Wheelchair Vs Buggy

[Twinning546]

I've just been reading about Doug Paulley being successful in the supreme court regarding pushchairs having to move for a wheelchair user. How does this work practically if there isn't any space to move to and you've already paid for your journey? Considering I travel with a large double pram with twins under 1 I can't just fold it up and sit with a child on my lap so I'd have to get off the bus.

It is discrimination if they are told to leave the bus

No. It's not.

Its a case of if someones butt is in a seat, or there wheels are in a space, then they got on first and you must wait

If the wheels do not belong to a wheelchair and they are in a wheelchair space they need to move.

Posted to soon. If someone without a reason is sitting in a priority seat and some who needs it comes along, their "butt" needs to move too.

Surely the answer is to use buses that can accommodate both buggy and wheelchair users. We have some in this city, and the trams are even better, bags of space and priority seating with signs reminding people that not all disabilities are visible.

To me that is a much better solution than pitting one group of people against another in a battle for limited space.

Its a case of if someones butt is in a seat, or there wheels are in a space, then they got on first and you must wait.

Fortunately the law disagrees with you.

Look at the old Routemaster. It would have been near impossible to get non folded pram on there.

It was impossible, which is another reason why when my DS was tiny, I was virtually housebound as a then-disabled parent, because I could not go anywhere if it meant folding the buggy and carrying that and DS on the bus, as that was physically impossible for me. (My life was ABSOLUTELY TRANSFORMED when I moved somewhere which had already phased the old routemasters out.)

Two other things: in some buses there is a wheelchair space. In other buses there are accessible spaces, explicitly made available for both pushchairs and wheelchairs. Disabled people should have priority access for both of these types of space. This for the accessible space will include disabled parents with pushchairs.

And if there is a law which bans unfolded buggies altogether, it will once again force disabled parents off public transport. I wouldn't wish that experience on anyone, believe me. There must be a way of wording this that works.

Wheelchair users and people with disabilities are prioritised over people with buggies.

Fuck me, it isn't difficult.

Its a case of if someones butt is in a seat, or there wheels are in a space, then they got on first and you must wait.

For crying out loud! It's a case of if you're buggy is in the wheelchair space and a wheelchair user needs it then you must either fold or move regardless of how long you have been on the bloody bus!

For me I think we should encourage parents who use busses a lot to buy easy one handed foldable pushchairs, there's a massive market of any fancies designing one that's cheap, or carrying their babies.

It's a no brainer that someone in a wheelchair gets a priority seat. I can't understand anyone thinking there is an argument or debate to be had.

You seem to think parenthood is a disability. It isnt

Just to remind you - because it is constantly being overlooked in this discussion - some parents are disabled, and some disabled people are parents. (And having a baby can exacerbate an already-existing disability.)

ArcheryAnnie if you are a disabled parent then you're already disabled and have priority over anyone non-disabled, including parents.

Twinkle I agree (and I was impressed, as I said upthread, that Doug Paulley specifically said able-bodied parents should move, at least in the interview I heard), but it gets overlooked so often. And it's very difficult to police, too - if a disability is invisible people assume it doesn't exist at all.

I will start by saying that I 100% agree the wheelchair users have priority. I have twins and no car, so we travel by bus but I always left the bus when the space was needed (too hard to fold with two babies to handle). I never resented this the slightest, these are the rules.

I would just like to understand some of the arguments defending the w/c users - some seem very angry about buggy users. I am not looking to fight, quite the opposite, as when I read threads like this I often feel that some of the "pro w/c" arguments are not serving their (just) cause.

Why is taking a taxi more of an option for a buggy user than a w/c user?

Why is it assumed that w/c users are probably on their way to a medical appt whereas buggy users could just wait for the next bus? Same with the "planning ahead" remark, if a w/c user says he can't board because buses after buses are filled with buggies, then a buggy user in the same situation couldn't board either, so why is one told they should have planned ahead whereas the other should board immediately.

"Having children is a lifestyle choice": children are needed for population renewal (I know, some discussions about it, but basically if everybody in the UK didn't have children for 20y don't you think it would cause issues??)
Having twins/triplets children is not a choice.
You don't know if a child is result of rape (ie not a choice) or if someone is in a w/c because of overly drinking and getting in an accident. My DS was in a w/c after having a parachute accident, is it considered a lifestyle choice?

Why is "waiting in the cold" less acceptable for a w/c user than a baby or small toddler?

Lastly, this one specific to this thread, I was surprised by
If we're in a space and another wheelchair user needs the space, we can assist our girl to a seat (if her legs are good that day) and partially fold her wheelchair
But I understand you wouldn't do it for a baby in a buggy? Why?

Sorry it was long. Again, I am genuinely interested, and I didn't intend to be disrespectful. I am not discussing the fact that a buggy user should always leave the bus space to a w/c user, regardless of the circumstances.

No it is not a judgement call

The Supreme Court said it is, so I'm afraid you are wrong.

Because the wheelchair user has a legal right

No they do not. Again, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. They specifically rejected the contention that the bus company should force non-wheelchair users to vacate wheelchair spaces.

According to the Court, when a wheelchair user wishes to use a wheelchair space occupied by a non-wheelchair user, the driver should ask the non-wheelchair user to move. If they refuse the driver must make a judgement as to whether or not the refusal is unreasonable. If the driver decides the refusal is reasonable they do not have to take any further action. If the refusal is unreasonable the driver should require the non-wheelchair user to move. If they continue to refuse and the bus is ahead of schedule, the driver may refuse to move the bus for a few minutes in an effort to pressurise the non-wheelchair user into moving.

So, in the situation that triggered this case, if the FirstGroup's policy had been in line with the above and the driver felt that the mother's refusal to move her child was reasonable, the outcome might have been the same. Mr Paulley might still have been left waiting for the next bus.

The Supreme Court did not say that Mr Paulley had an absolute right to the disabled space. The Court did not say that the driver should have thrown the mother and her child off the bus. They simply required FirstGroup to change its policy so that drivers try a little harder to get non-wheelchair users to move if their refusal to do so is unreasonable. In essence, FirstGroup must change its policy from "request and do nothing" to "request and, if faced with an unreasonable refusal, pressurise".

Just for clarity on the question of rights, the relevant legislation requires buses to have a wheelchair space on the lower deck and specifies the size and other characteristics of the space. The legislation also envisages that the wheelchair space can have a folding or tip up seat with a notice on or near the seat saying "Please give up this seat for a wheelchair user". The legislation does NOT state that wheelchair users have an absolute right to this space. Indeed, statutory guidance states that the "opportunity for a wheelchair user to travel may depend on other passengers and how full the vehicle is at the time" and that it may not be possible for a wheelchair user to use the wheelchair space if the bus is nearly full or "passengers with baggage or a baby buggy are using the space". The Supreme Court quoted this guidance in their judgement and did not disagree with it.

Why is taking a taxi more of an option for a buggy user than a w/c user?

Because buggies can be folded.

Not all taxis are adapted to get wheelchairs in for starters.

Piglet Sorry, I am in London and thought all black cabs were accessible.

Francis and yet this debate is constantly framed as "wheelchairs v buggies" (see title of this whole thread) when the real problem is "able-bodied people taking priority spaces they don't need at the expense of disabled people". It frames it as the person with the buggy always being able-bodied, when that isn't true.

Why is taking a taxi more of an option for a buggy user than a w/c user?

The wheelchair user has priority in relation to the wheelchair space on the bus. Therefore, if it's a choice between a wheelchair user and a buggy user for that space, the wheelchair user gets it and, if the buggy user can't fold or wait for the next bus, they will have to take a taxi. Therefore the buggy user must factor that into their plans. Obviously wheelchair users also have to factor in the possibility that the space may already be taken by another wheelchair user and plan accordingly.

Why is it assumed that w/c users are probably on their way to a medical appt whereas buggy users could just wait for the next bus? Same with the "planning ahead" remark, if a w/c user says he can't board because buses after buses are filled with buggies, then a buggy user in the same situation couldn't board either, so why is one told they should have planned ahead whereas the other should board immediately.

Because the buggy user has more choices. The wheelchair user only has the choice of sitting in a non-foldable wheelchair that takes up a lot of space. The buggy user could buy a foldable chair, use a sling etc. If they don't choose to buy a foldable pushchair and use it, obviously they are the ones who should be inconvenienced by that choice, not wheelchair users. And because those wheelchair spaces on buses were fought for by wheelchair users and are there for wheelchair users; buggy users can have them, but only if a wheelchair user doesn't need them.

"Having children is a lifestyle choice": children are needed for population renewal (I know, some discussions about it, but basically if everybody in the UK didn't have children for 20y don't you think it would cause issues??)

Please tell me you don't think people will stop having babies if they can't use wheelchair spaces on buses.

Having twins/triplets children is not a choice

True, but so what? You plan your life for the relatively small time they need a buggy accordingly.

You don't know if a child is result of rape (ie not a choice)

That's an extreme situation. How many people do you imagine there are at any one time who have a small baby in a buggy as a result of rape? How many people who become pregnant as a result of rape go on to have the baby? Should all buggy users have a right to wheelchair spaces in case any of their babies are the result of rape?

or if someone is in a w/c because of overly drinking and getting in an accident. My DS was in a w/c after having a parachute accident, is it considered a lifestyle choice?

Obviously not. No-one chooses to be in a wheelchair.

Why is "waiting in the cold" less acceptable for a w/c user than a baby or small toddler?

Because the small toddler is probably under blankets and quilts with a hat and gloves on, which is not necessarily the case for the wheelchair user; because the vast majority of wheelchair users will be in that situation forever - should they be condemned to wait in the cold for an hour or more a day for the rest of their lives? And because many wheelchair users' disabilities will be exacerbated by cold and damp, and they are unable to get up and run around to get warm, or be lifted out and cuddled for the same purpose, in the way a toddler can.

No it is not a judgement call

The Supreme Court said it is, so I'm afraid you are wrong.

Not entirely. The Supreme Court was dealing with the legal position of the bus company, and said it is a judgment call for the bus driver whether it is reasonable to do more, and whether the buggy user's refusal to move is reasonable. So they were dealing solely with the driver's judgment.

So far as the wider debate is concerned - which I would suggest is more about moral considerations than the strict interpretation of the law - I think it's reasonable to say it isn't really a judgment call. Just about the only situation I can think of where it would not be reasonable to expect the buggy user to vacate the space is one where the buggy user is disabled or ill themselves. For every other eventuality, including the scenarios people have mentioned where the parent is fielding five small children and mountains of shopping, it remains the position that the parent will have to get off if there really is no other alternative. Because that space is there for wheelchairs, full stop.

The "lifestyle" accusation is irrelevant whether it's directed against people with children or people with disabilities (or people with both). Accessibility isn't a prize for being "deserving". It's a necessity.

Mega Thanks for answering. I can agree with some point (the waiting in the cold one for ex), not convinced about others. Please let me re-iterate that I am not saying buggy users should have priority/equal rights to the w/c space, I am disagreeing by some arguments used to defend it, and don't understand why they are being brought up all the time.

The "lifestyle choice" for example: of course I am not saying that a baby resulted from rape should have access to the w/c spot, I was just using an extreme example to show that not all babies are "lifestyle choices".
What I meant to say is that it is human nature to reproduce, sometimes it isn't planned, sometimes you have several babies at once, etc: declaring it a lifestyle choice is not the reason why they should vacate the space IMO. They should vacate it - but for other reasons.

Re "taking a taxi", what I meant was quite often a poster will say that the w/c user could take a taxi and someone will be outraged saying "he might not have money, why should he have to spend it on a taxi when he wants to use public transport". I just wanted to point out that the parents with the buggy might also not have enough money for a taxi.
Yes, has other options and should leave w/c the space - but assuming he has money available to take a taxi is not more realistic than assuming the w/c user has.

Same for the "medical appointment": I just wanted to point out that everybody is usually out for something with a time constraint, why use it as an argument for w/c users?
The buggy user should leave the space because it is intended for w/c, not because the w/c user might have an appointment.