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

[matt_world2004]

Well firstly by saying that someone could perhaps then say the driver is not being truthful. Secondly that in law bit doesn't make sense remember innocent till proven guilty , so if someone said I did something wrong you believe them but by the same token then presumes I'm guilty so calling me a liar . I said in my post I was just asking so call it ignorance or in educated or in knowledgeable I was curious so all your reply needed to say was something like . Being low down in a wheelchair and as you don't use a bus she could tell it was half empty and see a buggy but not necessarily see a parent . And the onus is on the driver as it is defined in law (by the way I personally think it should be out of basic human decency and kindness regardless of the law) by the supreme court to take all reasonable steps and I would have accepted that . But the one thing that grated a bit on the original post was at the bottom let's start sacking the drivers . Seemed a bit cold I mean what if he had been having a bad time maybe a death in his family or a sick child or something we don't know or what if tfl hadn't trained him properly. Does the driver not deserve of human decency and compassion perhaps re training or new training first , just sticking up for the driver not actually trying to dis credit the baroness.

I am not a driver but drivers are currently disenstivised from enforcing the rules due to delay minutes penalties which should be changed imo to factor in refusal to move buggy as a form of anti social behaviour which would allow them to delay the bus to wait for the pushchair to be folded or moved.

 

[baz962]

I am not a driver but drivers are currently disenstivised from enforcing the rules due to delay minutes penalties which should be changed imo to factor in refusal to move buggy as a form of anti social behaviour which would allow them to delay the bus to wait for the pushchair to be folded or moved.

Which is part of my point Matt I was merely thinking that the driver was damned if he did and damned if he didn't, not saying it would definitely be the case but highly likely.

 

[matt_world2004]

Which is part of my point Matt I was merely thinking that the driver was damned if he did and damned if he didn't, not saying it would definitely be the case but highly likely.

I believe the liability is on the operator to enforce the wheelchair space(Not tfl or the driver)

The operator can place it into the drivers contracts however no operators have done so because the financial penalty for them is not sufficent enough for them to compell the driver to move the pushchair. Indeed the fine for delaying the bus is bigger and that is wrong.

The driver should be allowed to sit with his newspapers out until the pushchair is folded.

 

[baz962]

I believe the liability is on the operator to enforce the wheelchair space(Not tfl or the driver)

The operator can place it into the drivers contracts however no operators have done so because the financial penalty for them is not sufficent enough for them to compell the driver to move the pushchair. Indeed the fine for delaying the bus is bigger and that is wrong.

So does that mean if the driver does it and the bus runs late they get fined and if he doesn't get the parent to fold it he breaks the law .

 

[AlterEgo]

Well firstly by saying that someone could perhaps then say the driver is not being truthful.

Why would anyone say the driver wasn't being truthful? He is alleged to have said something which undermines his own position.

Secondly that in law bit doesn't make sense remember innocent till proven guilty , so if someone said I did something wrong you believe them but by the same token then presumes I'm guilty so calling me a liar .

No, people are believed by default when they make a complaint. That's how everything works. It is the glue of our society. If I make a complaint to the bus company that I was discriminated against, then by default I am believed, and the incident investigated, unless there is a compelling reason to suppose I am lying. (for example: Perhaps I'm a serial liar known to them, or perhaps I'm unknown to them but there was no bus at all and I made it all up and it is obvious from the outset, or perhaps my lies come out during the investigation.)

If I tell the police that I was mugged, then again by default I am believed, and the incident investigated, unless there is a compelling reason to suppose I am lying.

People are presumed to be telling the truth at all times Baz - even people on the witness stand in a court, defendant and plaintiff - unless it can be shown that they are being untruthful. Key - it has to be *shown*.

If you are accused of a murder you didn't commit, and you end up in court for it, and plead not guilty the law presumes you are telling the truth - innocent until proven otherwise. That does not mean that the prosecution are de facto liars. Everything the prosecution and the defence say is presumed to be truthful in court, unless it can be shown (sigh) that it is not truthful. It is then up to the jury to decide on whether the person is guilty - note that this is different to deciding on who is and isn't a liar.

Civic society doesn't work if people don't believe other people by default. This is the starting position for any interaction in society, unless there is a good reason to suspect the party is untruthful (this might be because of past history and context - e.g. take certain stories from the Daily Mail with a heavy pinch of salt).

Hence, we should believe the baroness, because we have no reason to suppose she is being untruthful.

I am astonished, really, that I have to explain the basic tenets of living in a civilised society.

just sticking up for the driver not actually trying to dis credit the baroness.

No, not trying to discredit the baroness at all (!), except for the bit where you said she was wealthy, privileged, and would have tried to get the driver sacked if he caused a delay, and it was "convenient" she saw what she saw.

You can stick up for the driver all you want without doing any of the above (and I note you have started actually attacking the meat of the subject, thankfully), but I'm afraid the sum total of the interaction between driver and baroness was that the us company, and by extension the driver failed in their duty under the law, and the baroness did nothing wrong.

 

[matt_world2004]

So does that mean if the driver does it and the bus runs late they get fined and if he doesn't get the parent to fold it he breaks the law .

The operator(Eg metroline) breaks the law but you are relying on the wheelchair user to sue the company which isnt going to happen

The driver can delay a bus due to passenger action without penalty (anti social behaviour. Smoking drinking etc . refusal to pay a fare. ) however refusal to move a puschair is not currently passenger action so they will get fined.one bus only has to operate 10 minutes late on a night bus route for the operators profit margin to be wiped out so delays are really important.

Tfl have also changed it so delays caused by passenger action and traffic are only attributable to that trip that means if a subsequent bus trip is delayed by delays to the original trip the operator still gets fined . which sees drivers less willing to challenge anti social behaviour.

 

[baz962]

Why would anyone say the driver wasn't being truthful? He is alleged to have said something which undermines his own position.



No, people are believed by default when they make a complaint. That's how everything works. It is the glue of our society. If I make a complaint to the bus company that I was discriminated against, then by default I am believed, and the incident investigated, unless there is a compelling reason to suppose I am lying. (for example: Perhaps I'm a serial liar known to them, or perhaps I'm unknown to them but there was no bus at all and I made it all up and it is obvious from the outset, or perhaps my lies come out during the investigation.)

If I tell the police that I was mugged, then again by default I am believed, and the incident investigated, unless there is a compelling reason to suppose I am lying.

People are presumed to be telling the truth at all times Baz - even people on the witness stand in a court, defendant and plaintiff - unless it can be shown that they are being untruthful. Key - it has to be *shown*.

If you are accused of a murder you didn't commit, and you end up in court for it, and plead not guilty the law presumes you are telling the truth - innocent until proven otherwise. That does not mean that the prosecution are de facto liars. Everything the prosecution and the defence say is presumed to be truthful in court, unless it can be shown (sigh) that it is not truthful. It is then up to the jury to decide on whether the person is guilty - note that this is different to deciding on who is and isn't a liar.

Civic society doesn't work if people don't believe other people by default. This is the starting position for any interaction in society, unless there is a good reason to suspect the party is untruthful (this might be because of past history and context - e.g. take certain stories from the Daily Mail with a heavy pinch of salt).

Hence, we should believe the baroness, because we have no reason to suppose she is being untruthful.

I am astonished, really, that I have to explain the basic tenets of living in a civilised society.



No, not trying to discredit the baroness at all (!), except for the bit where you said she was wealthy, privileged, and would have tried to get the driver sacked if he caused a delay, and it was "convenient" she saw what she saw.

You can stick up for the driver all you want without doing any of the above (and I note you have started actually attacking the meat of the subject, thankfully), but I'm afraid the sum total of the interaction between driver and baroness was that the us company, and by extension the driver failed in their duty under the law, and the baroness did nothing wrong.

But I didn't say the onus was on her because of her privelage I said she as an MP although not in exact words that she would know the follies of running to a timetable and the fines etc imposed on a bus company. And I didn't say she would have him sacked but I bet she would. When you reply to my posts you say this happens in our society or this happens , so does things like the driver being in a lose lose wrong but happens . Oh and you say unless there is a compelling reason e.g a known liar . She's a member of parliament and I have never known an MP to tell the truth or bend it you know that bit where they make his election promise or that then break it well that's lying whatever way you dress it up .

 

[matt_world2004]

But I didn't say the onus was on her because of her privelage I said she as an MP although not in exact words that she would know the follies of running to a timetable and the fines etc imposed on a bus company. And I didn't say she would have him sacked but I bet she would. When you reply to my posts you say this happens in our society or this happens , so does things like the driver being in a lose lose wrong but happens . Oh and you say unless there is a compelling reason e.g a known liar . She's a member of parliament and I have never known an MP to tell the truth or bend it you know that bit where they make his election promise or that then break it well that's lying whatever way you dress it up .

I think an Mp is an appropriate person to raise the issue they have the power to effect real change.

 

[AlterEgo]

But I didn't say the onus was on her because of her privelage I said she as an MP although not in exact words that she would know the follies of running to a timetable and the fines etc imposed on a bus company. And I didn't say she would have him sacked but I bet she would. When you reply to my posts you say this happens in our society or this happens , so does things like the driver being in a lose lose wrong but happens . Oh and you say unless there is a compelling reason e.g a known liar . She's a member of parliament and I have never known an MP to tell the truth or bend it you know that bit where they make his election promise or that then break it well that's lying whatever way you dress it up .

She is not, and never has been an Member of Parliament; I suggest you read the opening post...yet again!

Thank you for confirming that, for you, because she's an MP (note that this fact is completely incorrect), she should not be believed when she made a complaint about not being allowed to get on a bus in her wheelchair. You also "bet she would have him sacked" for causing a delay, a completely unjustified comment when all she wanted to do was get on the bus like anyone else.

I am not sure that being President of the Lib Dems bestows a knowledge of running buses to time or financial penalties meted out to operators.

I have to say that your admission that you won't take the complaint of someone in a wheelchair at face value on ANYTHING because they happen to be a politician is a sad indictment. You really are grasping at straws by suggesting that all politicans are be default not be believed at all, in anything they say. Would you say the same if she had complained that someone sexually assaulted her - would that be the same? Or might you take that just a bit more seriously? If you would take that more seriously, then why would you not believe her in this situation?

This thread does not reflect well on you, and I will leave it there.

I agree that the law is far from perfect and have said so elsewhere in this thread. But it's still the law and should be upheld - something TfL agree to in the statement they gave to the Standard.

 

[Darandio]

If the parent cannot take care of the child, then it is really unfair on the child to have had it.

What on earth are you talking about?

Because the parent may be loaded down with shopping and it's therefore going to be difficult to fold the buggy up, they are therefore unfit to care for the child or shouldn't have had one in the first place? hock:

There is often some guff on here but this one is right up there. Or maybe you are completely detached from reality.

 

[baz962]

She is not, and never has been an Member of Parliament; I suggest you read the opening post...yet again!

Thank you for confirming that, for you, because she's an MP (note that this fact is completely incorrect), she should not be believed when she made a complaint about not being allowed to get on a bus in her wheelchair. You also "bet she would have him sacked" for causing a delay, a completely unjustified comment when all she wanted to do was get on the bus like anyone else.

I am not sure that being President of the Lib Dems bestows a knowledge of running buses to time or financial penalties meted out to operators.

I have to say that your admission that you won't take the complaint of someone in a wheelchair at face value on ANYTHING because they happen to be a politician is a sad indictment. You really are grasping at straws by suggesting that all politicans are be default not be believed at all, in anything they say. Would you say the same if she had complained that someone sexually assaulted her - would that be the same? Or might you take that just a bit more seriously? If you would take that more seriously, then why would you not believe her in this situation?

This thread does not reflect well on you, and I will leave it there.

I agree that the law is far from perfect and have said so elsewhere in this thread. But it's still the law and should be upheld - something TfL agree to in the statement they gave to the Standard.

Are not the lib dems a parliamentary party ok a question for you should her title and privelage matter j or does it matter just one word yes or no

 

[Barn]

In London, given the large buses used, it probably wouldn't be out of the question to have a separate buggy and wheelchair space

I have started to think recently that London buses should go a similar way to modern metro train stock, and have slightly more standing / circulation room and fewer seats on the lower floor. Lots of people are very willing to stand, and it would make things significantly easier for wheelchair and pushchair users.

 

[Antman]

Eh? Why would someone need to prove that they need to use a wheelchair? Are you suggesting that someone who isn't disabled might decide one day to go on a bus trip in a chair just for a bit of fun?

Perhaps there are some wheelchair users can be a bit awkward, as can much of the general population, but do you not think that this might be because getting around can be a bit of a battle?

Yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Do you really think some people would be beyond doing just that?

 

[AlterEgo]

Are not the lib dems a parliamentary party ok a question for you should her title and privelage matter j or does it matter just one word yes or no

She isn't an MP and never has been.

No, it doesn't matter. She's a disabled person who wasn't able to use the bus.

 

[matt_world2004]

What on earth are you talking about?

Because the parent may be loaded down with shopping and it's therefore going to be difficult to fold the buggy up, they are therefore unfit to care for the child or shouldn't have had one in the first place? hock:

There is often some guff on here but this one is right up there. Or maybe you are completely detached from reality.

If thdy cannoy carry a child or fold a buggy they are clearly unfit to be a parent. As these are two rather basic skills of parenting. They chose to have the child the wheelxhair user did not choose to be in a wheelchair.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Do you really think some people would be beyond doing just that?

What planet are you on? Disabled people needing a note to show they're in a wheelchair for real and not just in it for fun? Hatstand territory.

 

[matt_world2004]

Yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Do you really think some people would be beyond doing just that?

The shear inconvenience of navigating round london in a wheelchair makes it not worth it.

 

[Antman]

If thdy cannoy carry a child or fold a buggy they are clearly unfit to be a parent. As these are two rather basic skills of parenting. They chose to have the child the wheelxhair user did not choose to be in a wheelchair.

So anybody who cannot fold a pushchair laden with shopping and hold a baby at the same time is unfit to be a parent?

Words fail me!

 

[Antman]

What planet are you on? Disabled people needing a note to show they're in a wheelchair for real and not just in it for fun? Hatstand territory.

Really? How do you know? Do you really think those with an agenda against parents with buggies wouldn't be beyond such a stunt?

 

[Darandio]

If thdy cannoy carry a child or fold a buggy they are clearly unfit to be a parent.

Just as I thought, completely out of touch with reality. Presumably because you are too busy riding around on buses all day.

 

[baz962]

She isn't an MP and never has been.

No, it doesn't matter. She's a disabled person who wasn't able to use the bus.

So being part of lib dems your not sure that she would know about running to timetable and penalties meted out but she knows about a little known law about folding pushchairs yet this party want to be elected to serve us . She knows about that law because it affects her but probably not about penalties or timetabling yet even an an educated ignorant like me knows about them so seems she cares about what pertains to us and not about anything that affects the great unwashed. So would this be in the news and would we be debating it if she wasn't a baroness .

 

[matt_world2004]

So anybody who cannot fold a pushchair laden with shopping and hold a baby at the same time is unfit to be a parent?

Words fail me!

If they are enforcing their lifestyle choice to have a child on other people who they dont even know then yes they are unfit to be a parent, clearly they do not have the organisational skills to shop without bringing baby along. Or have the foresight to put their shopping in the luggage racks of the bus. They are not really going to be able to look after a child safely are they.

 

[matt_world2004]

Just as I thought, completely out of touch with reality. Presumably because you are too busy riding around on buses all day.

I don't know why you think that strangers should be responcible for a parents lifestyle choices. I don't know what you have against people working either.

Please explain to me how a disabled person should be responcible for a parents irrresponcibility

 

[Darandio]

clearly they do not have the organisational skills to shop without bringing baby along.

I'm not sure if you are trolling now or not.

I'll refrain from further comment, i'll end up getting banned.

 

[Antman]

If they are enforcing their lifestyle choice to have a child on other people who they dont even know then yes they are unfit to be a parent, clearly they do not have the organisational skills to shop without bringing baby along. Or have the foresight to put their shopping in the luggage racks of the bus. They are not really going to be able to look after a child safely are they.

Are you for real?:roll:

 

[baz962]

I don't know why you think that strangers should be responcible for a parents lifestyle choices. I don't know what you have against people working either.

While I do not totally agree with other posters and yes strangers are not compelled but what about human compassion maybe a new young mothers first time on a bus I'm sure all parents including ours had to learn while on the job so to speak

 

[matt_world2004]

I'm not sure if you are trolling now or not.

I'll refrain from further comment, i'll end up getting banned.

So they cannot shop online. You know using the very internet that the child will need to study in a few years time or drive; to take the child to medical appointments, parties, museums or just to get the child out of London

Or leave the child with carers.

Or put the shopping in the luggage rack.

Also if they cannot hold the pram while the bus is moving it is not secure and the baby is at risk of injury

or even take a transfer ticket and board the next bus

Plenty of options, whereas the disabled person has none

 

[matt_world2004]

While I do not totally agree with other posters and yes strangers are not compelled but what about human compassion maybe a new young mothers first time on a bus I'm sure all parents including ours had to learn while on the job so to speak

Why should a disabled person be responcible for an irresponcible parents inability to travel considerately.

 

[baz962]

Why should a disabled person be responcible for an irresponcible parents inability to travel considerately.

I didn't say the disabled person did I was talking generally and also if it's her first time she might not quite realise and might need help and education I didn't say they should be responsible for just compassionate.

 

[Antman]

Why should a disabled person be responcible for an irresponcible parents inability to travel considerately.

So how is a parent with a child in a buggy using a bus for the purpose it was designed being an irresponsible parent?