BS: Disability legislation

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:09 AM

Sure, any generalisation is open to exceptions, but the essence of legislation is generalisation, and as things stand, far from resolving a problem, this bloody Court has created a discrepancy in the Law. Be helpful, you're not a Pollard - and I was targetting those who are unhelpful. And taking what was a gentle rib in the case of Andy this far is downright obnoxious - there are many wheelchair users who say in their hearts "if only", and precious few who are in that position, not dependent on it. That's because a wheelchair comes with almost as many problems as it solves, narrow doorways, tables too high, transport, you name it - if you don't absolutely have to go there, you don't. And that's not the only problem: equally significant is the deterioration in health because the exercise gained from standing and walking is lost, and that's important.
This is not some malicious fiction, I've seen it and had to act on it, when the prioirty was clear. What has happened, in London at least, is that what was a sensible use of spare space has become an entitlement, simply through usage - the race for the space, when there are more buggies that slots. It's mostly 3 and 4 year-olds, able to walk while mum folds the buggy, but does she ever? Some hope. And then they take a seat, which hasn't been paid for, "health and safety" - even though an older person who is far less able to cope with the bounces and who has paid for his seat has to stand. Sweet, innit?
The old argument for kids under 6 not paying for a seat is because they can sit on a parent's lap. Now that this isn't happening, perhaps it's time to review that thinking...

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: LadyJean
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 12:28 AM

Here in Pittsburgh we have wheelchair accesible buses. The Port Authority of Allegheny County is staffed by fools and drunkards. But they did manage to get that one right.

There's a deal called Access tha helps elderly and disabled people to get around. But they take forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:34 AM

the only way forward. is legislation insisting on disabled peoples civil rights and strict enforcement of the law. they are as marginalised as coloured people were in the early 1970's. and i seem to remember people were just as complacent and 'like it or lump it' in their attitudes in those days.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:25 AM

sorry = you people are wrong as can be. public attitudes to disabled people are negative. this is reflected in government policy.

people don't give their seats up to disabled people. they don't get their kids to give up their seats. they block the pavement and stand around in groups ignoring that they are blocking the pavement to wheelchair users. they are nakedly resentful of any disabled 'privileges' - from parking, government grants, the occasional appearance of disabled artists on tv - most people would prefer disabled people to be completely invisible or non existent.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 02:55 PM

the Vicky Pollard character portrays a small section of society. In another scene, the same actor portrays a man in a wheelchair who is taking the piss having one.

Maybe those introducing her might drag him into their "serious" discussions too?

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 02:45 PM

Tut tut, some more sensitivity is needed hereabouts. I know a number of couples who, between the husband and wife, share a FOLDING WHEELCHAIR. Not all who use a wheelchair are various-plegics-- as we all age, we may be at any point of mobility impairment on a very wide spectrum.

And some users of assistive equipment are strong enough to lift it over our heads in case a fight for space breaks out. (Walkers folded, for example, need space too.). On a plane, the flight attendant adjudicates these battles. On a bus doesn't it fall to the driver?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 02:31 PM

Talking about Vicky Pollards is very much the order of the day

No it isn't, Rahere, sorry. You are painting all young mothers on their own in a very bad light. I know it is a very emotive subject but terms like 'Vicky Pollards' and 'lazy little tarts' are as bad as branding the disabled 'scroungers'. What sort of proportion of these young mothers, or fathers for that matter, would not give up their place for a disabled wheelchair user? I think it would be very few who would not gladly move. You really need to get this in context before you rail against a whole section of society.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 02:18 PM

"Our Chair"?? Chairman or Chairwoman??

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:54 AM

If some of you could have the courtesy to read my first posting, we had a growing network of buses capable of doing the job. The guarantees GAD were given when we were asked to stand aside have proved worthless, and the Law, the European Directive on equality, has not been implimented and has now been denied. Taking it to the Supreme Court is what's happening, but iut'll be slow, and in the mean time the people with real problems are stuffed.
Talking about Vicky Pollards is very much the order of the day, because it is that degree of thoughtlessness which causes this. Wheelchair users often have compromised health, in a way no sensible person would wish.
It's the same bureaucratic nonsense that has seen the Care Quality Commission cock up the GPs risk assessment, and now is taking a further pasting for forcing elderly residents of a failing care home to move at virtually no notice, being taken in their nightclothes into ambulances in the dead of night. When dealing with people with health problems, measure twice and cut once.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:10 AM

Except Richard said take it to the supreme court....

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:24 AM

But the whole reason the case came about was that courtesy, decency and common sense were lacking. Wishing they were present is all well and good and to be encouraged but when they are absent the problem is still there in need of some way of resolving it. I think Richard has it Right: terms and conditions of travel set by the carrier is better than the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: Musket
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:44 AM

Shh. Don't let decency, common sense and public spirited intent flourish. It might get in the way of litigious legal bods cashing in.

Legally enforceable rules eh Bridge? Let the gravy train commence.



Yours sincerely,

A socialist.

🙈🙉🙊

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:58 PM

What the court decided to apply the principle that just because common courtesy requires you to do something that doesn't mean the law requires you to do it. If we want to make it legally obligatory to behave decently towards other people we'd have to change the law.

Or possibly, as Richard suggests, the bus companies already have the power to change their rules.

Stuff about "Vicky Pollards" and "tarts" is just unpleasant nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:16 PM

Perhaps we should remember where the word "bus" came from. Originally it was "omnibus", a Latin word meaning "for all" or "for everyone".

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: bubblyrat
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:15 AM

Anybody who is NOT disabled and has NOT got a wheelchair should be fined £50-00 so that there may be buses that cater SOLELY for disabled people (including the driver).Or how about Gay and Lesbian buses ?? Single -mothers- only buses ? Incontinence buses ?? Buses for people who have a phobia about buses ? Quiet buses ??

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:45 AM

Since almost nobody (apart, of course, from me) seems to have any courtesy or good manners (and in this I naturally include Mither) it seems remarkably obvious that an enforceable solution to give wheelchair users the necessary priority is necessary. And, as I pointed out, there is an easy one. If I am correctly informed Stagecoach apply it (see above).

If there are no wheelchair users there is no problem.

If First Bus choose not to include a term like Stagecoach's in their conditions of carriage, that is a deliberate choice. Shame on them.

The reason it needs to go to the Supreme Court is to get disabled users the access they need when the fully abled will (disgracefully) not voluntarily do so. And remarks like Mither's make that very obvious. Shame on Mither. A magnificent example of a socialist. Not.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:11 AM

I can't recall having seen a wheelchair user on a bus in all the years I've been a bus user, that's not to say it hasn't happened of course, but it's not common - at least in these semi-rural parts. Young mothers on the other hand I see all the time. So far as the bus companies are concerned I can understand why they would probably prefer to keep floor space available on a first come first served basis, for a variety of users. The alternative would be to create dedicated spaces exclusively for wheelchair users, which would seem to be not terribly pragmatic - unless there was an equivalently high take up for such space as there currently is for young mothers with pushchairs or elderly folk with shopping trollies, or indeed standing able bodied passengers unable to get a seat.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:00 AM

The judgement stated that courtesy, good manners and practical solutions should be used rather than arbitrary legal coercion one way or another.

I like this. Mind you, lawyers don't. Most of them would prefer this went to the Supreme Court.






What's a bus?

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:27 PM

I believe that Stagecoach have it in their conditions of carriage that any passenger not in a wheelchair must vacate the wheelchair area on demand from the driver - or get off the bus.

I don't see why the bus company in this case (First Bus) should not (a) do the same and (b) be so required under the Equality Act. If they do not introduce such a term they deserve widespread fury.

I hope this goes to the Supreme Court.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:22 PM

The problem when requesting equality, for some, is that they get equality and then complain. People pay fairs and get no seat because they did not get on the bus lower down the route have to stand. They still pay full fare but get no seat. If that is a woman with a toddler, surelybthe toddler is safer in its chair than being held by the parent who has to stand. So if a pushchair gets a sacd first is it thir fault? Noone is trying to ban wheelchairs. Why ban pushchairs? And why discriminate against parents in place of disabled? I find discrimination bad on any minority or majority. It could be argued that many able bodied folk are discriminated against for not getting a seat they pay for.

Tolerance and understanding is getting less and its worse when one minority singles out another as having more rights.

I would hate being in a wheelchair, dependent on others kindness, but if I had tonbe treated equally as others then I have to accept that. First come first served does not allow me to demand a seat or space

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:28 PM

Although the original case was a dispute between pushchairs and wheelchairs, as I understand it the ruling is that wheelchair users do not have priority over any passenger. It need not be a pushchair blocking the area - it could simply be a perfectly able passenger who just didn't want to move. No pushchair required.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 04:21 PM

I have seen two wheelchairs waiting at a bus stop. Luckily their occupants knew each other and they decided between themselves who should get the first bus and who should wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 03:10 PM

In Juneau, Alaska our buses all have extendable ramps that allow wheeled vehicles onto the buses.

Inside, there is a space on each side where the bench folds against the walls so a wheelchair can be rolled into position and secured by hooks and straps.

I gather that "push chairs" in the UK are what we call 'strollers' in America. Strollers must be folded immediately upon boarding and, generally, the mothers take a seat in the same space that at other times are utilized for wheelchairs. Strollers are, of course, far more numerous than wheelchairs. I have never been present when a wheelchair and a stroller were vying for the same spot.

I have no idea which one would have precedence, in the event. We have half-hour bus service and some stops are not roofed. Either of these passengers could suffer if left in the cold and wet.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:36 PM

What are buses?

Never realised you could get wheelchairs on them without folding them up. You live and learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 12:11 PM

I can see your frustration Rahere but you are being a little unfair. I have twins and when they were little I would have given anything to be able to get them on a bus, fold the trolly and sit with them on my knee. But on my own it was very difficult if not downright impossible at times. I am not a "Vicky Pollard" as you put it and do not expect anything but it would be nice to be given some consideration occasionally and not be tutted at or scorned as a lazy scrounger.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 12:07 PM

a large part of my job is supporting disabled folk getting around in west cumbria. i can assure you that the vast majority of people -including those you may sneeringly dismiss as 'vicky pollards' are considerate and helpful. some people of all types may sit in disabled places and stare off into the middle distance as we try to get wheelchairs on and off but they are a small minority and routinely disapproved of by other passengers. i should also say that bus drivers are unfailingly dead good at trying to get everyone sorted on the bus. maybe we are just lucky or maybe it's a cumbrian thing - but i doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 09:27 AM

"Lazy little Vicky Pollards"???????????

Just a tad class ridden and extremist of you no?

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 09:14 AM

" They are supposed to know the Law and apply it,"

They did

QUOTE
But earlier, judges at the Court of Appeal ruled the "proper remedy" for wheelchair users to get improvements in such cases was to ask parliament.
/QUOTE

Wankers in wigs or wankers on Mudcat?

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:56 AM

I am outraged, because commitments which were made have been whittled away by the vicky Pollards. When I was little, it was prams, and they could not go on buses - and some of the bigger pushchairs nowadays are, frankly, prams. Then, the Maclaren lightweight design of buggy came in, and it became practical to use pushchairs when travelling by bus. But every time, they had to be folded.
The campaign of the disabled in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in a European Directive to allow equal transport rights, which meant the progressive removal of step-accessed buses like the old Routemaster. However, no sooner have we seen these introduced than they get commandeered by lazy little tarts. I am angry to the point of wanting to invert the balance and ask for pushchairs to be banned from buses - and see how they like that. The reason for this is that so many pushchairs are on buses that it is, in my observation, quite unusual for a wheelchair to be able to access the bus without someone either having to fold the buggy (horrors!) or make way.
A person who is wheelchair bound usuablly has secondary health problems resulting from it, and exposure to the rain and cold of winter is more than averagely likely to lead to a serious degradation of their health. A kid, by comparison, can usually stay wrapped, and many times we see the buggy used as a shopping trolley with the kid out taking up a seat, forcing an adult to stand - and that's against the byelaws too.
The change to bus design has, therefore, been undone by an incompetent lawyer and a High Court of Miracles. Te Directive to provide equal transport rights has been flouted. I think I have poportion and that proportion means I'm disgusted with my Nation's own judiciary. They are supposed to know the Law and apply it, and they have not. Wankers in wigs.

Subject: RE: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:06 AM

I think you will find it was a court, impartial and weighing up the evidence that made the judgement.

I would agree that relying on good faith and every person being practical isn't always easy and There are as many single minded Mums as frustrated wheelchair users.

But perhaps others, if they are interested, can look at what you are talking about without your emotive opinion?

wheels within wheels as it were

Subject: BS: Disability legislation
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 06:33 AM

Some good time ago, back when our Chair used to have to chain her wheelchair to buses to get fair play on public transport, I was volunteer accountant for the Greenwich Association of the Disabled. We firstly set up the GadAbout minibus service, which worked and inspired the Dial-a-Ride service. That also worked, and started to embarrass London Transport, as we were doing what they should have been doing, providing public transport for the disabled at the same fare they would pay if they were not. The only difference was that we needed 24 hours notice.
My time with them came to an end when it was agreed that LT would do the same job from their basis. However, they then started letting pushchairs into the spaces when wheelchairs weren't there. Pushchairs, I would remind you, fold. Wheelchairs don't. Babies and young children can sit on laps, and don't pay fares. Wheelchair users don't, and do. And yet we had some little cow take this apart, because she had no heart.
That is how the English Establishment works. Now, where's my chain, there are buses to be stopped.