• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

The Future of Skyride

GooseOnTheLoose said:
Genuine question, and not an attempt at excusing the situation or being ableist.

In a completely hypothetical scenario where the Skyride was never built, would you still categorise the lack of a Skyride as discrimination? Or is it that the provision was offered, and has since been withdrawn, that brings about the discrimination?

Whether or not the intention of the Skyride was to provide access, or to entertain, is immaterial if it can be demonstrated that its use enables equal or parity access.

If I was to provide an analogy for the scenario I think you're describing. A building may have been built with a slope/wooden crossing leading up to its entrance many moons ago, without the expressed intent that it was relied upon for equal access. During a refurbishment someone comes along and decides that they'd rather have a spiral staircase to access that same entrance, and so they remove the slope/bridge. Although the slope was never intended to be relied upon for access, or even designed with that in mind, it has since become a means for physically disabled people to get equal and easy access; thus removing it counts as discrimination.
Click to expand...

You would be required to maintain the slope.

Historic buildings have some exemptions for not having to add slopes or other access methods but if a building had a slope already you wouldn’t be able to remove it.

With the skyride the park would argue this is a route that has accessible alternatives (step free paths, accepting there is a debate about how easy those paths are to traverse). The act says you have to make “reasonable adjustments”, it doesn’t outline what is reasonable. I’m certain a disability organisation would say there may be a case as without the skyride you have made access less convenient/ difficult but ultimately it would be up to a court to decide on reasonability (ie is it reasonable to expect a company to maintain a multi-million pound cable car or signpost guests to an alternative step free path).

You won’t really know unless it’s tested in court. I suspect due to the nature of the device in question a court couldn’t force the park to maintain it or guarantee operation (there has never been a guarantee of operation in its lifetime so there has always been use of the alternative paths), but they could state the existing route is not suitable and demand alterations to the gradient etc but that’s just my hunch. It gets even more complicated as the paths that are the alternative are through protected gardens.
 
Dave said:
You would be required to maintain the slope.

Historic buildings have some exemptions for not having to add slopes or other access methods but if a building had a slope already you wouldn’t be able to remove it.
Click to expand...
I was aware of this, but thank you for clarifying for other readers. My hypothetical analogy was far from perfect, but it was the best example I could think of at short notice to try and illustrate what I thought @rob666 was getting at.

There's also a longer way around, which avoids the gardens altogether too. I think that Alton Towers has managed to just about do the bare minimum, legally, if this were to go to court. They would argue that they have provision for assistance vehicles to be rented, which can navigate the terrain. I know that Rob doesn't want to use them, for various reasons, nor should he feel forced into using one, but I think it would be a strong point in their favour. I've also chosen my words carefully here. Bare minimum, legally; which is different from bare minimum morally and within the interests of concerned customers.

I must admit when Rob first started, what I deemed to be, his best Don Quixote impression I didn't see it as much of an issue, then again I have wings. As time has stomped on, however, the penny has dropped. Sometimes we need to take the time to see things from the perspective of others.

Communication about Skyride from the start of the season was unhelpful and mildly irritating. I would have thought that within closed season, however, they may have given updates as to the steps they're taking to get it operational again. We give Thorpe a lot of stick for posting about half painting a bit of track, but at least they're open about things (even if it's stuff they should be doing regardless).
 
Around a decade or so back I complained by email that the skyride was closed. The official reply I recieved was something along the lines of,
“The Skyride is not intended to be used for transportation. It is a family attraction.”

I guess that’s their get-out clause.
 
DiogoJ42 said:
Around a decade or so back I complained by email that the skyride was closed. The official reply I recieved was something along the lines of,
“The Skyride is not intended to be used for transportation. It is a family attraction.”

I guess that’s their get-out clause.
Click to expand...
It obviously is a method of transportation though because you have the ability to make one way journeys on it.

But yes, as you said, they have a clever get out clause which must infuriate those who are less able or unable to use the paths all day.
 
It isn't a get out clause, clever or otherwise, and the 2010 law makes that very clear.
No question of crap service...no notice, no warning, no new alternatives.
My friend has learning difficulties that put a scooter out of the question.
Who pushes my wheelchair while I push his?
The longer way around, coupled with the longer way back, would be well over a days walking limit for my mate.

The results from lunch.
No Towers, he just can't be bothered, so that's sorted out nicely.
 
The skyride is certainly useful but hardly a magic bullet, I'd argue that (in almost all cases) the park is not inherently inaccessible without it running and even when it is open many areas of the park will still be a struggle for many - pushing a wheelchair up the hill out of XS is not fun. To that end, having it closed is an inconvenience but not discrimination. The park is large and hilly, that's not illegal.
 
Personally there would be no need to push any wheelchairs out of x sector as neither of us is a wheelchair user.
Nor a scooter user, never have been.
Nobody has ever said that the park being large and hilly is illegal.
Who is to judge if inconvenience is discriminatory?
Read up on indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, it is not clear cut, but I can't be arsed setting the case law, not for a day out, it is just not worth the effort.
If you have mobility issues it is more than an inconvenience, it means no reasonable, comfortable access to large numbers of rides.
The information provided regarding the closure, and the timing of it, and the provision of useful alternatives, has been poor.
I'm not going to keep going round in the same circles, the problem is solved regarding the issue personally, we just won't be putting the place in our plans for next year, but the matter has been very poorly managed, on both an individual, and general basis, for the less mobile.
 
Taken from the Alton Towers Past Facebook group, credit goes to Dave Whieldon.

Some rare pictures here of an accident on the Skyride in 1989 at pylon 13. (whatever pylon that is, unlucky for some)

This would have required a full system evacuation, a similar thing happened in 2004 (or 2003), where a gondola got stuck entering the central station coming from UG Land, locking up the whole system.

These photos show EXACTLY why they do not run the system in high winds.

1000023113.jpg1000023114.jpg1000023111.jpg1000023112.jpg1000023110.jpg1000023115.jpg
 
MattyH said:
Is Pylon 13 the one just after the mid station heading across the valley?
Click to expand...
I think it's one of these two close together here, just as you leave Dark Forest to cross the valley. To be specific, the one on the right.

Near where you said but the other side of the valley. There are two close together here because on of them holds thr tension for the long valley crossing, the second pylon adjusts the pitch of the cable to start bringing it down towards the Dark Forest station.

1000025482.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ben said:
Concerning to read that Busch tampa are going to start up charging to use their sky ride, I can hear someone at Merlin touching themselves now
Click to expand...
Can you do magine that. You pay a fortune to get in the park and those with limited mobility or young children are told to pay more just to get around. That would go down like a lead balloon and I sincerely hope it doesn't happen.
 
I doubt they took a conscious decision to reduced their transport offering to spite guests. It’s a very old system and obviously needs TLC. In my opinion, we should judge them on whether it returns or is replaced, not because it’s closed for maintenance.
 
Connor98 said:
I doubt they took a conscious decision to reduced their transport offering to spite guests. It’s a very old system and obviously needs TLC. In my opinion, we should judge them on whether it returns or is replaced, not because it’s closed for maintenance.
Click to expand...
But when questioned over guests with limited mobility or alternatives towers essentidally shrugged and didn’t care. Alternatives exist but that would require cost with no return
 
And add in the fact they they are clearly discriminating against the disabled (Equality Act 2010, indirect discrimination) by withdrawing it without notice for a long period, with no promise of a return in the new season.
But I have been asked to stop going on.
So I won't.
If it doesn't open from the start of the season, there will likely be fun at the gates.
 
rob666 said:
And add in the fact they they are clearly discriminating against the disabled (Equality Act 2010, indirect discrimination) by withdrawing it without notice for a long period, with no promise of a return in the new season.
Click to expand...
Don't want us going around in circles again but they are not breaking the act as they are not legally obliged to provide it. There are wheelchair accessible routes through the gardens for a start.
 
Then don't start spinning old circles...
I didn't know you were a lawyer sir.
I have had good advice.
The only reason for not going to law is because it is simply not worth the effort, and there are other ways of displaying my dissatisfaction publicly.
Who pushes my wheelchair when both visitors are disabled?
The facilities that used to be available for the less mobile for thirty years were withdrawn without notice, warning or reopening date.
Just another million apologies.
That makes planning and visiting difficult when it used to be easy.
I have had no response yet from my enquiry for this years planned visit.
That fact doesn't surprise me.
Edit...No meaningful response...the "team" is being "reached out to"...
Again.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top