Wheelchair Spaces on Trains

[vrbarreto]

In light of this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38663322

A disabled man has won a Supreme Court case after a dispute with a woman with a buggy over wheelchair space on a bus.
It means bus drivers will have to do more to accommodate wheelchair users.

Wheelchair user Doug Paulley brought his case after he was refused entry to a FirstGroup bus in 2012, when a mother with a pushchair refused to move.

First Bus said the ruling meant drivers would not have to remove customers from its vehicles, while Mr Paulley said the ruling would make "a major difference".

The court said the company should consider further steps to persuade non-wheelchair users to move, without making it a legal duty to move them.....

and buses, what is the policy on the railway? For example if a train is packed as the one I wanted to catch this morning with people standing in the wheelchair area, would they be expected to vacate the train and allow the wheelchair user on?

Who would enforce such a policy? The driver on board DOO? or the Onboard Supervisor when/if they come into being? Or would it be the platform staff?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In light of this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38663322

and buses, what is the policy on the railway? For example if a train is packed as the one I wanted to catch this morning with people standing in the wheelchair area, would they be expected to vacate the train and allow the wheelchair user on?

No, and they aren't expected to on a bus either, simply to move them and their stuff out of the wheelchair area so far as is possible. If there is physically no room on the train for the wheelchair to fit, then the wheelchair user can't board, and this judgement does not change that. (The complainant wants that, but that isn't what he got).

A train is also different in that the wheelchair area is not the only location where it is safe and legal for a wheelchair passenger to travel, though obviously in the door vestibule is not ideal.

 

[LowLevel]

Incorrect Neil. The railway byelaws make it an offence to occupy any area of the train marked for a specific user, in this case the wheelchair space is so marked, and wheelchair users *should* only be carried in the designated area on board trains, among other things to allow a safe refuge in an emergency, unless they predate specific provision.

Breach of the bylaws is breach of the conditions of travel which on top of being a criminal offence renders you liable to be removed from the railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Incorrect Neil. The railway byelaws make it an offence to occupy any area of the train marked for a specific user, in this case the wheelchair space is so marked, and wheelchair users *should* only be carried in the designated area on board trains, among other things to allow a safe refuge in an emergency, unless they predate specific provision.

Breach of the bylaws is breach of the conditions of travel which on top of being a criminal offence renders you liable to be removed from the railway.

Putting luggage there I would agree - but you would *seriously* make people alight from a train that was crush-loaded throughout for a wheelchair user to board?

Is that particular Byelaw strict liability? If not, I doubt there would ever be a conviction - it's come back to the idea that if the railway wants to keep the wheelchair area spare on a crush-loaded train, they would need to put a barrier around it to prevent a crush-load getting forced into it.

If it is strict liability, add it to the list of strict-liability railway offences I would like to see repealed.

 

[LowLevel]

I can only tell you what I'm trained as a guard - if it's crush loaded I can refuse everyone, but it would have to be everyone.

It is a fact though that trains have ratings for numbers of wheelchairs able to be carried and this directly correlates to spaces available.

 

[NSEFAN]

Putting luggage there I would agree - but you would *seriously* make people alight from a train that was crush-loaded throughout for a wheelchair user to board?

Is that particular Byelaw strict liability? If not, I doubt there would ever be a conviction - it's come back to the idea that if the railway wants to keep the wheelchair area spare on a crush-loaded train, they would need to put a barrier around it to prevent a crush-load getting forced into it.

If it is strict liability, add it to the list of strict-liability railway offences I would like to see repealed.

If a train is crush loaded then nobody would be able to board, wheelchair or not. If the wheelchair space is occupied by luggage however then this should be dealt with IMHO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can only tell you what I'm trained as a guard - if it's crush loaded I can refuse everyone, but it would have to be everyone.

So, let's say you have a crush-loaded 2-car Class 150 train at a platform with 4 able bodied passengers and one wheelchair waiting. The 4 able bodied passengers can probably just about squash in, one against each door, by pushing the crowd back a bit.

What do you do? Refuse them all? Do you physically prevent the 4 from boarding? How do you propose to do this?

Or don't you get that round by you? That kind of crush-load is common scenario down South every day...

 

[AlterEgo]

Incorrect Neil. The railway byelaws make it an offence to occupy any area of the train marked for a specific user

They don't quite say that:

19. Classes of accommodation, reserved seats and sleeping berths

Except with permission from an authorised person, no person shall remain in
any seat, berth or any part of a train where a notice indicates that it is
reserved for a specified ticket holder or holders of tickets of a specific class,
except the holder of a valid ticket entitling him to be in that particular place.

It is clear that specific byelaw refers to passengers in the wrong reserved seats, berths, or class.

A wheelchair space is not marked as being for a *specific user*.

I would like to see this byelaw clarified in light of today's judgement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If a train is crush loaded then nobody would be able to board, wheelchair or not. If the wheelchair space is occupied by luggage however then this should be dealt with IMHO.

I agree luggage should be removed, certainly. Bicycles are possibly also relevant, but shouldn't be, as there should be cycle restrictions on any train that normally gets so busy you wouldn't have the footprint of a wheelchair spare (as that's all you need to get them on - those in the vestibule get off, wheelchair into wheelchair space, everyone gets back on).

 

[vrbarreto]

I agree luggage should be removed, certainly. Bicycles are possibly also relevant, but shouldn't be, as there should be cycle restrictions on any train that normally gets so busy you wouldn't have the footprint of a wheelchair spare (as that's all you need to get them on - those in the vestibule get off, wheelchair into wheelchair space, everyone gets back on).

There's also buggies and babies/children in them.. As in the bus case would those passengers be expected to alight the train and wait for the next one if a wheelchair user needed the space that was taken up by them? Who would do the 'naming and shaming' of the passengers if they refused to comply as has been stated in the bus case?

 

[LowLevel]

I think Byelaw 13 (1) ii is the one used. I'm on a phone so copy and paste is somewhat cumbersome.

(1) No person shall enter or remain on any part of the railway where there is a notice: (i) (ii) prohibiting access; or indicating that it is reserved or provided for a specified category of person only, except where he belongs to that specified category.

I don't do prosecutions though so I may be wrong on the specifics but it is the reason railway wheelchair spaces specify wheelchair rather than wheelchair and buggy.

I'll answer the rest later when I have a bit more time!

 

[al78]

I agree luggage should be removed, certainly. Bicycles are possibly also relevant, but shouldn't be, as there should be cycle restrictions on any train that normally gets so busy you wouldn't have the footprint of a wheelchair spare (as that's all you need to get them on - those in the vestibule get off, wheelchair into wheelchair space, everyone gets back on).

I thought bicycles were banned from peak time trains going too and from London. Travelling from London at peak time, a cyclist would very likely be prevented from passing beyond the barrier with a full size bike unless there somehow was a way of bypassing the barrier without being challenged. It is different for trains travelling to London in the morning peak, as some stations don't have barriers or have ineffective ones (Redhill).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think Byelaw 13 (1) ii is the one used. I'm on a phone so copy and paste is somewhat cumbersome.

(1) No person shall enter or remain on any part of the railway where there is a notice: (i) (ii) prohibiting access; or indicating that it is reserved or provided for a specified category of person only, except where he belongs to that specified category.

I don't do prosecutions though so I may be wrong on the specifics but it is the reason railway wheelchair spaces specify wheelchair rather than wheelchair and buggy.

I'll answer the rest later when I have a bit more time!

I thought that the wheelchair space meant wheelchair users had priority, so anyone standing there has to move if a wheelchair user requires that space. There is nothing to stop anyone standing or sitting in that space if there are no wheelchair users (or storing a bicycle there as wheelchair spaces double up as cycle storage spaces).

 

[AlterEgo]

I think Byelaw 13 (1) ii is the one used. I'm on a phone so copy and paste is somewhat cumbersome.

(1) No person shall enter or remain on any part of the railway where there is a notice: (i) (ii) prohibiting access; or indicating that it is reserved or provided for a specified category of person only, except where he belongs to that specified category.

I don't do prosecutions though so I may be wrong on the specifics but it is the reason railway wheelchair spaces specify wheelchair rather than wheelchair and buggy.

I'll answer the rest later when I have a bit more time!

Ah yes, that looks more relevant.

Still, I expect that byelaw will be clarified in the wake of today's judgement.

 

[robertclark125]

Actually, I can tell you, wheelchair users are banned from the Fife Circle loco hauled trains, this coming to light after one such user got to travel on the 07:36 Cardenden - Edinburgh, and had to go in the guards van. The timetable doesn't make that clear however.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually, I can tell you, wheelchair users are banned from the Fife Circle loco hauled trains, this coming to light after one such user got to travel on the 07:36 Cardenden - Edinburgh, and had to go in the guards van. The timetable doesn't make that clear however.

Is that legal?

 

[vrbarreto]

Is that legal?

I would think so.. especially on 'heritage' stock.

Also having a look here:

http://www.westcoastrailways.co.uk/disability-policy.cfm


Conveyance in guards van.. no special adaptations..

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would think so.. especially on 'heritage' stock.

Also having a look here:

http://www.westcoastrailways.co.uk/disability-policy.cfm

Conveyance in guards van.. no special adaptations..

No, I meant is it legal to ban them? I guess the issue with passengers in the van these days is non-CDL doors?

 

[najaB]

Actually, I can tell you, wheelchair users are banned from the Fife Circle loco hauled trains...

I doubt, legally, that they can be banned. However the TOC can make it clear that there are no special adaptations available and advise against travel on that service.

 

[LowLevel]

Is that legal?

It probably is now. I doubt they'd be allow to travel in the parcels van normally owing to a lack of central door locking. Most loco hauled or HST sets contain a modified coach with a wheelchair space in it. I would imagine the next service is offered or a taxi is provided. That is what happens when for example wheelchair spaces become unavailable due to a door fault.

As for your earlier question about crush loaded trains, I certainly do work them (try the 1741 Manchester Oxford Rd to Liverpool for an example or any Saturday Robin Hood line train running up to Christmas late morning/early afternoon) and the answer is I'd weigh it up. What I've posted is what the policy etc says.

In practice like all things I'd weigh up how the wheelchair user felt and behaved, how the other passengers felt, whether to appeal to their good nature etc.

If both sides dug their heals in it would likely end up being difficult.

As for allowing the wheelchair space to be used when it's not in use for things like cycles and luggage, we generally have a policy not to. It causes delays removing it when you try to board an unexpected wheelchair user (trying to contact the owner can be hard) and you run the risk of suddenly having a pile of luggage that you can't carry on a busy train if there's no other storage available with the attendant risk of having to chuck it off. People just getting on and dumping stuff there is a pain as a mountain usually accumulates quickly.

 

[Antman]

As in the bus case would those passengers be expected to alight the train and wait for the next one if a wheelchair user needed the space that was taken up by them?

There was nothing in the judgement that required anyone already on the bus to get off.

The judgement said that if people not in a wheelchair were occupying a space needed by a wheelchair user, then if they didn't need to be in that space the bus company should have a policy to get them to move.

However it importantly said that if a non-wheelchair user could not move for some reason, the bus company shouldn't be required to force them to move.

So a crush loaded train with the wheelchair space full. The train company doesn't have to do anything as there is nowhere else to go.

Luggage in the wheelchair space. Again move it to there is somewhere to move it to, otherwise no need to do anything.

Bike in the space. Again move it if there is somewhere to move it to, otherwise no need to do anything.

The judgement is simply common sense. If the bus driver could do something, they should. If they can't, then they don't have to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for allowing the wheelchair space to be used when it's not in use for things like cycles and luggage, we generally have a policy not to. It causes delays removing it when you try to board an unexpected wheelchair user (trying to contact the owner can be hard) and you run the risk of suddenly having a pile of luggage that you can't carry on a busy train if there's no other storage available with the attendant risk of having to chuck it off. People just getting on and dumping stuff there is a pain as a mountain usually accumulates quickly.

Agreed, though at Northern much of your Class 14x and 15x stock has dedicated cycle/large luggage accommodation so there's no need. On a lot of newer stock it is multipurpose space rather than dedicated space.

Edit: EMT, not Northern, oops I guess it stands there, too.

 

[route:oxford]

The judgement is simply common sense. If the bus driver could do something, they should. If they can't, then they don't have to.

Indeed.

So essentially the only real option for bus drivers, if a non-wheelchair passenger refuses to move to accommodate a wheelchair passenger, is to dial 999 and wait for the Police.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed.

So essentially the only real option for bus drivers, if a non-wheelchair passenger refuses to move to accommodate a wheelchair passenger, is to dial 999 and wait for the Police.

Who on arrival will do nothing, as the occupier of the wheelchair space is not committing an offence.

 

[najaB]

Who on arrival will do nothing, as the occupier of the wheelchair space is not committing an offence.

They are if they don't leave the bus when requested to do so.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

One big difference between buses and trains is that buses don't have "off-peak only" tickets. A train might be crush loaded if it's the last one that someone with an off-peak ticket can use without having to wait a couple of hours for the peak to be over

 

[sheff1]

One big difference between buses and trains is that buses don't have "off-peak only" tickets.

Oh yes they do https://ticketing.networkwestmidlands.com/Home/ShowTicket/640001

 

[Antman]

They are if they don't leave the bus when requested to do so.

And on what basis will the police be asking someone to get off the bus (assuming they are not exhibiting any behaviour that would get them arrested whether or not they were on a bus).

 

[najaB]

And on what basis will the police be asking someone to get off the bus (assuming they are not exhibiting any behaviour that would get them arrested whether or not they were on a bus).

No, I think I wasn't clear - the offence was committed when they didn't move when requested to by the driver. Doubly so if the driver then requested them to leave the bus.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990

The conduct of passengers

6.—(1) No passenger on a vehicle shall–
...
(b)put at risk or unreasonably impede or cause discomfort to any person travelling on or entering or leaving the vehicle, or a driver, inspector, conductor or employee of the operator when doing his work on the vehicle;
...
(k)remain on the vehicle, when directed to leave by the driver, inspector or conductor on the following grounds–

(ii)that he has been causing a nuisance; or

 

[Antman]

No, I think I wasn't clear - the offence was committed when they didn't move when requested to by the driver. Doubly so if the driver then requested them to leave the bus.

In the judgement the court determined that the bus driver only had to make an effort to move someone from the wheelchair space if there was somewhere they could move to. If there wasn't, the wheelchair user didn't trump the existing passenger.

So firstly what part of "put at risk or unreasonably impede or cause discomfort to any person travelling on or entering or leaving the vehicle" or "that he has been causing a nuisance" has taken place when the driver asked the passenger in the wheelchair space without actually establishing why they were there?

Then secondly, if there is nowhere else to move, why would the driver ask them to get off?

 

[najaB]

In the judgement...

The question as posed by Neil Williams was what legal basis would there be for police to remove the passenger *if* they were called. This would be the basis.

I'm not the one making the claim that the driver would call the police in the first place.