As I have said time and again... if you think that the industry is misinterpretting the law then take a test case to court to get a ruling
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.
In the meantime, the statutory
Code of Practice: Accessible Train Station Design for Disabled People says, in Section Y1,
Buses or other substitute transport should be accessible to disabled people.
It also says,
Where passenger train services are affected by engineering works at short notice, it is recommended that passenger train operators provide accessible buses, where reasonably
practicable, at no extra charge. Where this cannot be achieved, operators should ensure that other alternative accessible transport is available to disabled passengers, such as accessible taxis, at no extra charge.
This evidently recognises that whilst accessible taxis are a good solution on paper, the reality is that accessible buses are preferable. They also say:
Section 248 of the Transport Act 2000 requires operators to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the substitute road services allow disabled passengers to undertake their journeys safely and in reasonable comfort.
My regular experience is that rail replacement bus replacement accessible taxis don't transport me in reasonable comfort; I end up travelling with my head and neck pressed against the ceiling, unable to see out of the windows, and stifling. Also more often than not the taxi driver doesn't restrain me or my wheelchair (whether because they don't know how to,
e.g. in this video, or because they don't bother,
as in this video.)
So my question is: why are so few (planned!) rail replacement buses accessible?
How much does accessibility of buses feature in negotiations between TOCs and bus companies? Is there any way of finding out how much priority a TOC or TOCs gives to attempting to procure accessible vehicles? Also do TOCs attempt to shape the market for future engineering cover, e.g. by encouraging their partner firms to procure accessible coaches?
Whatever they're doing isn't very successful, in my experience, because as Northern (my local TOC) admit, a very small proportion of rail replacement vehicles are accessible. Doubtless a significant factor in this is coach operators using inaccessible stock, both old and new (bought for use on excursions and tours) but I wonder, without knowing, if some is also down to TOCs not treating accessibility as a priority.
...but until a court of law says my interpretation of the law is incorrect I will continue to believe that my interpretation is correct, just as you believe you are correct.
That's fine by me, though I'd hope that if the statutory bodies or barrister's report say anything that challenges either of our interpretations we'd both be prepared to consider it.
Furthermore, if you continue to bombard the thread trying to make me look unreasonable then I will consider it bullying and I will report it as such!
I did not intend to bombard the thread or to make you look unreasonable; the reason a few came through at once was because I was reading through and commenting on those posts where I thought I could contribute something. I am sorry I came across as bullying. NB: in the spirit of openness; I have reported those of your posts that included potentially defamatory allegations about me.