MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Would you give up a £50 train seat for a pregnant woman?

Bogof_Babe

In practice this would never happen on a "five hour journey", as presumably there will be stops along the way. People tend to vacate their seats a few moments before the doors open to let them get off, during which time any standing passengers have a chance to take one of the vacated seats before the incoming passengers board. It would be most unusual if the entire train was filled with people going all the way from A to Z, without some of them disembarking at stops along the route.

It is different for a short commuter journey, when it would not cause undue discomfort to stand for 10 minutes or so, and in this situation I would give up my seat to a more needy person. I can't imagine there being any five hour journeys where pre-booking is not available, although I accept this is the case on commuter routes. However as we are talking about £50 fares, these are unlikely to be commuter trips.

Tiger_greeneyes

easy wrote: »

Maybe Mrs hyperthetical mum-to-be didn't realise that particular train would be overcrowded?

I hear you - although that would be obvious to her when the train pulls in to let passengers on. If she's that worried about her baby then she needn't travel - £50 shouldn't be more important than her child

I know that if I was in her position I'd rather lose the money than risk losing the child. To each his/her own though.

mr-tom_2

LJRB wrote: »

Mr Tom, have you thought of it this way - those people who bring bikes onto the train, once they leave the train, are then continuing their journey without crowing other trains and are doing the environment a favour? Just a thought.

Of course I have.

I continue my journey on foot, which is even more environmentally friendly as the train company don't have to haul around a huge hunk of metal everywhere I go, and yet I don't oust three other passengers from their seats each time I board the train.

And yet that wasn't my point.

I never objected to taking bikes by train.

I objected to taking them on trains which are already overcrowded.

I said safety had to come first and that at the moment it doesn't.

I'd also question the environmental benefits of removing three passengers from public transport per bike carried.

If those people get in their cars instead, it'll be a flipping long bike ride for that cyclist to offset the impact of their journey.

easy

Tiger_greeneyes wrote: »

If she's that worried about her baby then she needn't travel

And what if she's travelling to get a specialist ante-natal scan or some such?

jayneair_2

Even though I wouldn't want to, I would. It's the right thing to do and it's what I'd want someone to do for me. Do as you would be done by. If you live that way, you can't go wrong.

Tiger_greeneyes

easy wrote: »

And what if she's travelling to get a specialist ante-natal scan or some such?

I know the NHS has made a lot of cuts over the years but they aren't that bad that they expect you to sit on a train for five hours to get there :rotfl:

*CheshireBelle*

Tiger_greeneyes wrote: »

I hear you - although that would be obvious to her when the train pulls in to let passengers on. If she's that worried about her baby then she needn't travel - £50 shouldn't be more important than her child

I know that if I was in her position I'd rather lose the money than risk losing the child. To each his/her own though.

Thats a bit harsh. When I was pregnant with my son I worked until I was signed off sick at 33 weeks. I got a train and a bus to work every day and the train was generally packed before I even got on. I would have to stand near the doors and usually ended up sitting down in the doorway. A conductor once asked me to get up and the look I gave him shut him up straightaway :rotfl: I never once got near enough to the seats for someone to offer me one!!

Also on long journeys (I used to travel from Leeds to London quite often with work) the company would not pay to reserve me a seat, so if there were no seats I would usually stand until someone was nice enough to offer me a seat.

In answer to the original question I would absolutely without a doubt offer the woman my seat. Knowing how hard it is, I wouldn't hesitate.

blue_monkey_2

I have to laugh at this thread and that it is still going, 'how selfish of a mum to be to consider going on a train that might be busy' and 'how dare she not book a ticket, she should have considered that other people might be on the train' and 'she should of thought about that before getting pregnant', blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I've an idea, why not just ban pregnant women from public transport - in fact, let's not let anyone disabled or old use the trains and buses too because they might need a seat too. That'll solve the seat problem.

If you need to find an excuse not to show kindness to others then you have a huge chip on your shoulder - and yes, they are all excuses - pathetic ones at that. Kindness costs nothing and you'll get a warm glow inside and it'll cheer you up unless you are a miserable bar steward that feels everyone owes you something. The train will stop soon and then another seat will become free. I'll will being my children up to show kindness to others and to do the right thing. And we wonder why we have a generation of people who treat others like crap and will not offer help to anyone!! Dur!!

5 hour train journeys are never non-stop so sooner or later another seat will come up and hey, I can also sit on my backside on the floor if need be. I might even try and get down the carriage to find another seat. A mum to be with a bump will not be able to do that on a busy train but was also not able to get down the platform before the train moved off.

It must be wonderful living in that self righteous, 'world owes me something' kind of world that you do.

And the train you are on might be long distance for you but to someone else it might be a commuter route from one town to the next. As for not taking suitcases onto trains - are you serious?? Why on earth do you think people are on the train for 5 hours? To go shopping? Get a coffee? Work? I would have thought that they are going on holiday and for that they need.... suitcases.

blue_monkey_2

Tiger_greeneyes wrote: »

It's not about the money for me either - in fact, I think there were only a couple of people replying that the money was important. The question here should really be "a heavily pregnant woman is facing a five hour journey on a packed train with no available seats - does she think about what she wants or about her babies welfare"?

As for babies being protected, shouldn't that be the main concern of the expectant mother? Anyone would think that the journey is more important to her than the health of her child. I can't imagine any journey that would take precedence over the welfare of my unborn child, no matter what the reason for travelling. I'd rather be selfish and not do the journey rather than be selfish enough to put my child at risk.

How on earth do you know why she is on that train to assume she is a selfish cow that is not putting her child first by travelling on a train. First of all she might not drive so needs to get the train. Or, she could drive but her car has broken down and she needs to get home. Or she lives away from her mum and is going back home where she can be with her mum and give birth, or someone might be seriously ill/had an accident and she needs to go and see them in hospital. There are millions of reasons - and selfishness for not 'booking' is not one of them.

So, she should be made to go in a cab? I for one could not travel by coach when pregnant as it made my sickness worse so that would rule that out for me, plus the toilets on coaches are tiny and there is no way a pregnant woman could travel for 5 hours without using the loo.

Your attitude strikes me as extremely selfish and self centred. Good for you. :rolleyes:

blue_monkey_2

Tiger_greeneyes wrote: »

I know the NHS has made a lot of cuts over the years but they aren't that bad that they expect you to sit on a train for five hours to get there :rotfl:

Some specialist scans are not available on the NHS and yes, she might actually have to travel to get to that appointment. :rolleyes:

While you are laughing, have you heard not stories of cancer patients that cannot be treated locally and are sent to hospitals in different parts of the country? Here is one from a few weeks ago for you: http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2009/05/09/cancer-patient-refused-treatment-because-he-s-from-north-wales-55578-23582694/ Your 'laughing' smiley suggests you have not heard of this.

And you have no idea if she is being checked before her baby is born because of an underlying condition. Her baby might also have something wrong with it and the specialist is in a different part of the country and she is going to see him/her before the birth to see how things are progressing. What a selfish cow she is for going by train! :rolleyes: