New EU Directives on All modes of Passenger Transport Modes to Come in From Dec 2012

seanmacc

Worth a look. This directive is coming in for some operators as of December 2012 (or March 2013 for the rest).

It is a similar code to that what affects air passengers that covers Bus, Rail and Sea travel. I noticed how some people were laughing in another thread about IE's refund policy. This will now make it compulsory for them to refund if they mess up. A big issue with the ferry operators will be that they have to provide meals/refreshments for long delays. It would be interesting how the various companies here reroute and have to co-operate with each other to do so.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/doc/comm-2011-898-european-vision-passengers_en.pdf

A lot of it is common sense stuff they should be doing anyway. There is more detail in the link but here's the sumary for the page scanners.

AIN EU PASSENGER RIGHTS22


1. RIGHT TO NON-DISCRIMINATION IN ACCESS TO TRANSPORT
All passengers have equal access to transport and are in particular protected against

discrimination based on nationality, residence or disability.

2.
RIGHT TO MOBILITY ACCESSIBILITY AND ASSISTANCE AT NO ADDITIONAL COST FOR

DISABLED PASSENGERS AND PASSENGERS WITH REDUCED MOBILITY

(PRM)

PRM have the right to be assisted at no additional cost when travelling by all modes of

transport in order to allow them to enjoy the same possibilities to travel as other citizens.

3.
RIGHT TO INFORMATION BEFORE PURCHASE AND AT THE VARIOUS STAGES OF

TRAVEL

, NOTABLY IN CASE OF DISRUPTION

Passengers have the right to be correctly informed of the ticket price, their rights and the

circumstances of their journey in a timely and relevant manner before the journey as well as

during and after the travel in case of disruption.

4.
RIGHT TO RENOUNCE TRAVELLING (REIMBURSEMENT) WHEN THE TRIP IS

DISRUPTED

In the event of long delayed, cancelled travel or denied boarding, passengers have the right to

the reimbursement of the full ticket price.

5.
RIGHT TO THE FULFILMENT OF THE TRANSPORT CONTRACT (REROUTING OR

REBOOKING

) IN CASE OF DISRUPTION

In the event of long delayed, cancelled travel or denied boarding, passengers have the right to

receive an alternative service of transport, as soon as possible, or to rebook at their best

convenience. The choice must be offered by the carrier as soon as the disruption takes place,

in a clear and uncontroversial way.

6.
RIGHT TO GET ASSISTANCE IN CASE OF LONG DELAY AT DEPARTURE OR AT

CONNECTING POINTS

Stranded passengers have the right to be provided a minimum level of care immediately, on

the spot at terminals/stations and/or on board while waiting for the beginning or the

continuation of the delayed journey or for their rerouting.

7.
RIGHT TO COMPENSATION

Under certain conditions in case of long delayed or cancelled travel and always in case of

denied boarding in air, passengers are entitled to a standardised financial compensation for the

trouble suffered. Such compensation varies for each mode according to the time lost due to

the disruption, the distance of the journey and/or the ticket price.

8.
RIGHT TO CARRIER LIABILITY TOWARDS PASSENGERS AND THEIR LUGGAGE

Under International conventions and EU Law, carriers are liable for passengers and their

luggage. In case of death, injury and baggage problems and in some cases of delay,

passengers may be entitled to compensation to be determined according to the damage they

suffered. Such compensation can be limited depending on the applicable law.

9.
RIGHT TO A QUICK AND ACCESSIBLE SYSTEM OF COMPLAINT HANDLING

Passengers have the right to lodge a complaint with the carrier if dissatisfied. In case of lack

of answer after a certain time-limit, or dissatisfaction with the carriers' answer, they have the

right to lodge a complaint within the competent National Enforcement Body, which should

treat it within a reasonable timeframe. Out of Court and Court procedures are also available

under EU and national law (e.g. Alternative Dispute Resolution systems, national or European

Small Claim Procedure at Court).

10.
RIGHT TO FULL APPLICATION AND EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF EU PASSENGER

RIGHTS

Passengers have the right to count on a proper application by carriers and on an effective
enforcement of EU rules from National Enforcement Bodies.

Cookie_Monster

point 2 is farcical, so everyone has to pay more to cater to a tiny tiny minority once again :rolleyes:
Transport should be about catering to the masses cheaply and easily, bureaucratic nonsense like the above only costs everyone in the long run, esp given point 7: the abuse that will occur here will be huge IMO.

ScouseMouse

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

point 2 is farcical, so everyone has to pay more to cater to a tiny tiny minority once again :rolleyes:
Transport should be about catering to the masses cheaply and easily, bureaucratic nonsense like the above only costs everyone in the long run, esp given point 7: the abuse that will occur here will be huge IMO.

Shame on you. If you were ever unlucky enough to be in a wheelchair, or an amputee, you would appreciate fair access to travel.

As for point 7, i agree!

CIE

superscouse wrote: »

Shame on you. If you were ever unlucky enough to be in a wheelchair, or an amputee, you would appreciate fair access to travel

Please define "fair" in this context.

seanmacc

Does this mean Dublin Busor Bus Eireann is liable if some skanger robs your bag from the baggage compartment?

In all modes, carriers are liable for the transport of baggage in the event of loss, damage or

delay, except under certain conditions determined by law generally related to the

circumstances of the incident and the efforts to prevent or limit the damage. The legislation in

each mode of transport tends to set up specific minimum amounts of compensation in case of

luggage problems.

CIE

seanmacc wrote: »

In all modes, carriers are liable for the transport of baggage in the event of loss, damage or delay, except under certain conditions determined by law generally related to the circumstances of the incident and the efforts to prevent or limit the damage. The legislation in each mode of transport tends to set up specific minimum amounts of compensation in case of luggage problems.

Does this mean Dublin Bus or Bus Eireann is liable if some skanger robs your bag from the baggage compartment?

Wow. Very tricky legalese here. Depending on the "conditions" and the laws surrounding them, the answer can be yes or no.

ScouseMouse

CIE wrote: »

Please define "fair" in this context.

Mmmm. Lets see.

Ensuring wheelchairs can get access where needed. Ramps at platforms may be another.


An example i read of is the problems in wexford with buses

http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/group-protests-the-closure-of-rail-line-2268221.html

Thats one example.

My main issue with the previous comment is that there has to be allowances made for the disabled - or would you prefer, to save cash for everyone else, we ignore them and leave them stranded?

CIE

superscouse wrote: »

Mmmm. Lets see.

Ensuring wheelchairs can get access where needed. Ramps at platforms may be another.

An example i read of is the problems in wexford with buses

http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/group-protests-the-closure-of-rail-line-2268221.html

Thats one example.

My main issue with the previous comment is that there has to be allowances made for the disabled - or would you prefer, to save cash for everyone else, we ignore them and leave them stranded?

I asked what "fair" meant. Not for more rhetoric and calling for more superfluous government spending. Pulling out all the stops to accommodate a segment of the population that would not necessarily be inclined to ride public transport doesn't necessarily translate as "fair". (Infrastructure alterations do not come cheap, and they do have to be maintained, which means a continuing cost on top of initial.)

The unrelated matter of closing Waterford–Rosslare railway and the possible state of substitute buses two years ago does not translate to universal "problems in Wexford with buses".

foggy_lad

CIE wrote: »

Please define "fair" in this context.

How about so that disabled people can

enjoy the same possibilities to travel as other citizens.

so no more calling Irish rail 48 hours in advance so they can make arrangements to get you on a train or having to get taxis to different stations because lifts have not been fixed in weeks.

CIE wrote: »

Wow. Very tricky legalese here. Depending on the "conditions" and the laws surrounding them, the answer can be yes or no.

I would imagine Dublin bus will just remove all luggage spaces except on their airport services and that leaves passengers responsible for their own belongings, Bus Éireann have always been responsible for your luggage once placed in the luggage bays of buses and coaches. They state in their terms and conditions that all luggage must be placed in the luggage compartments so they have a duty of care to that luggage.

Cookie_Monster

1. RIGHT TO NON-DISCRIMINATION IN ACCESS TO TRANSPORT
All passengers have equal access to transport and are in particular protected against

discrimination based on nationality, residence or disability.

I reside in Dublin, I demand a metro like London or I'm calling descrimination based on where I live :mad::mad::mad:

CIE

foggy_lad wrote: »

How about so that disabled people can

enjoy the same possibilities to travel as other citizens

so no more calling Irish Rail 48 hours in advance so they can make arrangements to get you on a train or having to get taxis to different stations because lifts have not been fixed in weeks

Absurd. Putting that onus on the government is bad enough (results in obvious abuse), but the government putting an unacceptable onus on the private sector will serve only to waste money. Disabled persons are not confined in their homes notwithstanding. This is political power plays rather than really serving the disabled. If you had to pay for such infrastructure out of your own pocket, you'd be forced to ask for subsidy, which makes you beholden to the government and puts you in a trap.

foggy_lad wrote: »

I would imagine Dublin bus will just remove all luggage spaces except on their airport services and that leaves passengers responsible for their own belongings, Bus Éireann have always been responsible for your luggage once placed in the luggage bays of buses and coaches. They state in their terms and conditions that all luggage must be placed in the luggage compartments so they have a duty of care to that luggage.

But what if the directive doesn't let you away with that? They can always say "provided for by law", but ever since the Third Amendment to Ireland's constitution got passed in 1972, European law has been supreme over Irish law (thanks a lot Dev) and if European law says something, then unless we fight a war of independence against the EU, then that law is our law.

Del2005

Does 4 and 7 mean that if I turn up locked to a flight to any form of public transport I get my money back and compensation if I don't get on??

If so it's not really fair on the sober passengers, as companies will allow unruly passengers on boards

ScouseMouse

CIE wrote: »

Absurd. Putting that onus on the government is bad enough (results in obvious abuse), but the government putting an unacceptable onus on the private sector will serve only to waste money. Disabled persons are not confined in their homes notwithstanding.

So CIE, where do you think the onus should be placed? Should the disabled, the blind and the deaf be made to pay extra for simple services? While I disagree with the general article I linked to - it was publicity seeking, to try to save a loss making train route. I agree it should have been axed. But thats getting away from the point. The subject, the man in the wheelchair with the beard, is actually my uncle. He worked all his life and now is a double amputee, in a wheelchair, who is nearly blind.

He certainly cannot drive, he lives is rural wexford, and now relies on public transport or friends to help him get out. At a recent family celebration, he could not attend. I offered to go and collect him but I would need a downstairs toilet in my house as he could not climb the stairs. You (and I), do not understand how it affects people until you have direct experience of the problems they face.

Are you, or anyone on this thread, really suggesting its an unfair burden on the general public to provide disabled facilities in general?

Would you suggest he move to Dublin, away from his home place? Should he move permanently to the Rehab in Dun Laoghaire?

There are a lot of cash wasting schemes and organisations in this country. Airports that are not needed. Public service air-routes the government pays to keep open when no one is travelling on them. Let them get real and cut the bollix out of them.

You cannot go cutting access for the disabled and to suggest its wrong for everyone to pay a bit for a few peoples needs is wrong. I know you did not say that, but someone else on this thread did.

As I said in my very first post, Shame on you.

LivelineDipso

These directives are written in such a way as to be an eternal 'gravy train' for the legal professions.

seanmacc

Del2005 wrote: »

Does 4 and 7 mean that if I turn up locked to a flight to any form of public transport I get my money back and compensation if I don't get on??

If so it's not really fair on the sober passengers, as companies will allow unruly passengers on boards

I'd say you can be refused but they would have to honour your ticket at another time. I'd imagine that compensation would be out of the question unless you want to go to court and explain how you weren't locked and a danger to yourself and/or others.
The directive doesn't at all protect the carrier in this event though.

Del2005

LivelineDipso wrote: »

These directives are written in such a way as to be an eternal 'gravy train' for the legal professions.

+1, I can only see one group benefiting from this and it's the lawyers.

Travel companies will have to increase their fares to cover this, there doesn't appear to be any act of god clause, so we'll all pay more to do the same journey.

dardhal

superscouse wrote: »

Ensuring wheelchairs can get access where needed. Ramps at platforms may be another.

Or at least, that people will be able to anticipate if a service on the timetable is suited for wheelchair access or not. One of the days I used the 232 route between Cork and Ballincollig, a guy on a wheelchair wanted to get in the bus at some random bus stop along the way. It happened that he was not lucky enough that day for the next bus to be a city bus, and not a coach (which didn't have any means of wheelchair access). Driver solution: "wait for the next one" (and pray in the meantime, I'd add, so next one, due in one hour being a Saturday, may or may not be wheelchair accessible).

Luckily enough for the gay, his disablement was only severe, but not complete on the lower limbs, so he struggled to get in the coach (and off at his destination) with my help, and we could place his wheelchair in the cargo bay (the driver did ZERO attempt at helping the guy, as the rest of the coach passenger as well).

I don't say Bus Eireann or any other operator should spend huge amounts of money up front to replace perfectly working vehicles for others that can accommodate disabled people, in fact, it may be cheaper even longer term to give those people taxi shuttle services when needed, but fleet renewal should have special needs in mind, and there should be enough information for someone to know with 100% certainty if a carrier service is ready for disabled people or not.

Maybe BE has some kind of disclaimer along the lines of "we can't guarantee disabled access to all routes and times", so the guy maybe took the risk knowingly , and mine is a bad example of what I meant.

Del2005

dardhal wrote: »

Or at least, that people will be able to anticipate if a service on the timetable is suited for wheelchair access or not. One of the days I used the 232 route between Cork and Ballincollig, a guy on a wheelchair wanted to get in the bus at some random bus stop along the way. It happened that he was not lucky enough that day for the next bus to be a city bus, and not a coach (which didn't have any means of wheelchair access). Driver solution: "wait for the next one" (and pray in the meantime, I'd add, so next one, due in one hour being a Saturday, may or may not be wheelchair accessible).

Luckily enough for the gay, his disablement was only severe, but not complete on the lower limbs, so he struggled to get in the coach (and off at his destination) with my help, and we could place his wheelchair in the cargo bay (the driver did ZERO attempt at helping the guy, as the rest of the coach passenger as well).

I don't say Bus Eireann or any other operator should spend huge amounts of money up front to replace perfectly working vehicles for others that can accommodate disabled people, in fact, it may be cheaper even longer term to give those people taxi shuttle services when needed, but fleet renewal should have special needs in mind, and there should be enough information for someone to know with 100% certainty if a carrier service is ready for disabled people or not.

Maybe BE has some kind of disclaimer along the lines of "we can't guarantee disabled access to all routes and times", so the guy maybe took the risk knowingly , and mine is a bad example of what I meant.

It's a good example. Disabled people shouldn't have to gamble on wether or not they can access public transport.

Providing a taxi service will be the cheaper option for the next few years till the public transport fleet is fully accessible. But small private operators are years away from being accessible, they generally buy ex public vehicles, and are wide open to compensation claims due to this which will put them out of business.

ScouseMouse

This thread has developed into a good, reasonable discusssion.

I just hope to jesus that "CIE" does not have any input into planning at the real CIE, the disabled would be banished to special homes and would not be allowed out as it would be to costly for the private and public sector to cater for them.

Cookie_Monster

superscouse wrote: »

This thread has developed into a good, reasonable discusssion.

I just hope to jesus that "CIE" does not have any input into planning at the real CIE, the disabled would be banished to special homes and would not be allowed out as it would be to costly for the private and public sector to cater for them.

Its about reasonable expectation, its reasonable to have a ramp at stations to allow boarding of a train, its not reasonable to prematurely replace all buses to make them low floor or destroy historic buildings by having to add access ramps etc

ScouseMouse

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Its about reasonable expectation, its reasonable to have a ramp at stations to allow boarding of a train, its not reasonable to prematurely replace all buses to make them low floor or destroy historic buildings by having to add access ramps etc

Agreed. It has to be reasonable, but the idea of catering for the disabled being a burden on the private sector and the government is unfair, you cannot just ignore them. Its just way out of line.

But back to the original issue. These new rules from the EU, like every rule, from every authority, will be open to interpretation. There will be some ambulance chasing solicitor who will take a case based on discrimination of some sort.

Thats life.

From a personal point of view, if a ferry is kept at sea due to storms or some other situation, is it not right that the passengers be given basic sustainance?

I recall ferries not being able to dock due to a WW2 bomb on the sea bed. While it was being dealt with, basic food and drink was provided.

Conway635

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Its about reasonable expectation, its reasonable to have a ramp at stations to allow boarding of a train, its not reasonable to prematurely replace all buses to make them low floor or destroy historic buildings by having to add access ramps etc

One of the problems with BE in particular, is that they often let the historic or the random get in the way of what is reasonable.

What I mean is this:

It has been possible to buy lowfloor buses since the mid 90s (signle-deck buses) and around 1998 (double-decks). As a consequence of this Dublin's vast fleet is now 95% lowfloor accessible, and will be fully accessible by the end of this year, and Bus Eireann says it is 100% lowfloor wheelchair accessible on its city / town service fleets.

BUT . . . here's the thing.

There are many, many services operated by Bus Eireann which are essentially "bus" in nature, but where coaches are used, because they are classified as "not city services".

The 232 to Ballincollig is one of these - it is not part of Cork City Services, because traditionally it was regarded as a rural service out to a small village. But in 2012 (or, indeed in the 1990s) this is crazy - Ballincollig is to Cork as Tallaght is to Dublin, and no one would argue that Dublin Bus could get away with using less accessible vehicles on Tallaght services because it used to be a country village back in the 50s.

The Ballincollig service sometimes sees lowfloor single-deck buses, regularly a lowfloor double-deck, but also frequently long-distance type coaches. There is no "requirement" in BEs book for it to be lowfloor.

Even if you leave aside accessibility, coaches are wildly unsuited to urban stopping services such as the 232 etc.

There are also many rural services around the country which would be much better served by lowfloor buses rather than fullsize, highfloor coaches.

BE needs to understand that while it was appropriate in the 70s to cascade its long distance single-deckers onto local routes (because they were really just buses with coach seating) it is no longer an option these days, and has not been for a very long time.

I'm not suggesting they replace all these coaches at a stroke now, but simply that they sit down and have a good hard look at where they need which type of vehicle, to more properly plan their purchasing needs in the future.

C635

seanmacc

superscouse wrote: »

From a personal point of view, if a ferry is kept at sea due to storms or some other situation, is it not right that the passengers be given basic sustainance?

I recall ferries not being able to dock due to a WW2 bomb on the sea bed. While it was being dealt with, basic food and drink was provided.

Stranded at sea is generally not a problem. For humanitarian reason most ships will give free food and non alcoholic drinks to passengers stuck because a ship can't dock.

Its more so in the case of a weather cancellation the situation can become farcical. Weather cancellations are a regular event with the fast ferries and every effort is made to capture contact details to inform passengers to show up for earlier or later cruise ferry crossings. A lot of passengers (Usually on UK sail rail tickets), don't provide the ferry companies with contact details, never bother their backsides to check the sailing status before they show up at the port, have paid the lowest amount for their ticket and shout the loudest when they get the bad news have to be pandered to for their own negligence.
Where a big problem lies is in the night sailings with Irish Ferries and Stena out of Dublin do not have a train connection to meet them for 4 hours Mon-Sat and 8 hours Sunday. Have they to put these people up in hotels as well?

foggy_lad

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Its about reasonable expectation, its reasonable to have a ramp at stations to allow boarding of a train, its not reasonable to prematurely replace all buses to make them low floor or destroy historic buildings by having to add access ramps etc

Historic buildings like Kildare station or newbridge station or some of the many rotten broken down buildings around the country just waiting to collapse in on passengers? Those buildings need a wrecking ball not wheelchair ramps!

end of the road

foggy_lad wrote: »

Historic buildings like Kildare station or newbridge station or some of the many rotten broken down buildings around the country just waiting to collapse in on passengers? Those buildings need a wrecking ball not wheelchair ramps!

no, no, no, no, they need to be lovingly restored to their original state as their of Architectual and historic signifficance, and are vital to encapsulate the history of the wonderful railway we have.

foggy_lad

end of the road wrote: »

no, no, no, no, they need to be lovingly restored to their original state as their of Architectural and historic significance, and are vital to encapsulate the history of the wonderful railway we have.

Now i know you're taking the P1ss