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

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

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

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

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

"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...

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

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

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

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

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


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

Indeed.

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

MaxB

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

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

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

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

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

David Cantrell wrote:

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


.... in so many ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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