Discussion
Mikebentley said:
OP you are an absolute cock womble. Why should someone with disabilities be limited to a tiny electric vehicle. News flash people with disabilities can have all the same requirements from transport as anybody else. What a horrible person.
I'm guessing you don't agree that motability should be stopped for people with mobility issues and replaced with an electric quadricycle? My mate with cerebral palsy would love to get rid of his Toyota Yaris Cross and get one of these 
yme402 said:
Hmm, it is redolent of the AC Invacar, which was a government interpretation of what people with disabilities needed back then, but time has shown that however noble the intent, the execution wasnt great, or all that suitable for a lot of people.But they did provide mobility for people who may have otherwise not had any, but things have moved on and much better options are available, i.e. mobility scooters and the motability scheme for providing a conventional vehicle.
There is no reason why someone disabled couldn't use an Ami, but would be if they wanted a tiny, plastic car, rather than someone thinks it looks suitable as it looks a bit like a modern Invacar. Think there used to be a perception that disabled people were somehow different, rather than just being like anyone else but with a disability. Its like when some see a flash car in a disabled spot and are appalled that someone would park it there, then see the badge, always assuming that it should be some high roof Berlingo or something, not a Range Rover, though a lot do use disabled spaces with no badge to be fair D:
There was a stigma with the Invacar, like an extreme version of national health specs that perpetuated that image of those with disabilities.
I don’t think it’s the existence of the Motability scheme that irks some people. It’s more down to the lack of governance and policing of the scheme that seems to allow widespread abuse. There is something wrong in 2024 where a hard working person on minimum wage subsidises a brand new car for someone else that they could never dream of owning themselves.
yme402 said:
I don’t think it’s the existence of the Motability scheme that irks some people. It’s more down to the lack of governance and policing of the scheme that seems to allow widespread abuse. There is something wrong in 2024 where a hard working person on minimum wage subsidises a brand new car for someone else that they could never dream of owning themselves.
I wouldn't keep digging if I were you.yme402 said:
I don’t think it’s the existence of the Motability scheme that irks some people. It’s more down to the lack of governance and policing of the scheme that seems to allow widespread abuse. There is something wrong in 2024 where a hard working person on minimum wage subsidises a brand new car for someone else that they could never dream of owning themselves.
My wife would gladly swap her "free car" for things such as; being able to walk more than 15 yards without searing almost debilitating pain, having to use a mobility scooter to go shopping, the chance to see what it feels like to run, to erase the minor ptsd from having had over a dozen operations before the age of 13, to be able to stand more than a minute or so without pain, crippling arthritis, the knowledge that she will most likely be in a wheelchair before the end of the decade, not having been raised in a hospital until she was 6. I could go on but if you haven't got it by now, I suspect you never will! I'll never understand the jealousy of this, ever, not even a little bit, it's f
king disgusting.Ah yes, the fervid reminiscing about the Invacar that some people like to do, love the internet. Considering that everyone is liable to acquire a disability during their lifetime (unless they have the great "fortune" to be killed instantly), I'd imagine even the most selfish people would want something safe to be available for disabled drivers. That is also assuming that they can drive, a lot of people who have a motability car need the ability to get around, but are not able to drive themselves, and a single seater "this will do the job" deathtrap is - weirdly - not suitable for their requirements. Should they be confined to their homes because they didn't have the good grace to get a disability that does not rob their ability to drive? Smart idea there OP.
Now, more broadly, the Motability scheme is fundamentally rotten, and there needs to be competition in the market to deal with that. Only Motability accepts PIP (Enhanced Rate Mobility, specifically) for paying the lease, so they have a captive market, and there is a very narrow band of people who are a) disabled enough to receive Enhanced Rate Mobility on their PIP, and b) Not disabled in a way that requires something larger or specially adapted for their needs, so the vast amount of Motability cars either have monthly payments that exceed PIP, or require a deposit to reduce the monthly payments. Which, given as disabled people are disproportionately unemployed, is obviously a tricky one to achieve.
Then you get adaptations being required, at about £15k to adapt a car to have a ramp for a wheelchair user... that is also something that needs the recipient to find a way to pay for. They pay for it, they get the car for an extended lease term, but then when the car is returned to Motability having typically had a fairly easy low-mileage life, it has essentially not depreciated at all, and it now has a hugely expensive conversion fitted (of which no reimbursement goes to the purchaser), and Motability gets to sell it on. The person who leased the car, paid for the conversion, etc? They have to buy another conversion and start a new lease, if they wish to continue. (A lot of disability-related benefits, fortunately not PIP, are cut off if your savings exceed £16k, so you really end up sailing very close to a line if you decide to save money to try and afford these modifications without charitable help etc, though the risk is pretty low given the costs incurred by being disabled...)
The plus points about Motability (and disability benefits in the larger sense) are: disabled people still need to spend money, approximately £1k/month more on average (source: Scope. A couple of years ago at Naidex I saw the figure £570/month but costs have risen drastically) just to reach parity with non-disabled people, which drives employment and suchlike. And it gives some sort of option to allow people to even consider being able to go to places ever after disability, rather than losing not only bodily functions and maybe their job, but also the ability to try and enjoy life beyond their 4 walls. Motability also can offer mobility equipment like manual wheelchairs, powerchairs and mobility scooters, which your typical car finance, obviously, doesn't.
OP, continue with the attitude if you like, but remember on your commute tomorrow morning that there is no guarantee that by tomorrow evening you may well require the services of Motability yourself, or you may hear from a family member or friend that they may need it. Life can really be like that. Consider taxes paid now as investment in ensuring a system exists in the future when it affects you more directly, and stop spouting bks.
Now, more broadly, the Motability scheme is fundamentally rotten, and there needs to be competition in the market to deal with that. Only Motability accepts PIP (Enhanced Rate Mobility, specifically) for paying the lease, so they have a captive market, and there is a very narrow band of people who are a) disabled enough to receive Enhanced Rate Mobility on their PIP, and b) Not disabled in a way that requires something larger or specially adapted for their needs, so the vast amount of Motability cars either have monthly payments that exceed PIP, or require a deposit to reduce the monthly payments. Which, given as disabled people are disproportionately unemployed, is obviously a tricky one to achieve.
Then you get adaptations being required, at about £15k to adapt a car to have a ramp for a wheelchair user... that is also something that needs the recipient to find a way to pay for. They pay for it, they get the car for an extended lease term, but then when the car is returned to Motability having typically had a fairly easy low-mileage life, it has essentially not depreciated at all, and it now has a hugely expensive conversion fitted (of which no reimbursement goes to the purchaser), and Motability gets to sell it on. The person who leased the car, paid for the conversion, etc? They have to buy another conversion and start a new lease, if they wish to continue. (A lot of disability-related benefits, fortunately not PIP, are cut off if your savings exceed £16k, so you really end up sailing very close to a line if you decide to save money to try and afford these modifications without charitable help etc, though the risk is pretty low given the costs incurred by being disabled...)
The plus points about Motability (and disability benefits in the larger sense) are: disabled people still need to spend money, approximately £1k/month more on average (source: Scope. A couple of years ago at Naidex I saw the figure £570/month but costs have risen drastically) just to reach parity with non-disabled people, which drives employment and suchlike. And it gives some sort of option to allow people to even consider being able to go to places ever after disability, rather than losing not only bodily functions and maybe their job, but also the ability to try and enjoy life beyond their 4 walls. Motability also can offer mobility equipment like manual wheelchairs, powerchairs and mobility scooters, which your typical car finance, obviously, doesn't.
OP, continue with the attitude if you like, but remember on your commute tomorrow morning that there is no guarantee that by tomorrow evening you may well require the services of Motability yourself, or you may hear from a family member or friend that they may need it. Life can really be like that. Consider taxes paid now as investment in ensuring a system exists in the future when it affects you more directly, and stop spouting b
ks.Sebring440 said:
I wouldn't keep digging if I were you.
It does get abused. The only people I know of that have Motability cars are both capable of supporting themselves and getting around without the need for a freebie car. To be honest, the whole scheme seems crazy to me. I understand the need to support disabled people and give them the ability to take part in society, but the scheme itself seems poorly designed, almost like it's purpose is to prop up the new car industry and dealerships that service the cars.
car user said:
Sebring440 said:
I wouldn't keep digging if I were you.
It does get abused. The only people I know of that have Motability cars are both capable of supporting themselves and getting around without the need for a freebie car. B) As pointed out, being disabled causes additional expenses just to react "parity" in itself. Do they not deserve the parity so that their earned money can be used the same as if they were not disabled?
C) You don't know their specific requirements and cannot make a rational claim of what they are/n't capable of.
D) Anecdotes aren't data.
yme402 said:
I don’t think it’s the existence of the Motability scheme that irks some people. It’s more down to the lack of governance and policing of the scheme that seems to allow widespread abuse. There is something wrong in 2024 where a hard working person on minimum wage subsidises a brand new car for someone else that they could never dream of owning themselves.
Tell me you don't know how the mobility scheme works without telling me how the mobility scheme works.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff