Super Cat Ferry - DDA issues

[ozbob]

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/InclusionMoves/status/1124174518983938049

[verbatim9]

Wait! So second level of vessels and vehicles without  lift access are not disability compliant. Good! Translink can sell those double deckers on the coast and replace them 3 door low floor articulated buses.

[ozbob]

I think double decker buses are not required to provide allocated wheel chair spaces on the upper deck as it is impractical.

The Super cats are in a different size threshold I am guessing and would need to be compliant based on the above from IM.  I don't think it would be that difficult to include a chair lift and provide a couple of allocated spaces on the upper deck.

[InclusionMoves]

Very difficult to compare vehicle types and modes. In essence the issue with the SuperCat is that there was designs available that are less discriminatory and they were not chosen. No thought was put into DDA whatsoever. Lots of things come into account when a discrimination case is brought up in this way, age of vehicle, cost to modify etc. So the supercat would IMHO fail as it is a new design and there were other ways to manage it. However this may not be the case with existing stock. But simplistically if a person with disability is disadvantaged compared to an able bodied person they have cause for a complaint.   

Wait! So second level of vessels and vehicles without  lift access are not disability compliant. Good! Translink can sell those double deckers on the coast and replace them 3 door low floor articulated buses.

[verbatim9]

Oh! Planes too with upper deck. So all these modes of transport with upper deck except for sea bearing vessels are exempt from the disability accessibility act?

Just saying isn't there a clause in the ACT implying intent of discrimination? I think these designs of upper and lower deck of transport modes haven't intended to discriminate against any one party. The reason for the upper deck is to provide more space for all travellers. Hence providing more space on the lower deck for people with mobility issues to be comfortable during their journey.

If the upper deck was used as entry and exit from the vessel and there was no access to the lower deck where there was shelter from the weather. I could understand that could be classed as discrimination. But not just wanting to go to the upper deck for the viewing purposes The lower deck at the front and back of the vessels also have a view right?

[James]

While IM, as a separate organisation to RBoT, is entitled to complain, I personally don't support this move.

What about the upper deck of Sydney trains - shouldn't they have lifts up the stairs for all their new rolling stock, so PWD can get the same view of the harbour as non-PWD?
The upper deck of buses? The upper deck of any new CityFerries purchased?

While complaints were perfectly warranted for the NGR design (going to the loo is quite important), I feel this comes across as a bit vexatious, especially if the cost of installing the equipment is prohibitive. PWD will still be able to use the service and access toilets etc.

[InclusionMoves]

DDA is a complaint based model of legislation so it relies on people seeing their rights have been infringed upon and making a complaint. Hence yes you can get all kinds of variations in design. I simply try and stop it from getting there (using experience you get to know what cases will succeed and which wont) and ensure things are as good as they can be before put into service.

Geoff

Oh! Planes too with upper deck. So all these modes of transport with upper deck except for sea bearing vessels are exempt from the disability accessibility act?

Just saying isn't there a clause in the ACT implying intent of discrimination? I think these designs of upper and lower deck of transport modes haven't intended to discriminate against any one party. The reason for the upper deck is to provide more space for all travellers. Hence providing more space on the lower deck for people with mobility issues to be comfortable during their journey.

If the upper deck was used as entry and exit from the vessel and there was no access to the lower deck where there was shelter from the weather. I could understand that could be classed as discrimination. But not just wanting to go to the upper deck for the viewing purposes The lower deck at the front and back of the vessels also have a view right?

[InclusionMoves]

All for differences of opinion (mine as I just explained happens to come from professional experience of what courts have determined to be justified and not) James but careful with the vexatious comments mate.

Geoff

While IM, as a separate organisation to RBoT, is entitled to complain, I personally don't support this move.

What about the upper deck of Sydney trains - shouldn't they have lifts up the stairs for all their new rolling stock, so PWD can get the same view of the harbour as non-PWD?
The upper deck of buses? The upper deck of any new CityFerries purchased?

While complaints were perfectly warranted for the NGR design (going to the loo is quite important), I feel this comes across as a bit vexatious, especially if the cost of installing the equipment is prohibitive. PWD will still be able to use the service and access toilets etc.

[ozbob]

Upper decks on buses and trains is simply impractical and as I understand there is an accommodation for this in the DDA legislation (Unjustifiable Hardship > https://www.humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12105 ).

With respect to the Super Cats, it appears that there was no real regard given to the opportunity for compliance judging from the IM media release despite some consultation (late) particularly that there were compliant designs available.