Is it time to scrap ENTCS completely?

[Bletchleyite]

They don’t really give up their cars in great numbers, do they?

They certainly use them less, or sometimes go down from 2 cars to 1 as my parents did.

There's one other benefit, as I'm well aware of being someone who works from home and lives on his own - it gets them out of the house, which is a huge mental health benefit. Yes, I just pay for it, but I have a larger income than most pensioners and don't have to concern myself as to whether a bus day ticket is affordable. You could means test this, but as a supporter of Universal Basic Income (which could potentially replace it) I question whether it's worth bothering.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another consideration of the non-local aspect - someone lives rurally (so has no local service) but uses it on a city break (say) - is that unfair? I'd say not.

 

[duncombec]

It's worth remembering that the average pensioner (I highlight that before anyone tells me they are not all rich) now has the highest disposable income of any age group, according to The Economist (their website is largely log-in only, so no linked source available). Whilst their absolute income may be lower, the disposable portion of it is, as a percentage, higher. As many others have commented, is it fair that 75-year-old Gladys can swan around on a day out for free, whilst 21-year-old Sally struggles to get to work because she has to pay full fare? (Or indeed that 40-year old Richard goes back to driving to work because he can't justify the additional cost of the bus no matter how 'green' he's trying to be?)

It would, no doubt, be too complicated to introduce, but a way forward that has popped up in the (non-transport related) office would be to put every "benefit" into a basket, and allow each pensioner or household to state, say, 2/3 of that basket as their preferences (so 3/5, 7/10, etc.), reviewable annually. As an example, a healthy person may chose to pay for the occasional prescription but have winter fuel allowance, free TV license and bus pass, whilst another with no public transport may prefer to drop the bus pass and pay if they go visiting but have free prescriptions. If pensioner A then requires regular medication, they would have to consider whether it would be more cost effective for them to pay for their TV license but have free prescriptions, or stay as they were.

It sounds harsh, but on the generic basis that those who are most in need of a particular service are least likely to shout about their need for fear of making it known, it would be an interesting exercise to see how appreciated, popular and useful each benefit really is.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

What I mean is that ENCTS remuneration and bus subsidies both come out of council general funds and not any ring fenced transport budget. They are independent council expenses from the general budget. The Formula Grant is the way of calculating the size of lump sum the council receives from central government for their general fund. Part of that formula is ENCTS related and understates the cost, but the payment is for general use.

Cutting a subsidised bus route saves money directly on the subsidy and reduces the ENCTS renumeration cost as there is no bus to travel on. So Cumbria cutting the 106 saves cash in two ways, which they can then spend on education, social services, pot hole repairs or what ever. Cutting bus subsidies is a quick way of reducing the council's cash expenditure where as cutting services costs money and requires negotiation over months.

The cost of mandatory ENCTS remuneration has no baring on any other transport expenditure, but restricts spending on education, social services etc.. If ENCTS was abolished then the council would receive less from central government and have some spare cash of their own to spend on anything they like, which probably wouldn't be buses. If cars get phased out then the 106 might well be commercial again with an electric bus.

There are many government grants that are ring fenced for specific purposes and not included in the general fund.

I don't disagree with that. Cutting bus subsidies is also a way of getting the ENCTS spend down too, in that pensioners have a pass but no way in which to use it! Also, the formula grant does have a non hypothecated amount for ENCTS expenditure but that provision is insufficient so it has a direct impact on other, discretionary services. However, it brings it back to the central concern... Should non pass holders, whether that's workers or teenagers etc not have access to a bus service so that funds can be spent on out of area tourism, or our Shappite going to the sea because they fancy it? You say that the cost of mandatory ENCTS reimbursement has not bearing on other transport expenditure... that simply isn't case. If your notional allocation within the formula grant is £x, and your ENCTS is £x+y, then the £y must come from reducing expenditure on non statutory spend and one of those areas is support for socially necessary bus services.

They certainly use them less, or sometimes go down from 2 cars to 1 as my parents did.

There's one other benefit, as I'm well aware of being someone who works from home and lives on his own - it gets them out of the house, which is a huge mental health benefit. Yes, I just pay for it, but I have a larger income than most pensioners and don't have to concern myself as to whether a bus day ticket is affordable. You could means test this, but as a supporter of Universal Basic Income (which could potentially replace it) I question whether it's worth bothering.

I don't think anyone doubts that it's a nice thing to do. However, should it be that it is done at the expense of others (and I'm not talking about tax take!!). In the Cumbrian example, were the £8.5m be £7.5m, perhaps some of the harshest cuts could have been avoided and protected some services that would be of benefit to others. Perhaps there may even have been people who did use the bus but because of service cuts, a 1 car household has had to become 2 car?

 

[Tetchytyke]

The cost of mandatory ENCTS remuneration has no baring on any other transport expenditure, but restricts spending on education, social services etc..

They have to pay for ENCTS, they don't have to pay for subsidised buses. So yes, ENCTS has an impact. The other things you mention are also statutory expenditure, and so they cannot be cut.

I really can't believe you don't see the link between the two.

Cutting a subsidised bus route saves money directly on the subsidy and reduces the ENCTS renumeration cost as there is no bus to travel on. So Cumbria cutting the 106 saves cash in two ways

Wrong. Subsidy takes into account the commercial revenue of the service (either by reducing the subsidy or by the LA taking the revenue risk). ENCTS revenue is part of that.

I worked for an operator in Cumbria, and now work for an operator who claims commercially from 2 other authorities. The reimbursement rate in Cumbria IS 58% of the adult single fare for the journey taken.

Thank you, that's very interesting. And explains why you have to state your destination when using ENCTS in Cumbria (this always causes consternation in Newcastle on the Cumbrian-operated 685s, where the drivers can be quite arsey about it, as our passholders aren't used to it).

You could means test this, but as a supporter of Universal Basic Income (which could potentially replace it) I question whether it's worth bothering.

Ironically pensioners pretty much have a Universal Basic Income- Pension Credit (for the poorest people) is £166pw for a single person (plus 100% housing benefit and 100% council tax benefit. The poorest pensioners can afford to pay for their bus travel in a way the poorest working age people (Universal Credit for unemployed or disabled people is as low as £54pw for under-25s and £73pw otherwise) cannot.

For comparison, the Pension Credit rate (a simgle pensioner's guaranteed minimum income) is the equivalent of working 20 hours per week at national minimum wage.

So no, I'm not buying the sobstories about how pensioners wouldn't be able to leave the house without their bus pass.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Are we now in a technological position where the passholder's home authority could pay for all journeys? This would solve this kind of issue.

Metro, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority was getting a bit arsey when it comes to reimbursting operators such as Transdev, as WYCA had to cough up for all journeys made by anyone with Metro issued ENTCS from Leeds to Whitby or Leeds to Bridlington. This could be why the Bridlington journeys were curtailed at Malton.

No idea if its been sorted or not.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Your solution is a scrappage scheme. The rag-bag of journeys which would still be allowable would make bus travel in England similar to rail travel i.e. an accountant-led scheme to wring every last penny out of susceptible people whose only 'crime' is to wish to travel between two places with the minimum of fuss, a degree of comfort and without being harassed, but who constantly come up against employees of TOCs whose avowed intention is to make sure none of those situations pertain if they can help it.

Anyway, how do you differentiate 'senior' and disabled? Is there some magic formula whereby, if you acquire an ENCTS pass at retirement age i.e. based on your age alone that you miraculously retain all your abilities and faculties until you suddenly drop down dead from old age, even assuming you still had them when you reached 65 or whatever? I'm on my third pass, still with the same photo which is a sobering reminder to self that I once looked a lot younger, even then, and if I compared my physical ableness then and now, there'd be no comparison. So, I'd be required to provide some 'proof' of my disability under your scheme? Or, perhaps not, just as I can't claim Disability Living Allowance because new entrants can only be under 18, I should just pay if I want to use the bus, or go without. I know what I think of that 'solution,'

As technology improves, the tech would be able to differentiate between senior passes and disabled passes. The funding is split into two seperate "pots", one for disabled and the other for seniors. As my generation (Gen X) and those below (Gen Y, Generation Snowflake, Generation A or Generation Digital) aren't having as many offspring as the Baby Boomers were, this means that there are less people to fund the system.

As the retirement age increases the funding of the ENTCS will change over time, the scheme is very likely to be modified at some point to make it more value for money. I can see it being reduced to a regionwide (e.g. South West, Yorkshire & Humber) or countywide (e.g Linconshire - including North and North East Lincolnshire) scheme that would offer discounted travel elsewhere.

By the time I retire (which would be in 2049), I'm expecting the ENTCS scheme to have changed dramatically if not scrapped entirely and replaced with a flat fare scheme whereby you pay £5 for a days worth of travel which would have no time restriction. This is by taking in the costs of inflation over the next 30 years.

 

[Leeds1970]

in reply to northern spirit - the Bridlington buses are summer dated which is a commercial decision, passengers can change from coastliner to eyms service 12 at Scarborough to go forward to Bridlington - nothing to do with metro.
with regard to Entcs payments- metro has ( at least in the WY area) a set fee per pass it was around 59p with regard to coastliner the formula is/was slightly different -metro collected on bus data on the amount of passes used and how many were theirs then paid an average.
my own personal gripe with entcs is the disabled plus one pass - this pass is issued on the grounds that you are unable to travel without the assistance of a companion-- so therefore in my opinion if you are alone with a plus one card you should not be allowed travel (unless you pay full fare) a number of plus one card holders only seem to require a second person when going to somewhere like York/Scarborough or Hull for a nice day out ---

 

[Eyersey468]

A few years ago there was a young guy who used to regularly get the bus and had a disabled +1 pass, but was using the +1 bit purely to get his mates free rides in and out of York which really annoyed us as we knew he was abusing the system but there wasn't anything we could do about it.
Another thing I couldnt understand was the attitude that some pass holders had "I've paid in all my life I should be entitled to my pass"
Going by that logic then do they expect free food from Tesco, free gas, free electricity etc?

 

[Geordie driver]

Another thing I couldnt understand was the attitude that some pass holders had "I've paid in all my life I should be entitled to my pass"
Going by that logic then do they expect free food from Tesco, free gas, free electricity etc?

I think it most of them mean they have paid for others to have free travel in their old age and now expect the same. That kind of logic.

Number crunching and envy will provide those who want it a reason to remove free travel for pensioners.

I am way off getting my pass ( although I am retired), but I think it's a nice thing for a wealthy country to provide, and the benefits go way deeper than simple maths.

 

[Geordie driver]

my own personal gripe with entcs is the disabled plus one pass - this pass is issued on the grounds that you are unable to travel without the assistance of a companion-- so therefore in my opinion if you are alone with a plus one card you should not be allowed travel (unless you pay full fare) a number of plus one card holders only seem to require a second person when going to somewhere like York/Scarborough or Hull for a nice day out ---

Because possibly the level of their disability might change day by day? I was a bus driver for 20 years and never understood why people got wound up by this sort of thing.

 

[Eyersey468]

Because possibly the level of their disability might change day by day? I was a bus driver for 20 years and never understood why people got wound up by this sort of thing.

I can understand people getting wound up by those that abuse the system but I agree someone shouldn't have to have a carer with them at all times

 

[Eyersey468]

Just to clarify in my example above what he was doing was getting the bus into York by himself, then picking his mate up and coming back on the same bus, or going into York with his mate and coming back on the same bus by himself, it wouldn't have bothered us if he had spent an hour or two with his mates then came back, and it was all the time not just a one off.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Because possibly the level of their disability might change day by day? I was a bus driver for 20 years and never understood why people got wound up by this sort of thing.

I think the point is that the person (primary user) with the disability may need a companion; a secondary user who is able bodied and would not qualify for a pass in their own right. However, should the companion then be travelling about without the primary user if that is what is being alleged in that the companion is coming back somehow? It would seem akin to getting a blue badge because your Nan needs taking to the shops/hospital etc, but you then using it when she's not in the car. Or getting a blue badge when one isn't needed at all.

Another thing I couldnt understand was the attitude that some pass holders had "I've paid in all my life I should be entitled to my pass"

My mum has said much the same.

I've heard the view floated that this is because National Insurance is seen as some sort of insurance policy where you pay in and can then claim when you need, when it's not. Much of it is really a Social Security Tax and those in work pay for those who are not, whether that's pensions, universal credit or whatever. When the Welfare State began, there was a generation of people who had never paid in - essentially, when we work, we pay for our grandparents. That's why we have the problem with pensions.... there are fewer people working to pay for those who now draw on pensions.

 

[GusB]

my own personal gripe with entcs is the disabled plus one pass - this pass is issued on the grounds that you are unable to travel without the assistance of a companion-- so therefore in my opinion if you are alone with a plus one card you should not be allowed travel (unless you pay full fare) a number of plus one card holders only seem to require a second person when going to somewhere like York/Scarborough or Hull for a nice day out ---

It could be that some people are perfectly able/confident to travel alone on local journeys, but require assistance when travelling further afield to places that are unfamiliar.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've heard the view floated that this is because National Insurance is seen as some sort of insurance policy where you pay in and can then claim when you need, when it's not. Much of it is really a Social Security Tax and those in work pay for those who are not, whether that's pensions, universal credit or whatever. When the Welfare State began, there was a generation of people who had never paid in - essentially, when we work, we pay for our grandparents. That's why we have the problem with pensions.... there are fewer people working to pay for those who now draw on pensions.

TBH I would get rid of NI and incorporate it into income tax. That would also get rid of the ceiling, which could be adjusted for by pushing the 40% boundary up a bit to make it revenue neutral.

 

[No Spirit]

A few years ago there was a young guy who used to regularly get the bus and had a disabled +1 pass, but was using the +1 bit purely to get his mates free rides in and out of York which really annoyed us as we knew he was abusing the system but there wasn't anything we could do about it.
Another thing I couldnt understand was the attitude that some pass holders had "I've paid in all my life I should be entitled to my pass"
Going by that logic then do they expect free food from Tesco, free gas, free electricity etc?

Yes the West Yorks +1 pass has become 'give a friend a free ride deal'. Recent example, passholder boards says two please, then alights at next stop leaving friend to enjoy a half an hour jolly to Wakefield.

 

[Aictos]

Holders of such passes should be restricted to what times they are valid eg after 09:30 weekdays and all weekend.

Outside those times, the pass should not be valid.

Freeing up spaces on the buses for those who need to use them in the peak eg commuters instead of those who travel free taking up spaces especially on busy peak time buses.

 

[Eyersey468]

Yes the West Yorks +1 pass has become 'give a friend a free ride deal'. Recent example, passholder boards says two please, then alights at next stop leaving friend to enjoy a half an hour jolly to Wakefield.

Our answer has always been the +1 either gets off where the pass holder gets off or pays from where they get off.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There are so few disabled ENCTS passholders (I can't find the link now but, from memory, it is about 10%) that I can't get angry about the odd companion getting a free ride. Compared to the overall cost of the scheme it's a drop in the ocean.

the benefits go way deeper than simple maths.

Perhaps they do, but my issue is we have never had a proper conversation about the cost and the benefits of the scheme. It costs £1.2bn a year and it is widely regarded to be significantly underfunded. Are the benefits- in a time of ongoing austerity- worth it?

 

[Geordie driver]

You will find these unknown costs are certainly worth it when the govt. of the day needs the votes. There was no austerity when the last govt. needed votes in parliament from the DUP, there is no austerity when it comes to MPs wages or their security.

Austerity apparently only applies to those of us at the bottom of the pile, and I am sure that is how bus users are seen by all the parties, fortunately pensioners are known to vote in big numbers so are less easy to push around.

1.2 billion is chump change considering the benefits.

 

[AM9]

You will find these unknown costs are certainly worth it when the govt. of the day needs the votes. There was no austerity when the last govt. needed votes in parliament from the DUP, there is no austerity when it comes to MPs wages or their security.

Austerity apparently only applies to those of us at the bottom of the pile, and I am sure that is how bus users are seen by all the parties, fortunately pensioners are known to vote in big numbers so are less easy to push around.

1.2 billion is chump change considering the benefits.

So the obvious solution to that is for the 'poor' young being talked about here to resolve to use their votes just like the older electorate. Instead, many of them prefer to complain to TV and other media journalists when they are looking for a story. This continual complaint: "the trouble is that pensioners vote in big numbers" just proves that voting generally works. Those who coose to no vote will get no real consideration from politicians. Hasn't the referendum just underlined that?
As far as 'getting pensioners out of their cars' is concerned, the availability of free bus travel certainly does make a diffefrence, and there are plenty of 80+ drivers I know that have decided that their car is only used when there isn't a service and the rest of the time, the car is left on their driveway. If the additional delays that working people might encounter because of ponderous pensioners pottering around were costed, there would be an uproar from the self entitled 'normal' drivers.

 

[Typhoon]

By the time I retire (which would be in 2049), I'm expecting the ENTCS scheme to have changed dramatically if not scrapped entirely and replaced with a flat fare scheme whereby you pay £5 for a days worth of travel which would have no time restriction. This is by taking in the costs of inflation over the next 30 years.

Interesting points about the use of technology. I suspect things will change a lot earlier than 2049 simply because of the skills of ENCTS users. Currently, from observation, the majority of journeys undertaken using the 'seniors' card appear to be by women aged late 70's or older (big generalisation, I know but I live in a retirement hotspot and use buses and those are the people I see). They will have been born just before, during or just after the war and brought up in an environment where most households had at most one car. When they married, if they were doing alright for themselves, they will buy a car and there was an expectation that this will be driven by the husband. My impression was that not many wives held a driving licence compared to the number of husbands (I've looked for stats but couldn't find them - any assistance would be helpful). If they worked, it was quite often part-time and locally. These women never learnt to drive, their husbands did until becoming infirm or passing on. These women depend upon the bus. From, say, the late 60's it became more common for women to learn to drive so, in time, the number of women of pension age who can drive will overtake the number who can't so it will become much easier to ditch the scheme.
The suggestion of a flat fare scheme is, I think, a good one (although it may be an operator incentive - and the £5 will be reached rather earlier, I feel) especially for travel outside the locality.

I should add that I was brought up in a working class area (rows of Victorian terraced houses) which might taint 'my impression'. Looking at old (Grammar) school handbooks I was surprised at how few girls stayed on into the sixth form and even then aimed no higher than secretarial college or teacher training - even amongst the brightest.

(I hope you do manage 2049, however I suspect you may have to wait longer, politicians are a devious lot.)

 

[Martin2012]

Our answer has always been the +1 either gets off where the pass holder gets off or pays from where they get off.

I spent some time working in the concessionary travel department of a local authority and can recall an instance where someone was investigated for misuse of their companion pass.

 

[Man of Kent]

(My impression was that not many wives held a driving licence compared to the number of husbands. I've looked for stats but couldn't find them - any assistance would be helpful)

Spot on. Answer is in Table NTS0201 on this page:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/nts02-driving-licence-holders
The driving licence split for over 70s is 83% of males but only 54% of females hold one. The difference is much, much smaller for all other age groups.

 

[Typhoon]

Spot on. Answer is in Table NTS0201 on this page:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/nts02-driving-licence-holders
The driving licence split for over 70s is 83% of males but only 54% of females hold one. The difference is much, much smaller for all other age groups.

Thanks very much for that. What I find even more interesting is the figures for, say, 2011 and 2012, when the number of women drivers was in the low 40% area (but men still around 80%). It doesn't exactly follow through to today because of deaths and surrendering of licences but it does an indication that women in the late 70's or older are less likely to be able to drive than not. As you quite rightly say, when you get down to say the 40s and 50s, over 80% have licences so when they become pensioners, may not need the bus pass. This might have major consequences for bus use in the future.

 

[richard13]

Spot on. Answer is in Table NTS0201 on this page:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/nts02-driving-licence-holders
The driving licence split for over 70s is 83% of males but only 54% of females hold one. The difference is much, much smaller for all other age groups.

Thanks very much for that. What I find even more interesting is the figures for, say, 2011 and 2012, when the number of women drivers was in the low 40% area (but men still around 80%). It doesn't exactly follow through to today because of deaths and surrendering of licences but it does an indication that women in the late 70's or older are less likely to be able to drive than not. As you quite rightly say, when you get down to say the 40s and 50s, over 80% have licences so when they become pensioners, may not need the bus pass. This might have major consequences for bus use in the future.

This a national statistic.

In affluent rural areas with lots of retired couples and little employment, nearly all elderly women do now drive (it has got that far already). Also in rural Dorset nearly 50% of households had 2 or more cars available and 85% 1 car or more (yes, 1 car per adult is normal!). It is not uncommon to see elderly women driving their disabled husbands. In rural areas with fairly quiet roads the elderly will continue driving locally into their 90s, because otherwise they are almost housebound with no amenities. When they do stop driving they tend to need bespoke transport, often door to door due to infirmity, and that many facilities are not in the high street or even a single town (supermarket, hospital, ... are outside different towns and the doctor is in another village and different to the farm shop). Due to all this the use of rural buses has in many areas fallen to almost zero, except for ENCTS holders having a free trip into town where parking and traffic are problematic. The exceptions who "need" rural buses is constantly diminishing. Hence community transport that has the flexibility to adapt to those needing it. Dorset is now allowing ENCTS passes on some of these as a new concession this year. (Locally austerity has mostly finished - Somerset is back to a balance budget and reserves back up to above minimum - the cut backs were more successful than predicted and so new spending is starting!)

In my experience on local routes the ENCTS pass holders are older women and younger wheel chair or mentally handicapped people with companions (the number of the later was a surprise to me, but repeatable). On the inter-urban and tourist routes then it is often couples or a more even split.

 

[AM9]

This a national statistic.

In affluent rural areas with lots of retired couples and little employment, nearly all elderly women do now drive (it has got that far already). Also in rural Dorset nearly 50% of households had 2 or more cars available and 85% 1 car or more (yes, 1 car per adult is normal!). It is not uncommon to see elderly women driving their disabled husbands. In rural areas with fairly quiet roads the elderly will continue driving locally into their 90s, because otherwise they are almost housebound with no amenities. When they do stop driving they tend to need bespoke transport, often door to door due to infirmity, and that many facilities are not in the high street or even a single town (supermarket, hospital, ... are outside different towns and the doctor is in another village and different to the farm shop). Due to all this the use of rural buses has in many areas fallen to almost zero, except for ENCTS holders having a free trip into town where parking and traffic are problematic. The exceptions who "need" rural buses is constantly diminishing. Hence community transport that has the flexibility to adapt to those needing it. Dorset is now allowing ENCTS passes on some of these as a new concession this year. (Locally austerity has mostly finished - Somerset is back to a balance budget and reserves back up to above minimum - the cut backs were more successful than predicted and so new spending is starting!)

In my experience on local routes the ENCTS pass holders are older women and younger wheel chair or mentally handicapped people with companions (the number of the later was a surprise to me, but repeatable). On the inter-urban and tourist routes then it is often couples or a more even split.

I accept all the above except the statement about locals driving into their '90s is misleading in respect of the national picture. When the elderly get into the '80s the nature of their driving frequently becomesd incompatible with that of a large number of younger drivers. Owing to as pects of reaction times, eyesight, physical fitness etc., their progress often impedes other traffic, and not all of the other drivers make adequate allowances for that. It is really a problem caused by other drivers' impatience and not allowing sufficient time for journeys, but the more pressure they feel entitled to put slower drivers under, the more likely it is that accidents are caused by road rage. Many elderly drivers have perfectly adequate vehicles at their disposal, but choose to use convenient bus services with their ENCTS passes. Take ENCTS away and they won't use buses the same and pay full fares, nor will they stay at home. They know that they have been certified as safe to drive (either self or by a GP), and will clog town roads (and some interurban routes) driving in a way that they feel is safe. Their safe driving style will not only slow down other cars, it will also reduce some (now empty) buses to a crawl. Be very careful what you wish for.

 

[neilmc]

I live in a rural area which is of less affluence than Dorset. There are large numbers of "young retirees" who have retired, sold up and moved to the country. We almost all have cars, if we didn't we would never have been able to look for houses in rural communities! Fast forward twenty or even ten years and many of us who drive everywhere will suddenly be forced to wonder if and when we can catch a bus once we lose our licence or voluntarily give up driving because quite frankly we aren't safe any more (the elderly resident who crashed his car in an earlier post of mine used to attend church events in other villages with me and I was told to never accept a lift from him, always do the driving myself!). I differ from the above poster in that I think these elderly drivers are often NOT safe to drive but there is no mechanism to force them off the road if their licence is still valid and they have given no concern to a doctor, and no bus, or no ENCTS pass, would mean they try to cover up their incapability for as long as possible with possibly fatal results.

I just don't understand why so many contributors are advocating forcing more and more restrictions or doing away altogether with such a precious benefit for the elderly which, whilst not "free", is hardly ever of detriment to fare-paying passengers. I used our local weekly village minibus - and paid the full adult fare - until I was of pensionable age last month, but often I was the only payer on an almost-full bus and if the ENCTS passholders had not used it, whether they "needed" to or not, it would have been terminated as unviable.

 

[AM9]

I live in a rural area which is of less affluence than Dorset. There are large numbers of "young retirees" who have retired, sold up and moved to the country. We almost all have cars, if we didn't we would never have been able to look for houses in rural communities! Fast forward twenty or even ten years and many of us who drive everywhere will suddenly be forced to wonder if and when we can catch a bus once we lose our licence or voluntarily give up driving because quite frankly we aren't safe any more (the elderly resident who crashed his car in an earlier post of mine used to attend church events in other villages with me and I was told to never accept a lift from him, always do the driving myself!). I differ from the above poster in that I think these elderly drivers are often NOT safe to drive but there is no mechanism to force them off the road if their licence is still valid and they have given no concern to a doctor, and no bus, or no ENCTS pass, would mean they try to cover up their incapability for as long as possible with possibly fatal results.

I just don't understand why so many contributors are advocating forcing more and more restrictions or doing away altogether with such a precious benefit for the elderly which, whilst not "free", is hardly ever of detriment to fare-paying passengers. I used our local weekly village minibus - and paid the full adult fare - until I was of pensionable age last month, but often I was the only payer on an almost-full bus and if the ENCTS passholders had not used it, whether they "needed" to or not, it would have been terminated as unviable.

I think that we do agree on the viability of senior driving skills, and the removal of the ENCTS (let alone the removal of buses altogether) will mean that these drivers will clutter up the roads for those who seem to be wanting the removal of free travel.