nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Bus Engine ordered to be turned off during Journey.

ssaye

I was on Dublin Bus yesterday and halfway through the journey an Inspector got on and asked a mother to fold her buggy for Health and Safety Reasons. Fair enough. The mother said she cannot fold the buggy. (Someone offered to do it for her and she said it would break if you tried)

However, the Inspector ordered the driver to shut down the engine and the bus stayed stationary for 10-15 minutes. Eventually another passenger sat beside the buggy unfolded and held it for the Journey which the Inspector agreed to. My question is how long can a Bus Inspector stop a bus for?

Whats the procedure if a passenger refuses to comply, Ejection, Guards called and what recourse do the passengers have, if any, for the Bus being stopped for a significant period of time.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The_Wrecker

The space is taken up on a first come first served basis, you can ask a buggy user if they can fold for a wc but they can refuse. If it gets difficult, inform control as its beyond the driver duty and Inspectors take charge.

meanmachine3

ssaye wrote: »

I was on Dublin Bus yesterday and halfway through the journey an Inspector got on and asked a mother to fold her buggy for Health and Safety Reasons. Fair enough. The mother said she cannot fold the buggy. (Someone offered to do it for her and she said it would break if you tried)

However, the Inspector ordered the driver to shut down the engine and the bus stayed stationary for 10-15 minutes. Eventually another passenger sat beside the buggy unfolded and held it for the Journey which the Inspector agreed to. My question is how long can a Bus Inspector stop a bus for?

Whats the procedure if a passenger refuses to comply, Ejection, Guards called and what recourse do the passengers have, if any, for the Bus being stopped for a significant period of time.

T.B.H. here we dont have the full picture of what actually happened and as the thread goes deeper posters are just generalising and jumping to conclusions on what may have happened. these days it would be far worse publicity wise to have a female with a buggy removed from a bus on the grounds of refusing to fold it than let her carry on. but at the same time it does not give anyone the right to refuse to follow any instruction from any employee of D.B.

coylemj wrote: »

I think you'll find that someone stumbled over an unfolded buggy and sued Dublin Bus so there is a new zero tolerance policy for fear of more cases going to court.

If a similar case arose in the future, DB would need to show that inspectors have gone out and implemented a new safety policy in order that potential litigants do not have a case for aggravated damages because DB were aware of the dangers but were doing nothing about it.

Depending on your view it is an inconvenience imposed on the general population caused by the greed of one individual who wasn't looking where he was going or a commendable health & safety policy that benefits us all, take your pick.

as a bus driver my main concern would not be someone tripping over the buggy but rather some gob****e cutting up the bus, me hitting the brakes to avoid a collision and in doing so sending one or more buggies flying.

January wrote: »

With all due respect feck off, if there was no other buggy on the bus and no wheelchair user wanted to use the spot then a buggy is allowed to be put there, the rule is that the buggy has to be occupied though. If the buggy was unoccupied then the inspector had every right to tell the mother to fold it and she should have complied or put the child back in the buggy and sat with it for the duration of the journey.

FWIW, If I get on the bus with my two year old, I'll fold the buggy and sit with her on a seat. If I get on it with my one year old, she'll stay in the buggy, IF someone with a wheelchair or with a younger child gets on, I'll collapse the buggy and sit with her on my lap. Not everyone is inconsiderate.

fair play to you january but unfortunately your one in a very small few that actually would fold the buggy if a wheelchair user got on at the next stop.
i have in the past had women refuse to fold her buggy's for a wheelchair user on the grounds that they was on the bus first. alot of you may agree with the buggy women, but spare a thought here. in most cases it's easy for a buggy to be folded and baby to be put on lap. whereas a wheel chair user cannot fold their chair and take a seat. then on more than one occasion i have informed a person getting on with a buggy that theres already one there and it must be folded only to be completely ignored.in fact this is quite common for buggy's to be pushed on the bus and drivers to be blatantly ignored.
P.S. as a general rule,a wheelchair does take priority over a buggy.

dazberry

Something similar happened on the 51b/c last week, where two people got on with a child in a buggy. There was a person in a wheelchair already on the bus and when asked to remove the child from the buggy and fold it they refused, so the driver turned off the engine and we sat on Thomas Street for 10 minutes. The bus driver was nothing but polite to these people, who were on the other hand just rude and aggressive, and had no consideration for anyone else on the bus.

D.

January

Red Alert wrote: »

She should've been ejected from the bus immediately, without holding up other passengers, without a ticket refund. I'm fed up of buggy owners thinking that they can break the rules.

With all due respect feck off, if there was no other buggy on the bus and no wheelchair user wanted to use the spot then a buggy is allowed to be put there, the rule is that the buggy has to be occupied though. If the buggy was unoccupied then the inspector had every right to tell the mother to fold it and she should have complied or put the child back in the buggy and sat with it for the duration of the journey.

FWIW, If I get on the bus with my two year old, I'll fold the buggy and sit with her on a seat. If I get on it with my one year old, she'll stay in the buggy, IF someone with a wheelchair or with a younger child gets on, I'll collapse the buggy and sit with her on my lap. Not everyone is inconsiderate.

stop

lil5 wrote: »

Sounds just like a regular journey on DublinBus.

For starters - the first person in the wrong here was probably the bus driver because he either let a second buggy on the bus or a wheelchair customer wanted to get on the bus and the wheelchair bay was occupied by the customer with the buggy.

In the first scenario the bus driver should have told the customer with the buggy that she'd only be allowed to board the bus if she collapsed the buggy - if there is enough luggage space.

In the second scenario the bus driver should also have asked the customer with the buggy to collapse the buggy to allow the wheelchair customer on. (Not sure if the bus driver could ask the customer with the buggy to get off the bus if she refuses to fold it up and leave the wheelchair user behind? - the experts might find a bye-law for this ...)

As it happened the bus driver didn't do any of that (not his problem? common sense?) and when the inspector boarded the bus there were most likely either two buggies or a wheelchair user and a buggy occupying the wheelchair bay.

Now instead of sorting it out with the bus driver, the inspector decides to enforce the H&S rules and has a go at the customer with the buggy.

Standoff ensues and after much discussion, turning off the engine and inconveniencing the rest of the customers on the bus the journey is continued (without really sorting the H&S issue).

Whether the inspector was 'bye-law' entitled to do all what he did isn't really the question here.

Should the bus driver and the inspector have handled the situation differently in the interest of all their customers on board (the person with the buggy, the other people on the bus)?

I'd say the highlighted section is where most problems arise.

There is a wagon who gets the 17 who held the bus up for 15 minutes as it was a non-low-floor bus, and she claimed her buggy couldn't be folded. She claimed she had requested that D'Brook put on a low floor bus on this particular sceduled duty so that it could take her buggy! Of course she saw it necessary to delay everyone else on the bus having a rant at the driver for using a non-low-floor bus. Of course the Driver should have told her where to go, and called gardai if she didn't move.

lil5

Sounds just like a regular journey on DublinBus.

For starters - the first person in the wrong here was probably the bus driver because he either let a second buggy on the bus or a wheelchair customer wanted to get on the bus and the wheelchair bay was occupied by the customer with the buggy.

In the first scenario the bus driver should have told the customer with the buggy that she'd only be allowed to board the bus if she collapsed the buggy - if there is enough luggage space.

In the second scenario the bus driver should also have asked the customer with the buggy to collapse the buggy to allow the wheelchair customer on. (Not sure if the bus driver could ask the customer with the buggy to get off the bus if she refuses to fold it up and leave the wheelchair user behind? - the experts might find a bye-law for this ...)

As it happened the bus driver didn't do any of that (not his problem? common sense?) and when the inspector boarded the bus there were most likely either two buggies or a wheelchair user and a buggy occupying the wheelchair bay.

Now instead of sorting it out with the bus driver, the inspector decides to enforce the H&S rules and has a go at the customer with the buggy.

Standoff ensues and after much discussion, turning off the engine and inconveniencing the rest of the customers on the bus the journey is continued (without really sorting the H&S issue).

Whether the inspector was 'bye-law' entitled to do all what he did isn't really the question here.

Should the bus driver and the inspector have handled the situation differently in the interest of all their customers on board (the person with the buggy, the other people on the bus)?

Bigcheeze

Red Alert wrote: »

She should've been ejected from the bus immediately, without holding up other passengers, without a ticket refund. I'm fed up of buggy owners thinking that they can break the rules.

Did a troll hack your account ?

Red Alert

She should've been ejected from the bus immediately, without holding up other passengers, without a ticket refund. I'm fed up of buggy owners thinking that they can break the rules.

foggy_lad

lxflyer wrote: »

In the Dublin Bus by-laws:

In reality though, instead of asking the person to leave the bus and making themselves the target of passengers anger/annoyance the inspectors and staff stop the bus until they achieve complience because this shifts the target of people's anger from them to the person with the unfolded buggy etc as nobody wants their bus held up for 10-20 minutes and the easiest way to get it going again is if the person with the buggy leaves, they look on the inspector or staff member as just doing their job and upholding company policy.

edit;not saying there is anything wrong with this way of handling situations, it works well i imagine where a bus is stopped until scumbags leave as they will see other passengers turn against them.

LXFlyer

In the Dublin Bus by-laws:

Each passenger shall comply with any lawful direction given him by an authorised person, including a request to leave or not to board the vehicle.

Enforcement Procedures
(a) Any person who is reasonably suspected by an authorised person of contravening or attempting to contravene these Bye-Laws shall upon being requested so to do give his name and address to an authorized person who is an inspector, driver or conductor in uniform or who produces evidence of identity.

(b) The person aforesaid shall on the request of the authorised person remain in the company of the authorised person pending verification of the name and address.

(c) Where any such person refuses or fails to comply with a request under paragraph (a) or (b) of this Bye-Law or following such request such person gives a name and address which the authorised person has reasonable grounds for believing is false or misleading, such person may be detained by the authorised person until the arrival of a member of the Garda Síochána.

A member of the Garda Síochána may request a person—
(a) who has refused or failed to comply with a request under Bye-Law 58, or
(b) who following a request under that Bye-Law has given to the authorised person concerned a name and address that the latter has reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading, or
(c) detained pursuant to Bye-Law 58,
to give to the member his name and address and if the person refuses or fails to give his name and address or gives a name or address that the member has reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading, the member may arrest the person without warrant.

(a) Any person who is reasonably suspected by an authorised person of contravening or of attempting to contravene these Bye-Laws may be removed from the vehicle by an authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána acting on the request of such authorised person.
(b) In the exercise of the power conferred on him under paragraph (a) of this Bye-Law an authorised person or member of the Garda Síochána may use such reasonable force as is necessary.

coylemj

I think you'll find that someone stumbled over an unfolded buggy and sued Dublin Bus so there is a new zero tolerance policy for fear of more cases going to court.

If a similar case arose in the future, DB would need to show that inspectors have gone out and implemented a new safety policy in order that potential litigants do not have a case for aggravated damages because DB were aware of the dangers but were doing nothing about it.

Depending on your view it is an inconvenience imposed on the general population caused by the greed of one individual who wasn't looking where he was going or a commendable health & safety policy that benefits us all, take your pick.