Wheelchair-bound peer couldn't board after driver refused to request pushchair moved

[Antman]

That's a fine thing to say, and broadly true. Above all of this however is the requirement to comply with the law, which was clarified by the Supreme Court, even if we think the law is crap or flawed. That doesn't appear to have happened in this case.

I wonder if those who clarified this law have ever travelled on a bus? It's simply unenforceable.

 

[baz962]

No, she wasn't seeing what she wanted to!

She makes it clear what she saw - a half-empty bus, a pushchair in the wheelchair space, but no parent. She also saw the driver, who, if her story is true, seemed unaware the law required him to even ask the person to move. The driver said "they were not prepared to ask the parent to make space". This is wrong. The driver is not supposed to be judge and jury, but according to the law should take reasonable measures to change the behaviour of someone who has put their unfolded pushchair in the wheelchair space.

I don't understand why this is so contentious. The driver failed in his duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the disabled passenger could make their journey.

You might not like the law, and God knows this one isn't perfect, but it is the law and should be respected.

She made it clear what she saw and before you say what's my evidence. None I'm not saying its fact but I think she in my opinion only saw what she wanted , convenient that she saw a buggy and the bus half empty but didn't see the parent. Another point what if the driver did not know who the parent was . Not contentious I agree the buggy should be folded and at the least the space shared I think we all should have more common decency toward each other in fact disabled or not, but quite often the driver in this instance and in any industry these day's you can't win , you either get abused or people simply refuse to fold or move or help . In fact had I been there I would of asked the parent or I would just move the buggy myself if there wasn't a child in it .

 

[AlterEgo]

I wonder if those who clarified this law have ever travelled on a bus? It's simply unenforceable.

I am not a legal expert, so I am not sure how much, if at all, judges must consider the enforceability of a law when clarifying a legal position.

I agree that the law is imperfect. I suspect we well never get to a "perfect" position.

 

[matt_world2004]

I wonder if those who clarified this law have ever travelled on a bus? It's simply unenforceable.

All you need is an RPI sitting at the back on random trips where it has been reported as a hotspot for parents refusing to fold a buggy wait until it happens take details, rinse repeat. You do this a few time accompanied by a few high profile press releases stating the fact and It will reduce instances of this happening hugely. More forceful publicity stating that it is something you can be prosecuted for will also aid in this idea.


Or Driver sits down and whips out the newspaper because a parent refuses to fold the buggy and watch the social pressure bare down on the parents.

I travel on buses for 7 hours a day so I know that it can be enforced with the correct will

Even if it doesnt eliminate the problem completely at least it would be doing everything practical to try and reduce the problem.

 

[baz962]

The driver doesnt need to act as a judge and jury over who gets the space. It already identifies who has priority in the transport for london bylaws who has priority over the space and its a bylaw offence not to fold the buggy when requested to do so already.

So what if the baby is asleep if a parent doesnt know how to take care of a baby they shouldnt have had one. I wonder what you would call a buggy carrying a disabled child, oh yes- A wheelchair and if the parents are they themselves disabled. There are already appropriate mechanisms to deal with that, the passenger support card can be given to the driver indicating this. Or the the please offer me a seat badge.



Bus stops and stands are usually recessed away from the road, in dedicated bus lanes and even if not the bus driver can use their judgement on if it is appropriate to do so, like in refusal to pay the fare cases.

Yes recessed or not eventually more buses than recess

 

[Antman]

The driver doesnt need to act as a judge and jury over who gets the space. It already identifies who has priority in the transport for london bylaws who has priority over the space and its a bylaw offence not to fold the buggy when requested to do so already.

So what if the baby is asleep if a parent doesnt know how to take care of a baby they shouldnt have had one. I wonder what you would call a buggy carrying a disabled child, oh yes- A wheelchair and if the parents are they themselves disabled. There are already appropriate mechanisms to deal with that, the passenger support card can be given to the driver indicating this. Or the the please offer me a seat badge.



Bus stops and stands are usually recessed away from the road, in dedicated bus lanes and even if not the bus driver can use their judgement on if it is appropriate to do so, like in refusal to pay the fare cases.

So who is going to process these fines and prosecutions? By the time the police arrive on scene, if indeed they ever do, the buggy owner and the wheelchair user will have probably got on another bus along with everyone else so all you've done is waste police time and delay a bus.

If such a case ever did get to court a half decent defence lawyer would rip it to shreds.

And you've still not explained how a parent is supposed to get a sleeping child out of a buggy and fold the buggy up, balance the child on their head perhaps?

My late father spent his last few years in a wheelchair and didn't expect everybody else to get out of his way and on the odd occasion that he went by bus he readily accepted that there would be occasions when he couldn't get on and would have to wait for the next bus.

 

[matt_world2004]

So who is going to process these fines and prosecutions? By the time the police arrive on scene, if indeed they ever do, the buggy owner and the wheelchair user will have probably got on another bus along with everyone else so all you've done is waste police time and delay a bus.

If such a case ever did get to court a half decent defence lawyer would rip it to shreds.

And you've still not explained how a parent is supposed to get a sleeping child out of a buggy and fold the buggy up, balance the child on their head perhaps?

My late father spent his last few years in a wheelchair and didn't expect everybody else to get out of his way and on the odd occasion that he went by bus he readily accepted that there would be occasions when he couldn't get on and would have to wait for the next bus.

Man good job there isnt prosecutions for fare evasion on buses as TfL do not have a prosecution department /s

Yes recessed or not eventually more buses than recess

You mean like when there is a revenue issue or code red or a bus standing on curtailment. Buses stand already and the system copes..

And you've still not explained how a parent is supposed to get a sleeping child out of a buggy and fold the buggy up, balance the child on their head perhaps?

If the parent cannot take care of the child, then it is really unfair on the child to have had it.

 

[Antman]

All you need is an RPI sitting at the back on random trips where it has been reported as a hotspot for parents refusing to fold a buggy wait until it happens take details, rinse repeat. You do this a few time accompanied by a few high profile press releases stating the fact and It will reduce instances of this happening hugely. More forceful publicity stating that it is something you can be prosecuted for will also aid in this idea.


Or Driver sits down and whips out the newspaper because a parent refuses to fold the buggy and watch the social pressure bare down on the parents.

I travel on buses for 7 hours a day so I know that it can be enforced with the correct will

Even if it doesnt eliminate the problem completely at least it would be doing everything practical to try and reduce the problem.

An RPI? Oh yes you see loads of those on London buses don't you? They would have no more authority than the driver anyway.

Oh lets all gang up on some lone female with a child for having the audacity to use a bus for it's intended purpose? That says a lot about you quite honestly. Most people aren't like you and the pressure would be on the driver to get moving.

 

[baz962]

Man good job there isnt prosecutions for fare evasion on buses as TfL do not have a prosecution department /s




You mean like when there is a revenue issue or code red or a bus standing on curtailment. Buses stand already and the system copes.

Has it stopped fare evasion ?

 

[AlterEgo]

She made it clear what she saw and before you say what's my evidence. None I'm not saying its fact but I think...

Oh dear...

...she in my opinion only saw what she wanted , convenient that she saw a buggy and the bus half empty but didn't see the parent.

Because (big sigh), if you read the OP (!!), the baroness was on the pavement, because the bus driver did not deploy the ramp for her to get on board. From this position, a person can see the driver, and the wheelchair space. What they cannot see is who the owner of the buggy is, because they are likely sat down towards the back, out of sight from someone in a seated position on the pavement.

It is possible to tell as a bus pulls up whether it is "full" or "half empty" by looking for empty seats or the presence of standees.

Another point what if the driver did not know who the parent was .

Well, quite. What if the baroness didn't know either, hm? And that's why they truthfully say they can't see the parent?

Even if the driver doesn't know who it belongs to, he, in law, as I have explained, should take steps to ensure that the buggy owner modifies their behaviour. The law says he could make an announcement, or refuse to move the bus forward until the offending buggy is gone. He must take reasonable steps to ensure the disabled person can complete their journey. Sometimes, he won't be able to force someone to behave, and must deny the wheelchair user after some effort - but that's wholly different to saying "the ramp's not coming down, get the next bus, I'm not asking the owner to move it, bye".

I am not sure why you are so content with repeatedly blaming the baroness or casting aspersions on her version of events with no evidence to back that up other than your own prejudices. There isn't any evidence at all to suggest she is being untruthful, and for someone who claims not to use buses, you are making a lot of assumptions based on what seems to be very little practical experience.

 

[matt_world2004]

An RPI? Oh yes you see loads of those on London buses don't you? They would have no more authority than the driver anyway.

Oh lets all gang up on some lone female with a child for having the audacity to use a bus for it's intended purpose? That says a lot about you quite honestly. Most people aren't like you and the pressure would be on the driver to get moving.

She is not using the bus for its intended purpose though is she, she is committing a bylaw offence and I do not see what gender has to do with it. I see RPI's on buses once a week. A person who serially refuses to fold their puschair for wheelchair users will get caught eventually like a fare evader will get caught eventually.

 

[baz962]

Oh dear...



Because (big sigh), if you read the OP (!!), the baroness was on the pavement, because the bus driver did not deploy the ramp for her to get on board. From this position, a person can see the driver, and the wheelchair space. What they cannot see is who the owner of the buggy is, because they are likely sat down towards the back, out of sight from someone in a seated position on the pavement.

It is possible to tell as a bus pulls up whether it is "full" or "half empty" by looking for empty seats or the presence of standees.



Well, quite. What if the baroness didn't know either, hm? And that's why they truthfully say they can't see the parent?

Even if the driver doesn't know who it belongs to, he, in law, as I have explained, should take steps to ensure that the buggy owner modifies their behaviour. The law says he could make an announcement, or refuse to move the bus forward until the offending buggy is gone. He must take reasonable steps to ensure the disabled person can complete their journey. Sometimes, he won't be able to force someone to behave, and must deny the wheelchair user after some effort - but that's wholly different to saying "the ramp's not coming down, get the next bus, I'm not asking the owner to move it, bye".

I am not sure why you are so content with repeatedly blaming the baroness or casting aspersions on her version of events with no evidence to back that up other than your own prejudices. There isn't any evidence at all to suggest she is being untruthful, and for someone who claims not to use buses, you are making a lot of assumptions based on what seems to be very little practical experience.

Nope originally I was asking but you can't aspersions on me and you missed my point and although I don't use buses and neither am I in a wheelchair I would not know I can see a buggy and the bus is empty but not the parent . I also did say I would help and I said I had no evidence so where is yours that she is telling the truth .

 

[Antman]

She is not using the bus for its intended purpose though is she, she is committing a bylaw offence and I do not see what gender has to do with it.

Of course he/she is using a bus for it's intended purpose, there is no law against bringing a buggy on board in fact many operators have very much encouraged it.

 

[matt_world2004]

Of course he/she is using a bus for it's intended purpose, there is no law against bringing a buggy on board in fact many operators have very much encouraged it.

Theres a law against not folding it when requested to do so.So she isnt using the bus for its intended purpose

 

[Bletchleyite]

Theres a law against not folding it when requested to do so.So she isnt using the bus for its intended purpose

She is using it for its intended purpose. She is just breaching a Byelaw while doing so.

Putting your feet on the seat when travelling by train is a Byelaw offence, but it's still using the train for its intended purpose as you are still travelling on it.

 

[baz962]

Theres a law against not folding it when requested to do so.So she isnt using the bus for its intended purpose

Most educated people wouldn't know it's a law .

 

[matt_world2004]

She is using it for its intended purpose. She is just breaching a Byelaw while doing so.

Putting your feet on the seat when travelling by train is a Byelaw offence, but it's still using the train for its intended purpose as you are still travelling on it.

Then using your logic so is travelling on a train or bus without a valid ticket. The fact is that the intended purpose of a bus is the conveyance of passengers in accordance with the legal and regularity framework that they operate in, thats its intended purposes.

 

[matt_world2004]

Most educated people wouldn't know it's a law .

Thats why I specifically stated that there should be publicity warning parents of their legal obligations and that they risk prosecution by not folding a pushchair when requested.

 

[baz962]

Thats why I specifically stated that there should be publicity warning parents of their legal obligations and that they risk prosecution by not folding a puschair when requested.

I agree 100 percent

 

[Antman]

Thats why I specifically stated that there should be publicity warning parents of their legal obligations and that they risk prosecution by not folding a pushchair when requested.

Simply not practical or realistic. Either ban buggies completely, and clearly that's not going to happen, or accept the current situation.

Oh and let's not lose sight of the fact that some wheelchair users delight in being awkward and would take great pleasure in forcing those with buggies to fold them up or get off just to travel a few stops. And shouldn't wheelchair users be required to have some sort of medical certificate to prove that they need a wheelchair and the priority that you advocate?

 

[Antman]

Theres a law against not folding it when requested to do so.So she isnt using the bus for its intended purpose

The law is unworkable and unenforceable.

 

[matt_world2004]

Simply not practical or realistic. Either ban buggies completely, and clearly that's not going to happen, or accept the current situation.

Oh and let's not lose sight of the fact that some wheelchair users delight in being awkward and would take great pleasure in forcing those with buggies to fold them up or get off just to travel a few stops. And shouldn't wheelchair users be required to have some sort of medical certificate to prove that they need a wheelchair and the priority that you advocate?

Why would it not happen. its the threat of prosecution that should act as a deterrent. That threat will have to be backed up with a few high profile court cases. TfL are pretty good at using prosecution threats as a detterant against fare evasion use the same technique on wheelchair space hogging.

There is no requirement in the law to prove a disability indeed its illegal to ask someone to do so.I imagine the amount of people fraudulently in a wheelchair to scam free travel is so low as to be zero. The incoveinance of using a wheelchair just to get a free seat on the bus would simply not be worth the reward,

 

[AlterEgo]

Nope originally I was asking but you can't aspersions on me and you missed my point and although I don't use buses and neither am I in a wheelchair I would not know I can see a buggy and the bus is empty but not the parent . I also did say I would help and I said I had no evidence so where is yours that she is telling the truth .

The way modern civil society works is that when someone says something, they should be believed until proven otherwise or there is a good reason to suspect they're lying. This principle fundamentally underpins our society, our civic way of life, our law, and our judicial system. There is no reason for either of us to suppose she is being untruthful here.

All I have done is taken what you have posted, quoted it verbatim, and shown it to be what it is - incorrect, based on assumption, and claiming the complainant was not being truthful (or at the very least economical with the truth), without any suggestion as to why you think that might be the case, except of course she's a baroness and probably wealthy and privileged.

You keep re-asserting doubt that the baroness was being truthful, which is very poor form, considering there is no good reason to suppose it to be the case.

I don't use buses...I would not know

Quite.

 

[Antman]

Why would it not happen. its the threat of prosecution that should act as a deterrent. That threat will have to be backed up with a few high profile court cases. TfL are pretty good at using prosecution threats as a detterant against fare evasion use the same technique on wheelchair space hogging.

There is no requirement in the law to prove a disability indeed its illegal to ask someone to do so.I imagine the amount of people fraudulently in a wheelchair to scam free travel is so low as to be zero.

There is no point in keep repeating the same thing, it's just not going to happen.

It is first come first served and you can moan all you want but it's not going to change.

 

[AlterEgo]

And shouldn't wheelchair users be required to have some sort of medical certificate to prove that they need a wheelchair and the priority that you advocate?

I can't tell if this is a serious post or whether you're being facetious.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is no point in keep repeating the same thing, it's just not going to happen.

It is first come first served and you can moan all you want but it's not going to change.

If it doesn't, TfL are breaking the law and will eventually be up in Court for it.

 

[matt_world2004]

There is no point in keep repeating the same thing, it's just not going to happen.

It is first come first served and you can moan all you want but it's not going to change.

The law says otherwise, if you don't like the law lobby to have it changed.

 

[GusB]

Simply not practical or realistic. Either ban buggies completely, and clearly that's not going to happen, or accept the current situation.

Oh and let's not lose sight of the fact that some wheelchair users delight in being awkward and would take great pleasure in forcing those with buggies to fold them up or get off just to travel a few stops. And shouldn't wheelchair users be required to have some sort of medical certificate to prove that they need a wheelchair and the priority that you advocate?

Eh? Why would someone need to prove that they need to use a wheelchair? Are you suggesting that someone who isn't disabled might decide one day to go on a bus trip in a chair just for a bit of fun?

Perhaps there are some wheelchair users can be a bit awkward, as can much of the general population, but do you not think that this might be because getting around can be a bit of a battle?

 

[matt_world2004]

If it doesn't, TfL are breaking the law and will eventually be up in Court for it.

When it has happened on my buses, I have advised passengers to make a complaint and if the complaint isn't satisfactory to sue TfL/the bus company

 

[baz962]

The way modern civil society works is that when someone says something, they should be believed until proven otherwise or there is a good reason to suspect they're lying. This principle fundamentally underpins our society, our civic way of life, our law, and our judicial system. There is no reason for either of us to suppose she is being untruthful here.

All I have done is taken what you have posted, quoted it verbatim, and shown it to be what it is - incorrect, based on assumption, and claiming the complainant was not being truthful (or at the very least economical with the truth), without any suggestion as to why you think that might be the case, except of course she's a baroness and probably wealthy and privileged.



Quite.

Well firstly by saying that someone could perhaps then say the driver is not being truthful. Secondly that in law bit doesn't make sense remember innocent till proven guilty , so if someone said I did something wrong you believe them but by the same token then presumes I'm guilty so calling me a liar . I said in my post I was just asking so call it ignorance or in educated or in knowledgeable I was curious so all your reply needed to say was something like . Being low down in a wheelchair and as you don't use a bus she could tell it was half empty and see a buggy but not necessarily see a parent . And the onus is on the driver as it is defined in law (by the way I personally think it should be out of basic human decency and kindness regardless of the law) by the supreme court to take all reasonable steps and I would have accepted that . But the one thing that grated a bit on the original post was at the bottom let's start sacking the drivers . Seemed a bit cold I mean what if he had been having a bad time maybe a death in his family or a sick child or something we don't know or what if tfl hadn't trained him properly. Does the driver not deserve of human decency and compassion perhaps re training or new training first , just sticking up for the driver not actually trying to dis credit the baroness.