Wheelchair-bound peer couldn't board after driver refused to request pushchair moved

[Antman]

When a situation has potential to cause conflict (Like this one ) then they absoloutely cannot.

There is no hard and fast rule, it's up to the driver.

 

[matt_world2004]

There is no hard and fast rule, it's up to the driver.

No in situations of conflict they cannot leave the cab.

 

[otomous]

Just as a vaguely relevant aside, today I witnessed a woman with a pushchair block the back set of doors on a 4 car at least from Streatham Hill where I got on, all the way to London Bridge. It was a huge thing, leaving less than half a doorway for people to use,and she merrily watched while other passengers had to go sideways round her to get on and off, totally oblivious to the inconvenience and delay she was causing. She did not attempt to move to the other side of the train where this would not have happened for the vast majority of the stops, and barely even moved to allow people to even reach the doors. And of course not in the accessible area designed for pushchairs etc. I can well understand why a bus driver might be anxious about requesting someone with a buggy to move.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just as a vaguely relevant aside, today I witnessed a woman with a pushchair block the back set of doors on a 4 car at least from Streatham Hill where I got on, all the way to London Bridge. It was a huge thing, leaving less than half a doorway for people to use,and she merrily watched while other passengers had to go sideways round her to get on and off, totally oblivious to the inconvenience and delay she was causing. She did not attempt to move to the other side of the train where this would not have happened for the vast majority of the stops, and barely even moved to allow people to even reach the doors. And of course not in the accessible area designed for pushchairs etc. I can well understand why a bus driver might be anxious about requesting someone with a buggy to move.

Part of that problem is that it isn't necessarily even vaguely obvious where the space is nor where to wait on the platform for it.

The TOCs really could do better on that one, both in terms of clearly marking it, and in terms of clearly and accurately showing on the PIS precisely where it will stop.

Examples:

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/DACA3Y/s-t...-wheelchair-carriage-in-vesterport-DACA3Y.jpg

https://i0.wp.com/transportingcities.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/img_1589.jpg (but add the missing icons for the multipurpose area, restaurant car etc - the French obviously don't need them as with compulsory reservations you'll already be booked there)

 

[nerd]

No in situations of conflict they cannot leave the cab.

But this was not a situation of conflict; it was a wheelchair user wanting to get on the bus. To presuppose such situations as having 'potential to cause conflict' would be clearly discriminatory against wheelchair users in general - and hence clearly illegal under the Act.

My understanding - though I cannot speak for London - is that it is common practice on driver-only vehicles, for drivers to be prepared to leave the cab to assist wheelchair users in entering or exiting the bus via the ramp.

A few point of clarification;

- my understanding of the Supreme Court judgement is they did not say that a parent who refused to fold an unfolded buggy in a wheelchair space, would be breaking the law. Nor, as I understand it, would the parent be in breach of London Transport byelaws (there are I think none covering bus usage). They would, however, clearly be in breach of the TfL conditions of carriage. These do not allow buggies or trams that are incapable of folding, on the bus at all; and otherwise require foldable buggies in the designated space to be folded should the space be needed to allow a wheelchair user to board the bus.

- but the legal obligation is on the operator, and on the driver; not on the parent. The operator must legally both 'request and require' parents with unfolded buggies to vacate the wheelchair space. But neither the operator nor the driver can 'enforce' the folding of the buggy. The parent who refuses without good reason to fold their buggy is clearly misbehaving, but not breaking any law; nor can they be forced off the bus (unless they compound their misbehaviour in other ways).

- 'Request and require' , as the court adjudged, goes well beyond 'request' only. So the operator must 'request' compliance with the conditions of carriage (with signs on the space, and recorded announcements); but they should also be prepared to 'require' identified individuals to comply with that request. At the minimum that implies that the driver (or other representative of the operator) should assess an individual instance of non-compliance, and inform both the parent and the wheelchair user of their assessment. So, if the parent states that the child in the buggy is in fact disabled as well; or if the parent is otherwise concerned that the buggy cannot be safely folded and stored on the bus, the driver should pay attention to this and respond by stating their own considered conclusions. What they cannot do is assume the incapability of the parent to fold the buggy without seeking clarification of their refusal.

 

[AlterEgo]

But this was not a situation of conflict; it was a wheelchair user wanting to get on the bus. To presuppose such situations as having 'potential to cause conflict' would be clearly discriminatory against wheelchair users in general - and hence clearly illegal under the Act.

The conflict was not between the driver and the wheelchair user but potentially between the driver and the owner of the buggy, if that makes sense.

My understanding - though I cannot speak for London - is that it is common practice on driver-only vehicles, for drivers to be prepared to leave the cab to assist wheelchair users in entering or exiting the bus via the ramp.

AIUI, they are not supposed to leave the cab to argue with passengers or sort out incidents of conflict in the passenger saloon.

- my understanding of the Supreme Court judgement is they did not say that a parent who refused to fold an unfolded buggy in a wheelchair space, would be breaking the law. Nor, as I understand it, would the parent be in breach of London Transport byelaws (there are I think none covering bus usage). They would, however, clearly be in breach of the TfL conditions of carriage. These do not allow buggies or trams that are incapable of folding, on the bus at all; and otherwise require foldable buggies in the designated space to be folded should the space be needed to allow a wheelchair user to board the bus.

- but the legal obligation is on the operator, and on the driver; not on the parent. The operator must legally both 'request and require' parents with unfolded buggies to vacate the wheelchair space. But neither the operator nor the driver can 'enforce' the folding of the buggy. The parent who refuses without good reason to fold their buggy is clearly misbehaving, but not breaking any law; nor can they be forced off the bus (unless they compound their misbehaviour in other ways).

- 'Request and require' , as the court adjudged, goes well beyond 'request' only. So the operator must 'request' compliance with the conditions of carriage (with signs on the space, and recorded announcements); but they should also be prepared to 'require' identified individuals to comply with that request. At the minimum that implies that the driver (or other representative of the operator) should assess an individual instance of non-compliance, and inform both the parent and the wheelchair user of their assessment. So, if the parent states that the child in the buggy is in fact disabled as well; or if the parent is otherwise concerned that the buggy cannot be safely folded and stored on the bus, the driver should pay attention to this and respond by stating their own considered conclusions. What they cannot do is assume the incapability of the parent to fold the buggy without seeking clarification of their refusal.

This is exactly my reading of the situation also, and why it is clear, in my mind that saying "You can't come on, I'm not asking him to move the buggy, you must get the next bus" is both discriminatory and wrong.

 

[matt_world2004]

But this was not a situation of conflict; it was a wheelchair user wanting to get on the bus. To presuppose such situations as having 'potential to cause conflict' would be clearly discriminatory against wheelchair users in general - and hence clearly illegal under the Act.

My understanding - though I cannot speak for London - is that it is common practice on driver-only vehicles, for drivers to be prepared to leave the cab to assist wheelchair users in entering or exiting the bus via the ramp.
.

Getting out of a cab because a parent refuses to move their pushchair from the wheelchair area would be a situation of conflict, Getting out of the cab to help a parent fold their pushchair or helping a wheelchair user board would not.

 

[nerd]

Getting out of a cab because a parent refuses to move their pushchair from the wheelchair area would be a situation of conflict, Getting out of the cab to help a parent fold their pushchair or helping a wheelchair user board would not.

Thanks for the clarification matt.

I agree that the driver cannot be required to get out of the cab to argue with the parent, if the parent refuses to comply with the direction of the driver that their supposed justification for not vacating the wheelchair space is not reasonable within the conditions of carriage.

But it is not 'arguing' with a miscreant to point out that their actions (or inactions) amount to misbehaviour, requiring them to desist. It should be assumed that responsible passengers will mend their ways without demur, once their misbehaviour is pointed out to them.

Where the operator, and driver, would be on dodgy ground would be if they were to presuppose all occasions 'requiring' misbehaviour by buggy users against wheelchairs users to stop, as potential occasions of conflict. Consequently dodging their legal obligations. If applied to the instance of a wheelchair user wanting to board the bus, that would be clearly discriminatory; as you would not be applying the same criteria to non-wheelchair users also wanting to board. One point at the core of the case before the Supreme Court was that applying a distinction 'on the bus' and 'off the bus' was discriminatory; as able bodied persons can get on the bus anyway, but wheelchair users can only get on if a designated space is available. The law bars operators from adopting practices that would rate carrying wheelchair users as inherently more 'troublesome' of 'conflictual' than carrying non-wheelchair users.

Of course delivering the message; 'your behaviour is unacceptable within the conditions of carriage and you should stop' without risking an argument or creating a circumstance of conflict, is a social skill that operators should be expected to train and support their drivers in aplying. But just because it needs training to do it effectively does not let the operator off the hook.

 

[Antman]

Getting out of a cab because a parent refuses to move their pushchair from the wheelchair area would be a situation of conflict, Getting out of the cab to help a parent fold their pushchair or helping a wheelchair user board would not.

It's at the drivers discretion when they leave the cab.

 

[Antman]

Just as a vaguely relevant aside, today I witnessed a woman with a pushchair block the back set of doors on a 4 car at least from Streatham Hill where I got on, all the way to London Bridge. It was a huge thing, leaving less than half a doorway for people to use,and she merrily watched while other passengers had to go sideways round her to get on and off, totally oblivious to the inconvenience and delay she was causing. She did not attempt to move to the other side of the train where this would not have happened for the vast majority of the stops, and barely even moved to allow people to even reach the doors. And of course not in the accessible area designed for pushchairs etc. I can well understand why a bus driver might be anxious about requesting someone with a buggy to move.

A bus driver has no need to be anxious about it, they just put on the pre recorded message asking for the wheelchair bay to be vacated. If the person occupying the wheelchair bay is unable or unwilling to move there is nothing more that the driver can do.

 

[matt_world2004]

It's at the drivers discretion when they leave the cab.

No its not they cannot leave the cab when there is conflict (p90 big red book)

 

[nerd]

No its not they cannot leave the cab when there is conflict (p90 big red book)

The question is; when can they anticipate conflict; and can they use an anticipation of conflict as an excuse not to exercise their legal obligation to inform misbehaving buggy users personally of their requirement to vacate the wheelchair space? It they do, they are breaking the law, whatever the big red book says,

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why can they not inform them via the PA? All iBus fitted buses have a manual PA as well.

 

[nerd]

A bus driver has no need to be anxious about it, they just put on the pre recorded message asking for the wheelchair bay to be vacated. If the person occupying the wheelchair bay is unable or unwilling to move there is nothing more that the driver can do.

Nope S.G.

Playing a general pre-recorded message is not enough. They must also personally confirm from of the person refusing to vacate that they have good reasons for their refusal. And if the reasons are not good, they must tell the parent so.

 

[matt_world2004]

The question is; when can they anticipate conflict; and can they use an anticipation of conflict as an excuse not to exercise their legal obligation to inform misbehaving buggy users personally of their requirement to vacate the wheelchair space? It they do, they are breaking the law, whatever the big red book says,

They can inform over the pa no need to get out of the cab. The driver can speak.directly over the pa.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why can they not inform them via the PA? All iBus fitted buses have a manual PA as well.

Indeed, and I believe this was an iBus; a RouteMaster.

It is not clear from Sal Brinton's comments whether a PA announcement was played, but as nerd as observed, this alone is not enough in the eyes of the law.

 

[nerd]

Why can they not inform them via the PA? All iBus fitted buses have a manual PA as well.

No reason not; but if that does not work, they must do more. The likelihood is that a parent who refuses to vacate the buggy space can only be personally assessed by the driver if the driver vacates the cab.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No reason not; but if that does not work, they must do more. The likelihood is that a parent who refuses to vacate the buggy space can only be personally assessed by the driver if the driver vacates the cab.

The parent can be asked via the PA to come forward and speak to the driver while safely behind the attack screen, with a statement that the bus will not leave until he/she does so.

 

[nerd]

The parent can be asked via the PA to come forward and speak to the driver while safely behind the attack screen, with a statement that the bus will not leave until he/she does so.

Would seem possible; but unlikely that the parent would comply with the request as it would imply leaving their buggy and child. Moreover. if it is a matter of difficulty folding an occupied buggy with shopping, it may well be that a compliant parent would need the driver's help.

Is there 2-way communication with the wheelchair space?

 

[AlterEgo]

Would seem possible; but unlikely that the parent would comply with the request as it would imply leaving their buggy and child. Moreover. if it is a matter of difficulty folding an occupied buggy with shopping, it may well be that a compliant parent would need the driver's help.

Is there 2-way communication with the wheelchair space?

In this particular instance, the parent didn't seem to be standing with the buggy, as Brinton said she could see the buggy but not the parent (though he was identified as a "father", so I am not sure how she knew the gender of the parent). It may even have been the case that the buggy was not able to be folded, and was empty, or had shopping inside it rather than a child. Who knows!

In most cases of course the parent stands with the buggy.

 

[BestWestern]

It's sounding increasingly like a Monty Python sketch!

 

[nerd]

take a parallel case, without their being a wheelchair involved.

A parent gets on a bus with a child in a buggy, sits child on seat and leaves the buggy (plus shopping) unfolded in the wheelchair space.

Then another parent with child in buggy gets on the bus. The driver requests the first parent to fold their buggy, and put it in the luggage space. The first parent says that is impossible, as there are already someone else's bags are in the luggage space, and the buggy might crush them.

In that circumstance, the driver would (in my view) be expected to leave the cab to sort out whether the first buggy can be safely stored, if necessary by requiring the owners of the other bags to carry them on their laps. With goodwill all round; no problem.

What they would not be justified in doing (in my view) would be to order the second parent and child off the bus; because asking the owners of the bags in the luggage space to remove them, might result in 'argument' or 'conflict'. So why would you assume a potential for conflict if the person wanting to board is in a wheelchair?

You should not allow standard procedures to be implemented in a way that could create disguised discrimination against wheelchair users.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that is impossible, because wheelchair users cannot travel in a seat.

 

[nerd]

In this particular instance, the parent didn't seem to be standing with the buggy, as Brinton said she could see the buggy but not the parent (though he was identified as a "father", so I am not sure how she knew the gender of the parent). It may even have been the case that the buggy was not able to be folded, and was empty, or had shopping inside it rather than a child. Who knows!

In most cases of course the parent stands with the buggy.

The driver should know who the buggy parent was.

 

[nerd]

But that is impossible, because wheelchair users cannot travel in a seat.

Sorry can you explain that point further. Why should that be a relevant factor?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Perhaps things are different in London, but I've been travelling a lot by bus recently around Bristol and South Yorkshire and I've seen drivers leap out of their cabs to help disabled and buggy-users

Out in the provinces, most ramps have to be manually deployed by the driver. It's different in London, it's mechanically deployed from the comfort of the cab.

There's also more room on provincial buses, as they don't have that second door, which always helps.

As for the use of PA, in conjunction with turning the engine off, it is fairly common when drinking or smoking happens on the bus. The problem is attitude: smoking or drinking on the bus is (rightly) seen as anti-social behaviour, but refusing to move for a wheelchair user is not. Most drivers, IME, don't even bother asking, they just shrug in a way they wouldn't if someone was smoking on the top deck. Ironically, most buggy users would actually move if they were aware they needed to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry can you explain that point further. Why should that be a relevant factor?

Because you are required to make reasonable adjustments.

Making buses have capacity for 56 wheelchairs (say) wouldn't be reasonable.

Unless you do it's not equal, though.

 

[matt_world2004]

take a parallel case, without their being a wheelchair involved.

A parent gets on a bus with a child in a buggy, sits child on seat and leaves the buggy (plus shopping) unfolded in the wheelchair space.

Then another parent with child in buggy gets on the bus. The driver requests the first parent to fold their buggy, and put it in the luggage space. The first parent says that is impossible, as there are already someone else's bags are in the luggage space, and the buggy might crush them.

In that circumstance, the driver would (in my view) be expected to leave the cab to sort out whether the first buggy can be safely stored, if necessary by requiring the owners of the other bags to carry them on their laps. With goodwill all round; no problem.

What they would not be justified in doing (in my view) would be to order the second parent and child off the bus; because asking the owners of the bags in the luggage space to remove them, might result in 'argument' or 'conflict'. So why would you assume a potential for conflict if the person wanting to board is in a wheelchair?

You should not allow standard procedures to be implemented in a way that could create disguised discrimination against wheelchair users.

Thing is the driver cannot leave the cab when there is potential for conflict, they risk dismissal if there is am escalation,if that policy means the the company falls foul of dda regulation thats an issue for the operator/tfl to sort out not the driver.

 

[nerd]

Thing is the driver cannot leave the cab when there is potential for conflict, they risk dismissal if there is am escalation,if that policy means the the company falls foul of dda regulation thats an issue for the operator/tfl to sort out not the driver.

Are you saying then that the driver would not leave the cab in the case I outlined, because of the potential for conflict?

Or that he would leave the cab both in this case, and in the case where a wheelchair user wanted to board?

Or that he would leave the cab where the user boarding had a buggy, but not leave the cab if the user boarding had a wheelchair?

If the latter, then he is breaking the law.

Of course there can be no legal obligation for a driver to risk putting themselves, or their passengers, in harms way. But there would need to be a substantial reason other than that the person wanting to board was disabled, for the driver to believe that there was a potential for conflict in the upcoming situation. You cannot use 'avoiding conflict' as a rationale for avoiding your legal responsibilities.

But just as an instruction from the driver to a passenger to obey the conditoins of carriage not an 'argument; so an action that a passenger may be expected to dislike is not 'conflict'.

 

[nerd]

Because you are required to make reasonable adjustments.

Making buses have capacity for 56 wheelchairs (say) wouldn't be reasonable.

Unless you do it's not equal, though.

The Act does not require provision to be equal; it does require access to that provision to be non-discriminatory.

When non-disabled passengers board a bus that is nearly full; the driver should check to ensure that the legal capacity of the bus is not exceeded. But he then assumes that passengers will then sort out who sits where without conflict; if necessary shifting themselves and their baggage around to do so.

Suppose that a driver refused to allow passengers onto a bus that was not full, but where some passengers on board had placed bags on the seats beside them; stating his rationale that instructing the passengers on board to comply with the conditons of carriage might potentially lead to conflict. I would expect that driver to face disciplinary action.

So refusing to let a wheelchair user on board in counterpart circumstances, citing potential for conflict, would be discriminatory.