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.
The larger issue is that Canada does not stop un-protected/poorly protected lithium batteries from entering and being used in the country. The ‘e-transportation’ market is flooded with dangerously cheap batteries and there is really no way for normal people to identify them. If there were some import control business wouldn’t all be terrified of batteries exploding.
I agree with this. Hopefully CSA standard certification can help with that respect, but requiring it to be submitted by the passenger is yet another barrier to travel for people with disabilities.
There’s a significant difference between the speeds and construction of the boats. Hullo is governed by the high speed craft code. Basically the concern is that a collision by one of these would be different than a regular ferry, and so there’s limitations to what they can carry, and the emergency procedures they have to have in place.
Hopefully stories like this will help push for improvements to the regulation
Accessibility options available on board larger ferries travelling between Vancouver and Vancouver Island:
Accessible passenger areas and cafeteria
Designated priority seating
Elevator access (see more below)
Induction loop hearing systems (see more below)
Ramps to board the ferry
That implies smaller ferries by BC Ferries don’t have the same level of accessibility.
Second, BC Ferries is the operator on behalf of the BC government, so I think there is more of a push for better resident access, which BC Ferries holds Accessibility Committee meetings for. Hullo on the other hand is a private ferry company and so their priorities and the purpose of their vessels might be different, accessibility not being at top of mind over capacity, speed and availability of service (which translates to profit). Different regulations apply for vessels built for different purposes (the BC Ferries are not made for higher-speed journeys for example).
I mean such a policy is not insensible, electrically powered devices and saltwater don’t mix well.
Definitely an accessibility issue, but not one that is trivial to solve.
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.
The larger issue is that Canada does not stop un-protected/poorly protected lithium batteries from entering and being used in the country. The ‘e-transportation’ market is flooded with dangerously cheap batteries and there is really no way for normal people to identify them. If there were some import control business wouldn’t all be terrified of batteries exploding.
I agree with this. Hopefully CSA standard certification can help with that respect, but requiring it to be submitted by the passenger is yet another barrier to travel for people with disabilities.
How come they’re allowed on BC Ferries but not Hullo?
There’s a significant difference between the speeds and construction of the boats. Hullo is governed by the high speed craft code. Basically the concern is that a collision by one of these would be different than a regular ferry, and so there’s limitations to what they can carry, and the emergency procedures they have to have in place.
Hopefully stories like this will help push for improvements to the regulation
Firstly, from the BC Ferries website:
That implies smaller ferries by BC Ferries don’t have the same level of accessibility.
Second, BC Ferries is the operator on behalf of the BC government, so I think there is more of a push for better resident access, which BC Ferries holds Accessibility Committee meetings for. Hullo on the other hand is a private ferry company and so their priorities and the purpose of their vessels might be different, accessibility not being at top of mind over capacity, speed and availability of service (which translates to profit). Different regulations apply for vessels built for different purposes (the BC Ferries are not made for higher-speed journeys for example).
The point of a ferry is to NOT go in the water
You’re correct, but not every vessel is designed not to get you wet in various maritime conditions.
deleted by creator