Skip to main content

Partial victory for wheelchair user over bus access

A wheelchair user has won a partial victory at the UK Supreme Court over priority use of wheelchair spaces on buses. The case arose when wheelchair user Doug Paulley attempted to board a bus operated by FirstGroup, which carried a sign asking passengers occupying the wheelchair space to “please give up this space if needed for a wheelchair user”. The wheelchair space was occupied by a woman with a baby in a pushchair who refused to move when the driver asked her to. The driver took no further action and
January 18, 2017 Read time: 2 mins
A wheelchair user has won a partial victory at the UK Supreme Court over priority use of wheelchair spaces on buses. The case arose when wheelchair user Doug Paulley attempted to board a bus operated by FirstGroup, which carried a sign asking passengers occupying the wheelchair space to “please give up this space if needed for a wheelchair user”.

The wheelchair space was occupied by a woman with a baby in a pushchair who refused to move when the driver asked her to. The driver took no further action and Paulley was unable to board the bus. He sued the FirstGroup for unlawful discrimination, arguing that its "requesting, not requiring" policy was discriminatory.

The Supreme Court allowed Mr Paulley’s appeal, but only to a limited extent.  It ruled that FirstGroup’s policy of requiring a driver to simply request a non-wheelchair user to vacate a wheelchair space without taking any further steps was unjustified. It said the driver should consider further steps to pressurise the non-wheelchair user to vacate the space, depending on the circumstances.

Following the judgment, managing director of First Bus, Giles Fearnley said the group welcomed the court’s decision. He continued, “It has ruled that bus drivers are not required to remove customers from vehicles, which was a key issue for us. This provides welcome clarity for bus operators, our drivers and our customers.”

He went on to say that the Group looks forward to receiving further clarity around the decision and will implement any necessary changes when the Court publishes its Order.

“We recognise how important it is that bus services are accessible for all customers and we lead the industry in improving bus travel for customers with all disabilities.  We are therefore also pleased that the Supreme Court found that we did not discriminate against Mr Paulley.”
UTC

Related Content

  • March 25, 2020
    Tech giants could herald loss of MaaS policy control
    With tech giants targeting the transport sector, could local authorities lose control of their means of delivering policy?
  • January 23, 2012
    Speed reduction measures - carrot or stick?
    In Sweden, marketing company DDB Stockholm employed a mock speed camera as part of a promotional campaign for automotive manufacturer Volkswagen. The result was worldwide online interest and promotion of the debate over excessive speed to the national level. A developing trend in traffic management policy is to look at how to induce road users to modify their behaviour by incentivising change rather than forcing it through the application of penalties. There have been several studies conducted into this; an
  • February 1, 2012
    Cooperative systems and privacy not mutually exclusive
    Are co-operative systems and personal privacy mutually exclusive? Not necessarily, says Neil Hoose. But the more advanced the application, the greater the concession of privacy may have to become. ITS Stockholm in 2009 and the Cooperative Mobility Showcase event which took place alongside Intertraffic in Amsterdam in March this year both featured live, on-street demonstrations of safety and driver information applications that used Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) and Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communications,
  • February 6, 2012
    Cooperative systems and privacy not mutually exclusive
    Are co-operative systems and personal privacy mutually exclusive? Not necessarily, says Neil Hoose. But the more advanced the application, the greater the concession of privacy may have to become