|
Post by nickfreckle on Feb 3, 2017 19:40:50 GMT
And put them where? There were three in the bay and one already folded in the rack. Two of them were the type you put small babies in, like a cradle on a wheeled stand if you know the type I mean. the other one was a small stroller. The parent could simply hold it next to them in a folded condition. So two people can hold a baby, a folded base and a top of one of these? (Not the exact same thing, but of a similar type). Where does the top go? Luggage rack is already full with buggy number 4. It's simply not a reasonable to request to make so that one person can get on board. The point I keep trying to make, and it's not anti-wheelchair or people with disabilities, as I have had family that are no longer with us with disabilities and know how hard it is for them, is that there is a fine line between having equal rights and having more rights. The mistake that was made when low-floor kneeling buses first came in to service, is that a lot of companies pitched them as buggy friendly buses. The horse has already bolted on that. If they were pitched as wheelchair friendly buses from the outset, perhaps people's mentalities would be completely different today. I do sympathise with the wheelchair user that can't get on because they bay is full. But then, I also sympathise with the Mum with the buggy or pram and a couple of kids not being able to get on because there is no room, or the commuter that's been waiting in the piddling down rain for more than 20 minutes because a bus has been cut for whatever reason and they can't get on because there are people pressed against the windows it's so full. It happens to all walks of life, all types of people. It's life, it happens - to everybody - and with all things being equal, which is the imperative word here - everybody, has to wait for the next one that has space. But in reality, that's not the case is it? The people that want equality have gone beyond being equal to having more right of travel than anybody else. I happen to know a couple of wheelchair users, and the sad thing is, is that they themselves actually feel embarrassed by this chap taking First to court and think it was completely unnecessary. On another forum I post on (not bus related, but there has been a thread about this issue) there have been anecdotes from plenty of others that have family and friends with disabilities that are also embarrassed by all of this. There can be no other fairer way than first come first served, as has been mentioned by many - because that is THE most equal thing.
|
|
|
Post by nickfreckle on Feb 3, 2017 19:53:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 3, 2017 20:04:42 GMT
The parent could simply hold it next to them in a folded condition. So two people can hold a baby, a folded base and a top of one of these? (Not the exact same thing, but of a similar type). Where does the top go? Luggage rack is already full with buggy number 4. It's simply not a reasonable to request to make so that one person can get on board. The point I keep trying to make, and it's not anti-wheelchair or people with disabilities, as I have had family that are no longer with us with disabilities and know how hard it is for them, is that there is a fine line between having equal rights and having more rights. The mistake that was made when low-floor kneeling buses first came in to service, is that a lot of companies pitched them as buggy friendly buses. The horse has already bolted on that. If they were pitched as wheelchair friendly buses from the outset, perhaps people's mentalities would be completely different today. I do sympathise with the wheelchair user that can't get on because they bay is full. But then, I also sympathise with the Mum with the buggy or pram and a couple of kids not being able to get on because there is no room, or the commuter that's been waiting in the piddling down rain for more than 20 minutes because a bus has been cut for whatever reason and they can't get on because there are people pressed against the windows it's so full. It happens to all walks of life, all types of people. It's life, it happens - to everybody - and with all things being equal, which is the imperative word here - everybody, has to wait for the next one that has space. But in reality, that's not the case is it? The people that want equality have gone beyond being equal to having more right of travel than anybody else. I happen to know a couple of wheelchair users, and the sad thing is, is that they themselves actually feel embarrassed by this chap taking First to court and think it was completely unnecessary. On another forum I post on (not bus related, but there has been a thread about this issue) there have been anecdotes from plenty of others that have family and friends with disabilities that are also embarrassed by all of this. There can be no other fairer way than first come first served, as has been mentioned by many - because that is THE most equal thing. I think you have summed up the situation brilliantly. I read elsewhere that the individual behind this court case is a well known trouble maker and is actually quite capable of walking.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Feb 3, 2017 22:17:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 3, 2017 23:16:19 GMT
Blimey......words really, really fail me. Yes, those links give me exactly the idea The bloke is clearly a nutcase!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 4, 2017 1:11:28 GMT
Blimey......words really, really fail me. Yes, those links give me exactly the idea Obviously a bit unfair judging from a distance but there does appear to be a "heightened sensivity" to what he perceives as injustice, including the size of food portions. No one would want to be confined to a wheelchair but you have to wonder if he has something of a "rail against the world and what it's done to me" issue. I scanned the second article about what he considers to be "illegal" and worthy of fines and I think he's got completely the wrong end of the stick there. Many of those regulations set "parameters" not "absolutes" applicable in every instance that ever occurs. He appears to see no "grey" in the world - it's all black or white, right or wrong, worthy of a fine and punishment or not. Unfortunately the world is grey on a whole range of issues or else it would not work. The alternative is eternal conflict with people killing each other over every minor disagreement. Another alternative to his world view is to have no regulations and few laws meaning someone in his position would probably have few, if any, rights and no recourse to anyone to fix the "wrongs" he experiences.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Feb 4, 2017 1:29:33 GMT
Obviously a bit unfair judging from a distance but there does appear to be a "heightened sensivity" to what he perceives as injustice, including the size of food portions. No one would want to be confined to a wheelchair but you have to wonder if he has something of a "rail against the world and what it's done to me" issue. I scanned the second article about what he considers to be "illegal" and worthy of fines and I think he's got completely the wrong end of the stick there. Many of those regulations set "parameters" not "absolutes" applicable in every instance that ever occurs. He appears to see no "grey" in the world - it's all black or white, right or wrong, worthy of a fine and punishment or not. Unfortunately the world is grey on a whole range of issues or else it would not work. The alternative is eternal conflict with people killing each other over every minor disagreement. Another alternative to his world view is to have no regulations and few laws meaning someone in his position would probably have few, if any, rights and no recourse to anyone to fix the "wrongs" he experiences. Well, Mr. Snoggle, I agree with all of that - you've worded that very fairly. Thing is, with no sense of 'grey' and the way he's carrying on, it's dangerous. It's already been touched on in this forum that the implications from such cases could cause even more disagreements and animosity in seemingly normal situations, where it would have been 'business as usual' before. And, my experience is once certain people get 'a bit of power' they won't stop. Where will it all end? Now, I wouldn't want to be in a wheelchair either, but my brother in law is. Has been since birth due to spina bifida, and I have taken him on buses (once resulting in a nasty showdown in pushchair wars* on the 330 in Green Street - and an even nastier showdown after between pushchair user and the WH driver - who put his foot down and threw them off the bus, never forgotten him for that and still see him regularly on the route). Despite all this, he hates actions like this chap. The way he wants it, is for people to forget he's disabled as much as they can, and just see him as a person doing their thing. They way he views it, is that ordinary people aren't constantly having wars against everyone else and instead finding ways to get on with it. That's what he's done for nearly 40 years. We all know the blame culture is eroding the common sense approach that once existed, and all the time that approach is declining life and issues get more complicated...... * - It's probably lucky I was there. If it was his sister (my wife) it would have been a lot worse........
|
|
|
Post by rambo on Feb 4, 2017 23:35:20 GMT
A big problem is the bloody size of buggies! Mobile shopping trolleys.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Feb 5, 2017 0:56:12 GMT
A big problem is the bloody size of buggies! Mobile shopping trolleys. Just glad the Invacar was declared unsafe ... otherwise sure they would want these on buses. OK, very flippant, but anything to bring up these childhood memories
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 13:28:20 GMT
I'm the claimant. Posting to correct a couple of misapprehensions, but here's my general position: I believe strongly that public transport should be as easy as possible to use for as many people as possible, including people with pushchairs, people with wheelchairs and all other people. I agree that this judgment is unhelpfully unclear and passes the buck onto drivers. My Dad has set up a petition as a result: petition.parliament.uk/petitions/184109I did read somewhere that the man behind this latest court case is quite capable of walking and is just hellbent on confrontation. Whatever you read was incorrect. I wish I was capable of walking onto a bus, but I'm not. I'm a full time wheelchair user and have been since 2001. I have autonomic dysfunction and had a stroke. I need near constant care, and I live in a care home as a result. The mistake that was made when low-floor kneeling buses first came in to service, is that a lot of companies pitched them as buggy friendly buses. The horse has already bolted on that. If they were pitched as wheelchair friendly buses from the outset, perhaps people's mentalities would be completely different today. I agree entirely. There can be no other fairer way than first come first served, as has been mentioned by many - because that is THE most equal thing. There is a difference between equality of treatment and equality of outcome. The reason the law requires service providers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people, and makes no such requirement for any other group including for non-disabled people with pushchairs, is that disabled people need such to have some access to services other people take for granted. I wrote a blog about this: wp.me/p1sWXZ-iv Whilst I'm at it, this is the reason why there is level access and a wheelchair space on British buses: youtu.be/rSyxVE0WnbEI intended that as a pastiche of Wetherspoons' response to a tweet I sent them saying I thought their portion was a little stingy on one visit. They responded by pulling the CCTV, checking precisely how many chips I had eaten and how many minutes had passed before I sent the tweet. They then pulled the waitress in and interviewed her.. I thought this was ridiculous, bombastic, pedantic overkill, so I had a good laugh in a restaurant on holiday taking the pee by meticulously measuring everything in even more ridiculous detail in an attempt to take the mick out of their response. However I am not a comedy writer and so my intended humour has evidently fallen flat. But that's what it's intended to be: a pee-take of Wetherspoons' reaction and not a serious post whatsoever. I am not advocating any such thing. I am pointing out that it is a criminal offence for a bus driver to refuse to allow a wheelchair user onto a bus if the wheelchair space is free. That has been a criminal offence since 2002, and it was reaffirmed in 2016 when the Government conducted a formal consultation on the law in question. The law as it stands is that any bus driver who refuses a wheelchair user access to a bus with a vacant wheelchair space is liable on summary conviction to a criminal record, a fine of up to £500 and an endorsement on their license. That's not something I'm advocating, it is the legal situation as it stands, and has been since 2002. The case that prompted my post was of somebody who was refused access to a bus which had a pushchair space and a wheelchair space, because there was a pushchair already in the pushchair space. The wheelchair space was empty. Once again: the only buggy on board was in the separate buggy space, leaving the wheelchair space free; there were no wheelchair users on board and nothing and nobody in the wheelchair space, but the driver would not let a wheelchair user on as it was his understanding that it is not allowed to have both a pushchair user and a wheelchair user on the bus at the same time. When the wheelchair user made the driver phone his boss, his boss told the wheelchair user and the driver that the wheelchair user must be allowed on board. The driver still refused, took the bus out of service and told all the other passengers that the service was cancelled as a result of the wheelchair user. It is absolutely my contention that in these circumstances the driver should face legal action. Drivers can get speeding tickets, parking tickets and all the rest of it. It is my view that if a driver breaks the law by refusing a wheelchair user access for no good reason when the wheelchair space is free, they should face similar action to if they've been caught speeding or parking incorrectly or whatever. The corollary is that the law also says that the wheelchair space should be considered to be empty if passengers and their effects occupying the wheelchair space can readily and reasonably move to another part of the bus. That is more of a matter of judgment and a whole other can of worms, part of the "shades of grey" issue others have talked about, that needs clarification by lawmakers and bus companies and that places drivers in a difficult position. However whilst I do mention that, my primary point is that it is a criminal offence for a bus driver to refuse a wheelchair user access if the wheelchair space is physically empty and that in general this law should be enforced. Otherwise there's little point in the law. If you disagreed with the law in this point, you had the opportunity to make representations on it in the Government consultation on it last year, and you still have the right to lobby politicians to ask for a change in it now. But as it stands, it is the law, a recently reaffirmed duty under criminal law placed on drivers to allow wheelchair users to access the bus if the wheelchair space is vacant, and I make no apology for my opinion that this should be enforced. I scanned the second article about what he considers to be "illegal" and worthy of fines and I think he's got completely the wrong end of the stick there. Many of those regulations set "parameters" not "absolutes" applicable in every instance that ever occurs. All the lawyers on behalf of both the parties, and all the judges - the recorder at County Court, the three Court of Appeal judges, and the seven Supreme Court judges - have been entirely clear at all points that the Conduct Regulations are directly enforceable law as and of themselves. They are not non-statutory guidance, or a statutory Code of Practice designed to assist in interpreting the law as specified elsewhere - they are directly enforceable criminal laws. An analogue is Part M of the Building Regulations, which is a criminal law duty on builders to make sure they make buildings as accessible to disabled people as possible when they build or modify a building. Then there's Approved Document M, which is statutory guidance as to what building features would be likely to be considered to comply with the obligation in Part M. Approved Document M is not law, it doesn't impart a criminal legal obligation on builders, it is guidance as to what measures would be likely to be considered to satisfy Part M. The legal obligation is Part M of the Building Regulations. The Conduct Regulations are not guidance equivalent to Approved Document M. They are directly applicable criminal law as and of themselves, similar to Part M. Should you find out of benefit, I am happy to pull out the sections of the Recorder's judgment, each of the three Appeal Court justices' judgments, and each of the six Supreme Court justices' judgments (two justices collaborated on one) that states this. Here's a section from Recorder Isaacs' judgment: As for the "chip on his shoulder" and "he doesn't see grey" comments - I think Mik Scarlet says it better than I can. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mik-scarlet/why-disabled-people-arent_b_14547050.html
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 22, 2017 13:36:41 GMT
Interesting to hear your perspective and I'll accept that what I read elsewhere was incorrect.
I do wonder what more you expect to happen though, a driver cannot be expected to turf mother and toddler off the bus if they are unable or unwilling to fold their buggy.
|
|
|
Post by rambo on Feb 22, 2017 19:47:23 GMT
The whole judgement just shows how bloody stupid this country has become.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 2:18:20 GMT
Equalities mean everyone has equal rights, if the bus is full, do we turf off passengers to allow a wheelchair on? Do we turf off buggy users if they refuse to fold the buggy? It is first come first served. Maybe install forklift trucks at bus stops, then buggies or wheelchairs can be put on the roof.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 12:20:45 GMT
I do wonder what more you expect to happen though, a driver cannot be expected to turf mother and toddler off the bus if they are unable or unwilling to fold their buggy. I expect bus companies to do more to make it clear to customers that non-disabled people are required to vacate the wheelchair space when it is required by a disabled person (unless, of course, the bus is full to capacity - in which case the disabled person, like everybody else, can't get on - that supposed issue is a red herring because it affects everybody rather than solely disadvantaging disabled people or buggy users.) Recorder Isaacs said: ... So the answer as to what else could and should be done, to my mind, involves bus companies being more proactive in making it clear from the outset that non-disabled people with pushchairs must vacate the space if needed by a disabled person. This should be made clear in advertising and awareness campaigns, stated by drivers when they get on the bus, and supported by very clear signage. Some bus companies already do this. Lothian buses, for example, had a long-standing policy that non-disabled people with pushchairs would only be permitted to travel on their buses provided the buggy was capable of being folded without having to take it apart; though they have relented a little now that most of their buses have a separate buggy space as well as a wheelchair space. Stagecoach have been entirely clear all along that pushchair users must move because wheelchair users have absolute priority for the space. What I don't think is helpful, practical or fair, however, is the current situation: where (to my mind) some bus companies (especially Firstbus and Arriva) and the Supreme Court judgment has basically foisted the legal obligation onto the beleaguered driver without any significant support from the bus company, by way of awareness raising etc. etc. That makes things worse for everybody - buggy users, wheelchair users, drivers and other passengers - because, to use Recorder Isaacs' terminology, we aren't made aware and "don't know where we are." You may believe it should be FCFS, to which I respectfully disagree, but it isn't, legally speaking. The Conduct Regulations place a criminal sanction on a driver who refuses a wheelchair user access to the wheelchair space If passengers and their effects can readily and easily be moved out of the wheelchair space - as detailed above, this obligation under criminal law has been in place for 15 years. In addition, the Supreme Court has now ruled that drivers are obligated to make absolutely clear to non-disabled people occupying the space that they are required to move. Even before the legal case, both Firstbus and my legal reps (and therefore the judge) were clear that the driver must ask ("in the strongest polite terms", to quote Giles Fearnley, MD of Firstbus) that non-disabled people vacate the space when required by a disabled person. So all parties and both criminal and civil legislation is clear and always has been clear that allocation of the space isn't FCFS. I've seen a photo of one solution in (I think) Zimbabwe - pushchairs and prams were suspended on the front of the bus on large metal hooks...
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 24, 2017 12:53:22 GMT
I do wonder what more you expect to happen though, a driver cannot be expected to turf mother and toddler off the bus if they are unable or unwilling to fold their buggy. I expect bus companies to do more to make it clear to customers that non-disabled people are required to vacate the wheelchair space when it is required by a disabled person (unless, of course, the bus is full to capacity - in which case the disabled person, like everybody else, can't get on - that supposed issue is a red herring because it affects everybody rather than solely disadvantaging disabled people or buggy users.) Recorder Isaacs said: ... So the answer as to what else could and should be done, to my mind, involves bus companies being more proactive in making it clear from the outset that non-disabled people with pushchairs must vacate the space if needed by a disabled person. This should be made clear in advertising and awareness campaigns, stated by drivers when they get on the bus, and supported by very clear signage. Some bus companies already do this. Lothian buses, for example, had a long-standing policy that non-disabled people with pushchairs would only be permitted to travel on their buses provided the buggy was capable of being folded without having to take it apart; though they have relented a little now that most of their buses have a separate buggy space as well as a wheelchair space. Stagecoach have been entirely clear all along that pushchair users must move because wheelchair users have absolute priority for the space. What I don't think is helpful, practical or fair, however, is the current situation: where (to my mind) some bus companies (especially Firstbus and Arriva) and the Supreme Court judgment has basically foisted the legal obligation onto the beleaguered driver without any significant support from the bus company, by way of awareness raising etc. etc. That makes things worse for everybody - buggy users, wheelchair users, drivers and other passengers - because, to use Recorder Isaacs' terminology, we aren't made aware and "don't know where we are." You may believe it should be FCFS, to which I respectfully disagree, but it isn't, legally speaking. The Conduct Regulations place a criminal sanction on a driver who refuses a wheelchair user access to the wheelchair space If passengers and their effects can readily and easily be moved out of the wheelchair space - as detailed above, this obligation under criminal law has been in place for 15 years. In addition, the Supreme Court has now ruled that drivers are obligated to make absolutely clear to non-disabled people occupying the space that they are required to move. Even before the legal case, both Firstbus and my legal reps (and therefore the judge) were clear that the driver must ask ("in the strongest polite terms", to quote Giles Fearnley, MD of Firstbus) that non-disabled people vacate the space when required by a disabled person. So all parties and both criminal and civil legislation is clear and always has been clear that allocation of the space isn't FCFS. I've seen a photo of one solution in (I think) Zimbabwe - pushchairs and prams were suspended on the front of the bus on large metal hooks... We can go over the legal niceties forever more but in the cold light of day if a passenger with a buggy, rightly or wrongly, is unable or unwilling to fold it up or get off what can a driver do?
|
|