Disabled passenger claims Northern guard's behaviour gave her panic attack.

[baz962]

Isn’t there a standardised definition/measurement for wheelchairs? I don’t know.

I have undersrood from your previous posts that you’re autistic (as the complainant in the OP was), and would welcome your views on this scenario and how the railway could have handled it better. Things could and should be far better for autistics on the railway.



No, he wouldn’t.



Not necessarily shoved into the guards face, in this case, but it isn’t ideal being in a situation at work where you’re being attacked, interrogated, you cannot retreat from (and your TOC won’t necessarily back you), + knowing your every move might be put onto YouTube.

As a driver I’m thankfully rarely exposed to these scenarios!*

*or at least don’t hold forth until I know I’m not being filmed .

Hi Bromley boy , I'm just replying to this one as you mentioned autistic's. On LinkedIn tfl want people with mild disabilities and autism to apply . I can't link to it on my phone , take a look.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think, as someone who isn't diagnosed but strongly suspects he has very mild ASD (as does half of the rest of the IT industry; it creates a natural aptitude for that sort of work), the best way a TOC or any other organisation can handle it from my point of view is (a) making the rules and policies very very clear and very very public, (b) ensuring that they are reasonable and can be complied with 100% of the time, and (c) ensuring they are always adhered to, 100% of the time, without exception.

The idea of a policy that is unworkable but routinely ignored makes things very difficult, as does the idea of having to ask about policies or request discretion.

 

[kieron]

There was a piece on Thursday's One Show about scooters on trains (and Northern in particular) which included some footage of this incident. The piece starts at about 3 1/2 minutes into the programme*, but I don't know if there's a clip version of it.

The piece is led by Tanyalee Davis, with contributions by Sara Harvey and Sandra Greechan. No-one from the rail industry appears on camera, and there may not be much on it which is new to people here, but it helps spread awareness about a problem people who rely on scooters face.

* I've seen a web page which says that this URL opens it at the right position, but I've had no joy with it.

 

[pt_mad]

My emphasis. So individuals aren't responsible for their own actions? Also they are the ones we have dealings with and if organisations back their staff regardless what redress do we have. The other alternative to using the media would be to go back to the direct action protests of the 80s and 90s and more people would be adversely impacted

When an allogation is made which either can't be proven, or accuses a member of staff of being unfair for implementing the Tocs own policy, organisations have no choice but to back their own staff. After all, they employed them because they trusted them to do their own job.

By the same token some (not all) disabled travellers display a sense of entitlement and a bad attitude. As evidenced on a recent thread where some were arguing that able bodied passengers should be ordered off trains to make way for wheel chair users.

That isn't any self entitlement. Able bodied passengers do have to be asked to vacate the wheelchair space for a wheelchair user. It's the law, on every TOC. If there isn't a wheelchair already in the space or booked in it later, then able bodied passengers must vacate the space if a wheelchair user wishes to board. It may mean those standing passengers or people with prams who were in the wheechair space have to step off and the train is then too full for them to reboard. Tocs have a duty placed on them which instructs them they must 'take reasonable action' to allow to wheelchair user to board in that space, which includes delaying a train if required.

 

[Trackman]

might have missed this on the thread, if so apologies - but the same lady had problems at Blackpool North a few days ago. The link to the video should work (it's public), if not go her FB page https://www.facebook.com/agonyautie/ short link now working.. https://bit.ly/2wwYI5K edit

 

[Bletchleyite]

That isn't any self entitlement. Able bodied passengers do have to be asked to vacate the wheelchair space for a wheelchair user. It's the law, on every TOC. If there isn't a wheelchair already in the space or booked in it later, then able bodied passengers must vacate the space if a wheelchair user wishes to board. It may mean those standing passengers or people with prams who were in the wheechair space have to step off and the train is then too full for them to reboard.

That is not the case. If the train is totally full, it is full, wheelchair user or not. Passengers are not required to leave the train and remain off it for a wheelchair user to board.

That said, it’s an unlikely scenario as a wheelchair only physically takes up the space of about 3-4 people standing, and you can always cram in a few more if people will give up their personal space. Very rarely is it impossible to get a few more on, typically people choose not to board well before that stage is reached.

 

[northwichcat]

That is not the case. If the train is totally full, it is full, wheelchair user or not. Passengers are not required to leave the train and remain off it for a wheelchair user to board.

If it was the case it could also create a "I'm more disabled than him/her" argument if the space was already occupied by a disabled person and there wasn't room for another disabled person to board.

 

[kieron]

I don't imagine there would be an argument in that situation. The train would be full, so the second person wouldn't get any further than the vestibule (or the area by the door if there isn't one). It's not worth asking several people to move aside to let you pass when you're just going to get the same thing when you leave the train again.

It's different if it's easy enough to get into the carriage in a wheelchair, but the disabled space is being used by someone who has no obvious reason to be there, or is full of luggage or a catering trolley or whatever.

 

[maire23]

If it was the case it could also create a "I'm more disabled than him/her" argument if the space was already occupied by a disabled person and there wasn't room for another disabled person to board.

I’ve had this issue before- wheelchair space booked, assistance gets me on the train with wheelchair, there’s someone in my space because the previous train was cancelled. I’ve then had to spend an hour getting dirty looks from people as they all assumed that this old lady needed the space more than me (as well as getting dirty looks from the old lady herself)
Icing on the cake was when I got no assistance at my destination as the train manager was too busy a) fawning over this old couple who were moaning and b) ordering my assistance to help this old couple rather than me- and that included the old bloke ordering my partner (who isn’t train staff) to get his (the old blokes) case off the train as well as our case and my wheelchair!
My partner did it (despite me telling him loudly not to) and the old couple I’m sure would have heard me giving my partner a piece of my mind about it!

 

[pt_mad]

I don't imagine there would be an argument in that situation. The train would be full, so the second person wouldn't get any further than the vestibule (or the area by the door if there isn't one). It's not worth asking several people to move aside to let you pass when you're just going to get the same thing when you leave the train again.

It's different if it's easy enough to get into the carriage in a wheelchair, but the disabled space is being used by someone who has no obvious reason to be there, or is full of luggage or a catering trolley or whatever.

If a train rolls in full and standing and a wheelchair user, who has booked their assistance and possibly the wheelchair space, is positioned next to the accessible door and sees the wheelchair space is only full of standing passengers, there's every chance they are going to want you to board them into the space. Nothing wrong or surprising about that. Seen it a few times and on one occasion passengers stepped off from the vestibule to allow the wheelchair to board, and then others stepped on in front of them in a rush once the wheelchair had gone up. One man was blaming the staff for boarding the wheelchair user on a busy train but the wheelchair user had the space booked and no other wheelchair user was on board.

I’ve had this issue before- wheelchair space booked, assistance gets me on the train with wheelchair, there’s someone in my space because the previous train was cancelled. I’ve then had to spend an hour getting dirty looks from people as they all assumed that this old lady needed the space more than me (as well as getting dirty looks from the old lady herself)
Icing on the cake was when I got no assistance at my destination as the train manager was too busy a) fawning over this old couple who were moaning and b) ordering my assistance to help this old couple rather than me- and that included the old bloke ordering my partner (who isn’t train staff) to get his (the old blokes) case off the train as well as our case and my wheelchair!
My partner did it (despite me telling him loudly not to) and the old couple I’m sure would have heard me giving my partner a piece of my mind about it!

Begs the question, what happens if a wheelchair user has booked assistance for x train with ramps, and they may have an onward long distance booked assistance connection, but on arrival there's an unbooked wheelchair user already in the sole wheelchair space? Does the booked assist have to wait for a later train and then has their whole booked assistance delayed for the onward legs?

 

[WelshBluebird]

That is not the case. If the train is totally full, it is full, wheelchair user or not. Passengers are not required to leave the train and remain off it for a wheelchair user to board.

Why are those able bodied people standing in the wheelchair space to begin with?

 

[Bantamzen]

Why are those able bodied people standing in the wheelchair space to begin with?

Because the train is full to rammed? If no wheelchair user is on-board, and a train is full this is what happens. I've been in the situation many a time myself, especially on peak Aire Valley services and on the North Transpennine. Its a fact of life that many services get to this level of loading, although if a wheelchair user were to want o get on most people would make an effort to make enough room to board unless the train was really full.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Because the train is full to rammed? If no wheelchair user is on-board, and a train is full this is what happens. I've been in the situation many a time myself, especially on peak Aire Valley services and on the North Transpennine. Its a fact of life that many services get to this level of loading, although if a wheelchair user were to want o get on most people would make an effort to make enough room to board unless the train was really full.

If you are in a wheelchair space, and a wheelchair needs to board, then that is your fault is it not?
No different to if you sit in someones reserved seat, and they turn up and you have to then move.
You took the risk by standing in the wheelchair space.

In reality of course, yeah most people would make the effort and it would be fine. But the idea that you are allowed to stand in the wheelchair space and deny a wheelchair user use of the space is just plain wrong.

 

[Bantamzen]

If you are in a wheelchair space, and a wheelchair needs to board, then that is your fault is it not?
No different to if you sit in someones reserved seat, and they turn up and you have to then move.
You took the risk by standing in the wheelchair space.

In reality of course, yeah most people would make the effort and it would be fine. But the idea that you are allowed to stand in the wheelchair space and deny a wheelchair user use of the space is just plain wrong.

And that's what I acknowledged, I wouldn't dream of getting in the way of someone who needed the space more than me or complaining about it (other than to generally bemoan the lack of seating overall). Passengers use the space because the vast majority of the time it is not used, in fact you'll find cycles are far more frequent users of such space on trains than wheelchairs. Of all the times I've stood / sat in a wheelchair space, only a fraction of 1% of the time has a wheelchair user boarded. But its quite a regular occurrence that the train is so full that this might be the last place to wedge yourself into before the door vestibules.

 

[pt_mad]

If you are in a wheelchair space, and a wheelchair needs to board, then that is your fault is it not?
No different to if you sit in someones reserved seat, and they turn up and you have to then move.
You took the risk by standing in the wheelchair space.

In reality of course, yeah most people would make the effort and it would be fine. But the idea that you are allowed to stand in the wheelchair space and deny a wheelchair user use of the space is just plain wrong.

Exactly .The main problem arises when people are needed to step off from the vestibule so the wheelchair user can be manouvered into the wheelchair space. Or it could be an electric wheelchair. And when the wheelchair user is in situ they all pile back on and not necessarily on the order they came off, some may be new customers and ones who were already onboard are struggling to get back on. Seen this before and the customers involved were so angry they decided to tell staff they had no right attempting to board a wheelchair on a train already full of standing passengers, where there was no wheelchair already on board and the person had booked their assistance.

But how can staff deny a wheelchair user from boarding when there is no wheelchair in the wheelchair space just because the vestibule has standing passengers in it?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Is not the conflict between standees and wheelchair users on trains not caused by there being no legal limit on the number of standees on trains?

On buses there is a notice stating the legal maximum of seated, standing and wheelchair passengers allowed... usually along the lines of :

35 seated 23 standing 0 wheelchairs
33 seated 28 standing 0 wheelchairs
33 seated 23 standing 1 wheelchair

Therefore the maximum capacity of able bodied passengers on that bus with a wheelchair on board is 56... if there are already 57 passengers on board then the wheelchair is NOT entitled to board as the vehicle would then exceed it's legal capacity. You CANNOT force a passenger already on board to leave the bus to enable the wheelchair user to board.

Perhaps it's about time the same applied to trains?

As to a pre-booked wheelchair not being able to board because an unbooked wheelchair is occupying the space... what on earth are the TOC staff doing boarding that person onto a space that has already been prebooked?

 

[pt_mad]

Is not the conflict between standees and wheelchair users on trains not caused by there being no legal limit on the number of standees on trains?

On buses there is a notice stating the legal maximum of seated, standing and wheelchair passengers allowed... usually along the lines of :

35 seated 23 standing 0 wheelchairs
33 seated 28 standing 0 wheelchairs
33 seated 23 standing 1 wheelchair

Therefore the maximum capacity of able bodied passengers on that bus with a wheelchair on board is 56... if there are already 57 passengers on board then the wheelchair is NOT entitled to board as the vehicle would then exceed it's legal capacity. You CANNOT force a passenger already on board to leave the bus to enable the wheelchair user to board.

Perhaps it's about time the same applied to trains?

As to a pre-booked wheelchair not being able to board because an unbooked wheelchair is occupying the space... what on earth are the TOC staff doing boarding that person onto a space that has already been prebooked?

Good in principle but who's going to count the passengers, and who decides who gets off the train when its over loaded? Staff assault anyone?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Good in principle but who's going to count the passengers, and who decides who gets off the train when its over loaded? Staff assault anyone?

well it doesn't seem to be a problem on buses... or planes for that matter... why is it that trains don't have a legal maximum capacity anyway? every other form of transport does...

 

[Bromley boy]

well it doesn't seem to be a problem on buses... or planes for that matter... why is it that trains don't have a legal maximum capacity anyway? every other form of transport does...

For aircraft it’s to do with weight (number of permitted pax may be less than number of seats depending on various factors), and a requirement to have no standees. Neither of these are factors on trains and buses.

I’ve always wondered how the max standees figure is enforced on buses - I would imagine there’s no way it can be!?

 

[Bletchleyite]

well it doesn't seem to be a problem on buses... or planes for that matter... why is it that trains don't have a legal maximum capacity anyway? every other form of transport does...

Because it is safe to operate a train with a crush load. Indeed, it's safer than with a small standing load, as people can't fly around the coach in an accident if they are packed in.

A plane has a maximum passenger load because standing is not safe and a fast evacuation is imperative due to fire risk. Neither of those are true of a train.

A bus has a maximum passenger load because too many people would affect handling and would end up standing in the area by the front door which would block the driver's view and be unsafe. Because trains don't steer, and because the cab is enclosed, neither of these are true of a train.

A boat has a maximum passenger load because it has to have enough lifesaving equipment for everyone on board. This is not true of a train.

A lift (we're getting tenuous now ) has a maximum load because of a combination of the power of the motor which has to lift it (rather than just move it along) and it has to counterbalance properly with the counterbalance weight.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve always wondered how the max standees figure is enforced on buses - I would imagine there’s no way it can be!?

On most modern buses the maximum stated number of standees is well in excess of a crush-load.

On old buses like Routemasters, the conductor used to count, I think 6 were allowed.

 

[Esker-pades]

Because it is safe to operate a train with a crush load. Indeed, it's safer than with a small standing load, as people can't fly around the coach in an accident if they are packed in.

A plane has a maximum passenger load because standing is not safe and a fast evacuation is imperative due to fire risk. Neither of those are true of a train.

A bus has a maximum passenger load because too many people would affect handling and would end up standing in the area by the front door which would block the driver's view and be unsafe. Because trains don't steer, and because the cab is enclosed, neither of these are true of a train.

A boat has a maximum passenger load because it has to have enough lifesaving equipment for everyone on board. This is not true of a train.

A lift (we're getting tenuous now ) has a maximum load because of a combination of the power of the motor which has to lift it (rather than just move it along) and it has to counterbalance properly with the counterbalance weight.

A motorised cheesecake will collapse if anything above a certain weight is loaded. This is not true for a train.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

On most modern buses the maximum stated number of standees is well in excess of a crush-load.

On old buses like Routemasters, the conductor used to count, I think 6 were allowed.

you're quite right... the maximum load is worked out using a very basic formula... take the unladen weight and subtract it from the maximum gross weight allowed {for a DD that's usually in the region of 18 tonnes} that usually leaves a figure of about 6 tonnes... that figure is then divided by the number of notional "average" passengers {IIRC the figure is set at 12 st} you then take away the number of seats and that leaves you with the number of standees allowed... and that figure is usually way above the maximum number of people that can actually COMFORTABLY squeeze into the space available.

As for Routemasters {and other crew operated vehicles} the figure was set low as the gangways were needed for conductors to <ahem> conduct... in fact with many companies the conditions of carriage stated that those few standees were only allowed if ALL seats were taken ie it was allowed only in an emergency

 

[Bromley boy]

A motorised cheesecake will collapse if anything above a certain weight is loaded. This is not true for a train.

you're quite right... the maximum load is worked out using a very basic formula... take the unladen weight and subtract it from the maximum gross weight allowed {for a DD that's usually in the region of 18 tonnes} that usually leaves a figure of about 6 tonnes... that figure is then divided by the number of notional "average" passengers {IIRC the figure is set at 12 st} you then take away the number of seats and that leaves you with the number of standees allowed... and that figure is usually way above the maximum number of people that can actually COMFORTABLY squeeze into the space available.

As for Routemasters {and other crew operated vehicles} the figure was set low as the gangways were needed for conductors to <ahem> conduct... in fact with many companies the conditions of carriage stated that those few standees were only allowed if ALL seats were taken ie it was allowed only in an emergency

Interesting.

Thanks both.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for Routemasters {and other crew operated vehicles} the figure was set low as the gangways were needed for conductors to <ahem> conduct... in fact with many companies the conditions of carriage stated that those few standees were only allowed if ALL seats were taken ie it was allowed only in an emergency

This was one reason why conducted regular double deckers didn't work - people couldn't understand why they weren't allowed to crush load it as at other times.

 

[Journeyman]

As for Routemasters {and other crew operated vehicles} the figure was set low as the gangways were needed for conductors to <ahem> conduct... in fact with many companies the conditions of carriage stated that those few standees were only allowed if ALL seats were taken ie it was allowed only in an emergency

In London, standing on crew-operated bus services was not permitted at all before the outbreak of WW2. It was then permitted due to the huge number of people travelling on reduced services, but was allowed to continue afterwards.

 

[ComUtoR]

Because it is safe to operate a train with a crush load. Indeed, it's safer than with a small standing load, as people can't fly around the coach in an accident if they are packed in.

On one unit I drive there is a 'crush loading valve' that will prevent the unit from moving when overloaded.

 

[OneOffDave]

What this can effectively mean is while you are waiting for the bod with the ramp to turn up at the right part of the train, people keep piling on to it and then when the ramp finally turns up you can't get on. Often other bits of the train are much less crowded but as they aren't where the wheelchair space is, staff won't board you there. On one service I regularly use, the reason the carriage with the wheelchair space gets full is that it's near the exit stairs at Surbiton so people prefer that to avoid having to wait as long to get off the station. It's incredibly frustrating to have to miss trains just because people are too lazy to wait a minute or two at their destination station. It's as annoying as those people who get on a relatively empty train and insist on standing on the doorway so they can be first off, preventing me from getting up the ramp without running over them or their bags

 

[ComUtoR]

What this can effectively mean is while you are waiting for the bod with the ramp to turn up at the right part of the train

Bod with the ramp ? That's nice.

On one service I regularly use, the reason the carriage with the wheelchair space gets full is that it's near the exit stairs at Surbiton so people prefer that to avoid having to wait as long to get off the station.

Some of our services are boarded the bod with the ramp staff member is instructed to board at specific doors because the wheelchair exit is blocked by station infrastructure or because the ramp is unable to fit at the exit point.

It's as annoying as those people who get on a relatively empty train and insist on standing on the doorway so they can be first off, preventing me from getting up the ramp without running over them or their bags

I stand in the doorway. I'm not allowed to occupy a seat on a busy train. I also tend to give up my seat because my Mum raised me with good manners so I give it up for others less able.

 

[OneOffDave]

Some of our services are boarded the bod with the ramp staff member is instructed to board at specific doors because the wheelchair exit is blocked by station infrastructure or because the ramp is unable to fit at the exit point.

There is only one place for wheelchair users on each set of 4 on the rolling stock I use so I have no choice as to where I board. Those people with use of their legs that choose to occupy this carriage are doing so because they prefer not to have to queue to get out of the station. They can go anywhere in the train but choose to occupy the area with the wheelchair space.

I stand in the doorway. I'm not allowed to occupy a seat on a busy train. I also tend to give up my seat because my Mum raised me with good manners so I give it up for others less able.

So when boarding an empty train you will choose to stand in the doorway that everyone else who wishes to board that part of the carriage will have to pass through?