Wheel Chair vs Pushchairs

[deuse]

It's a pretty tragic state of affairs when a law needs to be passed stating that people with disabilities are just as entitled to basic amenities as those who aren't.

This.
And it's a stupid rule that only one wheel chair is allowed on the bus.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Sorry for bringing science into the conversation. The guy didn't appear to understand the difference between an embryo/fetus and a baby. I understand it's a contentious issue but there is a reason abortion is allowed in the UK and there are cutoffs for it at certain points.

In the UK you choose to have a baby, even if you accidentally get pregnant. That's the end of that conversation.

You're not bringing science into it. As I said, there is no scientific consensus on when life begins, which is why the abortion limits vary from country to country.

 

[fez]

It's a pretty tragic state of affairs when a law needs to be passed stating that people with disabilities are just as entitled to basic amenities as those who aren't.

That doesn't come into it at all. Wheelchair users are entitled to use the public transport. If there isn't room on the bus then they are in exactly the same position as anyone else. The bus is full for everyone. The only difference is that full for an able bodied person is not quite as full as for a push chair or wheelchair.

I'm a bit of a Social Darwinian, but even I don't find this a complicated issue. The most able bodied can make room for the least abled. Mothers have managed to hold babies in much worse conditions than the number 42 bus. I think they can manage.

Thats a really simplistic view. Obviously every parent has a single child with them and none of the rubbish associated with the children. If you have a double pushchair and all the things to look after the two children as well as the shopping you have just bought, how will you get 2 kids out of the chair and all of the shopping etc and put it neatly away in the designated area.

 

[Haggisman]

If the wheelchair spot is taken, then they cannot accept another wheelchair user. If a push chair is in the spot, they need to fold up the chair and put it in the area reserved for exactly that.

This.
And it's a stupid rule that only one wheel chair is allowed on the bus.

Precisely. It's still discrimination. In order for there to be true equality, there should be an equal number of wheelchair spots as there are spots for non-disabled passengers.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Yet the current limit (for non parent life threatening issues) is set by the statistical probability of the fetus surviving if it is born.

So? A diabetic person wouldn't survive very long without insulin. The issue is far more complicated than you suggest. Ultimately our medical professionals made a call based on practical concerns. This doesn't mean they answered the question of when life begins.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Thats a really simplistic view. Obviously every parent has a single child with them and none of the rubbish associated with the children. If you have a double pushchair and all the things to look after the two children as well as the shopping you have just bought, how will you get 2 kids out of the chair and all of the shopping etc and put it neatly away in the designated area.

That is something you need to consider when using public transport. It's not going to be easy, but life isn't easy. I am pretty sure it can be done.

Precisely. It's still discrimination. In order for there to be true equality, there should be an equal number of wheelchair spots as there are spots for non-disabled passengers.

I don't give two hoots about equality, so I cannot really comment on that.

 

[fez]

Precisely. It's still discrimination. In order for there to be true equality, there should be an equal number of wheelchair spots as there are spots for non-disabled passengers.

That isn't equality in any way shape or form. The number of disabled bus users will be absolutely tiny compared to every other user and all you would be doing is discriminating against them. I have been on a bus a handful of times in my life with a disabled user yet have sat with thousands of elderly users in that same period.

They wouldn't be able to use the bus if there was not seating for them.

 

[cheesyboy]

Sorry for bringing science into the conversation. The guy didn't appear to understand the difference between an embryo/fetus and a baby. I understand it's a contentious issue but there is a reason abortion is allowed in the UK and there are cutoffs for it at certain points.

In the UK you choose to have a baby, even if you accidentally get pregnant. That's the end of that conversation.

Mate, his post suggested nothing of the sort. You totally crow-barred your irrelevant point into the thread.

We get it; you're not a parent and you suffer from jealousy of parents. whatever - you've made your choice.

 

[pitchfork]

I reckon kids should be banned from public in general so it's a no brainer for me.

 

[deuse]

I reckon kids should be banned from public in general so it's a no brainer for me.

So who lets you out?

 

[Burnsy2023]

How successful do you think they'd be at playing what is essential a contractual terms card? Would it be reasonable/fair to enforce terms like that against a woman with a pram, given they were knowingly allowed on, etc, etc. It's not as though she gets on sans pram, then a wild pram suddenly appears.

Like I said, I didn't say they should, just that they can.

 

[Castiel]

I'm not saying the should just that they can. In London I would argue that this comes under "No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the premises" under the TFL bylaws. If it were outside of London then most T&Cs of travel will cover conduct that inconveniences or affects the comfort of other passengers, which I would argue this would.

Whilst the guidance may be different, it doesn't stop drivers from using the context to make other decisions.

Without trying to appeal to authority. when I was the Ops Director for a large public transport company, the T&Cs reflected the DoT guidelines to the letter. "A Driver could and should ask a passenger or passengers to vacate the area for a wheelchair but the passengers were not obliged to move and neither could the driver force them to."

This is why First Bus are going to the High Court as currently there isn't any legislation that give a driver legally mandated authority to remove a passenger simply because they will not vacate a space designated for the disabled. There needs to be legal clarification.

 

[LOAM]

Read the legislation PSVAR and the DoT guidance on how to implement it.

Thus why this needs legal clarification.

I agree its a bit confusing, that said from reading it, it seems that the 2017 time frame seem to imply that its a deadline for all operating services to be either upgraded or replaced. However if the bus was put into service after Dec 31 2000 then they should comply.

Your public service vehicle may have to have access for disabled people, depending on the age of the vehicle and what it is used for. In general, the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR) 2000 apply to all buses and coaches running on a local or scheduled service introduced since 31 December 2000.

Acquired rights
The government understands that many vehicles cannot be modified to meet the requirements or that it is not cost effective to do so. These vehicles may continue in service for a period representing the end of their economic life.

You do not have to retro-fit vehicles to meet accessibility requirements unless you wish to continue to run them on a local or scheduled service beyond the date from which all vehicles in such use must comply. Take a look at our table to see which standards apply to which vehicles.

The requirements
The requirements include:

• space for a wheelchair, with suitable safety provisions depending on whether the wheelchair is carried facing forwards or backwards
• a boarding device to enable wheelchair users to get on and off vehicles
• priority seats for disabled passengers
• criteria for steps
• handrails to assist disabled people
• visual contrast of features such as handrails and steps to help partially Sighted people
• easy-to-use bell pushes throughout the vehicle
• audible and visible signals to stop a vehicle or to request a boarding device
• external equipment to display the correct route and destination

https://movingon.blog.gov.uk/accessibility-standards-for-public-service-vehicles/

Theres an interesting table in that gov blog but Tbh though mate its beyond my knowledge of the Equality act 2010 (which is limited to access into and around buildings), I'm out on a limb with it.

 

[Haggisman]

I don't give two hoots about equality, so I cannot really comment on that.

Why are you arguing in a thread which is essentially about equality then?

That isn't equality in any way shape or form. The number of disabled bus users will be absolutely tiny compared to every other user and all you would be doing is discriminating against them. I have been on a bus a handful of times in my life with a disabled user yet have sat with thousands of elderly users in that same period.

They wouldn't be able to use the bus if there was not seating for them.

So where do you draw the line?

A group of 3 wheelchair bound friends would be unable to take the bus together in the same way as a group of 3 non-disabled friends, so there isn't the same provision for them. That in itself is discriminatory - it may be perfectly within the legal bounds of the DDA, but that's not necessarily the same thing.

The only real way to make it completely non-discriminatory would be for every seat to have the ability to fold up and be converted to a wheelchair space. Unfortunately that would then mean there would only be space for about 10 seats on the bus, and the fare would (at least) double for everyone!

 

[Burnsy2023]

Without trying to appeal to authority. when I was the Ops Director for a large public transport company, the T&Cs reflected the DoT guidelines to the letter. "A Driver could and should ask a passenger or passengers to vacate the area for a wheelchair but the passengers were not obliged to move and neither could the driver force them to."

Well, TFL buses do have the bylaws to fall back on.

This is why First Bus are going to the High Court as currently there isn't any legislation that give a driver legally mandated authority to remove a passenger simply because they will not vacate a space designated for the disabled. There needs to be legal clarification.

I think the issue is the ambiguity between DDA obligations and rights of the operator potentially being in conflict and the court figuring out where liability may lay.

 

[Amp34]

You're not bringing science into it. As I said, there is no scientific consensus on when life begins, which is why the abortion limits vary from country to country.

Yet UK scientific advice is 24 weeks... The problem is there is so much religious entanglement (even if it is latent religious feeling) in this that many countries don't follow scientific advice... Generally scientific advice is fairly clear, give or take a few weeks. Unfortunately the protestors (generally religious) get involved and the scientific advice is watered down.

A prime example is the variation in the states in the US. Some of the most religious States have, to all intents and purposes, a ban on abortion, whereas the more progressive less religious states have a limit very similar to that in the UK.

The difficulty with all these limits is separating the science form the religious element.

Either way that was not the only part of the point. The difference between a baby/infant, fetus and embryo is also pretty clear, which Jbod did not appear to understand.

 

[Amp34]

Mate, his post suggested nothing of the sort. You totally crow-barred your irrelevant point into the thread.

We get it; you're not a parent and you suffer from jealousy of parents. whatever - you've made your choice.

edit: it appears I mixed up two posts I made. The post you were referring to was in response to Jbods rant about how hard it is to be a parent and how they should have special circumstances, apparently over and above the disabled. He doesn't seem to realise he made a choice to have a child and if that choice inconveniences him that is his problem, not the person that had no choice to be in a wheelchair.

I'm then suggesting that part of the problem is that many people don't actually think properly before they decide to have a child, knowing, in part that the state will sort it out even if they can't.

Most young professionals I know discussed with their partners whether it was time and whether they had the money, then made a conscious decision to have a child. Many people in the UK do not appear to do this.

 

[cheesyboy]

I apologise for you not being able to read then. It appears society has failed you too, along with the man in the wheelchair.

Seriously: go back and read it. He was talking about a mixture of abortion and adoption. You've just totally gone off on one.

 

[JBod]

I am still lolling at the sociopathic notion abortion or putting a child up for adoption is a simple thing that you do just to get rid of the inconvenience. You know like having to clean your shoe after stepping in dog poop.

Also that having children is a "life style choice".

Utterly moronic.

 

[ElliorR]

The simplest solution would be to have handles on the backs of buses.