No guarantee of help for disabled passengers, says Southern

[Papa Lazarou]

Just to add to the bashing of Southern. I know of several occasions where wheelchair users have informed Southern of their travel arrangements well in advance and were assured someone will either be on the train or on the platform to assist them. Guess what? No one turned up. The disabled will be the worst affected if Southern continue to penny pinch.

They were lucky to even get a train from the shambles that is Southern Rail.

 

[portlock seagull]

least southern can't be seen as discriminating. They don't provide a service to anyone. #southernfail

 

[beorhthelm]

Yeah, it happens on here all the time about racism and sexism

One poster politely, and correctly, requested another to use a more appropriate and modern word. The original poster could have accepted his/her mistake and moved on, instead triggaar was villified and told (quote) 'F off with your pc clap trap'. I imagine that life as wheelchair user throws up a few challenges here and there, treating such people with a little more respect might just be a good thing to do.

excellent illustration and fair enough, though usually the right object to the political correctness, admittedly making a distraction, and it is the left that drag a conversation off into "your language is wrong/offensive", still distracting from the debate. have we gone full circle?

on NSC we just get into distraction about left/right accusations and distractions... sorry.

 

[Ernest]

High Court case been won so now it's set in law for disabled people to have access to public transport so I doubt SASTA's plans will stack up in law anymore

 

[clapham_gull]

High Court case been won so now it's set in law for disabled people to have access to public transport so I doubt SASTA's plans will stack up in law anymore

It isn't universally being read as that at all if you are referring to the bus case.

 

[Ernest]

It isn't universally being read as that at all if you are referring to the bus case.

It gives someone else a case to take SASTA to the courts with , it's a start

 

[Triggaaar]

High Court case been won so now it's set in law for disabled people to have access to public transport

Hold on - someone was in court defending their right to not give disabled people access? Whom was it?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It gives someone else a case to take SASTA to the courts with , it's a start

It was the right for a wheelchair user, to take priority over a baby buggy, in the bus space.

 

[spring hall convert]

excellent illustration and fair enough, though usually the right object the political correctness and it is the left that drag a conversation off into "your language is wrong/offensive". have we gone full circle?

I'm inclined to agree as it goes. That thread I pulled out was a classic example. There is incontrovertible evidence that a white kid has higher life chances in this country than a black kid, whether that's because or racism of not is pretty irrelevant, it's just wrong. However, depressingly the thread just degenerates into a bunch of white guys imparting their wisdom on what racism is/isn't. It literally has no relevance to the issue at hand, a complete red herring.

However, I don't think there is anything wrong with someone pointing out language that could be offensive, saying why it is offensive and suggesting an alternative.That's not political correctness gone mad, it's just a bit of, very easily done, consideration for others. Normally two things stop this from happening in a civilised way 1) A preachy or judgmental stance from the 'left.' 2) An overly defensive stance from the 'right.' Cats and dogs innit.

Anyway, I've gone on a serious ****ing digression. Sorry.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

High Court case been won so now it's set in law for disabled people to have access to public transport so I doubt SASTA's plans will stack up in law anymore

It's more complicated than that. The legal obligation that bus and train operators have to comply with is not quite the same as the obligation that applies to most service providers under the DDA (now the Equality Act) . Most service providers have to make "reasonable adjustments" to ensure that disabled service users can get access to the service provided. Public transport operators are required, in the first instance, to make sure that their vehicles meet a design specification set out in what are called Accessibility Regulations. Because of the investment costs involved, operators have been given a very long time to meet those specifications ... trains are only required to comply by 2020. Stations have the obligation to meet the "reasonable adjustments" requirement, but this can be balanced against cost considerations.

Most of SASTA's rolling stock is relatively new and will comply with the Accessibility Regulations. That means that the "reasonable adjustments" criteria kick in. Whether it is reasonable for a train operator not to make an adjustment to meet the needs of a disabled passenger (on the grounds that it is not reasonable to have to incur "excessive" staffing costs) has yet to be tested in the courts. I suspect that doing nothing in respect of unstaffed stations isn't legal. But the operators might think that they will get away with arguing that making a taxi available will meet the "reasonable adjustments" requirement. It'll take a court case to challenge that, though.

Today's bus judgement is helpful, but I don't think it is conclusive.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Hold on - someone was in court defending their right to not give disabled people access? Whom was it?

It was the right for a wheelchair user, to take priority over a baby buggy, in the bus space.

The bus company's defence was that it isn't practical for the operator to get a baby buggy moved elsewhere on the bus, if a wheelchair user turns up and requires the use of the wheelchair space. Had the wheelchair space been occupied by a wheelchair, it would have been reasonable for the bus driver to refuse the second wheelchair user admission to the bus, on the grounds that the space available was already in use. The argument was about whether a baby buggy should be treated in the same way as a wheelchair. The court decided that baby buggy users don't have the same degree of legal protection that wheelchair users have, and that the bus company had to take that into account when they devise ways to provide their service.

It may well be that the only solution is to require buggies to be folded and babies to be held in the adult's arms, if a wheelchair space is needed by a wheelchair user. That, of course, is exactly what was required of parents in the days before wheelchair spaces first appeared on buses. As a parent, I remember those times well.

 

[clapham_gull]

It was the right for a wheelchair user, to take priority over a baby buggy, in the bus space.

Not quite.

There is a sign on the bus asking all passengers to vacate the space if a wheelchair user gets on.

The woman apparently refused. The bus company now have to go further to enforce it. It doesn't say what happens if the person refuses.

Unfortunately I don't think means specifically a wheelchair user has the right in that the other person is breaking the law if they refuse to budge.

LB ?

I had an odd incident on a bus once. I vacated the space for the buggy with toddler, but the woman made me vacate the seats next to it. One for her and the other for her shopping

Fair enough but I wasn't ask politely I moved up the seat but it wasn't enough...

 

[Triggaaar]

It may well be that the only solution is to require buggies to be folded and babies to be held in the adult's arms, if a wheelchair space is needed by a wheelchair user.

I can't see the problem with that. Amazed a bus company couldn't make that company policy without need for a court case.

 

[Triggaaar]

I had an odd incident on a bus once. I vacated the space for the buggy with toddler, but the woman made me vacate the seats next to it. One for her and the other for her shopping

Won't somebody think of the shopping!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The "other person" (ie the baby buggy user) isn't the person to whom the law applies. The law applies to the service provider, the bus company. It is for them to come up with an arrangement that gives a wheelchair user access to the bus, if no other wheelchair user is already on the bus.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I can't see the problem with that. Amazed a bus company couldn't make that company policy without need for a court case.

In the case of most bus companies, it is company policy. The case was brought by an aggrieved wheelchair user who was complaining that the bus company's failure to enforce its own policy was a breach of the law. The court found that this was, indeed, the case.

 

[darkwolf666]

Getting back to the matter at hand.

Isn't the point here that generally steps have been made in the last 20 years to make rail travel accessible for disabled passengers? Progress should continue to be made in the future and any roadblock or retrograde step is completely unacceptable in the context of the railway being an essential public service.

You can't on one hand say rail workers should be barred from striking as it is an essential public service but say it is an acceptable state of affairs to delay or row back on making the rail accessible to disabled people. Or is it only an essential public service for able bodied commuters paying 8 grand season tickets to London? It can't pick and choose its public service remit dependent on its audience.

Just to lighten the mood - you have inadvertently made two digs at disabled in your post - the one handed and those that can't manage those steps you allude to!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[spring hall convert]

Just to lighten the mood - you have inadvertently made two digs at disabled in your post - the one handed and those that can't manage those steps you allude to!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The bus company's defence was that it isn't practical for the operator to get a baby buggy moved elsewhere on the bus, if a wheelchair user turns up and requires the use of the wheelchair space. Had the wheelchair space been occupied by a wheelchair, it would have been reasonable for the bus driver to refuse the second wheelchair user admission to the bus, on the grounds that the space available was already in use. The argument was about whether a baby buggy should be treated in the same way as a wheelchair. The court decided that baby buggy users don't have the same degree of legal protection that wheelchair users have, and that the bus company had to take that into account when they devise ways to provide their service.

It may well be that the only solution is to require buggies to be folded and babies to be held in the adult's arms, if a wheelchair space is needed by a wheelchair user. That, of course, is exactly what was required of parents in the days before wheelchair spaces first appeared on buses. As a parent, I remember those times well.

I agree and pushchairs, which were what we had in those days, were made to be folded. I believe the modern buggies cannot be folded, which is why the mother refused to get off the bus. She had already paid her fare, so I can see the driver's dilemma.

 

[Triggaaar]

I agree and pushchairs, which were what we had in those days, were made to be folded. I believe the modern buggies cannot be folded

Some of them can.

which is why the mother refused to get off the bus. She had already paid her fare, so I can see the driver's dilemma.

Yeah that's a pain. If you're catching a bus, you could really do with a buggy that folds, but I can see how people wouldn't always plan that. Parents will have to learn that they might not be able to keep using a space.