'No room' on train for Paralympian

TT-ONR-NRN · 24 Dec 2017

I think the fact that she is a Paralympian is irrelevant.

Just because she’s a famous sports player doesn’t mean it’s more important for her to be treated better than other disabled people?

The point is - no disabled person should receive poor service whether they are a famous sportsman/woman or not.

Surely you agree here?

RailUK Forums

eastdyke · 24 Dec 2017

Bletchleyite said:
In that situation there is no room for another passenger to board, whether in a wheelchair or not, therefore there is equality.

If the wheelchair user can board at all, there is by definition space for them to be in the proper area.

Not true, because if lots of people will not make way for access to the proper area then there is no 'designed' equality at all. And even then the 'proper area' may already be 'taken'.
In this case, in the absence of further facts, we must assume that this was not a 'booked train' and it seems that there was another following in 15 minutes.
I know what I would have done and without recourse to any social media.

jon0844 · 24 Dec 2017

eastdyke said:
Not true, because if lots of people will not make way for access to the proper area then there is no 'designed' equality at all. And even then the 'proper area' may already be 'taken'.
In this case, in the absence of further facts, we must assume that this was not a 'booked train' and it seems that there was another following in 15 minutes.
I know what I would have done and without recourse to any social media.

Social media does give people the chance to rant before perhaps reconsidering. A bit like phoning an ex at 4am, then regretting it in the morning.

I am sure we've all written something we've 'slept on' then not sent, but with the likes of Twitter it's very easy to post in haste.

bramling · 24 Dec 2017

TUC said:
But a penalty fare is a very focussed response to such a situation. If one of the issues is that staff have very few levers when a passenger refused to move, then saying that such a lever should not be used because some passengers might be irritated at it doesn't move the situation forward. Passengers are often irritated at penalty fares in other contexts. It isn't used as an argument not to have penalty fares.

As for the 'this is the only time I can see my kids' argument, no one is saying the other passenger shouldn't remain on the train, only that they need to get out of occupying that space.

Good luck issuing a penalty to someone on a packed train, where there’s limited room to move, surrounded by stressed and pissed-off people all laden with large amounts of luggage and quite likely plenty of kids, many of them not regular rail users - and do all of this in a station stop time without delaying the service.

So you’re potentially asking someone to vacate a space, move to somewhere else that doesn’t exist (ie is already full) or move their luggage to a luggage rack that is probably already overflowing, someone that’s already exasperated because they’ve already not got a seat and had to occupy the disabled space for however long already.

As I say, it’s all very well talking about what might be feasible on a quiet train where everything’s fine and dandy and someone’s just being awkward because they simply fancy using the disabled space. An overcrowded train is a completely different ball game. Add in a bit of stress and emotion to the situation and these seemingly easy solutions simply don’t work.

I’m not saying any of this is ideal, it’s just reality, and won’t change as long as we have overcrowded trains.

eastdyke · 24 Dec 2017

jon0844 said:
Social media does give people the chance to rant before perhaps reconsidering.

Or even considering.
It is quite possible that even for the Baroness to get on the train several passengers would have needed to get off with no guarantee of being able to get back on.
Again if is all as reported perhaps some negotiation between the would be passengers before arrival of the train would have helped. I know that if I had been waiting, unless I was on a 'booked train', then I would have been totally open to that.

ChathillMan · 24 Dec 2017

Whatever the ins and outs of this case are, I can't help but feel that until the burden of legal responsibility falls with the person without a wheelchair occupying the wheelchair space/area when somebody else actually needs it, then this sort of thing will happen again.

If i know BTP might do me for discrimination as i am denying a wheelchair user access because they have a wheelchair and i am in the designated space that i don't want to leave, I won't then sit/occupy the area.

No doubt i have missed something obvious in my suggestion.

obviously if a wheelchair is already in the space then that is first come first served and tough luck.

Master29 · 24 Dec 2017

Bromley boy said:
Oh for goodness sake. Able bodied is a perfectly fine term to use.

Its perfectly obvious to most people that priority seats are for those with physical disabilities, and also for non disabled people who are pregnant/elderly/frail.

My autistic brother is disabled, he doesn’t need a priority seat.

It`s not perfectly obvious at all. You judge by what you see and straight away you miss the point. If you understand the autistic spectrum then you would know there could be reasons they might need a priority seat. If your brother doesn`t feel the need for one then that`s fine as many wouldn`t but not the same in all cases. Would you say downs syndrome people are able bodied? We start to get on difficult ground when we use terms like "it`s perfectly obvious. It`s not and the term able bodied is relative.

Shaw S Hunter · 24 Dec 2017

eastdyke said:
Or even considering.
It is quite possible that even for the Baroness to get on the train several passengers would have needed to get off with no guarantee of being able to get back on.
Again if is all as reported perhaps some negotiation between the would be passengers before arrival of the train would have helped. I know that if I had been waiting, unless I was on a 'booked train', then I would have been totally open to that.

The problem with that line of thought is that it's an acceptance that Persons of Reduced Mobility (wheelchair-bound or otherwise) are not entitled to consider rail as providing a walk-up service. At least some of the argument over DOO on Southern and the doubt about 100% provision of OBMs related to this very point. If true equality is to be reached then the idea that PRMs should always have to book in advance has to be swept away and suitable arrangements made for 100% of services. It's not as though huge amounts of potential on-board capacity are being sacrificed to provide wheelchair or priority spaces.

eastdyke · 24 Dec 2017

ChathillMan said:
obviously if a wheelchair is already in the space then that is first come first served and tough luck.

Just that! And all 'equality' legislation falls on its ar** on the railway because provision is actually very very limited (even though millions are spent to enable access between platforms).
But to do otherwise on trains would of course push up the cost of rail travel by a considerable amount.
What out there would you wish for?

HSTEd · 24 Dec 2017

Bletchleyite said:
In that situation there is no room for another passenger to board, whether in a wheelchair or not, therefore there is equality.

If the wheelchair user can board at all, there is by definition space for them to be in the proper area.

Many people state, in the bus case, that the wheelchair user should have absolute priority and that non wheelchair users should be required to disembark for them.
At that point, how dowe determine when there is sufficient room or not?

eastdyke · 24 Dec 2017

Shaw S Hunter said:
The problem with that line of thought is that it's an acceptance that Persons of Reduced Mobility (wheelchair-bound or otherwise) are not entitled to consider rail as providing a walk-up service. At least some of the argument over DOO on Southern and the doubt about 100% provision of OBMs related to this very point. If true equality is to be reached then the idea that PRMs should always have to book in advance has to be swept away and suitable arrangements made for 100% of services. It's not as though huge amounts of potential on-board capacity are being sacrificed to provide wheelchair or priority spaces.

Trains get full from time to time - fact!

Shaw S Hunter · 24 Dec 2017

eastdyke said:
Trains get full from time to time - fact!

Of course they do! But there is no evidence that this was the case in this incident. All the other passengers waiting for the train were able to board. Simply that someone had occupied the designated wheelchair space and was unwilling to move from it. I very much doubt that had that person co-operated that anyone would have been left behind as a result. I suspect a significant factor here was the number of "irregular" passengers, of whom there are many at this time of year, who are not familiar with the concept of crowded trains and how passengers need to co-operate with each other for the greater good, ie ensuring that every effort is made to allow all intending passengers to board. It's called consideration for your fellow human being as opposed to selfishness.

eastdyke · 24 Dec 2017

Shaw S Hunter said:
Of course they do! But there is no evidence that this was the case in this incident. All the other passengers waiting for the train were able to board. Simply that someone had occupied the designated wheelchair space and was unwilling to move from it. I very much doubt that had that person co-operated that anyone would have been left behind as a result. I suspect a significant factor here was the number of "irregular" passengers, of whom there are many at this time of year, who are not familiar with the concept of crowded trains and how passengers need to co-operate with each other for the greater good, ie ensuring that every effort is made to allow all intending passengers to board. It's called consideration for your fellow human being as opposed to selfishness.

We do not know that, your presumption is not helpful. All we actually know is that the would be passenger could/did not travel.
It is not actually possible to know from the train door that the designated space is occupied.
Have you tried it against a rammed vestibule? No of course you haven't!

WatcherZero · 24 Dec 2017

Shaw S Hunter said:
Of course they do! But there is no evidence that this was the case in this incident. All the other passengers waiting for the train were able to board. Simply that someone had occupied the designated wheelchair space and was unwilling to move from it. I very much doubt that had that person co-operated that anyone would have been left behind as a result. I suspect a significant factor here was the number of "irregular" passengers, of whom there are many at this time of year, who are not familiar with the concept of crowded trains and how passengers need to co-operate with each other for the greater good, ie ensuring that every effort is made to allow all intending passengers to board. It's called consideration for your fellow human being as opposed to selfishness.

She said later she would have been happy to sit in the vestibule, the woman in the door was insisting there was not enough room for her to board though which gives an indication of the level of crowding on the service. It may have been physically impossible for her wheelchair to make it to the disabled space even if it wasn't occupied.

221129 · 24 Dec 2017

Llanigraham said:
Are you insinuating that Dame Tanni has made this up?
Having met her twice I suggest you could not be more wrong.

Refer to post 42.

Antman · 24 Dec 2017

CentralTrainer said:
And that is what is wrong with society today in a nutshell

Not really. Not every disability is visible.

221129 · 24 Dec 2017

Shaw S Hunter said:
Of course they do! But there is no evidence that this was the case in this incident.

Apart from the fact she later said that this was the case.

randyrippley · 24 Dec 2017

The underlying problem is lack of storage space on modern trains, and also the crazy volumes some people expect to walk on with. Its about time that luggage vans were reintroduced, and their use for anything other than hand luggage strictly enforced.
Of course if you had a luggage van then you'd have room for the wheelchair anyway.

221129 · 24 Dec 2017

randyrippley said:
The underlying problem is lack of storage space on modern trains, and also the crazy volumes some people expect to walk on with. Its about time that luggage vans were reintroduced, and their use for anything other than hand luggage strictly enforced.
Of course if you had a luggage van then you'd have room for the wheelchair anyway.

Never going to happen unfortunately.

6Gman · 24 Dec 2017

randyrippley said:
The underlying problem is lack of storage space on modern trains, and also the crazy volumes some people expect to walk on with. Its about time that luggage vans were reintroduced, and their use for anything other than hand luggage strictly enforced.
Of course if you had a luggage van then you'd have room for the wheelchair anyway.

And then you'd have people complaining "Why is there a half-empty luggage van when I can't get a seat?"

Incidentally, is your final sentence suggesting we should return to the days when wheelchair users were required to sit among the parcels?

Tetchytyke · 24 Dec 2017

221129 said:
I would guess not seeing as a lot of it was made up or exaggerated

No it wasn't. Everyone else on the platform got on.

Travelling with a wheelchair-bound colleague to meetings is...enlightening...about how unpleasant some people truly are.

Tetchytyke · 24 Dec 2017

WatcherZero said:
Shes since said the tweet was 'a moment of anger' and there really was no room on the train.

Has she? I can't see a tweet saying that. And I've looked.

Bromley boy · 24 Dec 2017

Master29 said:
It`s not perfectly obvious at all. You judge by what you see and straight away you miss the point. If you understand the autistic spectrum then you would know there could be reasons they might need a priority seat. If your brother doesn`t feel the need for one then that`s fine as many wouldn`t but not the same in all cases. Would you say downs syndrome people are able bodied? We start to get on difficult ground when we use terms like "it`s perfectly obvious. It`s not and the term able bodied is relative.

I have not missed the point. The post I was responding to was, for some unknown reason, ranting about the use of the term "able bodied".

I would argue this term is perfectly fine to use because:

Someone may be disabled and perfectly able to stand (as with my brother);

Someone may not be disabled and still require the use of a priority seat (due to pregnancy, for example);

In your example a downs person is certainly disabled, but this fact alone doesn’t tell us whether they would need a priority seat or not.

Therefore "able bodied" is a more useful term in this context than "disabled".

This is simple common sense, as I’m sure is obvious to most people posting here. No idea why there’s any need for frothing at the mouth and righteous indignation...

Bromley boy · 24 Dec 2017

6Gman said:
And then you'd have people complaining "Why is there a half-empty luggage van when I can't get a seat?"

Incidentally, is your final sentence suggesting we should return to the days when wheelchair users were required to sit among the parcels?

I read that as meaning luggage in the luggage van = more room in the passenger saloon for wheelchair bound passengers.

It will never happen anyway, so a moot point.

Llanigraham · 24 Dec 2017

221129 said:
Apart from the fact she later said that this was the case.

Really? Where?
All post 42 says is that the train was full.

Darandio · 24 Dec 2017

Arctic Troll said:
Has she? I can't see a tweet saying that. And I've looked.

There was one yesterday as a reply to someone else, I can't find it now either. Something along the lines of tweeted in a moment of anger but train was really full and staff were brilliant.

Tetchytyke · 24 Dec 2017

Darandio said:
Something along the lines of tweeted in a moment of anger but train was really full and staff were brilliant.

I can see several where she acknowledges her frustration, but none where she says "there really was no room". She repeatedly states that nobody else got left behind, even though trains were busy due to the strike (presumably XC's).

From what I know of Tanni (a friend of mine was her researcher for a period), she's not someone to reach for the hyperbole.

Master29 · 24 Dec 2017

Bromley boy said:
I have not missed the point. The post I was responding to was, for some unknown reason, ranting about the use of the term "able bodied".

I would argue this term is perfectly fine to use because:

Someone may be disabled and perfectly able to stand (as with my brother);

Someone may not be disabled and still require the use of a priority seat (due to pregnancy, for example);

In your example a downs person is certainly disabled, but this fact alone doesn’t tell us whether they would need a priority seat or not.

Therefore "able bodied" is a more useful term in this context than "disabled".

This is simple common sense, as I’m sure is obvious to most people posting here. No idea why there’s any need for frothing at the mouth and righteous indignation...

The only one frothing at the mouth as you put it seems to be you. I just challenged your thinking. Nobody would hesitate to give up a seat for a downs simply because their physical characteristics may be obvious, precisely why it`s not so clear cut as to whether someone needs a priority seat or not. I regularly see Downs being patronised across the spectrum simply because of the way they look. This obviously has nothing to do with whether they may be able bodied or not. You can`t tell just by observation. What about MS, claustrophobia and even autistic spectrum conditions. Many of which vary considerably as you would be no doubt aware. So no, able bodied is not a more useful term in the context you put it.

47802 · 24 Dec 2017

Personally I think the whole thing is complete nonsense instead of spending fortune trying to make Trains/Buses/Stations wheelchair compatible etc, I think we would have been better using the money instead to develop a countrywide bespoke subsidised Taxi service for disabled Travellers.

Tetchytyke · 24 Dec 2017

47802 said:
I think we would have been better using the money instead to develop a countrywide bespoke subsidised Taxi service for disabled Travellers

I've heard some stuff in my time, but goodness me, that's a corker.

'No room' on train for Paralympian

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member