Frankly, I think you’re being a bit silly.
What if he left his house earlier so that he’d be the first in the queue for the bus so he’d be more likely to get a seat. Then the other people would come earlier so that they could be first. So your friend would come even earlier. And the other people would come even earlier. Eventually, they would all come so early that they would actually be coming the day before, resulting in a giant rip in the time-space continuum.
No, What will happen is the healthy in shape people will walk and get to sit and the fat out of shape people will have to stand. Sounds fair as the fat out of shape people can use the extra activity to help them loose some weight.
Actually the more I think about it the more I realize I do these things all the time. Sometimes after getting out of the subway and finding a long bus line I will walk one stop upstream, not only to get a seat but to get on the bus at all. Rarely if ever does anyone else do it as I see but if more did it - I’d be willing to walk 3 or 4 stops upstream (5 or more and I may as well walk the whole way in the correct direction).
My answer to the first sentence above is a definite “no.” They are free to do so if they wish, just as I am.
My answer to the second sentence is that it’s a bit of a stretch (to say the least) to imagine it will come to that. The fact that buses and bus stops have worked this way for a long time without having to resort to such measures basically puts the lie to that extrapolation of events. People like your friend notwithstanding, it seems obvious to me that the current system works just fine. Most people go for the convenience of the closest stop rather then the convenience of more likely seating.
I must be in a goofy mood today because I find myself agreeing with Green Bean– this is a silly argument.
The problem you overlook above is that you assume the people are willing to walk the extra blocks on the chance that they’ll guarantee themselves a spot on the bus. I’d be willing to bet that most (If not all of the people gathered there) wouldn’t be willing to put in the extra effort needed to guarantee that spot. Because they won’t, your above hypothesis will never come true.
So, ethical or not? I wouldn’t have a problem doing it, or having others do it to me. If I choose to sit at that last spot, I deal with the consequences.
My goodness, CnoteChris! I didn’t know that you usually disagree with me. Do we have a contentious past that I’ve forgotten about?
In San Francisco, the 4 main downtown BART stations are usually swarming with people during commute hours, and when the train arrives at the first of the four (outbound), all the seats are taken.
Which is why I’ll jump on a train going the opposite direction (further into the city) and head a couple stations further down where the train is barely half-full or less. Since outbound trains vary in destination but inbound ones are all heading into the city, I can usually do this without missing my train or waiting 15+ minutes for another one.
As long as I’m not taking a seat that somebody else needs, I don’t see anything unethical about this at all. I find JJ’s fear about losing a bus stop from this tactic a bit ridiculous since the odds of actually losing the station for this reason are incredibly remote. What are the chances most people are going to take this kind of initiative anyway? They probably know they have this option available to them but simply choose not to take it.
Jackknife, would your friend walk three blocks to get to a good stop? What about a mile?
At some point, the inconvenience of walking a long way will outweigh the convenience of getting a seat. I think that everyone would think the same way.
Assuming a Kantian system in which everyone is willing to walk exactly one stop up in order to get a good seat, here’s what you’d get:
Stop 1: Busier than normal, with twice as many people (the folks at the first stop, obviously, can’t walk up a row to get on earlier)
All other stops: just as busy as normal
Last stop of the day at which people are picked up: Empty, allowing the last busload of people to get home faster.
Everyone gets in a brisk walk on the way to their bus stop, making riding the bus a slightly smellier experience but also making everyone slightly healthier.
From a Kantian perspective, it looks like a wash to me. Remember that getting a seat, for these Kantian people, isn’t an ultimate good: it’s just a convenience which would be outweighed by walking more than a couple of blocks.
Daniel
By this logic, your friend shouldn’t even take the bus. No one should take the bus. What if there is an elderly person waiting at the next stop and all these people fill up the bus so that there’s no room for the elderly person to even board? What if the elderly person was going to the pharmacy to get their insulin prescription refilled, and because they couldn’t get on the bus they went into a diabetic coma and died, crushing an innocent little puppy underneath them as they fell to the pavement? How would your friend feel then, just because he didn’t want to walk the ten miles into work? Pretty bad, I’ll bet.
If someone needs a seat more than you do, give it to them. Otherwise, the people who are willing to work the hardest for the good seats, either by arriving early or walking farther, should get them. It won’t cause civilization to collapse, I promise.
(I have a great mental image of everyone in the city walking across town to the bus terminal four hours early every morning, once the getting-a-seat arms race spirals out of control.)
Well I still don’t agree it’s unethical.
But supposing it was…
Clearly the young have an evolutionary advantage in being able to buy upstairs dwellings with a consequent view of the bus stop.
The cheapest way to deal with this is to install covers over all bus stops so that no-one can see how large the queue is.
Also it seems to be a mistake to own a property near a bus stop which is in turn a major queueing point.
Therefore the local authority should subsidise elderly people so they don’t have to live in these deprived conditions.
Finally identity cards should be issued, with the owner’s nearest bus stop clearly printed. Bus drivers could then bar entry to those who dare to stray out of their alloted area.
Jackknife, I’ve got 3 bus stops on the same route which are close enough to me for me to consider walking to them. The one which is the shortest walk is also the one furthest out on the inbound route. I’ll use it if I’m in running late or if it suits me, but it’s a pretty steep walk uphill. The second one in is only slightly further and has a shelter of sorts. It’s the one I used when I first moved here, so it’s sort of my default stop. It’s also roughly halfway between the other two. The third one is closest in, and the last stretch is downhill. Since it’s about the same distance from the road I walk up to get to the main road, a neighbor of mine who uses a cane usually uses that stop. I only use it if I’m running very late, as in I can see the bus when I get to the main road. By your ethical reasoning, should I always use the 3rd stop? FWIW, people seem to be pretty good at giving up seats on this route, and I’ve never seen my neighbor standing. Then again, if the bus is looking crowded, I’ll usually move as far back as I can. There are other stops within a mile of me; how far should I walk for my behaviour to be ethical? Over a mile is out of the question for me, I’m afraid.
Sorry. I’m afraid in my book your friend isn’t being unethical, and, in fact is being rather sensible. I am still interested in your opinion though.
CJ
What the hell? Are they beating the people who stand?
People with really bad ankles notwithstanding, I don’t see how this is hurting anyone.
This is ridiculous. If you find this being unethical, I’d imagine that auctions would be just as unethical. Think about it. Your friend is walking two blocks extra to get a seat. If no one else is walking those two blocks, they aren’t as willing to get the seat as your friend is. If they walk the two blocks, then your friend will have to walk an extra two, and so on. Just as the person willing to pay the most money for a product GETS the product in an auction, the person willing to walk the furthest to get a seat on the bus gets the seat.
I’d imagine that if I were doing this and a friend of mine told me I was being unethical, I wouldn’t be there friend anymore.
Well our city, and I would hope most cities, has a law that makes it mandatory to give up certain seats to the elderly and disabled. If the bus driver asks you to move for one you have to, or they will stop the bus, call the cops and you’ll get a $100 ticket. Typically the only offenders I’ve seen are gaggles of 9 to 15 year old kids who don’t pay any attention to the world around them.
I’ve written and erased a few things but this arguement is just too mind boggling. How someone could find this unethical is beyond me. Your friend can’t swipe a seat from anyone since the seats belong to no one, or rather everyone.
If your friend did not give up his seat to an elderly person, pregnant woman, parent with a young child, etc, then that would be ‘unethical’ wherever he got on the bus. However, by walking those extra two blocks he has earned his seat on the bus.
Love the arguments about everyone turning up the day before, walking four hours across town, smellier but healtheir buses. For some reason they have really got me laughing today. Thank you all.
In terms of hurting everyone, what I mean is that bus stops are placed at their locations in order to minimize the walk for as many people as possible while, at the same, maintaining the most efficient bus route possible. (In theory anyway) So by artificially moving to a bus stop that is not meant for my friend, he is creating a chain effect. Other people will begin doing the same thing in order to gain an advantage, just like my friend. In the end, everyone is walking farther than he or she is supposed to, thereby reducing the total utility.
Since Mr. Moto introduced environmentalism a few posts ago, I think that pollution is a similar example. We all breathe the air and we are all better off having clean air around us. One company decides to reduce its costs of production by using inferior materials that create polluted air. That company gains an advantage over its competitors. So while the competition agrees that cleaner air is better, it has no choice but to use the same pollution-causing materials in order to level the playing field. In the end, no advantage is gained by any of the companies but everyone is worse off.
At the end, no advantage is gained by any of the bus riders, but they are all worse off.
As I mentioned earlier, this is a “Tragedy of the Commons” type of decision. The benefits of moving to a different bus stop (or using a polltion-causing material) clearly outweigh the costs for an individual rider (or company). But in time, the costs outweigh the benefits for all involved.
I’m sorry, but you’re not convincing me on this "In the end, everyone is walking farther than he or she is supposed to, thereby reducing the total utility " thing.
Your friend is hardly the first person to do this. Many people already do this – for such people, increasing the chance of getting a seat is their highest priority.
There’s a whole other population whose highest priority is “sleeping that extra five minutes in the morning.” These people are not walking to stops that are farther away.
Then you’ve got people who go to different bus stops for a variety of reasons – they like the coffee better at the deli near Bus Stop A rather than Bus Stop B.
So it is already happening, and I daresay it has been happening since the earliest days of public transportation systems. I would also argue that this is how public transportation is supposed to work.
You mention that “bus stops are placed at their locations in order to minimize the walk for as many people as possible” but I don’t think this is necessarily the case. Public transportation has long used “convenience” as a selling point. It is convenient to take the bus to work, because there are a lot of options for getting on/off the bus. The fact that there are many stops allows the bus to accommodate a variety of people – people who like to walk for a little extra exercise, people who like to walk to increase their chances of getting a seat, people who take yoga on Mondays and Thursdays and thus use a stop other than their usual stop on those days, and people who like go to the closest possible stop to their house at all times.
I think this line is where you fall down:
Isn’t this a bit of a slippery slope argument? Just because your friend does it, it doesn’t mean everyone else will. Some may not feel like the extra walk; some may be happy to take their chances when it comes to getting a seat. Some may do what I do and catch an earlier or later bus rather than changing bus stops. Besides, even if the other bus users were to all follow your friend’s example, you’d theoretically end up with everyone walking to the very first bus stop – isn’t that almost a reductio ad absurdum argument?
I don’t believe bus companies do research on population to see:
a) who uses the bus
b) where they live
so they can then construct a mathematical model to minimise the walking distance over the entire population.
I think bus stops are placed:
… artificially moving to a bus stop that is not meant for your friend? 
Do you want to put official notices up in each dwelling stating which is the nearest bus stop?
If someone lives equidistant from two stops, is he morally entitled to use either?
If one is 10 feet further away , does that mean he’s unethical to use it?
Is it the responsibility of every adult to measure these distances?
I think you’re making way too much fuss over this.
You mentioned enviromentalism.
Are you not aware that buses are a major cause of pollution, use precious resources and contibute to the terrible death toll on the roads?
If choosing a bus stop is unethical, surely using a bus at all (compared to a bicycle) is a crime?
So let’s say your friend walks to the farther bus stop, buys a cup of coffee from the stand there and gets on the bus when it comes along. Is this still unethical to you or should he walk back to his pre-approved bus stop?
Is it unethical of me to get off the highway during a traffic jam and take backroads home? Because if everyone did this, then the backroads would have traffic then also?
I think most people are not looking for any shortcuts in life. They are content to just sit in traffic, or stand on the bus, and those few who take initiative to beat the crowds deserve to be rewarded. 