travels with a carer how can the taxi driver cope with this risk.?

weldoninhio

seamus wrote: »

I expect the "right to refuse" quoted in the OP can be found to not apply to the situation quoted since this was a contracted regular service rather than an incidental hire.

The driver could have refused the contract initially, but given that he had previously permitted the consumption of food, his "right to refuse" on that ground was therefore waived for the duration of the contract.

Although as has been stated upthread, the issue was primarily with BÉ. When they became aware of this restriction, they should have terminated the contract with the taxi driver and found a new one.

Taxi driver comes across as a complete asshole.

BE rules clearly state that “Customers are not permitted to take onto a Bus Eireann vehicle, or any vehicle operated for or on behalf of Bus Eireann, any hot food or drink.”

Should be appealed. Ignorance of the rules on the parents behalf doesn’t make it discrimination.

Mitch Connor

weldoninhio wrote: »

BE rules clearly state that “Customers are not permitted to take onto a Bus Eireann vehicle, or any vehicle operated for or on behalf of Bus Eireann, any hot food or drink.”

Should be appealed. Ignorance of the rules on the parents behalf doesn’t make it discrimination.

Article states the parents found no such information and BE provided no such information - with BE's non-engagement being part of the reason they lost.

weldoninhio

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Article states the parents found no such information and BE provided no such information - with BE's non-engagement being part of the reason they lost.

I googled “Bus Eireann rules food” and found it straight away.

ohnonotgmail

Mitch Connor wrote: »

indeed.

Going on the information provided, it screams of succesful compensation culture.

The reasons given make little sense to me.

"due particular dietary requirements he would have his breakfast in the taxi en route, and where his breakfast included a slice of toast, a banana, and fruit juice."

I don't understand how this could be the case - and it also amounts to two different things when the argument comes to needing to keep him in a routine.

"his routine was an extremely important element of his life and where any changes in his routine could cause difficulty and regression in his development"

How could your diet require you to eat in a specific place?
Accepting that somehow that is the case, that is not the same as it simply being his routine to eat in the taxi and not following that routine would be upsetting.

Your lack of understanding does not make it untrue.

ohnonotgmail

weldoninhio wrote: »

I googled “Bus Eireann rules food” and found it straight away.

You did. just now. was that information available at the time and if it was why were bus eireann unable to provide it when asked?

frozenfrozen

victor8600 wrote: »

Read the thread from the beginning?

I have read the thread. Including the posts by people saying you could just hoover up crumbs. The taxi driver can say no.

ohnonotgmail

GreeBo wrote: »

There is no requirement to eat in the taxi, the child want burn eating in taxis so this was an allowance that soundly have started.

Is not the childs fault, it's the parents!

you state that as a fact when we have the parents saying otherwise. I'm more inclined to believe them.

ohnonotgmail

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I have read the thread. Including the posts by people saying you could just hoover up crumbs. The taxi driver can say no.

it wasn't the taxi driver the case was brought against.

Mitch Connor

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Your lack of understanding does not make it untrue.

Them saying it doesn't make it true either.

Being a fussy eater is extremely common in these cases, being stuck to a particular routine, yep, very common. But a dietary requirement to eat in a taxi? There is just rubbish. it has to be, it simply can't be true.

How does he eat lunch? or dinner? or on holidays? Do they get a taxi three times a day no matter where they are so the kid can eat without dying? Does a taxi collect him at lunch and drive him around the block?

"Oh you're gluten free, cool, I myself am a taxan - I can only eat food in a taxi. Makes eating 3 meals a day expensive and a bit awkward but it is what it is. If I ate at a table I'd get really ill."

ohnonotgmail

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Them saying it doesn't make it true either.

Being a fussy eater is extremely common in these cases, being stuck to a particular routine, yep, very common. But a dietary requirement to eat in a taxi? There is just rubbish. it has to be, it simply can't be true.

How does he eat lunch? or dinner? or on holidays? Do they get a taxi three times a day no matter where they are so the kid can eat without dying? Does a taxi collect him at lunch and drive him around the block?

"Oh you're gluten free, cool, I myself am a taxan - I can only eat food in a taxi. Makes eating 3 meals a day expensive and a bit awkward but it is what it is. If I ate at a table I'd get really ill."

i doubt the requirement was to eat in a taxi. You know that as well but you decided to try and make your stupid point anyway. well done.

weldoninhio

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Them saying it doesn't make it true either.

Being a fussy eater is extremely common in these cases, being stuck to a particular routine, yep, very common. But a dietary requirement to eat in a taxi? There is just rubbish. it has to be, it simply can't be true.

How does he eat lunch? or dinner? or on holidays? Do they get a taxi three times a day no matter where they are so the kid can eat without dying? Does a taxi collect him at lunch and drive him around the block?

"Oh you're gluten free, cool, I myself am a taxan - I can only eat food in a taxi. Makes eating 3 meals a day expensive and a bit awkward but it is what it is. If I ate at a table I'd get really ill."

Exactly. How does he eat his breakfast at weekends??