|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 5, 2021 13:57:50 GMT
No CIS, no service. Those with accessibility requirements should not be having barriers placed in their way. Not ideal, but if there is no alternative rolling stock, running without CIS may be the least worst option. (Cancelling the service altogether would also have consequences for some passengers with accessibility requirements (as well as some without). If the choice is between running a service that 99% of the people can use, and running no service at all, which would you do? |
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Aug 5, 2021 15:13:32 GMT
Then you run no service. That is the point of equality. You do not inconvenience the vulnerable through no fault of their own.
Until there is a significant in attitudes to this problem people will continue to be barred from using the railway. As we have seen on the mainline, hard deadlines, fines and swift action is the only way that operators will even start to take things seriously.
Accessibility is not optional.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 5, 2021 19:33:10 GMT
Then you run no service. That is the point of equality. You do not inconvenience the vulnerable through no fault of their own. Until there is a significant in attitudes to this problem people will continue to be barred from using the railway. As we have seen on the mainline, hard deadlines, fines and swift action is the only way that operators will even start to take things seriously. Accessibility is not optional. Are you seriously advocating "equality of misery"? You shouldn't inconvenience anyone unnecessarily through no fault of their own. Absolutely there should be sanctions if a service provider fails to make adequate provision. But the law requires "reasonable adjustment" - no less - but no more. When things go wrong, is it reasonable to deny a service to everyone else because just one person is unable to use it? Example - the accessible toilet on an otherwise serviceable train has broken down. Do you 1. Give people a choice between travelling on that train if they can make use of it, and waiting for the next one. 2. Take the train out of service and make everyone cram on the next one. Who benefits from option 2? |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 5, 2021 20:00:26 GMT
Not wishing to stray off-topic, but in my field of education we strive to be inclusive to the needs of all. But if that inclusivity is such that it excludes others, by definition it is not inclusive.
I was in a packed bus a while ago where the wheelchair ramp failed. The wheelchair user was clearly inconvenienced and I hope that there was some recourse for them. But would it then have been appropriate to take that bus out of service?
|
|
|
|
Post by cudsn15 on Aug 5, 2021 21:28:25 GMT
Has anyone asked those that have accessibility issues if they would prefer no service at all instead of a compromise solution - which while being less than ideal still ensures they reach their intended destination?
I'm all for equal access and indeed work in a sector which requires us to bend over backwards to ensure those that have access requirements are accommodated - sometimes solutions are less than ideal and not what we want to offer - however those we are trying to help are always very grateful for all the help and guidance that we can offer - sometimes it's enough just to be acknowledged - but it's always an imperfect world no matter how hard we strive to make it not so.
In this instance as it is a widespread issue I would expect at the very least platform staff on every platform (yeah I know how unlikely that is currently) and train drivers giving out the basic information on the tannoy. (Tho I wouldn't want the running commentary we used to get from some drivers a few years back...!)
|
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Aug 5, 2021 21:54:41 GMT
Then you run no service. That is the point of equality. You do not inconvenience the vulnerable through no fault of their own. Until there is a significant in attitudes to this problem people will continue to be barred from using the railway. As we have seen on the mainline, hard deadlines, fines and swift action is the only way that operators will even start to take things seriously. Accessibility is not optional. Are you seriously advocating "equality of misery"? You shouldn't inconvenience anyone unnecessarily through no fault of their own. Absolutely there should be sanctions if a service provider fails to make adequate provision. But the law requires "reasonable adjustment" - no less - but no more. When things go wrong, is it reasonable to deny a service to everyone else because just one person is unable to use it? Example - the accessible toilet on an otherwise serviceable train has broken down. Do you 1. Give people a choice between travelling on that train if they can make use of it, and waiting for the next one. 2. Take the train out of service and make everyone cram on the next one. Who benefits from option 2? The law states that the train is taken out of service, so this is an entirely moot point. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Aug 6, 2021 6:16:47 GMT
Are you seriously advocating "equality of misery"? You shouldn't inconvenience anyone unnecessarily through no fault of their own. Absolutely there should be sanctions if a service provider fails to make adequate provision. But the law requires "reasonable adjustment" - no less - but no more. When things go wrong, is it reasonable to deny a service to everyone else because just one person is unable to use it? Example - the accessible toilet on an otherwise serviceable train has broken down. Do you 1. Give people a choice between travelling on that train if they can make use of it, and waiting for the next one. 2. Take the train out of service and make everyone cram on the next one. Who benefits from option 2? The law states that the train is taken out of service, so this is an entirely moot point. What is the legal provision requiring that a train with defective CIS be withdrawn from service? |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 6, 2021 6:33:35 GMT
Then you run no service. That is the point of equality. You do not inconvenience the vulnerable through no fault of their own. Until there is a significant in attitudes to this problem people will continue to be barred from using the railway. As we have seen on the mainline, hard deadlines, fines and swift action is the only way that operators will even start to take things seriously. Accessibility is not optional. I am not sure how this accessibility offshoot ended up in a thread about the District Line - perhaps it should be moved to a separate thread so that its does not get lost from sight, but hey ho here is my 2p... I agree accessibility should not be optional, but when it comes to the "Law" as they say the devil is in the detail .. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/train_operators_responsibilities_4As you can see the "Law" does indeed recognise that exceptional circumstances - such as these closures - may arise, hence it incorporates a fair bit of lattitude. So for instance in any train service where an accessible toilet is required, the service can still be operated if the toilet on the intended train develops a fault - with the operator having 6 days to fix the fault. I am no lawyer but a quick scan through the legislation suggests that derogation could also apply to other accessibility requirements such as signage for exceptional workings etc but with the onus being on the operator who is expected to make reasonable efforts to fix things as soon as possible rather than wait until 6 days are up before even thinking about the problem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2021 22:01:17 GMT
I think we’ve done the equality / accessibility argument now. Back to specifics about the District / Circle line closure. Thanks all. Can all the posts be moved to a new thread as I’ve go points to add and I don’t want to clog up this one. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 17, 2021 7:29:53 GMT
I think we’ve done the equality / accessibility argument now. Back to specifics about the District / Circle line closure. Thanks all. Can all the posts be moved to a new thread as I’ve go points to add and I don’t want to clog up this one. I'm guessing that this hasn't happened. Shame. I would have enjoyed reading more... |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 18, 2021 10:52:23 GMT
Well, you can always start a new thread. Perhaps ask a mod where would be the best place to put it. This IS the new thread! |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,746 
|
Post by class411 on Aug 18, 2021 11:04:58 GMT
Well, you can always start a new thread. Perhaps ask a mod where would be the best place to put it. This IS the new thread!  Doh!Post deleted. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 20, 2021 6:48:32 GMT
It looks like no-one has spotted the requested new thread...
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 20, 2021 9:22:20 GMT
It looks like no-one has spotted the requested new thread... I did put a link to this thread in the previous one, so don't know why it's causing an issue! |
|
