Difficulties encountered by disabled travellers on public transport

[ViolentPanda]

As for TaxiCard; I think this scheme is deserving only my most splenetic of vitriol…

You too?

I've had a Taxicard for 10 years, used it about 5 times. Nowadays I use "CapitalCall" if it's a long/costly journey, or use my local cab office (which has a couple of "accessible" cars) for shorter ones and pay for them myself.

I wouldn't piss on a Taxicard bureaucrat even if one begged me to.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

It ain’t fucking bird flu; you can’t catch it off bog seats, like you can HIV, being a twat or believing you can change Labour from the inside – honest guv…

what a wacky troll with a particularlly nasty affliction of ignorence and bad font choice...

For refference...

Can I become infected with HIV through normal social contact/activities such as shaking hands/toilet seats/swimming pools/sharing cutlery/kissing/sneezes and coughs?

No. HIV is not an airborne, water-borne or food-borne virus, and does not survive for very long outside the human body. Therefore ordinary social contact such as kissing, shaking hands, coughing and sharing cutlery does not result in the virus being passed from one person to another.

http://www.avert.org/faq1.htm#q9

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

That's only part of the problem, though. As it is, much of the rolling stock was designed and built pre-the Disability Discrimination Act and has had to be "reverse engineered" to make it "disabled-friendly", a standard it barely meets. Add to the rolling stock problem the poor accessability of a majority of the stations, and the whole situation means that many disabled people don't travel because the obstacles in their way making doing so physically and emotionally exhausting.

2nd go, last reply got wiped by bastid computah.

I think you hit the nail on the head in lots of ways. Despite the best intentions of the DDA, more employers say that they are wary of employing disabled staff cos of worries about legal action against them. That situation isn't helped by the lack of effective enforcement of the law - the Disability Rights Commission have taken on very few cases to a meaningful level and the only way, ime, that laws are enforced is when people can access suitable advice and information to properly challenge abuses of commonly accepted requirements.

There should be accountability across the board. Being responsible for your own actions, whether you're acting as an individual, a group, a workplace, a community, and so on. Costs are obviously an issue, especially in relation to 'converting' stock rather than designing and purchasing appropriate new stock, but that's cos t'railways are run for profit, rather than public good.

 

[TopCat]

I am glad to hear that Capital Call is working well for some. Taxicard really is a shit service.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I am glad to hear that Capital Call is working well for some. Taxicard really is a shit service.

The longest after the arranged pickup time I've ever had to wait for a car booked through CapitalCall is 15 minutes, and that was because the driver (as do most) got lost on the labyrinthine internal roads of my estate.

15 minutes I can live with, an hour or more after (the Taxicard standard), I can't.

I just wish CapitalCall didn't have the theme tune from "Taxi" as their "hold" music. It's REALLY irritating!

 

[ViolentPanda]

2nd go, last reply got wiped by bastid computah.

I think you hit the nail on the head in lots of ways. Despite the best intentions of the DDA, more employers say that they are wary of employing disabled staff cos of worries about legal action against them. That situation isn't helped by the lack of effective enforcement of the law - the Disability Rights Commission have taken on very few cases to a meaningful level and the only way, ime, that laws are enforced is when people can access suitable advice and information to properly challenge abuses of commonly accepted requirements.

There should be accountability across the board. Being responsible for your own actions, whether you're acting as an individual, a group, a workplace, a community, and so on. Costs are obviously an issue, especially in relation to 'converting' stock rather than designing and purchasing appropriate new stock, but that's cos t'railways are run for profit, rather than public good.

Yep.
In many ways I'm more fortunate than Irenick. I'm still (semi-) ambulant, albeit with sticks/crutches and great difficulty, but I still, over a decade after the DDA, can't use my local rail station (Tulse Hill) because of the stairs, nor any other nearby rail station. I have difficulty using modern rear-engined buses because the jerkiness of gear-change and braking generally causes my back muscles to spasm and tear unless I'm tanked up on valium, in which case I'm not fit to travel. It'd be great if I wasn't dependent on public transport, but my neuro problems preclude me from getting my driving licence back.

The whole problem with the trains does indeed rest to a large extent with the railcos. It's cheaper for them to pay fines drawn by individual complaints than to comply with the rules, the fines eating more shallowly into their shareholder dividend than compliance would, whereas a state-run transport system would probably take a longer-term view constructed around a utilitarian ideal of service provision.

I've made a number of complaints about lack of platform level access at rail stations, and am usually "rewarded" with anodyne replies about "ongoing projects" and "cost constraints". It's difficult to get across to the morons that I'm not interested in flat access to branches of WH Shits or other on-station retail outlets, I'm actually bothered about being able to get from point a to point bloody b!

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

In terms of London's rail and tube network, what could feasibly be done to improve access i wonder? The vast majority of stations were built in a time when access for disabled people just wasn't thought about so the challenges there are enormous, both in a practical sense of the adaptations required and the resources needed to finance such an undertaking. And of course, it shouldn't really be undertaken piece meal cos its no good getting on a train at one station but then not being able to get off at the other.

I've just had a gander at the TfL section of the Mayor's Annual Equalities Report 05/06 and they proudly trumpet that they managed to modernise and refurbish 15 underground stations to improve accessibility and personal security. So there's an awful lot left to do. It's something Tom Nightingale talks about in his book 'Disability Rights and Wrongs' (interesting reading btw) - he notes that the New York subway and London underground are largely inaccessible cos of their age unlike more modern transit systems in Newcastle and Washington. He argues for considering a pragmatic approach whereby disabled people may not be able to access all options provided a suitable alternative is available - essentially balancing practicalities against cost. I know that is a source of immense anger amongst some people in terms of being denied equivalent choices but in some ways, it is an understandable line of reasoning i feel.

However, against that, your examples of why the alternative option available may be completely unsuitable also requires proper consideration obviously. When you look at the DLR, it does demonstrate what can be achieved if proper care and attention is paid when designing a new system - afaik, the whole thing is properly accessible. Maybe you should move to docklands matey?

 

[beeboo]

He argues for considering a pragmatic approach whereby disabled people may not be able to access all options provided a suitable alternative is available - essentially balancing practicalities against cost. I know that is a source of immense anger amongst some people in terms of being denied equivalent choices but in some ways, it is an understandable line of reasoning i feel

I can understand the anger.

However, if it were me making the decisions, I think I'd go down the pragmatic route as well.

I have my doubts whether spending the money on fully accessible stations would really even be the best way to provide greater freedom of movement to people with disabilities.

Although physical access to stations and trains is obviously a fundamental barrier to people with disabilities using the rail and tube network, if you provided that access, are there other, lesser, barriers which would then come to the fore? ie - if you solved the accessibility issues overnight, would use of trains and tubes by people with disabilities actually increase that much?

 

[Giles]

The practical problems at the central deep-level tubes are huge, surely?

I mean, its one thing to put in a little lift to get by a flight of stairs at your typical "overground" station or "outside" tube station, but quite another to dig a new lift shaft to a deep tube station.

The cost would be, well, a lot. It would probably make more sense to drastically improve state-funded "dial a ride" type services.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am just looking at the practical issues. I know *some* deep tube stations have lift shafts, but a lot don't.

Giles..

 

[TopCat]

The practical problems at the central deep-level tubes are huge, surely?

I mean, its one thing to put in a little lift to get by a flight of stairs at your typical "overground" station or "outside" tube station, but quite another to dig a new lift shaft to a deep tube station.

The cost would be, well, a lot. It would probably make more sense to drastically improve state-funded "dial a ride" type services.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am just looking at the practical issues. I know *some* deep tube stations have lift shafts, but a lot don't.

Giles..

The Mayor contributes 2/3 of the 15 million spent on taxicard and intends to take his ball away and set up his own door to door service possibly encompassing dial a ride as well. But he will do it when he is ready to run it.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Although physical access to stations and trains is obviously a fundamental barrier to people with disabilities using the rail and tube network, if you provided that access, are there other, lesser, barriers which would then come to the fore? ie - if you solved the accessibility issues overnight, would use of trains and tubes by people with disabilities actually increase that much?

You're a bit confused i think - the fact of the number of disabled people being able to use public transport increasing doesn't come into the equation, why would it? The clue is that this is public transport that is supposed to be provided for the use of the public ie everyone who wants or needs to travel around their locality and so on. Its about having choice and independence.

Yes, there could well be a few tube stations that are completely unable to be adapted but there are an awful lot more that could be improved massively, as well as almost all of the local rail network. However, that also requires all people who contribute to paying for public services to accept that they will pay towards services that may not benefit them directly, but merely improve the life of their friends and neighbours as well. It also requires these things to be run for the common good and not for profit,imo. Not much to ask for, eh?

 

[TopCat]

Whiilst I would support the notion of a fully accessible rail network and tube network I do think it would be cheaper to supply every person with mobility difficulties with a car and team of drivers free of charge.

On so many levels our tube network does not fit the bill. It's a legacy of how and when it was built.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Just been reading the newsletter for the employers forum on disability, which carrys a news story that London Underground, in partnership with a nationwide access register called Direct Enquiries, is carrying out an accessibility assessment of all 274 underground stations. Apparently, this is the first step in a campaign to make access details of the underground more accurate, timely and widely available, and follows on from work to determine where actual improvements to access could and should be made.

LU will be provided with detailed reports on all public areas of the network, including access routes and facilities available for people with specific requirements eg disabled people, older and younger people, parents with pushchairs, etc. This information will then be made available to the public through www.directenquiries.com as well as the TfL journey planner. The article also says that by 2010, 25% of tube stations should have step-free access, increasing to 1 in 3 stations by 2013. Slow progress admittedly, but as long as they're held to their targets, things should be improving over time.

Also worth pointing out a website called www.disabledgo.info, founded by a wheelchair user, and aiming to provide 'free detailed access information for disabled people across the UK. Our detailed access information will empower you to judge for yourself which hotels, cinemas, restaurants, solicitors' offices, pubs, train stations - all kinds of shops and services - are accessible to your particular needs.'

 

[wtfftw]

That's a fantastic website.


I'd like public benches reinstated. bus stop benches are sloped and no help. Handy walls aren't always available and people think I'm drunk if I sit on the floor (and then can't get up again).

 

[ViolentPanda]

In terms of London's rail and tube network, what could feasibly be done to improve access i wonder? The vast majority of stations were built in a time when access for disabled people just wasn't thought about so the challenges there are enormous, both in a practical sense of the adaptations required and the resources needed to finance such an undertaking. And of course, it shouldn't really be undertaken piece meal cos its no good getting on a train at one station but then not being able to get off at the other.

True, but unfortunately it also provides the whoever controls the stations with a perfect excuse for inactivity.

I've just had a gander at the TfL section of the Mayor's Annual Equalities Report 05/06 and they proudly trumpet that they managed to modernise and refurbish 15 underground stations to improve accessibility and personal security. So there's an awful lot left to do.

Very much so, and given the nature of tube use, I'm worried that some of those improvements will go "by-the-by" during the rush hour.

It's something Tom Nightingale talks about in his book 'Disability Rights and Wrongs' (interesting reading btw)...

I've got that on my "to read" pile. I'll have to disinter it.

... - he notes that the New York subway and London underground are largely inaccessible cos of their age unlike more modern transit systems in Newcastle and Washington. He argues for considering a pragmatic approach whereby disabled people may not be able to access all options provided a suitable alternative is available - essentially balancing practicalities against cost. I know that is a source of immense anger amongst some people in terms of being denied equivalent choices but in some ways, it is an understandable line of reasoning i feel.

But not a line of reasoning I can see the railcos etc taking heed of, given that offering a cost-equivalent alternative to the disabled would prejudice the company's duty to it's shareholders.

However, against that, your examples of why the alternative option available may be completely unsuitable also requires proper consideration obviously. When you look at the DLR, it does demonstrate what can be achieved if proper care and attention is paid when designing a new system - afaik, the whole thing is properly accessible. Maybe you should move to docklands matey?

No ta. I was born over there and I haven't been back (except to see the Hammers) since!

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's a fantastic website.


I'd like public benches reinstated. bus stop benches are sloped and no help. Handy walls aren't always available and people think I'm drunk if I sit on the floor (and then can't get up again).

The bus companies always come out with the same excuse: "The police/local council asked us to remove them so that the homeless don't sleep on them" (at least that's the bullshit I was fed when I enquired).

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

True, but unfortunately it also provides the whoever controls the stations with a perfect excuse for inactivity.

I know, i'm very alive to giving excuses to bodies or people that are used to ducking behind excuses, that's part of why i encouraged the op to raise the issue and shout off about how frustrating it can be.

Very much so, and given the nature of tube use, I'm worried that some of those improvements will go "by-the-by" during the rush hour.

Rush hour isn't pleasant for anyone. I'm lucky, i can travel by bike. In terms of that conundrum, the right of all workers to enjoy flexible working hours would be more valuable imo.

I've got that on my "to read" pile. I'll have to disinter it.

You should, i've enjoyed what i've read so far and it certainly raises some interesting viewpoints.

But not a line of reasoning I can see the railcos etc taking heed of, given that offering a cost-equivalent alternative to the disabled would prejudice the company's duty to it's shareholders.

Yep. But my later post would appear to indicate that LU do, at least, have some kind of intention to improve the situation, compared to the regional/national rail service tho?

No ta. I was born over there and I haven't been back (except to see the Hammers) since!

Hammers. No wonder you're in pain mate (sorry, bad joke but you know what i mean eh?)

 

[beeboo]

You're a bit confused i think - the fact of the number of disabled people being able to use public transport increasing doesn't come into the equation, why would it? The clue is that this is public transport that is supposed to be provided for the use of the public ie everyone who wants or needs to travel around their locality and so on. Its about having choice and independence.

I don't know if you got what I meant by my last post. What I meant was there is no point in upgrading the public transport network at huge expense *if* (and I'm only speculating that this could be the case) that this isn't actually addressing what the real barriers are to independent travel for people with disabilities.

If I was hungry, and someone came and gave me a huge gourmet meal, but laid it out on the other side of a locked door, then they haven't actually met my needs - they've given me the food but I can't eat it.

It worries me that a narrow 'equality' perspective encourages a box-ticking mentality about making stations etc accessible, which could mean that at the end of day you have a physcially accessible network which is still behind a 'locked door' for many disabled people.

 

[Irenick]

what a wacky troll with a particularlly nasty affliction of ignorence and bad font choice...

For refference...



http://www.avert.org/faq1.htm#q9

Garfield, it seems the irony flew over your head.

 

[Irenick]

I am glad to hear that Capital Call is working well for some. Taxicard really is a shit service.

Capital Call does work for 'some'. I have never managed to get through to CC at the first attempt. Usually, you’ll be cut off two or three times; before, maybe after 15 or 20 minutes getting to book a journey. On speaking to a manager at CC. He explained, that CC was a victim of its own success – it’s also a local community transport service in the Hackney area; and, as a consequence couldn’t actually deal with the volume of calls it received for both its services – there’s a logic there somewhere, I’m buggered if I can see it though. Other than that; CC gets my vote.

Given a say in who gets the contract for TaxiCard, I’d give it to CC – with the proviso they employ more people to operate their phones. Hire Car companies (the old mini-cans) currently serve the disabled community in a way black cannot – namely, they operate in the areas we live; and, actually go on to council estates where we also live – many black cab drivers forget where they grew up.

Black cabs do have an important advantage over a lot of Hire Cars, in that they are all accessible. Yes, they can carry wheelchairs; and, ‘loading’ and ‘unloading’ ‘us’ is relatively stress free; I say relatively, there are always those that complain – but hey, they’re cabbies, it’s in the job description. However, how accessible is a service when we can’t get black cabs through ComCab; when many refuse to see us as we attempt to flag them down in the street; and, when they refuse us at taxi ranks?

Without wishing to overtax the goodwill of the posters to this site; may I pose this question again? How accessible is a service that builds in so many barriers as to make it inaccessible for those it is designed for? Please, stop viewing accessibility in purely physical terms. Unless we are prepared dismantle our mental barriers; until deep-seated prejudices and fears of disability are dispelled; and, until disabled people are accepted as equal, we will encounter inaccessibility.

 

[Irenick]

That's only part of the problem, though. As it is, much of the rolling stock was designed and built pre-the Disability Discrimination Act and has had to be "reverse engineered" to make it "disabled-friendly", a standard it barely meets. Add to the rolling stock problem the poor accessability of a majority of the stations, and the whole situation means that many disabled people don't travel because the obstacles in their way making doing so physically and emotionally exhausting.

ViolentPanda, the DDA was born the child of unloving and uncaring parents – a Conservative government running on empty; a wrecking regime that reluctantly, and with bad grace eventually conceded to passing a piss-poor piece of parsimonious legislation – the DDA.

Yet, back in 1995, the Tories were pointing out; even though transport did not fall under the shadow of this legislation; it would eventually have to come into compliance – namely, 2019 for buses and 2020 for trains. Ok, buses and trains are expensive items. Companies don’t replace these vehicles every year. But, they have been given a quarter of a century to come up to speed. Given this over-generous run-in period that providers would take heed; and, all buses and trains built since 1995 would be designed with disability access in mind.

Let’s hope bus and train companies don’t ignore the DDA as employers are evidently doing.

 

[Irenick]

In all the years I have been posting here I have only come across one person like yourself who is prepared to so blatantly lie, misrepresent and twist my words. Shocking really.

Blatantly lie, misrepresent and twist your words TopCat?

If you will insist on posting so provocatively; posting with the expressed intention of prompting reaction; don’t be surprised if people throw your own words back in your face. Unlike a tête-à-tête; where off the cuff remarks are made, and then fade away…On here your words are recorded; written large for all to see; to go back and forth; to read and, if necessary reread.

TopCat, I have not presented myself well on this thread; and, for that I apologise – sorry to anyone that I have offended.

 

[Irenick]

That situation isn't helped by the lack of effective enforcement of the law - the Disability Rights Commission have taken on very few cases to a meaningful level and the only way, ime, that laws are enforced is when people can access suitable advice and information to properly challenge abuses of commonly accepted requirements.

Paul, your analysis is correct. Around six years ago I attended the TUC’s Disability Conference. Margaret ‘Horrible’ Hodge attended as a guest speaker in her guise as Disability Minister, or Minister for Disabled People – or, some such CP meaningless title. Her theme was the Disability Rights Commission (DRC); and, the main thrust of her message was: the DRC should not be seen as a body to use litigation in pursuit of its goals – pretty much sums it all up, doesn’t it?

The DRC made it quite clear from the onset that it would only taken on ‘high profile’ type cases that it could win – we can see where Horrible Hodge was going. When it came to employment; the DRC pinned its hopes on trade unions taking up the slack – and, to a large extent we have. The first successful employment case taken under the DDA, Wisdom Toothbrushes, was won by a T&G member – backed by the union. Misguidedly, not all disabled workers belong to a trade union; and so, who do they turn to – not the DRC, for sure.

Early last year, Bert Massie, Chair of the DRC mildly berated employers for avoiding their duty to disabled people. Massie, giving evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into to IB and the government’s Pathways to Work programme last March stated that “More needs to be done to tackle employers’ attitudes towards recruiting disabled people…”

Disabled people who confront attitudinally challenged employers see it differently. We see obstructionist employers, who ignore both Medical and Social Models of Disability in favour of the Economic Model. These days HR departments are clued-up when it comes to turning-down disabled job-seekers.

Sorry for caling you 'middle-class'!

 

[Irenick]

Whiilst I would support the notion of a fully accessible rail network and tube network I do think it would be cheaper to supply every person with mobility difficulties with a car and team of drivers free of charge.

TC, you may be right; the free car and drivers option could well be cheaper than massive infrastructural change. However, this isn’t going to happen; in fact, neither will happen – no time soon anyway.

Yet, transport isn’t the only issue disabled encounter on a day-to-day basis. Every aspect of life throws up one barrier or another to disabled people. Whether it’s trying to get into and around shops, pubs, restaurants, clubs, cinemas, theatres, sports stadia, swimming pools, gyms, parks, gardens, friends’ houses, relatives’ houses, old buildings of interest, work places, the pyramids etc; or, trying to access services, both public and private.

I know! It would be cheaper to build fit-for-purpose disabled communities, free of charge. Just like the provision of cars and drivers, free; creating ‘special’ communities for disabled people would solve your problem, and very likely salve your conscience.

But, where does that leave us? Where does it leave society? Who is next?

TC, your suggested solution to accessible travel serves only to further marginalise disabled people. While some disabled people would, and do opt for the private car option; many wish to use public transport; they wish to make a meaningful contribution to the environment; and, more selfishly, take part in ‘normal’ human intercourse.

I find your attitude towards disabled people rather disturbing. When you’re not decrying the excessively expensive access costs that we force upon public transport providers; you are proposing ways of getting us off public transport. Well, that’s my reading of your views TC.

 

[Irenick]

Yep.
In many ways I'm more fortunate than Irenick. I'm still (semi-) ambulant, albeit with sticks/crutches and great difficulty, but I still, over a decade after the DDA, can't use my local rail station (Tulse Hill) because of the stairs, nor any other nearby rail station. I have difficulty using modern rear-engined buses because the jerkiness of gear-change and braking generally causes my back muscles to spasm and tear unless I'm tanked up on valium, in which case I'm not fit to travel. It'd be great if I wasn't dependent on public transport, but my neuro problems preclude me from getting my driving licence back.

ViolentPanda, like you I too have a degree of ambulatory mobility – I can walk very short distances with the aid of a stick, although I cannot mount stairs and steps. Most wheelchair users have limited movement outside of their chairs; this is why the more militant of ‘crips’ would challenge the use of the term ‘wheelchair bound’ – actually, this is only one reason.

VP, the motion of, coupled to the great momentum created by buses is a also a problem for me. I’m not too hot on mechanics; but, I suppose it’s to do with the lower part of the body being ‘anchored’ to the seat; while the upper body, hinged at the hips and lower spine is subject to the movement, motion and momentum of the vehicle. As you say VP, this causes spasms, a tearing of muscle and as a consequence, severe pain.

 

[rich!]

Yet, transport isn’t the only issue disabled encounter on a day-to-day basis. Every aspect of life throws up one barrier or another to disabled people. Whether it’s trying to get into and around shops, pubs, restaurants, clubs, cinemas, theatres, sports stadia, swimming pools, gyms, parks, gardens, friends’ houses, relatives’ houses, old buildings of interest, work places, the pyramids etc; or, trying to access services, both public and private.

There's a lot of work going on at the moment trying to work out how to deal with the combined demographic slump and increased life expectancy "problem". Part of this is trying to work out how to efficiently overhaul existing infrastructure in order to, for example, remove the need for people to move to care homes. Have a look at the work Anthea Tinker is doing at Kings College, may be of interest.

 

[Irenick]

Rich, the central tenet of the disability movement over the last 30-years has been the need to remove barriers, societal, historical and most stubborn, economic. Barriers that leave disabled people so tantalisingly close to their goals; yet, always on the wrong side of ‘insurmountable’ barriers; barriers more formidable than metal bars and brick walls; barriers of the will. These are barriers, constructed by self-interest, with the cement of profit forming an unbreakable bond.

Thanks for the link. I’ve read some of Professor Tinker’s work. Yes, there are many parallels between the needs of disabled and elderly people. However, there are also many differences between the needs and aspirations of these two groups – and, I’ll pre-empt the obvious here: some elderly people are also disabled.

In housing for instance; a younger disabled person may not need sheltered accommodation; yet, require many of the features found in sheltered housing. This is an issue that may impinge upon social housing; and, central and local government’s duties to provide, or at least facilitate the demand for accessible social housing.

Whoops, sorry I’m way off topic here.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Capital Call does work for 'some'. I have never managed to get through to CC at the first attempt. Usually, you’ll be cut off two or three times; before, maybe after 15 or 20 minutes getting to book a journey. On speaking to a manager at CC. He explained, that CC was a victim of its own success – it’s also a local community transport service in the Hackney area; and, as a consequence couldn’t actually deal with the volume of calls it received for both its services – there’s a logic there somewhere, I’m buggered if I can see it though. Other than that; CC gets my vote.

From what I can make out, their approval process for the licenced minicab companies they sub-contract the jobs to is a bit over-engineered, and means it takes ages to sign interested companies up.

Given a say in who gets the contract for TaxiCard, I’d give it to CC – with the proviso they employ more people to operate their phones. Hire Car companies (the old mini-cans) currently serve the disabled community in a way black cannot – namely, they operate in the areas we live; and, actually go on to council estates where we also live – many black cab drivers forget where they grew up.

I entirely agree, with the added proviso that they get rid of that fuck-awful "hold" music.

Black cabs do have an important advantage over a lot of Hire Cars, in that they are all accessible. Yes, they can carry wheelchairs; and, ‘loading’ and ‘unloading’ ‘us’ is relatively stress free; I say relatively, there are always those that complain – but hey, they’re cabbies, it’s in the job description. However, how accessible is a service when we can’t get black cabs through ComCab; when many refuse to see us as we attempt to flag them down in the street; and, when they refuse us at taxi ranks?

Without wishing to overtax the goodwill of the posters to this site; may I pose this question again? How accessible is a service that builds in so many barriers as to make it inaccessible for those it is designed for? Please, stop viewing accessibility in purely physical terms. Unless we are prepared dismantle our mental barriers; until deep-seated prejudices and fears of disability are dispelled; and, until disabled people are accepted as equal, we will encounter inaccessibility.

How accessible?

I reckon that if you take into account the physical difficulties that many oldsters have, I'd say they're denying 25-30% of the entire population that would use public transport the ability to actually use it.
That's a fuckload of potential customers down the toilet, and a fuckload of potential income, all for the sake of some short-term expense.
It also doesn't send out a good message of the attitude of these companies if, for the most part, their attempts at "accessibility" appear (to "the disabled" and "the abled" alike) to be afterthoughts, bolt-on provision to fulfil the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law.

 

[ViolentPanda]

ViolentPanda, the DDA was born the child of unloving and uncaring parents – a Conservative government running on empty; a wrecking regime that reluctantly, and with bad grace eventually conceded to passing a piss-poor piece of parsimonious legislation – the DDA.

Even a "piss-poor piece of parsimonious legislation" is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
That said, IMHO too many disability organisations (and generally the ones run for, rather than by, "the disabled"), seem to view the DDA as the be-all and end-all of legislative action, rather than as a foundation on which to build.

Yet, back in 1995, the Tories were pointing out; even though transport did not fall under the shadow of this legislation; it would eventually have to come into compliance – namely, 2019 for buses and 2020 for trains. Ok, buses and trains are expensive items. Companies don’t replace these vehicles every year. But, they have been given a quarter of a century to come up to speed. Given this over-generous run-in period that providers would take heed; and, all buses and trains built since 1995 would be designed with disability access in mind.

Mmmm, but surely that attributes to the TOCs a degree of common sense and foresight, not to mention the ability to think in terms of long-term investment (which few of them are willing to countenance, given the lengths of their franchises), that the TOCs don't actually possess?

We need to make sure the issue of accessibility is rammed home as often and as hard as possible. both to the govt, and to the private companies involved in public transport provision.
That's why amalgamating the DRC (ineffective though it is/was) with the other "rights commissions" is a bad joke; it takes away a forum that was at least perceived as speaking for and from "the disabled" with an authoritative voice, whereas I'm personally suspicious that the new amalgamated commission will brush disability issues aside in favour of the more newsworthy issues of racism and sexism.

Let’s hope bus and train companies don’t ignore the DDA as employers are evidently doing.

Yes, I suppose we can hope.

 

[ViolentPanda]

ViolentPanda, like you I too have a degree of ambulatory mobility – I can walk very short distances with the aid of a stick, although I cannot mount stairs and steps. Most wheelchair users have limited movement outside of their chairs; this is why the more militant of ‘crips’ would challenge the use of the term ‘wheelchair bound’ – actually, this is only one reason.

Hope my use of "crips" doesn't offend, it's simply the most accurate way to describe both myself and the way I am able to get around.

VP, the motion of, coupled to the great momentum created by buses is a also a problem for me. I’m not too hot on mechanics; but, I suppose it’s to do with the lower part of the body being ‘anchored’ to the seat; while the upper body, hinged at the hips and lower spine is subject to the movement, motion and momentum of the vehicle. As you say VP, this causes spasms, a tearing of muscle and as a consequence, severe pain.

According to a bus-driving friend, the main problem with modern buses is that being rear-engined there is a slight lag in accleration and decelleration which translates to jerky motion (of the kind that didn't happen on Routemasters, if you could actually get onto one), whih is what causes the upper body movement (and, equally importantly imho, the bracing of muscles against that movement) which causes the problems.
Quite ironic that in the quest for accessible buses, most of them have been made inaccessible to the likes of me.