Are people just less tolerant of disability accessibility now ?

[Takemeback02]

I have been raising a disabled child 11 years now and the first 5 ish years I never really dealt with many issues regarding to the assistance she received or disability access.
the last 5 years has been a real struggle. Usually transport / theme parks etc

most recently 6 of us went on holiday abroad to a European destination, 2 disabled children who require a lot of extra care with very high medical needs and equipment. We always check the hotels first and we speak to before choosing one that works for us. We picked a hotel that offered reserved disabled Sun beds. We arrived and they offered us 6 ( same as whole party ) but we told them we only needed 3. We chose ones away from the kids sections and to the side of the main pool,
they were reserved everyday. They placed disabled badge stickers on the beds for the duration of our stay. I reckon there
was 3 days out of 10 where we didn’t have an issue with someone taking them. Most would move on once asked but have a little moan as they did it and a few who got obviously very upset.

one of the days was a nightmare, we were at the pool bar and physically saw a women tair off the disabled badge sticker and throw it on the ground. I put it back on before going to get the kids
changed and when I got back lady was on bed and had removed the sticker again and lobbed it on the floor.

I just feel the last few years there is an obvious difference in peopls
Tolerance for accessibility or has it always been this way ?

don’t get me wrong I know from the past actual accessibility had got far better but it just feels like it annoys people now.

I think that in your case you clearly needed thst support with the sunbeds with 2 kids with really complex needs.

As a mother of a son with complex SEN I think it incumbent on us to only use support when really needed and just manage when not. So I would not require a sinned to be reserved. My DH goes down at 6 and has an early swim and sits in a bed for an hour or so reading whilst I get DS ready to get out ( which is a bundle of fun!) We then meet him at sun beds and have breakfast.

We do have issues with sunbeds if they are not located in a peaceful area but sometimes that can work in our favour as the ones that are less popular can be the most peaceful. We have to avoid loud noise and crowdedness etc. On of us always has to supervise DS so we don’t need to be near a pool as we are usually with him. In essence we play pass the parcel with him. Often we can’t stay out at 11am and after for a few hours as it’s too noisy. It can get quite miserable as one of us used to have to stay in the room to supervise DS but now he is old enough to be alone. DH would time it to do his work ( he always works on holiday ) so he would set up phone conference at about 11 am. Nowadays we can pay extra and get a swim up room or room with a balcony and splash pool.

However when w have stated in a really noisy hotel and they had a ‘privileged’ section we have had to ask if they could help and they permitted us into the quieter pool. They have done this and we were really grateful. The holiday would have been a complete disaster otherwise.

We do use the fast track airport support only because if we have to stand in a queue DS paranoia means that he thinks that people are trying to take his id looking at his passport. Also since we ended up shutting down the queue when DS was younger and almost having to have all bags taken off the plane - long story. We were told to always use that service and have done so, I have heard people talking loudly ‘we had to pay for fast track ….etc’ I tend to ignore it but I my head think ‘You want to get him boarded first trust me.’

So saying we try to push DS to manage what he can manage, When TUI messed up long haul seating and DS had to sit near strangers they wanted to separate people and allow DS to sit next to me. We had called to sort out priority seating / disability seating but it got messed up. The crew had a pre flight meeting to try to sort out the situation and decided to move people. Instead I asked the people this names and about them and then introduced son and said ‘this is John, he’s a teacher and likes History ….’ DS could then cope and they were lovely to him. He also had the sense of achievement sitting next to strangers.

Sometimes if things go wrong then it can be awful and I wonder why I even bother going on holiday eg if we don’t get fast tracked through the security at the other side and DS starts freaking out etc.

Overall I have found most people really kind. The swimming pool I’m at people always give up spaces to try to accommodate him near a quieter edge - I say no he’s ok but his visibility is actual visual despite being classed as ‘ invisible’. He looks ASD complex needs etc. At the poll there are younger professionals who seem well educated and generally aware so can see DS disabilities if that makes sense eg mannerisms.

Sadly a posh really well known middle class gym were absolutely rubbish and failed to help at all. They wanted him to share a lane for a 1:1 swimming lessons we paid for him. Older intolerant people. complained as he splashed too much when swimming. ( he has low tone and struggles with his limbs eg his stomach sinks on a crawl and he uses more arm strength), Ironically we got the lessons to stop him splashing but realised that there was no way forward. swimming lesson in a shared lane would have been a waste of time as DS has a profound fear of touch.The biggest irony was that some of the older would swim backstroke flailing the arms and legs around, occupy an entire lane and stop anyone else using it etc. Some swam so slowly that even slow lane people could not use that lane but they deemed it their right to do so, Pot kettle black sprung to mind and what was more galling was that many were paying a lower monthly fee than us. They did no realise how much accommodation was made for them but begrudged any accommodation for DS and instead made my life hell and we were paying the club £5000 a year for that including swimming lessons

So we had to leave but we are thousands a year better off going to a cheaper gym/ pool with lovely people so it worked out well.

You have misunderstood this ruling.

The bus company was found to be acting in a discriminatory fashion by having a PCP which didn’t protect w/c users from a ‘first come first served’ situation with none w/c users.

It was found that it would be a reasonable adjustment for the driver to require rather than simply request the woman to move.

And the signage should reflect the requirement to move, not imply you are doing a w/c user a favour if you choose to move.

You are right that the woman with the pram was not found to be in breach of ‘the law’, but that is irrelevant. The driver was also not in breach of anything, as he acted according to the PCP.

The reason the w/u was awarded thousands of pounds was because the PCP was discriminatory.

I haven't misunderstood anything, you've gone from claiming this was a law, to basically saying exactly what i Said. The breach was within the policy re disabled spaces and the signage positioning and warning. It does not say that by law a person has to get off the bus to allow a wheelchair user on. It says they should move to allow the wheelchair user access to the space 'as much as it is reasonably practical to do so'' which is what I've said the entire time. If they can't move, then they don't have to and are not in any breach. You claimed that a buggy user had to move or get off the bus to let a wheelchair user on which is not the case, and this ruling confirms it. But this IS NOT A LAW this is simply the result of a civil case against the bus company. The laws on discrimination were used to make the descision. And the only ones found to have been Breached were with regards to signage and the bus companies own policy.You have essentially found a ruling that backs up and confirms what I have been saying all along, and are now trying to argue about what it says because you confused a court case ruling with a Law being passed. It's not open to interpretation, it says what it says, and what it says is, that a wheelchair user has priority over the space, but it relies on others to abide by it and move out of the way, which by law they should. BUT none can force them to move. And under no circumstances can a person be asked to get off the bus-if bus is full and allowing a wheelchair user to get on would put the bus over capscity, the driver does not have to let them on, or require anyone to get off to make roomwhich, even though this isn't what the case was actually about, is clearly stated as part of the ruling reporr-and I'd exactly what I've said from is what I've said from the beginning.

They meant they would have been entitled to the accessible seat in the situation you descibed, but by your description of the person you claim had no mobility issues, you would have judged them the same. Just say ' sorry. I shouldn't have assumed the person using the seat didn't have any mobility issues based on how I observed them walking and taking their seat" that's all you need to say from here, and I'm sure people will say OK, apology accepted, and be pleased this conversation has led to 1 more person being a little less judgement and a little more aware of struggles someone might have that you just because you cant see them, doesn't mean they don't exist. Otherwise, all you will get is person after person with a hidden disability come after you and claim they look exactly the the person you are accusing of using an accessible seat that, in yo they were not entitled to

You’re right, I should have said that. I will now accept that anyone who sits in a mobility seat must need it.

@est1980 There is no need to shout love, and I didn’t find it. I also don’t ‘claim’ it says anything- it says what it says.

If you go back and read it again you will see you are in breach of the law if a bus driver asked you to exit a bus, if for example it is over capacity, or you are in breach of the bus ‘behaviour policy’ for want of a better phrase.

This woman was not asked to leave the bus, so she was not in breach of the law.

She was not asked to leave the bus because that wasn’t the policy of the company- which policy was found to be discriminatory.

ie, if someone won’t move and doesn’t have a
’reasonable’ reason

(the judgement does point out this can be nuanced- for example a SN buggy can be treated as a wheelchair, or a disabled person might be forced by circumstance into the wheelchair space- these cases need to be assessed individually)

then the PCP should state the driver tells them to move or leave the bus if necessary- once they have refused to leave the bus on the drivers request they are in breach of the law in the same way a drunk throwing up or youth refusing to pay would be.

It specifically says a sleeping child or a none folding pram are not reasonable reasons not to comply with the drivers instructions.

But the buggy does not have to get off...that's the entire point. They should move to make room if this is possible. They, nor anyone else, doesn't have to get off the bus.

They do if the driver tells them to- the driver has the right to eject people for various reasons, one of which is refusing to make way for a wheelchair user without a reasonable excuse (like having a SN buggy or whatever).

If you are in breach of the ‘bus rules’ you can be told to get off or bus can be kept stationary and/or the police called.

If you think about it this makes perfect sense- you can be ejected from many public places like the pub or the theatre if your behaviour breaches their rules- said behaviour doesn’t have to be illegal, just outwith their rules.

It isn’t illegal to talk and use your phone, but the theatre will kick you out if you do it in the middle of Memories even though you have paid to be there.

You obviously missed the bit in the judgement where the judges were very clear that it wasn't fair to ask the driver to be an arbiter of what a "reasonable excuse" was. And that there could be all manner of reasons someone would be reasonable to say they couldn't move.

It all sounds a bit toothless and not very helpful to people using wheelchairs on the bus.

@ibelieveshereallyistgedevil thanks for having this argument, I was asleep!
@est1980 you asked someone for case law, I found the legal precedent that it's discriminatory for bus companies not to "require" people with prams to move out of the wheelchair space, either by folding or by leaving the bus if necessary. Then you changed the goalposts and basically said if it wasn't enacted in parliament it didn't count.
That government guidance you linked me to seems to be based on the legal precedent of FirstGroup vs Paulley. Bus drivers "must ask them to move" out of the wheelchair space. If they refuse "without good reason" the driver "should tell them they are required to move", which was what FirstGroup lost on, because the driver and the signage, which as you say could be seen as a technicality, didn't say the woman with the pram was "required" to move. If the driver should say that, then clearly they are "required" to vacate the wheelchair space by whatever means necessary. In the document you sent "good reason" is not defined, but in FirstGroup vs Paulley it is established that a sleeping child does not count as a "good reason", nor is a non-folding pram as one of the judges notes that most prams fold (and, I would add, there's nothing that means you have to have a non-folding pram, seeing as folding prams are widely available).

You are correct that some of the judges rule that it would be unfair to make the driver decide, but other judges ruled that drivers have to make such choices in other circumstances, for example deciding who is drunk and disorderly and whether to remove them from the bus. The decision was that the bus company needs to tell people blocking the wheelchair space that they are required to move. The fact that the driver can't physically manhandle someone off the bus and that therefore if push came to shove (pun intended) this requirement is unenforceable doesn't mean that it's not a requirement.

I am all for wheelchair accessibility, I am. I am a wheelchair user myself a lot of the time and am so grateful for all the accessibility. But I am also hugely conscious that there are lots of disabled people who don't use mobility aids but are incredibly limited in what they can do, even if it is not at all obvious to a casual observer. And I don't see why they should have to wear badges or bring medical documents everywhere just because so many people refuse to acknowledge how debilitating invisible disability can be

Some of the poorest people I support through my charity literally take whatever pram they are given, they can't afford to be picky

Very fair point. Although I don't think I've seen a modern pram that truly doesn't fold down - you might have to lift the carry cot out or whatever but that can go on a seat. There was some comment by the judges that based on the evidence it seemed more that the woman didn't want to wake the baby, but she might have had a rare non-folding pram. But again, if they want a dedicated space, they'll have to campaign for it, because the law says they are required to move.

And btw, I am also all for disabled people with invisible disabilities not having to prove it all the time. I also have invisible disabilities, and had invisible mobility issues before using a wheelchair, similar to the experience of changing disability you describe. Now I have the privilege of it being obvious, but also the problems of it being obvious. I can't hide it, I'm more vulnerable to abuse in public, and with a wheelchair there are a lot more places I can't go. If there's someone with an invisible disability with a pram in the wheelchair space that means they can't vacate the space, I'm not asking them to show documents or prove it, I'm just suggesting that it would be in everyone's interest to simply open their mouth and say "I have an invisible disability, I struggle with mobility and I need to use the space". I personally would respect that and get off the bus again if there really was no way to make it work for both of us. But again, that still doesn't mean that I should automatically give way to all pram users and people who are walking in case one of them is invisibly disabled and doesn't want to tell me. Yes, they can make the choice not to disclose a disability. But I don't get that choice.

No I didn’t- I said those cases were nuanced and have to be addressed individually.

The bus driver can’t be expected to decide if a SN buggy or a wheelchair has greater need for example, so if it can’t be sorted out amicably with everyone cooperating, then the bus driver will revert to first come first served-

No sensible bus driver is going to throw someone claiming to need the space for disability related reasons off the bus, because they would likely fall under the ‘reasonable’ reasons for being in the wheelchair space when not in a w/c.

However, where no other disabilities are involved- it was found to be discriminatory not to have a PCP that had provisions for a driver to eject someone if they don’t have a ‘reasonable’ reason- and specifically states that a non folding buggy or a sleeping child aren’t reasonable reasons.

I think that's a fair position to take

(And I shall double check from now on that when we buy prams that they are easily foldable where possible as our service users generally are dependent on public transport)

I haven't experienced abuse in my chair yet. That must be grim. I did though experience a phenomenal amount of abuse when I was very swollen from strong steroids and also very disabled (but invisibly so). I remember "fat cunt" being yelled at me one time as I made my way slowly across the road. It was genuinely horrifying. I am glad the steroid weight dropped off when I stopped them because they were causing other awful side effects but many people are stuck on steroids for years. They look like they are immobile due to their weight but actually their weight is caused by the medication for their disability

Thank you, I appreciate your understanding.
That is awful, I'm sorry some arse yelled at you that way. I've been lucky not to get a huge amount of issues, but I have been told to fuck off and some more choice language for not responding to drunk comments about my wheelchair because I was scared and too overwhelmed to try to respond

That's grim too

That is true, and is truly a shame, especially if it inconveniences them and makes it harder for them to move through the world.

But they won’t always have buggies with them which is why mums haven’t chained themselves to busses to get the space they need- it isn’t a problem for long enough for people to bother.

Also, being poor doesn’t mean unable to wait for the next bus or walk the rest of the way or whatever- being disabled frequently does.

being poor also doesn’t mean they can’t hold their baby while the pram is stored (for example down the side of the wheelchair in a position you wouldn’t want a baby, but is ok for an empty pram).

These aren’t simple issues- you could get into a long debate about the possibly disabling health effects of long term poverty for example- that’s why the word ‘reasonable’ is used, and some things are ruled within that, and others without- a non folding pram isn’t considered reasonable, however they came to own it.

Personally I wouldn’t want a struggling mum in a difficult situation kicked off for me- I have the privilege and wherewithal to be flexible. But not all w/c users are that lucky, and have to be protected from “I don’t want to wake the baby”, “I’ve got too much shopping” and “no, why should I?”.

Even then those of us who use other mobility aids are ignored. And for reasons known to everyone else but me, I'm more likely to get walked into if I use my mobility cane.

During COVID, we had the hours for vulnerable people. I remember once going and used my mobility cane. I went to queue and was told this is for vulnerable people. Yes people like me who can't safely socially distance.

What I find interesting is that as a mother of a DS with ASD the last place we would go would en a fun fair theme park or Disney World etc. I’m not convinced for whose benefits the kid gets taken there and gets to queue jump. somewhere like Warwick Castle ( with quite a lot of quiet areas) is as busy as we go. We managed Blenheim at Xmas .

I tried to get my son to go to Pride festivals with his PA - he managed 30 minutes and was off and then came back for the last 30 minutes to watch the final act from the disability area.
Accommodation or not the reality is that this stuff is not really that accessible for ND. They can have as many special zones for football rugby and theme parks but the person would rather not go etc .

My son sometimes likes going on holiday ( although this is up for discussion) and it does help to be fast tracked as it’s just makes something slightly easier. Usually it’s the whole holiday thing that makes me tear up as I realise how hard life is. People complain when we are fast tracked because they are ignorant and really can’t help it. I have no qualms doing it because we were told to by Easy Jet due to an incident when DS was younger as it shut down a check in line. Frankly we also pay a fortune to get ferried places and also pay for a small group guide for tours at times unless it’s a boat trip etc With holidays it’s me who wants DS to come but having thought about it we agreed with the social worker that DH and I would have one holiday a year without DS and one with. There are any places we want to go and it’s all too stressful for him.

I think that people should only use accommodation if they need to. My son would qualify for a blue badge but we don’t have one - he can walk. He can’t just be dropped off and make his way there not for now it’s not an issue as he’s escorted by a PA or us but maybe as he gets more independent and wants to go out alone. It’s a bit embarrassing being ‘walked’ into a pub as you are in your 20’s. Also it would help for pick ups we could park directly outside rather than fetch him.

But just because your child couldn’t cope it doesn’t mean others can’t, especially not with the right provisions.

for a couple of years DS struggled to go out at all but that didn’t mean that I judged those who took their autistic children to Warwick Castle as being less worthy in some way. Just means their child was different.

just because someone is disabled doesn’t mean they aren’t an individual with individual likes and dislikes.

What I find interesting is that as a mother of a DS with ASD the last place we would go would en a fun fair theme park or Disney World etc. I’m not convinced for whose benefits the kid gets taken there and gets to queue jump.

Re posting my response to the last person who thought that all ND children are the same, and parents are using them to queue jump:

Because they will LOVE the ride if they can just get on it?

I hate rollercoasters- I’m scared of heights and I’m chronically ill and disabled, the pain of bumping around the track is not fun-

but I have spent years riding them with my son because it’s the only thing we have found which fulfils his sensory seeking needs and calms his nervous system entirely.

When he is in a rollercoaster he is calm and relaxed. For a couple of minutes his nervous system is not agitated and he is blissfully happy. Like a constant nagging itch that he can’t scratch is gone. He will stay on a rollercoaster for many many rides, just sitting, free from tension in his body or mind.

If he can get on the damn thing in the first place.

Wow that's mad, like people didn't realise that "vulnerable people" couldn't include heavily immune suppressed people/asthmatics etc.

I use a cane sometimes if I have to go to London and have seriously considered sharpening the end of it into a point . It is already useful for preventing men sitting next to me from Manspreading though . But yes you are right, some arseholes think I sign of vulnerability is an excuse to bully/take advantage

DSD is autistic and struggles with so much but she loves rollercoasters and horror films

Poor DH often ends up riding rollercoaster s with her even though he hates them (he is also autistic) because she enjoys it so much. (I can't use them due to my neurological condition otherwise I would gladly take her)