Infamy

You can always rationalise things by saying that the disabled woman in a wheelchair was a campaigner spoiling for a fight; or that her son would’ve been better helping his mother than videoing the bus driver; or that the driver had a bad back; or the gap between the kerb and low floor bus was bridgeable without the ramp.

It all happened when the 135 arrived in Manchester and a wheelchair users wished to alight. The driver offered no ramp. But, how did the passenger board?

But, in the end, if a driver refuses to use the bus’ ramp for a disabled passenger, these days he’s acting discriminatorily. End of. And so, in the media this week, we have another bus driver who’s found his 15 minutes of infamy, with the now expected polarised black-and-white views. In the public’s eye, he could be responsible for reinforcing an impression that bus drivers in general and First drivers in particular don’t care. First is investigating and it may yet be that the driver is largely innocent or partly so. Like previous cases (mother in Bristol and boy in football shirt), there may be more than meets the eye, though the video evidence here seems incontrovertible. The public will no doubt jump to conclusions and it now doesn’t really matter whether the driver was right, wrong or in the middle. The damage is done.

Yet, without taking sides, let’s consider areas the media ignore.

1. Disabled passengers are all too quick to criticise bus drivers when, in fact, the major impediment by far in getting a wheelchair from pavement to bus tends to be thoughtless motorists parked on or in bus stops or across dropped kerbs. Disabled people don’t tend to video such occurrences and neither do the media seem to champion them.


2. Manual ramps are not easy for drivers to use. They’re often dirty, stubborn, heavy and there’s a risk of trapping fingers. There must be a better way. Raised kerbs and kneeling buses were designed to do the job adequately (provided the bus can reach the kerb: see 1. above), leaving the ramp for use at other sites.


3. The deliberate videoing of a driver is a very threatening act. It’s little wonder he’s hiding. It’s clear that when someone gets in the way of a street photograph, there’s nothing they can do. Intentional videoing has a more sinister air about it and drivers can expect more of this, in the future, thanks to the mobile phone.


4. First indeed *does* care, according to its Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2010, published just last week. It states First regularly monitors its service (but doesn’t publish the UK Bus scores).


5. What First does publish is that 82 per cent of its “in-service” UK fleet “now has low floor access”. This is higher than many industry watchers might imagine and is a significant step forward for disabled people. It’s a good indicator for the future, too. Leon Daniels on this very blog has stated that First will meet its 2016/17 DDA obligations (though the 2010 figure may include older low floors without full DDA compliance).


6. Drivers have to tackle a bewildering array of wheelchair sizes, shapes and designs, some of which are unsuitable for the bus. They’re at the sharp end and training in this area is almost impossible. There needs to be more work in making suitable chairs easily identifiable. Disabled people have largely conquered the myths about carrying batteries, though.


7. Parents with buggies often block bays designed specifically for wheelchairs, making life difficult for disabled people and drivers alike.

But the real problem here is that no matter the issues a driver or the industry face, they can ill afford to ignore disabled people who now have the same rights as all passengers, where the bus technology exists. To refuse is discriminatory.

And you have to hand it to the videoing son who records the route number, bus number and states the time.

i See the YouTube video