Menu
 
North East Buses Local Bus Scene Operations, Management & Infrastructure PSV Accessibility Regulations (DDA Regulations) - at a glance

PSV Accessibility Regulations (DDA Regulations) - at a glance

PSV Accessibility Regulations (DDA Regulations) - at a glance

 
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
 
Pages (11): Previous 19 10 11 Next
Andreos1



14,155
16 Apr 2016, 1:33 pm #181
5362 has issues with its front blinds.
The 4 is more or less centre, with the rest of the display condensed in to the remaining section.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
16 Apr 2016, 1:33 pm #181

5362 has issues with its front blinds.
The 4 is more or less centre, with the rest of the display condensed in to the remaining section.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Dan

Site Administrator

18,100
16 Apr 2016, 1:36 pm #182
(16 Apr 2016, 1:33 pm)Andreos1 5362 has issues with its front blinds.
The 4 is more or less centre, with the rest of the display condensed in to the remaining section.

This issue is caused by drivers not switching off the bus correctly. When the master switch is turned off and the bus is started up correctly, the display will revert back to how it usually looks.

See attached photo - Davie and DanPicken recently spotted 5363 with the same issue, but it was fine the following morning in the depot, after the master switch had been turned off.

It's happened since the vehicles were new to Washington, apparently, but just seems to have cropped up more often recently.

.jpg
12970151_936389989808181_126808930_o.jpg
Size: 435.74 KB / Downloads: 37
Dan
16 Apr 2016, 1:36 pm #182

(16 Apr 2016, 1:33 pm)Andreos1 5362 has issues with its front blinds.
The 4 is more or less centre, with the rest of the display condensed in to the remaining section.

This issue is caused by drivers not switching off the bus correctly. When the master switch is turned off and the bus is started up correctly, the display will revert back to how it usually looks.

See attached photo - Davie and DanPicken recently spotted 5363 with the same issue, but it was fine the following morning in the depot, after the master switch had been turned off.

It's happened since the vehicles were new to Washington, apparently, but just seems to have cropped up more often recently.

.jpg
12970151_936389989808181_126808930_o.jpg
Size: 435.74 KB / Downloads: 37

17 Apr 2016, 10:35 am #183
So does this mean that 3814-3832 will be retired by January 1st as I noticed they have a step entrance when I was on 3822 yesterday on the V7


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk
TEN 6083
17 Apr 2016, 10:35 am #183

So does this mean that 3814-3832 will be retired by January 1st as I noticed they have a step entrance when I was on 3822 yesterday on the V7


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk

S813 FVK



6,030
17 Apr 2016, 10:39 am #184
(17 Apr 2016, 10:35 am)TEN 6083 So does this mean that 3814-3832 will be retired by January 1st as I noticed they have a step entrance when I was on 3822 yesterday on the V7


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk

It does indeed. Unless they are planned to be used on services which aren't registered (ie can't take cash fares) - more common for independent operators.
S813 FVK
17 Apr 2016, 10:39 am #184

(17 Apr 2016, 10:35 am)TEN 6083 So does this mean that 3814-3832 will be retired by January 1st as I noticed they have a step entrance when I was on 3822 yesterday on the V7


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk

It does indeed. Unless they are planned to be used on services which aren't registered (ie can't take cash fares) - more common for independent operators.

Andreos1



14,155
15 Jun 2016, 5:24 am #185
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36534907

Wheelchair case taken to high court.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
15 Jun 2016, 5:24 am #185

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36534907

Wheelchair case taken to high court.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Dan

Site Administrator

18,100
15 Jun 2016, 5:27 am #186
(15 Jun 2016, 5:24 am)Andreos1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36534907

Wheelchair case taken to high court.

Surprised this is still ongoing. I remember reading about it at the time.
Dan
15 Jun 2016, 5:27 am #186

(15 Jun 2016, 5:24 am)Andreos1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36534907

Wheelchair case taken to high court.

Surprised this is still ongoing. I remember reading about it at the time.

Adrian



9,566
15 Jun 2016, 6:25 am #187
(15 Jun 2016, 5:27 am)Dan Surprised this is still ongoing. I remember reading about it at the time.

This should be the end of it either way. The actual judgement was ages ago, but it was overturned at the High Court on appeal.

It's anyone's guess what the Supreme Court will decide. I personally think the claimant will win his case, so it'd be interesting to see how that's implemented in practice.

Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook
Adrian
15 Jun 2016, 6:25 am #187

(15 Jun 2016, 5:27 am)Dan Surprised this is still ongoing. I remember reading about it at the time.

This should be the end of it either way. The actual judgement was ages ago, but it was overturned at the High Court on appeal.

It's anyone's guess what the Supreme Court will decide. I personally think the claimant will win his case, so it'd be interesting to see how that's implemented in practice.


Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook

Andreos1



14,155
18 Jan 2017, 8:39 pm #188
(15 Jun 2016, 6:25 am)Adrian This should be the end of it either way. The actual judgement was ages ago, but it was overturned at the High Court on appeal.

It's anyone's guess what the Supreme Court will decide. I personally think the claimant will win his case, so it'd be interesting to see how that's implemented in practice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38663322


Here is the outcome.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
18 Jan 2017, 8:39 pm #188

(15 Jun 2016, 6:25 am)Adrian This should be the end of it either way. The actual judgement was ages ago, but it was overturned at the High Court on appeal.

It's anyone's guess what the Supreme Court will decide. I personally think the claimant will win his case, so it'd be interesting to see how that's implemented in practice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38663322


Here is the outcome.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1



14,155
30 Jan 2017, 6:42 pm #189
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-38795688

Incident in Wakefield just days after ruling.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
30 Jan 2017, 6:42 pm #189

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-38795688

Incident in Wakefield just days after ruling.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1



14,155
10 Mar 2018, 10:16 am #190
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43330690

Further changes ahead for wheelchair users following supreme court ruling.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
10 Mar 2018, 10:16 am #190

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43330690

Further changes ahead for wheelchair users following supreme court ruling.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Adrian



9,566
26 Dec 2019, 11:01 pm #191
So PSVAR grows to capture all* coaches from 1st Jan 2020... I wonder if this will apply to the wealth of school contracts in County Durham, many of them that probably aren't compliant at present, or whether an exemption has been applied?

Be interesting to see what's running about in the first week of Jan.

Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook
Adrian
26 Dec 2019, 11:01 pm #191

So PSVAR grows to capture all* coaches from 1st Jan 2020... I wonder if this will apply to the wealth of school contracts in County Durham, many of them that probably aren't compliant at present, or whether an exemption has been applied?

Be interesting to see what's running about in the first week of Jan.


Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook

Dan

Site Administrator

18,100
27 Dec 2019, 6:53 am #192
(26 Dec 2019, 11:01 pm)Adrian So PSVAR grows to capture all* coaches from 1st Jan 2020... I wonder if this will apply to the wealth of school contracts in County Durham, many of them that probably aren't compliant at present, or whether an exemption has been applied?

Be interesting to see what's running about in the first week of Jan.


They’ve all/mostly gone out to tender, from operators who weren’t able to source PSVAR compliant vehicles by 1 January 2020, and will see a number of very small operators closing their doors.

A lot of the Durham County Council school contracts are permitting the use of single decks opposed to coaches, which is how Go North East have been quite fortunate in their disposal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dan
27 Dec 2019, 6:53 am #192

(26 Dec 2019, 11:01 pm)Adrian So PSVAR grows to capture all* coaches from 1st Jan 2020... I wonder if this will apply to the wealth of school contracts in County Durham, many of them that probably aren't compliant at present, or whether an exemption has been applied?

Be interesting to see what's running about in the first week of Jan.


They’ve all/mostly gone out to tender, from operators who weren’t able to source PSVAR compliant vehicles by 1 January 2020, and will see a number of very small operators closing their doors.

A lot of the Durham County Council school contracts are permitting the use of single decks opposed to coaches, which is how Go North East have been quite fortunate in their disposal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

27 Dec 2019, 1:33 pm #193
(27 Dec 2019, 6:53 am)Dan They’ve all/mostly gone out to tender, from operators who weren’t able to source PSVAR compliant vehicles by 1 January 2020, and will see a number of very small operators closing their doors.

A lot of the Durham County Council school contracts are permitting the use of single decks opposed to coaches, which is how Go North East have been quite fortunate in their disposal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is there any reason why there is a preference for coaches over single decks?
When I was in school I would have preferred to go on a single deck than a coach, mainly because I'm too lazy to go up the stairs!

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
streetdeckfan
27 Dec 2019, 1:33 pm #193

(27 Dec 2019, 6:53 am)Dan They’ve all/mostly gone out to tender, from operators who weren’t able to source PSVAR compliant vehicles by 1 January 2020, and will see a number of very small operators closing their doors.

A lot of the Durham County Council school contracts are permitting the use of single decks opposed to coaches, which is how Go North East have been quite fortunate in their disposal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is there any reason why there is a preference for coaches over single decks?
When I was in school I would have preferred to go on a single deck than a coach, mainly because I'm too lazy to go up the stairs!

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

BusLoverMum



5,276
28 Dec 2019, 10:18 pm #194
(26 Dec 2019, 11:01 pm)Adrian So PSVAR grows to capture all* coaches from 1st Jan 2020... I wonder if this will apply to the wealth of school contracts in County Durham, many of them that probably aren't compliant at present, or whether an exemption has been applied?

Be interesting to see what's running about in the first week of Jan.

(27 Dec 2019, 6:53 am)Dan They’ve all/mostly gone out to tender, from operators who weren’t able to source PSVAR compliant vehicles by 1 January 2020, and will see a number of very small operators closing their doors.

A lot of the Durham County Council school contracts are permitting the use of single decks opposed to coaches, which is how Go North East have been quite fortunate in their disposal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Teesside has more of a problem with school contracts using coaches, apparently. Parents whose kids pay for their transport places have been told they are likely to have to find alternative transport. https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess...g-17393145
BusLoverMum
28 Dec 2019, 10:18 pm #194

(26 Dec 2019, 11:01 pm)Adrian So PSVAR grows to capture all* coaches from 1st Jan 2020... I wonder if this will apply to the wealth of school contracts in County Durham, many of them that probably aren't compliant at present, or whether an exemption has been applied?

Be interesting to see what's running about in the first week of Jan.

(27 Dec 2019, 6:53 am)Dan They’ve all/mostly gone out to tender, from operators who weren’t able to source PSVAR compliant vehicles by 1 January 2020, and will see a number of very small operators closing their doors.

A lot of the Durham County Council school contracts are permitting the use of single decks opposed to coaches, which is how Go North East have been quite fortunate in their disposal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Teesside has more of a problem with school contracts using coaches, apparently. Parents whose kids pay for their transport places have been told they are likely to have to find alternative transport. https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess...g-17393145

28 Dec 2019, 11:15 pm #195
(28 Dec 2019, 10:18 pm)BusLoverMum Teesside has more of a problem with school contracts using coaches, apparently. Parents whose kids pay for their transport places have been told they are likely to have to find alternative transport. https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess...g-17393145

How long have they known about this change? Certainly longer than the couple weeks notice that they're giving passengers! They would have known about this change when the the tender went out so why would the council even give them the contract if they would be non-compliant?

I struggle to feel sympathy for the smaller operators, at the end of the day they've had years to plan ahead to make sure everything is compliant, and if they haven't it's their own fault. You can argue that they don't have the money to replace/modify vehicles like the big operators do, well then they shouldn't be in the business then
streetdeckfan
28 Dec 2019, 11:15 pm #195

(28 Dec 2019, 10:18 pm)BusLoverMum Teesside has more of a problem with school contracts using coaches, apparently. Parents whose kids pay for their transport places have been told they are likely to have to find alternative transport. https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess...g-17393145

How long have they known about this change? Certainly longer than the couple weeks notice that they're giving passengers! They would have known about this change when the the tender went out so why would the council even give them the contract if they would be non-compliant?

I struggle to feel sympathy for the smaller operators, at the end of the day they've had years to plan ahead to make sure everything is compliant, and if they haven't it's their own fault. You can argue that they don't have the money to replace/modify vehicles like the big operators do, well then they shouldn't be in the business then

BusLoverMum



5,276
29 Dec 2019, 12:30 am #196
(28 Dec 2019, 11:15 pm)streetdeckfan How long have they known about this change? Certainly longer than the couple weeks notice that they're giving passengers! They would have known about this change when the the tender went out so why would the council even give them the contract if they would be non-compliant?

I struggle to feel sympathy for the smaller operators, at the end of the day they've had years to plan ahead to make sure everything is compliant, and if they haven't it's their own fault. You can argue that they don't have the money to replace/modify vehicles like the big operators do, well then they shouldn't be in the business then
That was my thought, too, tbh. Hardly fair on kids who now need to be out of the door at silly o clock.
BusLoverMum
29 Dec 2019, 12:30 am #196

(28 Dec 2019, 11:15 pm)streetdeckfan How long have they known about this change? Certainly longer than the couple weeks notice that they're giving passengers! They would have known about this change when the the tender went out so why would the council even give them the contract if they would be non-compliant?

I struggle to feel sympathy for the smaller operators, at the end of the day they've had years to plan ahead to make sure everything is compliant, and if they haven't it's their own fault. You can argue that they don't have the money to replace/modify vehicles like the big operators do, well then they shouldn't be in the business then
That was my thought, too, tbh. Hardly fair on kids who now need to be out of the door at silly o clock.

29 Dec 2019, 1:32 am #197
(29 Dec 2019, 12:30 am)BusLoverMum That was my thought, too, tbh. Hardly fair on kids who now need to be out of the door at silly o clock.

From what I read, it looks like the council are pretending they didn't know the changes would apply to school bus services. I don't know why they would think it wouldn't!
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but last time I checked disabled children weren't magically healed once they put their uniform on!

I was always the type of person that would take a public bus over a scholars anyway, I have very fond memories of the few times I used the scholars, mostly the smell of burning hair, and falling down the stairs because someone thought it would be hilarious spill some lube all over them!
streetdeckfan
29 Dec 2019, 1:32 am #197

(29 Dec 2019, 12:30 am)BusLoverMum That was my thought, too, tbh. Hardly fair on kids who now need to be out of the door at silly o clock.

From what I read, it looks like the council are pretending they didn't know the changes would apply to school bus services. I don't know why they would think it wouldn't!
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but last time I checked disabled children weren't magically healed once they put their uniform on!

I was always the type of person that would take a public bus over a scholars anyway, I have very fond memories of the few times I used the scholars, mostly the smell of burning hair, and falling down the stairs because someone thought it would be hilarious spill some lube all over them!

Andreos1



14,155
29 Dec 2019, 11:26 am #198
(28 Dec 2019, 11:15 pm)streetdeckfan How long have they known about this change? Certainly longer than the couple weeks notice that they're giving passengers! They would have known about this change when the the tender went out so why would the council even give them the contract if they would be non-compliant?

I struggle to feel sympathy for the smaller operators, at the end of the day they've had years to plan ahead to make sure everything is compliant, and if they haven't it's their own fault. You can argue that they don't have the money to replace/modify vehicles like the big operators do, well then they shouldn't be in the business then

To be fair, there could be a multitude of issues or reasons behind the decision. 
Just a couple I can think of off the top of my head: short-term cashlow, the mechanical failure of a PX (inbound or outbound), a deal falling through...
Sure we could come up with a fair few more if we all put our heads together.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
29 Dec 2019, 11:26 am #198

(28 Dec 2019, 11:15 pm)streetdeckfan How long have they known about this change? Certainly longer than the couple weeks notice that they're giving passengers! They would have known about this change when the the tender went out so why would the council even give them the contract if they would be non-compliant?

I struggle to feel sympathy for the smaller operators, at the end of the day they've had years to plan ahead to make sure everything is compliant, and if they haven't it's their own fault. You can argue that they don't have the money to replace/modify vehicles like the big operators do, well then they shouldn't be in the business then

To be fair, there could be a multitude of issues or reasons behind the decision. 
Just a couple I can think of off the top of my head: short-term cashlow, the mechanical failure of a PX (inbound or outbound), a deal falling through...
Sure we could come up with a fair few more if we all put our heads together.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Dan

Site Administrator

18,100
29 Dec 2019, 11:41 am #199
(29 Dec 2019, 1:32 am)streetdeckfan From what I read, it looks like the council are pretending they didn't know the changes would apply to school bus services. I don't know why they would think it wouldn't!
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but last time I checked disabled children weren't magically healed once they put their uniform on!

To be fair, you didn't have to look far in the trade press, to see this matter being debated, in the months leading up to today.

Initial guidance from the DfT was open to interpretation, which muddied the waters. It was originally suggested that school services which do not take any fares (and hence are not registered bus services that claim BSOG etc), and are instead paid for by an alternate means (either by a local authority or directly from a school), did not have to conform to PSVAR.

If you, as a small business with relatively low profits, did not have to go to the expense of replacing your fleet with newer vehicles which do conform to PSVAR, why would you? Many of these small operators just about cover their costs and provide a small number of people with a wage, and it's Private Hires (school trips to the baths etc) that contribute towards the greater profits of the business.


Some trade press articles to have a read of:
https://cbwmagazine.com/dft-announce-a-t...-services/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/mi...ation-law/
https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articl...ules-apply
Dan
29 Dec 2019, 11:41 am #199

(29 Dec 2019, 1:32 am)streetdeckfan From what I read, it looks like the council are pretending they didn't know the changes would apply to school bus services. I don't know why they would think it wouldn't!
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but last time I checked disabled children weren't magically healed once they put their uniform on!

To be fair, you didn't have to look far in the trade press, to see this matter being debated, in the months leading up to today.

Initial guidance from the DfT was open to interpretation, which muddied the waters. It was originally suggested that school services which do not take any fares (and hence are not registered bus services that claim BSOG etc), and are instead paid for by an alternate means (either by a local authority or directly from a school), did not have to conform to PSVAR.

If you, as a small business with relatively low profits, did not have to go to the expense of replacing your fleet with newer vehicles which do conform to PSVAR, why would you? Many of these small operators just about cover their costs and provide a small number of people with a wage, and it's Private Hires (school trips to the baths etc) that contribute towards the greater profits of the business.


Some trade press articles to have a read of:
https://cbwmagazine.com/dft-announce-a-t...-services/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/mi...ation-law/
https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articl...ules-apply

29 Dec 2019, 1:56 pm #200
(29 Dec 2019, 11:41 am)Dan To be fair, you didn't have to look far in the trade press, to see this matter being debated, in the months leading up to today.

Initial guidance from the DfT was open to interpretation, which muddied the waters. It was originally suggested that school services which do not take any fares (and hence are not registered bus services that claim BSOG etc), and are instead paid for by an alternate means (either by a local authority or directly from a school), did not have to conform to PSVAR.

If you, as a small business with relatively low profits, did not have to go to the expense of replacing your fleet with newer vehicles which do conform to PSVAR, why would you? Many of these small operators just about cover their costs and provide a small number of people with a wage, and it's Private Hires (school trips to the baths etc) that contribute towards the greater profits of the business.


Some trade press articles to have a read of:
https://cbwmagazine.com/dft-announce-a-t...-services/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/mi...ation-law/
https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articl...ules-apply

I suppose that's the issue with the government, some of the PSVAR was incredibly detailed in what operators had to do to be compliant, yet some had nothing to it at all!

I personally don't see how anyone could have interpreted it otherwise, but I suppose if you're coming from the position of having to pay for the changes, that may sway your view of it.

I suppose with private hire, it's easier for the operator to plan around any passengers with disabilities because they know in advance who will be travelling, but I remember when I was in school, we had someone in a wheelchair in our class, and on school trips they had to travel in a separate vehicle to the rest of us. While it doesn't leave anyone with disabilities stranded, it's certainly not nice for them as I'd imagine they'd feel excluded
streetdeckfan
29 Dec 2019, 1:56 pm #200

(29 Dec 2019, 11:41 am)Dan To be fair, you didn't have to look far in the trade press, to see this matter being debated, in the months leading up to today.

Initial guidance from the DfT was open to interpretation, which muddied the waters. It was originally suggested that school services which do not take any fares (and hence are not registered bus services that claim BSOG etc), and are instead paid for by an alternate means (either by a local authority or directly from a school), did not have to conform to PSVAR.

If you, as a small business with relatively low profits, did not have to go to the expense of replacing your fleet with newer vehicles which do conform to PSVAR, why would you? Many of these small operators just about cover their costs and provide a small number of people with a wage, and it's Private Hires (school trips to the baths etc) that contribute towards the greater profits of the business.


Some trade press articles to have a read of:
https://cbwmagazine.com/dft-announce-a-t...-services/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/mi...ation-law/
https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articl...ules-apply

I suppose that's the issue with the government, some of the PSVAR was incredibly detailed in what operators had to do to be compliant, yet some had nothing to it at all!

I personally don't see how anyone could have interpreted it otherwise, but I suppose if you're coming from the position of having to pay for the changes, that may sway your view of it.

I suppose with private hire, it's easier for the operator to plan around any passengers with disabilities because they know in advance who will be travelling, but I remember when I was in school, we had someone in a wheelchair in our class, and on school trips they had to travel in a separate vehicle to the rest of us. While it doesn't leave anyone with disabilities stranded, it's certainly not nice for them as I'd imagine they'd feel excluded

Pages (11): Previous 19 10 11 Next
 
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average