Published
Chablais“This young disabled woman should sue the TPCs”
As she was boarding a bus for the first time with her brand new scooter, a person with reduced mobility had an accident. The company refuses any responsibility.
Scratches are visible on all sides of the machine.
DR
Victim of an honor killing, Rosa* lost a leg in her country of origin, in the Middle East. To avoid further abuse, she fled to Switzerland. His life as a person with reduced mobility, however, is not easy. Dreaming of more autonomy, she bought herself this summer a small scooter for the disabled, supposed to allow her to take public transport.
Barely two hours after receiving her new machine, she took a TPC (Transports publics du Chablais) bus to the lakeside. But the dream quickly turned into a nightmare. His scooter – poorly secured – smashed against the walls of the bus. “There was about 2000 francs worth of damage,” reports his curator.
“For ethical reasons, not allowing a person with reduced mobility to board remains delicate”
Considering that the carrier has the obligation to transport people and their goods to their destination, the young woman asked for compensation for the repair costs. Without success. “The law indicates that people must be able to be autonomous. So getting on the bus alone and then putting the brake on their chair and strapping themselves in. We are not responsible for any damage to this person’s scooter,” said a spokesperson.
Still, it was impossible for Rosa to attach her scooter to the place provided for this purpose. “The chair is larger than standard, and maybe we shouldn’t have had that person on board. But, for questions of ethics, not allowing a person with reduced mobility to board remains delicate, ”said the spokesperson.
No information on the internet
For lawyer Muriel Vautier, specialist in civil liability and insurance law, the situation is by far not so clear. “This young woman should take the TPC to court. Contrary to that of the CFF for example, their site does not give any information on the dimensions of the auxiliary means of locomotion accepted on the buses. It also does not refer to articles of law and it does not even invite people to find out for themselves.
In detail, public transport is required to accept these vehicles less than 120 cm long. Rosa’s is 165 cm. “It is true that no one is supposed to ignore the law. But, in this case, it is a prescription that is difficult to find and not very explicit. Among the confusions, it indicates what public transport is obliged to accept, and nothing more. They could very well plan bigger; this is also the case with SBB. In other words, only a very rigid and conservative judge would agree with the TPCs. And today, the trend is more to facilitate access to public transport for people with disabilities than to put a spoke in their wheels.
In the meantime, Rosa has taken fright and no longer dares to board the bus. Its autonomy is therefore now limited to that of the battery of its scooter.
For Sylvie Podio, director of Pro Infirmis Vaud, rather than trying to find out who is responsible for the accident, the infrastructures must be adapted so that they can accommodate all the auxiliary means. “Mobility must be accessible to the diversity of people. The real question, according to her, is: “How is it possible that certain wheelchairs or scooters are prohibited?” These standards are there to integrate more people, but public transport uses them to exclude them. It’s absurd. How absurd it is to quibble over 2,000 francs. The TPCs would have every interest in finding an agreement.