Badger

Offtopic for the sighting thread, in which I suggested the nature of the S in terms of entry/exit and involved driving wasn't suitable for anyone with a disability that warranted a badge.

The passenger issue aside for a minute (ahem)..

Doesn't that back up what I was saying about the "level" of disability though? You may well be officially able to get a badge, but you choose not to, presumably because you can manage adequately without one. So in your case, parking your S in a disabled slot with a badge would be...well, not taking the piss, but taking advantage maybe. Hell, even that's too strong, but I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at.

I certainly don't consider the definition of disability to only encompass wheelchair users, that's why I mentioned the involving drive of the S. If you can barely walk 100 metres sometimes surely that impacts on how much concentration and effort you can put into controlling the car? And thus the likelihood of you being an S driver on that particular day.

I'm not for one second suggesting that anyone with any kind of disability should give up any hope of driving a car like this or that they should be in some way excluded or anything. I simply believe that the odds of anyone who drives an S genuinely needing closer parking spaces are tiny, simply due to the nature of the car.

chilled

I have a friend who has a disabled badge and would be able to drive an unmodified S2000. She can't walk for long as one of her ankles is fecked, needs a stick and is in constant pain. but the clutch on an S isn't that heavy so I think she'd be able to drive it. Wonder if you can get an S through Motorbility?

The disability badge laws are a bit fecked anyway. My dad has only one arm and isn't allowed a disabled badge, because it doesn't impair his walking. However he clearly can't carry as much as someone with 2 arms.

Xd

So the badge is based upon your ability or your passangers ability to walk any distance?

chilled

Anyone driving a badge holder can use the badge. The badge is for the disabled person, not the car. It's probably also the case where you can have a badge even if you can't drive.

Bassoctopus

The nature of my disability meaning that sometimes I can be reasonably well and sometimes I can be completely bedridden and unable to move. Sometimes I can be somewhere in between, but the amount of activity I do dictates how much else I can do on a given day.

Sorry if you don't think I am worthy of a parking space Graham.

MarkB

Not sure where you're going here Graham.

Disabled badge holders shouldn't or aren't capable of driving an S2000?

The S2000 has a light clutch, brake and accelerator pedals, it's relatively easy to get in and out of for a sports car (certainly not as easy as a 4x4, but not particularly difficult) and if driven sensibly, drives like any other car.

I can think of much harder cars to drive at everyday speeds than the S, even my old Saab has a heavier clutch.

What are you trying to say?

dreamer

I'm with the others - surely there are many disabilities which don't preclude driving a car, and the S is not really any harder to drive than any other car (slightly more difficult to get out of, but that's about it!)

Plus you could be carrying a disabled passenger

Badger

Given the fact that its primary function seems to be to allow use of spaces closer to shops and/or ground level exits, that's what I always understood it to be based on? Hence Chilled's example about his dad.

User 11317

So now you've established it's to do with the ability to walk a distance.

The question still stands.

And the point is?

Badger

Not at all, I'm just trying to figure out why I (and Scov) spotted, and thought to mention, the fact that the tat-bedecked car in the sightings thread was parked in a disabled spot.

Given the proliferation of non-badge holders plonking themselves into disabled spots, coupled with the nature of the car, I just think that it's less likely to be a "valid" user of the space than, say, an automatic estate. Not "less valid", before Neil gets the wrong end of the stick again, but "less likely to BE valid", ie someone borrowing a badge, or not even that, just parking there for the hell of it etc.

Going back to Neil's original point about wheelchair use not being the be all and end all of disability definition, I would contend that in THIS context, ie requiring a parking space nearer to whatever it is, the vast majority would be wheelchair users (or at least mobility impaired in some fashion). As Neil himself says, he doesn't have a badge, despite being eligible, as he obviously feels he doesn't really need it.

edit - actually, thinking about it, I suspect part of the initial "wtf, it's in a disabled spot" reaction is down to the very tat that everyone's been taking the mick out of.