In a statement to Global News, Hullo Ferries said its vessels are designed to travel at a high rate of speed, therefore it must abide by Transport Canada's High-Speed Craft Code.
Seems like it’s a solved problem literal everywhere else this person has travelled. And it’s a garbage excuse. You design for accessibility from the start and you don’t have these issues.
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.
Seems like it’s a solved problem literal everywhere else this person has travelled. And it’s a garbage excuse. You design for accessibility from the start and you don’t have these issues.
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.