Blind man forced to sit on floor of Virgin train....

[Dr Hoo]

Whilst assertiveness isn't everybody's style I was struck by an incident on a Sheffield tram recently. An elderly passenger accompanied by a carer joined a well loaded service. "Right, which of you young people occupying the Priority Seats is going to get up and allow this disabled gentleman to sit down!" boomed out. Three youngsters with heads buried in their phone screen jumped up, the disabled passenger sat down and the other two Priority Seats remained vacant for the rest of the journey.

 

[tspaul26]

The article says that he was unable to reserve a 'disabled seat' when he booked his tickets. It is not clear if this means a priority seat or a disabled space.

No details are provided as to how he bought the tickets, but I infer from the context that they were purchased online. My understanding is that disabled spaces and priority seats are not generally reservable online, but can be booked by contacting the assisted travel service?

If so, it would seem that he (or more likely his wife) purchased the tickets without making any seat reservations at all. In these circumstances, he must rely on other passengers vacating priority seats voluntarily and there is little that the guard can do if they refuse to do so and the train is full.

Moreover, if those passengers hold seat reservations or are themselves eligible to use the priority seats then I see no particular reason why they should remove themselves. For example, a pregnant mother is able bodied, but I don't think anyone would realistically argue that she should vacate a priority seat.

Finally, it would seem that the guard did make efforts to locate empty seats, but this would have required them to sit separately so they declined this option.

 

[Darandio]

Finally, it would seem that the guard did make efforts to locate empty seats, but this would have required them to sit separately so they declined this option.

Now why does that sound very, very familiar?

 

[yorkie]

The article says that he was unable to reserve a 'disabled seat' when he booked his tickets. It is not clear if this means a priority seat or a disabled space.

True, though I infer that there was no seat reserved, because he allegedly had to sit on the floor. It is possible he did book a seat, but chose not to sit in it and to sit on the floor instead, however this is not mentioned and would raise more questions.

No details are provided as to how he bought the tickets, but I infer from the context that they were purchased online. My understanding is that disabled spaces and priority seats are not generally reservable online, but can be booked by contacting the assisted travel service?

There is no facility to select a disabled seat. (The priority seats could be chosen with the seat selector)

 

[Moonshot]

Now why does that sound very, very familiar?

Oh indeed !! I actually wonder if its worth having a sticky thread on this forum which follows these type of stories to their conclusion. I guess the majority of them would actually conclude that the original complaint was potrayed without a substantial number of facts included. As a slight aside to this, as a guard myself, I will make every attempt to locate a blind passenger with dog in an area as close as possible to me in the back cab. A lot of guards do this as it happens

 

[tspaul26]

Whilst assertiveness isn't everybody's style I was struck by an incident on a Sheffield tram recently. An elderly passenger accompanied by a carer joined a well loaded service. "Right, which of you young people occupying the Priority Seats is going to get up and allow this disabled gentleman to sit down!" boomed out. Three youngsters with heads buried in their phone screen jumped up, the disabled passenger sat down and the other two Priority Seats remained vacant for the rest of the journey.

I will almost always give up my seat on public transport if asked to do so.

However, I have generally ceased to offer seats proactively due to the multiple instances of verbal abuse to which I have been subjected, including by various unpleasant women. They were certainly not ladies!

I think it points to the general decline of common courtesy and decency in modern society.

 

[Bayum]

Many of you seem to have skirted over the actual article...

It states that in the past, the man has suffered heart attacks and a stroke... Both of which are going to cause issues physically, including his vision issues. If the man needs to be with his carer for the journey, then yes, absolutely the seat should have been declined. If he needs a carer with him, then why are people complaining that he should have taken the option?

True, though I infer that there was no seat reserved, because he allegedly had to sit on the floor. It is possible he did book a seat, but chose not to sit in it and to sit on the floor instead, however this is not mentioned and would raise more questions.


There is no facility to select a disabled seat. (The priority seats could be chosen with the seat selector)

How easy is it for someone with limited vision to go through the booking engine and work out which seats are priority seats and then select those? Surely the naming of them as 'priority seats', to be given to someone who needs to sit down is ridiculous given they can be reserved by those who are able to stand and sit on floors for long periods of time? I've found it difficult to navigate VTECs website to get seats booked and the like and to change the reservation seats, so I'd not be surprised if he was unable to do so. Even if he asked his wife to book the seats, would she have the know how to select or change the seats at the end?

 

[221129]

Many of you seem to have skirted over the actual article...

It states that in the past, the man has suffered heart attacks and a stroke... Both of which are going to cause issues physically, including his vision issues. If the man needs to be with his carer for the journey, then yes, absolutely the seat should have been declined. If he needs a carer with him, then why are people complaining that he should have taken the option?

Then they should not have travelled on a train they knew to be fully reserved.

How easy is it for someone with limited vision to go through the booking engine and work out which seats are priority seats and then select those?

Surely that would be something for the carer to do if they are that vital...

 

[Bayum]

Then they should not have travelled on a train they knew to be fully reserved.


Surely that would be something for the carer to do if they are that vital...

Again, please don't quote my post without reading the whole of it. I've found VTEC's booking system tricky to get around. What's to say someone who isn't as savvy getting stuck trying to reserve seats?

 

[Bayum]

Then they should not have travelled on a train they knew to be fully reserved.


Surely that would be something for the carer to do if they are that vital...

There's also the point I made in reply to 'Yorkie's' post, whereby someone may assume a priority seat would be unreservable due to it being a priority seat?

 

[tspaul26]

Forgive me, but where is this 'fully reserved' assertion coming from?

Insofar as I can see, the tickets were booked in advance. It was not possible to specify reservations in 'disabled seats' (whatever they may be) so they did not reserve any seats at all.

I see no evidence to support the inference that ordinary seat reservations could not have been made.

[Incidentally, if an online booking was not made with VTEC the seat selector would not be available.]

 

[221129]

Forgive me, but where is this 'fully reserved' assertion coming from?

Insofar as I can see, the tickets were booked in advance. It was not possible to specify reservations in 'disabled seats' (whatever they may be) so they did not reserve any seats at all.

I see no evidence to support the inference that ordinary seat reservations could not have been made.

[Incidentally, if an online booking was not made with VTEC the seat selector would not be available.]

So they chose not to book a seat? Then there we go...

 

[Llanigraham]

Many of you seem to have skirted over the actual article...

It states that in the past, the man has suffered heart attacks and a stroke... Both of which are going to cause issues physically, including his vision issues. If the man needs to be with his carer for the journey, then yes, absolutely the seat should have been declined. If he needs a carer with him, then why are people complaining that he should have taken the option?

Not neccessarily. I know people who have had both and are still fully active.

How easy is it for someone with limited vision to go through the booking engine and work out which seats are priority seats and then select those? Surely the naming of them as 'priority seats', to be given to someone who needs to sit down is ridiculous given they can be reserved by those who are able to stand and sit on floors for long periods of time? I've found it difficult to navigate VTECs website to get seats booked and the like and to change the reservation seats, so I'd not be surprised if he was unable to do so. Even if he asked his wife to book the seats, would she have the know how to select or change the seats at the end?

His wife (and carer) is not visuallly affected, and seems to be fully capable of dealing with the bookings.

 

[Bayum]

Not neccessarily. I know people who have had both and are still fully active.



His wife (and carer) is not visuallly affected, and seems to be fully capable of dealing with the bookings.

I also said in my previous post it had the ability to cause physical difficulties.

His wife is not visually affected. Again, VTEC's booking system is quite complicated, especially when wanting to view or change seat reservations.

 

[Amy Worrall]

Exactly so. If you need special conditions, then you need to make a reservation. If there isn't one to be had on the train you'd ideally like to use, then surely you have to modify your travel plans. You can't expect just to turn up and have space created for you.

I really hate this attitude, which is common among public transport companies too.

IMO, equality means provision for as close as possible the level of service that non-disabled people get. Non-disabled people can travel on the train without having to make plans in advance. Disabled people should be able to do the same. And if it costs extra to make that provision, then the service provider should stump the bill, because that's what it takes to provide a service that's available to all.

Sometimes it's not possible to provide the same level of service. (For example, wheelchair users at unstaffed stations without lifts.) But this is not one of those times. A blind person is less capable of standing on a moving train than a sighted person. So, if no passenger was willing to give up their seat, then the conductor should have turfed someone out of theirs. That might make someone's day a bit worse (having to stand), but if you compare that mild inconvenience to how much it would suck to be blind, they should hopefully get some perspective, count their blessings, and do the thing that helps out a fellow human.

The issue of reserved seating is a red herring. I've never encountered a train where every single seat had a reservation on it — but even if that was so, I still think access needs should trump reservations. After all, if a train is short formed and you have a reservation in the missing coach, this forum is quick to point out that a reservation isn't a guarantee, and since you didn't pay for it you're not due recompense. The same should apply here.

 

[Parallel]

I like how 'Forced' is used in the title. 'Forced to sit on the floor'.

Nearly every conductor I've come across has been extremely helpful and proactive - So it appears unfortunate that the gent has had a poor experience on both his outward and return journey. Conductors are not in a position to make people move from seats, I would hope that someone would've given up a priority seat though.

 

[Amy Worrall]

Conductors are not in a position to make people move from seats

They should be!

 

[Darandio]

So, if no passenger was willing to give up their seat, then the conductor should have turfed someone out of theirs.

And what exactly do you expect them to do? They can ask, that is pretty much it.

Not forgetting they did locate seats for them, but this would have required them to sit separately so they refused. Very Corbyn-esque indeed.

 

[theironroad]

I like how 'Forced' is used in the title. 'Forced to sit on the floor'.

Nearly every conductor I've come across has been extremely helpful and proactive - So it appears unfortunate that the gent has had a poor experience on both his outward and return journey. Conductors are not in a position to make people move from seats, I would hope that someone would've given up a priority seat though.

Haha, if there was an award for telepathy, you've won it.

I was think the same about this usage of 'forced'. We had it with corbyn and his seating issues, now this and a some months ago how a former Paralympian was forced to wet herself as there was an issue with the accessible toilet in a train.

Now, I'm really not a grammar pedant, but when headlines and articles say that someone was 'forced' to do something I think that there was someone standing over them 'forcing' them to do whatever the action is.

Surely these articles should simply replaced 'forced' with something more appropriate, maybe in the seats scenarios (where seats were available, just not together) then 'chooses' or 'opts to' though in the wheelchair wetting case maybe 'had to'.

I guess using less powerful words desensationalises the power of the media article to shock.

 

[Amy Worrall]

And what exactly do you expect them to do? They can ask, that is pretty much it.

I think that is part of the problem — I think conductors _should_ be able to do things like demand someone vacates a seat, for a reason like this. (And if the person refuses, I guess that's what the BTP are there for. As I said above, it would suck to be turfed out of your seat, but it sucks much more to have a disability.)

But, even if they are not able to make such a demand to a specific person, there is still stuff they could do. Stand at the door of the carriage, and make an announcement that someone needs to give up their seat for this blind person — and that the train will not be moving until someone does! Someone will definitely move then!

 

[theironroad]

I think that is part of the problem — I think conductors _should_ be able to do things like demand someone vacates a seat, for a reason like this. (And if the person refuses, I guess that's what the BTP are there for. As I said above, it would suck to be turfed out of your seat, but it sucks much more to have a disability.)

But, even if they are not able to make such a demand to a specific person, there is still stuff they could do. Stand at the door of the carriage, and make an announcement that someone needs to give up their seat for this blind person — and that the train will not be moving until someone does! Someone will definitely move then!

Sounds good, but not really realistic.

Btp would be less than impressed if they were called out to a simple seat dispute (unless there has been violence etc)

The TOC control will also been on the case f the train crew for delaying a train for what will be seen as a insignificant reason.

Yes, the power of audible moral persuasion might work on some trains, but even then there is a fine line between trying to encourage a seat to become vacant and seeming to intimidate people to giving up a seat.

 

[Essan]

Should a non disabled person be denied a seat on a train because a disabled person wants it? Isnt that discrimination?

(I would happily give up my seat in such a situation, but nonetheless, why should I? I have paid the same price for a ticket - I have equal right to a seat)

 

[Amy Worrall]

Should a non disabled person be denied a seat on a train because a disabled person wants it? Isnt that discrimination?

(I would happily give up my seat in such a situation, but nonetheless, why should I? I have paid the same price for a ticket - I have equal right to a seat)

Why should you? Because society should protect its vulnerable.

It's not being denied a seat because a disabled person wants it, but because a disabled person needs it. It helps them get a level of access that is closer to what able bodied people enjoy. I think the expectation of a seat is a reasonable accommodation. Assuming you are able bodied, you don't need the same accommodation.

 

[Llanigraham]

Why should you? Because society should protect its vulnerable.

It's not being denied a seat because a disabled person wants it, but because a disabled person needs it. It helps them get a level of access that is closer to what able bodied people enjoy. I think the expectation of a seat is a reasonable accommodation. Assuming you are able bodied, you don't need the same accommodation.

Define vulnerable?
Define disabled?

I hold a Disabled Adult Railcard as I wear a hearing aid; should I be able to demand one of these specified seats?

 

[AlterEgo]

Why should you? Because society should protect its vulnerable.

It's not being denied a seat because a disabled person wants it, but because a disabled person needs it. It helps them get a level of access that is closer to what able bodied people enjoy. I think the expectation of a seat is a reasonable accommodation. Assuming you are able bodied, you don't need the same accommodation.

Yes, that’s why you *should* give up your seat, but you just can’t enforce these things.

 

[Qwerty133]

Why should you? Because society should protect its vulnerable.

It's not being denied a seat because a disabled person wants it, but because a disabled person needs it. It helps them get a level of access that is closer to what able bodied people enjoy. I think the expectation of a seat is a reasonable accommodation. Assuming you are able bodied, you don't need the same accommodation.

Not all disabilities are visible (and there are other perfectly good reasons for needing a seat (injuries, pregnancy, illness etc)), so presumably anyone not wishing to give up their seat could claim to be disabled. Although I'm not sure how the issue is relevant here because the guard would never ask one able bodied passenger to move for another able bodied passenger (his wife) and seats were found if they were willing to sit separate (or if they needed to be together she could have stood in the aisle next to him).

 

[Chrism20]

I really hate this attitude, which is common among public transport companies too.

IMO, equality means provision for as close as possible the level of service that non-disabled people get. Non-disabled people can travel on the train without having to make plans in advance. Disabled people should be able to do the same. And if it costs extra to make that provision, then the service provider should stump the bill, because that's what it takes to provide a service that's available to all.

They can but I’d imagine a very high majority of non disabled people travelling from Liverpool to Peterborough do actually plan in advance it’s not a couple of stops on the local stopper it’s literaly one side of the country to the other.

This pair have planned in advance. They seem to have known that there were no available seats for them onboard but have decided to travel then kick up hell when the seats they were told weren’t available actually weren’t available. They also don’t seem to have contacted Virgin to discuss journey care assistance options which is something you would expect someone who plans in advance to do particularly if they need specific seats.

The other bit that seems strange is they seem to have returned via Birmingham in order to end up on a London Midland. Those crosscountry 170s between Peterborough and Birmingham (or any other XC service for that matter) aren’t known for being lightly loaded but there is no mention of that leg.

I’m not suggesting that people shouldn’t move for someone who clearly needs assistance but something with this story doesn’t stack up.

 

[johnkingeu]

I hold a Disabled Adult Railcard as I wear a hearing aid; should I be able to demand one of these specified seats?

If you think you need it I don’t see why not. People who have hearing problems sometimes have problems with balance.

More generally, in the absence of having a doctor available on every train to adjudicate, I don’t think we should get into making fine judgements about the degree of disability required to justify having a seat. It’s up to the person themselves to decide. If that means there will be a small percentage of ‘seat stealing’ well (a) how pathetic of them and (b) so be it.

 

[Bantamzen]

Putting aside the disability of this gentleman for a moment, but the media do love a bit of TOC bashing and this would have had the editor if this particular publication squealing with delight. DM readers do like to be reminded why they would never be seen dead on overcrowded, scruffy and dirty trains, and stories like this help to re-enforce such middle class myths. The only disappointing facet of this for the DM is that there was no Labour politician found on the service "hogging" a seat. So instead they'll have a pop at Richard Branson whose operation has a whopping 10% stake in VTEC.

 

[Alan2603]

So instead they'll have a pop at Richard Branson whose operation has a whopping 10% stake in VTEC.

But, whose company name and colours (Virgin) is written all over the trains, and whose company name is repeatedly mentioned over the PA on the trains. Even the train staff wear Virgin corporate uniform and badges. Even stations say they are operated by Virgin Trains.

As a mere passenger on a VTEC train, I would have absolutely no idea that 90% of the franchise is owned by Stagecoach, as 'Stagecoach' or its branding doesn't appear anywhere.