Mobilty cars .....Joke

Cornucopia

curty510 wrote: »

I can see both sides of the coin here.

If a person is genuinely disabled and needs assistance with mobility needs to live a normal life as possible, why would anyone begrudge them that?

Indeed - why?

Why do recipients of the mobility benefit(i know its called allowance, but same thing) get so defensive of it being called 'free car’?

In this thread, you mean? I think you may need to re-read. It isn't defensiveness over "free car", nor are most of the people who are against the misuse of the term recipients.

The reasons for not wanting to call it a "free car" are:-

1. It is factually incorrect. The car is paid for using benefits provided by Government to those who are entitled to them. There is no requirement for those in receipt of the relevant benefits to use them to obtain a car, and a car may not be the best way to assist the specific disabled person's transport needs.

2. We don't generally use the terminology "free X" to describe items that people on benefits/allowances buy with the money awarded to them. (We don't talk about "free toast" or "free shoes"). Therefore it's worth asking the question: why here? What is it about Motability vehicles that triggers this reaction in some people, and is it envy-related in some way?

3. The "free car" misused terminology seems to being mainly used in this thread by people holding and voicing other unpleasant views on disability.

4. The use of the term "free car" is technically incorrect. Some people using the term have shown themselves to be ill-informed about the Motability scheme, disability benefits and disability generally throughout the thread. It's therefore a reasonable conclusion that the misuse of the term is related to that overall ignorance of the subject.

curty510

Cornucopia wrote: »

In this thread, you mean? I think you may need to re-read. It isn't defensiveness over "free car", nor are most of the people who are against the misuse of the term recipients.

The reasons for not wanting to call it a "free car" are:-

1. It is factually incorrect. The car is paid for using benefits provided by Government to those who are entitled to them. There is no requirement for those in receipt of the relevant benefits to use them to obtain a car, and a car may not be the best way to assist the specific disabled person's transport needs.

2. We don't generally use the terminology "free X" to describe items that people on benefits/allowances buy with the money awarded to them. (We don't talk about "free toast" or "free shoes"). Therefore it's worth asking the question: why here? What is it about Motability vehicles that triggers this reaction in some people, and is it envy-related in some way?

3. The "free car" misused terminology seems to being mainly used in this thread by people holding and voicing other unpleasant views on disability.

4. The use of the term "free car" is technically incorrect. Some people using the term have shown themselves to be ill-informed about the Motability scheme, disability benefits and disability generally throughout the thread. It's therefore a reasonable conclusion that the misuse of the term is related to that overall ignorance of the subject.

I get that, and as previously stated, I don't begrudge anyone with a genuine disability access to mobility, and consider myself very fortunate for being fully able bodied. Though if i were not, I would gladly apply for a mobility car, why not?

But i don't see the issue with it being called free. Whether it is called an allowance or a benefit, or whether the user of said vehicle has £10,000,000 or 10 pence to their name . A personal contribution is not required for it. Except being paid less allowance in exchange for their car, therefore it is free for the user.

Cornucopia

curty510 wrote: »

I get that, and as previously stated, I don't begrudge anyone with a genuine disability access to mobility, and consider myself very fortunate for being fully able bodied. Though if i were not, I would gladly apply for a mobility car, why not?

Of course.

There is no "applying for a mobility car", though. The application is for a benefit/allowance that is then used for anything, including a car.

I think what is confusing people is that Motability is a car scheme for disabled people. However, "all" it does is provide a similar service to commercial leases. Indeed, Peugeot's "Just add fuel" scheme is virtually identical.

But i don't see the issue with it being called free.

I've just given you 4 good reasons. Perhaps you could address those instead of requoting the existing weak premise?

There is no issue in using the term "free car", if it were accurate. But it's not. There would be no issue in using the term, if it were not the focus in this thread for ill-informed comments, but it is. The term itself is intrinsically linked to a completely wrong take on disability and disability benefits as they stand, and also to an unpleasant "squabbling over the scraps" mentality that sometimes occurs in times of economic hardship.

curty510

In my job i get many 'free' benefits, such as private medical care including prescriptions, dental care, (not been to a NHS doctors in 21 years), clothing(uniform) plus many more. Now these are also entitlements, but i even say i get it all for 'free', I just see it as a different(if incorrect) adaption/play on words, and dont see an issue.

By the way, im not 'disability/benefit bashing', i fully support the scheme and feel that no way near enough support is done to genuine claimants in our society.

Fraudulent claimants that milk the system and tarnish the system for the genuine on the other hand...I would gladly see them thrown out onto the streets with no support at all.

Silvertabby

I haven't read every single one of these posts, so apologies if someone has already pointed this out, but there is a simple reason why many disabled people opt to pay extra in order to get something other than a bog standard Astra or Corsair.

A friend lost a leg (above the knee) and very badly damaged her real leg in an accident. In theory, she can drive any car as long as it's an automatic but, in practice, if she was limited to an Astra or Corsair it would have to be adapted with a hoist on the roof to haul her out of the too-low drivers seat! She pays the extra not because she wants a big fancy car, but because her choice was limited to vehicles with a high drivers seat, so she can get out and about without having to ask strangers to literally pull her out of the car. I'm sure she isn't the only one with this problem.

agrinnall

curty510 wrote: »

In my job i get many 'free' benefits, such as private medical care including prescriptions, dental care, (not been to a NHS doctors in 21 years), clothing(uniform) plus many more. Now these are also entitlements, but i even say i get it all for 'free', I just see it as a different(if incorrect) adaption/play on words, and dont see an issue.

None of those are free, you receive them rather than being paid more, usually because it is more tax efficient for both the employer and the employee.

takman

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Flip it round, ask the same question.

Exactly my point if you read my previous posts I'm fully in support of Genuinely Disabled people from having a "free" car.

But this thread seems to be focused on the correct use of the word "free". In reality the word is used incorrectly so much that it doesn't just apply to things that are genuinely free.
For example "Buy one get one free" offers does not give you something for free, you simply get two for the price being paid.

The word "free" actually means without cost or payment in this case. So if a person gets the £57 allowance in their bank and then it gets taken out to pay for the car it is not free. If the person gets the car and then never receives the allowance at all and doesn't pay anything it is free to them!. But it is paid for by the government so the car is not free.

Joe_Horner

takman wrote: »

In reality the word is used incorrectly so much that it doesn't just apply to things that are genuinely free.
For example "Buy one get one free" offers does not give you something for free, you simply get two for the price being paid.

Heading OT but yep, it gets misused far too much. I tried to use it properly in a "free lunch" promotion earlier in the year. All someone had to do was come in and ask and I'd arranged for them to have the lunch of their choice in a local cafe. No strings or purchase required. Not one person took us up on it!

almillar

Tothepoint, I'll try to help you, and the rest of the thread - do you begrudge genuinely disabled people, or their carers these 'free' cars, or is it just the fraudsters you're after?
And, if you could also please confirm that you understand that people who drive these cars may also have, or had, jobs, and could be, or have been, taxpayers. I'm sure that would help clarify things a bit...

50Twuncle

Tothepoint - do you also begrudge genuinely disabled people from claiming (and receiving) the mobility component of DLA/PIP ?
If so - you are a sick individual who I hope one day does not experience a health issue that affects your mobility