Moghrey Mie Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 As with many other places on the island Port Erin bus stop / toilets has steps and no ramp. This morning I saw two elderly people who had walikng aids trying to negotiate the steps with some difficulty. How much longer do we have to wait before the Disability Bill is put into effect on the island? i think it was passed in Tynwald about 3 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I suspect that if this issue directly affected one of our elected representatives - or unelected in some cases then it would come into play pdq. As it stands they will progress at the usual snails place. Yet another area where the IOM has yet to enter the 20th century never mind the 21st. As AT has IIRC pointed out more than once, the population is an aging one - in many cases encouraged to come here and retire - and the problems will only grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spikydu Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 i think there have been plans submitted to extend these toilets or put ramps etc up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 i think there have been plans submitted to extend these toilets or put ramps etc up Action speaks louder than plans... In relation to the Bill: 3 years seems to be about the right time to write a report, consider it, defer a decision, agree to an enquiry to report back on the matter, set up a committee to review the findings of the enquiry, submit recommendations to the LegCo for an 'island-wide' perspective, ask the Council of Ministers to approve the submission, review objections to same, seek consultant inputs, annouce a consultation process, call an election, defer to next government to progress, go back to square 1... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted September 18, 2009 Author Share Posted September 18, 2009 i think there have been plans submitted to extend these toilets or put ramps etc up Action speaks louder than plans... In relation to the Bill: 3 years seems to be about the right time to write a report, consider it, defer a decision, agree to an enquiry to report back on the matter, set up a committee to review the findings of the enquiry, submit recommendations to the LegCo for an 'island-wide' perspective, ask the Council of Ministers to approve the submission, review objections to same, seek consultant inputs, annouce a consultation process, call an election, defer to next government to progress, go back to square 1... Perhaps disabled and older people need to 'organise' rather than accept this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Perhaps disabled and older people need to 'organise' rather than accept this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Bit of a shame a local builder couldn’t get permission from the local council and just install one pro bono. After all it’s not as if it would cost a great deal, but it would provide a great deal of very good publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Bit of a shame a local builder couldn’t get permission from the local council and just install one pro bono. After all it’s not as if it would cost a great deal, but it would provide a great deal of very good publicity. If it is the one I am thinking about then the planned ramp would have narrowed the footway in such a way that a mother with pram would have had to use the road to get past, the minimum footway rule is there for a reason, also on the one I am thinking of t hey refused to put the ramp inside the building because it would have reduced space. A ramp si very rarely refused so long as it does not narrow the footway behond a safe level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Bit of a shame a local builder couldn’t get permission from the local council and just install one pro bono. After all it’s not as if it would cost a great deal, but it would provide a great deal of very good publicity. If it is the one I am thinking about then the planned ramp would have narrowed the footway in such a way that a mother with pram would have had to use the road to get past, the minimum footway rule is there for a reason, also on the one I am thinking of t hey refused to put the ramp inside the building because it would have reduced space. A ramp si very rarely refused so long as it does not narrow the footway behond a safe level. Even a very steep ramp just to take away the right angle of a step works wonders for a wheelchair user. It’s always easy to think of reasons why a thing should not be done, but it’s very much better to come up with even a partial solution to a problem even if it is not a perfect solution for all cases. In the case of a ramp that would take up the whole pavement if the normal type of ramp was constructed, would it be so much beyond the whit of man to build a profile on the pavement that would serve to provide access to the shelter and simply be an undulation for the woman with a pram? It’s what’s been done in many places in and around Norwich where similar situations exist and done at low cost and with very good effect. It’s too easy to say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 What's the big problem? I used those loos a couple of times over the past weeks and am sure there is plenty of room to put a ramp INWARD into that large bus shelter near the loos, rather than extend buildings etc. In this case, 'Dissability Bill' sounds more like a cowboy architect/builder, if a costly solution is the only solution currently being proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Bit of a shame a local builder couldn’t get permission from the local council and just install one pro bono. After all it’s not as if it would cost a great deal, but it would provide a great deal of very good publicity. If it is the one I am thinking about then the planned ramp would have narrowed the footway in such a way that a mother with pram would have had to use the road to get past, the minimum footway rule is there for a reason, also on the one I am thinking of t hey refused to put the ramp inside the building because it would have reduced space. A ramp si very rarely refused so long as it does not narrow the footway behond a safe level. Even a very steep ramp just to take away the right angle of a step works wonders for a wheelchair user. It’s always easy to think of reasons why a thing should not be done, but it’s very much better to come up with even a partial solution to a problem even if it is not a perfect solution for all cases. In the case of a ramp that would take up the whole pavement if the normal type of ramp was constructed, would it be so much beyond the whit of man to build a profile on the pavement that would serve to provide access to the shelter and simply be an undulation for the woman with a pram? It’s what’s been done in many places in and around Norwich where similar situations exist and done at low cost and with very good effect. It’s too easy to say no. Try telling the builder or Architects that before they submit the plans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.