Priority Seats and their use

Bletchleyite · 5 Nov 2019

ashkeba said:
How would anyone know you're not a PRM to ask you to move?

Because a reasonable person has a reasonable, honest conversation:

Person standing: "Excuse me, can I sit there please?"
Person sitting: "I'm afraid I need the seat as I can't stand for very long, I have a knee injury"
Person standing: "OK, sorry" <goes to next priority row>

Or

Person standing: "Excuse me, can I sit there please?"
Person sitting: "Sure, I just sit in these because I'm tall" <starts moving his stuff>
Person standing: "I have an injury and I can't stand for very long I'm afraid"
Person not sitting by now: "No worries" <moves elsewhere>

Problems in this sort of context on trains are caused by people being awkward, primarily, either in not wishing to declare that they have an invisible disability (no detail is needed, merely that there is one) or just getting angry.

FWIW, I was in one on XC at the weekend, someone boarded with crutches, I offered the seat to him but he declined it - it seems he (as so often seems to be the case) wanted a non-priority seat or table seat so he could use the seat back in front or the table to help sit down. They really are flawed in concept.

How would you know that I was if I was sat in one with my folding cane folded? It doesn't surprise me you don't get asked to move because there aren't often enough idiots to fillall the priority seats so usually one is available.

Declining to sit in a seat which has too tight a pitch for me to sit there without pain is not being an idiot, and I most strongly resent that. In stock where the regular seat pitch is acceptable (e.g. 80x and hopefully more specifically on-topic Mk5s, though I've not tried one yet) I don't sit in them. Being an idiot would be sitting in one (or arguably any seat) and not moving if someone needs it more.

However, if one is available, then sit in it, there is no need for any argument. It is only an issue if one is not available and no other seat is available/your disability renders one unsuitable.

RailUK Forums

Phlip · 5 Nov 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Because a reasonable person has a reasonable, honest conversation:

Person standing: "Excuse me, can I sit there please?"
Person sitting: "I'm afraid I need the seat as I can't stand for very long, I have a knee injury"
Person standing: "OK, sorry" <goes to next priority row>

FWIW, I was in one on XC at the weekend, someone boarded with crutches, I offered the seat to him but he declined it - it seems he (as so often seems to be the case) wanted a non-priority seat or table seat so he could use the seat back in front or the table to help sit down. They really are flawed in concept.

Declining to sit in a seat which has too tight a pitch for me to sit there without pain is not being an idiot, and I most strongly resent that. In stock where the regular seat pitch is acceptable (e.g. 80x and hopefully Mk5s) I don't sit in them.

I’d second that. If you’re tall enough not to be able to sit in a normal seat then taking a seat that you are able to sit in, and is not obviously needed by someone with a greater need, is not selfish or idiotic. Quite frankly it seems pretty selfish to seek to deny a person the opportunity to sit down simply because somebody might come along with a greater need.

I understand the issues from both sides. I’m very tall and I can’t physically fit my legs in normal seats on many trains. My wife has a disability and cannot stand unaided. However, she can use a normal seat just fine. I can’t. So I’ll take a table or priority seat if they’re available and move and stand if asked to.

gray1404 · 5 Nov 2019

I think priority seats work on an honesty system. I seen a situation when someone demanded someone moved out of one of those seats. The passenger was very assertive in saying "I am sat here as I do require a priority seat." The lady then moved onto some else who responded "I am disabled myself". When the first gentleman showed his ticket he had a disabled person's railcard.

I suspect he had a hidden disability and I really didn't like the way the lady got on with a sense of entitlement and it really could cause another person a lot of stress.

That's why I say I think it should work on an honesty system as most disabilities are not visible.

ashkeba · 5 Nov 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Because a reasonable person has a reasonable, honest conversation:

Person standing: "Excuse me, can I sit there please?"
Person sitting: "I'm afraid I need the seat as I can't stand for very long, I have a knee injury"
Person standing: "OK, sorry" <goes to next priority row>

Or

Person standing: "Excuse me, can I sit there please?"
Person sitting: "Sure, I just sit in these because I'm tall" <starts moving his stuff>
Person standing: "I have an injury and I can't stand for very long I'm afraid"
Person not sitting by now: "No worries" <moves elsewhere>

In my experience, if they are not a Person with Reduced Mobility, you are less likely to find "a reasonable person" willing to have "a reasonable, honest conversation" than the sort of idiot who parks their car in disabled bays at the shops because they feel the whole concept of reasonable adaptations for PRMs is flawed. A much higher proportion than average will abuse you, make fun of any speech impediment, claim your disability is faked or somehow insufficient to qualify for the seat and/or deny that the sign on the wall means their seat (which I think is part of why now some headrests have a big P on it) and then still refuse to move. Then I get the fun choice of sitting elsewhere or balancing on my cane all journey (if no seats are available) or using the PRM assistance call if there is one.

Problems in this sort of context on trains are caused by people being awkward, primarily, either in not wishing to declare that they have an invisible disability (no detail is needed, merely that there is one) or just getting angry.

Yes, it's people being awkward - such as sitting in a PRM priority seat when they have no need for it and other seats are available!

Also, note this is about reduced mobility, not disability as such. I'm not sure that all speech impediments or terminal illnesses need it.

FWIW, I was in one on XC at the weekend, someone boarded with crutches, I offered the seat to him but he declined it - it seems he (as so often seems to be the case) wanted a non-priority seat or table seat so he could use the seat back in front or the table to help sit down. They really are flawed in concept.

I know some people don't need or want them. That's up to them. I know some people who refuse to use priority parking bays in car parks that they have permission for because sometimes they want to keep the challenge and exercise of walking across the car park but it's too far for them to walk from home. Any number of people choosing to do that sometimes does not make the concept flawed, does it?

Declining to sit in a seat which has too tight a pitch for me to sit there without pain is not being an idiot, and I most strongly resent that. In stock where the regular seat pitch is acceptable (e.g. 80x and hopefully more specifically on-topic Mk5s, though I've not tried one yet) I don't sit in them. Being an idiot would be sitting in one (or arguably any seat) and not moving if someone needs it more.

I hope the regular seat pitch is enough for you, but if the Mk5s 60% of table seats are unacceptably little leg room for you, then your very long legs may qualify you for the priority seating anyway!

However, if one is available, then sit in it, there is no need for any argument. It is only an issue if one is not available and no other seat is available/your disability renders one unsuitable.

So please do not force me to choose whether I fancy risking an argument and vacate the PRM-priority seat if no other is available.

Darandio · 5 Nov 2019

ashkeba said:
So please do not force me to choose whether I fancy risking an argument and vacate the PRM-priority seat if no other is available.

It's hard to tell if i'm reading this correctly or not. Are you suggesting that if no other seats are available that they should not sit in the priority seat to avoid argument?

ashkeba · 5 Nov 2019

Darandio said:
It's hard to tell if i'm reading this correctly or not. Are you suggesting that if no other seats are available that they should not sit in the priority seat to avoid argument?

That is not what I wanted to suggest. I may have not worded it correctly. I want to suggest that if no other PRM seat is vacant in the dorside area you are in and you are not a PRM, please move to a non-PRM-priority seat without having to be asked.

Bletchleyite · 5 Nov 2019

ashkeba said:
That is not what I wanted to suggest. I may have not worded it correctly. I want to suggest that if no other PRM seat is vacant in the dorside area you are in and you are not a PRM, please move to a non-PRM-priority seat without having to be asked.

No, because what will happen is someone else will sit there who doesn't need it, and I spend the journey in pain for no reason.

(I'd agree for someone who fits a regular seat)

The solution to all of this is to provide adequate spacing in ALL seats (even if you provide a bit more on top in the priority seat), which is done in classes 195, 175, 180, 185, 80x etc. If I fit the normal seats I won't choose a priority seat as I don't want the risk of being unseated!

How much is an interesting question - perhaps you could go to the 95th percentile of height or something (and actually state that those above that are entitled to priority seats)? Many train seats are way, way below that - class 153 the absolute worst but Pendolinos are barely better.

ashkeba · 5 Nov 2019

Bletchleyite said:
No, because what will happen is someone else will sit there who doesn't need it, and I spend the journey in pain for no reason.

At least then they are the selfish idiot causing PRMs difficulty and not you. And what proportion of trains does this short leg space apply to anyway? I am sure I have had arguments when I asked someone if I could use the PRM seat on a 175 (Manchester to somewhere) which you list as having plenty of leg space.

How much is an interesting question - perhaps you could go to the 95th percentile of height or something (and actually state that those above that are entitled to priority seats)? Many train seats are way, way below that - class 153 the absolute worst but Pendolinos are barely better.

Interesting. I was expecting you to mention GWR Bristol HSTs (which look tight in general but the PRM seat pitch seems generous) or some of those bus-bench Pacers that I remember bruising my knees on (no PRM seats on those back then as far as I know - the designers' attitude seemed to be "just injure them further until they go in the wheelchair bay!").

Bletchleyite · 5 Nov 2019

ashkeba said:
At least then they are the selfish idiot causing PRMs difficulty and not you. And what proportion of trains does this short leg space apply to anyway?

Most of the ones I use frequently - Pendolinos, Voyagers and 350s (though there are some non-priority extra legroom seats in 350s which are my first choice, and on Pendolinos the windows in priority rows aren't priority seats, only the aisles - my favourite Pendolino seat, Coach A seat 45, is one of those!)

Master29 · 5 Nov 2019

Another reason it's open to abuse is that you can chose online with certain TOC's priority seating (Crosscountry a good example) whether you have a disabled card or not. You could then (I use the term in a sense of ethics) tell someone with crutches to go forth and multiply basically and be perfectly legal ( I wouldn't by the way). Maybe TOC's should look closely at this. I have a Disabled card with an invisible disability and use priority seating. I have never needed to move but would on extreme cases i.e as ashkeba alludes to moving for someone who I can genuinely see is physically struggling.

As an aside I do this with Crosscountry as I think their standard seating is very cramped, especially on Voyagers.

erk · 5 Nov 2019

Bletchleyite said:
my favourite Pendolino seat, Coach A seat 45, is one of those!

That seat (and the priority seat next to it) have the distinction of being the standard class seats furthest from an entrance door. An odd choice for a priority seat.

Bletchleyite · 5 Nov 2019

erk said:
That seat (and the priority seat next to it) have the distinction of being the standard class seats furthest from an entrance door. An odd choice for a priority seat.

Quite. I suspect First Trenitalia's refurb will "fix" this, but for now they are great - always pick it if I can. Nice low lighting too.

I wonder if there was an early plan to board PRM via the van door to avoid them having to push past others, which would make it make sense?

Greybeard33 · 5 Nov 2019

Master29 said:
Another reason it's open to abuse is that you can chose online with certain TOC's priority seating (Crosscountry a good example) whether you have a disabled card or not. You could then (I use the term in a sense of ethics) tell someone with crutches to go forth and multiply basically and be perfectly legal ( I wouldn't by the way). Maybe TOC's should look closely at this. I have a Disabled card with an invisible disability and use priority seating. I have never needed to move but would on extreme cases i.e as ashkeba alludes to moving for someone who I can genuinely see is physically struggling.

I have a Disabled Railcard on account of being a hearing aid user. After making online bookings with XC, I have several times discovered, on boarding, that my reserved seat on the Voyager was one of the priority ones. I had not requested priority seating when booking, but presumably the algorithm made the flawed assumption that disabled = needs priority seat.

I find this embarrassing, as I have relatively short legs and would prefer a normal seat. Fortunately I have not yet encountered a PRM who needed the seat. In such a case I would feel obliged to offer the seat, although that would probably mean standing for part of the journey.

Master29 · 5 Nov 2019

Greybeard33 said:
I have a Disabled Railcard on account of being a hearing aid user. After making online bookings with XC, I have several times discovered, on boarding, that my reserved seat on the Voyager was one of the priority ones. I had not requested priority seating when booking, but presumably the algorithm made the flawed assumption that disabled = needs priority seat.

I find this embarrassing, as I have relatively short legs and would prefer a normal seat. Fortunately I have not yet encountered a PRM who needed the seat. In such a case I would feel obliged to offer the seat, although that would probably mean standing for part of the journey.

I'm not sure whether or not you would have been placed there incidentally but if not therein lies a problem. If they automatically assume this then why do they place you the customer in a potentially awkward position, whereby making you feel obliged to give up your seat..

Bletchleyite · 5 Nov 2019

Greybeard33 said:
I have a Disabled Railcard on account of being a hearing aid user. After making online bookings with XC, I have several times discovered, on boarding, that my reserved seat on the Voyager was one of the priority ones. I had not requested priority seating when booking, but presumably the algorithm made the flawed assumption that disabled = needs priority seat.

If you book online with XC themselves, use the seat selector to change it if it doesn't suit.

trainophile · 5 Nov 2019

I don’t have a disability railcard (I do have a senior one) and have sometimes been allocated a seat that turns out to be a priority one.

Not sure what I would do if asked to give it up if there were no other seats available and I had a long journey. Ask the train manager to sort it out probably.

Merle Haggard · 5 Nov 2019

I hope this is relevant. I travel first in Pendolini (clever clogs on two counts!) and it's worth pointing out that the priority seats in those have exactly the same seating pitch as the adjacent ones (the seating bays line up exactly with the windows). They are on the gangway side of the double seats, and the only difference is that part of the table hinges up, presumably to make it easier for the less-flexible passenger to sit down. Being tall or long legged is not a reason for using them.
I did photo the arrangement but I think it can be described in words - I'll post the photos if anyone is unsure.

Bletchleyite · 5 Nov 2019

Merle Haggard said:
I hope this is relevant. I travel first in Pendolini (clever clogs on two counts!) and it's worth pointing out that the priority seats in those have exactly the same seating pitch as the adjacent ones (the seating bays line up exactly with the windows). They are on the gangway side of the double seats, and the only difference is that part of the table hinges up, presumably to make it easier for the less-flexible passenger to sit down.

To add to your post a bit - this only applies to table seats, which indeed all appear to have the same pitch (or near to it) but with the priority ones having the foldy bits. However, Pendolinos have relatively few tables in Standard - 4-5 per coach typically, only 2 in coach A, so the airline seats (which are very tightly packed indeed) are of more interest.

In airline rows the priority rows have about 4-6" more legroom, but the priority seat is only the aisle seat. This does make quite a lot of sense in a way.

Being tall or long legged is not a reason for using them

They are available to anybody (whether tall or short) provided they are given up when required by someone needing them more (which is what the signs by them usually say). In a way this applies to all seats and always used to, but having priority seats just avoids the "can't you ask him instead" thing.

Being tall isn't a reason to evict somebody from one, however, provided you are capable of standing (if not, you get it on PRM grounds, not grounds of height).

The reason this differs from disabled parking spaces is because when you park your car you aren't typically sat in it and able to move at a moment's notice, as that would sort of negate the point of parking your car in the first place.

irish_rail · 5 Nov 2019

Should be mandatory to be either disabled, elderly , pregnant, or over 6ft tall to sit in these seats.
The amount of time I see a short arsed person with no disability taking these seats because they appreciate the extra room!!! Makes my blood boil!

ashkeba · 6 Nov 2019

irish_rail said:
Should be mandatory to be either disabled, elderly , pregnant, or over 6ft tall to sit in these seats.
The amount of time I see a short arsed person with no disability taking these seats because they appreciate the extra room!!! Makes my blood boil!

You cannot see all mobility disabilities so please give your blood a rest.

ashkeba · 6 Nov 2019

Bletchleyite said:
In a way this applies to all seats and always used to, but having priority seats just avoids the "can't you ask him instead" thing.

If you ever need PRM priority, you will have so many illusions shattered! I have hit "can't you ask him instead" because priority seats often have another close by.

alxndr · 6 Nov 2019

irish_rail said:
Should be mandatory to be either disabled, elderly , pregnant, or over 6ft tall to sit in these seats.
The amount of time I see a short arsed person with no disability taking these seats because they appreciate the extra room!!! Makes my blood boil!

I'm a 5'2", in my 20s, and I have been known to use priority seats on occasion when travelling home after having had surgery. I'm sure you'd implode if you saw me sat there.

If someone who needed it more approached—or even looked at the seat as though they wanted it—then I would absolutely give it up and do my best to go elsewhere, but I don't think I'm committing a huge crime sitting there in those circumstances. The space is useful when I need to shuffle about to try to find the most comfortable position or awkwardly get up. They're also generally close to the doors and toilets, which is vital considering I need to frequently use the facilities and the last thing I want to do is risk stumbling and knocking or pulling myself.

Metal_gee_man · 6 Nov 2019

As a 6ft2in fat man, trying to use some non-priority seats is just not worth the hassle, anytime I jump on a class 375 I automatically revert to using a priority seat, because unless I have table the standard saloon seats are too close and the pitch is too small resulting in me sat at an angle and the 2nd seat unusable, without going through all types of train I generally go looking for a priority seat regardless of train class out of habit, that being said I know the 800s, 395s, 390s, 158/159s, Mk3/Mk4s all are fine for non priority seating, and dependant if they have ironing boards the 387s & 377s have plenty of room too.
Sadly the 375s, 700s, 377s, 450s, 455/6s, 465s all have poor seat pitches and until that changes I will continue to use priority seats based on leg room alone

dcsprior · 6 Nov 2019

The rules for priority seats are quite clear - anyone may sit in them, but if you sit in them and are not someone who has priority for them, you must give them up when someone who does have priority needs them.

Personally I don't like sitting in them, because I feel I then need to be really attentive at every station to whether each person getting on is someone who may have priority for the seat I'm sitting in (and risk offending someone if I offer the seat to them when they feel they've no need of it). Maybe a solution similar to the "Baby on board" badge could be introduced?

cuccir · 6 Nov 2019

dcsprior said:
Maybe a solution similar to the "Baby on board" badge could be introduced?

You could, but you could never reasonably mandate people use them.

Camden · 6 Nov 2019

The person who complained suggested that they could be sat in the seat with their white cane folded up (ie. entitled to the seat).

But in that case, if all the person had was a white cane requiring issue (ie. no physical impediment to stand) I would still ask them to move so that I could sit down, in the case of actual mobility issues. As such the current system is the right one, as nothing is assumed or mandated other than "give up to someone more needy, please".

People not being mind readers, the best thing for anyone needing a seat to do is to ask and have a conversation, if it's not offered up. 98% of time no issue, 1% of time you may find the person sat there needs it more than you, and the other 1% if it ever happens anyone refusing would look like an a@se in front of everyone, and someone else would offer their seat. Which would also happen in the other 1% scenario.

Deafdoggie · 6 Nov 2019

irish_rail said:
Should be mandatory to be either disabled, elderly , pregnant, or over 6ft tall to sit in these seats.
The amount of time I see a short arsed person with no disability taking these seats because they appreciate the extra room!!! Makes my blood boil!

I’ve probably made your blood boil then. The thing is, how would you know I’m disabled or not? If only all disabilities could be seen, it would make my life so much easier.

ashkeba · 6 Nov 2019

Camden said:
The person who complained suggested that they could be sat in the seat with their white cane folded up (ie. entitled to the seat).

If you mean me, then my cane is not white! The folding one is brown and my current telescopic one is green. My legs are the problem not my eyes!

People not being mind readers, the best thing for anyone needing a seat to do is to ask and have a conversation, if it's not offered up. 98% of time no issue, 1% of time you may find the person sat there needs it more than you, and the other 1% if it ever happens anyone refusing would look like an a@se in front of everyone, and someone else would offer their seat. Which would also happen in the other 1% scenario.

Those % are what you wish not what they are!
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45432583 in general. For a pregnant woman's experience:

And some of the comments under that video are not nice.

MarlowDonkey · 6 Nov 2019

trainophile said:
I don’t have a disability railcard (I do have a senior one) and have sometimes been allocated a seat that turns out to be a priority one.

I have this idea that the seat allocation engine will offer a priority seat to those booking with a Senior railcard, when the carriage is not otherwise busy at least.

trainophile · 6 Nov 2019

Must be a bit awkward if you’re in a window seat adjacent to someone with an obvious disability, and you need to ask them to let you out for the loo or the shop. Would make more sense to have both seats with extra pitch and the window one reserved for disabled passengers.

Priority Seats and their use

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member