Stroller wars: Parents win
By adamg - 5/4/11 - 8:55 pm
The Globe reports the MBTA board decided today not to change its policy and ask parents to fold up strollers on T trains and buses.
The vote came after mothers showed up at a board meeting today to express their displeasure at the idea.
Googiebaba discussed the organizing moms did:
The mothers have mobilized. You wouldn't know because you aren't on our listservs. But while you making your pretty fingers bleed posting comments on web sites, they have been organizing. They are writing letters, contacting elected officials, going to meetings and making a plan of attack. I would have put in a good word for you, but I decided that I hate you.
Comments
Oh no Adam! But actually, it
Oh no Adam!
But actually, it seems as if the have moms won. This was just posted on Boston.com:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/05/t_officials_don.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7_HP
Wow, that was fast
Thanks for being spotting that; obviously, I had to change the post!
News flash: men expect
News flash: men expect everyone to move out of their [our] way. Personally, I know I don't want to break my stride anymore than this mom does, and maybe its just a mix of my size and general aloofness that helps me unconsciously win these little sidewalk games of chicken.
I'm resigned to the inevitable fact that others will notice the differences between me and them, and seize my sex/race/orientation/whatever as an opportunity to self-victimize, but that's on them.
But this is a nice change of pace from cyclists/drivers, no?
I'm with her
I'm still willing to listen to any nuanced proposal the T puts out,* because, yes, strollers can be a hazard, but after reading a hundred "You are an awful person for procreating and therefore should sequester your vile offspring and icky female self in the house" comments? The rest of the internet can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned.
*I think asking for folded strollers at rush hour, for example, seems perfectly reasonable.
Oh good
Let's stick together!
Yes, let's. Especially since
Yes, let's. Especially since you and your spouse are also learning to garden in prep for the zombie apocalypse! My husband and I have a whole Best Defensible Positions plan for that scenario.
Your Best Defensible Plans
Your Best Defensible Plans intrigue me. We are saving up for night vision goggles.
Well, we'll need a tank
But we decided that the garage under the Common is probably the best place to hole up. (The tank is to block the main entrance/exit.) We can block the stairwells with our strollers and hope all the other assholes in this thread get eaten.
We will definitely deploy the
We will definitely deploy the strollers. Why have an urban assault system if you don't use it? And now that we have armed the children for the T Rides, we should be able to take out a few zombies. Really, there is nothing like tossing grenades to promote eye hand coordination.
If you can't answer this
If you can't answer this comment
http://www.universalhub.com/2011/stroller-wars-moms-say-you-dont-want-mess-them-you#comment-173268
you fail. Those are really good issues brought up.
Yes, because since she
Yes, because since she decided to talk about the stroller issue, that means she TOTALLY doesn't care about poor children. That's how it works: if you don't blog about it; you don't care about it. There is absolutely no way she could be fucking around on the internet about something relatively unimportant like strollers on the T AND taking action in real life regarding important issues like WIC.
Now do you mind? We have a zombie apocalypse defense strategy to plan.
Do Not Answer to People Named
Do Not Answer to People Named Chicken!
And you are right. This is not moving the zombie plans forward.
bawk bawk bawk!!!
bawk bawk bawk!!!
Mothers? Who said anything about mothers?
This is a stroller policy. So let me add, if I may, that there are any number of fathers who rely on public transportation to move themselves and their kids around. And who are equally ticked off at the idea of mandating that all strollers be folded up.
We don't demand it of folks using wheelchairs; we understand their mobility is impaired. Why are infants different?
Because there a lot more
Because there a lot more strollers than people in wheelchairs. And most of them are too stupid to stand anywhere but in a door rather than at the end of the car to try and stay as out of the way as possible.
I swear, people with kids and dogs are the biggest entitletards around.
new favorite word
Entitletards! Entitletards! Entitletards!
>phew< glad that's out of my system!
Yes...
Because people without kids and dogs are generally the most pleasant, least entitled folk to interact with.
I ride the Orange Line ever day and folks with strollers are about 1 percent as annoying as the backpack-wearing kids who insist on standing in front of the doors.
Really?
Umm... because infants weigh between 10 and 20 lbs and have a full grown adult with them?
Someone using a wheelchair
Someone using a wheelchair has no choice but to use one. A parent with an infant child most certainly DOES have other options. Or are you arguing that an unfolded "urban assault stroller" is the only way of moving infant children about? What on earth did people do prior to the availability of these massive beasts in the last fifteen or so years?
I will also add that, in my experience, people in wheelchairs exhibit a LOT more spatial awareness and a lot more courtesy towards their fellow travelers than many people with strollers do.
What on earth did people do
Some people used a pram, like in this picture from 1960, taken at the Public Garden: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dboo/336673650/ Of course, strollers of that design haven't been in regular use in quite some time in the US, but I'll bet that some people used them on the T.
That said, my personal feeling is that yes, strollers should be folded on public transit whenever space constraints are such that it would be useful to all riders. But I also believe that it would be even better if the T had spaces available on all train lines for those with large strollers or using wheel chairs to use. I know that the Green Line trains have such spaces, and I can't imagine that it would be that difficult to take out a couple of seats per car on the other lines to accommodate these riders.
Good point
I saw that one of the points in the Glob article was that the megastrollers take up wheelchair space on the buses. We could leave strollers and wheelers to fight it out, or we could say there's more demand for that space, and it should be increased.
What an idiotic
What an idiotic comment.
People dont CHOSE to be on a wheelchair. Nobody wants to use the T on a wheelchair.
Kids? Kids can walk. If the kid cant walk (because hes disabled) then yes, a stroller is appropriate.
Kids can be carried.
Kids can take a cab.
Right.
Most kids in most of the world have never been in a stroller. They manage to get places.
A lot of people whose child does have a disability will use a commercial stroller up until 4 or so, then they switch to a prescription stroller or a wheelchair. Places that don't allow strollers are used to this, and the airlines and museums and other places will give you a tag to put on it so staff know that it's an adaptive stroller and not just someone breaking the rules. There are tags sold online as well that have the accessibility symbol and say something like "this equipment is needed because of a disability." People for the most part respect this and don't give parents a hard time.
I will assume that you speak
I will assume that you speak out of ignorance, rather than malice. If it's true that a stroller is not the only way to move a child, it's equally true that buses and trolleys are not the only way to move an adult. Most adults in the world have never ridden on a subway - they still manage to get places. If strollers and children bother you all that much, feel free to walk. Or to take a cab. Or drive a car.
The rest of us will continue to engage in the difficult project of balancing competing goods in the public interest. You don't have to de-legitimize one genuine interest - allowing parents a practical means to move around the city with their children - in order to assert that other interests need to be respected and accommodated, as well.
I think that's why this drew such a vociferous response. The notion that parents are "entitletards" asking for unreasonable or unnecessary accommodations is incredibly offensive, and destructive. It's also an argument that is guaranteed to lose in the court of public opinion and before any elected body. You may find a bunch of anonymous internet commenters to serve as a hallelujah chorus, but you won't get much further than that. Parents - and their children - have as much right to use public facilities as, say, hipsters or yuppies.
On the other hand, there are any number of reasonable concerns that have been raised in this discussion. Should there be a size limit on strollers allowed onto public transportation, in recognition of the aisles and seats not designed to accommodate the more amply proportioned specimens? Is it unreasonable to post a sign asking that those parents who can fold their strollers with a minimum of inconvenience take that step? Should other signs make explicit that strollers should yield handicapped accommodations when they are needed? All reasonable points for discussion, inasmuch as they suggest the need to balance competing concerns and needs.
The threads in this forum that tend to attract these sorts of unproductive and vitriolic debates are those that speak to the question of ownership of shared spaces: Bikes, cars, or pedestrians? Hispanic grocery-store shoppers or crunchy, organic gentrifiers? DINKs, or parents?
And the positions I tend to find least attractive are the absolutist ones, which claim that one group's needs are illegitimate. Congratulations - you qualify.
"Parents - and their children
"Parents - and their children - have as much right to use public facilities as, say, hipsters or yuppies."
I think that's a false dichotomy here--the real problem is hipster/yuppie parents. That kid on the Green Line who keeps whapping into you with his weeklong-hike-on-the-Appalachian-Trail-sized backpack, that waste of space with the earbuds blaring TV on the Radio that keeps standing in the doorway and can't hear your repeated calls of "EXCUSE ME" when you're trying to get off at your stop--these people reproduce. It may sound hard to belive, but folks like these don't become any less self-centered and oblivious by the act of having children; they just have a whole new way in which they can show disregard for others and a tons of newfound umbrage to call upon should anybody take issue.
amazing!
Interesting... I've never seen a 4 year old hail a cab! You've clearly raised your children in a most superior manner.
You're right, they're no different
So, all people with strollers are now required to use The Ride van system instead of the trains and buses.
There. That solves the problem. Thanks for the suggestion.
actually, there are limits on
actually, there are limits on how many wheelchairs are allowed on one bus. So we are giving extra special treatment to strollers right now.
disingenuous much? In
disingenuous much? In particular the T policy was not about "sequestering yourself in the house" but about showing common courtesy towards fellow passengers by folding up strollers so that they don't obstruct the train.
But instead of exhibiting common courtesy towards fellow riders, some people felt it was better to organize to retain their right to take massive strollers wherever the hell they want.
T-riding stroller parents could take their cue from cyclists
...watch out there might be a stroller version of critical mass mobilizing on a bus or train near you soon! Not saying it's good or bad, just saying.
New personal SUV stroller
New personal SUV stroller policy.
I won't move a frigging inch. You can ride the T all day long with your doublewides. I won't be enabling or collaborating or appeasing.
It's all about personal choices.
I choose to ignore you and your rugrats.
Have a nice day.
Super like that comment.
Super like that comment. Agree. Courteous people, happy to move. Douchenozzles, eff off. Just like how your kid misbehaving and you ignoring it entitles me to swear prolifically. That is the compromise. Abide or eff bombs be thrown.
Courtesy
Despite the vitriol, I appreciate Googie Baba's pledge to fold her stroller when taking her kids on the T. I will gladly give up my seat to accomodate you and I hope other parents/riders do the same.
Honestly, as much as I vented
Honestly, as much as I vented the other day I think that backpacks or just general stupidity of riders, such as not pushing all the way back into Green Line trolleys, is a much bigger issue than the strollers. But what bothers me more is the sense of entitlement that some people have that the world should bend to their wishes and the absolute inability of some of them to realize that other people may be inconvenienced by their actions.
Someone needs to regulate
Someone needs to regulate stroller sizes.
You can't buy a car that is 2 lanes wide and you can't carry on an over sized bag on to a plane.
One of the most annoying things is a stroller that takes up an entire sidewalk.
I find it pretty hilarious
I find it pretty hilarious that the blogger tries to make it about sex, and in doing so, is being incredibly sexist.
Apparently, only women use strollers? Apparently, only women travel with kids?
Because thats essentially the entire point of her blog post.
"This is about womens rights!"
Um, no. Dads with strollers are equally problematic on buses. There is simply not enough room. A transexual with a strollers? Same exact problem.
And women, like men, are just as capable of ferrying their offspring without the need of a stroller.
Or is the blogger implying that women are too weak to walk with their child? Ridiculous. Billions of families around the world manage just fine without the largely american apparatus of convenience.
Incidentally, if Im on a crowded bus or train, and a family boards with small children (under 7), and there are no seats, I WILL give up my seat, because kids suck at balancing.
On the other hand, when nobody can move back on the bus because of a stroller, and each stop is taking 3 minutes due to acrobatics, I want to pick up the stroller, toss it out the window, and enjoy the spontaneous cheering that will erupt.
I just want to reiterate a
I just want to reiterate a point you made that a stroller is NOT the only method for moving your infant child around.
It's nice that you give up your seat to children
Perhaps it should be mandatory, so everyone will be as kind and courteous as you.
This problem must have got a lot worse since I changed jobs and stopped taking the T regularly- of all the things that annoyed me about the commute, this stroller issue wasn't even a blip on my radar. You folks seem to be quite worked up about it.
I'm kinda not thrilled about
I'm kinda not thrilled about this decision. I really hope the T didn't base their entire decision on a web poll and a group that showed up at this meeting. Web polls are not scientific. They should have more hearings about this so more of the general public could attend and voice their opinion about this.
People are up and arms over this because this is a reoccurring problem. Maybe people think its blown out of proportion, but really, in my 12 years of riding the T daily, it really has gotten worse. And this is because the T allows it to go on. They should have examined this policy a long time ago when these SUV sized strollers started appearing. If they had nipped this in the butt decades ago, there wouldn't be a problem. Its like eating on the T, if they had banned it decades ago like every other public transit system, people wouldn't do it now.
In the boston.com article, some women exclaimed that this was "anti family". Bull. This is trying to keep a system of thousands of moving parts on time without delays. I think that takes a bit more precedence than your 'family'. Your family doesn't ride everyday, I do. I want to get to my destination on time, and you're causing delays. Move or be left behind. You also decided to have children, so now you have to deal with the consequences of it. I'm tired of paying for (or having to care about) someone else's family and children. They are your children, you wanted them, you deal with it. Its not my problem, nor will I let it become my problem when *I'm* delayed because of your 'family' stroller.
So from now on, I'm not going to be nice anymore. You want to bring this SUV sized stroller on the bus and block everyone's way, you bet now I'm going to make a huge stink about it. I'm going to make you feel so uncomfortable, you won't want to bring the stroller again. I'm sorry, but if some of these "bo mom's" want to get all activist about strollers, I can certainly do the same. I suggest others do the same.
I have sympathy for most parents who truly NEED them (a small baby), and are truly sorry for the delays. But it takes some of these self righteous parents who take advantage of a situation and make the real people who really need the stroller look bad. It only takes a few bad apples folks.
So you are going to be rude
So you are going to be rude and unaccommodating to people with strollers. That will be a tough gig for you. Somehow, I picture you already living this "role". Some of us gave birth to twins, the folded stroller idea would have been impossible when they were infants. I can carry my infant in a wrap and hold each of my twins hands now that they are three, but then I cannot bring a stroller with me and now I need three seats on the bus and train. I am sure you would be super polite and accommodate me in this scenario, right?
Speaking of double-wides
It's not just strollers. Some backpacks have the ability to knock an adult to the ground. I'm not saying ban them or anything, I just wish folks were aware of the space they take up in small areas.
Tough Travellers
No comma necessary. That's the brand of backpack we carried ours around in.
It may annoy those who *hate* backpacks to have one with an actual human in it on the train, but it keeps people from bumping and stepping on a toddler when the train lurches, keeps the kid under control, and takes up less space than a stroller.
Not everybody can use these, but it is an option. When ours were little, parents were required to fold strollers.
Good Policy Doesn't Mean Banning Things
I think the T should have figured this out with the cameras and bikes and all ...
I think this should have been scoped out in terms of the way bikes are limited on the T. They aren't allowed at rush hour, and they have to follow some basic rules. That isn't always enough for some itchy cranks, but at least you can say "eff off I'm following the rules".
What, as someone who once rode the T with an infant and a toddler, what would I propose?
HOURS: any type of stroller can ride the same hours as bike hours (10-4; after 7pm)
SIZE: want to ride during rush hour? If your stroller doesn't fit in a specified footprint taped next to the booth (umbrella stroller), your options are a backpack or fold it up. (bikes have to fold at these hours or they can't go on).
I'd like to note that folding the stroller isn't that hard if it isn't gargantuan and you aren't carrying your whole house around to service a twenty pound creature. I used to do it all the time (baby in the pack, toddler with harness and folded stroller in hand), and I think many people simply haven't tried it to be honest. In many cases, it is actually easier to get on the train because folding and hauling hassle is less than open stroller on stairs hassle.
Good comment...
that is what I was thinking. I can't believe the stuff I see people carrying in strollers - your comment about not needing to carry your own house around is right on target. What do you really need to carry anyway? A bottle or two, extra change of diaper, diaper wipes (for small kids), a small toy maybe, tiny blanket if it is chilly out? For toddlers, maybe a toy or a book and a snack? How about wearing a backpack, small to medium should do it, and putting the kid in a smaller, easy to fold stroller? Of course, you could carry your baby on your back (or front) which means no stroller.
My own sister-in-law has to carry a good sized cooler of snacks for her two kids so they will always have something to eat and she is driving most of the time. I can't imagine the size of the stroller she would need just to carry all the extra stuff!
Huge Feminist Who Thinks Parents Can Fold a Fucking Stroller
The difference between Googiebaba (who seems proud of the fact that she doesn't take public transportation--I'm so glad she weighed in on this topic that she knows nothing about!) and me is that I've been on a crowded bus with the SUV stroller that truly blocks everyone from either getting on or getting off. Overentitled mothers mobilizing for their right to block other T customers is ridiculous. I'm curious: did these same listservs moblilize around the huge recent proposed cut to WIC, an issue that is much more devastating to parents in MA? I'm going to guess no since that cut seems to still be going through. I also noticed Googiebaba didn't feel the need to weigh in on that issue on her blog. I guess all the new mothers who don't have a 401K to fall back on can go fuck themselves.
WIN x 1000
.
WINNING COMMENT
WINNING
Word.
Word.
It ain't the WIC users
... who have the SUV strollers. I've seen the parents who board the buses at various housing projects and most of them have umbrella strollers - despite having to haul groceries with it.
It isn't the wealthy city parents, either. They buy well-built stuff designed to fit through doors and take minimal room, even for two kids. I see them boarding buses after working downtown with their law firm branded bags on their backs and strollers that look like they could fold into a tiny bag and fit in a pocket.
So we've ruled out those two entire categories of people
I guess it must be that damn middle class causing all the trouble. I thought they mostly drove everywhere- maybe the situation will resolve itself when gas prices go back down.
Frequent Users versus Day Trippers
It is generally the day trippers who are using the giant strollers - I see them all over town, hogging sidewalks and fighting with doors during the day. They generally aren't riding at peak hours, and when they do they cause a lot of trouble because they simply do not understand that they need to get out of the way. I once saw one parent throw a fit because a bus driver refused to let them board a crowded bus for safety reasons.
Regular riders don't typically have giant strollers for the same reason I rarely take my non-folding bike on a train, even when I can: size = hassle.
That makes sense
Banning non-folding strollers at peak hours might indeed be sensible. Or make people pay triple if they insist on doing it anyway during those times.
Swirly - I think that you
Swirly - I think that you have described exactly what's going on. Thanks.
Go take a ride on bus routes
Go take a ride on bus routes 23, 28, 111, or 116 and tell me that "regular riders don't typically have giant strollers". It is not unusual to see 2, sometimes 3, large strollers on one bus on these routes. The number of strollers on rotues 95, 96, or 326 is very low when compared to these rotues.
66 also
Add the 66 to the set of buses on which there are often as many as 3 strollers on a single bus, at rush hour. Definitely regular riders, too - many I recognize from day to day.
Do you ride the 95?
I'll grant you the low stroller densities on the 96 and 326 ... but what about the 93 or 92 or 134? 93 and 95 serve HUD housing projects - I've seen as many as 4 come on or get off at a time on those routes from a single stop, even at rush hour.
92 and 93 have an odd mix of housing project dwellers and wealthy downtown commuters with strollers. 134 is the transport of choice for people who live as far out as Woburn but can't afford the trains.
Maybe it simply isn't the fashion on this side of the city to use giant strollers for regular commuting. Most of the giant stroller users I've seen are headed for the parking lots at Wellington.
People who write intelligent comments....
... like this really ought to at least adopt a consistent pseudonym (and register it) rather than remaining among the faceless (mostly illiterate) and unidentifiable anon contingent. ;~}
No one seems to remember that
No one seems to remember that not long ago it WAS policy to fold up strollers (or maybe it wasn't, but everyone did it - perhaps the parents back then weren't total a**holes like they appear to be now with this issue)...
No one would be making a fuss if these "adults" were smart enough to not park their gargantuan strollers of doom in the doors, and in the aisle, and then look at you crazy when you want to GET OFF THE BUS or something...
This issue (and these parents) are so stupid... ugh
Squabbling over the crumbs
Ridership on the MBTA was up 5% this month alone.
That's the real issue here, isn't it? We have an antiquated public transportation system that's chronically underfunded, and groaning beneath the debts with which it was saddled in order to build a better highway system. There aren't enough lines. There aren't enough trains. There aren't enough buses.
There's something pathetic watching fans of mass transit squabble amongst themselves, arguing over who should have the right to use the inadequate amounts of space available. We should be celebrating the demand, and banding together to push for far greater public investment instead..
Not to mention ...
A HUGE part of the problem is that the vehicles are not only antiquated, they are POORLY DESIGNED!
Ride a largely newer system and you get buses and trains that have no problem accomodating bicycles, strollers and chair users at peak hours without a lot of these obstruction issues.
Then again, this is the transit system that ordered non-accessible buses years after the ADA went into effect and got sued into retrofitting them.
ADA went into effect in 1990,
ADA went into effect in 1990, all MBTA buses built since 1989 have had wheel-chair lifts (high-floor models to 1995) or ramps (low-floor buses since 1999). MBTA bus orders built between 1982 and 1987 were ordered with only half wheelchair lift equipped and half not, but that was before ADA and there was no legal requirement to have any access. The last of those late 1980s buses without lifts were replaced in 2004. P
The MBTA's buses, except for the Silver Line Waterfront dual-modes and Cambridge-based trackless trolleys, are all standard models from New Flyer, NABI, Nova Bus, or Neoplan that are pretty much identical to what every other U.S. transit system has. Problems with strollers on buses are not unique to the MBTA.
Here is a link to Tri-Met In Portland Oregen which states that strollers MUST be folded on buses:
http://trimet.org/howtoride/kids.htm
and here is a link to a blog from 2008 where people in Portland are discussing the Tri-Met policy:
http://www.trimetiquette.com/trimet-riding-etiquette-what-to-do-with-those-baby-strollers/
MAX and Streetcars, however ...
... seem to be able to handle most wheeled vehicle types by creating spaces for them. (People don't take bikes on the streetcars because it would be slower than just riding.)
The reality on TriMet buses is that strollers are generally unfolded unless the bus is cram packed or there is a wheelchair needing the open space. Otherwise, drivers don't say anything unless somebody is blocking the aisle - and that goes as well for elderly people with their shopping baskets, people with two-wheelers stacked with boxes bungeed on, etc. You'd be amazed what people haul on the transit in that city!
"The reality on TriMet buses
"The reality on TriMet buses is that strollers are generally unfolded unless the bus is cram packed or there is a wheelchair needing the open space."
That would probably be the reality on the MBTA if an actual policy was put in place. Remember that the original Herald article from way back on May 1 (those were the days) stated:
"Davey said he is “very interested” in launching a pilot program on buses that would require anyone with a stroller to fold it before boarding. The policy, to be phased in with announcements asking people to stow their carriages, could later be broadened to include trolleys and subways.
But before enacting the ban, which would likely carry no fines but would be enforced by stern lectures from bus drivers......."
So something that would be on buses only, which would be dependent on drivers judgement to actually enforce, is probably not much different than Portland.
Accomodating wheelchairs is one thing.
Those huge, pesky strollers are another. I remember seeing parents and their infants and small children who were perfectly able-bodied on the buses/trains without the use of these big strollers that take up unnecessary room on public transportation. Accommodating wheelchairs is a whole other matter, because disabled people often have no other way(s) of getting around.
You know, I was just thinking
You know, I was just thinking about this as I was riding to work this morning on the T (after my last comment).
I actually got picked up by a GMC RTS Bus instead of the normal Neoplan/NABI buses. For those who don't know the difference, the GMC RTS buses the OLD buses (with raises floors), and the Neoplan/NABI buses are the newer style ones.
One of the things I noticed about the GMC RTS bus was the extra wide aisles. And how the back of the bus is mostly empty, as the wheel chair lift is in the back. I remember back when before the Neoplan/NABI buses were put into service, you *always* had to load a stroller via the back door. It just wouldn't make it thru the front door.
In return there were less delays since the people who still had to board could still board via the front door, and the strollers went into the back.
Unfortunately the new NABI/Neoplan buses aren't designed this way, as the ramp for wheel chairs is in the front (not the back).
Was this poor design? Nope. Not at all. I've rode several NABI buses in the US (MARTA in Atlanta, MUNI in SF, Portland, BART), and they all have the same layout. So don't blame the T, blame the silly ADA folks who requested the ramp be at the front of the bus.
SwirlyGirl, you're half right. The GMC RTS Buses are from 1985, 1988, and 1993 respectively. Many of the buses were grandfathered in before the 1990 ADA Act. The buses bought in 1993 had lifts installed in the back prior to delivery, and buses manufactured prior to 1990 were retrofitted with lifts. I believe the MBTA had 7 years to comply, and they did it in that time (which is why many of the RTS buses were restored in the late 1990s). Coupled with the fact that for many years, GMC was the *only* bus company allowed to manufacture buses that were under federal subsidy, GMC made a horribly designed buses, which is why GMC RTS no longer is in business!
The MBTA was sued not for the lack of ADA bus service, but for the lack of access along certain parts of the Orange and Green Lines. (hence why stations have those weird lifts that no one ever seems to use). This is also why all the green line stations have been renovated in the past few years.
Wheelchair users and the BCIL suit.
"So don't blame the T, blame the silly ADA folks who requested the ramp be at the front of the bus."
The silly ADA folks would prefer that wheelchair users not be treated like second-class citizens in the Jim Crowe south who have to board and sit in the back of the bus just because they use a mobility device. (Also, in a situation where it's crowded, it can be difficult for the operator to get back there to attach securements without leaving the bus. Also also, it's easier to more precisely line up the front of the bus with the curb.)
"The MBTA was sued not for the lack of ADA bus service, but for the lack of access along certain parts of the Orange and Green Lines."
Nope, station access was only one component of the BCIL suit. Accessible bus service was a significant part, in fact, and included the MBTA not keeping equipment (like lifts and ramps) in working order; operators refusing to stop for or board people with disabilities; and lack of stop announcements.
Agreed
Especially odd to see so many people (not everyone) suggesting that parents should just drive rather than irritate or mildly inconvenience more important customers with their strollers and kids. Not a particularly "green" perspective.
Open strollers on a bus cause
Open strollers on a bus cause problems even when the bus is not jammed pack with other riders. They can block the aisle making it difficult to move to the back of the bus. I have been on buses with standees jammed in the front, empty seats in the back, and a large stroller in between in the middle, making it hard for anyone to pass.
Hard, yes, impossible, no . . .
. . . and even without the strollers, polite requests like "excuse me" and "pardon me" which I grew up on and experienced riding the T in the '80s and '90s, seem to be out the window today.
Yes, it is a two-way street and people should get their strollers, large packages, etc. out of the aisles--or at least shoved in as close to the seating as possible, but . . . how hard is it REALLY to politely alert someone of your intention to squeeze by him/her? It's like people can't even talk to each other anymore.
The same thing goes with people who just stand in the doorway of the train--I personally have NO problem with telling people to either step into the train or at least step aside. And that's why the punk-a$$ kids with the headphones and the backpacks get away with it especially--too many adults feel intimidated.
So, back to the stroller issue: because no one has the decency--or gumption--to excuse him/herself and go by the stroller person, the front of the bus gets cluster-fudged. This winds up serving the stroller person no good either since he/she will have to climb through all the cowards who couldn't just go by in the first place.
I'm not in favor of a total
I'm not in favor of a total ban on strollers (just a reasonable policy), but your comment is some pretty outstandingly privileged bullshit. You're assuming that the adult who needs to get by a mammoth stroller is completely young, healthy, and able-bodied, and does not use a cane, crutch, walker, wheelchair, service animal, or any kind of mobility aid of any sort.
The people who are most genuinely trapped by strollers that block the aisles are part of the population that most relies on public transit in the first place. Thanks for labeling us all indecent, gumption-less cowards.
Someone got stabbed recently
Someone got stabbed recently in NY on a full subway car for not giving up their seat to some guy who demanded it. I think thats a good example of why people don't feel comfortable talking to one and other, no one wants to die over space on the T.
Boston is not NYC
NYC, you mind your own business and you don't let other people mind yours, or someone's gonna get hurt.
Bostonians merely dislike interacting with unfamiliar people or outside their narrow socioeconomic group.
Pretty broad statement
Pretty broad statement there.
I dislike interacting with people on the T b/c it's rarely pleasant.
when I do interact I'd have to say the more pleasant interactions are usually with people OUTSIDE my socioeconomic group.
Probably b/c I'm a middle aged Irish-american guy and we're pretty grumpy as a lot.
I WANT YOUR VERY BEST SUGGESTION!!!!!!!!!!!
People, we live in a world that has toddlers, and those toddlers have to be in strollers. Who's gonna fold those strollers? You? You, adamg?? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep about unfolded strollers, and you curse the diaper bags. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That unfolded strollers, while tragic, probably saves lives. And my toddler's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want my toddler in a stroller, you need my toddler in a stroller. We use words like sippy cups, diaper bags, and pacifiers. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to toddler-deprived people who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom my toddler provides, and then questions the manner in which my toddler provides it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get your own stroller and fold it. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
Did you
Or did you not order the Happy Meal?
All she wanted was a Pepsi
... and we wouldn't give it to her!
Forgive me, I merely have a
Forgive me, I merely have a PhD not a MoMY, I do not understand...
How does your toddler save lives?
What on earth does this phrase mean?
I have both
... and I still can't read that.
Am I *that* old?
They took Jack Nicholson's monologue from "A Few Good Men" and made it about "toddlers" instead of "soldiers", "orders", etc.
Frankly, such a pedestrian
Frankly, such a pedestrian reference escaped me!
Pedestrian?
If you didn't get that reference, you're grounded from Internet til you clean up your act.
That was awesome.
Stop. Stop. You're too much. You should go on tour with this stuff. You and Dane Cook could rule the comedy world with this.
stroller won't bite you!
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Some people just don't like little kids, or at least they don't like little kids when it in any way inconveniences them. While on the train, if you folded up your stroller with baby in one arm and then 3 yr. old little Johnny dashed out of your grasp, there'd be a similar uproar. 'Why didn't that entitletard SUV stroller Mommy put that brat in a stroller!' Who hasn't been inconvenienced by someone with a giant stroller, giant backpack, oversized suitcase, or people who refuse to move to the back? You get annoyed; ask them politely to move, and then you carry on with your day. It's really not that big of a deal!
It's not your
toddler that we don't like - it's you. Just because you decided to have children does not mean that you are entitled to everything and anything whenever and where ever you want. Being so sanctimonious gets you little sympathy from me or anyone else.
Just the other day I had 2 mamoth strollers blocking the front door of the bus. I have to say one woman did lift up the seats and scooted in w/ her stroller - the other woman did not. I literally had to CLIMB OVER 3 kids and 4 wheels to get out. What if I fell and broke my ankle? Whose fault is that? Yours for being inconsiderate. What if, GOd forbid, I fell on your kid and broke his nose? How mad would you be then and whose fault would it be? Again, it would be yours for just being rude. Because that is all it is.
All people are asking is for some GD common curtousey & you have more than showed that you,and others like you, have none.
Yes, the same goes for the dumbos with the backpacks. If you get on the T with backpacks then take it off when getting on the train/bus.
I mean serioulsy how difficult is this?
I don't approve of your stroller: OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!
How difficult is it for YOU to note that I mentioned that I am not a parent? Please read the field where it states, 'Your name: not a parent'. Do you realize that someone gave birth to you? Do you think you were a sweet little angel 24/7? Maybe YOUR parents annoyed someone just like yourself and several others on this thread who are so incredibly ENRAGED by such a firestorm of an issue! If riding on the T alongside parents whose strollers you don't approve of is your biggest gripe in life, then I'd venture to say you've got it pretty f*cking sweet.
be nice to women and kids
I don't see what the equity issue is here. Be nice to women and kids. Give them extra room. That's just basic politeness.
People, whether women or men, who were inconsiderate jerks before they had a kid will be even worse once they get the kid. But that's on them.
There is a difference between
politeness and them having these double wide strollers that take up huge amounts of space. I am not moving for them, they can walk.
'I am not moving for them, they can walk.'
...and with Mother's Day just around the corner. My, what a charming young lad you are!
Be bigger than those jerks
.
He's trying to
But it's hard because those strollers are just so big to begin with.
Thank you! Goodnight!
And that sums up this whole discussion. Amen. :)
The T needs to provide more
The T needs to provide more space on busses etc. so riders are able to get their strollers out of the aisles. They could probably do this by removing a row or two of seating.
why?
Why should the T accommodate a OPTIONAL decision? People who are elderly or handicapped didn't have much of a choice in why they need the room. But optional baby carriages? Nope. Not a chance. Its YOUR choice to have children and to lug that thing on the T. So deal with it.
The T shouldn't have to accommodate anyone that isnt already covered under law. Again, its your choice to take the SUV sized stroller, so its your choice to deal with it.
I think parents need to be more aware that they are causing delays and just get out of the way and stop acting like its 'their right' to have that monster of a stroller on the bus. It really isn't.
Why... because it's public
Why... because it's public transit and families with small children are part of the public.
You don't like my stroller on the bus... and I don't like your backpack and neither of us likes the guy eating the garlic bagel... but that's the way it is in a city.. so we should all be a little more tolerant.. at least for the duration of a bus ride.
What's your point?
Families with small children are welcome.
Their strollers aren't.
I mean, where do you draw that line? They should remove more seats to accomodate strollers...bikes...shopping carts...Power Wheels...Ikea purchases...
just don't be that guy ...
who is complaining about a bike-trailer size stroller on the train (off hours), while holding on to two suitcases, one about the size of Rhode Island.
Saw this on the train this morning. (I asked the family if they could fold the empty stroller and they told me they didn't know how - they were visiting from France and it was on loan from their friend's neighbor).
Tolerance has its limits
If it's rush hour and the train is packed, a backpack is only going to take up the space of one person at most, and probably not even that if the person has the sense to hold it by the floor. An unfolded baby stroller can take up the space of 3-4 people, and it gets in the way of people entering and exiting the bus or train, making everyone's trip longer.
I'm all for tolerance, but at some point the combination of your offspring's existence and your stubbornness is making my world a worse place. Use those tax breaks you got for spitting out the little fucker and buy a car or take a cab next time.
Oh and the garlic bagel guy isn't really bothering anyone except vampires. You're not a vampire, are you?
Tax Breaks?
My kids got the same exemptions that I did.
Explain this mythic "tax break" you speak of. Last I checked, it is a tax deduction. I get one too - so does my husband. If my MIL lived with us as a dependent, we'd get to deduct hers, too.
Since when...
... ia "liottle fucker" an acceptable synonym for "child"?
Tolerance works both ways,
Tolerance works both ways, y'know. So the guy with the backpack should take it off. And the family with the stroller should fold it up or at least try not to block the aisle. It's the least you can do.
Not sure why this is so difficult to explain. I think most people get it. There's a few bad apples out there who are unreasonably selfish, and some of those are parents. They have an attitude problem.