Wheelchair bus case

SingleSue

vivatifosi wrote: »

I don't understand why public transport has been so slow to make adjustments that have been made in public spaces such as shops, plus in houses, for years. Offices, shops, museums, libraries... all need ramps or lifts installed to ensure equality of access.

Why is it that new houses have had to be disabled friendly since about the 90s, but not new buses? Whole fleets have been replaced over that time, a missed opportunity.

In our town we have the weird combination of lovely ramps to get into some of the shops but once in them, not being able to move anywhere because some dufus of a shop manager has put display boxes/materials in the aisles making it impossible to actually go around the shop with a wheelchair! Or a local train where there is a wheelchair space but the train is so old and knackered that you can't get the wheelchair through the carriage door without a battle as it got stuck in a slightly closed position years ago.

Mojisola

lisyloo wrote: »

I'm confused. The wheelchair area is an open space with no seats - for a wheelchair, buggy or if empty it often contains luggage.

By definition there are no seats in it.

Our buses have fold-down seats in the wheelchair space so they are available for use if there aren't any wheelchairs or buggies on the bus.

lisyloo

A lot of our buses have wheelchair spaces which have fold up seats, so if you have a buggy you can sit with the child, if you have a wheelchair your carer can sit with you, if you have a disability but no wheelchair then you can fold the seat down and sit in the space etc. In other words, they are multi purpose.

Ah I see - thanks.
Whichever design you have we can't have infinite capacity.
So in certain situations there will be congestion whether it's everybody or a certain type of passenger.
Unfortunately there need to be clear rules (enforced by law) about who has priority because unfortunately we can't rely on everyone being nice.

I don't think design can solve the issue because we can never have infinite capacity to always avoid contention - certainly not in London where full buses/trains are the norm (one day I watched 5 full 243's go past me at Aldwych).

but was just saying that we have at times had to fold up the wheelchair to enable us to continue to travel

I don't think it's reasonable to expect wheelchair users to be manhandled by either a bus driver or a member of the public and some bus drivers may be physically unable to lift the heavier passenger, so whilst you might find it helps sometimes, it not should be part of the formal rules.

In our town we have the weird combination of lovely ramps to get into some of the shops but once in them, not being able to move anywhere because some dufus of a shop manager has put display boxes/materials in the aisles making it impossible to actually go around the shop with a wheelchair!

I have a house with a big porch and big cloakroom (building regs) but you can't get a wheelchair up the steps !!

Or a local train where there is a wheelchair space but the train is so old and knackered

The world is expected to make reasonable adjustments, not get rid of every old public transport vehicle or knock down every heritage building.

Our buses have fold-down seats in the wheelchair space so they are available for use if there aren't any wheelchairs or buggies on the bus.

Cheers.
I think that's a worse design than having them separate i.e. less total capacity, but the issue remains that we can never have infinite capacity, so we have to deal with issues of contention.

Mojisola

Mojisola wrote: »

Our buses have fold-down seats in the wheelchair space so they are available for use if there aren't any wheelchairs or buggies on the bus.

lisyloo wrote: »

I think that's a worse design than having them separate i.e. less total capacity, but the issue remains that we can never have infinite capacity, so we have to deal with issues of contention.

It gives more capacity and flexibility. If the space isn't being used by a wheelchair user or a buggy, there are four extra seats for mobile passengers to use.

SingleSue

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't think it's reasonable to expect wheelchair users to be manhandled by either a bus driver or a member of the public and some bus drivers may be physically unable to lift the heavier passenger, so whilst you might find it helps sometimes, it not should be part of the formal rules.

The world is expected to make reasonable adjustments, not get rid of every old public transport vehicle or knock down every heritage building.

I don't think it is reasonable either but it has sometimes been something we have had to do, it's not something we have 'enjoyed' or been happy about but we have got on and done it and made do. It would be far too much to expect from a bus driver and in reality, I would be worried about being handled thus by someone who doesn't know how my particular body works...personally, I actually think we are agreeing but I have been rather cack handed in my previous explanations.

Re reasonable adjustments, fixing the door might be nice rather than a whole new train, probably wouldn't take much to be honest or just remove the door entirely (it's an inner carriage door not one that is used to get on or off), it has been stuck like that for years and doesn't close during travel (or any other time)

tincans6

CLAPTON wrote: »

well, maybe , maybe not
I'm reluctant to believe that there are truely over 9 million disabled people in the UK
being registered disable bring financial gain .
I've talked to many doctors about this and they all say that it is very difficult to distinguish between some-one genuinely suffering and one who isn't.

Its profoundly depressing, but not surprising that there is cynicism towards disabled people - and it's not uncommon to see the poisonous attitude that 'they are only in it for the money'.

Half of all (9.6m) disabled people are over 65

There are 1.2 million wheelchair users with 72% being over 60

1.8m people with sight loss

0.9m with dementia.

All in it for the financial gain no doubt.

CLAPTON

tincans6 wrote: »

Its profoundly depressing, but not surprising that there is cynicism towards disabled people - and it's not uncommon to see the poisonous attitude that 'they are only in it for the money'.

Half of all (9.6m) disabled people are over 65

There are 1.2 million wheelchair users with 72% being over 60

1.8m people with sight loss

0.9m with dementia.

All in it for the financial gain no doubt.

in general I believe that
-we as a society should support people who need our help
and
-people respond to incentives
-free money is often subject to fraud
-some people are dishonest
-most policies have unintended consqequences
and
-as I don't discriminate between people due to race, religion, creed, disability, sexual preference, party political allegiance, whether they support 'stay' or 'remain', what sports teams they support etc I therefore am forced to conclude that some people will dishonestly seek to gain advantage from well intended schemes.

maybe you disagree because you do discriminate against registered disabled but that's you.

you seem to have a conceptual difficulty distinguishing between the concept of 'some' and 'all' but if you think about it I'm sure you will master the basic principle.

tincans6

CLAPTON wrote: »

i

maybe you disagree because you do discriminate against registered disabled but that's you.

.

You really should get some fresh air - you are increasingly losing the plot.

You are dubious about the number of disabled people ?

Well go on - give us some numbers then

CLAPTON

tincans6 wrote: »

You really should get some fresh air - you are increasingly losing the plot.

You are dubious about the number of disabled people ?

Well go on - give us some numbers then

I'm glad you have accepted the general principles : I'll leave the detail of this particular situation to others.