Within the existing civil rights framework, there is no “fixing” crazies on the bus. The state cannot lock people up or force them to take their meds just because they make you uncomfortable. Nor can it deny them public services. They have the same rights to the commons, their freedom, and their medical decision-making as you do. Smelling bad, shouting nonsense, and talking to strangers in public are not crimes.

Which means if you want to be comfortable, you’re going to have to minimize time spent in the commons.

> Smelling bad, shouting nonsense, and talking to strangers in public are not crimes.

And neither are they symptoms of a specific biological malfunction. We just happen to be highly social animals and if we are continually denied social interaction we'll start to do increasingly stupid things to provoke a reaction. Programs that give those people an outlet for their interaction needs will work wonders for almost all of them. Zero care freedom versus lockup/forced medication is a false dichotomy.

The state (or we) can fund treatment programs that at least make an attempt to respect the rights and wishes of people who need treatment. I spent some time trying to help a friend get I into a program... There are suprisingly few good options and all the halfway decent options don't even accept insurance, let alone offer free services.

> Nor can it deny them public services

If only accessible mental health services were easy to reach for those whose lives are so crippled by mental health that they have little other options (even if some would still "opt out") ...

> and their medical decision-making as you do

For many, there is zero medical decision-making involved because there is zero or near zero access to mental health care.

As an EMS provider, I truly believe (and I'm certainly not alone) that the two major health crises facing the US are mental health and opioid use, misuse and abuse.

> Smelling bad, shouting nonsense, and talking to strangers in public are not crimes.

But you could certainly make rules about doing the first two on a bus.

I don't know how it works in your country, but in mine enforcement of rules on busses is pretty patchy.

After all, do you deny boarding to people who look like they might break the rules? Ask them nicely to disembark if they start? Have the driver manhandle them off? Stop the bus and call the cops? Rely on scowls and tutting from other passengers?

With that said, I spent a few years riding busses in university, and didn't encounter problems from other passengers. Punctuality, service frequency, crowding and journey times were much bigger problems for me.

This is about civil rights, not the practicality of enforcement.

Rules? We have ceased to be a society of rules. (And soon we will stop being a society of rule followers, which will signal the end of our civilization, but that’s a different rant.) Here in DC, we won’t even enforce the “rule” that you have to pay the fare. Good luck enforcing anything else.

Haven't people been avoiding fares since the invention of fares?

Most people don’t avoid fares. I’m of the view that the point of criminal law isn’t deterrence as such, but rather norm setting. We punish people for fare evasion so people know it’s a bad thing. The norm keeps most people from evading the date. But when you stop punishing people for it, the norm is diminished.

I can see my city getting these to help seniors get out and about. Hmm wheelchair support might suck.

It actually is. When entrenched power structures prevent economically efficient outcomes, you bypass the power structures instead of reforming them. You reform by killing the king instead of helping him be kinder.

And this is how progress has always looked. Life will be better for this.

The market is a close analog for lightning. It's finding the fastest path.

And let me tell you, the Bay Area is flush with money. Funding is not the problem.