Robin May wrote:
are (Acrosticus) wrote the following in:
From: "Richard J."

Complete rubbish. If a wheelchair user needs to access any level
other than ground level, a lift is required.

Oh, ramps won't do the job then? I must tell our local social
services department, who run a number of vehicles with ramps
rather than lifts about this - how remiss of them!

And this is of course so relevant when talking about access to deep
level tube stations. Ramps are famous for being sensible, space saving
ways of getting people several levels under the ground.

The discussion was not restricted to deep level tubes, and Richard J
widened it even further.

Ramps would be suitable to replace stairs at many stations, particularly
at above ground locations and on the District Line.

"Paul Dicken" wrote in message
news:mb9hc.74$3c4.16@newsfe1-win...

Attitude is the issue and I agree that the intention is the most important
thing. However, 'wheelchair-bound' makes me wince (as it does most
wheelchair users) because people are not bound to their chairs - we sleep
in
a bed, shower in a shower/bath and so on.

How many people (wheelchar users or otherwise) take baths or use a bed *in*
*a* *tube* *station*? That is the context in which Clive's original
"wheelchair bound passengers" remark was made, and it still seems the most
accurate expression for this context.

only thoes users who are truly wheelchair-bound who need special
provision.
Clive's phrase is the more accurate one in this context.
snip
IMO, the intention's the main thing.

Attitude is the issue and I agree that the intention is the most important
thing. However, 'wheelchair-bound' makes me wince (as it does most
wheelchair users) because people are not bound to their chairs - we sleep in
a bed, shower in a shower/bath and so on. Take your cue from the disabled
person - use the language they do! Political correctness is a nightmare!

The only attitude which I can't abide is the one which goes through
well known texts with a red pen - take for instance the line in the
Xmas carol It Came Upon A Midnight Clear "Peace on the Earth, goodwill
to men" - and deems that some group may take offence at it due to an
utterly spurious interpretation a 7-year old could see was incorrect.

(Flash Wilson) wrote the following in:

However, I've come a cropper with a friend for referring to my
brother as having "special needs" when the term now is apparently
"individual needs".

It's not. Or at least I've never heard that term before and I'm quite
involved in that sort of thing. Special needs still seems fairly
current.

Personally I don't care what term people use to refer to my own
mobility difficulty, as long as a) it's not meant as an insult
and preferably b) they are making an effort to accommodate it.
I don't care if they use a slightly less preferable term; if they
are trying to do something to benefit me, I won't take offense!

Indeed. I think it's quite easy to get too bothered about terminology
with these sorts of things, but at the same time it's important to try
to get these things vaguely right and respect people's wishes. Easier
said than done!

--
message by Robin May, enforcer of sod's law.
"Dust Hill guy likes the Gordon clock"

"You MUST NOT drive dangerously" - the Highway Code
Spelling lesson: then and than are different words.

In article , Acrosticus
writes
To quote my site:

"An emergency lift is one provided for firefighters' access to the
platforms and for the evacuation of wheelchair-bound passengers.

Those of us who have had disability awareness training from our employers are
told to use the expression "Wheelchair users". You might want to bear this in
mind the next time you update.

I've borne it in mind. And I will continue to use the correct
expression, which is "wheelchair-bound".

I note you are maintaining your 100% record of content-free posts.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

On 21/4/04 6:50 pm, in article , "Clive D.
W. Feather" wrote:

Those of us who have had disability awareness training from our employers are
told to use the expression "Wheelchair users". You might want to bear this in
mind the next time you update.

I've borne it in mind. And I will continue to use the correct
expression, which is "wheelchair-bound".

This is in danger of turning into a PC-ness argument, but I must ask why you
think the expression 'wheelchair-bound' is correct compared with
'wheelchair-user'?

Somebody who sits in a wheelchair and uses it to get around is, surely, a
user of the wheelchair, thus, a wheelchair user.

Wheelchair-bound implies to me that the person is physically tied, or,
'bound' to it?

Some people might think it offensive they are thought of as tied to their
wheelchair?


Steve.

"Steve" wrote in message
...


Somebody who sits in a wheelchair and uses it to get around is, surely, a
user of the wheelchair, thus, a wheelchair user.

Yes, but that also includes any partially disabled (or even able bodied)
people who have just chosen to use a wheelchair for whatever reason. If
they can leave their chair to evacuate the underground station on foot
during an emergency, then they've got nothing to do with the issue of
evacuating those heavily disabled passengers who can't leave their
wheelchairs. That is, after all, what was being discussed here, and it
makes sense to use the most appropriate term for this very narrow, very
specific group of people in this very narrow, very specific context.

Wheelchair-bound implies to me that the person is physically tied, or,
'bound' to it?

Now you're just being silly. Or maybe you think the term "northbound
trains" implies they're physically tied to the north!?!

You, Steve, are nothing but a very poor troll, and I'm plonking you firmly
in my killfile. Let's hope others in this group have the sense to do the
same.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:50:07 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:



I've borne it in mind. And I will continue to use the correct
expression, which is "wheelchair-bound".


What makes you think that is the "correct" expression?

In article , Steve
writes
I've borne it in mind. And I will continue to use the correct
expression, which is "wheelchair-bound".

This is in danger of turning into a PC-ness argument, but I must ask why you
think the expression 'wheelchair-bound' is correct compared with
'wheelchair-user'?

Somebody who sits in a wheelchair and uses it to get around is, surely, a
user of the wheelchair, thus, a wheelchair user.

I've used wheelchairs. But when I did, I could have walked in an
emergency.

The people we're talking about are those who *can't* leave their
wheelchair to walk.

Wheelchair-bound implies to me that the person is physically tied, or,
'bound' to it?

And house-bound means they're tied into their house?

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address