Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
They were lucky to even get a train from the shambles that is Southern Rail.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
No guarantee of help for disabled passengers, says Southern
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
They were lucky to even get a train from the shambles that is Southern Rail.
portlock seagull
Why? Why us?
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,071
least southern can't be seen as discriminating. They don't provide a service to anyone. #southernfail
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,303
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
Stupid IDIOT
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
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,309
It isn't universally being read as that at all if you are referring to the bus case.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
It gives someone else a case to take SASTA to the courts with , it's a start
Hold on - someone was in court defending their right to not give disabled people access? Whom was it?
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
It was the right for a wheelchair user, to take priority over a baby buggy, in the bus space.
spring hall convert
Well-known member
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
On fire
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
On fire
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
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,309
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...I can't see the problem with that. Amazed a bus company couldn't make that company policy without need for a court case.
Won't somebody think of the shopping!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
Lord Bracknell
On fire
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
On fire
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Silly old bat
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.
Some of them can.
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.