On 20/11/2010 10:12, MIG wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:05 am, Arthur
wrote:
On 19/11/2010 21:18, MaxB wrote:

I am always surprised that people equate disability = wheelchair.
Disability comes in many shapes and sizes, under the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 (I believe) I am disabled. But I don't need a
wheelchair, a seeing or hearing dog, a carer or anyone else to look
after me.

Perhaps because a lot of the discussion about accessibility comes down
to wanting to be seen to be doing something (I *care*, but he is a evil
******* and I am going to imply he calls *you* a 'cripple' even though
he doesn't), so wheelchair users are more use for this than, say, deaf
people.

It makes it hard to discuss these matters, as anyone who tried to
consider practicality and funding matters can get shouted down by people
who don't have to make difficult, maybe impossible, decisions.

Get a bit of perspective.

That is the problem. We can't get a bit of perspective, because someone
will shout about how unfair it is to the next case along (see the
occasional objections to the heritage Routemasters being permitted to
exist), or moan about history which we can't do anything about.

There seems to be too many people who have a need to prove something (to
themselves, I suspect) about how they, and they alone, "care", while
everyone else wants to "ban" people from transport.

When I went to a serious meeting about station accessibility there was a
lot more common sense than politicians, the media and people with a
point to prove will even be able show. People realised we are where we
are, C19th stations aren't going to rebuild themselves free of charge,
and quick-wins can be justified even if not 101% perfect.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK