TDO wrote:
Clearly if a person is comfined to a chair then only a WAV will do.
On the other hand, they may prefer not to be in a chair, and moreover may prefer to be in a saloon rather than a WAV.
Same with the partially-disabled.
I don't think anyone disputes the above, the question is how the vehicles are provided, but what I don't like is some being allowed to run saloons, while others are confined to WAVs.
It's just another kind of quota, and inequality to supposedly end discrimination

The big problem and you are part of it, is the vast majority of this trade aint a clue about disabled.
wavs in the main are built to, a plan for the late thirties for Austin, it was for a taxi car that people could get in and out of quickly for london, then in the Thatcher years Lti who had bought the damn crap, decided there was a racket where they could slap in some harnesses and call them Wheelchair accessibles.
like always happens they started telling porkies, saying they were built for wheelchairs, what a lie they were build for active people getting in and out quick, but licensing officers found it an answer to thier prayers in this politicaly correct madhouse.
Then every tom dick anf harry started building alternatives, copies of an outdated 30s idea.
let me tell you all, the vehicles built for disabled people are almost all back loading, so LTI start the poison again, just read micks posts and you will find the brainwashing.
so says Mick we started a firm specially for disabled and they wanted salloons, instead of what? well those vehicles designed for active people getting and out of quickly!
led by moorons we are and I am not refereing to Mick, but the lunatics that advise him.