I would like to thank the unidentified contributor for responding to my letter in regards to the PSV Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR).
My letter set out an argument that was not considered in the legal advice that the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) received early this year, nor does it appear to have even been the subject of case law.
The letter was intended to bring around discussion in regards and to establish if an additional exemption could apply.
This is not, in any way, the same as demanding contractual obligations be adjusted, nor is it a proposal that rail planners or local councils search for options to not use PSVAR compliant vehicles.
Inclusion in our society is key, and I for one welcome PSVAR. However, in the current format, PSVAR is a badly written piece of legislation that is far from clear and has not been subject to case law.
An example of this is where a double-decker is used on, say, schools. When that PSVAR compliant vehicle is not available and replaced by two single deckers, do both need to be PSVAR compliant – or is it justifiable to supply only one compliant vehicle? What about duplicate services? Does the duplicate vehicle need to be PSVAR compliant? What about three coaches on rail replacement duty, all doing the exact same journey at the exact same time – do all three need to be PSVAR compliant?
The point I was making is our industry and others are blindly following a set of rules without the full facts being known.
We appear to not have an adequate voice with access to government to challenge such issues, all while we press back into service highly polluting end of life vehicles to meet the PSVAR need just as the Ultra-Low Emission Zone and Clean Air Zones are being introduced, prohibiting their use.
Gary Clark
Wokingham
