DSP passes based on 1973 passenger estimates.

Owryan

Gonna post my own opinion here, currently on DA and have a FTP for myself only. Do I need it ? No, as I can drive and have my car. Do I use it ? Yes, once a week.

It should most definatley be both means tested and issued according to an individuals circumstances.

Also, imo it should only offer subsidised travel with caps for different journeys/modes of transport.

The scheme is most certainly being abused, I know of one person who was recently caught travelling on their deceased mothers (dead 3 years) pass.

foggy_lad

Owryan wrote: »

Gonna post my own opinion here, currently on DA and have a FTP for myself only. Do I need it ? No, as I can drive and have my car. Do I use it ? Yes, once a week.

It should most definatley be both means tested and issued according to an individuals circumstances.

Also, imo it should only offer subsidised travel with caps for different journeys/modes of transport.

The scheme is most certainly being abused, I know of one person who was recently caught travelling on their deceased mothers (dead 3 years) pass.

Caps would be the way to go except for the great urban/rural divide and the risk of those in greater need of transport in rural areas having ro pay more than their urban counterparts who would generally not have as far to travel.

Means testing is essential for this and also the houshold benefits for the elderly and disabled.

bigbarginhunter

Richard Logue wrote: »

The free travel scheme as it currently stands is a massive and unnecessary drain on taxpayers money and should be restricted.


Disabled pass holders should be restricted to medical/hospital visits only. No reason for any of them them to travel around the country for free.
Carers should pay full fares.

So what Richard Logue is saying is that disabled people should only go out when they have a medical/hospital appointment, a lot of that have disabilities cannot get around without there Carer. It's a very ignorant comment towards people that have disabilities.

bk

foggy_lad wrote: »

They could do a lot of things but they are less likely to do anything that affects the disabled/elderly imo.

They already have, they have already reduced the fuel and phone allowances.

While I agree that they are unlikely to hit the pension, I do think they will go after all other areas and the Free Travel Scheme is the next likely target.

I think the best way to approach it is to do away with free travel and make it concessionary. Even just 25% of the normal fair, I think that would be a good thing as it would help people to appreciate it's value more and only take journeys that they really need.

Do this in conjunction with making it a leap card, linked to a deaths database, would go a long way to reducing fraudulent usage.

As for me saying it shouldn't be for disabled persons. Sorry I don't really mean that, of course people who are truly disabled should get free/concessionary travel.

I suppose my problem is that the word "disabled" has become seriously tarnished by the "oh my back hurts", drug taking, scumbags who I see wielding disability passes every day. It really makes my blood boil.

And that is the danger. The scheme has gotten so out of control, that the original point of the scheme has gotten lost, to such an extent where the only solution maybe to stop it completely, thus hitting the most vulnerable people because the government couldn't run a scheme that was being highly abused.

murphaph

bk wrote: »

As for me saying it shouldn't be for disabled persons. Sorry I don't really mean that, of course people who are truly disabled should get free/concessionary travel.

I suppose my problem is that the word "disabled" has become seriously tarnished by the "oh my back hurts", drug taking, scumbags who I see wielding disability passes every day. It really makes my blood boil.

Disabled people should be top priority for a pass. OAPs should get a concession like they do here in Berlin (note not nationwide, discounts are for local area ticketing only. A Berliner can't get a concession for Munich public transport as he doesn't live there).

Disabled ids here have a % disability on them. You need to be at least 50% disabled to get free transport. An example of a 50% disability would be the loss of a hand.

Germany doesn't consider elderly people with back pain to be disabled as older people suffer generally from a deterioration in their health like this. You have to be at a significant disadvantage to your average peer group for more than 6months to be considered.

The main thing here is that the decision is made by an independent doctor, not your own gp.

foggy_lad

murphaph wrote: »

Disabled people should be top priority for a pass. OAPs should get a concession like they do here in Berlin (note not nationwide, discounts are for local area ticketing only. A Berliner can't get a concession for Munich public transport as he doesn't live there).

Disabled ids here have a % disability on them. You need to be at least 50% disabled to get free transport. An example of a 50% disability would be the loss of a hand.

Germany doesn't consider elderly people with back pain to be disabled as older people suffer generally from a deterioration in their health like this. You have to be at a significant disadvantage to your average peer group for more than 6months to be considered.

The main thing here is that the decision is made by an independent doctor, not your own gp.

Decisions about disability are made here by a social welfare doctor from a panel of gps and they give their opinion and the final decision is made by a non medical civil servant. Also it can take several years on certs before you would even be considered for disability or invalidity pension which gets you free travel and the household benefits package.

Richard Logue

bigbarginhunter wrote: »

Richard Logue wrote: »

The free travel scheme as it currently stands is a massive and unnecessary drain on taxpayers money and should be restricted.


Disabled pass holders should be restricted to medical/hospital visits only. No reason for any of them them to travel around the country for free.
Carers should pay full fares.

So what Richard Logue is saying is that disabled people should only go out when they have a medical/hospital appointment, a lot of that have disabilities cannot get around without there Carer. It's a very ignorant comment towards people that have disabilities.

What's ignorant about expressing my opinion? You're entitled to disagree with me but keep the insults to yourself.

What particular entitlement should disabled people have to free travel? If a disabled person can get to work I would encourage that by all means but I don't for one minute think a blind person for instance or someone on crutches should be able to travel for free.

If we were being completely fair we really ought to scrap the scheme as it stands and only offer passes to "deserving cases" subject to a means test. Anyone using the free pass to conduct business should have their pass confiscated on the spot and pay a penalty fare.

monument

bigbarginhunter wrote: »

It's a very ignorant comment towards people that have disabilities.

Moderator:

Please avoid calling people's views ignorant. It's inflammatory and won't help you get your point across.

bigbarginhunter

My apologies

Victor

Richard Logue wrote: »

I don't for one minute think a blind person for instance or someone on crutches should be able to travel for free.

But it may be impossible for such people to walk, cycle or drive. Should they be left at home instead?

bigbarginhunter

Everyone is entitled to there opinion.

I do agree the system is abused, but there are genuine people that use the travel pass that don't abuse it.

My son also gets a transportation grant in the form of a taxi to bring him to and from school, the reason he gets this is there is no school in our area that can provide for his needs. People with disabilities don't have the same choices as an able bodied person and do need an extra bit of help in life.

murphaph

bigbarginhunter wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to there opinion.

I do agree the system is abused, but there are genuine people that use the travel pass that don't abuse it.

My son also gets a transportation grant in the form of a taxi to bring him to and from school, the reason he gets this is there is no school in our area that can provide for his needs. People with disabilities don't have the same choices as an able bodied person and do need an extra bit of help in life.

I agree. Genuinely disabled people deserve extra help from the rest of us through the state.

lucernarian

bigbarginhunter wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to there opinion.

Unless of course, an opinion is expressed to others or put into effect that discriminates members of society as per the Equality Act 1998.

I think I should also mention that discrimination against those who are disabled is an offence in the above act. But that's beside the point I guess

I can't see how the law as it stands could allow for selective treatment of various disabilities involving mobility impairment. It would need to be radically changed to allow for detailed criteria in issuing free travel passes for mobility-impaired people.

Considering how essential sight is to safe travel both in urban and rural areas and the scarcity of guide dogs among the blind in Ireland, I can't envisage a fair reason for denying visually impaired people free travel.

Hilly Bill

foggy_lad wrote: »

Maybe this will force the issuing of proper travel passes? Although they know the number of eligible persons they dont know how many actual bits of paper are in use or how many are used by relatives long after the original recipient has died.

What kind of pass do you think would be better all around? Credit card size with name address and picture?

I heard 1 in 4 people had a travel pass and a great number are being confiscated daly.

bmaxi

While I'd agree the area of the FTP is open to abuse, I think there are other areas of SW that need to be looked at before any thought is given to removing it from our pensioners and disabled. The whole area of single parents is a huge black hole over which there is little or no regulation and which devours multiples of the FTP. There is no doubt that some are deserving cases but abuse of the system is widespread with partners living with claimants and rooms being rented out in houses for which rent allowance is being paid. The abuse of the SW system is chronic and the Dept seems to be unable or unwilling to tackle it. The ludicrous system of giving claimants two weeks notice of a visit by a WO is laughable, visits shold be at short notice to avoid evidence of co-habiting being removed. Plus there is the little matter of the millions handed over to our politicians in unvouched expenses every year, imagine going in to your boss and putting out your hand for €15,000 for nothing, I know what you'd be told.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Victor

bmaxi wrote: »

While I'd agree the area of the FTP is open to abuse, I think there are other areas of SW that need to be looked at before any thought is given to removing it from our pensioners and disabled. The whole area of single parents is a huge black hole over which there is little or no regulation and which devours multiples of the FTP. There is no doubt that some are deserving cases but abuse of the system is widespread with partners living with claimants and rooms being rented out in houses for which rent allowance is being paid. The abuse of the SW system is chronic and the Dept seems to be unable or unwilling to tackle it. The ludicrous system of giving claimants two weeks notice of a visit by a WO is laughable, visits shold be at short notice to avoid evidence of co-habiting being removed. Plus there is the little matter of the millions handed over to our politicians in unvouched expenses every year, imagine going in to your boss and putting out your hand for €15,000 for nothing, I know what you'd be told.

But none of that is relevant to the Commuting & Transport forum.

Moderator

bmaxi

Then let's stop looking at the FTP in the same light, in terms of a drain on the taxpayer. The FTP was never envisaged as a hardship allowance, it was a social "gift", a recognition of the older generation's struggle to build the state. It was intended to be used exactly as it is, to allow recipients to travel from one end of the state to the other for free, not at concessionary rates, peak hour restrictions were only in urban areas and only on buses. This was because, at the time it was introduced, buses were much more widely used than they are now. I can't see why any of the conditions should be changed, barring FTP holders from peak time services would have very little effect. if buses are carrying less passengers then their frequency will be reduced, It's basic economics which can only adversely affect fare paying passengers. Strict enforcement of bus lanes and other, widely ignored, traffic regulations, would have a more beneficial effect on bus services than a peak time ban on FTP holders
The first thing that needs to be tackled IMO, if it's really a case of eradicating fraud, which I doubt, is to require pass holders to carry some form of official photo id, this could be a DL, Passport or the type of photo ID currently used by students, this could be used while the DSP is arseing about developing an official ID. Then there is the question of verifying the ID, there is no reason why anybody travelling long distance by bus or train cannot have their ID verified by either the ticket issuer or by the bus driver. City bus drivers are always in too much of a hurry to look at travel passes, but what has happened to inspectors? They used to be on every second bus, now they are rarely seen.
Then there is the question of qualifying conditions. Personally, I can't see why prisoners on day release or junkies qualify under the free travel scheme, these are both self inflicted injuries IMO. This is a case of some Civil Servant exercising his "God given right" to spend your money rather than bother to put forward an argument against the bleeding heart liberals.
Really, the travel companies need to enforce the regulations regarding free travel and the Government and those opponents of the FTS need to remember the spirit in which it was introduced. It was probably the only selfless act in the long career of CJH.

foggy_lad

Prisoners and their wives get travel warrants which cover a return journey for visits etc much the same as those in the Army or FCA get their travel paid for.

Being a drug addict is not a qualifier for free travel or for invalidity or disability pension but many of the psychiatric illnesses which do qualify make the people affected far more susceptible to drug addiction and anti social behaviour.

bmaxi

foggy_lad wrote: »

Prisoners and their wives get travel warrants which cover a return journey for visits etc much the same as those in the Army or FCA get their travel paid for.

Being a drug addict is not a qualifier for free travel or for invalidity or disability pension but many of the psychiatric illnesses which do qualify make the people affected far more susceptible to drug addiction and anti social behaviour.

Still don't see why prisoners qualify, they're there to pay a debt not cause one.
I take your point about psychiatric illnesses and this is an area which is wide open to abuse, not just in terms of the FTP. It's a chicken and egg situation in which judgment at the highest level is required.

foggy_lad

bmaxi wrote: »

Still don't see why prisoners qualify, they're there to pay a debt not cause one.
I take your point about psychiatric illnesses and this is an area which is wide open to abuse, not just in terms of the FTP. It's a chicken and egg situation in which judgment at the highest level is required.

I always thought Ireland was better than most capitalist countries because of a certain socialist mentality within the people, but maybe it is slowly becoming like the united states.

As for judgement at the highest level, that won't be found on a stagnant panel of civil service general practitioners who have not seen proper patients in years and who see maybe 4 people per day and who make so much on expenses and allowances it would make a minister blush. It could probably pay the pension they are examining people for.

bmaxi

foggy_lad wrote: »

I always thought Ireland was better than most capitalist countries because of a certain socialist mentality within the people, but maybe it is slowly becoming like the united states.

As for judgement at the highest level, that won't be found on a stagnant panel of civil service general practitioners who have not seen proper patients in years and who see maybe 4 people per day and who make so much on expenses and allowances it would make a minister blush. It could probably pay the pension they are examining people for.

I have been a socialist all my life but socialist with a small s. I don't believe in the nanny state or the other aspects which would be characterised by the likes of Cuba but I do believe we have a duty to protect and care for those, and these are the operative words, who through no fault of their own, find themselves in need. Prisoners do not fall into this category IMO. If you break the law you should pay, not be extended privileges. Ireland has enough problems supporting those who don't deserve support, without mollycoddling criminals.
I do, however, share your opinion of Medical Panels but that's a discussion for another forum.

foggy_lad

bmaxi wrote: »

I have been a socialist all my life but socialist with a small s. I don't believe in the nanny state or the other aspects which would be characterised by the likes of Cuba but I do believe we have a duty to protect and care for those, and these are the operative words, who through no fault of their own, find themselves in need. Prisoners do not fall into this category IMO. If you break the law you should pay, not be extended privileges. Ireland has enough problems supporting those who don't deserve support, without mollycoddling criminals.
I do, however, share your opinion of Medical Panels but that's a discussion for another forum.

While criminals may not deserve a free train ticket on release should their children, wives or partners be denied visits because of the often long journeys the visits entail? As for the operative words "through no fault of their own" what about those who are disabled through their own actions or poor judgement in car accidents or through sports injuries etc should these people also be excluded?

bmaxi

foggy_lad wrote: »

While criminals may not deserve a free train ticket on release should their children, wives or partners be denied visits because of the often long journeys the visits entail? As for the operative words "through no fault of their own" what about those who are disabled through their own actions or poor judgement in car accidents or through sports injuries etc should these people also be excluded?

The state is already supporting prisoners' wives and families in the same way as we support any deserted family. Why should those whose desertion is caused by a criminal act be entitled to further benefits over and above any other deserted family?
Lack of judgment is not a crime, I would lay odds that each and every one of those disabled in an accident or playing sport, if they had the benefit of hindsight, would not make the same error of judgment. This does not apply to prisoners, they set out with the intent to do injury, whether physical or material, to another person and few criminals are imprisoned for a first offence, which means, unlike those disabled in the circumstances described, they had the opportunity not to repeat the act but chose not to accept it.

Victor

bmaxi wrote: »

The state is already supporting prisoners' wives and families in the same way as we support any deserted family. Why should those whose desertion is caused by a criminal act be entitled to further benefits over and above any other deserted family?
Lack of judgment is not a crime, I would lay odds that each and every one of those disabled in an accident or playing sport, if they had the benefit of hindsight, would not make the same error of judgment. This does not apply to prisoners, they set out with the intent to do injury, whether physical or material, to another person and few criminals are imprisoned for a first offence, which means, unlike those disabled in the circumstances described, they had the opportunity not to repeat the act but chose not to accept it.

Getting off-topic, but prisoners are allowed day-release to enable them to allow themselves re-adjust to the outside world and maintain relationships, especially with their children.

This is as more for the benefit of the general public and the children, as dysfunctional former prisoners are more likely to re-offend than rehabilitated ones.

murphaph

foggy_lad wrote: »

While criminals may not deserve a free train ticket on release should their children, wives or partners be denied visits because of the often long journeys the visits entail?

Let them pay for tickets to visit their criminal family member.

foggy_lad

bmaxi wrote: »

The state is already supporting prisoners' wives and families in the same way as we support any deserted family. Why should those whose desertion is caused by a criminal act be entitled to further benefits over and above any other deserted family?
Lack of judgment is not a crime, I would lay odds that each and every one of those disabled in an accident or playing sport, if they had the benefit of hindsight, would not make the same error of judgment. This does not apply to prisoners, they set out with the intent to do injury, whether physical or material, to another person and few criminals are imprisoned for a first offence, which means, unlike those disabled in the circumstances described, they had the opportunity not to repeat the act but chose not to accept it.

Many prisoners did not set out to do any harm to anyone or any material property but through unfortunate events find themselves on the wrong side of the prison walls. Those imprisoned for offences like dangerous driving causing death etc do not set out to do harm so why should they be further punished?

Gatling

foggy_lad wrote: »

Many prisoners did not set out to do any harm to anyone or any material property but through unfortunate events find themselves on the wrong side of the prison walls. Those imprisoned for offences like dangerous driving causing death etc do not set out to do harm so why should they be further punished?

If they didn't do the crime well you know the rest

Gatling

Fuuny people moaning about a travel pass ,when non nationals can go to social welfare on a very regular basis and get cars and car insurance and road tax paid for by saying they feel threaten or were racially abused on public transport, no garda complaint's no proof of anything untoward,

bmaxi

Victor wrote: »

Getting off-topic, but prisoners are allowed day-release to enable them to allow themselves re-adjust to the outside world and maintain relationships, especially with their children.

This is as more for the benefit of the general public and the children, as dysfunctional former prisoners are more likely to re-offend than rehabilitated ones.

Although I don't necessarily buy into that view. I've no objection in principle to prisoners having day release or family visits, my objection is to the state issuing FTPs for that purpose.