By Chris Cosci

When you are traveling to a location where driving is difficult or time-consuming, taking public transportation is usually considered a smart decision. Of course, there is a downside to public transportation: you have to ride with other people.

Unlike you, most people are ignorant slobs. Therefore, public transportation comes with the caveats of watching out for wads of gum on the seats, avoiding people who are sneezing, coughing and sniffling, and steering clear of people who insist on singing loudly while listening to a walkman that everyone can hear anyway.

One person has finally decided to do something about it. Wanda Gray is the transit operations manager for the city of Bend, Oregon, home of the Bend Extended Area Transit (BEAT). BEAT is an appointment-only van service, catering mostly to disabled people and senior citizens. Tired of the condition in which people travel, Gray has drafted a proposal of rules for riding a BEAT vehicle. Her proposal will be up for review at a public hearing by the city council this evening, January 15, 2003.

These rules cover most of the expected bases: no drinking, no smoking and no littering in the vehicle. So far, so good. Then, the rules state that you cannot "spit, defecate or urinate" in the vehicle, "except in a toilet." This has to be written down? Do we really have to tell people that it's not okay to relieve themselves inside a public van? I thought this would be common sense. While they're at it, they should add a rule saying people can't stand naked in the middle of the van while taping M&M's to their body and singing the soundtrack to "Evita" in French. Then again, perhaps they feel this situation is avoided with the clause that requires riders to wear a shirt and shoes. Oddly enough, pants aren't included on the list of required clothing. Maybe there are some things that don't have to be written down after all.

Other proposed rules try to eliminate obscenities, offensive language and fighting words, which are defined as "language or gestures that publicly insult another person in a manner intended and likely to produce a violent response." According to City Attorney Jim Forbes, "any words likely to provoke violent or disorderly response [are] not protected under the first Amendment. 'Your mother wears Army boots' probably is close to the line." This raises another important question: why is it insulting for one's mother to wear Army boots? Does it imply that the mother has bad fashion taste?

But the situation gets more interesting. The proposal has raised quite a controversy due to a regulation regarding "repulsive odors." According to the regulation, "no person shall board or remain on a BEAT vehicle or enter or remain in a BEAT station if the person or the person's clothing emanates a grossly repulsive odor that is unavoidable by other BEAT customers on the vehicle or in the station."

This rule is not limited to people who haven't showered for three weeks and have body odor that could kill all small animals within a five mile radius. It also includes people who put cologne and perfume on by the bottleful. While most people would agree that this would be a worthwhile inclusion, there is the issue of enforcing this rule.

Mayor Oran Treater asks, "who defines it - how do you draw the line?" He also adds, "what's smelly to one person isn't [necessarily] smelly to another." In other words, a person may come in smelling like raw cabbage, but perhaps there are some people who don't mind the smell of raw cabbage. Of course, those people might have problems of their own, but we won't go into that.

The truth is, due to the "repulsive odor" clause, there's a chance the proposal will be voted down. Gray has many legitimate concerns, but her over-ambition may have cost her an approval. Without approval, BEAT drivers will have to continue dealing with dirty, rude and smelly riders. And somewhere in New York, a subway conductor is laughing quietly to himself.