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!