My recent post "Is DDA killing the bus industry?" has proved to be by far the most popular and controversial piece on this blog and has provoked a heated debate, but has been misconstrued in some quarters and I have been branded anti-disabled as a result. That is not the point of the article at all and these detractors have missed my fundamental argument, so I feel this follow-up is necessary to clarify my position and the true nature of the issues under discussion.
Re-read the article and you will realise the real issue is that the government is using the Disability Discrimination Act as a 'one-size-fits-all' solution to many subtly different problems with a complete lack of any flexibility to allow exemptions or alternatives where it isn't appropriate. The word 'equality' seems to be widely misunderstood these days and has taken on a new meaning of applying the same rules to everyone. In fact, true equality is subtly but importantly different: it means providing appropriate adjustments for those who need them, but (and this is the critical part that is usually overlooked) without unduly interfering with conditions for those who don't require such adjustments.
To draw a parallel in another area of life, my university, like all such institutions, has a minority of its student population who have special needs for exams. Using the DDA-style meaning of equality, this would mean every exam room must be adapted to cater for these students' needs, even those that they never use. Taking a hypothetical dyslexic student who requires extra reading time and a computer to type his answers, this arrangement, although a form of equality, would actually benefit no one. The dyslexic student would be distracted by the other students writing while he is still reading and by them leaving the room while he is still working, and the other students would be distracted by the sound of his fingers on the keyboard and disadvantaged by having to wait in the exam room until he had finished if they weren't allowed to leave early. Instead, the policy is to put the dyslexic student in a separate room where he can have his computer and extra time without either distracting or being distracted by those who don't have such needs, which is a better situation for both parties and makes circumstances properly equal. That is true equality, giving those with special needs the extra facilities they need to achieve the same chance of success, but without affecting conditions for the majority who do not have these special requirements.
Taking the DDA-style argument to the extreme, it could be claimed that it is unfair that some people have to use wheelchairs and some don't, so to make things equal everyone should be forced to use a wheelchair whether they need it or not. That is a form of equality that even the most vocal campaigners would agree is totally inappropriate, yet the principle is exactly the same as imposing DDA requirements on all bus services regardless of how many disabled passengers they actually carry. Statistics suggest only 3% of regular bus travellers are registered disabled so why should the needs of this small minority be applied in 100% of cases and considered to be of greater importance than those of the other 97%? That is not really equality but preferential treatment of the minority, as equality measures should be proportional to the demand for them.
As a supporting example, the 'Dalesbus' tourist service network has recently been fully converted to low-floor DDA-compliant buses. While this seems to be a noble step for equality, in reality these services are aimed at tourists going walking in the Yorkshire Dales, a remote area with few other facilities for the disabled, so disabled passengers are actually extremely unlikely and the current able-bodied user group are being inconvenienced for the sake of users who the law says must be catered for even though they simply don't exist in this particular scenario. That is a very strange interpretation of the principle of equality, and one of those circumstances where an exemption should rightfully be made.
There is also a real concern that DDA is favouring certain types of disabilities over others. While bus travel may now be easier for wheelchair users, the design changes made to accommodate them have actually made things more challenging for those who are able to walk but with difficulty, as they now face a longer unaided walk past the wheelchair bay to find a seat. I have been accused of having an "I'm not disabled so screw those who are" attitude so I should point out my own circumstances: while I am not registered disabled I do consider myself disadvantaged by a vision problem relating to poor depth perception, and in the context of these difficulties DDA has made bus travel more challenging. I am now far more likely to hurt myself by bumping into or tripping over one of the many handrails and steps or ramps in the gangway than I was on the unobstructed flat floor of a non-DDA bus, so despite its best intentions DDA has not done anything to cater for the specific needs of those with circumstances such as mine and has instead actually made things worse.
In conclusion, DDA is not a panacea to solve all of the problems concerning the use of public transport by the disabled, yet is being applied universally as if it was. I am not prejudiced or anti-disabled in any way but I simply feel that the official solution is not necessarily the most appropriate and doesn't always benefit those it is intended to help. Like it or not, DDA is now an unavoidable fact of life in the bus industry, but a little more open-mindedness from those responsible wouldn't go amiss. To avoid the serious issue of operators cancelling vital services as they can't afford to upgrade to compliant vehicles, some form of financial aid should be made available, and there should be a formal process of applying for exemptions where non-compliance can be properly justified. The blanket imposition of legislation to benefit a minority in 100% of cases is a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of equality, and that is the key point my original article was attempting to make.
You keep saying you're not prejudiced or anti-disabled but you're still coming across that way.
ReplyDeleteI don't recognise your description of handrails, steps and ramps you can trip over - this sounds more like bad design on individual bus types than a reason to not increase accessibility. These handrails and lack of steps help more than the 3% who are registered as disabled and help those who are simply getting older and less mobile.
The one area where you may have a point is that it may have been fairer to operators to provide some assistance in upgrading buses - though there have been many years' notice that this is coming - 15 in most cases.
You're big on separate provision for disabled passengers - but who's paying for this? Recent years have seen big cuts in benefits designed to help people be more mobile and local authorities' transport departments.
You may also want to update your sources - DDA was replaced by the Equalities Act in 2010.
I don't know what else I can do to make my point clear then - I am not anti-disabled but anti-misuse of equality, and 100% DDA compliance is a massive misuse of equality. To truly achieve equality, the disabled must be given the facilities they need but (and this is key) without compromising the situation for the able-bodied who don't need these facilities, yet that is not what is happening and DDA compliance is being forced everywhere even when not appropriate. Yes, it is right that the disabled are given the ability to make better use of public transport, but it is not right that this should be at the expense of the able-bodied, which then moves away from equality to becoming preferential treatment of the minority and discrimination against the majority.
ReplyDeleteAs for who would pay for disabled transport provision, who is paying for DDA compliance? This is part of a much bigger problem that operational costs keep rising and these expensive changes are being required at the same time as constant funding cuts, so the resulting service cuts are inevitable. The only way these problems can really be solved is if the government completely changes its attitude towards buses, recognises their importance and starts pumping large sums of money in.
While your final point is technically correct, within the bus industry the relevant subsection of the Equalities Act applicable here is still generally known as DDA so I am following industry practice in using this name to avoid confusion with the wider provisions of the Equalities Act.
Perhaps one thing which would help your point would be to be cautious about confusing 'prevented from accessing' with 'being inconvenienced'.
ReplyDeleteWithout appropriate, accessible buses, physically disabled people are prevented from accessing bus services. No ifs, no buts - they simply cannot get on the bus, or cannot access a seat whilst on that bus.
However, if I make my bus accessible, I have removed the physical barriers that prevented someone from being able to access the service. Poorly executed adaptations may well inconvenience an able-bodied person (and are likely to inconvenience a disabled person too) - but no one has been discriminated against; no-one has been prevented from accessing the service.
This clearly isn't the solid gold dream of the Equality Act or the former DDA, but that says a lot more about the appetite for meaningful change in the transport industry (not just buses!) than it says about the legislators. The fact remains that the legislation is, and always has been, aimed at removing the 'artificial' barriers that have prevented people with disabilities from participating in everyday activities. The 3% figure you quote is a case in point - imagine how high that figure might be if buses had been accessible (nb - as an aside point, there is no such thing as a 'registered disabled' person. I don't say this to pick holes or dismiss your argument because neither of us are idiots, but the only 'register' is of people with severe visual impairments. The figure of 'disabled people' is often a combination of the number of people in receipt of some form of disability benefit, and the number of people who self-identify as disabled based on the definition included in the Equality Act, but there is no one official figure).
Where I agree with you is to say that the industry's response to the law has been poorly planned and poorly executed. 15 years is a long time to design, build and buy rolling stock which both meets the needs of disabled people AND does not unduly impact on the until-now relatively untroubled lives of able-bodied people. Sadly, either through inertia, laziness or (worse) resistance in the industry, the response has been far too little too late, resulting in precisely the poor compromises and/closures you identify. It isn't the Equality Act which needed to change - it was the people who ran the transport industry for the last 15 years, sticking their fingers in their ears and hoping it would all go away.
Hopefully, we'll look back in 10 years and marvel that we used to live in a world where a wheelchair user could ride the accessible-but-uncomfortable bus to her train station, get on a train at that station, but couldn't get off at that station on the return journey because there was no way of crossing the tracks to her last-minute replacement inaccessible bus on the otherside.
Apologies for the 'anon' response by the way - I came here from a car forum, but didn't want to use my real name. I like your blog.
DeleteYou make a good point regarding prevention versus inconvenience and I guess that is partly what I was trying to say rather clumsily but you have put it much more eloquently. I suppose the key question that needs to be asked (but isn't) before applying accessibility rules is: are there physical barriers that need to be removed or, as in the case of Dalesbus, are there other reasons why the disabled don't use the buses? No matter how accessible the bus is, if it doesn't go where the disabled want to go they still aren't going to use it - I can't imagine many wheelchair users going on a walking holiday in the Yorkshire Dales!
DeleteI wonder if the slow response over the last 15 years has been a case of avoidance by operators who felt (maybe rightly, maybe wrongly) DDA was unnecessary in their circumstances, and only now it is becoming compulsory they're starting to panic. Certainly the timing of the new rules is not good, coming alongside constant budget cuts and the growing problem of concessionary passes.
You're really not getting why you're coming across so offensively are you?
ReplyDeleteIt shouldn't be you that gets to imagine whether wheelchair uses want to go on a walking holiday in the Dales - historically it was very difficult, but more attractions are becoming accessible, and there are trails that are being made accessible - and then people will need to be able to get to them. It's a big project in a world that has only just woken up to the need to be accessible, but if you don't bother modifying transport because the attractions haven't yet been modified and don't bother modifying attractions because people in wheelchairs can't get there, you'll never do anything.
http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/visiting/outdooractivities/accessforall/accessible-yorkshiredales
And, as I mentioned before, well-designed DDA buses benefit a lot more than just people in wheelchairs.
I'm afraid that if the options are for able-bodied people to compromise slightly or disabled people to get nothing then it's fairer for able-bodied people to compromise slightly - but it's gone the other way for so many years.
You touch on other problems with government in this country not recognising the importance of buses and I'd go along with that - and that affects all of us (including those who don't use the buses facing more congestion).
Why do you feel it is 'offensive' to question the way equality is achieved? I have never questioned the disabled's right to travel or argued they should have fewer rights but am simply pointing out the way this has been achieved may not be the optimum solution. It shouldn't be a case of the able-bodied having to compromise to prevent the disabled getting nothing and there is another option with no compromise that I proposed in my original article - the disabled can have their own dedicated transport optimised for their own needs without needing to accommodate compromises for the able-bodied and vice versa. Isn't that a fairer application of equality that better serves both groups?
DeleteAs for attractions becoming accessible, I concede Dalesbus may not be the best example, but there is an exemption to the Equality Act where accessibility would destroy the attraction's essential character yet no equivalent exemption for buses so we could end up with the ridiculous situation, for example, of a bus service that exists only to serve an inaccessible castle having to be accessible.
In order for your dual-bus system to be genuinely equal, you'd need every non-accessible bus to be pursued around the countryside by an accessible bus.
DeleteA scenario of one (ahem) 'Special Bus' a day/hour isn't equality at all, when people without physical disabilities can board any bus they like at the appropriate time, but people with disabilities cannot.
Remember - this is about 'equality'. not 'giving disabled people a marginally better deal'.