Public transportation systems from Vancouver to Berlin to Hong Kong have some sort of priority seat initiative to label seats near the doorways of trams, trains, and buses for use by those in need. Vancouver has blue TransLink labels, Berlin has yellow labels in line with BVG livery, and Hong Kong has a uniform red labelling across multiple public transport provides. The object of this initiative is to remind riders to give the seats to those in need, and perhaps shame those who needlessly hog them in the presence of someone who needs it.
Though it is a good thought, there’s a logical fallacy in the demarcation of priority seats as it effectively creates two classes of seats: priority seats and regular seats. This makes it feel as if only riders in priority seats should yield to those in need and regular seats are for whoever sits on them first. Instead of creating civic awareness it creates clear lines of responsibilities – only those in priority seats are required to give up their seats for the infirm, the elderly, the mobility impaired, the pregnant, and the injured.
If there were no priority seats, then riders in all seats are equally morally culpable when nobody gives up their seat for someone in need. But with priority seats, it seems as if only those red or blue or yellow seats are designated for those in need. If there aren’t enough priority seats for everyone who needs one, it seems as if it’s the public transport provider’s fault for not putting up more labels, not ours.Don’t get me wrong, everyone who doesn’t need to sit should give up their seat regardless of whether their seat is labelled as a priority seat or not, but it seems as if this message may be better delivered if there were no priority seats at all.
Only about one tenth of seats on a bus, tram, or train are designated as priority seats where previously all seats were equally designated for those in need. You can’t deliver civic education with a sticker, it has to come from education at school and at home.
