Memorandum by the Tandem Club (DAF 07)
DISABLED PEOPLE'S ACCESS TO TRANSPORT
The four thousand or so members of the Tandem
Club ride tandems for a wide variety of reasons. Many of them
ride a tandem because some disability precludes them from riding
a conventional bicycle. Disabilities suffered by tandem riders
include sight impairment, physical disability, balance difficulty,
mental problems to mention just a few.
In the days when the majority of trains had
luggage vans tandems could share the luggage van with wheelchairs
and other baggage.
With the demise of Luggage Vans and the implementation
of the Disability Discrimination Act space has been made available
in the seating area of all trains for wheelchairs, but no provision
has been made for tandems.
The report, "Bike and Rail, a good practice
guide" published jointly by the Department for Transport
and the Countryside Agency (CA175) recognises that large cycles
such as tandems and bikes with Rann trailers are used by disabled
cyclists and families and advocate that space be made available
on trains for them (see page 24). However, the stand taken by
the Strategic Rail Authority, stated in a letter to me earlier
this year, is that "Tandems are likely to exceed the size
limit of one metre in length specified in the rules for carrying
items on trains". Given that a conventional bicycle which,
typically has a length of 1.7 metres exceeds the "one metre
limit" but is carried on most trains, the implication of
the SRA statement is that a tandem is not even a cycle; it is
merely a piece of luggage!
The SRA's "Cycling Policy" document
published on 11 November 2004 makes only one reference to tandems:
"When buying new trains, or when carrying out rolling stock
refurbishment, train operators must consider whether dedicated
space for cycle carriage (including handcycles, tricycles and
tandems) and flexible space capable of accommodating cycles, separate
from designated wheelchair space, can be economically provided."
Which, in practice means that if a new design just happens to
be large enough for a tandem, then fine; but if it might need
extra expenditure, however small, then they need do nothing?
A tandem, for some, can justifiably be regarded
as a mobility aid, in that no other means of transport is available
to them. One such example is a couple, one of which is blind,
the other of which is unable to drive. They neither have access
to car nor conventional bicycle. Others where one rider can drive
would prefer to travel by train, possibly for environmental reasons,
and to have the same access to travel as other cyclists, yet,
because they have to ride a tandem cannot do so.
A tandem, which is typically less than 50% longer
than a conventional bicycle can be accommodated already on many
of the trains in service today. However, all except three of the
train operating companies have a total ban on tandems, and the
other three have severe restrictions. Reasons given are often
unsubstantiated and, when pressed resort to the SRA statement
quoted above.
When asked about placing a tandem in an unoccupied
wheelchair space which is often the best place for a tandem, TOCs
reply that this is not permitted despite it being large enough,
unoccupied and labelled for use by disabled passengers
Alternative options, given in both the DfT/CA
and SRA documents for combining cycle and rail travel are unavailable
for tandem riders. At up to £4,000 each it would be prohibitively
expensive to have a tandem at both ends of the train Journey;
cycle lockers are too small for tandems; "Sheffield"
stands are not secure enough for such a valuable machine; where
cycles are available for hire tandems are often not available;
tandems may be specially constructed or adapted to accommodate
the disabled rider, therefore even if a tandem is available for
hire, it may not be suitable.
The Disability Discrimination Act has made life
a lot easier and more comfortable for wheelchair users and to
a certain extent for visually impaired foot passengers, but has
failed to recognise the needs of other disabled travellers
This situation could be remedied in most cases
at little extra expense. Firstly by requiring Train Operating
Companies to carry tandems where space is available, regardless
of whether it has been designed specifically for a tandem or not.
Secondly to require the SRA to regard a tandem in the same way
as other cycles. Thirdly to require Train Operating Companies
to provide space for tandems when rolling stock is refurbished.
Fourthly, to remove the anomaly where a tandem is regarded as
neither a cycle nor a mobility aid where in many cases it is both.
Peter Simpson
Rail Liaison Officer
November 2004
| 
