Dogs on Trains

Bluefrog · 24-07-2008 12:06am #1

OK, so a couple of weekends ago I had to go to Sligo and I can't drive because I'm blind as a bat so that means the train. Figured my dog would really enjoy the outdoor spaces so I checked the Irish Rail web site where it says:

Pets (with the exception of Guide dogs) are not allowed onto the DART or Suburban rail trains. They are allowed on Intercity trains ONLY in a box.

Now the thing is that my dog is a boxer lab cross so a box to accommodate her would take a crane to move and though she isn't technically a guide dog I figure she is the same size and as my sight (or rather lack of) was the reason I was taking the train in the first place, I figured I would give it a try.

Went to the station with the dog to travel at an off-peak time. Went to the ticket desk and asked about taking her and was told I would have to ask the station manager. Went to the station manager and he said I would have to check with the ticket checker. Went to the ticket checker and he said he would have to check with the driver but if it was down to him she would not be allowed on as there wasn't adequate room for her in his opinion. This despite the fact that in relation to guide dogs the National Council for the Blind says of the new intercity trains (which was the one I would be traveling on): Seating is spacious, with plenty of room for storage and for guide dogs. I assume this information when it was published came originally from Irish Rail.

I was left waiting at the gate while other passengers stared and then boarded until the driver came along. He, the station master and the ticket checker then had a conference as to what to do. They finally agreed to allow the dog to travel if muzzled at all times (which I didn't have a problem with though I do think it makes dogs in general look scarier and she is a very calm specimen). All this time the dog lay at my feet half asleep - despite all the comings and goings in the station - hardly the picture of insane wild dog.

She slept for the entire journey, only raising her head at the stops to watch people boarding and disembarking.

Anyway, I wanted to hear other people's thoughts here on my predicament - if I want to travel with my dog my only real independent option is by train but I don't fancy having to go through this trauma every time. I probably would qualify as legally blind so maybe that's the way to go with this and get some sort of documentation to show I have no choice in how I travel but I do think for dog owners in general this is a ridiculous state of affairs when it is down to individual personnel on the day to make a decision - there is no predictability.

The same is true of Dublin bus though at least there I do have the (more expensive) option of getting a taxi.

To me it seems a form of discrimination - like the visually impaired shouldn't have dogs unless they are guide dogs.

Anyway, your thoughts?

Run_to_da_hills · 24-07-2008 2:24am

I can see CIE's point of not allowing dogs other than guide dogs on trains and busses, they are just another liability for them, i.e. pis*ing up against the walls in a railway station, leaving hairs all over the seats, smelling, the danger of a dog coming loose from its owner and making a bolt across the tracks in front of a train (Witnessed it myself going to school in the 70ies)

Even if muzzles were required, some people could be tempted to remove them on a long journey if the dog got irritated or wanted a drink of water, if a dog turned around and bit someone CIE could be liable for letting a dog on the train. Security staff and ticket collectors were uniforms that resemble post men, there is a chance that a nasty dog that has a grudge against post men could go for these guys, Unfortunately the days of the guards van on suburban and long distance trains are over, it is not just dogs that suffer the prohibition but also bicycles as they are now forbidden on the darts and only a limited number are allowed on the 22000's

Robot1 · 24-07-2008 8:18am

It's just another example of how our public transport system just could not be bothered to actually meet the needs of the people they are transporting. There is no problem with the transport of animals and bikes on the trains in other EU cities. When you travel in cities like Copenhagen you get a real sense that the transport is set up for the people. The travelling public are not treated like some inconvenience.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 24-07-2008 8:48am

I'd have no problem with a dog on the train myself but I do know that many people are terrified of dogs and could be very uncomfortable with dogs on trains.

Whispered · 24-07-2008 9:30am

Bluefrog wrote: »

To me it seems a form of discrimination - like the visually impaired shouldn't have dogs unless they are guide dogs.

How?? Is she a guide dog? Because if not then to allow her on because you are visually impared is discrimination against non-visually impared people.

See what I'm saying, unless this dog is a guide dog, then you were just a person looking to take their dog on a train.

Personally I'd love to see animals allowed on public transport, but the problem is with other people, the control they have on their pet etc.

chickenhawk · 24-07-2008 9:30am

It sounds like you have a lovely dog!

I wouldn't mind having a dog beside me on the train as long as the owner had proper control of it.

Honey-ec · 24-07-2008 9:35am

Ireland is just ridiculously pet-unfriendly as a whole. I'm on a US Boxer forum and the difference in attitude toward dogs over there is unreal. People bring their dogs with them EVERYWHERE, and they're welcomed with open arms as long as they're well-behaved.

I also had to spend some time in Canada to train for my current job, and my colleagues in our Montreal office were allowed to bring their dogs to work with them.

MsFifers · 24-07-2008 9:57am

Could you get one of those chest harnesses for your dog, and pretend he is a guide dog?!

I sat beside a woman recently on the train who had a small toy dog in her handbag. (Cute as hell!!! It just snuggled down for a sleep for the journey). She never checked with any of the staff and the ticket checker just glanced in surprise at the bag but never said anything.

She got away with it because the dog was so small but I think her acting as if she was entitled to do it was part of her success!

I can see the point of Irish Rail's policy though - can you imagine being stuck in a crowded carriage with a badly controlled dog?!

jenjo23 · 24-07-2008 10:53am

helena.ryan wrote: »

How?? Is she a guide dog? Because if not then to allow her on because you are visually impared is discrimination against non-visually impared people.

See what I'm saying, unless this dog is a guide dog, then you were just a person looking to take their dog on a train.

Personally I'd love to see animals allowed on public transport, but the problem is with other people, the control they have on their pet etc.

I think OP meant that they can't travel any other way but by train because they are visually impaired and can't drive, so by not allowing dogs on the train, they are kind of saying you can't travel with your dog full stop.

I don't take public transport, so it doesn't bother me either way, I'd like to see more doggy friendly cafes/pubs etc.

helimachoptor · 24-07-2008 10:56am

Honey-ec wrote: »

Ireland is just ridiculously pet-unfriendly as a whole. I'm on a US Boxer forum and the difference in attitude toward dogs over there is unreal. People bring their dogs with them EVERYWHERE, and they're welcomed with open arms as long as they're well-behaved.

I also had to spend some time in Canada to train for my current job, and my colleagues in our Montreal office were allowed to bring their dogs to work with them.

I shall be moving to Canada!

Run_to_da_hills · 24-07-2008 11:32am

helimachoptor wrote: »

I shall be moving to Canada!

You should try moving to India, ie dogs, goats, pigs and hens are quite common on their trains.

Whispered · 24-07-2008 11:39am

jenjo23 wrote: »

I think OP meant that they can't travel any other way but by train because they are visually impaired and can't drive, so by not allowing dogs on the train, they are kind of saying you can't travel with your dog full stop.
.

The op said

To me it seems a form of discrimination - like the visually impaired shouldn't have dogs unless they are guide dogs

There are many scenarios which could prevent someone from driving, lack of confidence on longer drives, not being able to afford a car, certain other disabilities and sicknesses. To say that not allowing animals on a train is discrimination against people with poor sight is a bit silly.

I agree that animals should be allowed on public transport, but to say that not allowing them is discrimination to anybody, does not make any sense.

Bluefrog · 24-07-2008 11:50am

Interesting thoughts:

On the point of people being afraid of dogs - why not have dog designated coaches? If you don't like dogs you use another coach.

On the point of badly controlled pets - I have on several occasions had to endure 3 hours of very badly controlled children. As I said neither I or the dog have any problem with a muzzle and leash for the duration of the trip. There is no need to remove the muzzle for drinks as most modern ones can accommodate panting and drinking.

On the point of dogs soiling the station, I think most dogs would recognize that they are in an internal area and their house training would prevent them from doing this until they left the station.

And finally yes, that was the point - I wouldn't be on the train if I had an alternative way of taking the dog with me. The simple fact is I can't drive so therefore that means I can either independently take the train or wait until someone I know with a car is traveling and depend on them. So you see I am not just "someone who wants to take their dog on a train".

I think I am going to talk to the NCBI about this and see what they say and if some arrangement can be put in place for myself but as other posters have pointed out - Ireland has to be the most dog-unfriendly country in Europe.

I do think if I had put her in a harness it would have worked and I would not have got a second glance but that doesn't remove the risk that someone may question it and that's on of the biggest issues about this now - the unpredictability.

I've spent my life dealing with my sight and doing everything I could to live as normally as possible. If I do make an arrangement through the NCBI now it will be the first time my sight has been officially recognised as a problem for me lest anyone think I'm using my sight here to bend the rules. I believe I do actually qualify as legally blind.

Anyway I'll post back here eventually on what happens.

Whispered · 24-07-2008 12:08pm

Bluefrog wrote: »

On the point of people being afraid of dogs - why not have dog designated coaches? If you don't like dogs you use another coach.

On the point of badly controlled pets - I have on several occasions had to endure 3 hours of very badly controlled children.

Kids should not be allowed on public transport either

seriously though, I know what you mean, but people who do not love animals would probably answer that with - a child is not going to savage you, or attack another child. For every argument for, there will be one against. We used to bring our dog up to the blue light pub because he allowed dogs in.

Bluefrog wrote: »

And finally yes, that was the point - I wouldn't be on the train if I had an alternative way of taking the dog with me. The simple fact is I can't drive so therefore that means I can either independently take the train or wait until someone I know with a car is traveling and depend on them. So you see I am not just "someone who wants to take their dog on a train"..

I'm sorry for pushing this, but as I said, many people can't drive, I can't and have to wait for a lift if I want to bring my pets somewhere. Simple as that. While I agree with you on the subject of dogs on public transport, the issue of you not being able to drive, for whatever reason is a null point as many many people are in the same situation.

Bluefrog wrote: »

I've spent my life dealing with my sight and doing everything I could to live as normally as possible. If I do make an arrangement through the NCBI now it will be the first time my sight has been officially recognised as a problem for me lest anyone think I'm using my sight here to bend the rules. I believe I do actually qualify as legally blind.

Unless your dog is a guide dog, then whether you're legally blind or not - the same rules will apply for your pet as for other peoples pet- as they should IMO.

Bluefrog · 24-07-2008 12:11pm

The point is Helena that this is an easily solvable problem. For a lot of the other reasons for people not being able to drive that you mention there are other solutions. It would also benefit a lot of other people if the regulations were more sensible and realistic.

If people have a lack of confidence for instance, they can work on that if they really want to - there is a degree of choice involved there. However, I can't change my eyes.

Similarly with affordability. It isn't necessarily a permanent situation and it is one where someone does have some control.

I feel even more strongly now having listened to your arguments that it is a form of discrimination.

I am being prevented by Irish Rail from traveling freely with my dog because I have no other travel options. I would argue that you do not see this as discrimination solely because you are not affected.

Currently no account is taken of my personal circumstances or the suitability of my dog for travel in such a manner and to me that is what is really 'silly' here.

It saddens me to see how little empathy you seem capable of showing and I really wish Helena that we could trade places for a month or two so you could look at this from my viewpoint.

I fail to see anything 'silly' about me wishing to lead as normal a life as I possibly can with as little inconvenience to or dependency on others as possible.

How can a leashed and muzzled dog savage anyone???

Couple of other things I failed to address before:

On the issue of Irish Rail liability, when I buy a ticket to travel I am sure I implicitly agree to a set of terms and conditions. For instance if I stick my head out the window and get decapitated in the process I very much doubt my compo grabbing family would get a cent from Irish Rail. Surely adding a clause to the terms & conditions stating Irish Rail accept no liability for the actions of pets and that they are solely the responsibility of the owner would address this. On the soiling front, if I soil or damage Irish Rail property I assume that I would be liable for any costs in cleanup or repair - I can not see how this can not be easily extended to cover the actions of an accompanying pet just as it surely would apply in the case of my child doing something nasty.

As someone pointed out here earlier I don't think this has as much to do with the service to passengers as it does with the convenience to Irish Rail.

helena.ryan wrote: »

The op said

There are many scenarios which could prevent someone from driving, lack of confidence on longer drives, not being able to afford a car, certain other disabilities and sicknesses. To say that not allowing animals on a train is discrimination against people with poor sight is a bit silly.

I agree that animals should be allowed on public transport, but to say that not allowing them is discrimination to anybody, does not make any sense.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 24-07-2008 12:15pm

Bluefrog wrote: »

On the point of people being afraid of dogs - why not have dog designated coaches? If you don't like dogs you use another coach..

Well it's obvious you don't do the daily commute.

A choice of where you sit? A carriage just for dog owners? Get real. There is standing room only morning and evening. A dog on any of those trains would get walked on!

On the point of dogs soiling the station, I think most dogs would recognize that they are in an internal area and their house training would prevent them from doing this until they left the station...

Again this assumption that all dogs are house dogs!

I think I am going to talk to the NCBI about this and see what they say and if some arrangement can be put in place for myself ...

Guide dogs are expertly trained for such situations. Your dog (with all the goodwill in the world) is not a qualified guide dog.

Run_to_da_hills · 24-07-2008 12:21pm

Roberto Large Flatware wrote: »

Well it's obvious you don't do the daily commute. A choice of where you sit? A carriage just for dog owners? Get real. There is standing room only morning and evening. A dog on any of those trains would get walked on

Iarnrod Eireann could reserve a section at the back of the train off peak just for dog handlers, mobile phone users, and screaming kids

Whispered · 24-07-2008 12:23pm

Bluefrog, don't assume the people replying here don't also have something affecting their ability to lead a normal life.

My point is, while you should be allowed bring your dog on public transport, it should be so for everybody. Not for people who have a disability only. Unless the dog is a dog trained for the purpose of helping the person with a disability.

As for lack of confidence being easily overcome, people who suffer anxiety attacks might not so easily agree with you. Money - lucky you to be able to say thats not a permanent situation!

There are many reasons people can't drive - not all easily dismissed - other people have problems which are unsolvable.

The rule is guide dogs only, if your dog is not a guide dog then she's not allowed on the train. I don't agree with it, but I think if it's enforced for the likes of my granny who cannot drive - due lack of money as well as a severe lack of confidence in her ability to drive due to her age, then it should be enforced for everybody.

If that seems like a lack of empathy then I'm sorry.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 24-07-2008 12:39pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Iarnrod Eireann could reserve a section at the back of the train off peak just for dog handlers, mobile phone users, and screaming kids

:D Yes, and those who refuse to fold newspapers, the "Tisk Tisk" iPod users, the ones eating smelly popcorn, and the snorers. Maybe just let the rest of us use the reserved section and let them have the main carriage!

:D

The Saint · 24-07-2008 2:25pm

OP I don't want to get into the arguement of whether or not pets should be allowed on trains as I don't think it has much to do with your arguement. You're dog is a pet and therefore is not an aid to your mobility. You wanting to travel with your dog is a choice. You're arguement about not being able to drive is pretty pointless to be honest as there are many people who don't drive whether through choice (environmentally conscious, car not necessary, user of public transport) or by circumstance (disability, poverty, etc.). You wanting to bring your dog with you however you do not need to bring your dog with you. That's where the difference lies. There is no discrimination.

Run_to_da_hills · 24-07-2008 2:58pm

Roberto Large Flatware wrote: »

:D Yes, and those who refuse to fold newspapers, the "Tisk Tisk" iPod users, the ones eating smelly popcorn, and the snorers. Maybe just let the rest of us use the reserved section and let them have the main carriage!
:D

I say bring back the Guards van and trail it behind the dart, it serves a purpose.:D

MOH · 24-07-2008 3:26pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I can see CIE's point of not allowing dogs other than guide dogs on trains and busses,

CIE *do* allow dogs other than guide dogs on - they just have to be in a box.

they are just another liability for them, i.e. pis*ing up against the walls in a railway station, leaving hairs all over the seats, smelling, the danger of a dog coming loose from its owner and making a bolt across the tracks in front of a train (Witnessed it myself going to school in the 70ies)

Don't think there's anything banning dogs from stations, so they could still p*ss up against a wall or bolt across the tracks. Dog's in boxes can smell as much as other dogs. So it's really only leaving hair all over the seats, and I don't think anyone's suggesting the dog should sit in a seat?!

Even if muzzles were required, some people could be tempted to remove them on a long journey if the dog got irritated or wanted a drink of water, if a dog turned around and bit someone CIE could be liable for letting a dog on the train.

People could be similarly tempted to let their dogs out of the box once they're on the train. Don't see how CIE would be liable, it's the dog owner that would be liable for anything the dog did.

Obviously every dog is different and some large dogs certainly wouldn't be suitable for train travel, but IR could always require the owner to sign something stating they'd be liable for any damages the dog did. I've travelled with other people with both animals and children, and by far the animals are less disruptive.

Bluefrog · 24-07-2008 3:50pm

Yes it is a choice to travel with my dog - a choice that people with alternative transport means have - why should I not have the same choice?

Inequality of choice in my view here defines the discrimination. Let me take an extreme example: when people were forced to sit at the back of the bus in the southern U.S. they still got to where they wanted to go but they didn't get to choose where they wanted to sit to get there. The fact that they got to go where they needed to didn't nullify the discrimination.

Now you may think discrimination is too strong a word here and of course these things are relative but I suggest that before you judge, you stand with your dog at a boarding gate being stared at by other passengers as they board the train while 3 strangers at random publicaly decide if you will travel or not and see how you enjoy it.

Helena, I never once suggested any of the other reasons people couldn't drive were EASY to overcome - I just said it was possible for the individual to overcome them in many cases. To some extent, however small you may think it is, there is personal control involved.

Guide dogs do indeed receive special training for such situations - just as some kids will go to finishing school to learn etiquette and some don't - so what? There seems to be some sentiment among some here that dogs revert to being wild animals when taken on a train which simply is not true. In my albeit limited experience, they find the motion of the train quite soothing and relaxing.

On the point of dedicated coaches, I actually traveled at an off-peak time to avoid inconvenience to other passengers and congestion. The train I used (an intercity one) was a long way from being packed.

Lets keep some perspective here - I am only asking for the facility to bring a quiet well trained dog on a train. You would think from some of the responses here that I was attempting to transport a rabid tiger.

The point of my ability to drive IS crucial to this as I would much prefer having the facility and independence of driving myself if it was possible. It is not nor will it be it seems for the rest of my lifetime. It seems that for some here it is just tough then if I am stuck in one location with my dog.

The Saint wrote: »

OP I don't want to get into the arguement of whether or not pets should be allowed on trains as I don't think it has much to do with your arguement. You're dog is a pet and therefore is not an aid to your mobility. You wanting to travel with your dog is a choice. You're arguement about not being able to drive is pretty pointless to be honest as there are many people who don't drive whether through choice (environmentally conscious, car not necessary, user of public transport) or by circumstance (disability, poverty, etc.). You wanting to bring your dog with you however you do not need to bring your dog with you. That's where the difference lies. There is no discrimination.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 24-07-2008 4:24pm

I think you're missing the point and being a bit extreme. You may think your dog is well trained and quiet but in fairness that is only your opinion. Others may not agree or may have dogs worse than yours which they consider well behaved. We are well aware you are talking about taking a dog on the train and not a tiger!
Yours is not a qualified Guide Dog any more than mine is.
Your comparison between apartheid in the US and attitudes to dog owners is quite frankly insulting, just because you had to wait while the CIE personnel made their decision.

Bluefrog · 24-07-2008 4:29pm

Well I actually think it is you who is missing the point.

In what way is it insulting??? I made it clear that I was not equating the two situations. I simply used that extreme example to illustrate that it is the issue of choice that is the root of the discrimination I feel about this as some people here seem to fail to see why it is discrimination.

If you chose to read it some other way then that is up to you.

The Saint · 24-07-2008 4:35pm

Bluefrog wrote: »

Yes it is a choice to travel with my dog - a choice that people with alternative transport means have - why should I not have the same choice?

But not everyone has alternative modes of transport as I've stated above. I can't drive and can't afford a car. My financial circumstances which are outside of my control prohibit me from having a car. Should I be allowed to bring a dog on the train since I have no alternative means of transport due to factors outside of my control?

Bluefrog wrote: »

Inequality of choice in my view here defines the discrimination. Let me take an extreme example: when people were forced to sit at the back of the bus in the southern U.S. they still got to where they wanted to go but they didn't get to choose where they wanted to sit to get there. The fact that they got to go where they needed to didn't nullify the discrimination.

Sorry but comparing you not being allowed to bring your dog on the train to southern segregation is outrageous. They are nothing alike. You are being treated like everyone else. You are allowed to do what everyone else does on a train. You can go anywhere you want to go like everyone else. You can sit where ever you want like everyone else. You're not allowed on a train with your dog like everyone else.

Bluefrog wrote: »

Now you may think discrimination is too strong a word here and of course these things are relative but I suggest that before you judge, you stand with your dog at a boarding gate being stared at by other passengers as they board the train while 3 strangers at random publicaly decide if you will travel or not and see how you enjoy it.

I assume you knew beforehand that IR don't allow dogs other than guide dogs on trains. If so it is therefore your fault for bringing your dog to the train station and assuming you'll get on with the dog. It is not their fault for turning you away. They are just implementing company policy. You put yourself in a position where you were stared at by other passangers. Could I call it discrimination if I brought my dog to the station knowing that my dog wasn't eligible to be let on and people looked at me funny. Of course not. I put myself in that position.

Bluefrog wrote: »

Helena, I never once suggested any of the other reasons people couldn't drive were EASY to overcome - I just said it was possible for the individual to overcome them in many cases. To some extent, however small you may think it is, there is personal control involved.

As has been pointed out there are many circumstances where people don't have alternative modes of transport. The point is that while you would like to bring your dog on the train you don't needto.

Bluefrog wrote: »

Guide dogs do indeed receive special training for such situations - just as some kids will go to finishing school to learn etiquette and some don't - so what? There seems to be some sentiment among some here that dogs revert to being wild animals when taken on a train which simply is not true. In my albeit limited experience, they find the motion of the train quite soothing and relaxing.

There is no comparison between a guide dog and a child from finishing school. Guide dogs are specially train to guide blind people around and keep the out of harms way. They provide a very important and specialised function. Finishing school pupils talk in a funny accent which sounds like they had apples stuck up their noses. I don't think anyone is saying that dogs become wild animals when they are brought on trains. What people are saying is that IR policy on dogs is that only guide dogs are allowed. You're dog isn't a guide dog and was therefore not allowed on the train. If IR change that policy so that everyone can bring dogs in trains then you'll be more than welcome to do so too.

Bluefrog wrote: »

Lets keep some perspective here - I am only asking for the facility to bring a quiet well trained dog on a train. You would think from some of the responses here that I was attempting to transport a rabid tiger.

No, that you are asking for is to be treated differently to everyone else and be allowed to bring a dog on a train when everyone else is not allowed. While your dog is not a rabid tiger how are IR staff supposed to know.

Bluefrog wrote: »

The point of my ability to drive IS crucial to this as I would much prefer having the facility and independence of driving myself if it was possible. It is not nor will it be it seems for the rest of my lifetime. It seems that for some here it is just tough then if I am stuck in one location with my dog.

I'm sorry about your circumstance but the rules are the rules. Other people with no means of alternative transport are also stuck in the same place with their dogs. If they are changed they should be changed for everyone. As was stated above you can bring your dog on in a pet box. Why not get one with wheels if your dog is too big to carry? Do you not have any friends or family who can take you and your dog to where you want to go?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 24-07-2008 4:38pm

I think it's time I jumped ship on this thread before I say something I may regret later. You seem to have no idea how (although you said you weren't) you actually went on to make the comparison to the situation in the southern states. Why should you have the choice to take your pet on a train when the rules forbid it and those same rules apply to us all? You are playing a discrimination card when there is no justification for it in the situation you began this thread with (taking a non guide dog on a public train). There are many more urgent and hard cases of discrimation in this life and you taking your dog on the train does not rank among them.

Bluefrog · 24-07-2008 4:43pm

How will the policy ever change if people don't question or debate it?

Why is Ireland one of the only European countries I can think of where this is such an issue?

As I said to the previous poster, I was not comparing the civil rights situation in the U.S. per sae with mine but rather using it to illustrate that is is the lack of choice that leads to the discrimination. I did this solely to address the question of why I felt it was discrimination.

It strikes me as interesting that what I said about children in my posts seems to have been taken with humour but as soon as I mention something more sensitive to the politically correct, things get testy.

In any case, it's been a great thread and given me lots of food for thought as I approach the NCBI.

Thanks to everyone who contributed.

The Saint · 24-07-2008 4:51pm

Bluefrog wrote: »

How will the policy ever change if people don't question or debate it?

Why is Ireland one of the only European countries I can think of where this is such an issue?

I don't think any other country would allow only certain people to be allowed dogs on trains and not everyone. If you can find an example please let me know.

Bluefrog wrote: »

As I said to the previous poster, I was not comparing the civil rights situation in the U.S. per sae with mine but rather using it to illustrate that is is the lack of choice that leads to the discrimination. I did this solely to address the question of why I felt it was discrimination.

You are not being discrimiated against. You are looking for positive discrimiation for yourself by seeking a privilege that others do not have. Thats the only discrimination here.

Bluefrog wrote: »

It strikes me as interesting that what I said about children in my posts seems to have been taken with humour but as soon as I mention something more sensitive to the politically correct, things get testy.

There's a world of difference between the two and if you can't see it then you've bigger problems.

Bluefrog wrote: »

In any case, it's been a great thread and given me lots of food for thought as I approach the NCBI.

Thanks to everyone who contributed.

I'd imagine the NCBI will tell you that they have real and important issues to deal with and tell you to go away.

Bluefrog · 24-07-2008 5:04pm

At exactly what point in this discussion did I suggest that I felt I should have have this facility but nobody else should. What I said was my personal circumstances were the reason this was a particular problem. That is all.

As authoritative as you sound Saint I think I will let the NCBI speak for themselves on this one.

hibby · 24-07-2008 5:10pm

I just came back from a weekend in Helsinki, where dog-owners routinely take their dogs on the tram.

I've seen dogs in airports, department stores and other shops in Germany, Spain and France. All were under control, well-behaved, and nobody was having an anxiety attack.

In Ireland, if you don't have a car, your dog can't go anywhere beyond walking distance from your house. In continental Europe, cities are designed in such a way that people don't need cars, and can get around easily and conveniently by public transport. Even with their dogs.

I would love to be able to bring my dog on the luas when it's not crowded.

Dogs on Trains

Comments