Yes. It's distracting to him and irritating to others
In some circumstances I suppose
I'm not sure
No, children cry sometimes, they have a right to ride the bus
I hate kids and they shouldn't be allowed in public
I use to ride the El to work when I lived in Philly.
Kid with actual bugs on his neck - lice? I could see them. Crawling around his hairline.
Next up was a kid with a cup who proceeded to hawk up huge wads of phlegm and spit them in the cup. I thought I was gonna vomit on the spot after he did it the 3rd time. It made me so sick to watch I actually had to ask him just wtf he was doing that twisted crap for. Apparently he was in some sport, wrestling I think, and that day was weigh in day. He was gonna spit in that cup all day in an attempt to make his weigh in. On top of all that he was hideous and I'm thinking retarded to boot. This guy made the lice kid seem like a delightful seat mate.
So I don't want to hear jack about crying kids on public transportation. I really don't.
Listen lady, I was born in the Soviet Union. I've eaten things that are more disgusting than the worst thing you can imagine. That said, my original point about property rights and consumer choice still stands.
The driver didn't OWN the bus. The transit company that DID clearly disagreed with the driver's actions.
The consumer made her choice in good faith, she paid her bus fare to ride on a bus that she had not been thrown off of before, nor was she warned that she might be removed from the bus if her child did not behave.
The bus driver overreacted, it was inexcusable.
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand
I selected "In some circumstances I suppose". If a child or anyone for that matter is being very disruptive a bus driver should have the ability to kick them off. I would reserve this for only extreme circumstances tho.
More than that, it doesn't prove the failure of the collective management it's frequently incorrectly used to attack because the state of the "commons" in the original analogy was by nature unregulated and subject to a free-for-all rape of sorts.