Free Cars For The Disabled Part II (some 'expert' opinions on it)

I’ve had trouble writing anything this week. Not through lack of inspiration but rather too much of it. Things I read, conversations I’ve had, have all been pretty overwhelming. Personally, I’ve had a really good week but hearing and reading about how other disabled people, who are already really struggling are going to affected by the Welfare Reform Bill has been upsetting/ frustrating/ angering. I’ve found it hard to process my thoughts and feelings into anything anybody would find interesting or useful to read and as appealing an alternative as it’s been, I’ve resisted the temptation to just post lists of expletives to summarise my mood, as I realise I already swear too much.

So whilst I’m working on something else vaguely intelligent, I thought I’d post something that couldn’t be described as that at all – still on the Motability issue – some of the comments from some of my most favourite people who read my favourite newspaper. I’ve added some short simple responses to some of them for the benefit of anyone who can’t be arsed to read my very long post on the subject.

(I saved my particular favourites from a number of different articles on the Motability Scheme, I’ve removed names, locations and dates but I can assure you they are all genuine and most likely still available online. I’ll stick them up as they are, with spelling and grammatical mistakes left in, because as much as I want to correct them, I don’t want to help any of the contributors to appear any less silly than they are)  

"You should have to prove your need to be mobile to qualify , eg disabled but in employment"

Need to be mobile? Right, so no job = no need to be mobile. Cool, let's start a programme whereby we amputate all the unecessary limbs of anybody unemployed. Including pensioners and children. They don't need them. You don't need to be mobile to do anything else in life and it's not like being mobile is an important prerequisite for acquiring a job is it?!

"I wrote on these pages a couple of days ago about this very subject and received nearly 200 thumbs down. The trouble is, the scheme is abused by the vast majority of blue badge holders. Make them all pay Road Tax, Insurance, etc. then see how many want a car. After all they are disabled not skint and if they get caught cheating the taxpayer take their benefits off them"

The scheme is abused by THE VAST MAJORITY OF BLUE BADGE HOLDERS? Well no, no it isn't actually. Many disabled people could not afford to have a car if they had to pay the road tax and insurance, that is the point. Many disabled people are in fact often skint. They usually have far greater living costs than the average able bodied person and often find it difficult or impossible to find employment because they are not physically capable or healthy enough. Sometimes they don't have jobs because they have difficulty getting around. Another point of the Motability Scheme.

"Go back to the days of the little blue invalid carriage. cant abuse the system then"

Aye, because those little blue invalid carriages were suitable for all the wide ranging, complex and very different needs of all disabled people and God forbid we allow any disabled person to drive anything other than a heap of junk. While we're at it let's go back to the days when all disabled people died prematurely, were house bound, neglected, isolated and abused. The good old days.

"If they are too disabled to work how do they afford top range cars, and if they work they should be lumped in with the rest of us...The scheme is not necessary"

Those who are too disabled to work can't afford top range cars, you have to pay an additional payment for the top of the range cars. It is a lease scheme, you are not given the car, you are lent it. You do not own the car, you have to give it back. Some disabled people who are in employment will be forking out for a PA to assist them enabling them to work and paying for mobility aids or adaptations to their houses. By the time they have been taxed and paid for all these they will have considerable less disposable cash than "the rest of" you. The scheme is absolutely necessary for this precise reason.

"I don't know how widespread this problem is, but I do know that it happens. However, without being unkind to the disabled, surely there is a way to cure this problem. First of all, remove the luxury cars from scheme. Nobody, whether able or disabled actually NEEDS a big BMW, Audi or any other "must have" vehicle. This would remove the "look at me and my posh car" brigade who like to be seen driving their relative's free car as though it's theirs. Secondly, when leasing the car, the disabled person must show their driving licence, to prove that they will be driving it. If they have a licence then they get the car under the scheme, if they do not, then although they still get the car, the tax and insurance and roadside assistance must be paid for by the people who will be getting the most use out of it"

A "must have" vehicle to a disabled person is one that is suitable for their needs. Sometimes this is a big BMW because they have a family as well as multiple mobility aids such as wheelchairs or scooters to carry around with them. Some disabled people have personal assistants or relatives who act as their full time carers who drive their Motability car because they are unable to. So we ask that PA's who are very unlikely to be on a generous wage because they are paid out of limited funds a disabled person has, pays road tax and insurance for their own car as well as the disabled person's they work for? Relatives who are full time carers recieve less than minimum wage for working often double the amount of hours because their disabled loved one is dependent upon them. Most simply cannot afford to.

"There would be far less people claiming for disability cars if all they could get was the Reliant 3 wheelers they used to drive when I was young. If its mobility they are after then give them wheelchairs and let them take the bus and save most of the £1.4 billion of taxpayers money"

I would love to be able to use the bus. If I could get to a bus stop. If when I got to one the bus was accessible. If those accessible buses ran at the usual times people need to get out and about, if all the bus drivers and general public were considerate of a disable person trying to get on the bus. If the bus routes taken by such buses were places I needed to go...

"what was wrong with the old system of using ACcars which was a 3 wheeled invalid carriage solely for the use of the disabled person and their wheelchair it would be interesting to see how many people would apply?

Everything was wrong with it. It would be interesting to see how many MPs still wanted to be MPs if we did away with the expenses system, can we do that too?

"Easy solution, let genuine applicants choose from a basic range of vehicles that should all support commercial advertising on the side of the car. Every way the tax payer wins by less costly cars being leased, less applicants because the adverts would suggest they are driving a free car and a contribution from the private sector for the advertising"

Aye, and a big sign on the side that says "Easy Target, as a disabled person I am likely to take more time than the average person to get into this car thus giving you ample opportunity to mug/assault/car jack me.

"It should be only cheap bottom of the range cars it is outrageous that expensive cars are available, give them Ford Ka's and Corsa's and nothing above that"

Once you show me how exactly I can get my smaller than average light weight rigid framed wheelchair easily in and out of a Ford Ka or Corsa, I will be delighted to take one. You can then proceed to show me how you get an elephant into and out of a fridge, Harry Fecking Houdini.

"For all those who are telling us that these motability cars don't come cheap, well they are a hell of lot cheaper than anything we can afford plus you don't pay tax or insurance and you can park it anywhere. What I still don't understand is how someone in full time employment earning 30+grand a year is entitled to one of these cheap motors"

Do you borrow your car? Does it need expensive adaptations to enable you to drive it? Would you like to pay £12.99 to RENT a dvd for a couple of days? Or would you like to pay a couple of grand to RENT a golf buggy. I can park it anywhere can I?! I'll be round to park it in the middle of your living room then. How about you pay somebody HALF your 30 grand a year wage to enable you to stay in full time employment :)

"Stopping this is one quick way the government can save some money. Many disabled people cannot drive, so having a car is unnecessary. One person I worked with told me that his brother who was diagnosed with cancer had over £333 mobility payment paid into his bank account every month even though he ran a successful business and did not need the money. Apparently it was saved for presumably other things than a car. Just because you are disabled does not mean that you should qualify for a top of the range car, which will ultimately be driven by able bodied people"

Stopping this system would cost the government huge amounts of money as many disabled people would have to stop working, thus paying tax and many others would become wholly reliant on NHS services, their local council and social services in order to stay healthy and take care of themselves.

"Simple, if they can drive give them a car for only them to use...if they can't drive don't give them a car!! The burden should be on friends and family to ferry people around who would other wise struggle on their own... "

Aye, lets make life unfeasibly difficult for the relatives of disabled people who no doubt have jobs and responsibilities of their own. Lets make a rule that if you have a disabled relative you don't need to work as long as you agree to ferry them about. The tax payer will support you all in this because it is definitely far more cost effective.

"I know people with a mobility car that just use it to take the dog for walk, what happend to the three wheeler with a single seat that use to be supplied to to these people on benifits I wonder if they would be so keen if the govenment brought them back, it would be a lot cheaper for the tax payer"

People?! You know people who do this? More than one person? A multiple number? Oh do me a favour.

Disabled people according to the "experts".

N.B The use of the word 'expert' in the title there and in the following post should not be interpreted in the usual way it is in standard English. Here it means dickheads. Just to clarify.

As evidenced by ‘The comments’ expressed online there seems to be a disturbing number of experts who read that paper, establishing opinions on disabled people based upon a neighbour/colleague/friend of a friend/mother in law’s gardener’s sister’s stepson’s dinner lady, who they believe to be cheating the system, claiming disability living allowance for non-existent ailments.  Firstly, if they are cheating the system and they aren’t in fact disabled, then they are not a disabled person. There aren’t two types of disabled people, those genuinely disabled and those pulling a fast one. There are just disabled people, the requirement of which is having a disability. There are plenty of other words you can use for people who are fraudulently claiming benefits, most of which are quicker and far more fun to say than the word ‘disabled’.

It’s as illogical as meeting a dog owner who has neglected to clear up their dog’s mess, labelling dog owners as selfish individuals and then applying the term ‘dog owner’ to anybody who owns a small pet or looks like they might. I personally find people who own guinea pigs a particularly selfish sort of dog owner. (Just me or completely bonkers?)

Secondly, just how these experts know so much about their neighbour’s/colleague’s/friend of a friend’s/mother in law’s gardener’s sister’s stepson’s dinner lady lives astounds me. I’m not sure that there’s not some covert NoTW style phone hacking shenanigans at work here. Presumably they are around in the morning when their neighbour is not being helped to get dressed by their partner or in the toilet with their colleague whilst they are not emptying their bladder with the use of a catheter. Or that from time to time they share the bed of that friend of their friend to know conclusively that they do not experience back pain so painful it stops them from sleeping on a regularly basis. As for their mother in law’s gardener’s sister’s stepson’s dinner lady, I’d be gobsmacked if she was able to keep any private details of her personal life from the knowledge of a random person she has never met before. The likelihood she has a degenerative eye condition that could leave her blind in a matter of years without having broadcast it to the entire world is practically nonexistent. It’s inconceivable that a disabled person might endeavour to keep the painful reality of their disability from you, that they may put on a brave face to go to work, or that the trips they have out with their friends can only happen on good days when they are not in horrendous pain. Disabled people certainly don’t deal with the consequences of their disability in private away from the eyes of others; they enjoy suffering as loudly and as publicly as possible don’t they?

 It may not help my chances of satisfying the neighbourhood crip-watch to use the words “check up” as a generic term to describe every hospital appointment I have to attend, but I don’t much fancy describing in great detail the intrusive procedures I have that leave me embarrassed and exhausted, to anyone. Awkward little bugger aren’t I? I could play wheelchair basketball but that wouldn’t make me any less paralysed from the chest down, it wouldn’t mean I was actually Kobe Bryant in a highly elaborate disguise. It’s quite terrifying that the same experts able to assess disability by means of super natural powers and extrasensory perception could be called for jury service at some point in their lives. Best not to leave the possibility of that kind of neighbour signing for your CSI: New York box set to chance, they’ll be on the phone to the FBI faster than you can say ballistics.

I realise there are people who say they have a severe mobility impairing disability, claim disability living allowance and are then spotted skipping about town, performing the Paso Doble down the freezer isle in the co-op or  Lionel Messi-ing their way to the top of the local 5-a-side league. These people are not disabled though, they are bloody liars. You could however do all those things and have a terminal illness and just be taking the opportunity to use the strength in your body whilst you still can, to enjoy the things you love for as long as possible. Very sadly it wouldn’t make you any less terminally ill. Disabled people, having hobbies, having relationships, going on holiday, taking their kids out, enjoying life should not have to worry about being mistaken for con-artists and benefit fraudsters. They should just be allowed to get on with living. The unpredictable pain I get as a consequence of my scoliosis (curvature of the spine) doesn’t prevent me going out with my mates and getting hideously drunk on the odd occasion, it does however make it very difficult to maintain a full-time job. I would happily swap the occasional hideous drunkenness for the ability to work full time. Unfortunately I’ve heard that regular naps and dependence on opiate based pain killers are frowned upon in most working environments these days. I’ll find a way around it though; I’ll become a rock star or something.

You see that’s another thing that a scary amount of experts who read the paper that shall not be named, feel qualified to talk about. Jobs. Or rather people who don’t have them and the reasons for that. Basically, it’s laziness, bone idleness, a lack of self respect. There are generally no other reasons why people don’t have jobs according to these experts, who are all knowledgeable on the subject. Well some people don’t have a job because they are on death’s door, that’s allowed. If you are just disabled and not on death’s door and still jobless then it is highly likely you are lazy, bone idle or lack self respect. Either that or you have diagnosed yourself with having some made up affliction in a highly calculating and conniving attempt to ensure you never have to miss an episode of Jeremy Kyle. Because, well, that is what you live for. All the while the government are handing out FREE  luxury  sport cars to you, that you let your scumbag good-for-nothing relatives drive while you sit around at home all day being disabled and laughing at those less fortunate than you who have careers and stuff. Any disabled person who thinks (delusionally) that there are any other reasons for them not having a job, are plain wrong.

Free Cars For The Disabled

One of the "luxury cars" disabled people should not be allowed to drive

Today a certain Sunday newspaper is celebrating "a victory for the tax payer" as an announcement has been made that new rules will stop disabled people from benefiting from the use of luxury cars worth up to £37,000 through a taxpayer-funded scheme. After a series of articles supposedly informing the public of the outrage that is the Motability Scheme I thought it was about time somebody bothered to present a defence of it. I do not work for Motability, I do not even use the scheme myself but because the newspapers won't consider the other side, I'm going to, because the whole thing is getting right on my wick.

Right, deep breath. The Motability scheme is a tax payer funded scheme that gives hope and freedom to thousands of disabled people in this country, who would otherwise never be able to afford a car suitable for their needs, themselves. It is a car lease scheme. Lease being the important word there. It is not a willy nilly free luxury car giveaway scheme, as some sections of the media would have you believe. You are not eligible to use the scheme to get yourself the latest Audi TT if you have dyslexia. Or an in growing toe nail, or a nut allergy, or a sore thumb or a poorly tummy.

To be eligible to use the scheme you have to be receiving the highest rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance. To receive this, you must be unable to walk or have your ability to walk severely impaired. Many conditions can fall into this category. I will list some. Arthritis, disease of muscles bones and joints, Paralysis, Multiple Sclerosis, Motor Neurone disease, double amputation, spinal conditions such a Scoliosis or Spondylosis. These are conditions that often or always mean an individual affected by them either needs a wheelchair or has severe difficulty walking. There are also many conditions that can mean the act of walking, whilst physically possible for an individual is severely damaging to their health. Some of these may include Cystic Fibrosis, severe Asthma, Peripheral vascular disease, heart disease, lung disease, blood disorders such Sickle Cell Anaemia. There are also other conditions, where an individual may appear physically able to walk with healthy limbs but have severe neurological disorders that mean their brain is incapable of functioning in order to stimulate their limbs to facilitate the act of walking. People who have had strokes, people with Parkinson’s Disease, Dementia, and many other neurological diseases and brain injuries fall into this category. There are also people who have severe learning difficulties and  complex mental impairments that leave them dependent on a carer or family member to ensure their physical safety when completely simple daily tasks. They are incapable of independently walking without endangering themselves or others. It could mean for instance, a woman, of average height, build and strength is responsible for getting her adult Autistic son, 6ft, say 14 stone, safely to doctors and hospital appointments he is terrified of whilst being unable to reason with him, explain dangers or physically restrain him when he resists. A challenging, embarrassing and ultimately frightening task made unimaginably more difficult if you are solely reliant on public transport.

I may be wrong but none of these conditions sound much like a barrel of laughs. These conditions may mean the individual suffering from them may be reliant on a cocktail of pain killers to get out and about, they may be managing incontinence or serious fatigue. They may have needed assistance washing, dressing and managing basic general hygiene before you see them out and about. It may be the first time they have left the house in a month, they be travelling to have chemotherapy, they may be terminally ill. They may have needed to pay a carer to accompany them when you see them because their disability robs them of the independence to get out and about on their own. Some people may be managing some of those difficulties and still working, picking their kids up from school, having a social life. The scumbags.  

People often express frustration that the cars leased (not given) to disabled people are big and/or expensive and are unable to understand why one model of car can’t be used for all those eligible, why new cars are available as opposed to second hand ones and why large saloon cars are available rather than just your standard “run around” hatchbacks. Quite simply, one model of car, specifically a hatchback would fall hopelessly short of meeting the needs of the vast majority of those eligible who rely on the scheme the most. Absolutely it would be sufficient for those who don’t rely on mobility aids, who don’t need adaptations, and who don’t have children or large amounts of luggage, or work equipment they need to transport, too.

The problem is if you throw a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair (which really for most, is a mobility essential) or adaptations into the mix, the process of finding a suitable car becomes all the more complex. Other factors like needing to be able to fit a couple of kids into the car or some luggage or some work equipment on top of that makes the process an absolute mine field. Some adaptations can only be fitted to new cars, some only useable in cars with automatic gearboxes. Most average hatchbacks are too small to carry the average wheelchair in the boot without dismantling the chairs, lots of chairs can’t be dismantled or folded or only to an extent. Wheelchair users usually require a saloon or an estate car, these are bigger and more expensive. To go away, some wheelchair users may need to take a shower chair with them in order to wash, sometimes portable but still usually heavy and fairly bulky these chairs are usually designed specifically for the individual. Some people can get around this, if they don’t need a custom made one by renting one from disability aid shops, if they can find one, at obviously, a cost. Some people may need to transport both a wheelchair and a walking frame at times because their condition fluctuates. Somebody unable to use their legs like myself, will essentially have to use their upper body strength to haul themselves into the car and then lift their own chair into the car by themselves if they wish to travel independently. Several adaptations can be made to make this easier but many have the attitude that if they are physically capable of doing so then they will do it on their own. Some of the considerations they will need to make in order to do this are the length of the door, the space between the car edge and car seat, the positioning of the gear stick and hand break and the ease of which they are able to adjust the positioning or the car seat. All cars are different, however none I imagine are made with the needs of a disabled person such as this specifically in mind. What seem like minor insignificant details to an able bodied person when choosing a car can be deal breakers for a disabled person.

Are you bored yet? Complicated isn’t it?

The issue of somebody other than the disabled person driving the car or the disabled person not always being in the car when it is used or the car residing at an address other than the disabled person’s also understandably causes confusion and concern. As the newspaper’s fail to consider legitimate reasons for this, preferring of course to drum up anger and resentment, I will endeavour to do so. Many disabled people are unable to drive themselves, it could be they don’t have enough mobility to, the strength to or it could be that they rely on painkillers to manage their pain thus making them dangerous to drive. So they rely on somebody else to drive them around, a relative or carer. Some disabled people are children, the laws forbids them from driving. They usually require a parent. It is often the case that due to very high fuel costs and the massive dependence families that include a disabled person or child have they are unable to run two cars. A Motability car often then has to be suitable to accommodate the needs of that family. A single mother for instance may need the use of an adapted vehicle to take her disabled child to school, she will then need to go to work or go out to do the weekly errands, usually a fair few more than the average parent without a disabled child. She may get a phone call at any time while she’s out asking her to come and pick the child up because they have come into difficulty at school. It would be ridiculous to expect the child’s parent to have used an alternative car or public transport to get home, pick up the adapted vehicle and then go get the child. Time may be imperative; they are probably stressed and worried and can do without some sort of car swapsy game to add to an already difficult situation. To save time, swap parent for partner or relative and imagine, that they may have to suddenly go home from work, or to the disabled partner’s work place to attend to them, or perhaps take them to the doctors. Imagine it may not be a partner but an elderly disabled relative and consider perhaps at times it may be somebody who doesn’t work or a younger, fitter grandson for instance that may be in possession of the car on occasion because they may be the person most capable of attending to the disabled person quickly. Sometimes people will take advantage of the circumstances and use the car when they don’t need to but it’s not all black and white, it’s not all straightforward abuse of the system and it is difficult to monitor.

Using alternative methods of transport is simply not a viable option for many disabled people. I’d challenge anybody able bodied to have a shot at a week endeavouring to use public transport and taxis in a wheelchair. It may be getting more accessible for wheelchair users but I can assure you it’s still a bloody nightmare. Some might describe it as hit and miss. Hit and miss and get stranded, hit and miss and rely on asking a stranger to help, hit and miss your appointment, hit and miss being in on time for work.       

Having access to a car they can afford to run (as Motability cars are exempt from road tax) allows many disabled people to get to work and pay tax, or get to hospital appointments without using hugely costly and often unreliable ambulance transport services. It enables them the basic means to have a healthy life. It enables them to visit friends and family, take their kids to the cinema, and enjoy their lives, that are so very often hampered by ill health, immobility, depression and trauma. Without the scheme there are many disabled people who would never leave their house, some would be forced to stop working, many would find it harder to keep themselves healthy and happy, keep themselves sane. There would be more disabled people in NHS hospitals ill because they couldn’t look after themselves sufficiently, more requiring the help of mental health services, more needing assistance from an already under funded social services. More would feel isolated from the rest of society, more would feel that life is no longer worth living, more would sit at home hopelessly wanting and waiting to die. All good stuff, eh?

Horrifically there are people, national newspapers included, who are spending time, energy and column inches attacking the system from every possible direction; twisting facts and figures, manipulating data, conveniently leaving out details, essentially conning the public into thinking the system is widely and comprehensively abused. Yes there is some abuse of the system but it is not widespread in the grand scheme of things and the people responsible are more often than not people not doing their jobs properly, failing to classify people’s disabilities correctly.  Sometimes it is just human error, or a lack of communication, a small percentage of the time it is outright dishonestly and deception. Although it should be noted that there are lots of people in this country, who on being mistakenly afforded something they are not legitimately entitled to, are reluctant to shout it from the roof tops and give it back. There are lots of people who dishonestly benefit from tax payers money to their own financial gain. A depressing number of these people call themselves MP’s. Yet some of those same people, with the help of irresponsible and incompetent journalists are targeting a system that not only saves lives but the country a huge amount of money and strain in other areas. There are problems with the implementation of the system and this must be addressed but the system itself is one our government and media should be fiercely protecting not aggressively attacking.

If you ever find yourself envious of a disabled person with a bigger, newer or more expensive car than you, be ashamed of yourself or willing to swap your freedom, dignity and health for it.