• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Ride Access Pass Systems and Disabled Access (pre 2024)

Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
The RAP system is not working at the majority of UK parks and I believe that it is being abused by too many people which puts the whole scheme at the detriment of people that actually need it.

A few weeks ago at Blackpool Valhalla was scheduled to open at 12 (I think), but was pushed back to 1pm due to a system fault. the actual opening time ended up being 1:45-ish. The park began allocating times for RAP from 12, people began queueing with RAP from 1pm - meaning the RAP queue was fairly huge by the time it opened. Many people had been queueing from before 1-ish.

I went to Towers during the summer. The queue to get a time for Wickerman was 30 minutes. I was also told on the day (but didn't witness it) that the queue to get a time for Smiler was longer.

The purpose of the RAP is to aid people who can't queue. My view is that if you can queue in the above circumstances you really shouldn't require a RAP. All you are doing is inconvenience non-RAP riders and making riding these rides impossible for those who genuinely need a RAP and additional support.

I would love to see some fundamental changes to the RAP system. At Blackpool I would like it to be done via an app with a maximum number of RAP spaces every 15 minutes (say maximum 10% of riders). Because they do the ridiculous ticket scanning at turnstiles I would also like to see that when someone has a RAP in the queue that they can't access other rides - I know a person who regularly gets a time for PMBO and while waiting goes on another ride whilst waiting. For me, this is not in the spirit of the scheme.

At the Merlin parks I would love to see comfortable accessible waiting areas with facilities (Water, WC etc.) - instead of simply being given a time to go away and to come back. This would bean that the person with the RAP would be able to get the support they require and can still maintain their place in a queue. This would be an enhancement and more in-keeping with the guidance Nimbus gives.

I feel the RAP system is not always working the way it should. This disadvantages everyone, but mostly the people that genuinely need the support.
 
The Merlin scheme doesn't work in terms of getting a time and coming back at that time, not sure why you were told that. Blackpool not been in a few years but they never did that system either.

You go on the ride, and you SHOULD get a time block that equals the current length of queue. Unfortunately staff don't always do this for various reasons.

I'm always unsure on this view of "if they can wait in a X long RAP queue surely they can use the normal queue?", because the only reason they're in that queue is down to the problems with the system. Besides, wheelchair users can wait as long as possible in RAP queues theoretically, but no chance of getting one round most of the regular queues at Towers.

Accessible waiting areas on every ride whilst a good idea would be difficult to implement due to the vast range of possible requirements on top of how do you do this on older attractions that might not have the available space?
 
I would be in favour of digitising the system so it’s more strict/can react more accurately to queue times, breakdowns, closures etc. Rename it at the same time.

I wonder how well it has worked with Nimbus Disability managing applications. It could take a few years for the current abusers to leave the system and fail to reapply under Nimbus Disability.

How long could you previously have a RAP pass for (before the new application process), was it still 3 years?
 
Out of interest, does the current system require people to have photo ID?

The reason I ask is because I’m always very uncomfortable with people who claim that some guests are “abusing” the system. I figure, if you have a qualifying disability, and get a RAP, then it’s not abuse, you’re entitled to it.

However, if photo ID isn’t required, and you could borrow someone else’s disability documentation (who is not visiting the park with you), then yes, that would be classed as abuse. Not suggesting that happens, but without photo ID, we have a system that allows that to happen theoretically.
 
Enter Valhalla said:
Out of interest, does the current system require people to have photo ID?

The reason I ask is because I’m always very uncomfortable with people who claim that some guests are “abusing” the system. I figure, if you have a qualifying disability, and get a RAP, then it’s not abuse, you’re entitled to it.

However, if photo ID isn’t required, and you could borrow someone else’s disability documentation (who is not visiting the park with you), then yes, that would be classed as abuse. Not suggesting that happens, but without photo ID, we have a system that allows that to happen theoretically.
Click to expand...
Yes, during the online application you have to upload an image of your photo ID as well as your supporting document(s).
 
Last edited:
Enter Valhalla said:
Out of interest, does the current system require people to have photo ID?

The reason I ask is because I’m always very uncomfortable with people who claim that some guests are “abusing” the system. I figure, if you have a qualifying disability, and get a RAP, then it’s not abuse, you’re entitled to it.

However, if photo ID isn’t required, and you could borrow someone else’s disability documentation (who is not visiting the park with you), then yes, that would be classed as abuse. Not suggesting that happens, but without photo ID, we have a system that allows that to happen theoretically.
Click to expand...
I believe that most parks are going down the 'Access Card' route provided by Nimbus Disability. This is essentially a universal card detailing what support the person requires. The card identifies what support a person requires and who should be allocated a RAP based on these.

Discussing 'abuse' of these systems is uncomfortable as, rightfully so, we don't have any right to know why someone needs additional support (or even if they do). The term 'abuse' is also something that needs to be quantified. And again, things may happen that may not be technically 'against the rules' but not inkeeping with the spirit of the thing.

I just don't think the thing works to the best that it can. It should almost be invisible - there is nothing visually singling people out. It should also be seamless - which it isn't always. We need to be in the position where the RAP virtual queue is indistinguishable from the normal queue, and everybody gets the same experience and service, just tailored to their needs.
 
A lot of the abuse is the tail end of the old system as above. Older systems I believe were easier to abuse.

I think the issue is on 2 fronts: people claiming the RAP when they don't really need it, where the Nimbus system should kick in, but also a major issues of too many using it causing queue chaos for those who can't queue by a simple volume of people using the service.
 
Unfortunately it's very easy for anyone who has any sort of neurodivergence to claim disability and - assuming they have proof of diagnosis - it's pretty easy to get a RAP pass even via the nimbus system if you are able to say that your disability means you cannot queue - which no one can really prove or disprove.

In reality, there are many neurodivergent people who would be considered 'disabled' according to the Equality Act, and many that wouldn't, and there are neurodivergent people who cannot queue and there are those that can. Conversely, there isn't always a clear correlation between whether one would be considered 'disabled' and whether one would or wouldn't be able to queue. And there will be those who can queue in some circumstances but not in others - such as in particularly hot weather, or in cattle-pen queues where they are literally surrounded by people. Being able to categorically prove one's ability or otherwise to queue is therefore nigh-on impossible.

So really, the system has to accommodate all neurodivergent people who may - in some circumstances - not be able to queue, otherwise people will claim it is discriminatory. It's generally accepted that around 15-20% of the population are neurodivergent, so you could have up to a fifth of the general population eligible for a RAP pass. Multiply that by 4 for their family/friends and you might as well not even have a main queue any more.

Has there been abuse of the system? Undoubtedly. But there's also a massive grey area where people who are eligible on paper to own a RAP pass are using them when they don't strictly need to.

The only real solution is to make it so that if you have a RAP pass, you cannot use main queues - so that if you are 'queueing' using a RAP pass you can't be riding anything else that might have a shorter queue. I think the only way of doing that is by fully digitising the queuing system and checking each person's ticket type as they join the queue.
 
The other question is; how on earth do you determine whether one is “able” to queue (when talking about neurodiversity at least)?

There’s a very fine, and quite blurred, line between being “able” to queue and “unable” to queue; many neurodiverse people feel that they can do something like queue in certain circumstances, but not in others, and sometimes, it can be tough to tell whether queueing causes a person genuine anxiety, trauma or a tangible negative effect, or whether it is simply something they don’t particularly love. “Being able to queue” is not a binary yes or no answer; it’s far, far too multi-faceted for that, and that is one of the problems that a system like RAP will always face.

Neurodiversity is also a very, very wide term. As @NuttySquirrel says, 15-20% of the population is thought to be neurodiverse to some degree. It should be noted that that 15-20% includes conditions like dyslexia, dyscalculia and such, which (in theory at least) do not typically inhibit a person’s ability to cope with queues.

With that being said, I have known someone get RAP due to dyslexia before, so perhaps I’m just ill-informed about neurodiversity… I apologise if I am.
 
Matt N said:
The other question is; how on earth do you determine whether one is “able” to queue (when talking about neurodiversity at least)?
Click to expand...

It shouldn't have to be detrmined, it should be the the individual doing the right thing and only obtaining a pass if they need it, not getting it regardless merely because they are eligible.

Of course, if there were no real advantage those that don't need it wouldn't want it anyway. As I've been saying here for years, they must remove the advantage to reduce the demand.
 
NuttySquirrel said:
The only real solution is to make it so that if you have a RAP pass, you cannot use main queues - so that if you are 'queueing' using a RAP pass you can't be riding anything else that might have a shorter queue. I think the only way of doing that is by fully digitising the queuing system and checking each person's ticket type as they join the queue.
Click to expand...
The park would also then do well to focus on adding more experiances without a queue, like shows and walk-throughs. Problem for some parents is that if they have a child who can't wait in a standard queue, being able to do something else with a short wait is a vital distraction for them until the return time for the other ride comes round. So if there is a 90 minute wait for Wickerman, currently they could do Marauders Mayhem with a ten minute wait that I expect is much more manageable for that child, then take a look around Sharkbait Reef and maybe do Heave Ho too with a short wait, until the 90 minutes is up. Unfortuantly at the moment they would still return to a long wait in the RAP queue for Wickerman. Remove the ability for them to do Maurders Mayhem and Heave Ho and you've got a child who struggles to understand they need to wait 90 minutes to ride the big ride, now just hanging around in Sharkbait Reef.

Yes there needs to be a balance and there are way too many people who just see it as free fasttrack becuase in the past wait times were not enforced, but enforcement of wait times and running rides at full capacity would do a lot more to start with.
 
The methods of "abuse" tend to be fairly over the place.

Getting a doctors note when it's not really a necessity, though hopefully these avenues are being shut down recently. But all it took before was a trip to the GP complaining of a gammy leg and there you go.

Abuse of staff. Whether it be because a group of 5 or arguing about timings, I'd wager this would be the biggest abuse of the system more than anything. A digital version would remove that potential.

Using main queues of the bigger attractions as well is fairly clear abuse. You either do one or the other.

All little things adding up, and no help from the various Facebook groups that openly promote and suggest methods to others how to abuse/take advantage of the system. As always, a small minority of people take advantage of a system designed for those who need it and ruin it for everyone. But the amount of general disdain for the disabled is well known anyway from government to those on the street. Otherwise people wouldn't park in disabled spaces just so they don't have to walk a few metres to Asda.
 
Benzin said:
Getting a doctors note when it's not really a necessity, though hopefully these avenues are being shut down recently. But all it took before was a trip to the GP complaining of a gammy leg and there you go.
Click to expand...
In the US where they aren’t allowed to ask for medical evidence, Disney just ask what accommodations are needed. So someone who can’t stand for long because they have a gammy leg is offered a wheelchair or scooter rental. Then so many of their queues are wheelchair accessible there is no need to collect return times, just join the line!
 
I was at the Pleasure Beach today and someone who needed support was accessing PMBO - the staff were good at supporting. A woman in front of me in the queue then asked the gent on the ticket scanner "do they get to skip the line because they are disabled?". He said they did. She then went on to say "I'm disabled, does that mean I get to skip the lines?". He said that she would and she should go and ask at guest services.
A couple of issues with this:
1. The staff don't seem to understand the system. So if they don't get appropriate training there is no wonder the system can be abused.
2. The woman in question managed the queue just fine (20 minutes-ish). She then went on to climb the stairs to the Rev. I don't question the fact that she may have a disability, however, it was clearly not impacting her visit up-to that point. It does make me wonder about an individuals thought process in terms of the RAP - do some believe it as 'entitlement'?

On a side note, I was stood to the side as a guest was struggling down the exit stairs at Valhalla - clearly she needed the support of the person with her and you generally just want to give people space and make sure they are safe. A group decided to push past me and the lady and her companion. She coped, but it should not have happened. This makes me think that maybe the increase in RAP's is down to the GP losing empathy and causing issues?
 
They have told me bare faced lies for years, for fun.
Most don't care because they will probably never see the punter again, and they may well be out of a job in a couple of months.
 
ScottishChris said:
Absolutely. But you would have thought the ride staff would have a better understanding of the system.
Click to expand...

I spent more time explaining the system to guests than GS did over the few years. I'd hope they'd have gotten better at it over time but I'm doubtful.

Given how disabled benefits are often a nice easy scapegoat for many some do see it as entitlement, even in everyday life. Especially if you're young and disabled.

Amount of time no one moves out the disabled seats on the bus for the missus but as soon as someone with grey hair gets on they couldn't move fast enough. Many I think honestly believe that younger generations are so lazy and expectant they'd go out a buy a walking stick to pretend to be disabled and get benefits from it.
 
rob666 said:
They have told me bare faced lies for years, for fun.
Click to expand...
Ahh this is unfair, and I very much doubt truthful.

Yes, the information provided to ride hosts, that they then have to pass on to guests, is poor, and it's an area that needs looking at. They're not monsters though, they'll have given information they believed to be true.
 
Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
Top