Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
 

I think there is something fundamentally missing from
this discussion.

Disabled people - and that includes blind people with guide dogs,
people with walking difficulties and people in wheelchairs are
able to travel on any London Underground or DLR train, on any line, at any
time.

Whether or not of course the wheelchair can get onto the platform/train
depends on the stations en route.

Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
 

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:37:15 +0100, Ian Jelf wrote:

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.

IMO, the manual folding ramps are better - but sadly it is not considered
safe for the driver to leave his cab to unfold one.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
Mail me on neil at the above domain; mail to the above address is NOT read

Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
 

Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
 

In article , John Hearns
writes
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...

There's a number of lifts designated as "emergency lifts". These include
Canada Water 3, Canary Wharf 3, Green Park 3, North Greenwich 3,
Waterloo 3, and Westminster 1. To quote my site:

"An emergency lift is one provided for firefighters' access to the
platforms and for the evacuation of wheelchair-bound passengers. These
are not within the areas normally accessible to passengers, and details
of where they serve are not always available, though they can sometimes
be deduced from the height of the ascent."

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
 

From: "Clive D. W. Feather"
Date: 19/04/2004 16:57 GMT Standard Time

To quote my site:

"An emergency lift is one provided for firefighters' access to the
platforms and for the evacuation of wheelchair-bound passengers.

Those of us who have had disability awareness training from our employers are
told to use the expression "Wheelchair users". You might want to bear this in
mind the next time you update.

Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
 

Acrosticus wrote:
From: "Clive D. W. Feather"
Date: 19/04/2004 16:57 GMT Standard Time

To quote my site:

"An emergency lift is one provided for firefighters' access to the
platforms and for the evacuation of wheelchair-bound passengers.

Those of us who have had disability awareness training from our
employers are told to use the expression "Wheelchair users". You
might want to bear this in mind the next time you update.

So because you're told to use a specific form of words the rest of have to?

Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
 

"Acrosticus" wrote in message
...
From: "Clive D. W. Feather"
Date: 19/04/2004 16:57 GMT Standard Time

"An emergency lift is one provided for firefighters' access to the
platforms and for the evacuation of wheelchair-bound passengers.

Those of us who have had disability awareness training from our employers
are
told to use the expression "Wheelchair users". You might want to bear this
in
mind the next time you update.


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.

Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
 

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!

Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
 

only thoes users who are truly wheelchair-bound who need special
provision.
Clive's phrase is the more accurate one in this context.
snip
IMO, the intention's the main thing.

Attitude is the issue and I agree that the intention is the most important
thing. However, 'wheelchair-bound' makes me wince (as it does most
wheelchair users) because people are not bound to their chairs - we sleep in
a bed, shower in a shower/bath and so on. Take your cue from the disabled
person - use the language they do! Political correctness is a nightmare!

Paul

Disabled 'to sue for Tube access'
 

Neil Williams wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:37:15 +0100, Ian Jelf wrote:

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.

Yes, but why don't they have equipment robust enough to cope with this?

IMO, the manual folding ramps are better - but sadly it is not considered
safe for the driver to leave his cab to unfold one.

Fortunately this is likely to change with cashless buses.