On Nov 20, 1:40*pm, wrote:
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

Lucky that doesn't happen with right-wingers (or is that whingers?).

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.

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.

On 20/11/2010 16:31, MIG wrote:

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.

Exactly.

As long as money is finite someone is going to get a less than perfect
situation for the time being. And isn't everyone a special case these days?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 08:21:57 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
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

Lucky that doesn't happen with right-wingers (or is that whingers?).

Apart from the occasionally BNP demo - and most people with right wing views
wouldn't associate with those muppets anyway - I don't remember many marches
about right wing topics. Probably because most people who have right wing
views are older and have grown out of the shouting at the pigeons stage
which unfortunately afflicts a lot of left wing activists.

Still, its useful to remember what Churchill allegedly said:

"If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If
you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no head."

Sounds about right to me.

B2003

On Nov 20, 5:02*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 20/11/2010 16:31, MIG wrote:

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.

Exactly.

As long as money is finite someone is going to get a less than perfect
situation for the time being. And isn't everyone a special case these days?


I dunno about special case, but if "someone" always corresponds to the
same few people, they are going to be upset.

There's a difference between

"we are always increasing the number of facilities available to 100%
of people, but we can't afford to do all of them at once"

and

"we are working towards making all facilities available to 95% of
people because we can't afford to make them available to everyone".

Both situations would be less than perfect, and both might be better
than the status quo, but the attitude behind each lack of perfection
is very different.

On 20/11/2010 17:15, MIG wrote:
On Nov 20, 5:02 pm, Arthur wrote:
On 20/11/2010 16:31, MIG wrote:

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.

Exactly.

As long as money is finite someone is going to get a less than perfect
situation for the time being. And isn't everyone a special case these days?


I dunno about special case, but if "someone" always corresponds to the
same few people, they are going to be upset.

There's a difference between

"we are always increasing the number of facilities available to 100%
of people, but we can't afford to do all of them at once"

Is it ever going to be more than 99.999...% of people? Some are probably
incompatible with each other (though in many cases out of choice).

and

"we are working towards making all facilities available to 95% of
people because we can't afford to make them available to everyone".

Both situations would be less than perfect, and both might be better
than the status quo, but the attitude behind each lack of perfection
is very different.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In message , at
20:35:17 on Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
"we are always increasing the number of facilities available to 100%
of people, but we can't afford to do all of them at once"

Is it ever going to be more than 99.999...% of people? Some are
probably incompatible with each other (though in many cases out of
choice).

Is there a recognised maximum percentage of the number of people capable
of using public transport - in other words discounting those in
hospital, housebound, agraphobics, and other such circumstances?
--
Roland Perry

On Nov 21, 10:51*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
20:35:17 on Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

"we are always increasing the number of facilities available to 100%
of people, but we can't afford to do all of them at once"

Is it ever going to be more than 99.999...% of people? Some are
probably incompatible with each other (though in many cases out of
choice).

Is there a recognised maximum percentage of the number of people capable
of using public transport - in other words discounting those in
hospital, housebound, agraphobics, and other such circumstances?
--
Roland Perry

It's possibly an interesting point, but the distinction I was making
was not so much about the 100% as about the difference between "most
facilities" and "most people". I can accept that not all facilities
can instantly be made as accessible as possible. I can't accept the
attitude that some people are never going to be bothered with. Both
might be expressed in terms of limited funds available.

Anyway, isn't 99.9 recurring exactly the same number as 100?

In message
, at
03:31:31 on Sun, 21 Nov 2010, MIG
remarked:
Is there a recognised maximum percentage of the number of people capable
of using public transport - in other words discounting those in
hospital, housebound, agraphobics, and other such circumstances?

It's possibly an interesting point, but the distinction I was making
was not so much about the 100% as about the difference between "most
facilities" and "most people". I can accept that not all facilities
can instantly be made as accessible as possible.

I accept that figures like "99%" are actually expressing a numerical
quantity, but merely mean "almost everyone".

It simply made me wonder what the actual practical limit was, given that
some people could never be taken on public transport given their
circumstances.

I can't accept the attitude that some people are never going to be
bothered with.

Did you mean "some people aren't going to be coped with?". The law of
diminishing returns is bound to set in, and where you call it a day is a
political decision.

Both might be expressed in terms of limited funds available.

Sure. Making the Tube accessible to people permanently connected to a
dialysis machine, or inside an oxygen tent, is going to be very
expensive. You may say these are ridiculous examples, but there are many
people with issues which restrict their mobility, beyond those who are
well enough to use a wheelchair.
--
Roland Perry