Footplate Courses - Age Discrimination

It does, indeed, depend on the railway's insurance policy. We have a similar situation, in that our insurers must be notified of the name of the person in control of a train. However, our insurers do not make any stipulation regarding the age of the person, or their medical condition. Those matters are left to the insured to decide, i.e. me.

The foregoing applies to the person actually in control of the train- the driver. It should not apply to a trainee or a "driver experience" participant, as they are not (or should not be) in control- the driver must always ensure that no matter what happens, he can always and immediately have control of the train.

We require that all "driving experience" participants provide their name and address and sign a waiver form, which includes a very basic medical self-assessment. We do not ask their age, but I use my discretion in cases where a person is obviously unfit. It's worth remembering that you are not immune from sudden death, even under 70. Medics tell me that, whilst you are getting closer to the inevitable after the age of 70, the process is usually gradual. Sudden death or incapacity is quite common in 50/60 year-olds!

 

So what happens if a 12 year old wants to have sex? What happens when a 13 year old wants to go into the offie and buy a bottle of vodka and a packet of fags? Should they sue the government because they regard the law as 'age discrimination'?

As lostlogin has said, it cuts both ways. But, as usual, the keyboard warriors on this forum wear their highly selective vision goggles...

 

The problem is we only have one side of the story and can only presume it is insurance.

I am amazed if the burden of proving something is uninsurable falls not to the insurance company but to the railway. It appears that one commercial company is allowed to actively discriminate when offering products to the market when another cannot. This puts the second company on a sticky wicket because if the wrong person comes along they face having the extra administrative burden of changing insurers and potentially a higher premium as they are not entitled to choose who to do business with..when the insurer can? Bizarre!

 

The point is that it does not cut both ways. Parliament has decided that there should be various restrictions on what young people can do and at what age, and Parliament has decided that older people should not be discriminated against purely on the grounds of their age. It's the law, that's it, end of story!

 

It must be up to them what conditions they impose.
Although insurance companies are in the business of insuring, they are also in business to make a profit and they have a lot of statistics on these matters. You can generally get insurance as you get older but the premiums increase. Perhaps if Peak Rail had gone to their insurance co and said that they want to insure people up to (say) 80, the insurance co. would say 'that's fine but your premiums have just gone up by 50%.'

 

At the young end, the law isn't primarily about age discrimination. The laws restricting the ability of the young to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, partake in sex etc are primarily designed to protect the interests of a group of people who are deemed not old enough to be able to protect their own interests.

Tom

 

We are presuming, or, rather, I am presuming this is the problem because I know for a fact that, on quite a few heritage railways there was a general cut-off at 70 because of insurance stipulations. I would also suggest that a railway cannot carry on an uninsured activity.
The NYMR's footplate experiences stipulated 16-70 but, since this thread started, has been amended and now states:
All courses are available for physically fit participants aged between 16 and 70 years. Our risk assessment process requires that a doctor’s letter be provided confirming that participants over the age of 70 are medically fit and capable to be able to travel safely on a steam locomotive.

 

I would be extremely surprised if the insurance company would be allowed to practice age discrimination, the law applies to everyone. The point is the insured railways have to take it up with their insurer and ask them to justify it in turn, and not just wash their hands and pass the buck.

Personally, I'm with Sheff. When I first came across this thread I thought of a day with the Wirksworth track gang, changing sleepers some years back. This included one guy in his seventies just out of chemotherapy and a few teenage work experience trainees. Guess who left who standing in terms of effort and work rate. Despite what has been said, very few of these older chaps, if any, have ever keeled over on the job.

There is another side to the argument which no one has mentioned yet. Very few people care to make this amount of fuss. How many paying customers were turned away before this came to light? The railway is probably making more money than it was before thanks to this case!

Tim

 

Ever looked at car insurance quotes for a 17-year-old?

 

Yeah, bloody expensive! I seem to remember something to do with not allowing to discriminate between sexes anymore though? Or was that just companies ONLY insuring women drivers etc.?

 

Once again confusing the two separate issues. Insurance premiums are based on the risk factors involved. If Peak Rail had said to their insurers (and maybe they did) something to the effect of "We want to offer driver experience courses to members of the general public. They will travel on the footplate of a light engine on an otherwise empty line and be allowed to operate the engine briefly under the total supervision of our qualified staff once they have satisfied those staff that they have the necessary competence. These courses will involve the locomotive being in motion for X hours and will take place Y times a month. Can you give us an extension of cover for this, and if so how much ?" The insurers would have evaluated the risk as quite minimal when compared with the usual day to day operations of the railway and, having possibly added a clause or two to cover anything that specifically concerned them, would have come up with a premium of a few quid to provide this specific cover per course. A cost that would be added directly to the course fee and would have no impact whatsoever on the overall insurance of the organisation.

Mike

 

Both professionally and as a heritage railway volunteer I've come across people from age 13-89 who I would trust to be sensible and know the limits of their own ability and capability, and others at both ends of the spectrum and indeed in the middle who I wouldn't trust to operate a biro. Age has very little to do with it, and blaming "insurance" or "health and safety" for arbitrary restrictions is just plain lazy. And possibly dangerous if it creates a false sense of having "done something" and leads to a lack of proper assessment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk