On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:24:04 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Acrosticus wrote:
From: "Brimstone"
Date: 09/04/2004 09:18 GMT Standard Time

The primary concern with allowing wheelchairs onto the Underground,
specifically the tube lines, is getting them out in the event of an
emergency. The interconnecting doors between cars aren't wide
enough nor is the door in the front of the train allowing
emergency access to the track permitting emergency evacuation
along the track to the next station.

Therefore it is surely the trains that are unsafe and not
wheelchair users? Back in the 1980s London Transport published a
pathetic leaflet about disabled access and concerning wheelchair
users and the underground it as good as said "Bugger off, you're a
fire hazard. Why not take a taxi instead". It seems the same
cavalier attitude is still abroad today, even though the world has
moved on and disability awareness has increased (in most places).

The underground people seem to have stuck their head in the sand
and hoped disability access problems would go away. They won't, and
they're just about to get it in the neck for their longstanding
negligence - which serves them right.

Complete rubbish. If a wheelchair user needs to access any level other
than ground level, a lift is required. In the event of fire, the lifts
are not available, and people have to use the stairs. In those
circumstances, wheelchair users have to be carried to ground level. The
same applies to tube trains.


You can design in 'places of safety' where wheelchair users can be
left until the fire brigade rescures them....

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

"Robert Woolley" wrote in message
...

You can design in 'places of safety' where wheelchair users can be
left until the fire brigade rescures them....

Or not depending on the ferocity of the fire.

Dave.

In article ,
Richard J. wrote:
In those circumstances, wheelchair users have to be carried to ground
level. The same applies to tube trains.

How many people does it take to carry a tube train to ground level?

Sorry.
Dave
--
Email: MSN Messenger:

Why is it that to many people, "disabled" means "wheelchair users" and
absolutely nothing else?

"Disabled" covers a wide range of physical problems, many of which do not
involve people needing wheelchairs.

As an example, just look at the number of people on public transport who
need a walking stick to get around.

Deafness, blindness . . . . . the list is endless, but they are all serious
problems for the individuals concerned, and yet so many people just think of
wheelchairs.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 at 20:24:04, Richard J.
wrote:


Complete rubbish. If a wheelchair user needs to access any level other
than ground level, a lift is required. In the event of fire, the lifts
are not available, and people have to use the stairs. In those
circumstances, wheelchair users have to be carried to ground level. The
same applies to tube trains.

I've yet to see a tube train being carried! (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

But on balance I agree; it's a pity, but really the Tube should have
been built 150 years after it was so that the needs of wheelchair users
could have been thought of. As it is, I'm afraid access will always be
rather limited.

Incidentally has anybody actually seen a wheelchair user on a bus yet?
I haven't in this country, although I have in New York; the space
designed for them seems used by young mothers with pushchairs (Oh, how I
envy them; I so remember walking home *miles* in the rain because my
baby was asleep and I would have to wake her to get her out of her
pushchair to get on a bus.....).
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 8 March 2004

Annabel Smyth typed


Incidentally has anybody actually seen a wheelchair user on a bus yet?

I have, on about 4 occasions. Getting the bus close enough to the kerb
to use the exit doors was a problem, as were parked cars.

Ramp problems once led to a bus being taken out of service.

There have been times when the wheelchair users have been a little
aggressive regarding the difficulties boarding or alighting the buses.

As in the newsgroups, this has not endeared them to the others around.

I appreciate life with disability is a challenge, as I live with
increasing disability myself.

I haven't in this country, although I have in New York; the space
designed for them seems used by young mothers with pushchairs (Oh, how I
envy them; I so remember walking home *miles* in the rain because my
baby was asleep and I would have to wake her to get her out of her
pushchair to get on a bus.....).

The baby pushers are also sometimes a touch aggressive...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

"Henry" typed


Why is it that to many people, "disabled" means "wheelchair users" and
absolutely nothing else?

Because they are the pushy, awkward aggressive ones!

"Disabled" covers a wide range of physical problems, many of which do not
involve people needing wheelchairs.

Quite, and getting a seat as an 'ambulant disabled' passenger is more
difficult as a result of provision for wheelchair users.

As an example, just look at the number of people on public transport who
need a walking stick to get around.

At least that's visible; invisible disabilities are more difficult, in
some ways.

Deafness, blindness . . . . . the list is endless, but they are all serious
problems for the individuals concerned, and yet so many people just think of
wheelchairs.

That presupposes people think. I'm not sure many do.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 at 14:03:44, Helen Deborah Vecht
wrote:

"Henry" typed


Why is it that to many people, "disabled" means "wheelchair users" and
absolutely nothing else?

Because they are the pushy, awkward aggressive ones!

Also because the sign for "disabled" is a stylised wheelchair.

In fact, since many buses were converted/rearranged to allow someone in
a wheelchair to use them, they've actually been less accessible to those
who, while not using a wheelchair, have walking problems and would
dearly love to be able to get on a bus (be hauled on by the conductor of
a Routemaster, in the olden days, but nobody can help them now), and sit
down almost at once, rather than be nearly knocked down in the scrum and
have to push past the queue at the bottom of the stairs to find a seat.

--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 8 March 2004

In message , Annabel Smyth
writes
Incidentally has anybody actually seen a wheelchair user on a bus yet?

A couple of times I've taken a wheelchair-bound friend around much of
Central London by tube, moist recently just last week.

Per se, London's wheelchair access on buses is commendable. Indeed,
the first time we took my friend, it was the first time he'd been on a
bus in over 30 years and that added greatly to our enjoyment and to the
"special" nature of the day.

Last week, we repeated the whole exercise with more mixed results. Two
buses had problems with the ramps, both on the 436. The first, at
Marylebone, was able to put out the ramp but not open the doors at the
same time! Accordingly, we waited for the next bus which worked a
treat.

Later in the day, we boarded a double decker on the 436 (this was just
after the fire problems with then bendis) in Parliament Street
(Whitehall) to return to Marylebone. The ramp came out as sweet as a
nut and the doors opened. Great. Unfortunately, the ramp then
steadfastly refused to retract, causing the bus to become stuck there
and necessitating all the passengers transferring to the bus behind.

All the drivers were extremely patient and understanding (and
apologetic) but they gave us the distinct impression that:

9i) People in wheelchairs don't use buses that often

and

(ii) When they do, things tend to go wrong with the equipment.

The fact is, retracting ramps with a lot of moving parts presumably have
a lot to go wrong and in London's heady conditions this must put a great
strain on the equipment, the more so as more disabled people use the
buses.

--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In message , Henry writes
Why is it that to many people, "disabled" means "wheelchair users" and
absolutely nothing else?

"Disabled" covers a wide range of physical problems, many of which do not
involve people needing wheelchairs.

As an example, just look at the number of people on public transport who
need a walking stick to get around.

Deafness, blindness . . . . . the list is endless, but they are all serious
problems for the individuals concerned, and yet so many people just think of
wheelchairs.

Indeed and as I've posted here before such groups often have conflicting
requirements. My mother has trouble with low floor buses because she
can walk but is just a bit unsteady; that means that the wide open
areas for wheelchair circulation reduces the number of stanchions
available for her to hold on to.

O a trip to London last year she was full of praise for the bendis but
confessed to finding access easier on Routemasters. Sorry, I know that
*that* will start a fierce debate........
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk