Yes, it's a mess.Tangled Metal wrote: ↑8 Sep 2023, 1:25pm I'm on the Lancaster to Carlisle bone shaker via Barrow. Two carriages, air conditioning consists of tilt windows. Disabled area one end and cycles the other. Just seem two sets of families with prams go right to the other end of the train, get on them work their way through the train to leave their prams in the cycle area. Now there's a bike with no space in the bike area to secure his bike.
This makes me think that what do you do when there's poor provision for competing special interest groups on trains. I mean cyclists, disabled and parents with prams and babies.
Having been a parent I know how stressful it is with a pram and baby on a train that doesn't cater for you. I also know that as a cyclist I am also lowest priority which is why I got a folding bike.
They can't kick me off for having a folded Brompton. Well not without a good cause for complaint and possibly BTP lol!
Not serious about BTP as family have been rail workers on the trains so I know how much they are put upon by customers and things outside their control.
My question is should they now have disabled, cycles and prams areas on modern trains? Are they discriminating against let's be honest mostly mothers?
Also, can all train workers sort out the luggage in cycle bays? I've rarely seen the guard enforcing luggage into racks so cycles can get on. Mostly cyclists end up hovering in the doorways when the cycle area is full of luggage
I would be very careful grouping people with different characteristics together. Just because some people are identifiable as part of a "group" - cyclists (actually people who cycle), parents, or wheelchair users (hint, not all disabled people use a wheelchair) - does not mean those groups are comparable, in any sort of taxonomic way.
For one thing it starts to legitimise the notion of inherent "rights" based purely on membership of a particular group. This can be a dangerous path to go down. For instance the "right" of certain people not to feel offended because of their membership of a particular religious "group".
In comparing the "groups" it is clear they are not comparable in certain ways, or perhaps even at all, except that they can be identified as "groups". I don't suppose anybody chooses to be disabled. People do however choose to have children, and choose to cycle. Whether we encourage those choices, or make allowances for them, or make the choice less onerous, is a different matter. So membership of a "group" is different if it is a matter of choice. Hence my example above - many members of religious "groups" will talk as though they have no choice in the matter.
Language matters, as it guides thought. So could I gently guide you towards considering your use of language regarding disabled people - https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... disability