Transport for London are relatively good at tweeting when the lifts at Tube Stations are out of action, making them inaccessible to those of us who need step-free access. Someone noticed that those tweets are oddly consistent with shift changes...

After being duly poked, TfL admitted it's mostly not the lifts going out of action, it's that if there's no one available to man the tube station due to staff shortages, they declare the lift out of action. Their logic is that if the lift breaks down people might get stuck and they can get them out quicker if someone's there.

So effectively their solution to someone potentially getting stuck in the lift is to make sure everyone is definitely stuck at the lift doors instead. *headdesk*

(There's a definite undertone of 1960s 'disableds aren't safe to operate the lift on their own' thinking here)

I've commented for news stories before, but Air Traffic Regulator has been doing Half a Job by Ignoring Airlines may be the first time I've created one. I spotted that the Civil Aviation Authority has been monitoring airport performance against the EU legislation on air travel for disabled people, but pointed out to Disability News Service, who'd covered the airport report, that the legislation covers airlines as well as airports, and CAA aren't checking that. I may not be the CAA's favourite person at the moment. The good thing is it may actually encourage a change in policy.

And then I escalated to criticising IATA, the airline industry's trade association. They released a resolution on Friday, admitting they have a problem carrying disabled people (good), and a particular problem carrying wheelchairs (double good), and a set of proposals to deal with the issues. Which look great. Unless you happen to know the treaties governing air travel, in which case you can tell that what they really want is to stop any airline being compelled to offer full compensation for damaged or destroyed wheelchairs (the Montreal Convention currently limits compensation to £1500, which is completely inadequate). So I  tweeted out my analysis almost before they released the thing, which they've now promised to respond to, and in the meantime I've turned it into my first blog post in a couple of years:

An Analysis of the IATA Resolution on "Passengers With Disabilities"

BTW, if anyone hasn't heard, the US airlines have been required to release stats on damaged wheelchairs since the start of the year (should have started a couple of years ago, but Trump), and it turns out they're damaging or destroying over 30 a day. On the worst airline, there is a 1 in 5 chance of your chair being damaged on a round trip. And this is in the US, with enforcement of disability stuff by the FAA under the Air Carrier Access Act which far exceeds any kind of fine or sanction levied elsewhere, so the rest of the world is probably worse.

In other news I'm pissed off that I won't be at Worldcon. I had hoped to arrange a last minute trip during July, but family stuff made it impossible. I'm hoping I'll be slightly less pissed off once it's over, but that's not guaranteed.

Post Voting Complaint:

Dear X,

I understand that in addition to your position as Chief Executive of Medway Council you hold the position of Returning Officer for Medway. At the European Elections on 23-5-19 the polling station for Chatham Central Ward was the Scout Hut on Boundary Road. I am writing to draw your attention to the access to the hut for wheelchair users being so bad as to constitute a danger. And an obvious one at that.

Yes, the hut does have a wheelchair ramp, but the wheelchair ramp is actually the shallowest part of the approach from the road. While Polling Stations, as existing buildings, are not in general subject to the updated Building Regulations, Approved Document M: access to and use of buildings, Volume 2: Buildings other than Dwelling provides some useful guidance on minimal standards for access to public buildings. In particular, paragraph 1.7 notes that there should be ramped access for any gradient over 1 in 20 on the approach to the building. Paragraph 1.13 suggests an overall gradient for the approach of no more than 1 in 60, or of 1 in 20 with level landings for every 500mm rise.

I would estimate the gradient between the road and the Scout Hut at 1 in 5 or greater, and the unramped rise at somewhere between 1200 and 1500mm. Beyond failing to come even close to the recommendations of the Building Regulations, this gradient is clearly well in excess of any appropriate slope for wheelchair users as wheelchairs are in general unstable and at immediate risk of tipping backwards at any gradient over 1 in 10.

Additionally paragraph 1.14 of Part M specifies the need for on-site parking for wheelchair users to allow them to drive to the location and then have space to access their wheelchair. The Scout Hut on Boundary Road offers no off-road parking and ‘limited on-road parking’ was notified on my polling card. When I went to vote there were no parking spaces visible in either direction for a considerable distance, all parking spots being taken by residents. As I was the only person attempting to vote during the whole of my visit, there was no possibility that I had simply arrived at a busy time. As a wheelchair user who needs to be able to park in close proximity to my polling station, I was left with no legal option for parking if I wished to vote. I consider this a completely unacceptable imposition and further evidence that the site is unsuitable.

Having parked, I wheeled to the entrance of the site. Someone standing there, probably a party teller, immediately offered to push me up the slope, demonstrating that the inappropriate nature of the entrance was readily visible even to non-wheelchair users. I told them that I preferred to attempt the slope myself. However, it was immediately apparent that not only was the slope so steep that my being able to push myself up it was questionable, but that, even lying with torso across thighs to lower my centre of gravity, the slope was such that I was in immediate danger of falling backwards in my wheelchair either onto the concrete slope, or out into the road (I would additionally note here that my chair is set up to be more stable than most active user wheelchairs). At this point the Presiding Officer came running out and pushed me into the building, while I expressed my opinion of the suitability of the venue in a forceful manner. I believe the term I used was ‘utterly ridiculous’. She noted that she would report the issue.

I then voted and was offered assistance to leave. I told the staff that I would probably be all right going downslope. This was overoptimistic. When I attempted to brake the slope was so steep that my wheels started to slip on the concrete. I was forced to release braking pressure (manual wheelchair users brake using their palms) in order to regain control of the chair and barely avoided an uncontrolled emergence onto the road. This was on a completely dry slope, and with good tyres on my chair. The risk of a wheelchair user being unable to control their chair on the slope in wet weather and potentially being forced onto the road in front of traffic is clear.

Incomprehensibly, my polling card displays the Wheelchair Symbol next to the map, implying the Polling Station location is accessible. This is clearly not the case.

I recognise that there may be difficulty in finding appropriate Polling Stations, particularly when elections occur at short notice. However Polling Stations must be accessible to all voters and no voter should be denied their vote for reason of disability. Nor should they be exposed to danger while casting their vote. Access to the Scout Hut at Boundary Road for wheelchair users is so clearly dangerous that I feel fully justified in saying it must never be used as a Polling Station again.

Yours,

David Gillon
 

"Very successful Artisan/Collectables MARKET on Saturday" says the Rochester City Centre Forum (apparently a joint effort of the council and the High Street traders) on their FB page.

To which I replied: "Very successful, except for those of us who are wheelchair users and find ourselves barred from the footpaths. What you can't see in that top picture is that it is the exit from the disabled car park and the pavement is blocked in both directions, as is the kerb-cut directly in front of that stall - to use the kerb cut safely a wheelchair user needs to start/finish at least as far back as the orange box visible in the picture. In fact it was significantly worse than that when I was in Rochester about 4PM on Saturday as the stall had boxes down the side that meant there wasn't even space to squeeze a narrow wheelchair like mine between the lamppost and stall, taking the unsafe approach down the side of the kerb-cut. For anyone in a wider chair or a powerchair, forget it. Remember, the space in front of the stalls is going to be occupied by customers, so there is even less space available. I ended up having to hop off the kerb, which nearly threw me out of my chair and didn't even try to use the entrance on my return, despite that being my normal route back to the car.

The steep camber of Rochester High Street makes it difficult to wheelie from road to pavement without risking tipping - I can't do it at all if I have the anti-tip protection deployed on my chair - and many people have chairs, powerchairs or scooters which are completely incapable of kerb-climbing. The reality of the choice of stalls which block the full width of the pavement is that they completely block wheelchair users from accessing the shops between them, or even safely exiting the disabled car park.

Rochester High Street is an obstacle course to wheelchair users at the best of times due to paving, camber, and cobbles, but these stalls leave it completely inaccessible. I raised the issue with the Council after their previous appearance, and was assured my concerns, particularly with respect to the kerb cut would be passed on, but this time things were even worse. To use the space in front of the disabled car park, blocking wheelchair users from exiting, really shows a careless contempt for the needs and rights of disabled people."

I had a reply within about an hour from the chair of the Forum. He did promise to do something about the kerb-cuts, but did not impress by first launching into a rant about cyclists on the pedestrianised High Street (why yes, I did know it's pedestrianised on Saturday, that's beside the point, the road doesn't help if I can't get from road to footpath) and then protesting "It's only 12 times a year," and "it's for the community". Do I not count as a member of the community?

Grrrrrrr!!!!

Presiding officer at polling station: "You're the one who raised the issue last year with the double doors being too narrow for wheelchairs if only one is open, aren't you? I did raise it, but now someone's stuck a sign on the other one saying 'do not open this door'".

I suspect the school is generally fairly clueless on access issues. There are two kerb cuts onto the paving in front of the doors, one is half-blocked by a large planter at the top....

The counter clerk at Chatham Station managed to successfully book the wheelchair space for my journey up to Lancaster on Friday and without even commenting I wasn't using my wheelchair right then.

It's sad this is commentworthy, but he's arsed it up the last twice, so this is a distinct improvement.

I was still paranoid enough to ring Virgin trains and confirm that B63 was indeed the wheelchair space on the 12:30 from Euston, because it would be the middle of a carriage on the East Coast Main Line, but apparently it really is.

I can't help thinking going back to Lancaster for my college reunion is tempting fate. When I went as a student it started raining as we crossed the Durham/Lancashire border and stopped just after I graduated....