|
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
"James" wrote in message om... "John Rowland" wrote in message ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3595351.stm London Underground (LU) has been warned that it could be sued by disabled people if it does not improve access for them by October. By then the part of the Disability Discrimination Act which governs access to transport will come into force. Currently only one in seven stations are step-free, which allows entry for wheelchair users. [snip] And at quite what height should the platforms be at Ealing Common and Rayner's Lane to Uxbridge to be step free? Maybe they should make the platform a slope so it is stepfree to Districts/Mets at one end and Piccadillys at the other! Peter Smyth |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
James wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3595351.stm London Underground (LU) has been warned that it could be sued by disabled people if it does not improve access for them by October. By then the part of the Disability Discrimination Act which governs access to transport will come into force. Currently only one in seven stations are step-free, which allows entry for wheelchair users. [snip] And at quite what height should the platforms be at Ealing Common and Rayner's Lane to Uxbridge to be step free? Hasn't there been some consideration to hiving off the Rayner's Lane Piccadilly branch to the District line - or running it as a Acton Town - Rayner's Lane / Uxbridge shuttle? -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
"John Rowland" wrote in message ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3595351.stm London Underground (LU) has been warned that it could be sued by disabled people if it does not improve access for them by October. By then the part of the Disability Discrimination Act which governs access to transport will come into force. Currently only one in seven stations are step-free, which allows entry for wheelchair users. [snip] And at quite what height should the platforms be at Ealing Common and Rayner's Lane to Uxbridge to be step free? Hasn't there been some consideration to hiving off the Rayner's Lane Piccadilly branch to the District line - or running it as a Acton Town - Rayner's Lane / Uxbridge shuttle? That would REALLY be popular. If it could even reach Hi Ken, there may be more chance of that idea flying. |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
... The other day I boarded a bus and the leaflet rack behind the driver held booklets entitled "A staff guide to ticketing on London's buses" to quote page 20: Any female passenger wearing a Burqa or Yashmak can hold a valid Photocard, that shows the face similarly covered, to support a valid Bus Pass, Travelcard or LT Card. Under *no* circumstances should a female passenger be asked to uncover her face or be refused travel when holding a valid ticket supported by such a Photocard. However, she may be asked to uncover her vagina to prove she is female... I don't think they've thought that one out. Does it say anything about certain Amerindian tribes, who refuse to be photographed because they believe that a camera takes away part of their soul? -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
"Peter Smyth" wrote in message ...
"James" wrote in message om... "John Rowland" wrote in message ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3595351.stm London Underground (LU) has been warned that it could be sued by disabled people if it does not improve access for them by October. By then the part of the Disability Discrimination Act which governs access to transport will come into force. Currently only one in seven stations are step-free, which allows entry for wheelchair users. [snip] And at quite what height should the platforms be at Ealing Common and Rayner's Lane to Uxbridge to be step free? Maybe they should make the platform a slope so it is stepfree to Districts/Mets at one end and Piccadillys at the other! Peter Smyth I can hear the exploding arteries from the HSE's direction... Brad |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
In article ,
The Only Living Boy in New Cross wrote: Well exactly. Of course it's unrealistic *now*, but in the USA disabled people have been able to sue over access since the mid-1970s, and as a result there is far more awareness and accessibility over there. LU must have known that things were going the same way here; Indeed, a friend of my parents who is in a chair had a Churchill Fellowship to the US in the seventies to look at this issue. Of course, it's a social shift that has a lot of relationship to guilt over Vietnam and improvements in battlefield medicine: there was a sudden rise in the number of wheelchair using young men who were otherwise fit, politicised and politically significant. How much of the wheelchair access to, say, BART is practical if you don't have the upper body strength of a fit young man who is the victim of an injury (as oppposed, say, to progressive wasting from MS) is an interesting issue. Wheelchair users are not, by and large, the wheelchair users one sees doing the London Marathon, but have multiple other issues. ian |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
Ian G Batten wrote:
In article , The Only Living Boy in New Cross wrote: Well exactly. Of course it's unrealistic *now*, but in the USA disabled people have been able to sue over access since the mid-1970s, and as a result there is far more awareness and accessibility over there. LU must have known that things were going the same way here; Indeed, a friend of my parents who is in a chair had a Churchill Fellowship to the US in the seventies to look at this issue. Of course, it's a social shift that has a lot of relationship to guilt over Vietnam and improvements in battlefield medicine: there was a sudden rise in the number of wheelchair using young men who were otherwise fit, politicised and politically significant. How much of the wheelchair access to, say, BART is practical if you don't have the upper body strength of a fit young man who is the victim of an injury (as oppposed, say, to progressive wasting from MS) is an interesting issue. Wheelchair users are not, by and large, the wheelchair users one sees doing the London Marathon, but have multiple other issues. To be honest it raises the whole issue of whether such people should be using the tube at all. Let's face it, even with lifts and ramps a wheelchair is the last thing needed on a busy tube platform or train even outside of rush hour. Given that there is plenty of access to other transport options, I think some sense of balance is needed. For example, would subsidising taxis for these people be more cost effective than digging lift shafts and altering the layout in Victorian underground structures? Almost certainly. What will suing the tube actually achieve? Some cash for the folks in wheelchairs but less money available to actually do the work they are demanding. Crazy. It has to be accepted that the Tube was never designed for disabled people and that altering it would be prohibitively expensive for little real gain. I know that's a very harsh view, but that's life. If you end up in a wheelchair, yes it's very tragic but you can't go around expecting the rest of the world to change so that you can live exactly the same life you did before. IMHO |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:42:12 GMT, Steve wrote:
Does anybody why wheelchair users are allowed to travel for free? Actually, before you do, let me make one thing clear - I am all for making travel in London more accessible for wheelchair-bound and disabled people. I think we all agree on this point - why should they be discriminated against? But I have a problem with the fact that they are allowed to travel free? Is this not rather discriminatory in itself? I suspect that *most* wheelchair passengers would be entitled to a normal TfL disabled pass. -- Thomas Covenant Please observe reply to Address. Unsolicited mail to "From" address deleted unread. |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:34:03 +0100, Robert R News wrote:
Ian G Batten wrote: To be honest it raises the whole issue of whether such people should be using the tube at all. Let's face it, even with lifts and ramps a wheelchair is the last thing needed on a busy tube platform or train even outside of rush hour. Have a trip on the Jubilee Line Extension sometime. Or better still, choose any Tube line and have a rant at young mothers and fathers with baby buggies. |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 at 08:30:36, The Only Living Boy in New Cross
wrote: What I find more annoying is the fact that the lifts on the JLE, which was specifically designed with accessibility in mind, are constantly out of order... And when they are in order, they ponk of pee.... -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 8 March 2004 |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
Or better still, choose any Tube line and have a rant at young mothers and
fathers with baby buggies. I'm sure everyone would be most happy to allow such contraptions onto the tube in rush hour if a triple fare is charged for each one to compensate for the three adult standing places it takes up. |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:58:31 -0700, James wrote:
Or better still, choose any Tube line and have a rant at young mothers and fathers with baby buggies. I'm sure everyone would be most happy to allow such contraptions onto the tube in rush hour if a triple fare is charged for each one to compensate for the three adult standing places it takes up. And prams are banned on Tubes in rush hour? |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
|
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , am (John Hearns) wrote: On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:58:31 -0700, James wrote: Or better still, choose any Tube line and have a rant at young mothers and fathers with baby buggies. I'm sure everyone would be most happy to allow such contraptions onto the tube in rush hour if a triple fare is charged for each one to compensate for the three adult standing places it takes up. And prams are banned on Tubes in rush hour? Surely only folding prams are allowed on the tube? Given that the vast majority of people carrying children in prams avoid the rush hour, unless they have no choice, the argument is largely irrelevant. (Side issue, who is the "user" of a baby's pram, the child or the parent or both?) |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
... I agree with what you are saying but it would mean clever engineering and the train stopping in exactly the right place every time for the gap fillers to work properly. Unless the gap fillers were fitted to the train, not the platform. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
Annabel Smyth wrote the following in:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 at 08:30:36, The Only Living Boy in New Cross wrote: What I find more annoying is the fact that the lifts on the JLE, which was specifically designed with accessibility in mind, are constantly out of order... And when they are in order, they ponk of pee.... Not in my experience. I've used quite a few while travelling with my folded bike and they generally seem fairly nice and clean. Even the ones in West Ham are nice, and if the people of West Ham can keep the lifts clean surely anywhere else can! On the subjects of the JLE lifts, does anyone else find the man who does the announcments on all of them funny sounding? The way he says "PLEASE DO NOT OBSTRUCT THE DOORS! STAND CLEAR OF THE DOORS PLEASE." is really very odd. -- message by Robin May, enforcer of sod's law. "Dust Hill guy likes the Gordon clock" "You MUST NOT drive dangerously" - the Highway Code Spelling lesson: then and than are different words. |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 at 12:39:58, Robin May
wrote: Annabel Smyth wrote the following in: And when they are in order, they ponk of pee.... Not in my experience. I've used quite a few while travelling with my folded bike and they generally seem fairly nice and clean. Even the ones in West Ham are nice, and if the people of West Ham can keep the lifts clean surely anywhere else can! Canning Town can't, if the expressions on the faces of the three young people who used the lift yesterday were anything to go by! On the subjects of the JLE lifts, does anyone else find the man who does the announcments on all of them funny sounding? The way he says "PLEASE DO NOT OBSTRUCT THE DOORS! STAND CLEAR OF THE DOORS PLEASE." is really very odd. Haven't been on a JLE lift yet, only DLR ones - which did ponk of pee! -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 8 March 2004 |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
|
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
Acrosticus wrote:
From: "Brimstone" Date: 09/04/2004 09:18 GMT Standard Time The primary concern with allowing wheelchairs onto the Underground, specifically the tube lines, is getting them out in the event of an emergency. The interconnecting doors between cars aren't wide enough nor is the door in the front of the train allowing emergency access to the track permitting emergency evacuation along the track to the next station. Therefore it is surely the trains that are unsafe and not wheelchair users? Back in the 1980s London Transport published a pathetic leaflet about disabled access and concerning wheelchair users and the underground it as good as said "Bugger off, you're a fire hazard. Why not take a taxi instead". It seems the same cavalier attitude is still abroad today, even though the world has moved on and disability awareness has increased (in most places). The underground people seem to have stuck their head in the sand and hoped disability access problems would go away. They won't, and they're just about to get it in the neck for their longstanding negligence - which serves them right. Complete rubbish. If a wheelchair user needs to access any level other than ground level, a lift is required. In the event of fire, the lifts are not available, and people have to use the stairs. In those circumstances, wheelchair users have to be carried to ground level. The same applies to tube trains. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:24:04 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: Acrosticus wrote: From: "Brimstone" Date: 09/04/2004 09:18 GMT Standard Time The primary concern with allowing wheelchairs onto the Underground, specifically the tube lines, is getting them out in the event of an emergency. The interconnecting doors between cars aren't wide enough nor is the door in the front of the train allowing emergency access to the track permitting emergency evacuation along the track to the next station. Therefore it is surely the trains that are unsafe and not wheelchair users? Back in the 1980s London Transport published a pathetic leaflet about disabled access and concerning wheelchair users and the underground it as good as said "Bugger off, you're a fire hazard. Why not take a taxi instead". It seems the same cavalier attitude is still abroad today, even though the world has moved on and disability awareness has increased (in most places). The underground people seem to have stuck their head in the sand and hoped disability access problems would go away. They won't, and they're just about to get it in the neck for their longstanding negligence - which serves them right. Complete rubbish. If a wheelchair user needs to access any level other than ground level, a lift is required. In the event of fire, the lifts are not available, and people have to use the stairs. In those circumstances, wheelchair users have to be carried to ground level. The same applies to tube trains. You can design in 'places of safety' where wheelchair users can be left until the fire brigade rescures them.... Rob. -- rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
"Robert Woolley" wrote in message ... You can design in 'places of safety' where wheelchair users can be left until the fire brigade rescures them.... Or not depending on the ferocity of the fire. Dave. |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
In article ,
Richard J. wrote: In those circumstances, wheelchair users have to be carried to ground level. The same applies to tube trains. How many people does it take to carry a tube train to ground level? Sorry. :) Dave -- Email: MSN Messenger: |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
Why is it that to many people, "disabled" means "wheelchair users" and
absolutely nothing else? "Disabled" covers a wide range of physical problems, many of which do not involve people needing wheelchairs. As an example, just look at the number of people on public transport who need a walking stick to get around. Deafness, blindness . . . . . the list is endless, but they are all serious problems for the individuals concerned, and yet so many people just think of wheelchairs. |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 at 20:24:04, Richard J.
wrote: Complete rubbish. If a wheelchair user needs to access any level other than ground level, a lift is required. In the event of fire, the lifts are not available, and people have to use the stairs. In those circumstances, wheelchair users have to be carried to ground level. The same applies to tube trains. I've yet to see a tube train being carried! (Sorry, couldn't resist!) But on balance I agree; it's a pity, but really the Tube should have been built 150 years after it was so that the needs of wheelchair users could have been thought of. As it is, I'm afraid access will always be rather limited. Incidentally has anybody actually seen a wheelchair user on a bus yet? I haven't in this country, although I have in New York; the space designed for them seems used by young mothers with pushchairs (Oh, how I envy them; I so remember walking home *miles* in the rain because my baby was asleep and I would have to wake her to get her out of her pushchair to get on a bus.....). -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 8 March 2004 |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
Annabel Smyth typed
Incidentally has anybody actually seen a wheelchair user on a bus yet? I have, on about 4 occasions. Getting the bus close enough to the kerb to use the exit doors was a problem, as were parked cars. Ramp problems once led to a bus being taken out of service. There have been times when the wheelchair users have been a little aggressive regarding the difficulties boarding or alighting the buses. As in the newsgroups, this has not endeared them to the others around. I appreciate life with disability is a challenge, as I live with increasing disability myself. I haven't in this country, although I have in New York; the space designed for them seems used by young mothers with pushchairs (Oh, how I envy them; I so remember walking home *miles* in the rain because my baby was asleep and I would have to wake her to get her out of her pushchair to get on a bus.....). The baby pushers are also sometimes a touch aggressive... -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
"Henry" typed
Why is it that to many people, "disabled" means "wheelchair users" and absolutely nothing else? Because they are the pushy, awkward aggressive ones! "Disabled" covers a wide range of physical problems, many of which do not involve people needing wheelchairs. Quite, and getting a seat as an 'ambulant disabled' passenger is more difficult as a result of provision for wheelchair users. As an example, just look at the number of people on public transport who need a walking stick to get around. At least that's visible; invisible disabilities are more difficult, in some ways. Deafness, blindness . . . . . the list is endless, but they are all serious problems for the individuals concerned, and yet so many people just think of wheelchairs. That presupposes people think. I'm not sure many do. -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 at 14:03:44, Helen Deborah Vecht
wrote: "Henry" typed Why is it that to many people, "disabled" means "wheelchair users" and absolutely nothing else? Because they are the pushy, awkward aggressive ones! Also because the sign for "disabled" is a stylised wheelchair. In fact, since many buses were converted/rearranged to allow someone in a wheelchair to use them, they've actually been less accessible to those who, while not using a wheelchair, have walking problems and would dearly love to be able to get on a bus (be hauled on by the conductor of a Routemaster, in the olden days, but nobody can help them now), and sit down almost at once, rather than be nearly knocked down in the scrum and have to push past the queue at the bottom of the stairs to find a seat. -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 8 March 2004 |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
In message , Annabel Smyth
writes Incidentally has anybody actually seen a wheelchair user on a bus yet? A couple of times I've taken a wheelchair-bound friend around much of Central London by tube, moist recently just last week. Per se, London's wheelchair access on buses is commendable. Indeed, the first time we took my friend, it was the first time he'd been on a bus in over 30 years and that added greatly to our enjoyment and to the "special" nature of the day. Last week, we repeated the whole exercise with more mixed results. Two buses had problems with the ramps, both on the 436. The first, at Marylebone, was able to put out the ramp but not open the doors at the same time! Accordingly, we waited for the next bus which worked a treat. Later in the day, we boarded a double decker on the 436 (this was just after the fire problems with then bendis) in Parliament Street (Whitehall) to return to Marylebone. The ramp came out as sweet as a nut and the doors opened. Great. Unfortunately, the ramp then steadfastly refused to retract, causing the bus to become stuck there and necessitating all the passengers transferring to the bus behind. All the drivers were extremely patient and understanding (and apologetic) but they gave us the distinct impression that: 9i) People in wheelchairs don't use buses that often and (ii) When they do, things tend to go wrong with the equipment. The fact is, retracting ramps with a lot of moving parts presumably have a lot to go wrong and in London's heady conditions this must put a great strain on the equipment, the more so as more disabled people use the buses. -- Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for London & the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
In message , Henry writes
Why is it that to many people, "disabled" means "wheelchair users" and absolutely nothing else? "Disabled" covers a wide range of physical problems, many of which do not involve people needing wheelchairs. As an example, just look at the number of people on public transport who need a walking stick to get around. Deafness, blindness . . . . . the list is endless, but they are all serious problems for the individuals concerned, and yet so many people just think of wheelchairs. Indeed and as I've posted here before such groups often have conflicting requirements. My mother has trouble with low floor buses because she can walk but is just a bit unsteady; that means that the wide open areas for wheelchair circulation reduces the number of stanchions available for her to hold on to. O a trip to London last year she was full of praise for the bendis but confessed to finding access easier on Routemasters. Sorry, I know that *that* will start a fierce debate........ -- Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for London & the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:58:10 +0100, Annabel Smyth
wrote: Incidentally has anybody actually seen a wheelchair user on a bus yet? Yes, more than once. A while ago I saw a group of yoofs who were on a pub crawl of the Sutton area [why?], and one was in a wheelchair. I noticed it as it was the first time I'd seen the ramp thingy appear from under the door. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
"Henry":
Why is it that to many people, "disabled" means "wheelchair users" and absolutely nothing else? Annabel Smyth: Also because the sign for "disabled" is a stylised wheelchair. Also because, when we're talking about "Tube access", they're the ones for which it would cause the most expense and difficulties. -- Mark Brader, Toronto "But I do't have a '' key o my termial." -- Lynn Gold |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:24:04 +0000, Richard J. wrote:
Complete rubbish. If a wheelchair user needs to access any level other than ground level, a lift is required. In the event of fire, the lifts are not available, and people have to use the stairs. In those circumstances, wheelchair users have to be carried to ground level. The same applies to tube trains. Wrong. The lifts on the JLE are clearly marked as firefighting lifts. I don't work for the fire brigade or the underground, but I'd imagine this means they are available during a fire... Also, if I'm not wrong, there are disabled refuge areas at the emergency exits, similar to the ones in many cinemas and public buildings. |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:24:04 +0000, Richard J. wrote:
Complete rubbish. If a wheelchair user needs to access any level other than ground level, a lift is required. In the event of fire, the lifts are not available, and people have to use the stairs. Also, what if there were a fire at Goodge Street or Covent Garden? What happens to the obese or elderly who are unable to climb the emergency stairs? |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
John Hearns wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:24:04 +0000, Richard J. wrote: Complete rubbish. If a wheelchair user needs to access any level other than ground level, a lift is required. In the event of fire, the lifts are not available, and people have to use the stairs. In those circumstances, wheelchair users have to be carried to ground level. The same applies to tube trains. Wrong. The lifts on the JLE are clearly marked as firefighting lifts. I don't work for the fire brigade or the underground, but I'd imagine this means they are available during a fire... Also, if I'm not wrong, there are disabled refuge areas at the emergency exits, similar to the ones in many cinemas and public buildings. Maybe, but I was comparing the situation in a typical office building, say, where lifts are not available in a fire, with the situation in a tube *train* (not station) where there is neither refuge nor fireproof lift. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
In article ,
John Hearns wrote: On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:24:04 +0000, Richard J. wrote: Complete rubbish. If a wheelchair user needs to access any level other than ground level, a lift is required. In the event of fire, the lifts are not available, and people have to use the stairs. In those circumstances, wheelchair users have to be carried to ground level. The same applies to tube trains. Wrong. The lifts on the JLE are clearly marked as firefighting lifts. I don't work for the fire brigade or the underground, but I'd imagine this means they are available during a fire... The lifts at Stratford were not designed to be used in the event of fire. John Haines |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:53:16 +0000, Richard J. wrote:
Maybe, but I was comparing the situation in a typical office building, say, where lifts are not available in a fire, with the situation in a tube *train* (not station) where there is neither refuge nor fireproof lift. The lift at Bermondsey is a firefighting lift. And I'm asking you in return what is the LU/Fire Brigade policy for dealing with obese and elderly passengers in the event of an evacuation? My guess - the fire brigade help them up the stairs. |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 at 09:47:20, John Hearns wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:53:16 +0000, Richard J. wrote: Maybe, but I was comparing the situation in a typical office building, say, where lifts are not available in a fire, with the situation in a tube *train* (not station) where there is neither refuge nor fireproof lift. The lift at Bermondsey is a firefighting lift. As may be - but it goes to the *station*, and Richard J is thinking of the situation within a tube *train*. There are no lifts in a train, and precious few ways of getting out of one in a tunnel in an emergency. Except, of course, on those lines which are not technically "tube" lines. -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 8 March 2004 |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
In article ,
John Hearns wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:53:16 +0000, Richard J. wrote: Maybe, but I was comparing the situation in a typical office building, say, where lifts are not available in a fire, with the situation in a tube *train* (not station) where there is neither refuge nor fireproof lift. The lift at Bermondsey is a firefighting lift. And I'm asking you in return what is the LU/Fire Brigade policy for dealing with obese and elderly passengers in the event of an evacuation? My guess - the fire brigade help them up the stairs. The point of a fire lift is that there should be a safe lobby area associated with it. The lift is designed to be safe to use in a fire. People who cannot manage the stairs go to the lobby and wait. The fire brigade is informed they are there so they can go and get them (using the lift). Design of the lift includes making the electrical system safe, providing smoke extraction or (pressurisation) and putting sufficient pump capacity in so it does not fill with water. Disclaimer: That is the idea in buildings, I cannot vouch for it being LUL policy. John Haines |
Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk