You should qualify for a bus pass then if the DVLA have or would refuse you a driving license.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Restrictions on a disabled railcard
- Thread starter Dave1987
- Start date
- Status
You should qualify for a bus pass then if the DVLA have or would refuse you a driving license.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
telstarbox
Established Member
Where a passenger cannot access either the origin or destination station to make a journey, do any TOCs provide a taxi to/from the nearest accessible station rather than allowing the passenger to double back? I think I read about this once but can't find a source now.
I think they are obliged to aren't they?
Robsignals
Member
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 424
It would start a whole new argument over what should qualify as "severe."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I wasn't objecting to "Raspberry", I introduced it! It was your apparent surprise at a disabled person being able to laugh at their situation, we're just people but happen to have problems you don't. Please don't think I'm picking on you, it's simply an illustration of a widely held view.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On closer inspection of DSB holders it becomes obvious we have, ahem, a disability (or deserve an Oscar). Photo-cards may or may not help, a lot of people seem to have the view that all disabled people look alike, or rather they're seeing the disability and not the person, even more so in a small, probably badly posed photo-booth picture. I trust the railway will pay for a professional photographer for those that can't use a photo-booth.
Last edited:
Two(or more)-tier system for railcards? Not a good idea. The next steps are Network Railcards not available to those earning too much, perhaps higher rail fares for those that own their own houses and discounts for Forces only if they been somewhere dangerous recently? I agree with the poster in that I'd rather my wife was not disabled than the one third off rail fares she gets because of it.
Butts
Veteran Member
A lot of people I suspect would at least overtly claim the use of that term to be offensive as they have been "brainwashed" by the PC Brigade. God knows what would have happened if you'd mentioned a "rubber and plastic" that would really offend their faux moral sensibilities.
I don't think you are picking on me at all and I am not in the least suprised you have a sense of humour - I "adam and eve it"
Robsignals
Member
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 424
The only benefit I want is some space and quiet. I recently travelled for the first time on a DSB discounted First Advance because it was cheaper than Standard at short notice and was surprised to get free drinks, Stewardess doesn't ask for tickets anyway. There were 2 other people in the HST Quiet Coach. I also took my father on his first rail journey in his wheelchair in Standard and was very impressed by the not pre-booked assistance we received on Southern, fGW & SWT. They had to get people to move from the wheelchair area but didn't manage to have an enormous case moved that was occupying the space on one train. Everyone else isn't disabled, have you no sympathy?
Sympathy? First you want access to First Class (and all the extra perks it provides) on a Standard Class ticket despite everyone else having to pay extra for it, and then you seem to think you should be entitled to free train travel simply because you're disabled.
I hold a DSB railcard btw.
Robsignals
Member
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 424
Hmm, one person and you judge against all disabled people until and unless you find them to be "lovely". Don't some able people think they shouldn't have to pay? They can get on without help so strictly he's right, he is being discriminated against when behaving 'normally'. Of course it's illegal but I bet the police wont want to arrest him, there aren't many advantages in being disabled but I surprise myself by saying good luck to him in trying to get some benefit from it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In fact the justification for DSB is the same as for any other Railcard: an identifiable group who can't afford to travel by train and who will mainly travel at quiet times. The discount therefore generates additional travel and revenue at little cost, purely and simply a profit making exercise.
If your sight isn't good enough to drive then logically you should qualify. You specifically need one of:
A Social Services official stamp OR
A Certificate of Visual Impairment (CVI) OR
A BD8 certificate for being registered blind or partially-sighted.
Perhaps you should ask your GP.
My qualification seems to have disappeared, card expires next June and I was wondering anyway if it was worth renewing as I don't travel much now-days, that's one less thing to worry about then.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
My point was First Advances can be cheaper than Standard fares and also have perks. I'm being provocative of course, never going to get free travel but don't Conductors sometimes authorise Standard ticket holders to travel First? Why not instruct them to do so with DSB holders at their discretion i.e. only when there're plenty of empty seats in First and the person is quietly behaved. It would have the benefit of freeing much needed Standard seats.
Last edited:
Robsignals
Member
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 424
Ok it seems I cannot have a sensible discussion with you about this as we have different views on this. But I know a lot of the guards and RPIs I work with have exactly the same opinion as me but never mind as you say I will stick to driving.
Robsignals
Member
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 424
I am ex BR (Signalling Design) and of course totally against Fare Avoidance/Evasion but from reading the Fares Forum it seems in fact to be a very grey area, anyway a civilised Society must show compassion for those who've had a raw deal from life. Foolishly I left BR on my tenth anniversary and so couldn't use all the extra 'boxes' I became entitled to, if I ever get a free journey or am let off a breach of restrictions I consider it comes out of that and I'm still very much in credit - not that an RPI would agree I'm sure. I have great respect for the skills of bus & train drivers (wonder who has the harder job?) and sincerely wish you well. I just ask you to give disabled people the benefit of the doubt and let others do their jobs while you do yours.
Last edited by a moderator:
As a registered blind person I find this topic quite interesting. Whilst opinions may differ about whether the disabled railcard should exist or not and if so, what the discount level should be, I do not believe in free travel unless one is entitled to it. Travelling by train is after all, a service which needs to be paid for if used.
I find my railcard very useful as it does save money, but I do think having to pay for the ability to get this discount is unfair. I would say the same about other railcards which anyone may be entitled to, although I would have no objection to a small processing fee (nothing more than £5). I think the cost of the railcard and the actual cost of the ticket still manages to fill up the profits of the train companies nonetheless. I'm very confident that it wouldn't be accepted universally across a privatised industry if that was not the case.
When considering whether the discount should be different, I think that is an impossible question to answer. Whilst bus passes are subsidised by the government, I don't think railcard usage is subsidised in the same way. If it was, then it would be a bigger debate. On one hand, if we subsidise disabled travel it means more in taxes but if we don't then there could be hardship for some people.
As has been said, it is often difficult if not impossible for some disabled people to drive and therefore the railway may be the only option. As a disabled person, I don’t like to have to depend on others and only being able to travel when someone else decides. If I could drive then I would. I've also had many issues on the railway with accessibility which I won’t go into as that is off topic. As far as ticketing goes, I have been penalised before for going an "easier" route. You cannot ever rely on discretion in terms of the way you can go. On a recent trip I had asked if I would be able to pay the Glasgow Central to Hamilton Central fare when travelling from Glasgow Queen Street and changing at Partick as that is easier for someone like me in comparison to walking due to large crowds. The answer at the ticket counter was yes but once you’re on the train it’s a "no" and you are charged extra. The railway can be very difficult for disabled people and therefore I fully support at least some kind of discount as this difficulty is not faced by a non disabled person.
If you are only considering cost, then being totally restricted to the railway (or public transport in general) I'm sure would cost more than car ownership after a certain point. Even with a discounted fare, I do know people who drive for less and I think that in itself is a hardship. You must also factor in the extra costs that disabled people might face which can vary substantially.
To sum up, I do support the railcard, although disprove of it being used to generate huge profits by charging to get the discount. I would support a greater discount to better reflect the problems with the railway regarding accessibility etc. I do think more money needs to be spent on making the railway more accessible and if that cannot be achieved feasibly then some other solution needs to happen.
I find my railcard very useful as it does save money, but I do think having to pay for the ability to get this discount is unfair. I would say the same about other railcards which anyone may be entitled to, although I would have no objection to a small processing fee (nothing more than £5). I think the cost of the railcard and the actual cost of the ticket still manages to fill up the profits of the train companies nonetheless. I'm very confident that it wouldn't be accepted universally across a privatised industry if that was not the case.
When considering whether the discount should be different, I think that is an impossible question to answer. Whilst bus passes are subsidised by the government, I don't think railcard usage is subsidised in the same way. If it was, then it would be a bigger debate. On one hand, if we subsidise disabled travel it means more in taxes but if we don't then there could be hardship for some people.
As has been said, it is often difficult if not impossible for some disabled people to drive and therefore the railway may be the only option. As a disabled person, I don’t like to have to depend on others and only being able to travel when someone else decides. If I could drive then I would. I've also had many issues on the railway with accessibility which I won’t go into as that is off topic. As far as ticketing goes, I have been penalised before for going an "easier" route. You cannot ever rely on discretion in terms of the way you can go. On a recent trip I had asked if I would be able to pay the Glasgow Central to Hamilton Central fare when travelling from Glasgow Queen Street and changing at Partick as that is easier for someone like me in comparison to walking due to large crowds. The answer at the ticket counter was yes but once you’re on the train it’s a "no" and you are charged extra. The railway can be very difficult for disabled people and therefore I fully support at least some kind of discount as this difficulty is not faced by a non disabled person.
If you are only considering cost, then being totally restricted to the railway (or public transport in general) I'm sure would cost more than car ownership after a certain point. Even with a discounted fare, I do know people who drive for less and I think that in itself is a hardship. You must also factor in the extra costs that disabled people might face which can vary substantially.
To sum up, I do support the railcard, although disprove of it being used to generate huge profits by charging to get the discount. I would support a greater discount to better reflect the problems with the railway regarding accessibility etc. I do think more money needs to be spent on making the railway more accessible and if that cannot be achieved feasibly then some other solution needs to happen.
Presumably only fare dodgers would think people who aren't entitled to free travel should get it!
On a more general point, I am very surprised that a hearing aid user can get a Disabled Railcard. I just don't understand it. I can absolutly see the rationale for a Disabled Railcard for someone who needs assistance to make the journey and therefore needs to have someone travel with them or someone who is unable to drive due to their impairment. Problem is you can't have a seperate eligibility test just for the railcard - you have to rely on some pre-existing criteria, e.g. receipt of DLA etc... Perhaps that's why hearing aid uses can get a railcard. When the Disabled Railcard was established then deaf people couldn't get Attendance Allowance or DLA (so they had to find some other criteria which would enable deaf people to get the railcard) but a legal judgement about 15 years ago meant that profoundly deaf people came within the scope of DLA care.
As a hearing aid user myself who is registered disabled on that basis, I don't think I ought to be entitled to a railcard, and would not complain if the eligibility criteria were tightened to exclude people like me (in which case I would get the inferior Network Railcard instead).
However, profoundly deaf acquaintances have given me examples of:
1) struggling to buy tickets from staff, due to the communication barrier; (TVMs don't usually sell certain tickets, such as split tickets);
2) being unable to access the (audio-only) train running information at certain minor stations without electronic departure boards, such as Patchway;
3) missing last-minute platform changes that were only announced verbally and not on the big screen, and boarding the wrong train as a consequence;
4) boarding a delayed train scheduled to stop at their intended destination station, only to miss the subsequent verbal on-train announcement that the train will no longer stop at that station, and ending up being over-carried as a result.
There is also a 'socioeconomic' justification in that deaf people do suffer discrimination and exclusion in other areas of life, tend to be more likely to be unemployed, or to be in low-wage jobs, and the Disabled Railcard makes rail travel more affordable. Of course, hearing people may also have a low income, and are not entitled to this railcard (albeit that jobseekers may be entitled to a New Deal railcard), so this argument is not particularly strong, in my view.
On a personal level, there have been journeys where I have had a choice between car and train, and chosen the train in preference to the car because of the 34% discount. However, this argument could equally be used to justify a national "34% off" railcard rather than one that is restricted to disabled people.
Last edited:
Indeed. And don't forget there is a trial (on FGW in Worcester south to Dorset I think, presently of blue ENCTS cards only) which may well see ENCTS cards (and scottish equivalent) replace the senior and disabled railcards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Can you explain further why your wheelchair is too long, and who told you that, please?
At just 7mm over the allowed limit then some leeway may be given. WSW said the wheelchair concerned was 7cm (70mm) over the maximum allowed.
East Coast, First Capital Connect and Cross Country. Also the local bus company (Stagecoach). All in response to emails. They all say the length of the wheelchair exceeds the official maximum dimensions allowed on trains, buses and taxis. These dimensions (*see Sussexman's reply above) are even being adopted by some heritage railways.
Steve
Robsignals
Member
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 424
The Disabled Railcard is not offered as a 'social benefit' but, as for all Railcards, is a purely commercial profit making scheme. They're targeted at identifiable and definable groups who won't travel by train at full price and are likely to travel on quiet trains. As long as existing rail users are prevented from 'trading down' they generate additional revenue at little cost.
Good point. Well made. And one, up to now, that has been missed in this debate.
Since having a Disabled Persons Railcard, I've made far greater use of the rail network (undoubtedly by more than the ¹/3 saving the railcard offers) than I did prior to having one. And I was eligible for one some two years before someone told me I'd be able to apply for one.
OK, I'm a rail enthusiast, so the discount has enabled me to pursue that hobby far more than would've been the case if I didn't have the railcard. But I'm sure Robsignals' point applies equally to disabled 'normals'*
*If that isn't a tautology
Robsignals
Member
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 424
...]OK, I'm a rail enthusiast, so the discount has enabled me to pursue that hobby far more than would've been the case if I didn't have the railcard. But I'm sure Robsignals' point applies equally to disabled 'normals'*
*If that isn't a tautology
Are you suggesting that chronic rail enthusiasm should be classed as a disability?
Edit: Looking at the website I'm again eligible so will have to work out if it's worth renewing, I don't make many long journeys now and short journeys on Southern are ludicrously expensive. As I have an orange Bus Pass "I'm on the bus!!" slow but free at all times in West Sussex and to the end of routes crossing the borders. I could go to London, 5 minutes at Victoria and I'd have to start the return journey!
Last edited:
- Status