Ladies Only Travel

[johntea]

I was amused whilst queuing up in Bradford Interchange travel centre earlier how there was a notice stating that the Free City bus is planned to be withdrawn and replaced by a fare paying service run by 'Ladies Only Travel' and that the notice had to point out that despite the name it would carry passengers of all genders!

I understand that the business model is a travel company run only by ladies but surely they could have thought of a better business name to avoid such confusion

 

[Greenback]

That name does seem to send out the wrong message. They appear to be alienating half of their potential market

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does this come from being one of those taxi firms with only female drivers?

 

[AM9]

Does this come from being one of those taxi firms with only female drivers?

That still doesn't help. If it is public service vehicle then any such inference should be removed. Maybe they'll get fed up with comments and complaints soon.

 

[trentside]

They've been trading and operating local bus services under that name for awhile.

Do they still only employ female staff?

 

[PaxVobiscum]

That name does seem to send out the wrong message. They appear to be alienating half of their potential market

Maybe rather more than half.
Sounds like they won't be transporting some of the distinctly unladylike females I've seen on hen parties harassing other passengers and staff on trains.
Give me football hooligans any time.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Do they still only employ female staff?

No, I've seen a bloke driving the Bradford free city bus several times, which Ladies Only Travel have the current contract for and have registered commercially when the funding ends.

It causes a lot of confusion at the minute, as it says "Free City Bus -- Ladies Only Travel" on the stand signs in the Interchange, especially given the demographics of Bradford.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

It causes a lot of confusion at the minute, as it says "Free City Bus -- Ladies Only Travel" on the stand signs in the Interchange, especially given the demographics of Bradford.

Segregated Travel may be a better name for LOT whose depot is located in the Armitage Road Industrial Estate, Brighouse. A town famous for its women who act more like men than proper English Roses.

 

[northwichcat]

Fortunately it does look like the only place their buses say "Ladies Only" is in the legal lettering

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=417fc57ea868bd72c1652961d9a771c1&oe=576E3137

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=c2efa8ceb7e6ad87ab6f016bed66fea0&oe=572F19E3

 

[Andyh82]

They've started using the fleetname "LOT" in recent weeks, and are referred as such in the latest Metro changes leaflets.

It does stem from their roots as a minibus hire firm rather than an operator of public services.

 

[BestWestern]

What a stupid business. I wonder if I commenced similar operations as 'Men Only Buses Ltd' how long it would be before somebody A) assumed it was some sort of brothel operation, or B) raised outrage in the local/national press about how crass and chauvinistic it was.

Public transport ought to be left to people with a firm grasp on what they're doing...

 

[WelshBluebird]

I am struggling to think why anyone would name a business this!!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I am struggling to think why anyone would name a business this!!

They started out life as a Private Hire firm, and a minicab firm with exclusively female drivers is attractive to many people.

They have now apparently abandoned the Private Hire part of the business, and so I'd expect that Ladies Only Travel will disappear as the name soon enough. It's normally already referred to as LOT.

What a stupid business.

Women travelling alone preferring minicabs driven by women. Whatever next?

Smash that matriarchy, comrade.

 

[Greenback]

LOT is a 'lot' better than Ladies Only Travel!

Sorry.

 

[BestWestern]

Women travelling alone preferring minicabs driven by women. Whatever next?

Smash that matriarchy, comrade.

Are they running their bus services with minicabs? Or are they in fact using a stupid name derived from a deeply sexist business model for a product which, one assumes, is available to all genders?

I make no apology for being irritated by this stuff. We can have an equal society, or we can do something else. If we are to go with the former, I expect to be viewed as equal to my female counterparts, rather than as some sort of inherently dangerous lower life form which must be subservient and segregated. And I don't accept the notion that nobody else finds all this anti-men crap equally offensive and tedious. It is of course deemed rather poor sport to voice that opinion. I ask again; how long would an openly 'Men Only' business on similar terms survive before being savaged? And why is that idea any less acceptable in a supposedly equal society?

 

[Tetchytyke]

LOT is a 'lot' better than Ladies Only Travel!

Sorry.

I totally agree

 

[Peter Mugridge]

LOT is a 'lot' better than Ladies Only Travel!

Sorry.

I wonder how long it would be before they get an injunction over the initials from the Polish airline...

 

[talltim]

We all know what happened to LOT's wife...

 

[455driver]

That name does seem to send out the wrong message. They appear to be alienating half of their potential market

Its also sexist!
But as its the blokes being discriminated against no-one gives a toss.

 

[BestWestern]

Its also sexist!
But as its the blokes being discriminated against no-one gives a toss.

And I thought it was just me who was a crazed anti-female loon for thinking that!

 

[83G/84D]

Its also sexist!
But as its the blokes being discriminated against no-one gives a toss.

Agree entirely, perhaps a protest march should be arranged.hock:

 

[Tetchytyke]

Its also sexist!
But as its the blokes being discriminated against no-one gives a toss.

It isn't, and we're not.

As for their business model, and whether it is needed, two words: John Worboys. And as for "it's all safe", how about this lovely story from Milton Keynes where the Mayor vouched for his friend, a repeat convicted rapist, in a taxi licence application.

Mostly I couldn't give a stuff if someone wants to have a minicab company that only caters to women. Seems as stupid as arguing that Bravissimo are sexist because they don't sell men's underwear.

There's also nothing stopping you setting up a male-only minicab company!

 

[northwichcat]

There's also nothing stopping you setting up a male-only minicab company!

I recall a news story about a Lancashire taxi company allowing people to request non-Asian drivers. That didn't go down well with some people!

 

[Dent]

As for their business model, and whether it is needed, two words: John Worboys.

Do you really think a single example of one criminal who happened to be male is justification for treating an entire half of the population as a dangerous underclass?

 

[Tetchytyke]

treating an entire half of the population as a dangerous underclass?

Female passengers wishing to use a taxi firm that promises female drivers is hardly treating men as a dangerous underclass, is it now?

My point about Worboys is to explain why lone female passengers may prefer to use a taxi company that does not employ male drivers.

:roll:

Load of wibble about nothing if you ask me. You'll be whining that Victoria's Secret only sells women's knickers next.

To get it back on topic, they shouldn't be using the brand for public bus services and, generally, it seems they don't now.

 

[Dent]

Female passengers wishing to use a taxi firm that promises female drivers is hardly treating men as a dangerous underclass, is it now?

To "promise" that the driver will fit a particular demographic as a selling point is by implication saying that anyone who does not fit that category would be less desirable. In this case it is saying that anyone who happens to be male is undesirable, which is sexist.

My point about Worboys is to explain why lone female passengers may prefer to use a taxi company that does not employ male drivers.

Why would that be? What relevance does Worboys have to a taxi driven by anyone other Worboys himself?

You'll be whining that Victoria's Secret only sells women's knickers next.

What gave you that idea?

 

[BestWestern]

It isn't, and we're not.

As for their business model, and whether it is needed, two words: John Worboys. And as for "it's all safe", how about this lovely story from Milton Keynes where the Mayor vouched for his friend, a repeat convicted rapist, in a taxi licence application.

There's also nothing stopping you setting up a male-only minicab company!

It is sexist. It discriminates against one sex. That is what the term 'sexism' means. Contrary to the belief of some, men can be discriminated against as well as women. Amazing, I know. A male only minicab firm would also be sexist (only far less likely to be tolerated, of course).

As for the rapist, I'm sorry but that is irrelevant in the wider picture. The wrongdoing of one individual does not justify the branding of everybody else as the same, that is something we teach endlessly in our society and is the reason MI5 haven't rounded up everybody of Muslim faith in case they are a terrorist, etc etc. Of course the individual should be appropriately dealt with, but viewed as a one case and not used as justification to vilify everybody else at the same time. It is surprising how many people have an awfully 'one way' take on the everyday values of a fair society.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is sexist. It discriminates against one sex. That is what the term 'sexism' means. Contrary to the belief of some, men can be discriminated against as well as women.

All very fascinating, but you've still not highlighted exactly how a taxi firm serving a particular demographic is "discriminatory" and "sexist".

It is no more sexist than when women choose a female gynaecologist.

As for the rapist, I'm sorry but that is irrelevant in the wider picture.

Except it isn't, because it is about people feeling safe. Especially as taxi drivers raping or indecently assaulting their female passengers happens alarmingly often. It's about perceptions and if they feel safer with a female driver, what's the issue?

It is surprising how many people have an awfully 'one way' take on the everyday values of a fair society.

Not really, I'm just tired of the tedious men's rights weapons (see Return of Kings for more details) whining that everything that doesn't pander to their every wish is "discriminatory" and "sexist".

To "promise" that the driver will fit a particular demographic as a selling point is by implication saying that anyone who does not fit that category would be less desirable. In this case it is saying that anyone who happens to be male is undesirable, which is sexist.

Interesting conflation of the two meanings of undesirable.

A female passenger who wants a female driver is not desiring of a male driver. How you get from that to "undesirables" and "a dangerous underclass" is completely beyond me.

I'm not desiring of females in the male changing room at the gym. You know what? That's not sexist either.

And now this is so far off topic than it should probably be in general discussion.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Shush Arctic Troll, as we all know the white male is the most oppressed demographic out there.

Separate male/female and unisex business can co-exist without accusations of sexism being thrown around. A taxicab company catering for women is no more sexist than a barber cutting the hair of solely for male customers, or a car insurance company designed for women.

Word is Ladies Only Travel is going to be renamed soon anyway, so it's a fuss over nothing.

 

[BestWestern]

Shush Arctic Troll, as we all know the white male is the most oppressed demographic out there.

Separate male/female and unisex business can co-exist without accusations of sexism being thrown around. A taxicab company catering for women is no more sexist than a barber cutting the hair of solely for male customers, or a car insurance company designed for women.

Word is Ladies Only Travel is going to be renamed soon anyway, so it's a fuss over nothing.

Car insurance premiums were the (rather well reported) subject of equality rulings quite recently, if you recall.

"Ladies Only" clearly has the objective of denying a certain demographic the use of the product or service. Whilst we can debate the virtue of the intention all day long, that is ultimately the very essence of discrimination. In this case, the descrimination is against he male sex, hence it is sexist.

A barber does not actively 'ban' women, but merely specialises in the technique of cutting men's hair. Many other hairdressers specialise in the technique of cutting women's hair. They are specialised areas, in the same way that a
men's outfitter doesn't sell dresses and plenty of retailers don't sell menswear, and a plumber doesn't specialise in bricklaying. That is very different to offering a universal service such as travel and then actively seeking to bar certain groups from using it.