In message , Jack Taylor
writes

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:43:16 GMT, Jack Taylor wrote:

Disability Discrimination Act. Farcical, isn't it?

No.

Yes it is when a much larger majority of people are inconvenienced on their
journey on the spurious excuse that a disabled person *may* want to travel
and *may* be disadvantaged if PIS or PA systems are out of action. The
responsible and sensible thing to do is to allow the train to continue until
such point as a replacement set can be found to take over the diagram, not
to take the set out of service at the first opportunity.

As someone who is visually impaired (and therefore someone for whom
these rules are supposed to be a benefit) I'd have to agree.
I'd much rather have a train with no PA and put up with that fact, than
no train at all. After all, disabled people aren't necessarily stupid
and will find another way of getting the information. Contrary to
popular belief, the British public aren't all *******s, and a polite
request to a fellow passenger to tell you which station or let you know
when you've reached X will often do the job (and unlike some
auto-announcers, you might actually get the right answer).

However, this shouldn't be an excuse for letting a train go for weeks
without fixing the PA, obviously it should be fixed as soon as
practically possible without disrupting the service.
--
Spyke
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. Replace the bit before the
@ with 'daniel' to get through. The opinions expressed in this post do not
necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.

In article , Spyke
writes
I'd much rather have a train with no PA and put up with that fact, than
no train at all.
[...]
However, this shouldn't be an excuse for letting a train go for weeks
without fixing the PA, obviously it should be fixed as soon as
practically possible without disrupting the service.

The trouble is that if nobody gets into trouble for running a train with
a broken PA, there's no incentive to fix it for weeks.

The answer has to be in finding the right setting for "as soon as
practically possible". I'm not saying that the present rules are
correct, but I also suspect that writing better ones is hard.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Spyke
writes

I'd much rather have a train with no PA and put up with that fact,
than no train at all.

[...]

However, this shouldn't be an excuse for letting a train go for weeks
without fixing the PA, obviously it should be fixed as soon as
practically possible without disrupting the service.


The trouble is that if nobody gets into trouble for running a train with
a broken PA, there's no incentive to fix it for weeks.

The answer has to be in finding the right setting for "as soon as
practically possible". I'm not saying that the present rules are
correct, but I also suspect that writing better ones is hard.

Start of the traffic day after that on which the fault is reported seems
reasonable. If it's bad enough it can't be fixed in the depot overnight, don't
put that train in service the next day.