this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
54 points (98.2% liked)
Vancouver
1434 readers
20 users here now
Community for the city of Vancouver, BC
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This person must not have traveled on watercraft that much. Yes, this is still a problem, but the idea that since "it's fine on a car, plane or train it should be fine on a marine vessel" has little technical merit in my view. Each mode of transport is governed by different regulations, marine passenger regulations should account for accessibility, but since watercraft vary so much in size and purpose there's a patchwork of scopes in the laws that apply to a particular vessel.
I've only travelled by boat a handful of times but for multilevel boats I've only seen elevators on large cruise ships. Most watercraft have few accesible accommodations that I've seen, especially relative to buses, trains and planes.
Difficulty is irrelevant. It's not like accessibility can't be achieved at all. The only reason such barriers haven't been overcome by now is because nobody thought they should have to do or pay for it. Regardless of the intent, the outcome relegates a group of people to a lesser status as citizens.
I didn't talk about difficulty, and I'm not saying that this design doesn't make for discriminatory barriers.
Still, there's a degree of reasonability required. Even in aviation, there are cases in which an aircraft cannot accommodate a person's mobility issue. In this case, instead an airline is expected to book an alternative flight at another time which can, whether it's their own airline or another carrier. Similarly, a slower BC Ferries ferry to Nanaimo with an accessible bus connection may be considered a suitable alternative, if the Hullo crafts "high speed craft" are unsuitable to accommodate.