I can't remember the last time I saw anybody illegally smoking on a bus, it can hardly be compared to somebody being unable to fold a buggy.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Wheelchair-bound peer couldn't board after driver refused to request pushchair moved
- Thread starter Wolfie
- Start date
- Status
I can't remember the last time I saw anybody illegally smoking on a bus, it can hardly be compared to somebody being unable to fold a buggy.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
You are absolutely right there. Especially with my own TOC who appear to take a fetish like pleasure in having different stock and formations as much as they possibly can on pretty much every route. Painting the doors red isn't much help if they're a mile away. Having said that if I can see someone clearly making for a particular door with a buggy or a bike then I know what's occurring. In this case it was more the fact that she COULD have made room but chose to be difficult time and time again. I was travelling as a passenger but in uniform but frankly feared an earful or a Twitter complaint if I intervened.
Also remember the TOCs do the minimum they can get away with, such is the box ticking nature of modern life, cynicism alert.
That'll be like the pre recorded announcements on my train asking people to stand clear of the doors, move down inside, know that CCTV is watching them and have inconsideration for others when using their mobile then? I'd be surprised if they even notice them as they're either swamped by the tide of automatic PAs or lost in their phones/headphones in.
Modern life is like a Python sketch. Common sense departed this station long ago.
Well then they won't take any notice of the driver verbally asking them either.
The Conditions of Carriage for TfL ban both illegal and legal (e-cigs) smoking just the same. So the case is substantially the same. Certain actions that are not actually against the law are prohibited in the Conditions of Carriage, and considered misbehaviour, as they can annoy other passengers or impede their access to travel. Some travellers may object to this "If it isn't illegal, then how can it be misbehaviour?'; in which case the operator should clarify that this is not an attitude consistent with the Conditions of Carriage.
The Supreme Court does not expect the driver to act as 'judge and jury' as these misbehaviours are not unlawful, and you cannot legally be ejected from the bus for doing them.
But the Court did appear to expect bus drivers (unlike tram drivers) to police misbehaviours contrary to the Conditions of Carriage; to inform persons that they are misbehaving, to require them to stop, and if necessary offer to assist them in doing so (as where baggage storage has to be rearranged, or a buggy has to be folded).
A complication that the Court did not I think take note of; might be instructions from the operator to the driver not to leave the cab in circumstances of conflict and argument. Essentially the Court was assuming that the normal processes of give-and-take in finding space for persons on a bus - in the course of which some people are inevitably going to less pleased, and may well express strong objections - will proceed in almost all circumstances without the possibility of conflict arising. Hence potential conflict should not be presumed when wheelchair spaces are required to be vacated.
Last edited:
The Court believes the contrary; that it is part of the function of bus drivers to police misbehaviour under the Conditions of Carriage. And that passengers who are given direct verbal instruction by the driver should usually be expected to comply with them (willingly or not). Which is what they meant by the driver 'requiring' compliance with instructions to vacate wheelchair spaces.
Last edited:
Those of us in the real world know that the court decision is a nonsense and totally unworkable. And what if the person pushing the buggy or indeed the child in it is disabled? I don't suppose anybody has actually thought of that?
Smoking and cycling on railway stations is illegal as is intentionally avoiding paying the correct fare, but it still happens and it always will.
What is realistic and practical dictates what will actually happen in practice.
In the real world, disabled people in general and wheelchair users in particular, need to know that they will have reliable access to bus transport; without discrimination on grounds of disability. This is a daily reality for thousands of people. To propose that these expectations are not realistic or practical, amounts to a declaration that bus services cannot deliver one of their core functions. Bus provision can survive individuals avoiding paying the correct fares. They cannot survive being unable to accommodate both wheelchair users and buggy users.
The Court certainly did consider the possibility of the parent or child in the buggy being disabled; and indeed that was a major consideration in their coming to the decision they did.
The complainant in the case before the Court was arguing that the Passenger Conduct regulations already provider that a bus passenger may not "put at risk or unreasonably impede or cause discomfort to any person travelling on or entering or leaving the vehicle". The complainant proposed that refusing to vacate a designated wheelchair space, when there was space to move to elsewhere on the bus, should be considered necessarily 'unreasonable'. The Court did not accept this; partly because they saw the Regulation as being envisaged as being applied in situations of potential force or conflict; and so inappropriate for general cases of wheelchair access. But also because they considered it unfair to drivers to take away their discretion to allow that in certain instances (as those you mention) not vacating the wheelchair space would be reasonable.
Last edited:
That doesn't make it right or legal.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
The reason you don't see anyone smoking on a bus in London is that notices announcing a possible £1,000 fine were posted in the 1980s: draconian, yes, but effective. A similar penalty for non-compliance in the buggy v wheelchair area would work wonders.
This just gets better and better!
Which do you think is worse, smoking on a bus or denying someone in a wheelchair the opportunity to travel?
There are already railway byelaws around wheelchair spaces and I have yet to come across a situation where someone in a wheelchair was denied travel in similar circumstances.
It should be noted that Sal Brinton boarded the next bus and shared the wheelchair space with a buggy. All the owner had to do was move it out, allow her in, and put the buggy back. Nobody is suggesting that buggies should be allowed to travel, all that is required is a bit of civilised cooperation.
Obviously there is far more space available on trains. I think you meant to say Nobody is suggesting that buggies should <not> be allowed to travel? I agree about civilised cooperation and in most cases that is what happens but inevitably there will be situations where a wheelchair just cannot be accommodated in the space available.
I meant to say "prohibit" not allow.
There isn't far more space available. There are plenty of places a buggy can travel safely on a train carriage - as there are on a bus. On a train, in the event of a conflict over the space (usually, occupied by bags rather than buggies), the on train staff are empowered and are expected to deconflict and resolve the issue to ensure the disabled person can travel.
Funnily enough, 99% of the time, that's what happens - the space gets vacated.
What should not happen is staff saying "I am doing nothing about this, bye", which is completely unacceptable, as well as illegal.
If the space is designated for wheelchair use, and there is no wheelchair user in it; then by definition a new wheelchair user can be accommodated.
The point at issue arises only when those persons occupying the wheelchair space could otherwise still be accommodated elsewhere the bus. The guidance on the DDA is clear on this point; if the bus is full, then no one occupying a wheelchair space can be ordered off the bus so that a wheelchair user can get on. But if the person occupying the space can move elsewhere on the bus - if necessary by folding their buggy and stowing it safely - then the courts expect they will normally recognise their obligation to do so; either spontaneously or with prompting from the driver.
But if the occupant of the wheelchair space does not vacate it for a wheelchair user spontaneously - whether there may be notices or pre-recorded messages - the driver must prompt them to act; maybe offering to help fold and stow the buggy. Or otherwise require the occupant to explain why vacating the space may not be reasonable in those circumstances.
We're just going round in circles here.
I agree 99% of the time there isn't a problem, on the other 1% of occasions there really is nothing staff (ie the driver) can do about it.
I've never witnessed a problem on trains.
Last edited by a moderator:
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,581
Out if 360 trips for a wheelchair user to be denied boarding 50 times indicates there is a problem. A lot more than 1% of the time
Maybe it's the person themselves that is the problem?
there is a danger in 'blaming the victim'; simply because it can be used so readily by non-disabled people to get themselves off the hook, and avoid their social obligations.
Hence the fundamental principle of DDA ligislation; 'disbility' does not arise from deficiencies in the capacity of disabled individuals; but from deficiencies in the capacity of of the social environment to provide non-discriminatory access for individuals of all characterisitics and capabilities.
I'm not blaming anybody in fact there are people on here who automatically blame the buggy owner even though all they are doing is using a bus for it's intended purpose.
Non discrimination is exactly that, the bus is available to everyone and nobody has priority over anybody else.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Time to wheel this out again?
The simple fact is that, unless it contains a disabled child, the buggy can be folded. The wheelchair cannot, because its user cannot in most cases reasonably move to a seat, because if they could they odds on wouldn't be in the wheelchair in the first place. Therefore, the only reasonable approach is that the wheelchair user has priority to the space, with the buggy to be folded if it is required for a wheelchair user.
ALL modern buggies fold. They wouldn't sell any otherwise, as they are mostly sold for the car user market, and almost no cars will take an unfolded buggy.
Last edited:
Time to wheel this out again?
The simple fact is that, unless it contains a disabled child, the buggy can be folded. The wheelchair cannot, because its user cannot in most cases reasonably move to a seat, because if they could they odds on wouldn't be in the wheelchair in the first place. Therefore, the only reasonable approach is that the wheelchair user has priority to the space, with the buggy to be folded if it is required for a wheelchair user.
ALL modern buggies fold. They wouldn't sell any otherwise, as they are mostly sold for the car user market, and almost no cars will take an unfolded buggy.
A buggy might not be able to be folded for the reasons that we've been over countless times and I can't see any point going over them again.
It's first come first served, it's not perfect but neither are most things in life.
It's not relevant because the Conditions of Carriage say the buggy must be foldable. If the buggy cannot be folded because the child in it is disabled then that's fine.
Your attitude is not one of fostering equality between the able bodied and disabled, and that's a shame. (Also a bit of victim blaming going on...)
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Other than with a disabled child on board the CoC require the buggy to be foldable (in London at least). Therefore, anyone with a buggy which may not be folded is in breach, therefore they should leave the bus if they are "found out" as such.
I'm not saying everyone's perfect. For example, I often occupy reserved seats, which is technically a breach, but leave them willingly and politely if the reserver shows up. So if someone takes a buggy on a bus when not in a position to fold it they should behave in the same way. Similarly I often sit in the tip-up seats in the cycle area, but if I see a cyclist on the platform waiting for the train as it pulls in I stand up and move before the doors even open. Same, technically[1], with priority seats which are my usual choice for legroom.
[1] I've never actually needed to vacate one; many infirm people prefer normal airline seats with a tighter pitch as they can hold the seat in front to lower themselves onto the seat, and almost always prefer the aisle for ease of access, whereas the window is my normal choice.
Last edited:
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,581
Yet there is no evidence to indicate that is the case
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
Quite. The average wheelchair user is probably denied boarding on many occasions because the driver doesn't want to stop for them as they're running late and have themselves been put under pressure from their controller, or because the individual driver has a bad attitude. In the days when all London buses were owned and run by London Transport you had a more uniform approach to the job of driving, in pre-OPO days, but you still got incidents of bad practice, usually because a 'crew' of driver and conductor conspired together to do as little useful work as possible and leave it to others. This happened especially on routes where two garages shared operation, and certain garages were notorious e.g. Hanwell and Dalston, while others seemed to manage to split up the bad crews and got a good reputation e.g. Norwood and Harrow Weald. This carried on right up to privatisation and could be said to have even had an influence on the creation of the bus units which preceded privatisation.
There is no evidence full stop.
Obviously a driver simply not bothering is a completely different kettle of fish but I wouldn't for one minute suggest everything was perfect in LT days.
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,581
Actually the log given to the evening standard is evidence. Unless you think without evidence the disabled person went to the trouble of making it up
- Status