Fung Wah bus company's troubles

[kurtosis]

But, regardless, my belief that we should do what we can to accommodate handicapped people stops where private companies begin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I've yet to hear of a better way to address the issue. The first thing I think we should agree on is that this has nothing to do with "political correctness". I groan when I hear people say the handicapped are being "discriminated" against. It's not the right term when businesses are just doing what makes the most sense economically. On the other hand too many people talk about the handicapped as if they're some fringe group like polygamists or something. Saying people in wheelchairs should be able to get around is not some do-gooder nit-picking like saving the spotted owl . Handicapped people have a hard enough time. I'm sure their daily lives have enough obstacles even without being effectively barred from buses and planes. So that strikes me as not too much to ask.

The thing about not interfering with private companies is that it sounds nice in textbook libertarian theory, but this is one of those instances where the theory breaks down. Making buses handicapped accessible costs money. What this case shows is that a budget company will try not to.

What we're seeing now is that left to it's own the market can't support the service. If you want to ensure handicapped people some decent level of service the only way to do so is with across the board regulation. Without it an individual company gets penalized for serving the handicapped. Now you can throw out the idea of sharing the burden altogether to stick with libertarian theory but for me that's too high of a price to pay for a theory.

[youbetternot]

Well, I've yet to hear of a better way to address the issue. The first thing I think we should agree on is that this has nothing to do with "political correctness".  I groan when I hear people say the handicapped are being "discriminated" against. It's not the right term when businesses are just doing what makes the most sense economically. On the other hand too many people talk about the handicapped as if they're some fringe group like polygamists or something. Saying people in wheelchairs should be able to get around is not some do-gooder nit-picking like saving the spotted owl . Handicapped people have a hard enough time. I'm sure their daily lives have enough obstacles even without being effectively barred from buses and planes. So that strikes me as not too much to ask.

The thing about not interfering with private companies is that it sounds nice in textbook libertarian theory, but this is one of those instances where the theory breaks down.  Making buses handicapped accessible costs money. What this case shows is that a budget company will try not to.

What we're seeing now is that left to it's own the market can't support the service. If you want to ensure handicapped people some decent level of service the only way to do so is with across the board regulation. Without it an individual company gets penalized for serving the handicapped. Now you can throw out the idea of sharing the burden altogether to stick with libertarian theory but for me that's too high of a price to pay for a theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a principal rather than a theory, and outside of social issues I'm not at all libertarian anyway. But that's beside the pont. Intentionally or unintentionally, you bring up a good pont, talking about penalizing companies for not being handicapped. I'm against telling a company "you must buy new buses for the handicapped." But if the government created some kind of tax incentive for accessible buses, or created some sort of yearly find for every bus that was not equipped, that would make a lot of sense and it would bring it into a company's financial best interests to be accessible.

Market-based (or kindof market based) strategies like that for regulations make a lot of sense. It should be done to polluting industries as well, assming it isn't already being done.

[kurtosis]

It's a principal rather than a theory

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

okay, but it's not an absolute principle. govt does demand certain things from private companies- that they follow the speed limit, that their drivers have proper training, etc. i think that giving the handicapped access to transit is an important enough issue that the question should be what's the best way to bring it about.

Intentionally or unintentionally, you bring up a good pont, talking about penalizing companies for not being handicapped.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on, give me some credit- it was intentional.

What i was getting at is that the real goal of the regulations is not to force companies to do a good act. It's to create an across the board standard so a company that does so does not get penalized in the marketplace. I think it's great that the chinatown bus provides cheap service but the other lines have a point. they buy accessible buses on the assumption that their competitors will too and everyone is on an even footing.

I'm not against the other ideas you mention if they work better (but if they didn't i wouldn't get

rid of regulations). However, even ones that are "market-based" are still in the same vein- the govt has a certain goal that the free market doesn't provide and it tries to alter market conditions to get it.

And they raise other questions- who chooses the level of tax breaks or fines?

To me it's a question of which method is the most effective. being market-based is not a strong point in and of itself.

[dixiecupdrinking]

I suppose the real question here is whether or not handicapped people should be entitled to a $15 ride to NYC on this particular bus, or if they should simply be assured that some mode of transport is available.

There's got to be a balance here. I'm a Democratic voter and fully believe in upholding civil rights; I don't believe, however, that it's necessary to make everyone pay more so that a disabled person can ride whichever bus service he or she chooses. A certain amount of reasonable burden should be placed on that individual, rather than on other customers and on businesses.

[Cotuit]

I don't believe, however, that it's necessary to make everyone pay more so that a disabled person can ride whichever bus service he or she chooses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where does that attitude end? Perhaps we should have entire cities, or entire states that are not accessible and we'll just tell people they'll have to live in the accessible states.

Sorry, the Boston school district doesn't have accessible buildings, you'll have to attend classes in Newton.

Sorry it cost us too much to put curb cuts in the streets in Cambridge, but if you wheel five miles that way, there's a curb cut in Watertown you can use...

It costs all of us far more to have handicapped people captives of their conditions, unable to participate in society and forced to turn to the government for hand outs.

Like I said before, it's been 15 years, private industry has had 15 years to budget for ADA requirements, if they can't afford them at this point, they have no right being in business.

[BostonFaker]

Here, Here, Cotuit.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Where does that attitude end?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe it ends at the distinction between public and private. All of the examples you cite are public ones. Unquestionably public services should cater to those with disabilities, with such things as accessible sidewalks and school buildings. I simply don't find it fair that a private business should necessarily be forced to swallow additional costs to appeal to a segment of the population that they don't need to sell to. That's different from blind discrimination towards groups such as minorities or women, by the way, who don't require prohibitively expensive upgrades to board a bus.

I agree that it's a fine line to draw, and perhaps a dangerous one, but I'd argue that the slippery slope argument goes the other way as well. If a private bus company is required to install, for instance, wheelchair lifts for a small minority in wheelchairs, what other disabilities could it be forced to accomodate? One person who needs a bed to lay down on because he can't sit upright for four hours? A person with bad circulation who has to stand up and walk every twenty minutes? Half-hour pit stops for those with motion sickness?

Please realize I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, and it's an argument that might turn me off as well if someone else were saying it. But I do think it's an important question, and on this issue at least I choose to draw the line slightly further on the side of the rights of private business.

[youbetternot]

I believe it ends at the distinction between public and private. All of the examples you cite are public ones. Unquestionably public services should cater to those with disabilities, with such things as accessible sidewalks and school buildings. I simply don't find it fair that a private business should necessarily be forced to swallow additional costs to appeal to a segment of the population that they don't need to sell to. That's different from blind discrimination towards groups such as minorities or women, by the way, who don't require prohibitively expensive upgrades to board a bus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. Are we going to have to make every sign in the country have a picture for people who can't read and also a translation for people who speak other languages? Will we then require all private offices to put up signs with these translations and pictures?

Certain groups of people are different than others and because of their difference or problem they cannot participate in society as well. At the risk of being insensitive, that sucks for them. Forced, results-based equality like these types of things and affirmative action are absurd.

[BostonFaker]

I would like to see what you guys say when forced into a wheelchair for life.

[Garris]

I would like to see what you guys say when forced into a wheelchair for life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, goodness, exactly...

In my opinion, this is an issue of who and what we are as a society. I forget who said this, but there is a famous quote that a civilization should be judged on how it cares for those who are unable to care for themselves.

I think you all have to remember that we are talking about a population of our brothers and sisters who have physical or mental deficiences that prevent them from being able to participate in society or, in many cases, even survive independently unless accomodations are made by the rest of us blessed with full function.

I believe it ends at the distinction between public and private...

[BostonFaker]

Here, Here, Garris!

[youbetternot]

I think you all have to remember that we are talking about a population of our brothers and sisters who have physical or mental deficiences that prevent them from being able to participate in society or, in many cases, even survive independently unless accomodations are made by the rest of us blessed with full function. 

The wheelchair group may be a minority, but it certainly isn't small.  I think two million Americans at last count.  So, do you want to tell the soldier whose legs get blown off in Iraq that, oh, sorry, you can't go to a Red Sox game ever again, or access that office building where you used to work, because those are private enterprises, and they don't have to sell to you?  Boy, I wouldn't...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't like to tell that soldier he can't go to a Sox game. I also wouldn't like to tell the Red Sox they have to change Fenway Park in a certain way to accomodate that soldier. I refuse to look at this in a sentimental way (oh, he's a soldier so he deserves special accomodations!). My assumption would be that the soldier would be accomodated whether the ADA were in place or not.

There are 300 million people in America. A fraction of a percentage are in wheelchairs.

Unemployment for disabled Americans in some groups is near 70% (for the mentally disabled, for example).  By limiting access, how much harder do you want to make it for people to live?

I'm a physician and have dealt with a lot of disabled patients.  The ADA has made a huge difference in their lives, and Cotuit was right in his post.  Companies have had a long time to adapt and get on board...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are making the point for me. Despite the ADA, unemployment for the disabled is near 70%. They are disabled and therefore unable to participate in society to the same extent as others. That's the way it is.

Thankfully, we as a society have decided that some accomodations should be made.  Accomodations that aren't "forced, results based equality" (where did you get that?) but are simple measures to make life more accessable. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I meant by that was basically that people try to force an equality on people, saying handcapped people should function just as easily as regular people, saying a certain percentage of a certain ethnic groups have to be in a certain industry, things like that.

My feelings on the ADA are mixed. I've taken a lot of what I've said to the extreme in this thread, while I might not necessarily believe it, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I really can't decide what I believe, to make a long story short. And BTW, Garris, I never said that accomodating the disabled was a bad thing, and as a mass transit advocate I certainly never said buses are bad. I'm just saying that there are some things that the disabled have to realize that they are going to be unable to do in life. Riding the Fung Wah bus may be one of those things.

[Cotuit]

regular people

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Define, "regular people."

[BostonFaker]

youbetternot, you are wicked selfish in your comments. You really need to think of the bigger picture here. Disabled people are unemployed because society doesn't allow them to participate, when they are very capable in certain tasks, and really want to live and work.

As for amputated soldiers, the only reason you are living in this great society is because of these soldiers, so help them out some time.

[youbetternot]

Define, "regular people."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 99.5% of people who are not in wheelchairs.

reg

[youbetternot]

youbetternot, you are wicked selfish in your comments.  You really need to think of the bigger picture here.  Disabled people are unemployed because society doesn't allow them to participate, when they are very capable in certain tasks, and really want to live and work.

As for amputated soldiers, the only reason you are living in this great society is because of these soldiers, so help them out some time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And people with no high school diploma and a criminal record are unemployed because society doesn't allow them to participate. We live in a capitalistic society. People aren't entitled to jobs, those who are most capable are going to get them. In the same way those with very low IQs generally don't get as good jobs as those with high ones, people who are handicapped won't get as good jobs or won't be able to function in certain jobs as well as nonhandicapped people.

I'm selfish in that I will not bend over backwards to accomodate every single minority, and that I don't think it's society's job (nor is it good for society) to do so.

I do think that the ADA is good in the abstract, but I don't think it should be mandating compliance by private companies. And I also think the numerous handicapped parking spaces that are at every parking lot and are always either empty or inhabited by a perfectly functional walking person with a handicapped sticker are ridiculous.

[ezcheese]

Oh, goodness, exactly...

In my opinion, this is an issue of who and what we are as a society.  I forget who said this, but there is a famous quote that a civilization should be judged on how it cares for those who are unable to care for themselves. 

I think you all have to remember that we are talking about a population of our brothers and sisters who have physical or mental deficiences that prevent them from being able to participate in society or, in many cases, even survive independently unless accomodations are made by the rest of us blessed with full function. 

The wheelchair group may be a minority, but it certainly isn't small.  I think two million Americans at last count.  So, do you want to tell the soldier whose legs get blown off in Iraq that, oh, sorry, you can't go to a Red Sox game ever again, or access that office building where you used to work, because those are private enterprises, and they don't have to sell to you?  Boy, I wouldn't...

Unemployment for disabled Americans in some groups is near 70% (for the mentally disabled, for example).  By limiting access, how much harder do you want to make it for people to live?

I'm a physician and have dealt with a lot of disabled patients.  The ADA has made a huge difference in their lives, and Cotuit was right in his post.  Companies have had a long time to adapt and get on board...

Wow, this is a terrible example on two fronts...  First, I hear the "it's like languages" issue from disability opponents all the time.  Language is learnable.  People who don't know language can learn.  People who don't know how to read can learn.  Someone who is deaf cannot learn to hear.  Someone who is blind cannot learn sight.  Someone who is mentally retarded cannot learn intelligence.  These are irrevokable handicaps...

And it sucks for them that they can't participate?  Let me give you a personal example...  My sister is mildly mentally retarded.  I take care of her, and she essentially survives and enjoys life through the generosity, time, money and effort of myself and my parents.  If we weren't here, she'd probably be homeless, starve, and die somewhere, and you'd never know about it unless you read about it in the newpaper.

So, if I die, are you going to take care of her?  No?  Then who is?  Is death the only option for her? 

Thankfully, we as a society have decided that some accomodations should be made.  Accomodations that aren't "forced, results based equality" (where did you get that?) but are simple measures to make life more accessable. 

For example, previously in rustic New York State, my sister couldn't go anywhere.  No mass transit and she can't drive.  Unless someone took her somewhere, she could only be a bump on a log at home. 

Now, here in Providence, Rhode Island has a statewide bus system.  My sister has a disabled pass and travels the city and state.  She is able to go to work, volunteer at the Providence Veterans Hospital and the Red Cross, and go to the mall to meet a friend.  She even went to the South County beaches for a relaxing day at the ocean on a day off.  All because of one simple bus accomodation, she can have a life that isn't dependent on me and can be a productive member of our society giving back.

No one is asking for "forced equality."  Just some simple sensitivity to help people overcome basic adversity.  Trust me, I'm no bleeding heart.  But I draw the line between people who can and people who can't...  We need to help the people who can't.

Accomodations are made in life for the rest of us all the time, but it's just part of our background, and we just take it for granted...  If you hate accomodations, you ain't seen nothin' yet...  Just wait until the Boomers because seniors and the vast majority of our populace is over 70... 

- Garris

Providence, RI

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

right on, Garris.

i have a mentally handicapped sister who can't do anything for herself. she can't even talk. my mother takes care of her. i also have a brother who is a paranoid schizophrenic. he is able to do most things normally (he's an unbelievable drummer) but my dad takes care of him. he doesn't have a job and is pretty paranoid to leave the house unless he is only going a few minutes away from home with someone he trusts, and even then it's pretty rare.

i completely agree with what you said above and am having a hard time understanding where youbetternot is coming from. i can be pretty selfish sometimes, but it seems to me that youbetternot is really missing the point of living in a society. if every able-bodied person in a society makes small concessions to those less fortunate, then the society as a whole wins. if everybody in a society was as selfish as youbetternot, we would be in serious trouble.

[Cotuit]

We live in a capitalistic society. People aren't entitled to jobs, those who are most capable are going to get them. In the same way those with very low IQs generally don't get as good jobs as those with high ones, people who are handicapped won't get as good jobs or won't be able to function in certain jobs as well as nonhandicapped people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So your telling me our capitalist society means that diabled people are unlikely to get jobs and you are against having us as a society care for the disabled, and create an environment where they can hope to succeed.

So what do you suggest we do with the disabled, put them in a corner and let them die?

[youbetternot]

So your telling me our capitalist society means that diabled people are unlikely to get jobs and you are against having us as a society care for the disabled, and create an environment where they can hope to succeed.

So what do you suggest we do with the disabled, put them in a corner and let them die?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alright, people here are taking my comments to the extreme and I really seem like an @sshole in this thread. Maybe I'm not doing a good job of articulating my point.

We SHOULD care for the disabled. Absolutely. My difference in opinion comes in where people think that the disabled are going to be perfectly functional and productive members of society. Handicapped people are inherently going to always be less productive in nearly every job you can think of. Therefore, in a capitalistic society they are going to have higher unemployment rates than normal. This is not discrimination, this is good business and hiring the most able and efficient workers. All I am saying is that the handicapped and other people should understand that they are going to inherently be less able to do things than others. And they should accept that to a certain extent.

For example, they should be able to use mass transit and, within reason, mass transit agencies should upgrade their facilities to become accessible. But a station should not remain closed to 99.5% of ridership for an extra 3 months just because that .5% can't access it (Savin Hill). Huge numbers of handicapped parking spaces should not be provided, since the only people with a handicapped sticker who EVER use them walk perfectly fine. For the EXTREMELY rare time that a handicapped person goes to, for example, a car dealership or home depot, they can finda space just like everyone else. Those handicapped spaces are completely unnecessary.

And a private bus company should not be forced by Big Brother to accomodate handicapped people. That's one of those things where handicapped people need to accept that maybe they won't have the same ability to do things regular (as in, the unhandicapped 99.5% of society) people can do.

[BostonFaker]

"All I am saying is that the handicapped and other people should understand that they are going to inherently be less able to do things than others"

You don't think they know this? Have you ever spoken to a disabled person in your life?

[dixiecupdrinking]

if everybody in a society was as selfish as youbetternot, we would be in serious trouble.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aren't these ADA regulations predicated on the assumption that everybody is that selfish? Hence the necessity to make such "selfish" behavior illegal.

I think you guys are missing youbetternot's point here (which was my point also until he started to take the heat for me ). Nobody is saying that it's right to limit the options of handicapped people. I want people in wheelchairs to be able to get where they want, when they want, with the least amount of trouble possible. That would be ideal. And for Christ's sake I'm sure youbetternot doesn't want to make veterans sit behind the Green Monster hoping to catch a home run ball because they can't get into Fenway Park. Everyone can agree these are ideals worth striving for.

What youbetternot and I are trying to point out is that there's an opposing ideal involved that needs to be recognized. That is the freedom of private people to conduct private business without being encumbered by laws that overcompensate for the disenfranchised. Much of what has made this country has been economic freedom. American self-determination probably has been both our best and worst trait, but it's undeniably characteristic either way. Its possibility is what keeps people immigrating here looking to build a better life. The associated egotism and hubris is what keeps the rest of the world alienated these days. But that's America.

Let's turn the sentimental rhetoric around on you guys. How would you feel about it if your father ran a struggling deli somewhere, a tiny little place off a side street somewhere with a small but reliable clientele. He's been barely making ends meet on the place for 30 years. He can't afford to install a wheelchair ramp at the front door, and even if he could, the whole joint is five feet from the counter to the wall anyway. One day, though, a guy in a wheelchair hears how great your dad's reubens are and decides to come by and try one. He goes fifteen minutes out of his way to try this deli and when he gets there he can't even get in the damn door. He's pissed. He sues your dad, who loses everything he's ever invested in the place to pay his legal fees and has to go work for Subway when he should be getting ready to retire.

Far-fetched? Maybe, maybe not. About as far-fetched as war veterans getting turned away by the Red Sox. The real concern there is whether they could afford to go to Fenway on their military pensions.

It's easy to villify a "business" as some faceless, greedy, "selfish," profit-at-all-costs entity, but more often than not, what it comes down to is real-life people and their basic livelihoods. If protecting the life that someone has built, be it your dad or some bus driver for Fung Wah, means that a disabled person will have to take another bus to New York, well, maybe that's not such a ridiculous thing to demand of the handicapped.

Or maybe you're right, and youbetternot just wants to see the wheelchair-inclined of America rot in corners that are surrounded by foot-high curbs.

[BostonFaker]

Totally off base.

[youbetternot]

Aren't these ADA regulations predicated on the assumption that everybody is that selfish? Hence the necessity to make such "selfish" behavior illegal.

I think you guys are missing youbetternot's point here (which was my point also until he started to take the heat for me  ). Nobody is saying that it's right to limit the options of handicapped people. I want people in wheelchairs to be able to get where they want, when they want, with the least amount of trouble possible. That would be ideal. And for Christ's sake I'm sure youbetternot doesn't want to make veterans sit behind the Green Monster hoping to catch a home run ball because they can't get into Fenway Park. Everyone can agree these are ideals worth striving for.

What youbetternot and I are trying to point out is that there's an opposing ideal involved that needs to be recognized. That is the freedom of private people to conduct private business without being encumbered by laws that overcompensate for the disenfranchised. Much of what has made this country has been economic freedom. American self-determination probably has been both our best and worst trait, but it's undeniably characteristic either way. Its possibility is what keeps people immigrating here looking to build a better life. The associated egotism and hubris is what keeps the rest of the world alienated these days. But that's America.

Let's turn the sentimental rhetoric around on you guys. How would you feel about it if your father ran a struggling deli somewhere, a tiny little place off a side street somewhere with a small but reliable clientele. He's been barely making ends meet on the place for 30 years. He can't afford to install a wheelchair ramp at the front door, and even if he could, the whole joint is five feet from the counter to the wall anyway. One day, though, a guy in a wheelchair hears how great your dad's reubens are and decides to come by and try one. He goes fifteen minutes out of his way to try this deli and when he gets there he can't even get in the damn door. He's pissed. He sues your dad, who loses everything he's ever invested in the place to pay his legal fees and has to go work for Subway when he should be getting ready to retire.

Far-fetched? Maybe, maybe not. About as far-fetched as war veterans getting turned away by the Red Sox. The real concern there is whether they could afford to go to Fenway on their military pensions. 

It's easy to villify a "business" as some faceless, greedy, "selfish," profit-at-all-costs entity, but more often than not, what it comes down to is real-life people and their basic livelihoods. If protecting the life that someone has built, be it your dad or some bus driver for Fung Wah, means that a disabled person will have to take another bus to New York, well, maybe that's not such a ridiculous thing to demand of the handicapped.

Or maybe you're right, and youbetternot just wants to see the wheelchair-inclined of America rot in corners that are surrounded by foot-high curbs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Congratulations for being about 100 more times as articulate as I am

[TheBostonian]

Oh my:

Riders flee bus fire on Boston-to-New York run

August 17, 2005

BOSTON --A bus that is part of a low-fare fleet running between New York and Boston caught fire in Connecticut, forcing riders to flee just moments before the bus was completely engulfed in flames.

The Fung Wah bus was headed to New York on Interstate 91 around 2 p.m. on Tuesday when the driver noticed smoke coming from a rear wheel near Meriden, Conn. When the driver pulled over to inspect the problem, confused passengers scrambled off. Seconds later, the bus was consumed by flames that rose 50 feet in the air, passengers said.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...sachusetts+news

[youbetternot]

Oh my:

Riders flee bus fire on Boston-to-New York run

August 17, 2005

BOSTON --A bus that is part of a low-fare fleet running between New York and Boston caught fire in Connecticut, forcing riders to flee just moments before the bus was completely engulfed in flames.

The Fung Wah bus was headed to New York on Interstate 91 around 2 p.m. on Tuesday when the driver noticed smoke coming from a rear wheel near Meriden, Conn. When the driver pulled over to inspect the problem, confused passengers scrambled off. Seconds later, the bus was consumed by flames that rose 50 feet in the air, passengers said.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...sachusetts+news

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time either...