Memorandum by CTC (DAF 20)
DISABLED PERSONS ACCESS TO TRANSPORT
I write on behalf of CTC, the National Cyclists
Organisation, principally involved in dealing with issues concerning
bicycles and Public Transport. The CTC has some 70,000 members
and affiliates, and a number of members have contacted us over
their problems in using their bicycle as an aid to independent
mobility, both in combining the use of the bike, often a machine
specifically adapted for their use, with train, and occasionally
bus and taxi, to lead a productive life without the need to rely
heavily on others for local transport. In addition they also suffer
from poor design and maintenance of paths and other facilities
where access arrangements and surface conditions are difficult
even for an able bodied cyclist.
The independent mobility and range of independent
travel for many with visual, balance and motor malfunction can
be greatly enhanced by the use of a bicycle. With an able bodied
cyclist their range is reckoned to expand four-fold over walking,
but reports from those with motor and balance impairment, the
difference between a painful and difficult 50 metre limit for
walking, is dramatically extended to several miles cycling.
For the visually impaired the ability to cycle
allows a vastly improved range of local mobility, and some enjoy
the ability to travel long distances without dependence on a car
driver, or complex and costly use of taxis. Notable here are the
Simpson brothers who manage their business by combining their
use of a tandem with rail travel. They are fortunate in being
good negotiators, and innovative problem solvers, and recently
gave an excellent presentation on how they manage to overcome
the unnecessary bans on conveyance of their tandem, and the pettyness
which almost had them having to endure a night-time ride in bad
weather, when they were the only passengers travelling in the
carriage, and could stow the tandem within the available space.
Their work has shown that many trains can accommodate specialised
cycles but even operators who have agreed this is possible, are
not conceding this in their published conditions.
The Simpsons' experience reflects a key factor
in the way we gain this access for the disabled person using a
bicycle, or tricycle as a mobility aid. Much as Phil White realised
that a franchise is loaned and not owned, the tenure of any management
regime is but the blink of an eye in the history of the railway.
In hauling trains with locomotive units, the railway diaspora
has grown over 200 years, to reflect in the men and women who
view their vocation as working for The Railway. They thus generally
rise to the challenge of accommodating the passengers with mobility
problems, and often mask the inadequacies of the environment in
which they work by so doing.
Over recent months I have had feedback from
a number of CTC members, and non-members relating to their problems
in travelling where the bicycle forms a major plank in a disabled
persons mobility regime. The inability to travel with their machine
puts the people involved fully dependent on others to get around
with all the resulting problems and costs that arise in making
more taxi and accessible transport vehicles available, to a population
who would far rather do without.
One particular issue for those with poor sight
is that they may be able to ride in daylight, but in poor weather
and if caught out at nightfall, they have relied on the ability
to abandon their ride and catch a train. Whilst generally the
availability of trains at night is good, they would presumably
be entitled to use the space made available under the RVAR and
DDA if there is nowhere to else put the bike. Many of these riders
do, however, voice concern over the uncertainty of being able
to get on the train.
Some train modifications fly in the face of
commonsense, I travelled on a Scotrail Class 318 where the tip-up
bench seats were removed at the express instruction of SPT "to
offer more seating capacity at peak hours (barely one hour in
the morning and one hour in the evening, and the gain in seating—just
one additional seat on a three-coach train with under 300 seats
in total. I experienced this for the first time en route to the
RPC Scotland meeting in Largs around four years ago., and the
removal of the flexible area of tip-up seating with generous access
meant that two of the three wheelchairs plus four prams, and two
bicycles cluttered up the door vestibules and gangway on a train
barely 20% full (a photo can be supplied showing the low passenger
count but high congestion through absence of a suitable flexible
area of seating).
A similar regressive move which was poorly considered—given
that the impending introduction of DDA and RVAR was on the horizon
at the time, was the conversion of the van space on SWT's 24 Class
442 units and the removal in that process of access on to the
train which met the minimum width standard for wheelchairs. Instead
we got 30 closely packed seats with the former door opening blanked
off, and a promise of rectification of the problem when the units
are refurbished—in theory very soon but in practice no-one
is prepared to fund this. The provision of suitable access and
flexible space being a benefit to both the wheelchair user and
the cycle user, with the flexible space buffer allowing surge
loadings such as the three wheelchairs travelling on my Largs
train.
CTC policy recommendations on cycle carriage
work to ensure special cycles can be accommodated, if necessary
with pre booking to the extent of at least one tandem or tricycle
per train or multiple unit set, and the space for bicycles to
be 50% specially laid out for cycles and 50% flexible space graded
from a total of % of seated passengers (3% dedicated) for the
first 100 seats and extended at 4% (2% dedicated) for additional
seating capacity pro-rata.
There remains a further issue relating to DDA
in the convenience and level of service for the disabled cyclist
to use both the roads network, and specific cycle provision in
the form of cycle paths. Here the surface condition—a detail
where even able bodied cyclists can experience problems, will
be an even greater problem for the disabled cyclists, especially
for machines more sensitive to poor surfaces such as tricycles.
.
Parking and access to buildings may also present
challenges which the able bodied cyclist is expected to overcome
but exceed that which the disabled rider can handle. Changes of
level may often require better provision, as with any mobility
impaired user access detail, and doors will need to open or latch
to allow passage of a cyclist with their machine. Reports are
that even post October 2004, cycle facilities which exclude certain
classes of disabled cyclist were being built, although we have
yet to receive a confirmed case or complaint for a specific location.
The current position on introducing disabled
people to cycling is of a patchy coverage of independent schemes,
including Cycling for All, a coalition of cycle centres across
the UK, where special machines are available. The Cycling Project
for the North West (now the Cycling Project) produced a comprehensive
report on this for the Countryside Agency which provides substantial
information on opening up the opportunities for cycling as transport
for those with a disability.
Finally a detail which may be excluded by the
fact that these vehicles operate on services where appropriate
alternatives are available, and the passenger capacity is generally
three people of less, we wonder if cycle rickshaws might be required
to provide access to a range of disabilities, if called on to
do so. Obviously the operators should be able to carry those who
are ambulant, without an aid such as a wheelchair, but presumably
the expectation of wheelchair carrying rickshaws is not one which
falls within the scope of DDA enforcement.
Finally an observation, from travel and shopping
with both bicycles and a pram 800mm wide—which provided
a useful gauge as it would only go through gaps which met the
maximum standard for wheelchair access. On several trains which
have been retro-fitted for DDA access the sliding doors were slightly
under the 800mm requirement, which would skin the knuckles of
a self propelled chair user, and several arrangements were only
useable through being able to tip and twist the pram. Likewise
many shops which have suitable aisles and entrances, in theory
then proceed to block these with displays of products, by far
the largest offenders being greengrocer's stores where the wide
doorways are narrowed down to illegal widths as narrow as 400mm
which even able bodied customers have to struggle through when
laden with shopping bags.
Dave Holladay
CTC
November 2004
| 
