Return to Archive -by date - by topic.
How do trains designed to take the standard wheelchair cope with electric buggies and scooters?
Disability legislation is a good example of the Japanese ‘kaizen' management technique of continuous improvement. Successive Acts and Regulations have increased the duties on the transport industry to treat disabled travelers equally.
Thus, the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 amended the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to remove the exemption of transport service from Part 3 of the Act. This resulted in the court case over wheelchair access at Thetford Station (Informed Sources June 2004).
However, under DDA 2005 the ‘provision and use of vehicles' was still exempted from Part 3. But now we have the Disability Discrimination (Transport Vehicles) Regulations 2006, which will remove this exemption from buses, coaches, private hire vehicles, taxis, trains, trams, light rail, rental vehicles and breakdown recovery services.
When the Regulations comes into force they will make it unlawful for a transport provider to discriminate against a disabled person in a number of ways:
*by refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing any service which it provides to members of the public;
*in the standard of service which it provides to the disabled person or the manner in which it provides it; *in the terms on which it provides a service to the disabled person
There is also a catch-all clause making it unlawful if a transport provider fails to comply with its duty to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate disabled travellers ‘in circumstances in which the effect of that failure is to make it impossible or difficult for the disabled person to make use of any such service'. This is subject to the provider not being able to justify his actions.
Sounds like a minefield? Help is at hand – sort of.
In July, the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) put out to consultation a draft Code of Practice covering the 2006 Regulations. The Code includes real life situations to illustrate the legal issues.
And the choice of examples shows that Railways are now well down the DRC's punishment rota. Road vehicles predominate and it looks as though the new bad boys on the block are the vehicle recovery firms.But there are issues of concern to railways; one philosophical, one detailed and topical.
A new concept is an evolving definition of ‘reasonableness'. According to DRC, transport providers should be planning ‘continually' for the reasonable adjustments they need to make and they should anticipate the requirements of disabled people and the adjustments that may have to be made for them.
Now, as we know, ‘reasonableness' can only be tested in the courts, but the Code says that transport providers should keep the duty to make adjustments under ‘regular review' in the light of their experience with disabled people wanting to use their services. In other words, we have an evolving duty and ‘not something that needs simply to be considered once and once only, and then forgotten'.
This suggests that compliance with the current Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR) may not be enough in 10 years time. But how do you accommodate this concept in rail vehicles with 30 year working lives?
Helpfully, the draft Code provides an indicative checklist of some of the factors affecting what is reasonable. These tests seem quite reasonable (groan Ed) to me and if the train operators weren't such a bunch of surrender monkeys in the face of disability militants and fought their corner, common sense would have a good chance.
Tests of reasonableness
*Whether taking any particular steps would be effective in overcoming the difficulty that disabled people face in accessing the services in question. *The extent to which it is practicable for the transport provider to take the steps. *The financial and other costs of making the adjustment. *The extent of any disruption which taking the steps would cause. *The extent of the transport provider's financial and other resources. *The amount of any resources already spent on making adjustments. *The availability of financial or other assistance.
|
So much for the philosophical, now for the detail. Here is one of the examples specific to rail quoted in the draft Code on the contentious issue of electric buggies and scooters on trains.
Draft code exampleA train manager turns away a disabled passenger who uses a scooter because he assumes, without checking, that the scooter will take up too much room and will be too unstable during the journey. However, this scooter is a collapsible model which can be folded away by its owner into storage space on the train. Although the train manager genuinely believes that refusing admission to all passengers who use scooters is necessary in order not to endanger the health or safety of either the disabled person or other passengers, he has not made enquiries into this particular situation. His belief is therefore unlikely to be reasonably held. In these circumstances, refusing to allow the disabled passenger to travel is unlikely to be justified |
Many aspects of the RVAR equate disability to wheelchair use. And the Regulations specify a ‘reference' wheelchair which trains and accessible toilets must accommodate.
But basic wheelchairs are now a rarity In line with the aspirations of the DRC more and more people take control of their mobility and drive an electric wheelchair.
So, rather like cars, wheelchairs are getting bigger and heavier and more capable. But the growth market, in terms of numbers and avoirdupois, is electric scooters and buggies.
And here we need to distinguish between the disabled and the elderly and infirm who can get about under their own power, but can't cope with a 15 minute walk to the local shops or using the bus. For these people the electric scooter/buggy represents a new lease of life.
And the road legal Class 3 buggies are serious pieces of kit with an 8 mile/h top speed governed to 4 mile/h on the pavement. Or you can have a Class 2 machine, limited to 4mile/h, some of which can dismantle or fold to go in the boot of a car.
Of course, if you can get to the shops you may well be able to get to the station and take your buggy for a day out. Or you may prefer a buggy to a wheelchair, as in the case of former rugby international Alastair Hignell who now commentates for Radio Five Live.
Mr Hignell has MS, but gets around on an electric buggy which can carry him and his papers and recording equipment. He travelled regularly from Bristol to London on First Great Western for three years. Then,l earlier this year, he was told that there was a long-standing ban which would now apply. Odd, since FGW had been very helpful getting him on and off the train.
Interviewed on the radio Mr Hignell claimed that the TOCs have known about the DDA for some time, ‘the trains haven't been changed in any way in terms of their design, in fact it has made life more difficult for disabled users and I think they've got to look at actually modifying the trains to allow people like myself to use the trains freely'.
So much for the RVAR, then!
A hoo hah ensued. ATOC said they would consider the issue, but it is a very difficult and complex issue to handle on a national scale. At the time of writing ATOC's Disability Group is still exploring options.
Surely it can't be that difficult to create a national policy for buggies? Well, yes, it is when you have to combine the variety of sizes weights and wheel configurations with the range of pre and post RVAR rolling stock dimensions and layouts. Then there are practical issues, such as the greater turning circle of four wheel buggies, and health and safety issues, from whether you should secure a buggy, to staff trying to move it in an emergency.
Meanwhile, FGW kept talking to powered scooter users and since 27 June has allowed lightweight folding powered scooters to be carried on its trains in addition to manual and powered wheelchair within the reference dimensions of 700mm wide and 1200mm long. But the scooter must be ‘folded' or dismantled on the platform by the user, or their carer, before the train arrives and carried on in component form, effectively as hand luggage. We are talking up to five pieces with a combined weight of 35-45kg.
If the scooter user can't walk onto the train, FGW will provide a station wheelchair and will also help stow the stripped down machine. Ideally, scooter components should be stored behind Seat 39 (Coach E) – the wheelchair space on HSTs, or in the lower section of the luggage compartment at the end of each carriage on Adelantes (Class 180s) or other coaches in HST.
Now I hate to be an old grouch, but this concession negates the whole idea of the electric scooter which is to restore personal mobility. You can't roll up, ask for the ramp and drive onto the train. Instead you have the equivalent of the field gun race at the Royal Tournament and the need to book ahead for assistance
And in the real world, even drive up, drive on, fold-up, stack-away, sit down is clearly impracticable. The realities of station dwell times, ramps, overcrowding and stowage space press in.
Thus on FGW, the DRC scenario would not apply. The traveller would be waiting on the platform, in a station wheelchair if disabled or seriously infirm, buggy dismantled and ramp ready. There would be a reserved seat and the only problem would be ensuring space in the luggage stacks.
But with an ageing population pressure to make access for electric scooters and buggies on trains easier can only grow. Readers who fancy contributing some research on this issue might like to send details of sightings of these vehicles on trains to roger@alycidon.com