1st Class Excuses and discussion on 1st provision

[Nym]

That would be discriminatory. Disabled people have equal rights.

There are circumstances where positive discrimination is permitted under the equality act 2010 though...

 

[bunnahabhain]

What is the legal basis for such a charge?

Surely if the TOC carries you from Stevenage to King's Cross the Stevenage to King's Cross fare should apply, irrespective of whether the stop was 'set down only'?

No, the same applies for services with peak time restrictions. If a train is set down only, then the train does NOT stop to enable passengers to board, therefore anybody on that train must have a ticket from the last station where passengers can board.

 

[185143]

There are circumstances where positive discrimination is permitted under the equality act 2010 though...

The signs on pendolino and voyager trains that show a wheelchair and state priority by law seem to agree with this

 

[Nym]

The signs on pendolino and voyager trains that show a wheelchair and state priority by law seem to agree with this

ALthough they may be using railway bylaws to enforce this as I beleive this signage predates the Equality Act. (And is significantly easyer to enforce)

 

[trainophile]

My point (about the passenger being asked/told to give his seat up for the fainted lady) was that, regardless of any potentially non-evident disability, if he has paid for his seat he should not have to justify not relinquishing it, even by passively allowing a false assumption that he *needs* it, to hang in the air.

TM: Please would you give this woman your seat as she is unwell?
Pax: No, I'm afraid I won't. I have a valid ticket entitling me to sit in it.

Leaves no room for further discussion. What's the point of sitting down in an available seat if there's no security of tenure for the duration of your journey?

I believe in such circumstances someone probably would eventually *offer* (being the operative word) to give up their seat, but the point is that this should not be regarded as something dictated by train staff. Even if the chosen passenger announces that he has no disability and is feeling A1, "but I'm still not giving up my seat". Yes he'll get accusing looks, but he is perfectly within his rights.

Or not?

 

[bb21]

My point (about the passenger being asked/told to give his seat up for the fainted lady) was that, regardless of any potentially non-evident disability, if he has paid for his seat he should not have to justify not relinquishing it, even by passively allowing a false assumption that he *needs* it, to hang in the air.

He has not paid for a seat. He has paid to be conveyed.

 

[Nym]

My point (about the passenger being asked/told to give his seat up for the fainted lady) was that, regardless of any potentially non-evident disability, if he has paid for his seat he should not have to justify not relinquishing it, even by passively allowing a false assumption that he *needs* it, to hang in the air.

Was a lot of evil looks I got once that ended up with me thinking, "I didn't choose to have joint problems, I'm pretty sure she chose to be pregnant..."

No, I wasn't in a priority seat...

 

[bunnahabhain]

He has not paid for a seat. He has paid to be conveyed.

Correct, something which people only seem to get when I ask how much they paid for their reservation.

 

[trainophile]

He has not paid for a seat. He has paid to be conveyed.

I understand that, but in this context it isn't really relevant. He boarded the train and sat down in an unoccupied and unreserved seat, in which he expected to be conveyed to his destination. Do the rules allow him to be subsequently ejected from that seat because someone with a perceived greater need requires it?

 

[bunnahabhain]

I understand that, but in this context it isn't really relevant. He boarded the train and sat down in an unoccupied and unreserved seat, in which he expected to be conveyed to his destination. Do the rules allow him to be subsequently ejected from that seat because someone with a perceived greater need requires it?

Yes, and no. Byelaws do, disability discrimination does not. For the avoidance of doubt the disability laws take priority over the byelaws.

 

[bb21]

I understand that, but in this context it isn't really relevant. He boarded the train and sat down in an unoccupied and unreserved seat, in which he expected to be conveyed to his destination. Do the rules allow him to be subsequently ejected from that seat because someone with a perceived greater need requires it?

I am not passing judgement. I am merely pointing out an incorrect argument you put forward.

 

[DarloRich]

We have to assume that the suited bloke in question was not occupying a priority seat (which I only mentioned as it might have swayed the judgement call if it had been). So it seems you agree that in this instance afyutr, who is presumably a guard/TM, was on unsafe ground if he tried to insist that this particular chap gave up his seat for the lady.

It would be nice if younger, fit people automatically offered their seat to someone in distress, but in real life it doesn't seem to happen these days, so my question was about the authority of the train staff to enforce some random passenger to give up a seat that they are perfectly entitled to occupy. They might not like the passenger's manner (or lack of manners) but that isn't grounds for selecting them for seat eviction!

I understand that, but in this context it isn't really relevant. He boarded the train and sat down in an unoccupied and unreserved seat, in which he expected to be conveyed to his destination. Do the rules allow him to be subsequently ejected from that seat because someone with a perceived greater need requires it?

are you actually suggesting that in the case presented this chap should not be "persuaded" to leave his seat, regardless of whether or not there is any compulsion, to allow someone clearly unwell to sit down? Really? What a fantastic world we live in. I'm all right jack.........:roll:

 

[trainophile]

I am not passing judgement. I am merely pointing out an incorrect argument you put forward.

Sorry if it appeared I was feeling got-at... I was just confirming that I understand the semantics regarding provision of seats .

Finally, before I log off for the night (or I'll never go!), another point from the original post regarding the fainting lady and the arguably ignorant passenger... the poster started by appearing to criticize the suited bloke for not rushing to the aid of the poorly woman. I'm not sure I would know what to do if I found myself in a similar situation, not being first-aid trained.

Besides, as a male, he might have felt it inappropriate to do anything that might have resulted in accusations of goodness-knows-what. As the woman was apparently seated next to him when it happened, it doesn't sound like she had hit the floor and needed picking up, so I'm not sure what the guard expected fellow passengers to do.

Most people board a train expecting an uneventful journey, so I'm hardly surprised people don't instantly rush to get involved with other people's problems. It doesn't make him the bad guy, although that is how he has been portrayed.

 

[timbo58]

on the subject of leaving major station and being in reverse:

It is not permitted for the TM to allow passengers to board through the TGS on an HST as this is not passenger accommodation and they are not insured to be in that part of the train unless accompanied by a member of staff (it may only be a very short distance but this is the way it was explained to me, and the way I explained it in turn to anyone asking afterwards).

To be fair it hardly 'delays anyone joining' unless that delay is around 2/3 seconds at best: usually those who miss the train because of this difference would have done so anyway: my 'rule' was the moment the 1st 'tip' was given from the platform staff I had locked the doors therefore regardless of the TGS door being unlocked and it being 'possible' to still get into passenger accommodation via the unlocked TGS door which I was despatching from, I didn't do it, not once, not ever.

Walkthrough of 1st : I didn't mind those joining and walking through 1st to go straight to std, although it was not ideal, but when leaving the train: walking through 1st simply because it was at the front or because the person wanted to be seen getting out of 1st was never anything I liked very much, particularly on restaurant trains, it saves/saved all of 20 seconds: pathetic frankly.

 

[Llanigraham]

The simple answer would be to say VERY loudly "Are you refusing to give up your seat for this unwell female/person/whatever?"
I'm sure that embarrasment and the hostility from the rest of the passengers would soon get his a*** out of the seat!!

 

[trainophile]

are you actually suggesting that in the case presented this chap should not be "persuaded" to leave his seat, regardless of whether or not there is any compulsion, to allow someone clearly unwell to sit down? Really? What a fantastic world we live in. I'm all right jack.........:roll:

No, I'm hypothetically arguing the rights and wrongs of the situation as presented to us by the poster who first introduced it to this thread.

Depends on the method of persuasion - "get out of that seat before we call BTP", or "would you mind awfully if this lady sits in your seat while she recovers from her illness?".

Actually I'm even more confused now, as the OP did suggest that the lady was already seated next to the "suit". Maybe he meant she was standing next to him. He doesn't seem to have been back to clarify so I might as well stop pondering the imponderables!

 

[DarloRich]

I wouldn't worry. There are no rights and wrongs of it - he should move regardless of compulsion, first class, second class, on the tube, whatever he should move.

 

[trainophile]

The simple answer would be to say VERY loudly "Are you refusing to give up your seat for this unwell female/person/whatever?"
I'm sure that embarrasment and the hostility from the rest of the passengers would soon get his a*** out of the seat!!

I'm still not sure why this male passenger is being so vilified, given that his only crime seems to be happening to find himself adjacent to an incident that had nothing to do with him, and with which he chose not to get involved.

As for hostility from the other passengers... really? I'd be keeping a low profile in case the guard gave up on him and demanded I give my own seat up if I felt so strongly about it!

There are two distinct debates going on here (I mean regarding this incident - there's about ten within the thread!) - the official requirement to relinquish a seat for whatever reason, and the moral responsibility to do so. I was concentrating on the first aspect but seem to have become embroiled in the second.

 

[londiscape]

I'm still not sure why this male passenger is being so vilified, given that his only crime seems to be happening to find himself adjacent to an incident that had nothing to do with him, and with which he chose not to get involved.

As for hostility from the other passengers... really? I'd be keeping a low profile in case the guard gave up on him and demanded I give my own seat up if I felt so strongly about it!

There are two distinct debates going on here (I mean regarding this incident - there's about ten within the thread!) - the official requirement to relinquish a seat for whatever reason, and the moral responsibility to do so. I was concentrating on the first aspect but seem to have become embroiled in the second.

This bit's the key in London. I'm happy to give my seat up on the Tube to anyone visibly elderly or clearly infirm, but I don't do so vocally - I just silently stand up and move towards the doors, in the hope that said person will notice and take the seat.

When I first moved to London I used to offer my seat in person in a friendly manner, but after being verbally abused for doing so, by being accused of being a sexist/ageist/disable-ist/even racist, I now choose to keep my mouth firmly shut.

For the same reason, I choose not to involve myself in any incidents on public transport, I am not first aid trained and, even though I may be able to avail myself of common sense, do not wish to be on the receiving end of law-suits or any other spurious accusations.

It's very sad that we've come to this.

 

[GodAtum]

Taking this back to 1st class seating, if 1st class seating was actual worse then standard would you still pay more? I would as I'll be more likely to get a seat.

Maybe it's only in London people dont have manners? is this the same up north?

 

[ModernRailways]

This bit's the key in London. I'm happy to give my seat up on the Tube to anyone visibly elderly or clearly infirm, but I don't do so vocally - I just silently stand up and move towards the doors, in the hope that said person will notice and take the seat.

When I first moved to London I used to offer my seat in person in a friendly manner, but after being verbally abused for doing so, by being accused of being a sexist/ageist/disable-ist/even racist, I now choose to keep my mouth firmly shut.

For the same reason, I choose not to involve myself in any incidents on public transport, I am not first aid trained and, even though I may be able to avail myself of common sense, do not wish to be on the receiving end of law-suits or any other spurious accusations.

It's very sad that we've come to this.

It's the same almost everywhere now sadly.

I gave up my seat to a old women who could barely walk and she said 'Do you think I'm too old to stand up? Stupid teenagers.' she proceeded to sit down until the man across from where I was sitting said 'Oi, sit back down in the seat, she obviously doesn't want it.' I was too embarrassed and ended up getting off at the next stop. I now never give up my seat unless asked by someone now, although I almost always stand on the Metro now since the seats are scruffy.

Also, on the Metro there are wheelchair bays, I was standing against the window when I saw a wheelchair get on. I moved out and said 'Do you want to go there' there response 'Why? Do you think because I'm in a wheelchair I must go to the special disabled location. Pr***' I wasn't sure what to do, ended up walking to the other end of the carriage. I now move for wheelchairs but don't say anything. If someone else is standing there I'll stay there, unless we are asked to move.


Back on topic, the best excuse I've heard was simply 'Oh, but I'm a relation to the royal family'. Train Manager asked how and she said 'My great great grandmother used to be a cleaner'. Don't know how he kept his cool, but he just said 'Oh, okay I'll let you stay here this once.'

 

[drbdrb]

When I first moved to London I used to offer my seat in person in a friendly manner, but after being verbally abused for doing so, by being accused of being a sexist/ageist/disable-ist/even racist, I now choose to keep my mouth firmly shut.

The simple logic I use is that every train and tube I use has priority seats marked for the disabled, elderly, pregnant.

1. I will not sit in a priority seat if any other seat on the train is free.

2. If I am sat in one of those seats, if I see a disabled, elderly, pregnant person board, I will stand and indicate that they can sit down.

3. If I am not, then the disabled, elderly, pregnant person can go and ask one of the people in the priority seats to move so they can sit down.

Otherwise, what is the point in them?

 

[Tibbs]

The simple logic I use is that every train and tube I use has priority seats marked for the disabled, elderly, pregnant.

1. I will not sit in a priority seat if any other seat on the train is free.

2. If I am sat in one of those seats, if I see a disabled, elderly, pregnant person board, I will stand and indicate that they can sit down.

3. If I am not, then the disabled, elderly, pregnant person can go and ask one of the people in the priority seats to move so they can sit down.

Otherwise, what is the point in them?

In relation to 2. How can you see if someone is disabled?

 

[bb21]

It's the same almost everywhere now sadly.

Don't let yourself be bothered by it. Unfortunately rude people are everywhere and if you get upset and troubled by them you will never have a quiet moment.

 

[trainophile]

In relation to 2. How can you see if someone is disabled?

If they are disabled in such a way as to require a seat, they are probably using some kind of walking aid. A blind person will generally have a white stick and/or a guide dog.

It's arguable whether "a bad back" or "a sore knee" is sufficient reason to qualify as disabled, unless medically certified. The term "disabled" has become very loose nowadays. If someone has a personality disorder they call themselves "disabled", but I wouldn't deem this adequate reason to have preferential treatment as regards needing a seat.

 

[drbdrb]

In relation to 2. How can you see if someone is disabled?

Because it is usually obvious? If I can see that they need the seat I will automatically stand for them

If they had a hidden disability that meant a seat would be desirable for them, then given that telepathy isn't very good, I would rely on them (or people travelling with them) to have the common sense to ask if they could sit in the priority seat.

But as I said, I will only sit in a priority seat if it is the last seat free, and I always wonder about the people who sit in them despite there being other seats to choose from.

 

[GodAtum]

But as I said, I will only sit in a priority seat if it is the last seat free, and I always wonder about the people who sit in them despite there being other seats to choose from.

Exactly, i purposely avoid priority seats, especially on buses. But even then, if someone sitting in a priority seats doesnt give it up when asked I might have to give up mine. Sitting on the top deck helps though.

 

[transmanche]

I always wonder about the people who sit in them despite there being other seats to choose from.

Priority seats are the seats closest to the doors - and being that the door standback area is also the luggage area on some tube stock, I can see why people travelling with luggage choose to sit there.

 

[drbdrb]

Priority seats are the seats closest to the doors - and being that the door standback area is also the luggage area on some tube stock, I can see why people travelling with luggage choose to sit there.

The logic is fine, provided that by making that choice and rejecting other empty seats, you accept the possibility that you may need to stand if the train fills up and someone needing that seat subsequently gets on.

 

[transmanche]

The logic is fine, provided that by making that choice and rejecting other empty seats, you accept the possibility that you may need to stand if the train fills up and someone needing that seat subsequently gets on.

Well you can't ever know for certain what is going on in other people's thought processes.

But at least you no longer have to wonder why some people might choose to sit in such seats