In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:48:37 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"Peter Smyth" wrote in message
...

On the subject of pushchairs, there was a message on the whiteboard
at Highbury & Islington today saying that pushchairs are not allowed
on the Victoria Line unless folded. Is this official LU policy as I
have not seen this anywhere before?

It is in the LU conditions of carriage. Victoria and W&C are barred to
unfolded pushchairs at all times. Other lines vary by time of day.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...f-carriage.pdf

About page 52 or so. There are some indications elsewhere on the site
that this will change once the new stock has taken over...

Well I've learnt something. I have never seen this enforced and
regularly see unfolded pushchairs on the Vic Line. I think I need to
check the signage for MIP lifts on the Vic Line - I'm sure it shows an
unfolded buggy symbol.

As you suggest it would be somewhat mad to retain the rule given the new
stock has, in theory, massive space for pushchairs.

News to me too. Not only has my granddaughter been on the Victoria Line in
a buggy a good few times since she was born 4 years ago but so did her mum
and aunt up to 20 years ago!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Bruce wrote:

They aren't a different species.

They aren't just a different species, they're a different genus.

The defining moment in human evolution, the very beginning of the
genus Homo, was with Homo Erectus standing tall and walking upright.
Humans are bipeds and always have been.

Once people stop being bipeds, then they're no better subhuman
Australopithecines, and should be prevented from contaminating the
human race.

In an ideal world they'd be rounded up and publicly executed in front
of a cheering crowd of real humans. But even if that isn't practical,
there's certainly no excuse for giving them any kind of human rights.

They are just like you and me, except for impaired mobility.


Yes, and that's more than enough to make them less than human.

You make it sound as though you would like public transport to be made
inaccessible to all but able-bodied people so you can be spared the
sight of freaks in wheelchairs

Sounds like a good idea to me. But let's not limit it to just public
transport.

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

Same here. I'm officially classed as having a long-term mental
illness, but I can walk just fine, so I've nothing in common with
those subhuman, wheelchair-bound throwbacks.

It's insulting to lump the proper human disabled people in the same
group as wheelchair users.

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.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Nov 20, 10:05*am, Arthur Figgis
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. People who have had to fight so hard
against the prevailing situation, where for centuries they have been
treated as if they don't count, are readily going to shout down anyone
who starts back down that slipperly slope, and I completely understand
why.

It's not like there is a tradition of fairness and balance; disabled
people have been treated hugely unfairly for most of history. A few
years of good behaviour after centuries of bad behaviour isn't going
to convince anyone that lessons have been learned.

(Roy Badami) wrote:
In article ,
Bruce wrote:
If you include parents/carers of small children, who need
"accessibility" every bit as much as the wheelchair disabled, we're
into the millions.

Many elderly people find long flights of stairs arduous, too...


Absolutely.

I feel sure that several people posting here would like older people
banned from using public transport, along with people with children
and the disabled. :-(

On Nov 19, 7:43*pm, Paul Terry wrote:
In message
, MIG
writes

Because you still need to have the pushchair in your other hand,
unless you throw it away on the misguided assumption that a two-year-
old's desire to get out of it at one moment means that they are
prepared to walk as many miles as you have to go.

My point was that pushchairs were not used once a child could toddle
reasonably well - I can't ever remember people dragging a pushchair
along just in case.

You don't walk miles with children that young, whether in a pushchair or
not. You sit them on your lap, or on a seat if one is available, when
using public transport. If necessary, you carry them over hazards, but
otherwise you encourage them to use their own muscles. If you don't cart
the pushchair around all the time, there is no other option for the
child.

Surely you walk as many miles as you need to walk, and in those days
that would probably include taking older children to school, getting
to your cleaning job, walking, rather than driving, to the shops etc.

Or are you seriously suggesting that anyone with a two-year-old should
only ever walk as far as a two-year-old can walk? Or that that was
the case in the past?

I think that your memory must be misleading you.

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

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:39:13 +0000
Bruce wrote:
Thankfully, the Disability Discrimination Act goes some way to
ensuring that people with a very strong anti-disabled mindset have
absolutely no say in how the money is spent.

Right. And so we end up with ****ing pointless "wheelchair" areas on tube
trains which just means that the people who do use the tube now have less seats
and some of the ones they do have are uncomfortable flip up ones. So
thousands have to have an even more miserable journey just so self righteous
pricks like you can feel smug and feel that "something has been done!".
Even if that something is nothing more than idiotic gesture politics.

B2003

On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:46:44 +0000
Arthur Figgis wrote:
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.

Ironically the ones who make the most noise don't care. They're simply the
type of person who needs a cause to shout about - doesn't really matter
what that cause is. Which is why you get the same motley crew turning up
to every vaguely anti government demonstration whether it be Stop the War
or student demos or whatever. Its the same with right-on topics -
you get the same sort of usual suspects whinging about everything.

B2003