Like I said, the systems are there for everyone. If signs are made
clearer for someone who is visually impaired to read, then *I* gain
too.

Why? Unless you're have bad eye sight too.

If PA systems are good enough for someone with a hearing defect to
understand, then *I* understand what is said too. If there is enough
circulation space inside trains for wheelchairs, then *I* don't have
to

And where do you think this space comes from? You think trains are
like the Tardis? More space = less or something else. Usually seats.
Not much fun if you some poor sod who has to stand in a crowded
train.

climb all over someone to pass them, nor they me. And so on. You've
proved you can moan. Maybe in future you could prove you can think.

Had to be there, the standard issue lefty response to anyone daring to
challenge some aspect of political correctness. Go listen to some whale
song and knit yourself a yoghurt you sap.

B2003

On 22 Apr 2005 06:06:57 -0700, Boltar wrote:
If signs are made clearer, then *I* gain too.
Why? Unless you're have bad eye sight too.
Well, for a start, if the print is bigger, I don't need to be as close
to it to read it, and I am less likely to misread it (which is a
possibility for someone even with perfect eyesight).

You think trains are like the Tardis?
No. I recommend you reach judgments based on comparison with reality.

Had to be there, the standard issue lefty response to anyone daring to
challenge some aspect of political correctness.
You aren't challenging political correctness. *That* might be worthy.
You are complaining about design choices and displaying a lack of logic.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12028680.html
(Bubble car 960 021 in Railtrack livery (mostly!) at Aylesbury in 2004)

Chris! wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 20 Apr 2005:

If the train needed to be evacuated it would be helpful to be able to
announce that to all the passengers... Not just to disabled passengers

Helpful, yes - but surely not vital? It is only within the last few
years that PA on trains has become commonplace - in my childhood and
young adulthood, it was unknown.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 3 April 2005

No. I recommend you reach judgments based on comparison with reality.

The reality being something other than the trains I travel on everyday
perhaps?
Which reality are we talking about here? The reality where wheelchairs
space
can be squeezed into a train and it not effecting anything else?
Because as far
as I can see having a wheelchair spot means some seats go missing.
Unless
in the world you exist in this doesn't happen.

You aren't challenging political correctness. *That* might be worthy.
You are complaining about design choices and displaying a lack of
logic.

I'm saying that accomodating every single minority group on public
transport
isn't practical or feasible or a good way to spend money. Presumably
you
think it makes perfect sense to do so no matter what the cost or
inconvenience
to the majority.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
Because as far
as I can see having a wheelchair spot means some seats go missing.
Unless
in the world you exist in this doesn't happen.


Having a wheelchair spot means there are less seats and a large gap.
During the peak time it is better to have fewer seats because more
standing passengers can crush into the new open space and wheelchair
users (just like people with big shopping bags) are likely to avoid
travelling at rush hour.

Mrs Redboots wrote:
Chris! wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 20 Apr 2005:

If the train needed to be evacuated it would be helpful to be able
to
announce that to all the passengers... Not just to disabled
passengers

Helpful, yes - but surely not vital?

They must have thought it was vital when writing the policies otherwise
they wouldn't have considered taking the train out of sevice.

I can't really imagine it being acceptable (nowdays) for a train to
break down, completely packed, and the guard having to relay messages
by shouting down the carriage and getting the people that can hear him
to shout to those further down.

--
Chris

Boltar wrote:
Now the disability taliban have managed

What is the diability taliban? I don't remember any blind, deaf or
wheelchair bound suicide bombers...

In message , Jack Taylor
writes

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:43:16 GMT, Jack Taylor wrote:

Disability Discrimination Act. Farcical, isn't it?

No.

Yes it is when a much larger majority of people are inconvenienced on their
journey on the spurious excuse that a disabled person *may* want to travel
and *may* be disadvantaged if PIS or PA systems are out of action. The
responsible and sensible thing to do is to allow the train to continue until
such point as a replacement set can be found to take over the diagram, not
to take the set out of service at the first opportunity.

As someone who is visually impaired (and therefore someone for whom
these rules are supposed to be a benefit) I'd have to agree.
I'd much rather have a train with no PA and put up with that fact, than
no train at all. After all, disabled people aren't necessarily stupid
and will find another way of getting the information. Contrary to
popular belief, the British public aren't all *******s, and a polite
request to a fellow passenger to tell you which station or let you know
when you've reached X will often do the job (and unlike some
auto-announcers, you might actually get the right answer).

However, this shouldn't be an excuse for letting a train go for weeks
without fixing the PA, obviously it should be fixed as soon as
practically possible without disrupting the service.
--
Spyke
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. Replace the bit before the
@ with 'daniel' to get through. The opinions expressed in this post do not
necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.

On 22 Apr 2005 08:36:08 -0700, Boltar wrote:
having a wheelchair spot means some seats go missing.
Let's see. On a Mark 3 coach, the wheelchair spot means two seats are
taken out, the table size is reduced, and one of the seats is replaced
by a tip-up. Net loss *one* seat (out of 76). Gain - extra space for
wheelchair or pushchair or luggage or several standing people.

I'm saying that accomodating every single minority group on public
transport isn't practical or feasible or a good way to spend money.
Presumably you think it makes perfect sense to do so no matter what
the cost or inconvenience to the majority.
I'm not making any argument on behalf of minorities. As I have already
said, the things you find so distasteful, I find to be a benefit to me.
This is what I mean about you not thinking. Your prejudice blinds you
not only to the possibilities, but also as shown above to the realities.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683900.html (Class 206 Tadpole unit)

In article , Spyke
writes
I'd much rather have a train with no PA and put up with that fact, than
no train at all.
[...]
However, this shouldn't be an excuse for letting a train go for weeks
without fixing the PA, obviously it should be fixed as soon as
practically possible without disrupting the service.

The trouble is that if nobody gets into trouble for running a train with
a broken PA, there's no incentive to fix it for weeks.

The answer has to be in finding the right setting for "as soon as
practically possible". I'm not saying that the present rules are
correct, but I also suspect that writing better ones is hard.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: