Footplate Courses - Age Discrimination

This could be said to be the 2 ends of the same spectrum.

As a coach driver I had to undergo a medical every 3 years after the age of 50; as a PTS holder I had to have a medical EVERY YEAR because of a suspected diabetic condition. I do not consider this as AGEIST - but I do consider it MEDICAL !! In the same way my local surgery gives every patient over 50 an annual medical test that identified my possible diabetes but - to me - the important factor of age was the medical rationale as 50 was the age that experience shows most symptoms begin to appear.

"Good Old Common Sense" suggests that the railway should have noted the applicants age but noted that his current HGV licence was proof of his competence to undertake a Driving Experience; if it was so concerned that there was a problem then all that was needed was a signed declaration by the applicant that he was undertaking the course "at his own risk" and the railway company was covered against future possible liability.

I think the situation, however, has been best summed up by The Dainton Banker who blames the problem on "failure to communicate effectively" - and I agree that the railway showed both this and a lack of common sense.

This incident has however had the benefit of airing a situation that will become increasingly common in the near future as many enthusiasts will reach that age where their physical age and physical abilities may not be considered as different - and decisions made on one basis (i.e. age) that have no bearing on the other (i.e. physical abilities).

 

It's a difficult subject, but in my opinion neither party acted particularly well. I would say though, that whilst I understand lostlogin's argument about not wanting to be responsible, you seem to be saying that you don't think any bits of paper are worth anything? That's just rubbish. If a candidate has done the same or equivalent medical exam as a regular crew member then surely he's just as likely as a crew members of a similar age to collapse?

On a related note, we bought my grandad a steam loco driving courses at the SVR a couple of years ago for his 80th! As far as I know, the paperwork only said that the participant must be able to see and hear (aids allowed) and should be able to climb aboard from ground level, and that was it. I also know we have an ex-BR fireman on the GWSR who's over 70 and still allowed, and guards must undergo regular medical checkups. I believe there is a rough limit to starting ages for these posts though, as the railway doesn't want to invest training into someone who might not have too many years left of being able to fulfill that role.

 

Hopefully yes as I think in situations as this, even if I disagree with a policy, the organisation should have the right to set down its own criteria. As I have pointed out there are plenty of examples in this world, even in the UK, which have age restrictions yet they are accepted. e.g I can sign up for a Saga holiday but not Club 18-30 if it is still going. Demanding "your rights" under age discrimination legislation in situations such as this I think is an abuse of the legislation just as I think people suing schools or councils because their their kid fell over in a playground.

 

While risking being about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit here (nothing changes), I completely agree with you, lostlogin.

It comes down to that sense of entitlement that everybody seems to have nowadays. It's exactly the same mentality that members on this very forum bemoan because it means that the 'good old days' of a copper giving a brat a clip around the ear or a vandal being made to clear up his own mess have gone. "Something doesn't go MY way, somebody didn't take the time to make ME feel special, so I'm going to run to the law."

It was a steam train driving course - nothing more. The railway didn't seem to handle it particularly well, but if the complainant saw fit to throw his toys out of the pram and sue over something as utterly inconsequential as that, I can only assume that he has led a very cushy and unchallenging life indeed?

Nobody said that life was 'fair'. Perhaps the complainant might like to spend a little time with some of the billions of far worse off people on the planet to put his little tantrum into some sort of perspective?

 

I would hope they might be mature enough to reserve spitting their dummies for something a little more important in life, Ralph...

 

The complainant admits that he was told when he tried to hand over the form and pay that he was told there and there of the policy and that the individual was very apologetic. At that point as I said previous most of us would have grumbled a bit and looked at for alternatives. The complaint though did not want to accept and wanted to change their policy or override for him and "knowing his rights" was going to ensure that happened. After that I am not going to pass judgement on how either side took forward as I have no idea of the tone of coorespondence, manner of complaint etc. The point might have been raised in a very reasonable manner, or they might have been very demanding/threatening over it. I have no idea so have difficulty in passing a view on the subsequent handling. I note that Fred Kerr expresses that their was "a failure to communicate effectivly". Telling the person at the time they tried to book and being very apologetic to me appears me what most os us would expect.

I have to admit I do not think that in these days bits of paper mean much. If you have any experience dealing with lawyers etc whose business is claiming compensation on a no win no fee then you might have a more sceptical view. The first question asked of a person making a claim is have yoou had any experience of ....... As soon as they say no the view appears to be that in that case how could they make a judgement to state they were fit enough or whatever and surely the onus is on the provider who has the relevent knowledge. That is why I just do not believe that a declaration by the applicant that they are undertaking the course "at their own risk" as Fred Kerr suggests these days covers against future possible liability

I am pleased that your grandad had a great time for his 80th but I have to admit that setting a requirement that a participant must "be able to see and hear (aids allowed) and should be able to climb aboard from ground level" is a much level requirement than I would expect from participants. I have to admit though I do not know what course etc he did but when I was rostered as crew, depending whether you had a full or half day course and if you wanted to get involved in the preparation it might involve a day ( 6 -8 hrs) spent mostly on your feet with a fair amount of it being bounced around. I have never set foot on an large standard gauge loco, there levels of comfort may be completely different. I gave up footplate work when I hit 50 although fairly fit, I play five a side football in week and go to the gym, as aving a desk based job I was finding that after a couple of days on the footplate my body was beginning to feel it. Especially at the start of a season, I was simply not used to it.

I am pleased that some railways have different policies but I still believe that it is reasonable for each railway to set its own policies & that it is unreasonable to expect preserved railways to be able to look at each case on an individual basis. If they can great but not to expect or demand that is the case. But more than that even if I did not the idea that if you disagree you then try and demand your rights and take legal action in such a case I find appalling, especially as there are plenty of examples where age cut offs apply.

I may be fairly jaundiced in my view as unfortunatly over the years I have come across too many cases where you relax a rule or policy slightly in the face of somebody demanding their rights or giving chapter and verse of why in their situation the policy should not apply and they are always the cases that come and bite you on the backside.

 

I hope it won't. When I changed from being an employee to running my own business my attitude to what was fair in the way employees should be treated did not change, or I hope they did not. As an employee I hoped I could see matters from the perspective of my boss and now it is the other way around I believe I can remember what it was like being an employee and I hope I act accodingly. Most staff appear to think I am a good boss, but then it does depend on the attitude they take.

I was listening to something on the radio recently about a student in an exam demanded a glass of sherry because he was entitled to under the college rules. Apparently he got. The college though then fined him for not wearing a sword when crossing a courtyard as apparently that was in the rules. Relationships should be two sided and there should be give and take. Hopefully I will remember that for the rest of my life and not go through life getting disgruntled because everthing does not go my way. Basically at times it is good to take a chill pill and be grateful for what we have or had

 

In your series of posts, I think you always disregard the salient point. There is no correlation between chronological age and fitness to carry out a task safely. An age restriction is wholly arbitrary. A footplate experience course for some people aged 20 would be unsafe; it might well be safe for a fit 80 year old. All that is required is a simple assessment.

 

For what it's worth, several of our p-way gang are over 70, the rest are mostly over 65, and a few of us young'uns are late 50's early 60's. Very few don't get involved with the heavy lifting, ballast shoveling etc, and all have regular medicals. I know plenty of youngsters who wouldn't be capable of doing this every week in all weathers.

 

The older you get the more chances are that you will be unfit. Yes it is arbitary but so is the date you receive a pension, get a bus pass, can buy a round, need medicals to drive a HGV, go on a Saga holiday. The world is full of examples.

Most of us by looking have no idea how fit another is. Many have no idea how healthy we are ourselves. Most of us stroll around thinking we are fine and for some reason we have a check up and it is suddenly a shock to be told we have high blood pressure etc. If an organisation has decided that age X is when risks start to kick in, then yes it is arbitary but as I said so are many things.

You raise the option of as you say that they take a simple assessment. Sorry but no thanks, if I am responsible for an individual driving a standard length train at line speed I want to be concentrating on that rather than worried that although the individual has signed a form etc they look a bit doddery etc. In many of the cases we are putting individuals in an enviroment they have never been before. They might have to stand for a long time in a confined space which is moving about in hot conditions. Not all footplate courses are on nice large express engines where there is a padded seat for the driver.

The alternative is that they have a detailed medical. I think many would baulk at the cost of that and presumably you could not introduce for those age X or above as again it would be deemed to be age discriminatory.

There is no easy answer but the best people to decide who they want to allow to book such courses are the people providing in my view. Yes they may have it wrong but suing because an organisation has such a policy and you fall foul of it is wrong in my opinion. The argument in this case appears to be that the age is wholly arbitary and that other railways do not operate such a rule. By that logic you would be in favour of parents suing railways that have to pay when kids reach the age of 4 as other railways wait to charge until they are 5 and the choice of age is totally arbitary!

 

I have a notion what Henry (below) would think of your arguments. However, as this discussion is tediously repetitious and there is little chance of the law being changed to accommodate your preferences, I will write no more.

http://www.thestickythrottle.com/post/39324654750/racecafe-thesexbobombs

 

As I live in the IoM I am well of many elderly bikers who still race. As I have said I accept that the cut off is arbitray and there will those past any cut off age who are fit etc as fitness and ageing is not a linera progression through life.

I believe the law in this case has been abused and in the long term could potentially do preserved railways or those wanting to do courses no favours because if you can not bring in arbitary restictions based on age etc, you either have none which I believe is inappropraite or a set of rules that apply to all which might kill off the courses etc. e.g if every participant requires a medical.

This ruling appears to suggest that you can not have restrictions based on age or treat differently but yet it seems enirely common sense that as people age you can assume in general our health deteiorates and that you should therefore apply different criteria to different ranges. If that cannot be done then surely the only option is as I say you treat everybody equally and either make all have medicals or just basically presume everybody is fit and get them to sign a form. I am uncomfortable with the latter.

Basically it scares me that at some future point an 80 odd year old, who has signed a basic form collapses on a footplate and health and safety come down like a ton of bricks on how thoroughly such a person had been assessed before being allowed on a footplate and then hit us with draconian rules. Maybe melodramtic but I would prefer we do not put it to the test.

 

There are two points here. Is age discrimination a good thing and should it be tolerated? No, but then nor is discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, sexual orientation; although there are quite a few on here who seem to continue to do so and seem to see nothing wrong in it.

The second point is, was the reaction of going to court fair and proportionate, even if it was legal correct? On this point I agree with those who say it wasn't.

 

I haven't read every post but there is surely a great difference between a driver in charge of a loco and some old chap who just wants to fulfil an ambition to experience a ride on the footplate before heading to the pearly gates?

As long as a disclaimer is signed, even if his dicky ticker gave up, at least he would have passed away doing something he wanted to rather then on an old sofa at home. The crew could always put the body on top of the coal in the tender to save it getting in the way of the firemans shovelling.

 

I'm seem to be banging my head against a brick wall on this. The real reason for the age limit is almost certainly insurance. It is nothing to do with a persons ability/fitness/whatever. If the insurance co won't insure people over 70, what can the railway do? There are other railways in this situation. I understand that the insurance co is within its rights to decline to insure a person based on risk and, it their conclusion is that someone over 70 is too great a risk, then that is it. One railway I am involved with will (and does) insure people over 70 but they have to be named and accepted by the insurers. It isn't done on a carte blanche basis.

 

If you look up Foreman v Oasis Taxis Mansfield, it was held not surprisingly really, that the respondent could not simply cite their current insurance policy with their current insurance company and say "tough" i.e. they would have to make efforts to establish that this really was an uninsurable risk. That said, it is presumably rather fact intensive as are most such situations. On the basis of empirical evidence that other railways do not apply such an age limit, it was always going to be a struggle for Peak Rail to justify its actions on this basis.

 

I think that lostlogin is a genius if he can look at someone and assess whether that person is likely to have a heart attack. What a crock of s**t! I have friends who have had strokes and heart attacks who were all under the age of40 and 50 respectively. I have a colleague where I volunteer who is over 80 and fit as a fiddle. To say that a piece of paper doesn't give one indemnity in an inquest is crap as well. ANY inquest will assess all forms of paper trails, paper and electronic versions, before persuing eye witness accounts. Its pieces of paper that pretty much allows us to do what we do in life from driving licences, insurance documents, property deeds etc. They all tell us what we can and can't do. I work for a rather large employer in the aircraft industry and ALL the aircrew are only allowed to fly because of a piece of paper, even the ones into their 60s and maintenance mechanics having to have a pressurization test to say they can work in fuel tanks as well. I think you're just being argumentative for the sake of it and the rest of your posts imply that you would only refuse someone the opportunity purely because you want to cover your backside because you can't be arsed with the hassle. Poor show all round!

 

How does the insurer accept the individual? Does it conduct its own medical (or other) examination?