Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

[kingqueen]

Indeed... in fact, seeing as though most stns and many trains are unusable to wheelchair users without assistance, and {I believe} disabled passengers needing assistance are required to notify the TOC in advance perhaps the OP can explain why he thinks the TOC has to provide a fully accessible fleet of replacement vehicles when there is a service substitution and that as soon as the substitution takes place he can just turn up without notice and demand fully accessible transport?

We aren't required to notify the TOC in advance. We are requested or advised to do so where practicable, up to 24 hours in advance; for example, Northern requests 24 hours notice, whereas TransPennine and Scotrail request only 3 hours notice. But that's only a recommendation and request: TOCs (and the ORR in its function of approving TOC disability policies) are clear that TOCs should provide appropriate assistance to disabled people who turn up without booking assistance. In fact, there have been and are initiatives to do away with the recommended booking period such that disabled people can just "Turn Up And Go", though that has suffered a severe knock recently with the extension of DOO.
I haven't turned up without notice and demanded accessible transport on rail replacement routes; I've always given considerable notice. But I absolutely think that disabled people, including me, should be able to Turn Up And Go, even when there are rail replacement services in operation. Why? Partly because I believe the legislation and good practice guidance says that TOCs should do all they reasonably can to ensure we can do so - irrespective of our debate on PSVAR, there's other legislation and guidance that says this should be the goal. But more importantly, because I think disabled people should be afforded as much as possible the rights and privileges that non-disabled people take for granted. Non-disabled people can buy a ticket and travel straight away throughout the network, including on rail replacement services. As far as practicable, disabled people should be able to do similarly -whilst recognising some of the inherent practical difficulties and limits caused by the age of the infrastructure, which being the oldest railway in the world was built at a time when disabled people were (even more) institutionalised and disempowered.
I recognise also that making the rail replacement transport as accessible as possible is difficult and costly, and makes an already ball-ache of a job, even more so. But I think it should be done anyway. Doubtless this is partly a result of the frustrations I experience as a disabled travelled myself, but I think it is also the correct thing to do from an unbiased point of view - certainly official guidance recommends it.
Do you not think that we should also be working towards Turn Up And Go, in 2018?
NB: I have sent two messages responding to you in a relatively short period. This is because I'm responding to your messages, the first of which was about me and the second of which asked me to explain my point of view. Please do not think that I'm sending such through an intent to mob you - I'm not.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

We aren't required to notify the TOC in advance. We are requested or advised to do so where practicable, up to 24 hours in advance; for example, Northern requests 24 hours notice, whereas TransPennine and Scotrail request only 3 hours notice. But that's only a recommendation and request: TOCs (and the ORR in its function of approving TOC disability policies) are clear that TOCs should provide appropriate assistance to disabled people who turn up without booking assistance. In fact, there have been and are initiatives to do away with the recommended booking period such that disabled people can just "Turn Up And Go", though that has suffered a severe knock recently with the extension of DOO.
I haven't turned up without notice and demanded accessible transport on rail replacement routes; I've always given considerable notice. But I absolutely think that disabled people, including me, should be able to Turn Up And Go, even when there are rail replacement services in operation. Why? Partly because I believe the legislation and good practice guidance says that TOCs should do all they reasonably can to ensure we can do so - irrespective of our debate on PSVAR, there's other legislation and guidance that says this should be the goal. But more importantly, because I think disabled people should be afforded as much as possible the rights and privileges that non-disabled people take for granted. Non-disabled people can buy a ticket and travel straight away throughout the network, including on rail replacement services. As far as practicable, disabled people should be able to do similarly -whilst recognising some of the inherent practical difficulties and limits caused by the age of the infrastructure, which being the oldest railway in the world was built at a time when disabled people were (even more) institutionalised and disempowered.
I recognise also that making the rail replacement transport as accessible as possible is difficult and costly, and makes an already ball-ache of a job, even more so. But I think it should be done anyway. Doubtless this is partly a result of the frustrations I experience as a disabled travelled myself, but I think it is also the correct thing to do from an unbiased point of view - certainly official guidance recommends it.
Do you not think that we should also be working towards Turn Up And Go, in 2018?
NB: I have sent two messages responding to you in a relatively short period. This is because I'm responding to your messages, the first of which was about me and the second of which asked me to explain my point of view. Please do not think that I'm sending such through an intent to mob you - I'm not.

I stand corrected on the point of turn up and go... that point I made based on old evidence {my Dad was registered blind} and certainly I was not inferring that you had an arrogance by just turning up and travelling....

and, if truth be known I reckon that 90% of the issues that are now being raised about accessibility is because of the arse about face that this country has gone about trying to achieve it... instead of changing the design of vehicles we should have changed the design of the infrastructure.

I suppose the biggest gap in anyone's cognition of the issues involved really comes down to why there is such an emphasis on getting the replacement services accessible without assistance when there are huge chunks of the network that just aren't in any such way accessible...

mind you thank God we've come a long way since the days when my local Littlewoods store thought it quite acceptable to have a sign for the disabled toilets directing people up the escalator!

 

[pemma]

mind you thank God we've come a long way since the days when my local Littlewoods store thought it quite acceptable to have a sign for the disabled toilets directing people up the escalator!

Some of those requiring the disabled toilet will be able to use an escalator. Although, if the sign didn't say 'via escalator' with another sign showing the way to a lift it was a bit stupid.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I'm hoping that won't be necessary, because it's a very long-winded and tolling process and often leads to unsatisfactory unintended consequences or results. I'm hoping that one of my queries I've got in with the DfT, the Office of Rail and Road, and the DVSA on this subject may come up trumps; or failing that, the expert barrister analysis may do similarly. I consider it reasonably likely that the statutory bodies may also say that it's open to interpretation and can only ultimately be settled in Court. I thought it was at least worth asking, though.

Trust me, no operator is going to provide accessible coached unless forced to by the court. They are all happy with their interpretation of the law (be it right or wrong) and unless a court tells them it is wrong, they will assume they are right. Don't think that company lawyers haven't been all over this.

If it is decreed by a court that all RRB must be fully accessible, then that is the end of the RRB. No bus/coach operator has anywhere near enough to fulfill the demand, so will simply bow out of that work. It barely pays as it is.

What then? TOC's will simply have to run no services at all. In much the same way needing accessible toilets has led to having no toilets, so needing accessible coaches will lead to no coaches. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[kingqueen]

and, if truth be known I reckon that 90% of the issues that are now being raised about accessibility is because of the arse about face that this country has gone about trying to achieve it... instead of changing the design of vehicles we should have changed the design of the infrastructure.

I guess that this largely echoes the historical electrification and diesel vehicle situation; from what I understand, part of the reason the (excellent, iconic and highly successful) HST was created was because whilst other countries were investing in electrification and investment in new / renovated track, we were working on vehicle design. But also, I guess this is because of the huge legacy of old buildings and infrastructure, anything from a few decades to 150+ years - and adapting existing infrastructure which was created without any thought to accessibility is much more difficult than designing it in from the start...

I suppose the biggest gap in anyone's cognition of the issues involved really comes down to why there is such an emphasis on getting the replacement services accessible without assistance when there are huge chunks of the network that just aren't in any such way accessible...

I don't see it as an "either/or". They are two separate issues, both of which need sorting, both of which are very difficult to sort and require significant work in order to make accessible. Both affect disabled people, and disabled people campaign on both. Perhaps it could be considered that given so much of the network is not accessible, it's even more important to ensure that those bits that are accessible are kept as accessible and easy to use as possible.

Another big issue is Staff. No matter how accessible a station is, if somebody needs staff assistance to travel e.g. to put down a ramp and there aren't any station staff or train staff other than the driver, then the station building may as well be fully inaccessible. It is people and what they do which makes the network accessible or not, be they the huge army of excellent assistance staff at major stations, guards, bus substitution managers or other rail employees and volunteers; and reduction of such is a significant concern for its impact on disabled passengers. But then, I'm drifting from the thread title.

mind you thank God we've come a long way since the days when my local Littlewoods store thought it quite acceptable to have a sign for the disabled toilets directing people up the escalator!

I'm still experiencing this sort of thing on a regular basis!

 

[kingqueen]

Trust me, no operator is going to provide accessible coached unless forced to by the court.

That's a shame and a sad indictment, because irrespective of PSVAR or otherwise, other guidance and legislation recommends that train operating companies use all reasonable effort to source and use accessible vehicles for such. Doubtless through the recognition that accessible taxis aren't the universal panacea they may appear to be on paper.

If it is decreed by a court that all RRB must be fully accessible, then that is the end of the RRB. No bus/coach operator has anywhere near enough to fulfill the demand, so will simply bow out of that work. It barely pays as it is.

I'm alive to the possibilities of unintended consequences of such. However, my comment is: the industry has had many years of being told that they should make accessibility of rail replacement buses a priority, and the wider industry has been aware of the need for accessible transport for some time. Yet still, some coach operators are buying new, inaccessible coaches etc.

The good practice guidance, codes of practice and so on haven't resulted in accessible rail replacement services, as evidenced by Northern simply stating that nearly all "their" rail replacement buses are inaccessible. If good practice guidance hasn't worked, and legal action will kill provision entirely, what do you see as the way to improve accessibility of such services? What will actually work? Or are disabled people to wait further indefinite decades in order to access the services everybody took for granted?

As for ATW's toilets being locked out of use: that isn't because of disabled people's legal action, it's due to the rail industry's (including the government's) failures. If I remember correctly, the RVAR set the 2020 deadline back in 1998, so there's been 22 years notice... There are many factors that created this failure, but none of them were down to disabled people or their legal action. It always irks me when disabled people are blamed for services being stopped as a result of them asking for reasonable access. (I'm not claiming you said that, by the way, but others are and have, both over rail access issues and other access issues.)

 

[richw]

Where’s the money coming from? Most of the RRB we see are 20+ years old, because the railways pay so low.
Operators being used either don’t have newer coaches or are small turnover operators who can’t afford them.
Coach operators are working on a private hire basis to the TOC and therefore operate on a private hire basis.
As it’s a private hire it’s down to the TOC to specify their requirements. If they start specifying higher spec coaches they’ll either have to pay more, or the operators will say sorry not interested in the job, or I don’t have a suitable vehicle. Suddenly there will Be no vehicles available at all for anyone.

 

[Deafdoggie]

The coach industry is a tough industry, the profit margins are tight, many companies are going under as it is. The financial burden of buying wheelchair accessible coaches which are a lot more expensive than non-accessible is too much for many operators. They are not "fully accessible" but are accessible to travellers in wheelchairs, but this is not all disabilities. And some people do get confused between "Fully-Accessible" and "Wheelchair-accessible"

Personally, I feel we should try to accommodate as many disabilities as possible, but accept that accommodating them all is simply not going to be possible. They do not, for a personal example, have displays telling me where I am, nor do they have sign-language trained staff telling me where I am , but I accept that we can't cater for every disability and if there is no facility for me, there is no facility for me, but I'd rather other people could travel than we cancel everything just because I can't access it. But a truly "Fully-Accessible" coach could be accessed no matter what your disability. Sometimes there is a bit of paper in the window saying it is a RRB, but I would argue that doesn't make it "fully-accessible"

The ideal is that we have truly full accessible travel for all, but the reality is we can't. But back to wheelchairs, the cost would have to come from TOC's paying more for the coaches, but this, in turn, would need franchises renegotiating as they have not been costed on the basis of paying for wheelchair accessible coaches. And this alone is the reason the DFT will not say that RRB must be wheelchair accessible.

 

[Deafdoggie]

On another, personal, note, my mother has recently been diagnosed with bowel cancer, as a result can need the toilet urgently and without notice! To provide disabled access, toilets have been removed, thus making rail travel less-accessible to her disability! Being in a wheelchair is just one, of many, disabilities. We need to cater for as many as we possibly can, but not exclude one at the expense of another. Removing toilets because one disability can't access them is sheer madness.

Stopping RRB and cancelling services instead would also be sheer madness, just because not all the coaches can accommodate a wheelchair. I know it is not ideal, but arranging travel in advance means a wheelchair coach may be made available and surly this is better than no buses at all. But a "I can't have it, so no one can" attitude helps no one.

I've said it before, I will say it again, Be careful what you wish for. It may just come true.

 

[WelshBluebird]

But a "I can't have it, so no one can" attitude helps no one.

Except those campaigning for accessible facilities are not saying that. The only people saying that are the rail companies who can't be bothered to spend the money. And as I have said elsewhere in this topic, I think that action (removing facilities that already exist instead of making them accessible) should be made illegal.

The coach industry is a tough industry, the profit margins are tight, many companies are going under as it is. The financial burden of buying wheelchair accessible coaches which are a lot more expensive than non-accessible is too much for many operators.

I would have sympathy if this was a new thing. But it isn't. The 2020 deadline that applies to some services has been around for AGES. The only people the coach industry has to blame if they haven't sorted themselves out are themselves.

Trust me, no operator is going to provide accessible coached unless forced to by the court.

And that says everything about the operators doesn't it.

If it is decreed by a court that all RRB must be fully accessible, then that is the end of the RRB. No bus/coach operator has anywhere near enough to fulfill the demand, so will simply bow out of that work. It barely pays as it is.

Well the railway will still have a legal duty to provide services so I'd like to see how they would do that!

 

[Deafdoggie]

I would have sympathy if this was a new thing. But it isn't. The 2020 deadline that applies to some services has been around for AGES. The only people the coach industry has to blame if they haven't sorted themselves out are themselves.

But they are happy. It’s not needed for tour and holiday work, or most school contracts. They aren’t going to buy them for occasional RRB work

 

[WelshBluebird]

Where disruption which results in the use of rail replacement buses is known about in advance, TOCs often refuse to convey cycles. Are they allowed to do that, in your opinion?

To be fair, the carriage of large bits of luggage is pretty different to a person who needs an accessible option being able to travel or not!

Another point, recently I used rail replacement between Two unmanned stations, no opportunity to buy at either end of the journey. I asked driver and he said he didn’t care as his company has been paid a set rate. He had no ticketing facilities.
This supports the argument that the replacement bus is a complimentary courtesy service.

Just because there are no ticketing facilities does not mean the fare is not due.
No different to if you travel between two similar stations on a train and the guard doesn't come around.
That doesn't mean its free, it just means payment wasn't collected.

Guys stop feeding the troll. He has no interest in our views. Just repeatedly pumping the same misinterpreted copy and paste! If the railway call up asking to hire a coach for a service, the bus operator is on private hire to the railway for that service. It’s down to the railway to hire suitable vehicles. 10 non accessible coaches and 10 accessible taxis will do.
The railway are required by law to forfill their contract to get from A to B. If there is rail replacement needed, that accessible method doesn’t have to be a coach, it could be an accessible taxi.
If you want accessible coaches all the low cost operators will say no to the private hire enquiry and suddenly there will be no replacement coaches.

I guess the question is are ToC's providing accessuible replacements? Or do people who need accessible transport end up having to either not travel, or have to deal with a tonne of faffing around that they just shouldn't have to deal with? Whilst I do not fall into that category, I suggest that the reality is probably the latter, that they don't provide accessible taxis etc without huge inconvenience to those who need them (based on how much of a faff travelling on just normal trains can be in that regard!).

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

a couple of points...

1. the lack of fully accessible coaches... who's to blame? I would contend that, ultimately, it is the fault of legislators. The fact that tour/ PH/ Contract services were, and still are, exempt from the PSVAR regulations means that those companies that only have those sorts of work have had no incentive to purchase accessible coaches. The simple fact is that accessible coaches with sensible solutions to how to get wheelchairs on board have now been around for thirteen years... and the ridiculous side lifts which leave wheelchair users dangling 6' off the ground have been around even longer! The contention that RRB is usually provided by operators with old stock would then not have been a problem... if, in 2005 every coach built had to of been made accessible there would now be a large number of coaches being stepped down from front line touring service now and being passed down to the smaller operators!

2. what percentage of coaches on an RRB are needed to make the RRB fully accessible? Does every vehicle need to have wheelchair access?

lets say the stock used by a TOC has 8 coaches and can seat 500 passengers and has a standing capacity of 300 that's a total of 800 meaning that, given a seating capacity of a standard coach is 50 passengers that would require 16 coaches to meet each train. Now, let's say the train has 1 wheelchair space per carriage that's a maximum number of wheelchairs on each train is 8, therefore why would all 16 Rail replacement coach need to be wheelchair accessible?

 

[kingqueen]

As it’s a private hire it’s down to the TOC to specify their requirements. If they start specifying higher spec coaches they’ll either have to pay more, or the operators will say sorry not interested in the job, or I don’t have a suitable vehicle. Suddenly there will Be no vehicles available at all for anyone.

So; is there any solution or way forward, or are disabled people who need access features on rail replacement vehicles, forever doomed to not being able to use such?

I feel like this shouldn't be an insurmountable problem.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I'm fairly sure the answer is to try and give as much notice as possible, and they will try to allocate any accessible coaches to your journey, or book an accessible taxi.

 

[kingqueen]

They are not "fully accessible" but are accessible to travellers in wheelchairs, but this is not all disabilities. And some people do get confused between "Fully-Accessible" and "Wheelchair-accessible"

Yes, fully aware of that. I've got severe hearing impairment myself, I can hear a bit but predominantly lip read (go to classes) and have BSL level 3. Also I know a lot of disabled co-campaigners, particularly campaigners around accessible transport. I'm very aware that I'm the stereotype "disabled person" - white male middle-class articulate wheelchair user - and that all of those characteristics are a small proportion of disabled people, and that people with less stereotypical access needs are even less well catered for than wheelchair users.

Personally, I feel we should try to accommodate as many disabilities as possible, but accept that accommodating them all is simply not going to be possible.

I agree. There's no such thing as a perfectly accessible service, including bus service; and we have to find some sort of a compromise. The question is at what level that compromise is - and there's no easy answer.

But back to wheelchairs, the cost would have to come from TOC's paying more for the coaches, but this, in turn, would need franchises renegotiating as they have not been costed on the basis of paying for wheelchair accessible coaches. And this alone is the reason the DFT will not say that RRB must be wheelchair accessible.

Can you see any way forward on this?

 

[Deafdoggie]

Can you see any way forward on this?

I'm fairly sure the answer is to try and give as much notice as possible, and they will try to allocate any accessible coaches to your journey, or book an accessible taxi.

 

[kingqueen]

. Removing toilets because one disability can't access them is sheer madness.

I agree but would comment that it's madness being in this situation given the 22 years notice. Removing the toilets only brings negatives and no positives for disabled people and non-disabled people alike, but that's not disabled people's fault and is not a result of any legal or campaigning issue by disabled people, it is a result of the industry failing to meet its legal and deadline obligations. I'm keen to attempt to ensure that blame isn't placed on disabled people for daring to ask for access features, particularly (but not just) in the ATW toilets debacle.

Stopping RRB and cancelling services instead would also be sheer madness, just because not all the coaches can accommodate a wheelchair. I know it is not ideal, but arranging travel in advance means a wheelchair coach may be made available and surly this is better than no buses at all.

Thing is that is not the approach TOCs take, in my experience. They simply say: forget about any attempt to get an accessible bus, very few are accessible and we aren't going to bother finding out which ones are, we'll get you a taxi. Then the taxi doesn't arrive / doesn't know where it's going / is significantly late / doesn't clamp you in / doesn't have a seatbelt. That's my experience.
The guidance by the DfT, written 18 years ago when the PSVAR came out, says:

Operators should note that during this transition period a mix of vehicles on the same route creates uncertainty for disabled people wishing to make use of accessible vehicles. It also reduces the commercial benefit to the operator of more accessible vehicles. This practice should therefore be avoided. Where it is unavoidable, the timetable should show as clearly as possible which services are accessible.

Obviously, the "commercial benefits" element of that doesn't apply to rail replacement vehicles. But other than that, it does. It strikes me as reprehensible that 18 years later, we still have the situation where a minority of planned rail replacement services are accessible and nobody knows which they are.

But a "I can't have it, so no one can" attitude helps no one.

Happily, I don't know anybody with this attitude, including disability rights campaigners.
I do know of disabled people being legitimately blamed for curtailment off inaccessible services however, which is unpleasant and unjust when all they are campaigning for is what the industry and best practice guidance says should be provided - and even in cases where the curtailment isn't the result of disabled people's campaigning and action at all, as with ATW toilets. Where such happens, the blame should be put squarely on the rail industry in its various guises, and not on disabled people.

 

[Deafdoggie]

The problem is, campaigning for equality brings these consequences, however undesirable or unintentional. Because toilets have to be wheelchair accessible if provided, they are simply not provided.

Don't kid yourself it will be different with RRB. If they are made to provide wheelchair-accessible coaches on all RRB, they wont provide any at all. It isn't the rail industry fault. It isn't the coach industry fault. It isn't the governments fault, it is just the way things are. Things don't have to be anyone's fault ( I know it isn't the thing to say in todays blame culture) we are where we are.

If you need wheelchair transport try and book ahead, and if it doesn't turn up complain. I'm not aware of many failures, but when it does, complain and make a fuss about that specific failure, not the general lack of provision. In my experience that has far more more effect.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The problem is, campaigning for equality brings these consequences,

No it doesn't. Penny pinching companies and inadequate regulation bring these consequences.

If you need wheelchair transport try and book ahead

Kind of defeating the point then isn't it? Under law wheelchair users need to be treated the same as the rest of us. As such if we can just turn up and go, then those with accessible needs should be able to aswell.

and if it doesn't turn up complain

But that does nothing to actually solve the issue.

 

[Deafdoggie]

OK, so where is the money going to come from?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

OK, so where is the money going to come from?

lower profits/ shareholder dividends for the TOC/ bus operators?

 

[WelshBluebird]

OK, so where is the money going to come from?

In ATW's case, how about we start at the £20 million they send back to DB every year (note - based on news articles from last year that were presumably based on the figures from the year before) as profit? That would pay for a fair few pacers to get upgrades. Of course sadly its too late to do that now.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

In ATW's case, how about we start at the £20 million they send back to DB every year as profit? That would pay for a fair few pacers to get upgrades. Of course sadly its too late to do that now.

well, tbh accessible toilets on ATW are a bit of a red herring in this discussion.... after all ATW's record of investment in anything has been noticably lacking!

 

[Deafdoggie]

lower profits/ shareholder dividends for the TOC/ bus operators?

Bus operators? They are close to the wall already. They would simply not provide RRB's. TOC's would only increase their bid prices in a franchise bid.

 

[WelshBluebird]

well, tbh accessible toilets on ATW are a bit of a red herring in this discussion.... after all ATW's record of investment in anything has been noticably lacking!

I disagree that it is, because the point that was brought up is that campaigning for accessibility means that everyone loses out. The ATW example is a great example of why, when that does happen, the blame is at the companies involved, not the people campaigning for accessibility.

If you want to bring it back around to RRB's, then more cost effective ways of doing it could be looked at. I know GWR often use First groups bus resources to provide RRB's on shorter trips, I am sure that probably saves them money when compared to looking to unconnected third parties! (and as it happens those buses are also wheelchair accessible). Hell maybe we should go one further and say Network Rail / the ToC's should actually have a fleet of accessible RRB vehicles? Since RRB's aren't exactly uncommon, and at any one time, somewhere in the country, there is likely to be work going on that requires them. It wouldn't have to be enough to make up all RRB's, just enough so that there could be an accessible RRB provided where required (and the rest could be made up the ragtag fleets we see now). Hell maybe government could actually spend money on disabled people for once instead of cutting left, right and centre.

The thing is, and what makes it difficult, this isn't just a rail, bus or coach industry issue. This country has neglected those with accessibility issues for way too long. So much so that those who have such needs are just seen as pain, or as implied in this topic, people to blame when penny pinching companies make customer unfriendly decisions to save money. The transport industry is to blame, taxis are to blame, government is to blame, we all are to blame really. Personally, I think everyone who whinges about making things accessible should be forced to spend a day in a wheelchair and see how much (or not) they can go about their normal lives. Maybe that will bring it home to people - especially as that could be me or you tomorrow if something untoward was to happen this evening.

Of course, I don't think any of us are saying it is easy or cheap to change how as a society we seem to treat those with accessibility needs. But surely we can do better than the currently situation? The constant "sorry but it's too expensive" or "sorry but it isn't worth it" or "sorry but it is too difficult" really isn't good enough. Even small steps forward (e.g. a ToC guaranteeing an accessible taxi is available at all times even if non accessible RRB's are in use) would be better than right now!

 

[kingqueen]

The problem is, campaigning for equality brings these consequences, however undesirable or unintentional.

That's a sweeping statement. By that measure nobody should ever campaign for equality - the Suffragettes, anti-apartheid, anybody - because it always results in negative consequences.

It isn't the rail industry fault.

I disagree quite strongly - but then I believe in the Social Model.

 

[Deafdoggie]

That's a sweeping statement. By that measure nobody should ever campaign for equality - the Suffragettes, anti-apartheid, anybody - because it always results in negative consequences.I disagree quite strongly - but then I believe in the Social Model.

If it hadn’t been for the suffragettes Teresa May wouldn’t be prime minister now

Seriously though, all actions have consequences. Does the good outweigh the bad?

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree. There's no such thing as a perfectly accessible service, including bus service; and we have to find some sort of a compromise. The question is at what level that compromise is - and there's no easy answer. Can you see any way forward on this?

The simple answer would be for the government to offer grants to bus, coach and even taxi companies to help them to buy the necessary vehicles that legislators require them to do. But I think we can both agree getting money from this government would be the equivalent of getting blood from a stone. So failing that I'm afraid it comes down to trying to work with said companies to see what can be done until such time as a better solution can be found. Many may be unwilling or slow to respond, but persistent polite pressure can bring dividends. Heading for the courts to force them into impossible solutions will have quite the opposite effect.

 

[Deafdoggie]

The simple answer would be for the government to offer grants to bus, coach and even taxi companies to help them to buy the necessary vehicles that legislators require them to do. But I think we can both agree getting money from this government would be the equivalent of getting blood from a stone. So failing that I'm afraid it comes down to trying to work with said companies to see what can be done until such time as a better solution can be found. Many may be unwilling or slow to respond, but persistent polite pressure can bring dividends. Heading for the courts to force them into impossible solutions will have quite the opposite effect.

It is not going to happen, they don't need them for Tours, Private-Hire or Holidays. In other words their main 'bread and butter' business. Yes, they will have a couple in the fleet, but it isn't worth their while having wholesale replacement of the fleet. If you force them they will throw in the towel. Yes, building a relationship and asking nicely, may get an occasional one sent if it is doing nothing else, but heading to the courts will just mean none at all-or worse they win at court and none anywhere.