Looking for outside opinion - Free Disabled bus travel with carer

[Resident]

Ok. So to open I'm looking for outside opinions on this. There are discussions taking place within the industry and I'm curious as to a general public view

As it stands there are 2 types of free travel cards for the disabled. Solo and 'with carer'. The Solo card requires you to have one of several disabilities and the 'with carer' also requires higher rate PIP (personal independance payments) & a declaration that you need a carer to aid travel. These travel cards are provided for the recipient and where applicable, the carer to travel for free (travel is funded by the taxpayer instead)

The debate that's being had is down to a hefty increase in the 'with carer' card holders actually travelling on their own, without a carer present and some drivers are questioning whether this should be allowed. The holder has signed the declaration that their disability is severe enough to need assistance, something that drivers are not trained for nor able to provide should the need arise.

So the feeling amongst drivers is that they should be able to refuse 'with carer' card holders when attempting to travel alone as there is a safety issue as assistance cannot be provided.

Personally I agree with those drivers. If they've declared they need assistance when travelling then they should not be travelling alone, when that assistance isn't being provided. If they are able to travel alone then they should have the 'with carer' entitlement withdrawn.

 

[tom_e]

What if some days are worse than others and they don't always need a carer? (assuming the disabilities that are eligible can have these phases)

 

[Resident]

What if some days are worse than others and they don't always need a carer? (assuming the disabilities that are eligible can have these phases)

That's part of the debate and I'll answer with the counter that's already been made in the discussions, what if their good day suddenly turns whilst they're on-board and have no-one to help.

In those instances, as it stands now, the bus is taken out of service immediately regardless of other passengers and an ambulance is called because it's considered medical and the driver cannot assist, tying up the vehicle, the driver and an ambulance crew, meaning that later services have to be cancelled at short notice. Cancellation that may not have been needed if the person had their carer to render assistance.

I am fully aware of how chronic illnesses can be on/off, I have been diagnosed with Myalgic encephalomyelitis for the last 7 years.

 

[Werewolf]

What if some days are worse than others and they don't always need a carer? (assuming the disabilities that are eligible can have these phases)

This is exactly what I'd say.

A lot of disabilities vary in severity, and depending on where and when you are travelling you might or might not need the assistance of someone throughout, or you might be able to get the assistance at each end and not always need someone the entire time.

Even higher rate PIP accepts that conditions can be variable. A lot of people with disabilities or severe long term illnesses will not travel on days when they're at their worst if they have the choice, but may have to (with assistance) to reach things like appointments of planned events where they don't have the choice to postpone.

Basically the "with carer" cards are there for those that will need a carer and I'm guessing it's not "need a carer every time" because for example a short local trip the person knows well is going to be a very different situation to a trip where the person doesn't know the way, or for example there is much longer between places where they can rest etc.
Even just different train stations, or bus stations, as for example someone who has the card might be able to manage their local train station because it's got lifts and is relatively small, but a larger train station may require the carer to push a wheelchair or accompany them up through longer stretches.

Basically it's not a liability issue imo.

 

[arknor]

"with carer" imo should mean it also allows the card holder+ another person caring for t hem at that moment in time to travel with and assist them.

something that drivers are not trained for nor able to provide should the need arise.

I bet most of them don't need much more than help getting on /off or someone to accompany them on their worse days

They won't be housebound and unable to go anywhere without assistance.
its more they don't want the hassle of helping people and it could cause delays

I see bus drivers all the time lowering those ramps for wheelchair access etc, it's probably about as much assistance as most of them need

it's just a lot harder to travel by themselves.

sunak will have them all working from home soon anyway then they never need to enter society again, nicely hidden away from sight. (not my thoughts the tories)

 

[FluffySheep]

I think about someone with quite severe autism. Getting a new route or a busy route carer might well be needed, but a trip into town 10 minutes journey might well be fine so I'd say always needing a carer might do more harm than good for the person.

Similar arguments could be put forward for a range of disabilities

FluffySheep

 

[Hades]

Disabled people have a difficult enough life as it is. Leave them in peace to get on with their life as best they can. It shouldn't be up to others what a person with a severe disability should or should not be allowed to do. We should all try to help them and make their lives as easy as possible rather than restrict them. Some won't always need a carer, but may need the option for when they do. For example they might be OK for shorter trips. Or maybe their carer isn't available and they really need to get somewhere rather than be shut in at home for days on end.

Can you give some examples of where there has been a problem on a bus when a disabled person has traveled without their carer?

EDIT: I see you gave some examples above of the bus being taken out of service. That's a fair point. But I still think we should try to make their lives better rather than restrict them to make our lives better.

 

[Resident]

I do see a lot of your points and they're identical to what's been said in the discussions.

For context, initially the debate was opened by the provider of the cards & it's unusual for them to make such a move. Although they've not given a clear motive, it's been suggested that they're looking to cut costs as they pay the bus company everytime the card holder uses the card. They pay more for the +Carer because the presumption is that 2 people are travelling when the card is scanned.

The liability & service disruption angles comes from the drivers/company and I understand why they feel that it's where any reasoning for disallowing travel.

A suggestion has been made by them that ticket machines are altered so that if a +carer card is scanned then it asks the driver if they're actually travelling with a carer or alone to provide a data set.

I assume that they'll most likely use this to track how often a person is travelling alone and if it's over a certain percentage then they'll lose their +carer. For example I do have a frequent passenger on one of my regular routes that has a +carer card and in 6 years I've never seen them board with one.

Disabled people have a difficult enough life as it is. Leave them in peace to get on with their life as best they can. It shouldn't be up to others what a person with a severe disability should or should not be allowed to do. We should all try to help them and make their lives as easy as possible rather than restrict them. Some won't always need a carer, but may need the option for when they do. For example they might be OK for shorter trips. Or maybe their carer isn't available and they really need to get somewhere rather than be shut in at home for days on end.

It's not being suggested that they lose the card entirely, just that if they travel the majority of the time without one then they would be issued a standard solo card.

I would argue that if the carer is only needed occasionally then that comes under a heading of 'additional travel costs' which is one of the components of PIP.

 

[Gabby]

Firstly, you do not have to be on the higher rate of PIP to get a C+ card, I was on lower rate.
Secondly, my health issue is MH and that is why I was on PIP. You do not always need someone with you. Having MH problems means travelling can be a nightmare. have I got the right change? have I got on the right bus? etc. having a bus card gives me a lot of flexibility and alleviates a lot of the anxiety because on a bad day I can take my wife with me.

Any bus driver who challenges me on my card will have a one way trip to court and you, for your initial post, should be ******* ashamed of yourself!

 

[Gabby]

It's not being suggested that they lose the card entirely, just that if they travel the majority of the time without one then they would be issued a standard solo card.

I would argue that if the carer is only needed occasionally then that comes under a heading of 'additional travel costs' which is one of the components of PIP.

This is a prime example of you not understanding MH issues or how the cards work.

 

[Sinbad2000]

A suggestion has been made by them that ticket machines are altered so that if a +carer card is scanned then it asks the driver if they're actually travelling with a carer or alone to provide a data set.

I assume that they'll most likely use this to track how often a person is travelling alone and if it's over a certain percentage then they'll lose their +carer. For example I do have a frequent passenger on one of my regular routes that has a +carer card and in 6 years I've never seen them board with one.

Or even better - use that data to pay a single fare if there's no carer, or the double fare if there is. Card company doesn't pay for non-existent journeys, and max flexibility for the card holder?

 

[dlockers]

Id focus on driving the bus fully recognising I am not interested in tackling something so nuanced and of no gain to myself.

 

[Uther]

For context, initially the debate was opened by the provider of the cards & it's unusual for them to make such a move. Although they've not given a clear motive, it's been suggested that they're looking to cut costs as they pay the bus company everytime the card holder uses the card. They pay more for the +Carer because the presumption is that 2 people are travelling when the card is scanned.

And there it is. As if disabled people don't have a hard enough time already. Just leave them in peace to live their lives as best they can.

 

[Dis86]

And there it is. As if disabled people don't have a hard enough time already. Just leave them in peace to live their lives as best they can.

Surely leaving them in peace would mean not giving them benefits and such?

 

[Uther]

Surely leaving them in peace would mean not giving them benefits and such?

That would be the Tory way yes. For a bus driver, I'd say leave them in peace and just drive the bus.

 

[Dis86]

That would be the Tory way yes. For a bus driver, I'd say leave them in peace and just drive the bus.

But it's not the driver questioning it. Its those responsible for dealing with the costs.

 

[Uther]

But it's not the driver questioning it. Its those responsible for dealing with the costs.

Well the OP is a bus driver, and he is questioning it...

 

[Dis86]

Well the OP is a bus driver, and he is questioning it...

Did you read his post? He clearly points out its the provider of the cards that's raising the issue and he's just curious on people's thoughts.

 

[BowdonUK]

I would keep the current system as we don't know if the carer is on an errand for the disabled person. Why should a carer be paying travel fees when they are doing a task for the disabled person.

Ideally there should be a carers card that at the very least should entitled to have free or discounted travel on principle. The unsung hero's keeping our health system afloat.

 

[Voltar]

I haven’t quite understood the problem.

Disabled person gets free travel card.
Disabled person who qualifies for a carer/has a career applies for the “+carer” version.

Disabled person with valid +carer extension uses transport without a carer.

What is the actual loss suffered by the card issuer in this scenario?