Visual impairment court trial

[Tetchytyke]

Not been answered yet but again do you have a disabled persons railcard?

It is irrelevant. You do not have to have purchased a disabled person’s railcard to have an impairment. You do not even need to meet the purchase requirements for a disabled person’s railcard to have an impairment.

For Court, the OP will need to have evidence to demonstrate that they have a visual impairment which prevents them from using a ticket machine. This doesn’t mean they have to be disabled as defined by the Equality Act, it doesn’t mean they have to be blind or partially sighted. There are visual impairments which, whilst not disabilities in themselves and which may not impact on the ability to drive a car, will prevent someone from using a ticket machine. But they will need to have evidence to demonstrate that visual impairment- mere assertion won’t be enough.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

It is irrelevant. You do not have to have purchased a disabled person’s railcard to have an impairment. You do not even need to meet the purchase requirements for a disabled person’s railcard to have an impairment.

For Court, the OP will need to have evidence to demonstrate that they have a visual impairment which prevents them from using a ticket machine. This doesn’t mean they have to be disabled as defined by the Equality Act, it doesn’t mean they have to be blind or partially sighted. There are visual impairments which, whilst not disabilities in themselves and which may not impact on the ability to drive a car, will prevent someone from using a ticket machine. But they will need to have evidence to demonstrate that visual impairment- mere assertion won’t be enough.

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, from the disabled persons rail card terms and conditions


"2.7. You must buy the Tickets before boarding the train unless:

2.7.1. there was no ticket office at the station at which you began the journey or if the ticket office was closed, and there was no working ticket machine from which you could buy discounted tickets; or

2.7.2. you have a disability which prevented you accessing ticket retailing facilities.

In these cases you will be able to use your Railcard to buy tickets on the train or at your destination."

I would say holding the disabled persons railcard along with its terms and conditions would be evidence enough to affect this case, in fact if the OP does hold one and this was pointed out I would imaging the case being dropped before a hearing takes place, the OP would have had to provide evidence to get the railcard in the first place

 

[Bletchleyite]

The need to wear spectacles (even if awkward, heavy ones) is not, however, considered a disability. It's interesting in some ways that that is the case because the need for a hearing aid is (at least sufficiently to gain said Railcard) but is probably because a very high percentage (well over 50%) of people will, at some point in their life, be long sighted, as this is natural age related degeneration.

It would be annoying having to go home to get your reading specs to use the TVM though. Though I suppose a cheap pair from Morrisons next door to Bache is cheaper than a Penalty Fare (but probably not adequate for the OP due to his very long sight).

 

[ikcdab]

Or just ask someone else to push the buttons on the TVM for you

 

[Snow1964]

There is no eye test for near vision when taking a test.

But not being able to read any dashboard display, would require notifying DVLA, but have to assume they have permitted it after medical evaluation.

However if someone was that close to restrictions would also qualify for a disability card (not just for mobility impaired). Basically they are issued so can be shown in official situations to identify holder is not some chancer trying it on. If one of these was shown and barrier staff still issued penalty then something seriously wrong.

 

[island]

The need to wear spectacles (even if awkward, heavy ones) is not, however, considered a disability.

Depends on the strength. It is possible that the OP’s low visual acuity makes them legally blind.

 

[CarrotPie]

Or just ask someone else to push the buttons on the TVM for you

That relies heavily on someone else being present and willing to do so...

 

[Titfield]

That relies heavily on someone else being present and willing to do so...

or if you are able use the magnifying facility on a mobile phone (if you have one and its battery isnt flat......).

To quote Captain Mainwaring I think we are getting into the realms of fantasy here ie we are going beyond what is helpful to the Ops case.

 

[Daniel]

Depends on the strength. It is possible that the OP’s low visual acuity makes them legally blind.

Correct, but again that doesn’t compute with them being able to drive. That is to say, if their visual acuity or restricted visual field is poor enough corrected to be legally blind (or sight impaired by the legal definition), then they would be not have a driving licence, which by their own admission they do (and utilise).

 

[Bletchleyite]

To quote Captain Mainwaring I think we are getting into the realms of fantasy here ie we are going beyond what is helpful to the Ops case.

I think this is quite possibly because, unless there's something the OP isn't telling us that would clarify the rather odd dichotomy involved in the two cases, the OP's case is very poor and all they can realistically do is attempt to settle (or plead guilty to try to get a lesser penalty and take it on the chin).

I need spectacles and don't like it that much, but if you need them to use a TVM then forgetting them is just the same as if you forget your wallet - you just have to go home and get them.

 

[Class800]

I think in this case it is only possible to correct the OP's sight for driving with spectacles (far-sightedness) and that it isn't when using ticket machines (short-sightedness). I wasn't aware this affected people in this way until now either.

Glasses that involve refraction can be impossible to use on computer screens. I cannot say if this applies here, only that it might. I have only a mild deficit which does not prevent driving legally - yet on a few occasions have been unable to use certain ticket machines, having to use the office and once ask a guard before boarding. It's not an impossibility

 

[Bletchleyite]

Glasses that involve refraction can be impossible to use on computer screens.

You mean prisms? I have these (ironically in part to make using the computer easier) and while there is a small amount of distortion it's not unacceptably bad. It's better than not wearing them which gives me a stinking headache after a short time. Though obviously it'll similarly depend how strong these are.

I think the OP needs to clarify, with relevant documentation if necessary (obviously with personal details removed), exactly what their diagnosed sight condition actually is. It reads to me like they need glasses to use a TVM and don't like it (so possibly don't carry them as a routine thing), and that wouldn't be an acceptable defence because that would allow half the older population to choose not to use a TVM. For us to be able to advise beyond that we'd need to know what the actual problem is (and how it's compatible with driving, as while there are two cases here the defence for one could viably land the OP in quite a lot of trouble if they really shouldn't be driving, in which case the OP may have to make a choice which case they'd prefer to take on the chin*, and I think for me it'd be the simple fare evasion Byelaw one!).

* If the OP indeed shouldn't be driving (I know that's a big if, but I still can't resolve how the two cases aren't mutually incompatible), the best may be to take both cases on the chin (or attempt to settle them) and then to quietly cease driving. The penalties for driving while medically disallowed can be extremely harsh, and in practice the penalty for driving while not able to see adequately could in practical terms be death.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The need to wear spectacles (even if awkward, heavy ones) is not, however, considered a disability.

Whether something is a disability is not relevant. Temporary impairments are not disabilities (as they are temporary and a disability must be permanent) but would bring someone within the scope of Merseyrail’s accessibility policy, which specifically refers to “visual impairments”.

You don’t have to be disabled to be impaired and, conversely, you don’t have to be impaired to be disabled.

The accessibility policy clearly states “if you are unable to use the self-service ticket machine you will be able to buy a ticket at your destination station or from one of our revenue protection staff at no penalty”.

The OP asserts that they have a visual impairment which meant they could not use the TVM. This doesn’t necessarily mean they have a visual impairment that means they cannot drive. Given the relatively poor quality of the screens on Merseyrail TVMs, you will understand the point I’m making.

If it goes to Court, the OP will be required to supply some evidence of this. It is for the OP to reflect on whether they will be able to do this.

wouldn't say it's irrelevant, from the disabled persons rail card terms and conditions

I see what you mean. If they do hold one it makes their proof and their defence a lot easier.

But the conversation seemed to very much be slanted towards the angle that the OP doesn’t qualify for the protections in the Merseyrail accessibility policy unless they hold the railcard. That is not the case at all.

 

[Deafdoggie]

The accessibility policy clearly states “if you are unable to use the self-service ticket machine you will be able to buy a ticket at your destination station or from one of our revenue protection staff at no penalty”.

It is poorly worded. It doesn't say you have to be disabled or Impaired to not be able to use it. Although it is in the accessibility booklet, "I was unable to use it because I was late" or "I was unable to use it because I had my eyes shut" would appear, on their wording, to be acceptable! However, I suspect a court would take the view of what 'a reasonable person' would interpret it as, and I think having a disability or impairment would be a reasonable interpretation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is poorly worded. It doesn't say you have to be disabled or Impaired to not be able to use it. Although it is in the accessibility booklet, "I was unable to use it because I was late" or "I was unable to use it because I had my eyes shut" would appear, on their wording, to be acceptable! However, I suspect a court would take the view of what 'a reasonable person' would interpret it as, and I think having a disability or impairment would be a reasonable interpretation.

I would very much doubt that having forgotten one's reading glasses would be seen as mitigation, though, as that'd mean it was open to most people over the age of about 50 not to use it. It indeed depends on whether the OP can prove that even with their spectacles they couldn't.

For what it's worth I've used the TVM at Bache and I don't think it's anything out of the ordinary, I seem to recall it's a regular Scheidt & Bachmann machine similar to those used by West Midlands Trains.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is poorly worded. It doesn't say you have to be disabled or Impaired to not be able to use it. Although it is in the accessibility booklet, "I was unable to use it because I was late" or "I was unable to use it because I had my eyes shut" would appear, on their wording, to be acceptable! However, I suspect a court would take the view of what 'a reasonable person' would interpret it as, and I think having a disability or impairment would be a reasonable interpretation.

The OP already admits to having said, on record, they were in a rush as their first defence - which potentially completely undermines their case. Unwisely, they tried to retract the comment after realising this was undermined their intended defence (no such thing in practice - it's been said!), but then undermines their case further by saying a train just so happened to arrive and they got on board. This would have no relevance at all if the OP was genuinely completely unable to use the TVM - this is a non-defence used by people who just can't be bothered to buy before they get on, or don't leave any time to do so - and it was unwise to say this too.

The OP says they have provided evidence that their visual acuity is so bad they can read *no lines of text at all* on an optometrist's chart and cannot see anything close to them, which would render them unable to drive safely as they couldn't then see their own dashboard, even with corrective lenses which make them able to see at distance acceptable to the DVLA. Elsewhere, the OP has a different thread where they were driving a car and parked it at the station.

Overall a big old mess. No paperwork or any correspondence supplied in either thread and my suspicion is Merseyrail think they are calling the OP's bluff. Regrettably, the OP has decided to go to court and asked for no help prior to this, nor have they returned once it seemed clear there were no magic words or get-outs for their case, and strangers were confused and picked holes in the chain of events.

 

[Haywain]

my suspicion is Merseyrail think they are calling the OP's bluff.

Mine is that it is the OP who is trying to call Merseyrail's bluff. Something along the lines of 'you can't prosecute me because I've got lots of lines of defence'.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I would very much doubt that having forgotten one's reading glasses would be seen as mitigation, though, as that'd mean it was open to most people over the age of about 50 not to use it. It indeed depends on whether the OP can prove that even with their spectacles they couldn't.

For what it's worth I've used the TVM at Bache and I don't think it's anything out of the ordinary, I seem to recall it's a regular Scheidt & Bachmann machine similar to those used by West Midlands Trains.

Exactly. I can't see far without my glasses, certainly not a PIS, and i can't hear announcements, so i could just get on any old train and say i couldn't see or hear which train it was & hoped for the best! You have to take a bit of responsibility for your actions.
Certainly with a disability you know what works for you. If you know you can't see a TVM without your glasses, you take your glasses, or buy in advance. I know trying to buy tickets at a counter is hard work for both me and the clerk! So using a TVM is much easier but i'm happy to buy online too rather than put me and the clerk through it!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Feb 2024 ==

Mine is that it is the OP who is trying to call Merseyrail's bluff. Something along the lines of 'you can't prosecute me because I've got lots of lines of defence'.

My feeling is "you can't prosecute me, I've got poor eyesight"

 

[Haywain]

My feeling is "you can't prosecute me, I've got poor eyesight"

I was working across both threads/prosecutions. That only works on one of them!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was working across both threads/prosecutions. That only works on one of them!

Quite, on the car park one it's more likely to result in extra prosecutions!

 

[Deafdoggie]

I was working across both threads/prosecutions. That only works on one of them!

Quite, on the car park one it's more likely to result in extra prosecutions!

I thought the OP was claiming they couldn't see the signs?

 

[SuspectUsual]

I wonder whether the OP’s ticket buying history would support their case - ie there are no instances of buying one ticket from a TVM (I’m assuming a purchase of two tickets implies a second person present).

If the OP were to present that as evidence of their impairment and of a history of not using TVMs, would it help their defence? Can Merseyrail check the purchase history of the OP’s card?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I would very much doubt that having forgotten one's reading glasses would be seen as mitigation, though, as that'd mean it was open to most people over the age of about 50 not to use it. It indeed depends on whether the OP can prove that even with their spectacles they couldn't.

There is always a fine line between can’t and won’t.

But actually, I would support an argument that forgetting one’s glasses and being unable to read the machine is enough to say you can’t use the TVM, and that this means you can avail of retail opportunities later in your journey where a staffed ticket office is available.

Maybe that will benefit lots of older people- so be it. It is the railway’s choice to restrict retail at Bache to a machine, after all.

The OP would need to have evidence that their eyesight was such that they couldn’t use the machine. It’ll be interesting if the OP ever returns to advise us as to whether they have that evidence.

Forgetting your wallet is very different- if you don’t have your wallet you can’t pay at the other end either, so would be a slam dunk “intent to evade payment”.

 

[Haywain]

The OP would need to have evidence that their eyesight was such that they couldn’t use the machine. It’ll be interesting if the OP ever returns to advise us as to whether they have that evidence.

However, they have said that they have glasses that are "thick and heavy" and they only wear them "when absolutely necessary". That suggests it was more a case of didn't want to use the machine.

 

[AlterEgo]

However, they have said that they have glasses that are "thick and heavy" and they only wear them "when absolutely necessary". That suggests it was more a case of didn't want to use the machine.

And we must remember the OP tried to retract their own evidence that the reason they had no ticket was "they were in a rush". They have a weak case imo.

 

[Msq71423]

I can sympathise with how the OP has described their disability.

My cousin has been registered blind all his life, though up until a few years ago he still had 30% vision for anything over 2 metres away. As such the DVLA allowed him to ride a motorbike (as family members we disagreed with this decision but that's another story).

However for anything under 2 metres away he was effectively blind and unable to see or read anything at all. He was prescribed glasses, very thick and heavy ones, allegedly to help him try and see nearby writing. However they didn't work for him, he couldn't see anything under 2 metres whether he wore them or not so he chose not to wear them.

I suspect it's possibly a similar disability the OP in this case is living with based on the descriptions given.

 

[notmyrealname]

Apologies if this has been asked before. If the OP was able to drive to the station presumably they would have the glasses with them even if they weren't wearing them? They could take them out of their pocket or bag in order to read the screen on the TVM and then put them back so they didn't need to keep wearing them.

 

[Llanigraham]

Quite, on the car park one it's more likely to result in extra prosecutions!

And potentially the loss of his licence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But actually, I would support an argument that forgetting one’s glasses and being unable to read the machine is enough to say you can’t use the TVM, and that this means you can avail of retail opportunities later in your journey where a staffed ticket office is available.

To be fair, contactless and e-tickets would probably cover most of these cases. You can zoom your phone screen or just tap in. So part of the problem is probably Merseyrail's living in the past!

 

[Class800]

To be fair, contactless and e-tickets would probably cover most of these cases. You can zoom your phone screen or just tap in. So part of the problem is probably Merseyrail's living in the past!