Disabled scooter user humiliated by Train Manager for using disabled space on GWR service.

[Wilts Wanderer]

It may already have been suggested - I suspect the 'collectively horrified' comment referred to the PA announcement, which cannot be defended, not the incident itself.

 

[AlterEgo]

As some of the more sensible posters have hinted what we have here now is that any attempt by staff to sort things out/help vulnerable people/ help people reach sensible compromises on crowded services will have to be tempered by fear of the reaction of a certain sections of the disabled community and their traveling companions who perceive their needs to be more equal than others.....

The needs of a disabled person are greater than someone who is not disabled. Surely you didn't mean to type what you did?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The needs of a disabled person are greater than someone who is not disabled. Surely you didn't mean to type what you did?

They are, but there also has to be reasonableness on both sides. Such as I don't see a problem with bags going in the wheelchair area provided that as soon as a wheelchair user boards they are moved immediately, gracefully and without them having to ask.

Some people, for instance, would suggest I should not sit in a priority seat as a matter of course (for the legroom) as it should be kept free, I prefer the idea of sitting there but watching out for anyone who may have greater need (though as I like the window seat it's actually very rare for this to happen; mostly people in that position prefer the aisle, and often don't even want the priority seat as the increased spacing makes it harder to sit down holding the seat in front as they do).

 

[AlterEgo]

It may already have been suggested - I suspect the 'collectively horrified' comment referred to the PA announcement, which cannot be defended, not the incident itself.

I think the "shouldn't have happened" and "collectively horrified" unequivocal statements by GWR do indeed relate to the unacceptable PA announcement as well as the fact a disabled person had their mobility aid moved, quite wrongly, for a pram which had no priority whatsoever.

 

[AlterEgo]

They are, but there also has to be reasonableness on both sides. Such as I don't see a problem with bags going in the wheelchair area provided that as soon as a wheelchair user boards they are moved immediately, gracefully and without them having to ask.

Of course, precisely because a disabled person needs that space more than the bags.

 

[MichaelAMW]

The needs of a disabled person are greater than someone who is not disabled. Surely you didn't mean to type what you did?

I think you've missed his point. The needs of the disabled person are indeed greater, or at least different, but the right to travel isn't greater. So, the guard's - or shall we just say "a guard's" - attempts to accommodate more than one person in restricted space don't have to avoid asking any compromise from the disabled person. It's potentially a minefield as you have to make a quick judgement as to whether the compromise being requested is a reasonable one, i.e. the disable person can comply, but it's not unreasonable in principle to expect anyone to be flexible about their own situation in order to allow for the needs of anyone else who also has an equally valid ticket.

I seem to recall an incident from a while ago regarding a person in a wheelchair who was unable to easily board at Clapham Junction owing to full trains. I see some common factors between those two situations.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The needs of a disabled person are greater than someone who is not disabled. Surely you didn't mean to type what you did?

* dependent on disability they have different needs however no one group should usurp others and the reality is that we have a turn up and go railway and situations arise where compromise and common sense are needed not confrontation due to limits on capacity.

 

[OneOffDave]

I think you've missed his point. The needs of the disabled person are indeed greater, or at least different, but the right to travel isn't greater. So, the guard's - or shall we just say "a guard's" - attempts to accommodate more than one person in restricted space don't have to avoid asking any compromise from the disabled person. It's potentially a minefield as you have to make a quick judgement as to whether the compromise being requested is a reasonable one, i.e. the disable person can comply, but it's not unreasonable in principle to expect anyone to be flexible about their own situation in order to allow for the needs of anyone else who also has an equally valid ticket.

I seem to recall an incident from a while ago regarding a person in a wheelchair who was unable to easily board at Clapham Junction owing to full trains. I see some common factors between those two situations.

Part of the issue is that wheelchair users are restricted as to the areas of the train they can use so the train may be 'full' for them way before it's 'properly' full. The 1723 WAT to BAS is a case in point as ambulant passengers like the carriage with the wheelchair spaces in the middle of the train as it's near the stairs at Surbiton. Using one of the other wheelchair spaces is difficult as at Farnborough the narrower ends of the platform make it difficult getting off the train with the ramp. How flexible should I be, given in those circumstances it's far more likely that I'd be unable to travel if I didn't assert my right to access that wheelchair space. After all, the ambulant passengers have to the whole of the train they can use. On numerous occaisions I've seen where about 30% of the ambulant passengers who want to travel can't but 100% of the wheelchair using passengers can't. This becomes disproportionate over time

 

[matt_world2004]

* dependent on disability they have different needs however no one group should usurp others and the reality is that we have a turn up and go railway and situations arise where compromise and common sense are needed not confrontation due to limits on capacity.

I respectfully disagree with this. Disabled people have significant barriers to social interaction and employment, through no fault of their own, they have less travel choices and as such should be prioritised access to certain spaces on public transport.

They may also have more needs whereby extending their journey time can cause greater hardship or medical issues, for example; a person with a disability may need regular access to a toilet or their may be limits on how long they can be outside their home. Due to requiring a cylinder or other medical intervention. Each of these situations can be exasberated by extendong their journey time due to a lack of suitable space on a train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They may also have more needs whereby extending their journey time can cause greater hardship or medical issues, for example; a person with a disability may need regular access to a toilet

This isn't taken seriously enough in the UK; I would like to see the statutory requirement to provide toilets by Councils returned and failure to provide considered discrimination. All three of age, disability *and* gender (as a man can more readily "use a bush" than a woman).

I was recently on holiday in China and there was a decent (mostly squat, but a good many also had one "throne" marked for use by those of limited mobility) public toilet, well signed and free of charge, about every 100 yards.

The situation in the UK is so bad that it will be causing some people to be effectively housebound. We've gone right back to Victorian times in this regard.

(Personal involvement: I have an irritatingly small bladder, which means when I get old and it all stops working properly I'm going to have big issues in this regard)

 

[AlterEgo]

I respectfully disagree with this. Disabled people have significant barriers to social interaction and employment, through no fault of their own, they have less travel choices and as such should be prioritised access to certain spaces on public transport.

They may also have more needs whereby extending their journey time can cause greater hardship or medical issues, for example; a person with a disability may need regular access to a toilet or their may be limits on how long they can be outside their home. Due to requiring a cylinder or other medical intervention. Each of these situations can be exasberated by extendong their journey time due to a lack of suitable space on a train.

But that would not mean that a disabled person had more right to travel than someone who was not. You couldn't legitimately throw five people off a full and standing train so a wheelchair could board instead of them.

 

[matt_world2004]

But that would not mean that a disabled person had more right to travel than someone who was not. You couldn't legitimately throw five people off a full and standing train so a wheelchair could board instead of them.

Depending on the need . I would get off a train for a disabled person in certain circumstances. A disabled person having a medical emergency on a train because their cylinder empties has a potential to cause a medical emergency incovneniancing more than 5 people potentially taking a train out of service likewise, a disabled person soiling themselves also has the potential to take a train out of service causing incoveniance to more than 5 people.

A persons medical need to get home is greater than my personal need to get home.

I have got off buses before to make way for travellers with additional needs. Its more difficult on trains because you as a pasenger are often not aware of someone failing to board a train without a disability.

 

[AlterEgo]

Depending on the need . I would get off a train for a disabled person in certain circumstances.

Would you, if you were a TOC, evict five able bodied people already legitimately on board a train so that one disabled person could travel? Ignore medical emergencies etc, that's not relevant.

The situation is just that the train is utterly rammed, completely full, and for the person in their wheelchair to board, you need to remove five able bodied people standing in the vestibule.

 

[matt_world2004]

Would you, if you were a TOC, evict five able bodied people already legitimately on board a train so that one disabled person could travel? Ignore medical emergencies etc, that's not relevant.

The situation is just that the train is utterly rammed, completely full, and for the person in their wheelchair to board, you need to remove five able bodied people standing in the vestibule.

Again if there was a risk that the disabled persons continued delays could cause a serious medical emergency and there was no other option to get them home yes. Partially because there is a risk that medical emergency could cause more delays than not.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Would you, if you were a TOC, evict five able bodied people already legitimately on board a train so that one disabled person could travel? Ignore medical emergencies etc, that's not relevant.

The situation is just that the train is utterly rammed, completely full, and for the person in their wheelchair to board, you need to remove five able bodied people standing in the vestibule.

It depends on the circumstance.
Though I don't see what relevance this has on the thread as, as far as I can tell, the opposite was the case here (aka the disabled person was already on board the train to start with).

 

[AlterEgo]

It depends on the circumstance.
Though I don't see what relevance this has on the thread as, as far as I can tell, the opposite was the case here (aka the disabled person was already on board the train to start with).

It doesn't, you're right, and probably deserves its own thread.

 

[OneOffDave]

Would you, if you were a TOC, evict five able bodied people already legitimately on board a train so that one disabled person could travel? Ignore medical emergencies etc, that's not relevant.

The situation is just that the train is utterly rammed, completely full, and for the person in their wheelchair to board, you need to remove five able bodied people standing in the vestibule.

Are there able bodied people occupying the wheelchair space? Are they in wheelchairs? Is the whole train completely full?

I've been denied delay repay because there was a train I could have caught but I didn't because the assistance staff wouldn't put me on it because it was too crowded.

 

[Bromley boy]

Not really. The RSSB, ORR and DfT have covered that scenario in their guidance.

Once again, this is only guidance, not gospel. The TOC’s policy is what is relevant and what the guard should have enforced.

Do you think it would be right to refuse to board a wheelchair because a folding mobility scooter was standing, unfolded and unused, in the wheelchair area? I would suggest it wouldn’t be, yet that outcome would be within the guidance you have cited. Hence TOC policies need to be more detailed.

Again if there was a risk that the disabled persons continued delays could cause a serious medical emergency and there was no other option to get them home yes. Partially because there is a risk that medical emergency could cause more delays than not.

But the reality is that nobody is going to be able to enforce this. In the Clapham Junction example given above commuters are never going to volunteer to get off a train, potentially making themselves late for work, in order for a wheelchair to be boarded.

 

[Bromley boy]

The situation is just that the train is utterly rammed, completely full, and for the person in their wheelchair to board, you need to remove five able bodied people standing in the vestibule.

Those of us who have spent time commuting in the London area have no doubt all seen fights breaking out as people crush onto rush hour trains. Regardless of the morality of the situation, I wouldn't like to be the person telling them to get off in order to accommodate a wheelchair!

It would be physically impossible to enforce this if there are no volunteers + I agree with the earlier point that, while they should be accommodated wherever possible, a disabled person’s right to travel doesn’t exceed that of an able bodied traveller.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I *might* get off a train or bus so someone else could board, it would depend on the circumstances.

One set of circumstances in which I absolutely would not would be were I spoken to rudely by the person requesting that I might leave so they might board.

A set of circumstances under which I would be more likely to do so would be if I were asked politely without a sense of entitlement.

Having a disability does not absolve one of being polite, at least in an initial approach before anyone has actually discriminated.

 

[OneOffDave]

Those of us who have spent time commuting in the London area have no doubt all seen fights breaking out as people crush onto rush hour trains. Regardless of the morality of the situation, I wouldn't like to be the person telling them to get off in order to accommodate a wheelchair!

It would be physically impossible to enforce this if there are no volunteers + I agree with the earlier point that, while they should be accommodated wherever possible, a disabled person’s right to travel doesn’t exceed that of an able bodied traveller.

But given the limitations of provision of accommodation for disabled passengers, disabled passengers are going to end up not going to be able to get on trains far more frequently than able bodied passengers. As usual, we are treated like second class citizens. It seems the TOCs are happy to enforce their rules until it gets a bit tricky or someone might get aggressive.

 

[al78]

But given the limitations of provision of accommodation for disabled passengers, disabled passengers are going to end up not going to be able to get on trains far more frequently than able bodied passengers. As usual, we are treated like second class citizens. It seems the TOCs are happy to enforce their rules until it gets a bit tricky or someone might get aggressive.

The guard is in a difficult situation. If someone in a wheelchair wishes to board but there is no space, does the guard demand several people leave the train so the wheelchair bound person can board? If so, that is prioritising one person over several, which may be justifiable in one situation but not another. I once had to cycle 36 miles on top of a previous 36 miles because there was no space on a train for my bicycle (the only train that day). No amount of complaining that cyclists are treated as second class citizens would have changed the situation and the facts, so I had to deal with it. How does the guard enforce evicting several people if they refuse to leave the train, they can't even enforce seat reservations or priority seating if people refuse to move, and moving seats is far less onerous than getting off the train prematurely? Call BTP and wait, delaying everyone on the train? Someone mentioned Clapham junction, at that station there should be no problem getting off the train for a disabled person, Clapham junction is one of the busiest stations on the network, there will be another train in a few minutes, and people commuting into London really should have a lot more than a few minutes padding in their scheduled journey times these days, so no reason to be late for work.

 

[matt_world2004]

The guard is in a difficult situation. If someone in a wheelchair wishes to board but there is no space, does the guard demand several people leave the train so the wheelchair bound person can board? If so, that is prioritising one person over several, which may be justifiable in one situation but not another. I once had to cycle 36 miles on top of a previous 36 miles because there was no space on a train for my bicycle (the only train that day). No amount of complaining that cyclists are treated as second class citizens would have changed the situation and the facts, so I had to deal with it. How does the guard enforce evicting several people if they refuse to leave the train, they can't even enforce seat reservations or priority seating if people refuse to move, and moving seats is far less onerous than getting off the train prematurely? Call BTP and wait, delaying everyone on the train? Someone mentioned Clapham junction, at that station there should be no problem getting off the train for a disabled person, Clapham junction is one of the busiest stations on the network, there will be another train in a few minutes, and people commuting into London really should have a lot more than a few minutes padding in their scheduled journey times these days, so no reason to be late for work.

Owning or using a cycle is a choice. Being in a wheelchair is not.there is no equvilency here .

 

[OneOffDave]

The guard is in a difficult situation. If someone in a wheelchair wishes to board but there is no space, does the guard demand several people leave the train so the wheelchair bound person can board? If so, that is prioritising one person over several, which may be justifiable in one situation but not another. I once had to cycle 36 miles on top of a previous 36 miles because there was no space on a train for my bicycle (the only train that day). No amount of complaining that cyclists are treated as second class citizens would have changed the situation and the facts, so I had to deal with it. How does the guard enforce evicting several people if they refuse to leave the train, they can't even enforce seat reservations or priority seating if people refuse to move, and moving seats is far less onerous than getting off the train prematurely? Call BTP and wait, delaying everyone on the train? Someone mentioned Clapham junction, at that station there should be no problem getting off the train for a disabled person, Clapham junction is one of the busiest stations on the network, there will be another train in a few minutes, and people commuting into London really should have a lot more than a few minutes padding in their scheduled journey times these days, so no reason to be late for work.

What's an acceptable frequency for this to happen to me and what's the acceptable delay? It's happened to me 4 times in the past two weeks and hour plus delays (in addition to any delay to the service I'd planned to catch) are pretty common. Do you allow up to an hour in your journey to or from work? Or should I have followed your example and pushed the 35 miles home from Waterloo? My wheelchair isn't a lifestyle choice like a bicycle unless crawling is a good idea. I accept that delays and disruption happen, that's all part of travelling by train but when I'm consistently affected more adversely that most passengers that when I start to get annoyed. Waterloo can't even provide a safe place for wheelchair users to wait during disruption where we don't have people smacking us round the head with bags and falling over us because they aren't looking where they are going.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are there able bodied people occupying the wheelchair space? Are they in wheelchairs? Is the whole train completely full?

I've been denied delay repay because there was a train I could have caught but I didn't because the assistance staff wouldn't put me on it because it was too crowded.

You should not be denied delay repay in that situation and that is wrong.

However, in a situation where people are having to stand literally everywhere, including in an accessible/wheelchair space, it's perverse to suggest (let's say) five people are thrown off a train to accommodate one. This would be in a scenario where there is no space elsewhere on the train to accommodate these five people.

 

[OneOffDave]

You should not be denied delay repay in that situation and that is wrong.

However, in a situation where people are having to stand literally everywhere, including in an accessible/wheelchair space, it's perverse to suggest (let's say) five people are thrown off a train to accommodate one. This would be in a scenario where there is no space elsewhere on the train to accommodate these five people.

So basically you're saying because I as a wheelchair user have to use a particular space on a train, in the event of disruption and overcrowding I have to take the hit and be delayed every time. Obviously as a disabled person my time is less important than everyone else's and I should sit for however long it takes for things to get back to normal and all the 'proper' people are sorted. As I don't normally go prepared for sitting around in the heat or the cold for several hours, any hypo or hyperthermia I suffer as a result must be my fault for not taking adequate precautions. I'll also plan on setting off for work every day with a couple of hours slack built in just in case.

How often should I have to accept that?

 

[Tetchytyke]

They are, but there also has to be reasonableness on both sides.

Except there doesn't. The law is pretty unequivocal on that. The wheelchair user has priority. End of discussion.

The wibble about crush loaded trains is just that: wibble. This train was not crush loaded.

As for the baby, that is also wibble. The new born can be carried. The guard shpuld have assisted in folding the pram, not abusing disabled people for exercising their right.

 

[Tetchytyke]

it's perverse to suggest (let's say) five people are thrown off a train to accommodate one.

Yes and no. It's rare, even on the busiest trains, that people can't squeeze up. And yes, I spent years commuting in London.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This isn't intended to be funny about the situation, but I think many are underestimating how mobile this lady is considering her situation. She does very well indeed.

"I know more than the disabled person does about their condition, based on a bit of YouTube footage".

Jesus wept.

 

[AlterEgo]

So basically you're saying because I as a wheelchair user have to use a particular space on a train, in the event of disruption and overcrowding I have to take the hit.

Yes, in the rare scenario where a train is so incredibly full that no more people can board, and where you would be unable to board whether you were in a wheelchair or not.

In the majority of circumstances I am sure you will agree the train is probably not quite so full as people think and staff just don't want the hassle of playing human Tetris over the course of several minutes to ensure a wheelchair user can access the space. That is wrong.

The law says that service providers must take reasonable steps to ensure wheelchair users can access the space.