• 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.
Alsty said:
I was looking at some statistics on disabilities and discovered that almost a quarter of people in England have a disability. I am not sure how RAP works but assume that another person will typically accompany them in the RAP queue? If so you could be looking at around half the capacity taken up for RAP.

I would say they should work out how many RAP/non-RAP are in the park on any given day, and maintain those ratios on the rides. They should also cap out the RAP queues at sensible limits (remember the "queue at capacity" from the Covid days?). It does not make sense to have RAP queues of one hour. It would be possible to regulate these things using an electronic system, as well as the virtual queue / time-out periods.

Also agree with Matt about queues being emptied during a breakdown. Surprised this wasn't a thing already.
Click to expand...
Each RAP user is allowed to bring three additional guests along with them in the queue.

I think an RFID card solution could work well. Amble up to the RAP entrance, tap your RFID card (given to you by the park), a machine spits out a ticket which gives you a time to come back at, based on the current queue length of the attraction. It's accessible and sturdy tech, doesn't require too much additional investment and doesn't rely on phones (which are a nightmare to work with at best). It's similar to the old Virtual Q system.
 
Alsty said:
I was looking at some statistics on disabilities and discovered that almost a quarter of people in England have a disability. I am not sure how RAP works but assume that another person will typically accompany them in the RAP queue? If so you could be looking at around half the capacity taken up for RAP.

I would say they should work out how many RAP/non-RAP are in the park on any given day, and maintain those ratios on the rides. They should also cap out the RAP queues at sensible limits (remember the "queue at capacity" from the Covid days?). It does not make sense to have RAP queues of one hour. It would be possible to regulate these things using an electronic system, as well as the virtual queue / time-out periods.

Also agree with Matt about queues being emptied during a breakdown. Surprised this wasn't a thing already.
Click to expand...
But it's ok for the main queue to be an hour or over? Whatever the main queue is timed at the RAP "virtual queue" should be the same, just you don't physically stand in it. No one gains an unfair advantage and no one is hard done by.
 
RIPCorky said:
But it's ok for the main queue to be an hour or over? Whatever the main queue is timed at the RAP "virtual queue" should be the same, just you don't physically stand in it. No one gains an unfair advantage and no one is hard done by.
Click to expand...
That's what the time out system at the moment should be doing, except you wait after riding.
 
Alsty said:
I was looking at some statistics on disabilities and discovered that almost a quarter of people in England have a disability. I am not sure how RAP works but assume that another person will typically accompany them in the RAP queue? If so you could be looking at around half the capacity taken up for RAP.
Click to expand...
One thing to bear in mind with these statistics is that they include pretty much everything that could conceivably be considered a disability. Some of these will not fall under the umbrella of RAP eligibility; for instance, conditions such as dyslexia and dyscalculia are considered disabilities (and I reckon that people with these types of conditions make up a surprising proportion of those with disabilities), but they are not conditions that make you eligible for RAP (on their own, at least).
RIPCorky said:
But it's ok for the main queue to be an hour or over? Whatever the main queue is timed at the RAP "virtual queue" should be the same, just you don't physically stand in it. No one gains an unfair advantage and no one is hard done by.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think @Alsty is referring to there being a physical queue of over an hour for RAP users rather than the principle of RAP users having to wait an hour.

If a system designed to help those who can’t queue is forcing its users to wait in physical queues of an hour or more in length, I’d argue that something clearly isn’t working somewhere along the line.
 
Matt N said:
One thing to bear in mind with these statistics is that they include pretty much everything that could conceivably be considered a disability. Some of these will not fall under the umbrella of RAP eligibility; for instance, conditions such as dyslexia and dyscalculia are considered disabilities (and I reckon that people with these types of conditions make up a surprising proportion of those with disabilities), but they are not conditions that make you eligible for RAP (on their own, at least).

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think @Alsty is referring to there being a physical queue of over an hour for RAP users rather than the principle of RAP users having to wait an hour.

If a system designed to help those who can’t queue is forcing its users to wait in physical queues of an hour or more in length, I’d argue that something clearly isn’t working somewhere along the line.
Click to expand...
If you limit people who are able to "queue" for the ride means you end up having to turn people away or tell them they can't go on the ride. I'm sure that would cause some pretty ugly scenes to be honest.
 
RIPCorky said:
If you limit people who are able to "queue" for the ride means you end up having to turn people away or tell them they can't go on the ride. I'm sure that would cause some pretty ugly scenes to be honest.
Click to expand...
The point isn’t that RAP users shouldn’t be allowed to wait for a ride if the wait is more than an hour.

I think it’s more the fact that they should be allowed to wait virtually somewhere rather than in a physical queue, and that the buildup of the physical queues in the first place is a big issue.
 
Matt N said:
The point isn’t that RAP users shouldn’t be allowed to wait for a ride if the wait is more than an hour.

I think it’s more the fact that they should be allowed to wait virtually somewhere rather than in a physical queue, and that the buildup of the physical queues in the first place is a big issue.
Click to expand...
All you can do is limit the amount of people who virtually queue for it in anticipation of keeping the physical queue short. Probably taking into account the length of the main queue
 
Thorpe Park have been advertising 2 hour+ queues for most of their main rides this week. Judging by some of the photos I've seen, I think the park need to look at whether they can cope with the number of guests they're getting. I also don't think Thorpe's paths could cope with people displaced from the RAP queues.
 
Matt N said:
The point isn’t that RAP users shouldn’t be allowed to wait for a ride if the wait is more than an hour.

I think it’s more the fact that they should be allowed to wait virtually somewhere rather than in a physical queue, and that the buildup of the physical queues in the first place is a big issue.
Click to expand...
The build up of the queue is due to:

1) Busy park day, too many people entering the queues for limited seats
2) Popular ride
3) No virtual system to manage ride slots and people allowed to queue

Point three would help, but it will never ever eliminate the need to queue physically. Weirdly for what would deter people from the normal queue (length) the RAP users actually appear to have (by the looks of it) more of a tolerance to it perhaps because they have to?

Amazing what you can achieve when you have to do something.
 
The system is an utter farce but lots of people by the sounds of it are still exploiting it which makes my blood boil. It doesn't shock me though anymore. We live in a very selfish entitled society.

I'd love to know what the number one reason / condition is for request of this pass as well. Not that we'd ever find out but I have a pretty good idea on what it will be.
 
Limiting numbers means limiting income...something they just won't do.
The real answer it to increase prices, get rid of all annual passes, and limit the capacity of people on the park to about half the current level on peak days.
Never happen...less money overall.
Pack em in cheap on passes, then make the buggers wait once they have your money.
The good old capitalist way.
 
In fairness, Merlin have taken steps, very slowly and admittedly too late, to improve the situation. Thorpe I believe now cap gate figures at 15,000 which, although still high, is better than the 18,000 which they used to allow.

In terms of RAP eligibility, they now allow more than one RAP user per ride which they never used to, thus preventing the RAP queue from building up, and they have also made changes to eligible disabilities. I know it could be seen as too little too late, but it’s a start at least.
 
rob666 said:
Limiting numbers means limiting income...something they just won't do.
The real answer it to increase prices, get rid of all annual passes, and limit the capacity of people on the park to about half the current level on peak days.
Never happen...less money overall.
Pack em in cheap on passes, then make the buggers wait once they have your money.
The good old capitalist way.
Click to expand...

It’s got nothing to do with income, it’s bad press.

No one cares if they limit RAP in mid May but can you imagine the “my little baby couldn’t come to Alton Towers” stories in the Daily Heil if there was a limit on RAP over a limited event like fireworks.

That’s the issue.
 
tayspru said:
Paultons. Paultons. Paultons.

They have limited RAP availability per day, they haven’t had any legal repercussions so that’s not an issue
Click to expand...
The lack of any legal action does not prove that something is legal. Paulton's might have not been tested because nobody is sufficiently motivated to challenge it yet. My suspicion is that Paultons are doing what they do without the advice of a legal team and will eventually come a-cropper, but IANAL.

Legalities aside, Paultons also have a far lower profile than Alton Towers, even in their South East homeland. Could you imagine the headlines if Alton Towers tried it, and they ran out of RAP capacity for, say, the entire Summer holidays?
 
I have recently found out that I am eligible for a Disability Card through Nimbus which would give me access to the RAP (My issue is stress induced migraines/ PTSD). I don't actually need the RAP as I can queue perfectly well. I would suggest that a surprising number of people could actually [legitimately] get a Disability Card. The issue with the system is we are currently trusting people to assess whether they need to use the RAP themselves as the criteria is surprisingly large.

I do understand why Towers and others have outsourced the eligibility to Nimbus - their is a fear that they can be accused of disability discrimination. This is also the likely reason why the criteria is surprisingly wide ranging. I have a bit of background in Protected Characteristics from work (not an expert by any means), the issue I see now is that parks could potentially be accused of not providing reasonable access due to the size of the RAP queues.
 
WillPS said:
The lack of any legal action does not prove that something is legal. Paulton's might have not been tested because nobody is sufficiently motivated to challenge it yet. My suspicion is that Paultons are doing what they do without the advice of a legal team and will eventually come a-cropper, but IANAL.

Legalities aside, Paultons also have a far lower profile than Alton Towers, even in their South East homeland. Could you imagine the headlines if Alton Towers tried it, and they ran out of RAP capacity for, say, the entire Summer holidays?
Click to expand...

I suspect they can limit access legally, you only need to demonstrate a good reason. You can argue that you can only reasonable support x number of people not queuing on a given day.

Just because Paultons is small doesn’t mean it won’t be challenged. You don’t even need to bring a court case to do so.
 
What Paultons do may well be legal (just), but like @rob666 and a few others pointed out, from a PR point of view at high profile Merlin attractions, it could be an absolute PR disaster for them, especially since Alton hit the headlines a few years back when the Smiler staff shouted “she can’t walk” across the platform.

If I was in Merlin bosses’ shoes right now, I’d be being very, very careful not to be a used of discrimination, and although the Paultons system may well be legal, implementing it is far too big a risk in my opinion.
 
Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
Top