9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On Nov 20, 1:40*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:46:44 +0000

Arthur Figgis wrote:
There seems to be too many people who have a need to prove something (to
themselves, I suspect) about how they, and they alone, "care", while
everyone else wants to "ban" people from transport.

Ironically the ones who make the most noise don't care. They're simply the
type of person who needs a cause to shout about - doesn't really matter
what that cause is. Which is why you get the same motley crew turning up
to every vaguely anti government demonstration whether it be Stop the War
or student demos or whatever. Its the same with right-on topics -
you get the same sort of usual suspects whinging about everything.

B2003

Lucky that doesn't happen with right-wingers (or is that whingers?).

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On Nov 20, 11:46*am, Arthur Figgis
wrote:
On 20/11/2010 10:12, MIG wrote:





On Nov 20, 10:05 am, Arthur
wrote:
On 19/11/2010 21:18, MaxB wrote:

I am always surprised that people equate disability = wheelchair.
Disability comes in many shapes and sizes, under the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 (I believe) I am disabled. But I don't need a
wheelchair, a seeing or hearing dog, a carer or anyone else to look
after me.

Perhaps because a lot of the discussion about accessibility comes down
to wanting to be seen to be doing something (I *care*, but he is a evil
******* and I am going to imply he calls *you* a 'cripple' even though
he doesn't), so wheelchair users are more use for this than, say, deaf
people.

It makes it hard to discuss these matters, as anyone who tried to
consider practicality and funding matters can get shouted down by people
who don't have to make difficult, maybe impossible, decisions.

Get a bit of perspective.

That is the problem. We can't get a bit of perspective, because someone
will shout about how unfair it is to the next case along (see the
occasional objections to the heritage Routemasters being permitted to
exist), or moan about history which we can't do anything about.

There seems to be too many people who have a need to prove something (to
themselves, I suspect) about how they, and they alone, "care", while
everyone else wants to "ban" people from transport.

I don't recognise these stereotypes about people trying to prove
things.

People (all people) want to live civilised lives, which means being
able to move about and take part in activities which it's not for me
to second guess.

If the same people are constantly told that they don't matter, because
the other 95% are all right Jack, you'll find them complaining.


When I went to a serious meeting about station accessibility there was a
lot more common sense than politicians, the media and people with a
point to prove will even be able show. People realised we are where we
are, C19th stations aren't going to rebuild themselves free of charge,
and quick-wins can be justified even if not 101% perfect.

But the common sense can be expressed in different ways.

It it's "this is all we can afford for now, but it's a step in the
right direction and we can build on it", then it might be acceptable.

But if it's "it's not worth spending more on helping a few people
because most people are all right Jack" then it's not going to be
acceptable. Because it's always going to be the same people left with
nothing, apart from when those of us who are all right Jack have the
misfortune to join their ranks in due course.

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On Nov 20, 4:31*pm, MIG wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:46*am, Arthur Figgis
wrote:





On 20/11/2010 10:12, MIG wrote:

On Nov 20, 10:05 am, Arthur
wrote:
On 19/11/2010 21:18, MaxB wrote:

I am always surprised that people equate disability = wheelchair.
Disability comes in many shapes and sizes, under the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 (I believe) I am disabled. But I don't need a
wheelchair, a seeing or hearing dog, a carer or anyone else to look
after me.

Perhaps because a lot of the discussion about accessibility comes down
to wanting to be seen to be doing something (I *care*, but he is a evil
******* and I am going to imply he calls *you* a 'cripple' even though
he doesn't), so wheelchair users are more use for this than, say, deaf
people.

It makes it hard to discuss these matters, as anyone who tried to
consider practicality and funding matters can get shouted down by people
who don't have to make difficult, maybe impossible, decisions.

Get a bit of perspective.

That is the problem. We can't get a bit of perspective, because someone
will shout about how unfair it is to the next case along (see the
occasional objections to the heritage Routemasters being permitted to
exist), or moan about history which we can't do anything about.

There seems to be too many people who have a need to prove something (to
themselves, I suspect) about how they, and they alone, "care", while
everyone else wants to "ban" people from transport.

I don't recognise these stereotypes about people trying to prove
things.

People (all people) want to live civilised lives, which means being
able to move about and take part in activities which it's not for me
to second guess.

If the same people are constantly told that they don't matter, because
the other 95% are all right Jack, you'll find them complaining.



When I went to a serious meeting about station accessibility there was a
lot more common sense than politicians, the media and people with a
point to prove will even be able show. People realised we are where we
are, C19th stations aren't going to rebuild themselves free of charge,
and quick-wins can be justified even if not 101% perfect.

But the common sense can be expressed in different ways.

It it's "this is all we can afford for now, but it's a step in the
right direction and we can build on it", then it might be acceptable.

But if it's "it's not worth spending more on helping a few people
because most people are all right Jack" then it's not going to be
acceptable. *Because it's always going to be the same people left with
nothing, apart from when those of us who are all right Jack have the
misfortune to join their ranks in due course.



Incidentally, I see a strong parallel with the "It's OK for Oyster to
rip off a few people, because most people find it convenient"
argument. But TfL has a dramatically different attitude there.

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On 20/11/2010 16:31, MIG wrote:

It it's "this is all we can afford for now, but it's a step in the
right direction and we can build on it", then it might be acceptable.

Exactly.

As long as money is finite someone is going to get a less than perfect
situation for the time being. And isn't everyone a special case these days?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 08:21:57 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
type of person who needs a cause to shout about - doesn't really matter
what that cause is. Which is why you get the same motley crew turning up
to every vaguely anti government demonstration whether it be Stop the War
or student demos or whatever. Its the same with right-on topics -
you get the same sort of usual suspects whinging about everything.

B2003

Lucky that doesn't happen with right-wingers (or is that whingers?).

Apart from the occasionally BNP demo - and most people with right wing views
wouldn't associate with those muppets anyway - I don't remember many marches
about right wing topics. Probably because most people who have right wing
views are older and have grown out of the shouting at the pigeons stage
which unfortunately afflicts a lot of left wing activists.

Still, its useful to remember what Churchill allegedly said:

"If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If
you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no head."

Sounds about right to me.

B2003

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On Nov 20, 5:02*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 20/11/2010 16:31, MIG wrote:

It it's "this is all we can afford for now, but it's a step in the
right direction and we can build on it", then it might be acceptable.

Exactly.

As long as money is finite someone is going to get a less than perfect
situation for the time being. And isn't everyone a special case these days?


I dunno about special case, but if "someone" always corresponds to the
same few people, they are going to be upset.

There's a difference between

"we are always increasing the number of facilities available to 100%
of people, but we can't afford to do all of them at once"

and

"we are working towards making all facilities available to 95% of
people because we can't afford to make them available to everyone".

Both situations would be less than perfect, and both might be better
than the status quo, but the attitude behind each lack of perfection
is very different.

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On 20/11/2010 17:15, MIG wrote:
On Nov 20, 5:02 pm, Arthur wrote:
On 20/11/2010 16:31, MIG wrote:

It it's "this is all we can afford for now, but it's a step in the
right direction and we can build on it", then it might be acceptable.

Exactly.

As long as money is finite someone is going to get a less than perfect
situation for the time being. And isn't everyone a special case these days?


I dunno about special case, but if "someone" always corresponds to the
same few people, they are going to be upset.

There's a difference between

"we are always increasing the number of facilities available to 100%
of people, but we can't afford to do all of them at once"

Is it ever going to be more than 99.999...% of people? Some are probably
incompatible with each other (though in many cases out of choice).

and

"we are working towards making all facilities available to 95% of
people because we can't afford to make them available to everyone".

Both situations would be less than perfect, and both might be better
than the status quo, but the attitude behind each lack of perfection
is very different.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

In message , at
20:35:17 on Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
"we are always increasing the number of facilities available to 100%
of people, but we can't afford to do all of them at once"

Is it ever going to be more than 99.999...% of people? Some are
probably incompatible with each other (though in many cases out of
choice).

Is there a recognised maximum percentage of the number of people capable
of using public transport - in other words discounting those in
hospital, housebound, agraphobics, and other such circumstances?
--
Roland Perry

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On Nov 21, 10:51*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
20:35:17 on Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

"we are always increasing the number of facilities available to 100%
of people, but we can't afford to do all of them at once"

Is it ever going to be more than 99.999...% of people? Some are
probably incompatible with each other (though in many cases out of
choice).

Is there a recognised maximum percentage of the number of people capable
of using public transport - in other words discounting those in
hospital, housebound, agraphobics, and other such circumstances?
--
Roland Perry

It's possibly an interesting point, but the distinction I was making
was not so much about the 100% as about the difference between "most
facilities" and "most people". I can accept that not all facilities
can instantly be made as accessible as possible. I can't accept the
attitude that some people are never going to be bothered with. Both
might be expressed in terms of limited funds available.

Anyway, isn't 99.9 recurring exactly the same number as 100?

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

In message
, at
03:31:31 on Sun, 21 Nov 2010, MIG
remarked:
Is there a recognised maximum percentage of the number of people capable
of using public transport - in other words discounting those in
hospital, housebound, agraphobics, and other such circumstances?

It's possibly an interesting point, but the distinction I was making
was not so much about the 100% as about the difference between "most
facilities" and "most people". I can accept that not all facilities
can instantly be made as accessible as possible.

I accept that figures like "99%" are actually expressing a numerical
quantity, but merely mean "almost everyone".

It simply made me wonder what the actual practical limit was, given that
some people could never be taken on public transport given their
circumstances.

I can't accept the attitude that some people are never going to be
bothered with.

Did you mean "some people aren't going to be coped with?". The law of
diminishing returns is bound to set in, and where you call it a day is a
political decision.

Both might be expressed in terms of limited funds available.

Sure. Making the Tube accessible to people permanently connected to a
dialysis machine, or inside an oxygen tent, is going to be very
expensive. You may say these are ridiculous examples, but there are many
people with issues which restrict their mobility, beyond those who are
well enough to use a wheelchair.
--
Roland Perry

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On Nov 21, 12:50*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
03:31:31 on Sun, 21 Nov 2010, MIG
remarked:

Is there a recognised maximum percentage of the number of people capable
of using public transport - in other words discounting those in
hospital, housebound, agraphobics, and other such circumstances?

It's possibly an interesting point, but the distinction I was making
was not so much about the 100% as about the difference between "most
facilities" and "most people". *I can accept that not all facilities
can instantly be made as accessible as possible.

I accept that figures like "99%" are actually expressing a numerical
quantity, but merely mean "almost everyone".

It simply made me wonder what the actual practical limit was, given that
some people could never be taken on public transport given their
circumstances.

I recognised the practical limit that you were trying to identify, and
didn't dispute the reasoning behind it. Although at the same time
there may be advances in coping with their circumstances; see below.


I can't accept the attitude that some people are never going to be
bothered with.

Did you mean "some people aren't going to be coped with?". The law of
diminishing returns is bound to set in, and where you call it a day is a
political decision.

Both might be expressed in terms of limited funds available.

Sure. Making the Tube accessible to people permanently connected to a
dialysis machine, or inside an oxygen tent, is going to be very
expensive. You may say these are ridiculous examples, but there are many
people with issues which restrict their mobility, beyond those who are
well enough to use a wheelchair.

I accept that, but in the background there has to be general vision of
allowing such people to lead as full a life as possible. New kinds of
dialysis will be invented that don't require permanent connection etc,
but it won't happen overnight. That's not the same as saying we'll
stop looking at improvements to dialysis because most people don't use
dialysis.

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On 19 Nov, 19:22, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:38:56 +0000, Bruce wrote:
George wrote:

Does anybody really think wheelchair users are ever going to be able
to use the tube? Val Shawcross and the like just can't grasp the fact
that many disabled people don't want to use public transport, it just
isn't a viable option for them and it never will be.

It obviously hasn't occurred to you that the main reason that disabled
people don't use public transport is that it is mostly inaccessible.

It is quite wrong to say many disabled people don't *want* to use
public transport. *They just don't want to use a system that offers
difficult and/or restricted access. *Hardly a surprise.

People like you seem to forget that the vast majority of disabled
people used to be able-bodied but have become incapacitated through
illness, accident or military service. *They aren't a different
species. *They are just like you and me, except for impaired mobility.

People like you seem to forget that accessibility issues also affect
parents with young children and people who are mobility impaired but
not in a wheelchair. *Just try taking a small child on the Tube with a
pushchair. *Or more than one child. *It's a nightmare.

You make it sound as though you would like public transport to be made
inaccessible to all but able-bodied people so you can be spared the
sight of freaks in wheelchairs, and small children. *;-)

Goodness me. Mr Polson vs Mr Manning - an undreamed of combination of
combatants. *Do have fun knocking seven bells out of each other. For
those of us who are very familiar with George's views from other places
then this will provide huge entertainment while you all decide whether
to support or deride his views.

I'll just pull up a comfy chair and grab a bag of popcorn and watch from
the sidelines * :-)

--
Paul C- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry to disappoint you Paul but I think I've said all I have to say
on this subject.

Anybody who uses the tube regularly will know that the very idea of
wheelchairs on the tube is a non starter, and goodness only knows what
happens if a train has to be evacuated mid tunnel.

The obvious solution is a free to use taxi service for wheelchair
users but it just doesn't comply with the pc brigade and their bizzare
idea that wheelchair users should have to slum it with the rest of us,
all in the name of equality of course.

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

In article ,
George wrote:
Anybody who uses the tube regularly will know that the very idea of
wheelchairs on the tube is a non starterc[...]

At peak times, that may well be true. But there are many bits of the
tube that are accessible and, I'm sure, are regularly used by
wheelchair users.

TfL even publish a guide with detailed accessibility information:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-guide-map.pdf

-roy

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:59:12 -0800 (PST), George wrote:
Anybody who uses the tube regularly will know that the very idea of
wheelchairs on the tube is a non starter, and goodness only knows what
happens if a train has to be evacuated mid tunnel.

Wheelchairs don't get in the way of train evacuation in a tunnel. Bikes
do which is why they are banned from the deep tube sections.

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On Nov 22, 4:59*pm, George wrote:
[snip]
Anybody who uses the tube regularly will know that the very idea of
wheelchairs on the tube is a non starter, [...]

Interesting - I'll tell that to my friend who regularly uses the Tube
(commutes in fact) in her wheelchair.

Anyhow, there's nothing like a nice high-handed dystopian utl thread
to ward off potential contributors of a more level headed nature.

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

Mizter T wrote:
On Nov 22, 4:59*pm, George wrote:
[snip]
Anybody who uses the tube regularly will know that the very idea of
wheelchairs on the tube is a non starter, [...]

Interesting - I'll tell that to my friend who regularly uses the Tube
(commutes in fact) in her wheelchair.

Anyhow, there's nothing like a nice high-handed dystopian utl thread
to ward off potential contributors of a more level headed nature.


I couldn't have put it better.

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

wrote in message

On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 08:21:57 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
type of person who needs a cause to shout about - doesn't really
matter what that cause is. Which is why you get the same motley
crew turning up to every vaguely anti government demonstration
whether it be Stop the War or student demos or whatever. Its the
same with right-on topics -
you get the same sort of usual suspects whinging about everything.

B2003

Lucky that doesn't happen with right-wingers (or is that whingers?).

Apart from the occasionally BNP demo - and most people with right
wing views wouldn't associate with those muppets anyway - I don't
remember many marches about right wing topics. Probably because most
people who have right wing views are older and have grown out of the
shouting at the pigeons stage which unfortunately afflicts a lot of
left wing activists.

Perhaos this counts?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message

On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 08:21:57 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
type of person who needs a cause to shout about - doesn't really
matter what that cause is. Which is why you get the same motley
crew turning up to every vaguely anti government demonstration
whether it be Stop the War or student demos or whatever. Its the
same with right-on topics -
you get the same sort of usual suspects whinging about everything.

B2003

Lucky that doesn't happen with right-wingers (or is that whingers?).

Apart from the occasionally BNP demo - and most people with right
wing views wouldn't associate with those muppets anyway - I don't
remember many marches about right wing topics. Probably because most
people who have right wing views are older and have grown out of the
shouting at the pigeons stage which unfortunately afflicts a lot of
left wing activists.

Perhaos this counts?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm



Poor Boltar obviously hasn't heard of the English Defence League.

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:35:08 +0000
Bruce wrote:
remember many marches about right wing topics. Probably because most
people who have right wing views are older and have grown out of the
shouting at the pigeons stage which unfortunately afflicts a lot of
left wing activists.

Perhaos this counts?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm

Well for a start it was 8 years ago so is that really the best you can do ,
and secondly since when did country issues become right wing? Or do you
just dislike anyone who doesn't live in a squat in the inner city?

Poor Boltar obviously hasn't heard of the English Defence League.

They march often then?

B2003

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On Nov 22, 8:10*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Nov 22, 4:59*pm, George wrote:

[snip]
Anybody who uses the tube regularly will know that the very idea of
wheelchairs on the tube is a non starter, [...]

Interesting - I'll tell that to my friend who regularly uses the Tube
(commutes in fact) in her wheelchair.

Anyhow, there's nothing like a nice high-handed dystopian utl thread
to ward off potential contributors of a more level headed nature.

Well obviously I'll have to take your word that this person actually
exists but I think you'll agree that she is the exception to the rule?

BTW Have you ever asked her if she would prefer a taxi?

I mean how uncaring of me not to expect wheelchair users to have to
slum it with the rest of us, sadly I doubt whether the bigots will
ever remove their head from the sandpit of political corecness!

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:01:48PM +0000, Bruce wrote:
"MaxB" wrote:
Public transport is by definition a mass transit system and,
equally, by definition, cannot be all things to all people.
Are you suggesting that a "mass" transit system should only cater for
that proportion of the masses who are fit, mobile and childless?

I got the impression that he was saying that it couldn't reasonably be
suitable for all possible users. I'm sure that it would be possible to
design a public transport system that is *only* suitable for people in
wheelchairs, or only for blind people if you really wanted to.

eg, if you only care about wheelchair users, you don't need as much
head-room in the trains so could fit double-deckers in the tube. Or if
you only care about blind users, you can save a fortune on light bulbs.

In reality, a sensible public transport policy is to find and implement
a happy medium which serves the needs of the vast majority of users the
vast majority of the time, while recognising that it isn't practical to
serve the needs of everyone all the time. This means that,
unfortunately, a small number of people who are severely disabled, such
as those afflicted with Bromley, find it more difficult to use the tube
than normal people do.

--
David Cantrell
Professor of Unvironmental Science
University of Human Progress

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:01:48PM +0000, Bruce wrote:
"MaxB" wrote:
Public transport is by definition a mass transit system and,
equally, by definition, cannot be all things to all people.
Are you suggesting that a "mass" transit system should only cater for
that proportion of the masses who are fit, mobile and childless?

I got the impression that he was saying that it couldn't reasonably be
suitable for all possible users. I'm sure that it would be possible to
design a public transport system that is *only* suitable for people in
wheelchairs, or only for blind people if you really wanted to.

eg, if you only care about wheelchair users, you don't need as much
head-room in the trains so could fit double-deckers in the tube. Or if
you only care about blind users, you can save a fortune on light bulbs.

In reality, a sensible public transport policy is to find and implement
a happy medium which serves the needs of the vast majority of users the
vast majority of the time, while recognising that it isn't practical to
serve the needs of everyone all the time. This means that,
unfortunately, a small number of people who are severely disabled, such
as those afflicted with Bromley, find it more difficult to use the tube
than normal people do.

--
David Cantrell
Professor of Unvironmental Science
University of Human Progress


================

Indeed.

Many years ago I recall having a long conversation with a distressed nurese
at Guys who would no longer be able to get to work at 7 on a Sunday morning
because "we" had retimed the trains. Her need was just as great as anyone
elses, abled or disabled, but was not considered cost effective.

MaxB

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 05:02:27PM +0000, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 20/11/2010 16:31, MIG wrote:
It it's "this is all we can afford for now, but it's a step in the
right direction and we can build on it", then it might be acceptable.
Exactly.
As long as money is finite someone is going to get a less than perfect
situation for the time being. And isn't everyone a special case these days?

Wheelchair users are, judging by the amount of money spent on them, far
more important than normal people. I feel left out! I'm deaf, and I
*demand* that TfL spend at least a billion pounds next year on:

* elocution lessons for all their staff;
* redundancy payments for those who still can't talk proper afterwards;
* setting the volume exactly right on all tannoys at all times and in
all places;
* suppressing all echoes in tube stations

Far more people have hearing difficulties than have walking
difficulties, so this should obviously be a higher priority.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

Please stop rolling your Jargon Dice and explain the problem
you are having to me in plain English, using small words.
-- John Hardin, in the Monastery

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:01:48PM +0000, Bruce wrote:
"MaxB" wrote:
Public transport is by definition a mass transit system and,
equally, by definition, cannot be all things to all people.
Are you suggesting that a "mass" transit system should only cater for
that proportion of the masses who are fit, mobile and childless?

I got the impression that he was saying that it couldn't reasonably be
suitable for all possible users.


The way we should be looking at public transport is to make it
suitable for the maximum range of users that is reasonably
practicable.

It is very easy to design a system that suits only those who are fit,
mobile and childless, but it forces people who don't fit that
definition, or leave it at some point during their lives through no
fault of their own, to live a separate existence. Most people across
the board find that socially unacceptable.

However, there is a substantial minority of fit, mobile and childless
people who appear to believe that there is nothing wrong in excluding
others by reason of their lack of fitness, impaired mobility, or
parenthood. Those beliefs are often expressed on here, as in this
thread. I find them repellent.

Thankfully, recent legislation allows those views to be ignored by
those in the public and private sectors who have the power (and
responsibility) to make society ever more inclusive.

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

David Cantrell wrote:

Wheelchair users are, judging by the amount of money spent on them, far
more important than normal people. I feel left out! I'm deaf


.... in so many ways.

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

I'm still laughing at Bruce calling me anti-disabled, when I'm just
anti-cost.

I've just realised that if I wanted to build a new restaurant which had
steps which kept wheelchair users out, I would not be allowed... but a
wheelchair user could buy an existing restaurant which sells wheat-free
meals and turn it into a restaurant in which every meal contains wheat,
thus excluding me from using it. So much for a level playing field.

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On 23 Nov, 14:59, Basil Jet wrote:
I'm still laughing at Bruce calling me anti-disabled, when I'm just
anti-cost.

I've just realised that if I wanted to build a new restaurant which had
steps which kept wheelchair users out, I would not be allowed... but a
wheelchair user could buy an existing restaurant which sells wheat-free
meals and turn it into a restaurant in which every meal contains wheat,
thus excluding me from using it. So much for a level playing field.

That's a good point Basil, the hypocrisy of the bigots who claim to
represent the needs of disabled people is staggering! In their
blinkered view anybody who disagrees with them is 'anti-disabled'!

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

Basil Jet wrote:
I'm still laughing at Bruce calling me anti-disabled, when I'm just
anti-cost.

I've just realised that if I wanted to build a new restaurant which had
steps which kept wheelchair users out, I would not be allowed... but a
wheelchair user could buy an existing restaurant which sells wheat-free
meals and turn it into a restaurant in which every meal contains wheat,
thus excluding me from using it. So much for a level playing field.


You can laugh as much as you like, John, but your lame attempt at
equating physical disability with food intolerance is as risible as it
is lame.

Perhaps it has escaped your attention that physically disabled people
are just as likely to have the same food intolerances, allergies etc.,
as able bodied people. You can dress up your prejudice with whatever
false analogies you want, but prejudice it still is.

(And as for being "anti-cost", I doubt that there are many people
posting here who are more anti-cost than I am!)

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On 23/11/2010 14:59, Basil Jet wrote:

I'm still laughing at Bruce calling me anti-disabled, when I'm just
anti-cost.

It occurs to me that the introduction of the cycle hire scheme must have
massively reduced the "average accessibility" (IYSWIM) of London's
public transport. AFAIK there are no bike stands offering tandems with
sighted riders able to steer visually-impaired riders*, or tricycles
like the one a chap I used to know used because of his difficulties with
walking.

*My grandfather used to do this with a cycling club in the very distant
past.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On 23 Nov, 13:48, Bruce wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:01:48PM +0000, Bruce wrote:
"MaxB" wrote:
Public transport is by definition a mass transit system and,
equally, by definition, cannot be all things to all people.
Are you suggesting that a "mass" transit system should only cater for
that proportion of the masses who are fit, mobile and childless?

I got the impression that he was saying that it couldn't reasonably be
suitable for all possible users.

The way we should be looking at public transport is to make it
suitable for the maximum range of users that is reasonably
practicable. *

It is very easy to design a system that suits only those who are fit,
mobile and childless, but it forces people who don't fit that
definition, or leave it at some point during their lives through no
fault of their own, to live a separate existence. *Most people across
the board find that socially unacceptable.

However, there is a substantial minority of fit, mobile and childless
people who appear to believe that there is nothing wrong in excluding
others by reason of their lack of fitness, impaired mobility, or
parenthood. *Those beliefs are often expressed on here, as in this
thread. *I find them repellent.

Thankfully, recent legislation allows those views to be ignored by
those in the public and private sectors who have the power (and
responsibility) to make society ever more inclusive.

What is being ignored are the views of most disabled people who are
shouted down by the 'we know best brigade', if your bigoted remarks
are anything to go by I can only assume that you are a fully paid up
member? Frankly I find you repellent!

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

George wrote:

What is being ignored are the views of most disabled people who are
shouted down by the 'we know best brigade', if your bigoted remarks
are anything to go by I can only assume


They aren't in the least bigoted, and you shouldn't assume anything.

9 out of 10 people can easily use London Transport...
 

On 25 Nov, 17:31, Bruce wrote:
George wrote:

What is being ignored are the views of most disabled people who are
shouted down by the 'we know best brigade', if your bigoted remarks
are anything to go by I can only assume

They aren't in the least bigoted, and you shouldn't assume anything.

Do me a favour, you are the only one making assumptions when you
haven't got a clue about the travel needs of disabled people