On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:09:59 +0100, Solar Pennguin
wrote:
But that's a very mislaeding expression. Able-bodied passengers could still
*use* wheelchairs. ( e.g. As part of a puiblicity stunt to highlight the
difficulty in using wheelchairs on the undeground.) These people could be
evacuated easily, just by getting out of their chairs and walking. It's
only thoes users who are truly wheelchair-bound who need special provision.
Clive's phrase is the more accurate one in this context.

Indeed. I've seen a wheelchair user at Leyton stand up, fold and
carry the wheelchair down the stairs, and then unfold and use it
again on the platform. Perhaps they are like me - the less they
do, the better they are. Personally I avoid stairs so I don't
antagonise my knee, but if there was a fire I think I'd move
quite fast, and sod the damage! So disability and ability varies.
For the discussion in question I think "wheelchair bound" is
appropriate.

However, I've come a cropper with a friend for referring to my
brother as having "special needs" when the term now is apparently
"individual needs". Again we can use "differently abled" and so on.
Some people seem bothered if we don't use the latest PC phrase.

Personally I don't care what term people use to refer to my own
mobility difficulty, as long as a) it's not meant as an insult
and preferably b) they are making an effort to accommodate it.
I don't care if they use a slightly less preferable term; if they
are trying to do something to benefit me, I won't take offense!

IMO, the intention's the main thing.

--
Flash Wilson - http://www.gorge.org

Comments in my journal or guestbook are welcome!