Originally posted by Plain Talker:-
the entrance fee is £2 with no discounts for oap or disabled
Originally posted by Captain_Scarlet
Erm... Why should there ?

Mr PT has asked that I put these comments, as a point to ponder, as I did not do so in the response above:-

Often, people who are disabled, eg those who need to rely on wheelchairs, or people who are sight or hearing impaired need a "Helper", "Facilitator", "Enabler" (call it what you will...)
to

a) reach things that are on the stalls or push the person's wheelchair.

b) tell them what items there are on the stall which may be of interest to them, eg if they are blind and/or cannot see for themselves what is on the stall, like if they are in a wheelchair.

c) perhaps someone who is a signer/ interpreter is needed for a deaf person. Not all deaf people have lip reading skills or can use hearing aids: some of them need to rely on sign language.

Can the stall holder, (who is more than likely a hearing person) understand the deaf person's speech-attempts or their signing?

so, therefore, even if the second person doesn't want to go, it is necessary for them to accompany a person who has a disability, which means that the disabled person suffers having to pay a double entrance fee so that their facilitator/ helper can accompany them.

This might actually be a direct contravention of the Disability Discrimination Act, as a person who has a disabilty has an extra charge levied on them simply because they are disabled.

the DDA says that no person should be penalised financially or otherwise because of their disability.(paraphrase)

The fact that they would have to endure a lesser standard of service if they tried to access the event without the facilitator also contravenes the spirit of the DDA.

what about if it were put in this scenario...
if you are, for arguments sake, 30 yrs of age, would you think it reasonable that a rule be enforced to say "under 30's have to be accompanied by an adult of 50 yrs old or above; No entry, if you are under 30 and unaccompanied!"

or what about this way..
You are a female. You are forbidden to enter the event unless you are accompanied by your father, brother, husband or a similar responsible male.

wouldn't you imagine that the under thirties, or the females, in the hypothetical scenarios ilustrated above,would be rioting, at scuh an infringement of their civil liberties? and rightly so.

The argument "Simply do not go, if you object to the entrance fees" cannot hold water, as the disabled person may have no other option but to attend that particular event, on that particular day. there may be logistics of transport, obtaining a facilitator, any number of factors.

if you go to the sheffield theatres (Crucible or Lyceum), as a wheelchair user, you have to bring along a facilitator, in the case of an emergency (fire etc) but, because they "insist" on it, the theatres have a policy that, so there is no financial penalty incurred, they charge a single fee for the two attendees, The facilitator and the disabled person. so if the ticket costs £10, for one seat, it's £10 for the disabled person and their helper, together.

PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker



or what about this way..
You are a female. You are forbidden to enter the event unless you are accompanied by your father, brother, husband or a similar responsible male.


PT

So you have heard of the Hajj in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, then :)

A lot of work has been done in the last few years to prepare for the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) that is now in force, but it seems that a lot of firms are still struggling to get their minds around it.

This example (http://www.legalday.co.uk/lexnex/cloister04/clo300104a.htm) is a good one where RyanAir had to be prosecuted before realising that they were discriminating by actually charging extra for wheelchair users.

I've noticed lots of the larger stores and buildings have recently installed auotmatic sliding doors or have no doors at all. DDA is the reason why. Lots of small shops and businesses are going to find themselves prosecuted if they ignore it.

I have to agree with Plain Talker about discounts and helpers. In a way it's the same as RyanAir, just not so obvious. Of course it's open to abuse (look at the blue badge system), but it's not the disabled that are abusing it, is it?

Originally posted by Plain Talker :-
or what about this way..
You are a female. You are forbidden to enter the event unless you are accompanied by your father, brother, husband or a similar responsible male.


PT Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
So you have heard of the Hajj in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, then :)

Yes I have studied Islam, (as far as making Shahada in '99) and I know about the rules for a woman having to be escorted by a muharram. and I also know that to make the Hajj pilgrimage, in the holy cities of Maakah and Madina, it is, again, forbidden for a woman to be unnacompanied, again she must have a Muharram with her.

(for those who do not know, a Muharram is a close male relative, eg grand/ father, brother, uncle, son, etc, who acts as a chaperone to escort a female. A muharram is someone who is related colosely enough to be in the category of relatives forbidden to marry)

Funnily enough, it was not Islamic society i was thinking of, when I made that comment, i was thinking of two instances of UK institutions/ societies where women were discriminated against:_

a) the victorian/pre-victorian societies, where women were considered te property of, or "owned by" their men, and

b) the working-mens clubs set-up, where women are barred from membership, and forbidden to play games like pool, or purchase a drink.

PT

If its sex discrimination we're talking now, it does still exist.

EG. I can't get cheap car insurance from one of these new companies cos I'm a bloke. The local WI won't let me join cos I'm a bloke.

Originally posted by markham
If its sex discrimination we're talking now, it does still exist.

EG. I can't get cheap car insurance from one of these new companies cos I'm a bloke. The local WI won't let me join cos I'm a bloke.

Apparently they're stopping all these new fangled cheaper car insurance for women malarkeys cos some trade descriptions group or summat reckons they're sexist.

Well duh! Isn't that like, the whole flippin' POINT? :loopy:

Originally posted by Rich
Apparently they're stopping all these new fangled cheaper car insurance for women malarkeys cos some trade descriptions group or summat reckons they're sexist.



And about time too!!:thumbsup:

What!
women get cheaper car insurance because they are better drivers. Its not some random perk, but all worked out by actuaries. I doubt everyone would want to pay the life insurance premiums that smokers pay.

Well in that case why does my insurance keep going up?

I've never had an accident or points in 17 years of driving, and I've only had 2 claims.

One for a car that was stolen and recovered, and another where a dozy woman driver ran into the back of my car and wrote it off whilst it was parked!

Where's MY safe driver discount? I'll tell you where, in my wifes car!

Women are safer drivers? Isn't that a bit of a generalisation?

35 years of driving without a claim by me, or against me. How can women in general be labelled as safer than that?

Hows about "Cheaper insurance for Anglo-Saxon males"?

No, maybe not. After all, that would be racist and SEXIST.

I have a sister-in-law who has driven for six years and she still can't parallel park, reverse, negotiate roundabouts or navigate in town traffic without putting other road users in peril. That's okay though. She's female so her insurance is cheaper than mine cos she's a safer driver.

There's an old saying, 'Women drivers don't have many accidents, but they don't half see a fair few in their rear view mirrors.'

Originally posted by markham
Women are safer drivers? Isn't that a bit of a generalisation?
We are getting way off topic here but I'll go with the flow!

As regards motor insurance for women, the insurers are not offering lower premiums because women are safer drivers. They are doing it because, on a statistical basis, the total cost of claims from women drivers is lower than for men. Some people choose to believe that implies that women are safer drivers. They may be but there may be other factors like the amount and nature of journeys they take, the mix of urban/long distance/rural driving. Maybe they, on average, drive more slowly so they might have just as many accidents as men but because of their lower speed there is less damage and so claims are smaller or not made at all.
Quoting isolated examples of people you degard as a good (male)or bad (female) drivers is as stupid an arguement as the people who argue that smoking doesn't cause cancer because they know someone aged 90 who smoked 100 a day since the age of 3 and someone else who never smoked at all but died of cancer.

My intuitive reaction on driver safety is to ask this: when you see cars doing 50 mph on quiet residential roads, what proportion of the drivers are male/female? In my experience young males (usually with 500 watt speakers and baseball caps). As it happens the insurers have spotted this statistic and the young attract very high insurance premiums. I'm not going to man the barricades to fight against that blatantly ageist policy on the part of the insurers.

Overall I don't know what factors are the most important in making the cost of insuring a woman lower but doubtless there is some scientific research on the topic.

Lower premiums for lower risk are perfectly fair, women also pay lower premiums for life insurance because on average they live longer. In the end it all balances out, a woman buying an annuity will get distinctly poorer terms than a man of the same age because on average the annuity will have to pay out for a longer period.

You could even argue that women do already pay the same for motor insurance as men but because women live longer their lifetime motor insurance premium is spread over more years and so the annual premium is smaller.

As regards treating this as discriminatory, its a stupid proposal. How will the insurers react? Will they say OK lets reduce the premium for everyone to the lower rate? Of course not, they'll increase everyone to the higher rate. And what a surprise, its a European Directive. It's no more discriminatory than the practice of having women-only clothes shops, and whilst I'm not banned from entering the shop, they won't let me in the communal changing room and they don't have a mens changing room.

I saw an advert on the TV yesterday for Diamond Car Insurance. They only insure women. I can't help but feel slightly offended by this, and think that if a male equivalent was introduced there would be outcry.

There are insurers who offer special deals to teachers, adn have done for years. I've never heard any outcry. A car insurance company that only catered for men would quickly go out of business, as the premiums would be higher than elsewhere.

This is what the insurance industry does, work out the profit margin from each group based on the probability of recieving a claim, and then charge an appropriate premium. You can't treat everybody equally, and they do not behave/act equally. I wouldn't want to pay the same premiums as a 22 year old male living in a very high crime area with a flash car.

Anybody with sense wouldn't even own a flash car anyway if they lived on the Manor or any of the other chav filled estates.

in light of the better driver thing. i think that men are classed as worse drivers due to the average amount of claims and the severity of them. women are usuaally more cautious on the road and only have small bumps and the occasional lump, whereas men, if they have a crash they do the full monty and write the car off or scrape the paintwork or dent the car

i think im right in saying male 17-23 year olds are most likly to have a claim so their insurance costs more, but because the amount of claims made by these people it increases the average over the whole spectrum of people. including those who havnt had a crash. - they have to make the money back!

i think its a matter of averages

Going slightly off the topic of cars and insurance, the reason IMO why disabled people get discounts for stuff, and quite rightly so, is cos a lot of us are on benefits cos we can't work for whatever reason (I'll spare you a long and emotional rant about my thoughts on that particular matter), and because we have to live on the crumbs the DSS feeds us, we can't afford to pay full whack for everything all the time.

Rich, I mean no disrespect to you here, but that's asinine. If I can't afford something, I go without. You feel that you're entitled to a discount just because you're disabled? I find that ridiculous.

People in wheelchairs that require extra space on a plane SHOULD pay extra. Is it unfair? No - space and weight is at a premium on a plane, why should people be able to take up extra for free?

Susie

Because we are an inclusive society susie. Long may it continue to be so.

There are plenty of people that I would remove discounts from well before the disabled.

Remember that many disabled people cannot work simply because of the disability, not because they don't want to. It would be churlish to penalise those people. There are scroungers in all walks of life and all abilities, but you cannot make that individual judgement when marking out a disabled parking bay.

I don't agree with a blanket policy of free disabled parking, but I can see how individuals may need the attendance of carers. This post by Plain Talker (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=121668#post121668) gives a really interesting insight into various situations.

Originally posted by Tony
Because we are an inclusive society susie. Long may it continue to be so.

There are plenty of people that I would remove discounts from well before the disabled.

Remember that many disabled people cannot work simply because of the disability, not because they don't want to. It would be churlish to penalise those people. There are scroungers in all walks of life and all abilities, but you cannot make that individual judgement when marking out a disabled parking bay.

I don't agree with a blanket policy of free disabled parking, but I can see how individuals may need the attendance of carers. This post by Plain Talker (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=121668#post121668) gives a really interesting insight into various situations.

I disagree with the actions of a lot of disabled drivers, they think the orange badge entitles them to park wherever the chuff they want, including on double yellow lines!

And some of them do flaunt their disability in the face of others, like "look at me, I'm in a wheelchair, you should all pity me and fall over backwards to help me".

It's these people who are sometimes faking it and get the DSS falling over themselves to hand them free help, that makes the task of aquiring help for such as myself somewhat akin to getting blood out of a stone.

And that's what burns me, and people like PT up!

I agree with everything you said rich. Just don't let it get in the way of caring about the wellbeing of those who are genuinely less fortunate than others. :thumbsup:

Personally?

Firstly, well, double yellows are double yellows, but I would introduce a TRIPLE yellow (or red route like London) where nobody but nobody could park. Let's start with Barkers Pool next to Coles. :P

Secondly, I would introduce a 100% accurate scroungerometer. Those that fail would have all benefits including free housing removed, along with any children. (Crikey, and some people on here call me a lefty do-gooder :confused: ). If charities want to pick up the pieces then so be it, but we will know which charties not to donate to eh?

SusieP said:

People in wheelchairs that require extra space on a plane SHOULD pay extra. Is it unfair? No - space and weight is at a premium on a plane, why should people be able to take up extra for free?

Surely by that logic, people should be weighed at the check in desk, and charged for every kilo they are overweight. There are plenty of folk out there who weigh more than the average wheelchair plus user.

I don't really think that all disabled people deserve benefits just for being disabled. They're not all on benefits. They just deserve the same treatment as everyone else.

Sorry folks, but I still think that all this 'cheaper car insurance for women' tosh is sexist. As is men having to work longer than women, even though we don't live as long on average.

Yes, sexism works both ways.

Even my wife agrees, because my premiums come out of OUR housekeeping.

Originally posted by SusieP
You feel that you're entitled to a discount just because you're disabled? I find that ridiculous.

People in wheelchairs that require extra space on a plane SHOULD pay extra. Is it unfair? No - space and weight is at a premium on a plane, why should people be able to take up extra for free?

Susie [/B]

So you think that just because I am in a wheelchair it is correct that I must pay double just to get to anywhere, or into anywhere?

Bullshine! with a capital Bullshine!

I have as much right to go see a film, a theatre show, travel on a train, a bus, in a taxi, go see a football match if I so choose, just like anyone else, be they an "abod" (able bodied) or not.

I agree with what Rich says about benefits; employers are reluctant to employ folks with disabilities (PWD's), which forces PWDs onto benefit reliance, through totally no fault of their own.

I did not choose to be disabled.

Thanks to my former landlord causing me to be gassed by CO (Carbon Monoxide) from an ill-maintained fire, i suffered neurological damage which has "crippled" me.

I make no apologies for making a fuss if someone says (whether by voice, intimation, attitude, or body language) to me that I am less welcome than someone who does not have to rely on a wheelchair.

I am in a wheelchair, but that does not mean that I have handed back my membership card for the club called "life"...


I have as much right to do things, to choose things, to experience things, to have a life as the next person.

If i want to take my grandchildren out on a day trip, why shouldn't I?

If I want to go into the library and choose my own books, why shouldn't I?

If I wish to go for a meal in a restaurant, what's the problem? I have to eat, after all!

but!

It shouldn't cost me any more to have that privilege than you, or any other person on or off this forum.

I am fortunate: for the time being I have a job. I am not reliant on benefit....

Would you prefer that the clock was turned back to the days of yore when the workhouse was pretty much the only option for an ordinary PWD, who could not afford the cost of care and nursing as a rich person could? Would you prefer it that I were hidden away, incarcerated for life, away from the abods, inside a prison-like institution, where the decision of what I wore, when I arose and when I went to bed, what I ate, when I ate, even HOW I ate, was taken from me?

does it offend your sensibilities, that I am out in the world, independent, running a home, and earning my own keep, from the wheelchair?

Whether it does or not, TOUGH! I am in the outside world and I am running my own home, and enjoying my grandchildren. i am capable of making my own decisions.

If i wished to travel by plane or train, I should not have to pay any more for access to the train/ plane than an abod.

Until they are designed to be as accessible for me as they are for an Abod, then Tough T*tty i require help to board, and I expect that help to be there for me without incurring any extra charge.. I cannot levitate onto the plane/ train, but what is not realised is, it is the design of it, and the design of Society that is disabling me, not the fact that I use a wheelchair.

If the barriers were removed/ designed out within society and the environment there would be no such thing as "a Disability" and no need for a DDA (disability descrimination act)

PT

Originally posted by SusieP
People in wheelchairs that require extra space on a plane SHOULD pay extra. Is it unfair? No - space and weight is at a premium on a plane, why should people be able to take up extra for free?

Susie
Whoa Nelly!

This is a problematic outlook because it focusses "what I lose out" not "what others gain".

Apply this thinking to any situation and you will see that you lose out. Always. Everyone has it better than you. Especially people with disabilities, man they get all the special treatment while you have to slum it in economy.

And I'm sure you haven't forgotten that loss and gain are not purely financial measures (although you do give that impression)

From each according to their ability to each according to their need. Simple, foolproof and quite the opposite of what you are saying.

Originally posted by Plain Talker
So you think that just because I am in a wheelchair it is correct that I must pay double just to get to anywhere, or into anywhere?

I don't think that, I think you should pay the same as everybody else and if you need additional assistance, well you've paid so you should have it.

What happened with this landlord exactly???

Originally posted by dinp
I don't think that, I think you should pay the same as everybody else and if you need additional assistance, well you've paid so you should have it.

What happened with this landlord exactly???

it's a long story.

He was a git. a total and utter so-and-so. (she says with a gritted smile, and clenched teeth)

He was a rachman landlord (rachman was a notorious slum landlord in london in 50's /60's) In fact, I would say, that, IMHO, he gives Rachman Landlords a bad name!!!!!

He would not do repairs, or maintain the house to a fit standard. The property was a total hole. The builder he employed to do any work in the house did not pull up outside in his white transit van... he tethered his horse, Trigger, to the gatepost! He would never cut one corner if he could cut 2!

We had galloping dry rot, which had caused our living room floor to sink like a skateboard park,
hot and cold running walls, wet rot, windows where the glass was held in by willpower as teh wood and putty and paint had rotted away. over the middle room chimney breast there was a big tar-stain where the water had penetrated through into the house from BEHIND the wall.
we had 3, count them, 3 fuse boxes, and wires taken directly across walls behind the wallpaper without any conduiting...
it was the house that jack-built!

the walls caved out, the roof caved in, the windows would not close closer than 8-10"

we had rising damp, and penetrating damp, so bad, that the man who did the survey for the environmental health dept could not ascertain where the one stopped and the other began.

the survey found 15 faults in the living room alone. The "published" report ran to ten pages in length.

the environmental health survey found 11 points throughout the house which were what would be considered "directly injurious to life" (I think the wording was) and for which an order could be slapped on the landlord forbidding him to rent the house out to anyone else until they had been rectified, and the house inspected for safety.

the fires had not been serviced or checked properly according to the housing law. The flue to the gas fire in the living room was blocked by the spalling brick dust and prevented the fire from venting the exhaust gases properly (including the poison gas, "CO", carbon monoxide)

we were incredibly lucky to survive, considering that there are many who get gassed with CO, and who die as a result.

However, I am left with neurological damage, and I have to rely heavily on a wheelchair. I can become confused, at times, and have a dreadful, debilitating chronic fatigue syndome, which had left me reliant, for 11 long years, on sickness benefit.

PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker
it's a long story.

He was a git. a total and utter so-and-so. (she says with a gritted smile, and clenched teeth)

He was a rachman landlord (rachman was a notorious slum landlord in london in 50's /60's) In fact, I would say, that, IMHO, he gives Rachman Landlords a bad name!!!!!

He would not do repairs, or maintain the house to a fit standard. The property was a total hole. The builder he employed to do any work in the house did not pull up outside in his white transit van... he tethered his horse, Trigger, to the gatepost! He would never cut one corner if he could cut 2!

We had galloping dry rot, which had caused our living room floor to sink like a skateboard park,
hot and cold running walls, wet rot, windows where the glass was held in by willpower as teh wood and putty and paint had rotted away. over the middle room chimney breast there was a big tar-stain where the water had penetrated through into the house from BEHIND the wall.
we had 3, count them, 3 fuse boxes, and wires taken directly across walls behind the wallpaper without any conduiting...
it was the house that jack-built!

the walls caved out, the roof caved in, the windows would not close closer than 8-10"

we had rising damp, and penetrating damp, so bad, that the man who did the survey for the environmental health dept could not ascertain where the one stopped and the other began.

the survey found 15 faults in the living room alone. The "published" report ran to ten pages in length.

the environmental health survey found 11 points throughout the house which were what would be considered "directly injurious to life" (I think the wording was) and for which an order could be slapped on the landlord forbidding him to rent the house out to anyone else until they had been rectified, and the house inspected for safety.

the fires had not been serviced or checked properly according to the housing law. The flue to the gas fire in the living room was blocked by the spalling brick dust and prevented the fire from venting the exhaust gases properly (including the poison gas, "CO", carbon monoxide)

we were incredibly lucky to survive, considering that there are many who get gassed with CO, and who die as a result.

However, I am left with neurological damage, and I have to rely heavily on a wheelchair. I can become confused, at times, and have a dreadful, debilitating chronic fatigue syndome, which had left me reliant, for 11 long years, on sickness benefit.

PT

Well i'm not exactly a capitalist, but I hope you sought and received large financial compensatioin for his complete negligence.

I'm not a doctor by any means, what damage does 'neurological damage' cause exactly???

Originally posted by dinp
Well i'm not exactly a capitalist, but I hope you sought and received large financial compensatioin for his complete negligence.

I'm not a doctor by any means, what damage does 'neurological damage' cause exactly???

I sued, but, contrary to what these big averts on tv show, with their "retire-to-the-cayman-islands" sized payouts I got a pathetic couple of grand, and it took three years of wrangling , and him writing to the law society trying to persuade them to revoke my legal aid certificate, before I got sight of any money!!!

the neuro damage for me personally, means that i have problems now, with the connections to the nerves in my body which causes me to have mobility probs, and stamina/ balance probs. (to add to the foggy brain and fatigue symptoms!!!!)

PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker
I sued, but, contrary to what these big averts on tv show, with their "retire-to-the-cayman-islands" sized payouts I got a pathetic couple of grand, and it took three years of wrangling , and him writing to the law society trying to persuade them to revoke my legal aid certificate, before I got sight of any money!!!

Well that is both sickening and a shame and I hope he gets his comeuppance one day soon (what goes around comes around).

Originally posted by Plain Talker the neuro damage for me personally, means that i have problems now, with the connections to the nerves in my body which causes me to have mobility probs, and stamina/ balance probs. (to add to the foggy brain and fatigue symptoms!!!!)

PT [/B]

How the **** can your previous landord contest against this? Was this a gradual process or a sudden one?

Originally posted by Rich
Going slightly off the topic of cars and insurance, the reason IMO why disabled people get discounts for stuff, and quite rightly so, is cos a lot of us are on benefits cos we can't work for whatever reason (I'll spare you a long and emotional rant about my thoughts on that particular matter), and because we have to live on the crumbs the DSS feeds us, we can't afford to pay full whack for everything all the time.
While I sympathise with your situation, there's absolutely nothing stopping you working so you won't have to live off benefits.

I thought about working for the council a couple of months back, and was looking through council job sites. Almost every job I encountered said that they were short of disabled workers in order to meet some sort of quota. Therefore, any disabled applicants were garanteed an interview, so if I applied and a disabled person also applied, it would almost certainly be set in stone that the disabled person would get the post (even if I was more suitable), just so the council could meet their quota.

In my opinion this is not on. People should be given equal oppertunities and not preferential treatment just because they're disabled. I think if I was disabled I'd be just as offended knowing that I'd only got a job because I was needed to meet a quota.

While I don't think that disabled people should necessarily get preferential treatment, I certainly don't think that disabled people should be financially damaged by their disabilities. Susie's attitude shocks me.

Originally posted by Sidla
While I sympathise with your situation, there's absolutely nothing stopping you working so you won't have to live off benefits.

I thought about working for the council a couple of months back, and was looking through council job sites. Almost every job I encountered said that they were short of disabled workers in order to meet some sort of quota. Therefore, any disabled applicants were garanteed an interview, so if I applied and a disabled person also applied, it would almost certainly be set in stone that the disabled person would get the post (even if I was more suitable), just so the council could meet their quota.

In my opinion this is not on. People should be given equal oppertunities and not preferential treatment just because they're disabled. I think if I was disabled I'd be just as offended knowing that I'd only got a job because I was needed to meet a quota.

While I don't think that disabled people should necessarily get preferential treatment, I certainly don't think that disabled people should be financially damaged by their disabilities. Susie's attitude shocks me.

That quota thing is a load of crap IMO, they're only allowed to employ a certain number of black, asians, martians, disabled or whoever? What the chuff's that all about?

And as for nothing stopping me, it's these retarded policies of quotas that's part of the problem, every time I used to be ringing up places, first thing they'd say as soon as said anything about being disabled was usually "no, sorry sir, we've filled our quota, we can't employ any more disabled" and promptly put the phone down on me! WTF?! I thought this country had EQUAL opportunities for ALL?!

I couldn't even get a crappy slave wages job working in the former GAME shop on the corner of Pinstone St cos they didn't even want to know as soon as I said I was disabled, told me some bourjoi about not being insured to have disabled people on their premises, eh?! If I was wheelchair bound then fair enough, but I'm not, I have most of my marbles, and sure I'm deaf and can't walk very far without I get severe backache but I spent 2 years at Loxley College training in Retail, and every retail job I went for was virtually slamming the door in my face cos they couldn't see past me being disabled!

I even went for a job in the Hillsborough Co-Op but the Manageress told me I was over-qualified for a two-bit shelf stacking job cos they only had women till workers, which was the job I was after!

This is the point I'm raising, that how the hell am I going to ever get a GOOD job, when even CRAP jobs won't touch me with a 10 foot bargepole because they can't see past me being disabled, despite the fact that I have qualifications coming out of my bum cheeks?! (a bit crude but you get my point).

Originally posted by Sidla
While I sympathise with your situation, there's absolutely nothing stopping you working so you won't have to live off benefits.

I thought about working for the council a couple of months back, and was looking through council job sites. Almost every job I encountered said that they were short of disabled workers in order to meet some sort of quota. Therefore, any disabled applicants were garanteed an interview, so if I applied and a disabled person also applied, it would almost certainly be set in stone that the disabled person would get the post (even if I was more suitable), just so the council could meet their quota.

In my opinion this is not on. People should be given equal oppertunities and not preferential treatment just because they're disabled. I think if I was disabled I'd be just as offended knowing that I'd only got a job because I was needed to meet a quota.

While I don't think that disabled people should necessarily get preferential treatment, I certainly don't think that disabled people should be financially damaged by their disabilities. Susie's attitude shocks me.

Sid, I have to gently disagree with some of your post.

The ad *might* say that a body is "guaranteed an interview", but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are in with any chance at all of even a sniff of a job. The inteview guarantee could be a smoke screen to make the powers that be think that they are complying with the rules, when they have no intention of doing so.
"We'll interview you, sure, but don't think that you have a cat in hell's chance of getting past the interview stage!" seems to be a very commom attitude.

The ones that make me laugh are the firms who want a dolly-bird of 18 as a receptionist, with a five-year experience of the job(!) if you think what i say is ludicrous, i can tell you, before i was ill, i went after just such a position.

I was experienced and capable, and had the relevant qualifications. but the post went to a dolly bird with less quals, and less experience than me.

it was a case of the length of the hemline that counted, rather than capability.

Not all disabled people are capable of taking a job, and those that are cabable of taking on employment may well be limited in what sort of work they could undertake. eg someone deaf might not be a good telephonist, someone blind would not make a good copy typist or school crossing warden.... A paraplegic may not be able to operate and load a fork lift truck, or work as a removal man.

Often, jobs with wages that a person could live on with dignity (EG afford care and all the other expenses that comes with living with a disability) are not open to Persons with a disability. often, PWD's are forced into the very lowest-paying, most soul destroying and humiliating jobs, "because that's all they are capable of..." or in a sheltered workshop, where slave wages of £4 per WEEK are paid, because "if we pay them anything remotely resembling a dignified wage, they'd lose their benefits!" (which is one of the most convenient, and frequent of the excuses that are trotted out by employers!)

PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker
Sid, I have to gently disagree with some of your post.

The ad *might* say that a body is "guaranteed an interview", but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are in with any chance at all of even a sniff of a job. The inteview guarantee could be a smoke screen to make the powers that be think that they are complying with the rules, when they have no intention of doing so.
"We'll interview you, sure, but don't think that you have a cat in hell's chance of getting past the interview stage!" seems to be a very commom attitude.

The ones that make me laugh are the firms who want a dolly-bird of 18 as a receptionist, with a five-year experience of the job(!) if you think what i say is ludicrous, i can tell you, before i was ill, i went after just such a position.

I was experienced and capable, and had the relevant qualifications. but the post went to a dolly bird with less quals, and less experience than me.

it was a case of the length of the hemline that counted, rather than capability.

Not all disabled people are capable of taking a job, and those that are cabable of taking on employment may well be limited in what sort of work they could undertake. eg someone deaf might not be a good telephonist, someone blind would not make a good copy typist or school crossing warden.... A paraplegic may not be able to operate and load a fork lift truck, or work as a removal man.

Often, jobs with wages that a person could live on with dignity (EG afford care and all the other expenses that comes with living with a disability) are not open to Persons with a disability. often, PWD's are forced into the very lowest-paying, most soul destroying and humiliating jobs, "because that's all they are capable of..." or in a sheltered workshop, where slave wages of £4 per WEEK are paid, because "if we pay them anything remotely resembling a dignified wage, they'd lose their benefits!" (which is one of the most convenient, and frequent of the excuses that are trotted out by employers!)

PT

Yeah, like a couple of years ago they had me working in the RECLAIM recycling plant at Wadsley Bridge, 3 days a week for £6 a week, and I bloody hated it!

It was noisy, mucky, stood up all day and 6 quid a week?! WTF?! Even a budgie couldn't live on that, you seen the price of bird seed?! :lol:

Jesus on a bicycle! *

Six quid a week? WTF!? Why did you do it? Forced to by the dole office or something? Is this some sort of "New Deal for disabled people" ? That's horrendous.


* Sorry if that offends any Christians. I'll even things out by saying "Allah on a moped!"

Originally posted by garrence
Jesus on a bicycle! *

Six quid a week? WTF!? Why did you do it? Forced to by the dole office or something? Is this some sort of "New Deal for disabled people" ? That's horrendous.


* Sorry if that offends any Christians. I'll even things out by saying "Allah on a moped!"

Well I didn't really want to do it, but I was bored out of my skull being stuck at home all day while Mum was at work, that I decided "sod it, I know I'll probably hate the job but I'll give it a shot for a couple of days"... In the end I was proved right and jacked it in after the first week, I nearly quit after the first day but I thought no, I'm stronger than that, I'll stick it out for at least the first week....

And yes, *shudder* I was forced onto David Blunkett's "New Deal" farce by the chavs at Hillsborough job centre, but I'll spare you a long and emotional rant on what happened.... The whole affair still gets me all riled up to this day when I talk about it.

Originally posted by Rich
Anybody with sense wouldn't even own a flash car anyway if they lived on the Manor or any of the other chav filled estates.


.......such as Stannington (high rise)

Originally posted by SusieP
Rich, I mean no disrespect to you here, but that's asinine. If I can't afford something, I go without. You feel that you're entitled to a discount just because you're disabled? I find that ridiculous.

People in wheelchairs that require extra space on a plane SHOULD pay extra. Is it unfair? No - space and weight is at a premium on a plane, why should people be able to take up extra for free?

Susie

Because it's not their fault that they are disabled; they HAVE to have a friend that whizzes them around in the wheelchair, unless you have a motorised one. They're slower than the push-along ones. You could push quicker then they're crabby engines.

So, why should the extra person pay..? They are needed at every min of the day to assist the wheel-chair bound person.

Originally posted by Andy C
From 28th June, Stagecoach's megabus.com launches a Sheffield to London route.

The megabus is a no-frills operation, using normal double decker buses that have been refurbished with high density coach seats and air conditioning, but no facilities such as toilets or catering. .


A "normal double-decker bus", eh?

(rubs chin in a musing-sort of manner)

so, no wheelchair space then...?

ok. Great!

this facility is only open to the Able bodied...

:: wheels back to the dark ages.... again! ::

(maybe we should highlight this in the disability and discrimination thread...?)

PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker
A "normal double-decker bus", eh?

(rubs chin in a musing-sort of manner)

so, no wheelchair space then...?

ok. Great!

this facility is only open to the Able bodied...

:: wheels back to the dark ages.... again! ::

(maybe we should highlight this in the disability and discrimination thread...?)

PT

*cough* False advertising *cough*

If it's just a normal double decker bus with no extra facilities, what then, apart from that it goes from Sheff to London, is mega about it? :confused: :loopy:

Originally posted by Rich
*cough* False advertising *cough*

If it's just a normal double decker bus with no extra facilities, what then, apart from that it goes from Sheff to London, is mega about it? :confused: :loopy:

my point exactly!

PT

From the FAQ in website

"Do your buses take wheelchairs?
Unfortunately megabus.com buses are unable to accommodate wheelchairs."

the contents of this post have been edited by PT because of the merging of the two threads.

it just contained a link to this page.

PT

as I said.......

This service is rubbish! absolute rubbish! Why aren't there accessible buses on this route?

I shall get in touch with them to protest.

PT

Sounds to me like you would have an immediate issue to report them under the DDA! Go for it PT :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Plain Talker
as I said.......

This service is rubbish! absolute rubbish! Why aren't there accessible buses on this route?

I shall get in touch with them to protest.

PT

Go for it lass! You'll sort 'em all out! :thumbsup:

my protest to them is winging its way through the ether, to the company as I type!

It's the same with national, they will only permit manual chairs to be carried, you cannot take a power chair or a "scoota" with you.

the railway companies also do not provide wheelchair access when they have to replace trains with buses between stations when works are going on along the lines.

its just crackers!

PT

Originally posted by Tony
Sounds to me like you would have an immediate issue to report them under the DDA! Go for it PT :thumbsup:

the DDA actually has very few teeth over public transport. the act was designed as a toothless lion, to be frank, and it's about as much use as toothache! it has fewer powers than most people would anticipate that it has.

Do you know that the money-grubbing bus operating companies have managed to persuade the government to put-back the date of compliance for buses, from 2007, to something like 2020?

that means that they can continue, for years to come, to give shoddy service, and there ain't a thing you can do about it!

PT

oh for goodness sake! sometimes in life things aren't always the way you want them.

Originally posted by Red 2
oh for goodness sake! sometimes in life things aren't always the way you want them.

Listen you... People such as myself and PT cannot help being disabled, but do you expect us to not have lives because society can't do a simple thing like have wheelchair accessible buses? :loopy:

You may not like the fact that we are having a whinge about this issue, but it is our right to do so... So if you don't like it, don't read the blimmin' thread! :loopy:

Originally posted by Red 2
oh for goodness sake! sometimes in life things aren't always the way you want them. it's a no frills bus which means theyve done nothing to them.

I'm sorry? What are you trying to say?

because I am a wheelchair user, I have to miss out on cheap(er)travel?

And that is fair?

I don't flaming-well think so!

It's not a matter of how we "want" things, and being petulant,

it's a matter of equality of access for everyone.

It's a matter of all people, no matter what their colour, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability/ability being equal, and no one sector being treated in a lesser, "second-class" way.

If i wish to travel on a bus, there should be access, to enable me to travel on the bus.

If i want to buy something in a shop, should someone be permitted to say "You can't buy from me, or my shop, you have a disablity!"?

NO! NO!!! NO!!!

My money is as good as anyone elses. It is not "contaminated, because it has been handled by a disabled person.

You won't catch "disability" because you have permitted me to travel on your bus, or in your taxi.

I have the right to go where I want, shop where I want, holiday where i want.

and I should not have to suffer a second rate attitude and service because I have a 'chair!

and, BW- "No frills" Does not/ should not equal "no access".

RyanAir found *that* one out the expensive way, didn't they?

PT

thread is about a cheap bus. not infringements of your rights.

anyway i sympathise with you guys. i nkow it is annoying but unfortunately in this case it cant be helped. it's a cheap bus for a reason.

Should everyone in the country miss out on the chance of cheap travel because it is not possible for the companies involved to make all facilities available for all groups of people for such a cheap price. Right or wrong this extra cheap service has to cut corners and cram seats into the bus to be a cheap service.

whoa. i'm sorry. maybe i posted in haste. I apologise profusely for any offence caused. all i was saying is that sometimes it takes a long time for things to change and sometimes things don't change at all. at the end of the day they are a business trying to make quick bucks.

:)

Originally posted by Red 2
thread is about a cheap bus. not infringements of your rights.

anyway i sympathise with you guys. i nkow it is annoying but unfortunately in this case it cant be helped. it's a cheap bus for a reason.

don't pretend you sympathise, when you are just shrugging your shoulders, and not getting up-in-arms about other people being treated in a descriminatory fashion. you could be in a wheelchair tomorrow... look at Christopher Reeve, Or Joni Eareckson.... if you will not fight the corner of equality now, who would fight for you when "tomorrow" came and you found yourself hitting barriers at every turn?

And, FYI, it *is*, actually, 100% about "our" rights to be treated equally.

it is not "Annoying" it is exclusionist, toward someone who is disabled.

the company are offering this service only to those able bodied enough to get on their transport without the assistance of wheelchairs....

That is totally discriminatory against those of us who are wheelchair users., and should be jumped on from a great height... END OF STORY

PT

Look I understand. You are saying it like they have targeted able bodied consumers only though or done it just to spite YOU. It is possible that they may modify the buses for wheelchair use.

Originally posted by Red 2
whoa. i'm sorry. maybe i posted in haste. I apologise profusely for any offence caused. all i was saying is that sometimes it takes a long time for things to change and sometimes things don't change at all. at the end of the day they are a business trying to make quick bucks.

:)

It doesn't matter whether quick bucks are to be made, red.

it should NOT be at the expense of inclusivity, and equality.

and if people do not stand up, and shout out when something is blatantly out of order, such as this exclusionist policy of this comapny, then people will STILL be sitting, scratching their backsides and shrugging their shoulders, tomorrow, the day after, and the day after that, All saying "ooh, there's nothing I can do about it! "

Think about that possibility, for just one minute, will you?

as i said previously. no-one knows what tomorrow will bring. for any one of us, it could bring disability. For me, that "tomorrow" happened 11 years ago. and I do not see why I, or anyone else should have to suffer descrimination

PT

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
Should everyone in the country miss out on the chance of cheap travel because it is not possible for the companies involved to make all facilities available for all groups of people for such a cheap price. Right or wrong this extra cheap service has to cut corners and cram seats into the bus to be a cheap service.

I agree with you.

In fact I would rather that they don't bother with seats, that way they can make it even cheaper for me. I don't care because I can quite easily stay stand up for 3/4 hours and I have a good sense of balance so I won't fall over.

I can wee out of the window so they won't have to stop at the service station either - try not to be following in the car behind when I do though.

Originally posted by Red 2
Look I understand. You are saying it like they have targeted able bodied consumers only though or done it just to spite YOU. It is possible that they may modify the buses for wheelchair use.

no, red, you misunderstand.

It is not directed at me, personally. I have not got an ego *that* large as to believe that. (nor am i that delusional!!!)

No, I am arguing the toss about this because it is exclusionist to ANYONE who is more than say, a stick-user/ a bit unsteady on their feet.

if you act to exclude only one member of society, then you exclude everyone!

this attitude, in fact, spites just about EVERYONE who is mobility impaired.

PT

I understand the argument that the service is excluding wheelchair users.

What I ask is:
If the service would not have been viable had they created facilities for wheelchair users (for reasons such as cost) should they decide against running the service completely?

If so, then everybody misses out.



If one could complain and successfully get the non wheelchair-accessible buses withdrawn, but then the service was terminated because it was no longer viable, would this be okay?

Jack,

the accessibility issue should have been factored in at the start, surely?

PT

Wheelchair access surely involves simply removing a pair of seats, a removable ramp and maybe a couple of wheel clips? £100?, £200 max? Surely not too much to ask on a £120,000 double decker bus?

I bet they spent more on repainting them as...

............ MegaBus !.........

They cannot offer wheelchair facilities because they are using old style, second-hand buses.

However should they order new vehicles then they are legally obliged to provide access, so it should be interesting to see what happens then.

As most operators have found out, disabled facilities severely reduce the seating capacity of a vehicle, and add a lot of extra costs.

Therefore getting new buses with wheelchair spaces would probably mean the no frills business case doesn't work and they are likely to either close down the megabus.com service, or just make it a normal coach route with much higher fares.

Originally posted by Plain Talker
Jack,

the accessibility issue should have been factored in at the start, surely?

PT

This is true. And I reckon it probably was.

And the decision may have been made that it was not viable to provide wheelchair access on the service, but that they would still go ahead with it.

Maybe they should have never introduced the service, knowing this. I really don't know.

Originally posted by Tony
Wheelchair access surely involves simply removing a pair of seats, a removable ramp and maybe a couple of wheel clips? £100?, £200 max? Surely not too much to ask on a £120,000 double decker bus?

I bet they spent more on repainting them as...

............ MegaBus !.........

Well, to start with the handrail in the centre of the door would need removing, then once past the driving cap there is a luggage rack on the right and staircase on the left, above the wheels. The aisle between these two features would be narrower than a wheelchair......

Originally posted by Tony
Wheelchair access surely involves simply removing a pair of seats, a removable ramp and maybe a couple of wheel clips? £100?, £200 max? Surely not too much to ask on a £120,000 double decker bus?

I dont know whether that post was tongue-in-cheek, but I think you may be underestimating the size of the task involved in converting vehicles to allow wheelchair access.

A good point was made here, if the exta cost of adding wheelchair access and lost revenue from having fewer seats would have made the idea impossible should it ever have been started? I remeber a program I saw, which I think may have even been about megabus, saying that they have to have something like 90% of seats filled every journey to make it profitable. Take out the extra seats this probably rises to about 95% including two disabled passengers, is this going to happen on every journey?

This applies to a lot of things, if the cost of making sure you aren't going to discriminate against people for one reason or another makes a project un-viable, should you continue. I would say that if for some reason I was unable to use a certain product or service because but the majority of people could, I would be upset and would complain. However if I then found out that to make the service/product available to me would be impossible or mean the service/product would no longer work, I wouldn't demand it was stopped.

This is not the same as saying you shouldn't accomodate everyone if it will mean less profit, it is the difference between a viable service and one that isn't.

Originally posted by jackthedog
I dont know whether that post was tongue-in-cheek, but I think you may be underestimating the size of the task involved in converting vehicles to allow wheelchair access.

doing it rightly, and fairly in the first place, is a darn sight cheaper for a company than the costs of mopping up after a court case,

just ask RyanAir for their opinion about that one.....

PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker
doing it rightly, and fairly in the first place, is a darn sight cheaper for a company than the costs of mopping up after a court case,

just ask RyanAir for their opinion about that one.....

PT

I don't know. Do you think it would be fair to sue the bus operator for this?

well, I wouldn't sue the bus company if RyanAir were discriminatory....

oh, I get it... you mean would I sue the bus company, if they were discriminatory against me?

that decision would all depend on the manner of the discrimination and how it affected me.

PT

Sarcasm aside, I suppose my original question was:

Would you be happy to see this service cancelled if they said they could take no measures to provide wheelchair access?

Jack,

what I would be happy, or rather happiest to see, is an equal society with no barriers for anyone, where, no matter what a persons disability happens to be, they can play as full a part in everyday life as they are
a) able to, and
b) would want to.
(and as readily and as easily as the next person)

It is just as easy, if not more so, to factor accessibility in, as to factor barriers in.

I want to see a service that everyone can access, not just a priveliged few.

your "accessible service or no service" argument is just a straw man argument. I am not demanding that it be withdrawn, i am asking that it be made accessible.

The SYPTE has had a large pot of money to retro-fit ramps to certain buses of the "first-mainline" fleet (the low flor buses without ramps, which are mostly on the 95 and the 22 routes in Sheffield), and i see no reason why money could not be found for a) better buses, or b) retro-fitting of access ramps to te curent fleet.

PT

I realise this post may be construed as irrelevant, as I live over 4000 miles from Sheffield, but we have articulated buses in Edmonton that have a driver operated ramp, plus a kneeling feature, the bus has space for at least two power wheelchairs. The first 9 seats fold up to the wall of the bus to provide space to 'park' the chairs, there are floor mounted seat belts available for the chairs also. As these seats fold up out of the way., NO seats need to be removed! Edmonton transit has about 200 buses so equipped, with the intention of having an 'all handicapped' fleet as soon as possible. As for the price of these buses? The government of Canada susbsidises them! Try getting the government 'on board' (scuse the pun) you might just hit a nerve, and get some politician off their fat arse!!
I am not handicapped, but I am a bus driver, Plain Talker and I have addressed this problem before, and I can assure all of you that the technology is available, it does work, and it does not involve a lot of money. However, I will concede that it might not be feasible on all buses. I have no idea if it would be even possible on some of the older double deckers. Just a thought, but could access for wheel chairs be feasible through the BACK doors? (assuming the buses have a back door).

Just a thought, but maybe these are just old buses that they are using because they wouldn't meet emission regulations if they were used around town?

Why can't First use new vehicles?

I can see it now...
MegaBus... it might get you there

:D

:loopy:

Megabus.com is clearly a waste of money then.... But do the money grubbers think of this?! Nope, all they care about is the size of their wallets.

Originally posted by Rich
:loopy:

Megabus.com is clearly a waste of money then.... But do the money grubbers think of this?! Nope, all they care about is the size of their wallets.

You have hit the nail bang-square on the head, there Rich


PT

Originally posted by amhudson119
Because it's not their fault that they are disabled; they HAVE to have a friend that whizzes them around in the wheelchair, unless you have a motorised one. They're slower than the push-along ones. You could push quicker then they're crabby engines.

So, why should the extra person pay..? They are needed at every min of the day to assist the wheel-chair bound person.
But in many cases, it's not anyone elses fault that they're disabled either. Why should other people pay for someone elses problem?

Admittedly, I'm playing the devils advocate here. I'm just bitter because I get absolutely no finacial support for my disabilities, no matter how minor they may be.

Originally posted by Plain Talker
Jack,

what I would be happy, or rather happiest to see, is an equal society with no barriers for anyone, where, no matter what a persons disability happens to be, they can play as full a part in everyday life as they are
a) able to, and
b) would want to.
(and as readily and as easily as the next person)

It is just as easy, if not more so, to factor accessibility in, as to factor barriers in.

I want to see a service that everyone can access, not just a priveliged few.

your "accessible service or no service" argument is just a straw man argument. I am not demanding that it be withdrawn, i am asking that it be made accessible.

The SYPTE has had a large pot of money to retro-fit ramps to certain buses of the "first-mainline" fleet (the low flor buses without ramps, which are mostly on the 95 and the 22 routes in Sheffield), and i see no reason why money could not be found for a) better buses, or b) retro-fitting of access ramps to te curent fleet.

PT

I'll be honest, I dont have a clue what 'straw man argument' means. Feel free to explain.

The very fact that this service is able to run cheaply may be due to the fact that they have saved cash by not providing facilities for disabled passengers.

Therefore, you might say that it would be impossible for the service, as it currently stands, to continue.

So my question is valid.

Retro-fitting ramps to the current fleet may also not be viable.
The logistics of this sort of work make it impossible on certain vehicles. You must know this.
If better vehicles would have been bought, it may have meant that, again, the service - as it currently stands - is not a viable option.

Am I talking sense here?

Originally posted by Greenback
It only costs £1.50!!! What do you want, smoked salmon and caviar? :)

no, just a wheelchair ramp, and disability access but i might as well hold out for the caviar option,if you think we'd actually get it......

(she said, tongue in cheek)

PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker
as I said.......

This service is rubbish! absolute rubbish! Why aren't there accessible buses on this route?

I shall get in touch with them to protest.

PT

OK, Let me try to explain this one. The Mega Bus vehicles are second-hand double deckers from Hong Kong. They have to get them from there because it is the only place in the world which has ever demanded such large vehicles. They seat between 95 -120 passengers in proper coach seating. This size is why the operation is called MegaBus.

Now if you fill 100 seats at a pound a go, then you make 100 pounds a trip. This is providing enough profit for the business to succeed.

BUT....

If you use modern low floor buses then they would cost around 50 TIMES as much to buy and so at nearly a quarter of a million quid a piece the service would not be viable at the low fares.

Also, a wheelchair takes up a lot more space than an ordinary bus seat. Typically the space of between 4 - 6 ordinary seats. So even if you could modify the Hong Kong buses (which you can't) they would still become unviable.

So my question (playing devil's advocate again) is this:
Why should the vast majority of the travelling public have to pay a higher fare just to suit the minority? Especially when this same minority often expects concessionary or even free travel into the bargain.

I myself have been driving buses all over the country since 1997, many of which are the 'super low floor' variety. In all that time I have NOT ONCE seen ANYONE in a wheelchair use these ultra-expensive vehicles.

Perhaps those who cry out for accessible transport would like to consider paying a percentage towards it which accurately reflects the cost of their carriage on the journey?

So campaign for your low floor bus all you like. But when a journey from Woodseats to the City Centre cost you a tenner, don't come crying to me!

Originally posted by Sidla
But in many cases, it's not anyone elses fault that they're disabled either. Why should other people pay for someone elses problem?

Admittedly, I'm playing the devils advocate here. I'm just bitter because I get absolutely no finacial support for my disabilities, no matter how minor they may be.

You are perfectly entitled to it, but the system has been forced to make getting it somewhat akin to getting blood out of a stone cos of all the fraud :loopy:

Originally posted by Tony
Wheelchair access surely involves simply removing a pair of seats, a removable ramp and maybe a couple of wheel clips? £100?, £200 max? Surely not too much to ask on a £120,000 double decker bus?

I bet they spent more on repainting them as...

............ MegaBus !.........

OK. here's a good example of where you guys are getting it all wrong!

The Mega bus deckers cost (at an educated guess as I am in the business) between 5 and 10 thousand pounds. As I have said before, they are SECOND HAND.

Take one off the road for a day to alter it and each day it is off it looses aprox 400 pounds in revenue. If you could fit a wheelchair ramp you have to pay to have it fitted. A qualified PCV fitter has an estimated value between 40-60pounds per man hour (just look at the labour charge when you take your car to the garage if you don't believe me) and such a big modification to a vehicle would take at least two or three days.

But it's all pointless, because the design of the buses (particularly the front axle) means they HAVE to have a HIGH FLOOR! There is nothing that can be done about it.



On a seperate note, if all transport should be accessible to all, I trust nobody will complain if this able-bodied person calls the dial-a-bus to take me in to work tomorrow?
;)

Originally posted by Plain Talker
no, just a wheelchair ramp, and disability access but i might as well hold out for the caviar option,if you think we'd actually get it......

(she said, tongue in cheek)

PT

You don't get that on a normal bus though so why would you on this?

read down the post, please, t20,

at the bottom you will see that I put that my comments were tongue in cheek
as in
"they were TONGUE IN CHEEK!"

you know, i had my TONGUE... *IN* my

CHEEK!

thank you

(curtsies)


This post is brought to you by the letters P and T

PT

I meant the ramp thing. I think a very small proportion are suitable for disabled access, but not many, so I doubt the London commuter buses will be any different, especially when such cheap pricing means cost saving wherever possible and packing on as many people as the bus can fit.

Originally posted by andy1702
I myself have been driving buses all over the country since 1997, many of which are the 'super low floor' variety. In all that time I have NOT ONCE seen ANYONE in a wheelchair use these ultra-expensive vehicles.
Being Devils Advocate...

Perhaps that is because it's only a minority of buses that have 'super low floor' configuration. If you were in a wheelchair, would you wait at a bus stop just in case you could get on the next bus that came along?

Now if ALL buses were low floor you might find a few more passengers eh?

The trouble iwith sorting out disabled access is that it's a long and initially expensive process. However, withing a few years ALL buses, public buildings, etc, etc, will have been sorted out, new ones will comply automatically, and we will forget that there was ever a problem in the transitionary phase.

Originally posted by t020
You don't get that on a normal bus though so why would you on this?

You mean you don't get ramps on your everyday buses; what are they running up there ? "G" reg Leyland's with those awful steps?? That you have to climb.

We do - all our buses are contracted out to varoious companies and all have whellchair access and aren't any older than "W" reg.

Originally posted by Tony

The trouble iwith sorting out disabled access is that it's a long and initially expensive process. However, withing a few years ALL buses, public buildings, etc, etc, will have been sorted out.

So isn't it about time the disabled users started PAYING for this extra expense they are causing everyone?

If a wheelchair takes up the space of four normal seats on a bus, why shouldn't they pay 4 times the fare?

Anything less discriminates against the ABLE BODIED!

*waits for the shouting to start*

;)

Now you are trying to start a flame war with this cobblers? :nono:

Originally posted by andy1702
So isn't it about time the disabled users started PAYING for this extra expense they are causing everyone?

If a wheelchair takes up the space of four normal seats on a bus, why shouldn't they pay 4 times the fare?

Anything less discriminates against the ABLE BODIED!

*waits for the shouting to start*

;)

I sincerely hope that you are only taking the michael, here, andy? (she says taking note of the "winking" smiley)

and BTW, on most access-buses, there is either a designated space, containing one drop-down seat, which flips back up to permit the 'chair user to park safely against the protective bulkhead, or it's a twin-seat of the same design, which flips out of the way.

Both of these are designed to lose the minimum of space when a 'chair user is aboard, so actually,

a) no, we chair users don't usually take up "that" much space", possibly part of one seat space extra... and

b) passengers ought to note the spec's for the buses .

By the driver's cab it will state the legal capacity for the bus (how many passengers the bus can legally carry and still comply with the law),
it will say something like "72 passengers, 58 seated, 14 standing".
on wheelchair buses it will say something along the lines of:- "72 passengers, 58 seated, 14 standing, OR 72 passengers, 58 seated, 13 standing and 1 wheelchair"

As tony has said, it is true, the initial cost of a set-up with access can be a bit steep, but when you think how much you recoup in the long run, by having a totally inclusive environment, and having access to whichever "pound" you wish, be it the "orange" pound, (disabled people's money) the "grey" pound, (senior citizens' money) or the "pink" pound, (the "gay" market) as opposed to only the able-bodied" pound...

whether you are a bus service operator, a restaurant or a shop, you are opening yourself up to a much wider "spending spectrum", and much more opportunity too make income, by making your (insert service here) accessible to all who would wish to spend money in your establishment/ on your transport service.

This is why I am so puzzled, about those who decry inclusiveness in society. Weeping and bemoaning the cost.

Once everyone can get in, and spend the money clutched in their grubby litle fists, you *will* be crying, certainly...

all the way to the blooming bank!

PT

Originally posted by Rich
You are perfectly entitled to it, but the system has been forced to make getting it somewhat akin to getting blood out of a stone cos of all the fraud :loopy:
I'm not entitled to it, I've filled in all the forms and apparently I have too much money saved up. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to have money saved up for a rainy day, when most other perfectly healthy people have savings.

I don't feel like I wish to complain about it, because afterall, it's nobody else's fault that I have dodgy skin, but then it's not really my fault either. I just don't really understand why people with minor disabilities don't get any sort of financial support when people with more severe disabilities do.

If you've ever seen the South Park episode Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo (series 1), in a weird and satirical way, it explains the problems of streamlining everything in the public eye to suit everyone.

I accept that those with disabilities are severely restricted in some ways, such as on buses, but as long as the franchises are run by private firms, like First and Stagecoach - they will put profits first. That's what being a business is all about for christ's sake. Their aim is to money grab, grow and become dominant in their market. And yes, it seems immoral that they aren't spending more money on disabled facilities on their vehicles, but that's the way it is. It will change eventually, as legislation progresses.

But Megabus is ONE measly promotion. Exclusions do apply, as they do with all promotions. Its not false advertising, as they make it clear that they cannot accommodate wheelchairs. I wish it wasn't as blatant as that, but they have not lied.

Exclusion is not limited to disabled people. Able bodied people are too. For example, I can never park right next to the shop in a car park (unless you count parent and child spaces). I could fight this case to the death and demand that disabled spaces be dispersed fairly around the car park. But I accept it for the way it is.

If I am poor for example and a promotion states that you have to spend £50 to get 5p off a litre of fuel, should I complain about that as well, as I can;t afford the £50!?

I truely sympathise with your situation and cannot begin to imagine how difficult some things must be. But let some things be.

Originally posted by dinp (snipped)

But Megabus is ONE measly promotion. Exclusions do apply, as they do with all promotions. Its not false advertising, as they make it clear that they cannot accommodate wheelchairs. I wish it wasn't as blatant as that, but they have not lied.

actually, no, you have to trawl quite some way through their site to find that particular comment, buried amongst the gubbins

Exclusion is not limited to disabled people. Able bodied people are too. For example, I can never park right next to the shop in a car park (unless you count parent and child spaces). I could fight this case to the death and demand that disabled spaces be dispersed fairly around the car park. But I accept it for the way it is.

So, you think that, when you have no mobility difficulties, and can walk that extra 50/100 yards, that it is acceptable to take up a parking space beside the store that is designated specifically to assist people like me who have difficulties walking? (leaving Parent and child spaces out of the equation)

I fervently hope that you come to need the disabled-designated spaces, and quite soon, and that you go to park there, and find that you cannot because some ignorant, idle, idiot, who can't be A***d to walk an extra 50 yards is already parked there.
then, you might see how much of a problem it is, when the spaces are occupied by those who do not need them.

the special makings around a disabled space are not there for aesthetic reasons, they are there because we need extra room beside the car door to get a wheelchair near. we cannot do that if we are forced by the ignorant to park in a standard space.

As for disabled spaces being dispersed around the car park, the spaces are where they are, because a disabled person cannot trek and trail about, around teh car park as as an A-bod could...

I truely sympathise with your situation and cannot begin to imagine how difficult some things must be. But let some things be.

as i said to another contributor. do not pretend that you have sympathy when you quite clearly don't.

And as for "letting things be" I will only give up fighting for equal status for everyone when one of the following three things happens.
1) equal status is achieved for everyone to enjoy
2) i am lain to rest in my grave, (or in some other way am incapacitated enough to be prevented from fighting the corner of the underdog)
or 3) it becomes very cold, in that very hot place (ie hell freezes over)

i refer again to my earlier comments... an egalitarian society benefits all.

it is not beyond possibility that any able bodied person could wake up in the morning with a disability that has been acquired. Christopher Reeve was an athletic, healthy, buff bloke, and one day his world was shaken, when he fell off his horse, and became quadriplegic, thanks to a shattered vertebra.

I will quote Martin Niemoller's famous comments, to explain why it is vital that no one looks the other way , and ignores the injustices endured by a disadvantaged/ minority group.


First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker
So, you think that, when you have no mobility difficulties, and can walk that extra 50/100 yards, that it is acceptable to take up a parking space beside the store that is designated specifically to assist people like me who have difficulties walking? (leaving Parent and child spaces out of the equation)

No I do not find that acceptable which is why I don't park in disabled parking spaces.

Originally posted by Plain Talker I fervently hope that you come to need the disabled-designated spaces, and quite soon, and that you go to park there, and find that you cannot because some ignorant, idle, idiot, who can't be A***d to walk an extra 50 yards is already parked there.
then, you might see how much of a problem it is, when the spaces are occupied by those who do not need them.

What a bitter person you are. I wish hardship on nobody.

Originally posted by Plain Talker the special makings around a disabled space are not there for aesthetic reasons, they are there because we need extra room beside the car door to get a wheelchair near. we cannot do that if we are forced by the ignorant to park in a standard space.

As for disabled spaces being dispersed around the car park, the spaces are where they are, because a disabled person cannot trek and trail about, around teh car park as as an A-bod could...

I made no comment about the additional space required by disabled spaces, or their aesthetic quality.

Meadowhall has too many disabled spaces. At the entrance by Argos, more than half of these spaces are empty usually.

Not all disabled people are unable to travel that extra 20-30 yards. In fact some are more athletic than A-bod's and you seem to be forgetting that disabilities are not just limited to those in wheelchairs.

Originally posted by Plain Talker as i said to another contributor. do not pretend that you have sympathy when you quite clearly don't.

And as for "letting things be" I will only give up fighting for equal status for everyone when one of the following three things happens.
1) equal status is achieved for everyone to enjoy
2) i am lain to rest in my grave, (or in some other way am incapacitated enough to be prevented from fighting the corner of the underdog)
or 3) it becomes very cold, in that very hot place (ie hell freezes over)

I do have sympathy, I am not pretending (If I really am that lazy it's a waste of typing if anything) and, despite your bitterness, the sympathy stands. Don't assume the worst in people.

Originally posted by Plain Talker
And as for "letting things be" I will only give up fighting for equal status for everyone when one of the following three things happens.
1) equal status is achieved for everyone to enjoy


Would that include wide spaces for everyone, so the doors of the car have less chance of being scratched

;)

I am not bitter, i am angry at witnessing, and experiencing years of barriers being hit, time and again, where people are treated as 2nd class citizens, because of something like their race or difffering ability.

And I, also, did not say anything about disability only being limited to those of us who rely on wheelchairs, i mentioned the plight of folk who cannot walk well/ far.

I agree, there are wheelchair/ para/special olympians/athletes , who may well be fitter or whatever than most, but they are the exception that prove the rule.

the general case tends to be the "little" person, who plods along, day to day, trying to make the best of a bad lot, enduring discrimination.

examples I can cite are, eg, my father and my late uncle, who, after years of steelworks, dirty building/demolition work (including assbestos) and NCB work, has asthma (industrial asthma/asbestosis, in the case of my late uncle), and Chronic bronchitis.

My father also has osteoarthritis of the spine and leg, He is unable to walk 25 yards unaided, without both the breathing difficyulties stopping him, and/orthe pain from his knee.
and he is now awaiting surgery and other treatment for cancer on his kidney.

He applied for a Blue Badge, under the chronically sick and disabled persons act 1972, from sheffield social services, on the grounds that he is a chronically sick and/or disabled person. he was turned down outright. he appealed, and was turned down again.

These sort of situations and injustices (not just my father and uncles) make me so angry, that i can spit bullets.

Occasionally, unfortunately, people get caught in the crossfire. It's one of the hazards, I find, in a "career path" where I have to try to "educate pork". (by which I refer to the chavs and idiots who persist in parking in disabled bays, blocking footpaths with a-boards etc.)

PT

Originally posted by dinp
Would that include wide spaces for everyone, so the doors of the car have less chance of being scratched

;)

ok, after I have taken a deep breath, and finished the rant above...

Have you seen the adverts for "Bay-watch",? (no, not Pammie's baywatch, it's a charity which tries to raise awareness about the abuse of disability parking bays.

One of their posters shows a photograph (whether it's a mock-up, i don't know) of my dream...

- a car park where almost every parking space is a wide, "disabled" bay, and marked up as such (i really suspect it's got to be a photoshop-thing!) with just one or two standard bays.

a car park like that, with every bay widened, instead of cramped would be absolutely fantastic, and yes, it would be great in preventing scratched doors, eg the situation shich occurs a lot, where the prat in the bay next to yours, parks so close that he needs to reach inside YOUR car to put HIS handbrake on (LOL)

it goes back to my comments, earlier, of my wish for a society where everyone is on an equal footing.

PT

Life has obviously dealt you a rather s**te hand of cards (I wasn't dealt the best set either); of course you are right to be angry at a lot of the barriers placed in your way, but the megabus thing, which initially brought my attention to this thread, seems to pale in insignificance to the other barriers in today's society.

As a young motorist, I am VERY HEAVILY discriminated against. Driving is one of the things I am passionate about as well, so the discrimination probably seems worse to me.

The story you tell of your father is a clear example of how means tested weighting is failing those who need the support most. This is the sort of story that needs media coverage or brought to light by some other means - this is pure failure by the state.

Private companies are less obligated to be as sympathetic. We are lucky in a way to live in such a PC country, as it compells many and most organisations to comply to everything 'Equal Opportunities'. In other countries, you'd have a much larger battle on your hands.

Originally posted by Plain Talker
Have you seen the adverts for "Bay-watch",? (no, not Pammie's baywatch, it's a charity which tries to raise awareness about the abuse of disability parking bays.

One of their posters shows a photograph (whether it's a mock-up, i don't know) of my dream...

- a car park where almost every parking space is a wide, "disabled" bay, and marked up as such (i really suspect it's got to be a photoshop-thing!) with just one or two standard bays.

a car park like that, with every bay widened, instead of cramped would be absolutely fantastic, and yes, it would be great in preventing scratched doors, eg the situation shich occurs a lot, where the prat in the bay next to yours, parks so close that he needs to reach inside YOUR car to put HIS handbrake on (LOL)

it goes back to my comments, earlier, of my wish for a society where everyone is on an equal footing.

PT

If the Volvo 740 hadn't been invented, there'd be no need for these wider spaces :D

It started the trend of (the frequency of) chronically oversized cars in this country and car park space sizes don't seem to have grown :( ;)

I notice nobody's taken my point on...

Originally posted by Sidla
I notice nobody's taken my point on...

I'm not sure which point you mean, in what ways does your disability prevent you from living a 'normal' life?

Originally posted by Plain Talker
ok, after I have taken a deep breath, and finished the rant above...

Have you seen the adverts for "Bay-watch",? (no, not Pammie's baywatch, it's a charity which tries to raise awareness about the abuse of disability parking bays.

One of their posters shows a photograph (whether it's a mock-up, i don't know) of my dream...

- a car park where almost every parking space is a wide, "disabled" bay, and marked up as such (i really suspect it's got to be a photoshop-thing!) with just one or two standard bays.

a car park like that, with every bay widened, instead of cramped would be absolutely fantastic, and yes, it would be great in preventing scratched doors, eg the situation shich occurs a lot, where the prat in the bay next to yours, parks so close that he needs to reach inside YOUR car to put HIS handbrake on (LOL)

it goes back to my comments, earlier, of my wish for a society where everyone is on an equal footing.

PT

PT for Prime Minister!

She'd sort 'em all out in the Government! Yeah, PT as PM, me ad Deputy PM, we'd take on the world! Get things done for the disabled, and make it that getting money out of the DSS isn't like getting blood out of a stone if you're entitled to it, and that you at least get a shout at jobs when you're disabled even if you don't get the job, and a load of other disability related issues that need looking into IMHO.

Originally posted by dinp
I'm not sure which point you mean, in what ways does your disability prevent you from living a 'normal' life?
It depends on your definition of a 'normal life'. Isn't everyone's life normal?

If you're asking wether my condition prevents me living life to the full, then I would say yes it does. I can't go outside when it's hot because I literally scratch my skin off until I'm bleeding. There are some jobs I can't do because my skin is so sensitive. My skin is constantly covered in scabs and scars which affects my self confidence. Sometimes I wake myself up scratching, and have difficulty sleeping, and my bed sheets are covered in blood stains.

Ok, my life isn't affected as badly as more severly disabled people, which is why I don't wish to sound like I'm complaining. But my bad eczema does make my life hell at times, and I don't see why I should have to pay for medical care when I can't really afford it.

Now then,

DDA accessibility rules apply to buses and trains that make it a legal requirement to provide level access, wheelchair space, colour contrasting doors etc. On trains it goes even further requiring PA announcements to be done both audio and visual, specifies that door open buttons must be raised and so it goes on. All this extra features make vehicles very expensive, heavier, and with less seats (which make them less enviromentally friendly)

So, to level the playing field.....

SHOULD THE SAME RULES APPLY TO ALL PRIVATE CARS?

Of course not because the defining issue is being a 'public place'.

Sidla, have you tried cutting out ALL dairy products for 1 month.. everything.. ?? just wondering????

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
Sidla, have you tried cutting out ALL dairy products for 1 month.. everything.. ?? just wondering????

Yeah I have heard that before.

I suffered from something simliar, so I changed all my soaps, shampoos etc, and it disappeared.

Occasionally, unfortunately, people get caught in the crossfire. It's one of the hazards, I find, in a "career path" where I have to try to "educate pork". (by which I refer to the chavs and idiots who persist in parking in disabled bays, blocking footpaths with a-boards etc.)

PT [/B][/QUOTE]

You can't educate pork, it can't be done.

I think this is a very sensitive issue, and one that will never have everyone agreeing. I do find it sad that many listed buildings will soon have to close, including many theatres in this country, because it is just too expensive, or not possible, to give full disabled access. It seems a bit like people are taking their ball and going home. 'if i can't use this building nobody can'.

I understand the need for disabled access, and feel that it should be provided where ever possible. I think that is the key though, where ever possible. With the example of Megabus, i doubt that it would be possible to run this cheap service with full disabled access, so should we lose the service all together?

Also, is being fat a disability? Some people are obese for other reasons that eating far too much, yet i know that airlines will charge you for two seats if they thing you are too large, yet in theatres when you take out two or three seats in order to get a wheelchair in, the person usually pays less than for one seat. I'm not saying that they should pay for three, but is this really an inclusive society, or are we going overboard slightly?

Just as another thought... should me have one chair in the middle of the theatre with massive space around it for people who are claustrophobic? Or leave some lights on for those who are afraid of the dark? Aren't these disabilities too, or do these people not have the same rights?