New DfT report "The Inclusive Transport Strategy: Achieving Equal Access for Disabled People"

[theblackwatch]

Earlier this week, the Department for Transport published a new report The Inclusive Transport Strategy: Achieving Equal Access for Disabled People which can be found at https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/728547/inclusive-transport-strategy.pdf . It says "there is much still to be done if we are to realise our ambition of delivering real change for disabled people on our transport networks, and achieving our goal of creating a transport system offering equal access for disabled people by 2030."

Chapter 4 covers current rights/future improvements - it would seem staff training is one of the things on the agenda (and not just limited to railways), which is particularly welcome given some of the things we have seen in recent weeks:

This Strategy will help ensure that rail passengers with accessibility requirements will be confident to travel, able to plan their journey and familiarise themselves with the route in advance. They will be well informed about the support available, including through the Passenger Assist scheme, and able to access it easily. All rail staff will be fully trained in disability awareness and confident to support passengers whatever their needs.

Chapter 5 mentions:

By spring 2019, develop a monitoring and enforcement framework for mandatory bus driver disability awareness training, which will include identifying a body to ensure compliance by bus operators with legal requirements

It also states:

• 98% of buses in England in 2016/17 are compliant with the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations, up from 28% in 2004/05;
• 78%30 of the mainline rail fleet is compliant with modern accessibility standards, up from 42% in 2008

The report also covers taxis/private hire, maritime and aviation.

 

[Dentonian]

Earlier this week, the Department for Transport published a new report The Inclusive Transport Strategy: Achieving Equal Access for Disabled People which can be found at https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/728547/inclusive-transport-strategy.pdf . It says "there is much still to be done if we are to realise our ambition of delivering real change for disabled people on our transport networks, and achieving our goal of creating a transport system offering equal access for disabled people by 2030."

Chapter 4 covers current rights/future improvements - it would seem staff training is one of the things on the agenda (and not just limited to railways), which is particularly welcome given some of the things we have seen in recent weeks:


Chapter 5 mentions:


It also states:


The report also covers taxis/private hire, maritime and aviation.

Is there any mention of the biggest (if least discussed) barrier to disabled people using buses: Illegally obstructed bus stops? Not to mention the increasing problems of "wheeled" obstructions (moving or otherwise) between home/ultimate destination and said bus stop.

 

[Lucan]

IMHO, instead of spending millions (or billions) having to accomodate the mobility disabled on buses, trains and domestic aircraft, there should be a nationwide service of adapted taxis (which can carry non-disabled passengers too at other times), government franchised and susidised, costing a reasonable public transport rate to the user. It would be a far less costly way to go for society, and better in most cases for the user than a plane, bus or train (being door-to-door). I don't accept that problems of the disabled should pushed onto the public transport companies.

Bear in mind that many registered disabled (out of the statistics that the disabled lobby often quote) only a minority are actually incapable of using a bus or train without special aid. My wife is disabled for example, but with hearing problems that don't stop her using any form of transport.

 

[Bayum]

IMHO, instead of spending millions (or billions) having to accomodate the mobility disabled on buses, trains and domestic aircraft, there should be a nationwide service of adapted taxis (which can carry non-disabled passengers too at other times), government franchised and susidised, costing a reasonable public transport rate to the user. It would be a far less costly way to go for society, and better in most cases for the user than a plane, bus or train (being door-to-door). I don't accept that problems of the disabled should pushed onto the public transport companies.

Bear in mind that many registered disabled (out of the statistics that the disabled lobby often quote) only a minority are actually incapable of using a bus or train without special aid. My wife is disabled for example, but with hearing problems that don't stop her using any form of transport.

I’m sorry, but (I don’t notmally say this) this is a ridiculous idea. Why should someone who is mobility disabled and finds it difficult to access public transport be given a second rate service as you’ve suggested? Aside from the experience of comfort, you’re forgetting about the time it would take to travel in a taxi, and if the person is getting a flight or boat somewhere, would you propose they do the same thing? Where would the extra staffing need to man these taxis come from? That’s before you even begin to think about carbon footprints and vehicles on the road.

 

[Lucan]

I’m sorry, but (I don’t notmally say this) this is a ridiculous idea. Why should someone who is mobility disabled ... public transport be given a second rate service as you’ve suggested? Aside from the experience of comfort

Why should it be second rate? Taxis are based on cars, and mine is more comfortable than most (or any?) public transport. The vast majority of the population make most their journeys by car and comfort does not seem to be an issue for them. On the contrary, one of the reasons they frequently give is that their cars are more comfortable than public transport, which sadly is generally true these days.

... you’re forgetting about the time it would take to travel in a taxi

Am I? Or are you forgetting the time it takes for a mobility disabled person to get to a station? - which could well involve waiting for a taxi to get there anyway.

... and if the person is getting a flight or boat somewhere, would you propose they do the same thing?

Read my post again. I said domestic aircraft (ie within the UK) and I deliberately did not include boats.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

IMHO, instead of spending millions (or billions) having to accomodate the mobility disabled on buses, trains and domestic aircraft, there should be a nationwide service of adapted taxis (which can carry non-disabled passengers too at other times), government franchised and susidised, costing a reasonable public transport rate to the user. It would be a far less costly way to go for society, and better in most cases for the user than a plane, bus or train (being door-to-door). I don't accept that problems of the disabled should pushed onto the public transport companies.

Bear in mind that many registered disabled (out of the statistics that the disabled lobby often quote) only a minority are actually incapable of using a bus or train without special aid. My wife is disabled for example, but with hearing problems that don't stop her using any form of transport.

That's all very well but how do you provide suitable facilities for a mobility disabled passenger (PRM in officialspeak ie Person of Reduced Mobility) when travelling as part of a larger group, say with family or friends? Your idea actually amounts to disability based apartheid and as such is not acceptable to me or many other people either.

And as anyone who has undergone any form of disability awareness will tell you 95% of wheelchair users are able to walk very short distances but this does not mean that they should ever be compelled to do so. If you find the idea of inclusivity so unappealing maybe you should consider relocating to somewhere that does not spend public money on such "frippery".

 

[Bromley boy]

Bear in mind that many registered disabled (out of the statistics that the disabled lobby often quote) only a minority are actually incapable of using a bus or train without special aid. My wife is disabled for example, but with hearing problems that don't stop her using any form of transport.

This is a good point. Many people are profoundly disabled, yet don’t require a wheelchair, so are ignored by the disability lobby.

And as anyone who has undergone any form of disability awareness will tell you 95% of wheelchair users are able to walk very short distances but this does not mean that they should ever be compelled to do so. If you find the idea of inclusivity so unappealing maybe you should consider relocating to somewhere that does not spend public money on such "frippery".

The previous poster was quite right to point out that we, as a society, seem to view lack of mobility as the primary/only disability.

What about people who can walk further than most wheelchair users, yet might be far more disabled than they are?

Many of these people are less able to live independently, earn a living etc. than many “neurologically normal” wheelchair users can (including a certain comedienne who happens to be a dwarf, as discussed recently).

 

[Bromley boy]

Your idea actually amounts to disability based apartheid and as such is not acceptable to me or many other people either.

Really?

A free/subsidised taxi from A to B doesn’t sound like a second rate service to me!

Indeed it’s a privilege (certainly not an apartheid!) I enjoy, as an able bodied person, when I drive myself or use a taxi/Uber - both efficient A-B solutions I will pay extra for, depending on occasion.

An unlimited taxi service for those lacking mobility might be more effective, and cheaper, then converting every Victorian station into one with full access, every train/bus into one with a level floor etc.

 

[infobleep]

Not read the report but I hope things like this extended to loos on all trains. I admit it maybe harder for buses where people are doing short journeys. Where would one fit a loo.

However all new train orders should include loos.

 

[jon0844]

Is there any mention of the biggest (if least discussed) barrier to disabled people using buses: Illegally obstructed bus stops? Not to mention the increasing problems of "wheeled" obstructions (moving or otherwise) between home/ultimate destination and said bus stop.

Around my home the parking on pavements is crazy. New build estates with tiny roads forces* people to do this and when my son was in a buggy, it was a nightmare having to keep crossing the road OR actually use the road to pass. It would be (and is) a far bigger problem for a wheelchair user.

Councils do very little, sadly, and residents argue that they have no choice as they have to park.

* Actually they DO have a choice. If they can't park legally, they don't park there AT ALL.. but obviously people these days (me me me) don't accept that and get incredibly angry if you tell them that basic fact. Nobody has a right to park any way they like to be outside their house. Get a driveway or garage, or park up the road and walk.

 

[jon0844]

Not read the report but I hope things like this extended to loos on all trains. I admit it maybe harder for buses where people are doing short journeys. Where would one fit a loo.

However all new train orders should include loos.

I agree. I wish the Class 717s were coming with toilets. The slight reduction in seating would be far outweighed by the current state of 313s at the end of a night because people urinated in the vestibules or behind the cab doors.

 

[Bayum]

Why should it be second rate? Taxis are based on cars, and mine is more comfortable than most (or any?) public transport. The vast majority of the population make most their journeys by car and comfort does not seem to be an issue for them. On the contrary, one of the reasons they frequently give is that their cars are more comfortable than public transport, which sadly is generally true these days.

Am I? Or are you forgetting the time it takes for a mobility disabled person to get to a station? - which could well involve waiting for a taxi to get there anyway.

Read my post again. I said domestic aircraft (ie within the UK) and I deliberately did not include boats.

Many people with disabilities find it uncomfortable to be kept in one position for too long. If I'm making long journeys, which I get the whole door-door idea, I'd much prefer travelling on a train or a bus where I am able to stretch as and when. The uncomfortableness provided by walking at my pace from place to place outweighs continuing aggravation from joint and muscle inflammation. I'm a little uncertain as to your point about getting to a station - there are some disabled people who would drive to the station and transfer to wheelchair. I'm not sure why you seem to think every disabled person is going to take far longer than anyone else to get to a bus or train station. Your point about aircraft is irrelevant. Again, I'm not entirely sure why you seem to think anyone would accept being told to travel by taxi for hours for a flight that might take you an hour.

 

[Lucan]

Around my home the parking on pavements is crazy. New build estates with tiny roads forces* people to do this ...... residents argue that they have no choice as they have to park.

I have long campaigned against pavement parking - at one time I used to put "Pavements are for Pedestrians" stickers on offenders' windscreens. I have been physically attacked when I have complained about it. The whole point of pavements is (or was) to provide a safe place for pedestrians away from wheeled vehicles. Yet we worry (other threads here) about keeping the occasional trespasser off railway lines through insufficient separation of those modes.

Run-of-the-mill new estates seem to be built with the idea of discouraging car ownership with typically only one parking space per house - even a 3 bedroom one, and no allowance for white vans tradesmen and the explosion in home deliveries. The discouragement does not work of course. Most housing prior to WW2 assumed no-one living there would ever own a vehicle. With 1950-60s new housing, blocks of garages were built for each street, but now generally unsecure, vandalised or demolished. Owners of bigger houses built with garages have been allowed to convert them into granny annexes, and even many people with driveways cannot be bothered to use them as arrival and get-away are marginally slower. A partial solution would be to charge people for road usage by the hour, including parking if not on private property.

Pavement parking is particularly pointless when it does not even gain anything for passing vehicles - ie there is still only room for one vehicle to pass at a time anyway, and it is merely a gesture of apology to passing drivers for the delay - and a gesture of "F--- you!" to passing pedestrians. Pavement parking is a double whammy in favour of cars - at the same time it makes car usage more convenient, and walking (and using a wheelchair) more unpleasant.

 

[Dentonian]

I have long campaigned against pavement parking - at one time I used to put "Pavements are for Pedestrians" stickers on offenders' windscreens. I have been physically attacked when I have complained about it. The whole point of pavements is (or was) to provide a safe place for pedestrians away from wheeled vehicles. Yet we worry (other threads here) about keeping the occasional trespasser off railway lines through insufficient separation of those modes.

Run-of-the-mill new estates seem to be built with the idea of discouraging car ownership with typically only one parking space per house - even a 3 bedroom one, and no allowance for white vans tradesmen and the explosion in home deliveries. The discouragement does not work of course. Most housing prior to WW2 assumed no-one living there would ever own a vehicle. With 1950-60s new housing, blocks of garages were built for each street, but now generally unsecure, vandalised or demolished. Owners of bigger houses built with garages have been allowed to convert them into granny annexes, and even many people with driveways cannot be bothered to use them as arrival and get-away are marginally slower. A partial solution would be to charge people for road usage by the hour, including parking if not on private property.

Pavement parking is particularly pointless when it does not even gain anything for passing vehicles - ie there is still only room for one vehicle to pass at a time anyway, and it is merely a gesture of apology to passing drivers for the delay - and a gesture of "F--- you!" to passing pedestrians. Pavement parking is a double whammy in favour of cars - at the same time it makes car usage more convenient, and walking (and using a wheelchair) more unpleasant.

I totally agree with your sentiments, but its a bit unfair - and I suspect, irrelevant - to talk about "granny annexes". My mother is nearly 90 although (touch wood) only moderately forgetful and unsteady (due to arthritis) but by living in our large house she is both with her family and of virtually no burden on the social care budget. More relevantly, we only have the one car and when not in use it is *always* in the garage or on the drive.
On a slightly seperate point, because of my mother's infirmity we have a blue badge. We've seen today's news item about blue badges for those within "hidden" disabilities. As with examples on seperate local media coverage about parking issues, the BBC seem to have gone out of their way to find a particularly controversial example of a woman with 6 (yes, six) autistic children. Now, straight away I confess I know nothing about autism, although if its the condition I think it is, its one where the child doesn't understand the likely consequences of their actions, but I assume it is not genetic.
More constructively and a straight question - given that a Blue Badge is designed to reduce the walking distance for people who have difficulty/pain when walking - how does parking nearer a supermarket or other establishment help someone with autism and/or their parent/guardian?

 

[Bromley boy]

More constructively and a straight question - given that a Blue Badge is designed to reduce the walking distance for people who have difficulty/pain when walking - how does parking nearer a supermarket or other establishment help someone with autism and/or their parent/guardian?

People with autism often have issues with sensory perception, for example extreme overreactions to everyday sounds/situations. Walking around busy areas can be extremely difficult for them and I can imagine parking close to their destination would be essential - especially with 6 autistic kids!!! That’s a deserving case for a blue badge if ever I heard one!

but I assume it is not genetic.

There is a genetic component. I don’t believe the mechanism which “causes” autism is yet fully understood.

 

[Lucan]

More constructively and a straight question - .... - how does parking nearer a supermarket or other establishment help someone with autism and/or their parent/guardian?

Often the arrangements fo disabled parking arrangements are meaningless tokens, just in case the car park owner is accused of not thinking of the disabled. I was recently at Manorbier, Pembrokshire, which has a beach and a castle, with a car park in between. There is a row of disabled parking slots at the beach end of the car park (not even near the toilets), as if the saving of about 30 yards of tarmac would make any significant difference in what is otherwise a 300 yard walk to the beach through a grassy area with a soft sandy path. Of course the disabled lobby would probably demand the path be concreted over, and perhaps the beach itself for good measure.

 

[Dentonian]

People with autism often have issues with sensory perception, for example extreme overreactions to everyday sounds/situations. Walking around busy areas can be extremely difficult for them and I can imagine parking close to their destination would be essential - especially with 6 autistic kids!!! That’s a deserving case for a blue badge if ever I heard one!



There is a genetic component. I don’t believe the mechanism which “causes” autism is yet fully understood.

People with autism often have issues with sensory perception, for example extreme overreactions to everyday sounds/situations. Walking around busy areas can be extremely difficult for them and I can imagine parking close to their destination would be essential - especially with 6 autistic kids!!! That’s a deserving case for a blue badge if ever I heard one!



There is a genetic component. I don’t believe the mechanism which “causes” autism is yet fully understood.

Thanks for explaining. Certainly, I can now see the argument for reducing the potential stress for the autistic individual. However, I'm afraid I can't agree having 6 kids is a deserving case - unless they are sextuplets or at least five quintuplets born after the eldest.

 

[Bromley boy]

I'm afraid I can't agree having 6 kids is a deserving case

Having 6 kids isn’t. Having 6 autistic kids (or even one autistic kid) most likely is*.

Those who are lower down the spectrum can be extremely difficult to manage and it’s essential to avoid situations which may trigger panic attacks.

I accept that judging disability can be a tricky one. I’m sure we’ve all seen obese mobility scooter users with fags hanging out of their mouths!

*of course autism is a spectrum disorder and not all autistic people have these issues.

 

[Dentonian]

Having 6 kids isn’t. Having 6 autistic kids (or even one autistic kid) most likely is*.

Those who are lower down the spectrum can be extremely difficult to manage and it’s essential to avoid situations which may trigger panic attacks.

I accept that judging disability can be a tricky one. I’m sure we’ve all seen obese mobility scooter users with fags hanging out of their mouths!

*of course autism is a spectrum disorder and not all autistic people have these issues.

Indeed, I wouldn't judge the disability, unless there is clear evidence of self infliction. Judging the disability to keep one's trousers up or failing to use contraceptives whilst there is a problem with over population, is a different matter........

 

[EM2]

Why should it be second rate? Taxis are based on cars, and mine is more comfortable than most (or any?) public transport.

For short (especially urban) journeys, a bus and a car take about the same time.
For long distances, a train is substantially quicker than a car.
So why should someone have to travel five hours in a car, when someone else can do the same journey in three hours on a train?

 

[infobleep]

For short (especially urban) journeys, a bus and a car take about the same time.
For long distances, a train is substantially quicker than a car.
So why should someone have to travel five hours in a car, when someone else can do the same journey in three hours on a train?

I think for shorter journeys, it depends on how close one is to the train station and whether they need to change trains to reach their destination.

For example if you live near Woking station and wish to head into Guildford town centre, it is quicker by train than car.

However Farnham to Guildford is quicker by car than train as you need to change.

Woking to Portsmouth is quicker by car than train or about the same but I doubt Woking to central London is quicker by car than train.