On Nov 20, 4:31*pm, MIG wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:46*am, Arthur Figgis
wrote:





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.

I don't recognise these stereotypes about people trying to prove
things.

People (all people) want to live civilised lives, which means being
able to move about and take part in activities which it's not for me
to second guess.

If the same people are constantly told that they don't matter, because
the other 95% are all right Jack, you'll find them complaining.



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.

But the common sense can be expressed in different ways.

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.

But if it's "it's not worth spending more on helping a few people
because most people are all right Jack" then it's not going to be
acceptable. *Because it's always going to be the same people left with
nothing, apart from when those of us who are all right Jack have the
misfortune to join their ranks in due course.



Incidentally, I see a strong parallel with the "It's OK for Oyster to
rip off a few people, because most people find it convenient"
argument. But TfL has a dramatically different attitude there.