Letters for the week of April 28-May 4, 2004 

Kudos for our account of the problems with disabled access on AC Transit bus lines, but also the driver's perspective.

Page 2 of 2

Complaints: While many passenger complaints are at least partially valid, a great number of them are simply false. Passengers know that no matter what the complaint, the driver will be investigated, and that can be very disturbing to drivers who do their best. I recently had a passenger complaint that was completely false, but I still had to have an interview with my superintendent and defend myself. This, more than anything else, can sour drivers to passengers.

The upshot is that there needs to be some accountability from the passengers, disabled or otherwise. We are not their babysitters, regardless of their disability. We are only human and cannot please everyone all the time, or give the personal attention that many people think they deserve, while doing our job safely.

This is not to defend dangerous or just plain rude drivers. However, your article would have been more balanced if you had spent a week on various lines and seen what drivers have to put up with. I have been physically assaulted by passengers, routinely cursed out; have passengers who think I am supposed to read their minds when they miss their stop, yelled at because THEY are late for work -- and the list goes on. After all is said and done, I try to do the best I can for ALL my passengers. But for some people it is never enough.
An AC Transit driver (name withheld by request), Oakland

Walkers are people too
Katy St. Clair reminds us that "Under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, bus agencies are required to offer equal transit access to everyone regardless of their physical or mental condition." But do transit agencies violate that law when lack of funds forces them to cut services that leave transit-dependent patrons stranded? No. Transit provisions of ADA do not require anyone to provide transportation for those who cannot, should not, or choose not to drive cars.

California's planning code does not require new urban or suburban development to be accessible or functional for those who don't drive. Sidewalks and alternative modes of transportation are not mandated. Where there's no alternative to driving, ADA is limited to nontransportation accommodations. While the past half-century of discriminatory urban and suburban development "for motorists only" is not in violation of ADA, it clearly violates the rights of all citizens who cannot, should not, or choose not to drive.

Driving is a privilege, not a fundamental right. Our right to life is violated when we're forced to rely on modes of transportation so dangerous that they require seat belts, air bags, or crash helmets. And our right to equality (with motorists) is violated by a planning process that does not require location of our daily needs in walking (or wheelchair) distance of our residences.

If walking isn't a fundamental right, then what is? Everyone is entitled to a transportation alternative that isn't disrupted by accidents, bridge suicide attempts, or labor strikes. Those dependent on public transit should start demanding state legislators to amend the planning code. Right now they'd rather try to figure out a way to give drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants so they can get to all those job sites that are inaccessible to citizens who don't drive.
Art Weber, El Cerrito

"In Denial," Music, 4/7

Come as you are
I was just in Seattle and have been reading all the stuff on Kurt "Elvis" Cobain. From that I have decided that Kurt did his job as he saw it. He wanted to be a painter; he was. He wanted a child; he had a beautiful little daughter. He wanted his spirit to live after he died; it seems to have. He wanted to provide for his family and give his daughter a good life; he has. He wanted to end his suffering; he has. It is only those who worshiped his art that won't let him go and perhaps that is a good thing.
"Cy Figh," Oakland

"Revolving Doors at John George," Cityside, 3/17

Cancel the contract
Your story about questionable contractual incentives for a medical company at John George Psychiatric Pavilion begs the question why a private, for-profit group is responsible for any part of patient care at the county psychiatric facility for the poor and indigent. This company provides only a small number of doctors to John George, while all the rest of the doctors, nurses, and specialists -- indeed, every other caregiver at John George -- is employed directly by the hospital. Yet this company is getting huge profits for enticements of dubious ethics.

Our study shows that if the hospital directly employed these few doctors as they do every other clinician in the facility, the Alameda County Medical Center would save hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. For a system that is $70 million in debt, giving away that kind of money for no clear benefit does not make sense, especially if it is leading to profiteering over patient care. We call on the county and the medical center to quickly review this situation and cancel this contract.
Gary Robinson, executive director, Union of American Physicians & Dentists, Oakland

"Should She Stay or Should She Go?" Feature, 3/31

Family law flaws
I could not help but to be moved by the letters concerning this case. Family law is in deep trouble in this country, and mostly for all of the reasons stated in these letters. A new approach has to be found if we are to save our children from the pain and misery of divorce. The family law system does not work today, and must be revamped quickly if we do not want our family structure to slide into a quagmire it cannot get out of.
Brian Markham, United Fathers of America, Orange, CA


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Anonymous and pseudonymous comments will be removed.

Latest in Letters

Most Popular Stories

Special Reports

The Beer Issue 2020

The Decade in Review

The events and trends that shaped the Teens.

Best of the East Bay


© 2020 Telegraph Media    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation