The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

It's time to bring back invalid carriages

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2009 Category: Technology
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,407 times Debate No: 6974
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Have you ever driven a car in Britain? If so, you may have seen some pretty erratic driving – cars driving on the wrong side of the road, cars jumping red lights, cars mounting the pavements (sidewalks), etc. The explanation for this is usually due to the driver being:

a) drunk
b) on a mobile phone (cellphone)
c) an American tourist unused to manual transmission (stick shift) and the steering wheel being on the right-hand side of the car

Otherwise, there is a very good chance that the driver is disabled. Thanks to generous Government allowances via the Motability scheme, many British handicapped people drive luxury cars which have been converted so the vehicles can be driven by cripples. However, from the outside, these vehicles look completely normal. The only clue to other road users that the driver is a spastic is a small blue disabled driver badge on the windscreen.

Now, in order to get a blue badge, you have to be at least two years old and meet one or more of the following criteria:

• You can't have any arms (if you've got one arm, that's one too many to qualify for a blue badge)
• You can't be able to walk
• You have to be blind

This means you might see a Range Rover Sport doing 70mph down the High Street and you wouldn't have a clue that it was being driven by a blind toddler using his teeth to steer until it ploughed through a crowd of shoppers and crashed into Toys ‘R' Us.

However, until the 1970's the handicapped had to drive special invalid cars which were instantly recognisable because they only had three wheels and they were painted bright turquoise. Because these cars were so distinctive, other road users could keep out of their way.

As they were made out of plastic and were powered by a pathetic 2 cylinder, 500cc, 19hp engine, the great advantage of these tiny cars was that the amount of damage that cripples could do in them was limited.

Since there's no need for disabled people to swan about in flash cars, especially those cripples who are still in kindergarten, the Government should not be paying spastics to drive around in Range Rovers and convertible BMWs.

No, it's time to get the handicapped back into invalid carriages and, If they don't like it, they can always take the windowlickers' bus.

Thank you.


I would like to point out that the way you use the word " cripple " is rather offence I myself am not " crippled" but I know of several people who are and would take offence to this , the correct term is disabled .

also I think what you are saying is rather offence in general you are making disabled people look like out of control idiots and what you said about a blind two year old driving a car into a toys r us , I'm not sure if that was a joke or you honestly think somebody who is blind making them unable to see is aloud to drive a car for they are not because how can anybody that's blind drive ? and mainly how can I person who is 15 years to young for his driver license get driving ?and also this blue badge you speak about like its a drivers license , its a badge to allow a disabled passenger or driver to park in disabled spots ...

anyway back to the point. I think the reason these cars are no longer around anymore is for many reasons is that these cars make the disabled people stick out and would make them feel ashamed about their disability however big or small . you say that disabled people cause the most accidents excluding drunks etc , no they don't the probably cause a small amount of accidents in comparison with drivers under 25 and drivers over 65 who are resosponsible for the majority of these crashes , so why not make young drivers drive around in a plastic car with three wheels ? I think not ...

Other reasons why these cars are no longer around are also safety
if this car is made from plastic lets think logically if it hits you at 70mph doesn't matter if its made from wood or metal or plastic its most likely going to kill you anyway . But spare a thought for the people driving these cars , what happens if a truck hits them ? what good will a bit of plastic to to protect them from the impact ?

but my point is in this day and age were everybody is suppose to be equal and not be discriminated against . why should disabled drivers be forced to drive these cars which are commonly labelled " spaz chariots " etc by idiotic people when in reality disabled people do not cause much crashes and the cars of today are well equipped for meeting a disabled persons needs.
Debate Round No. 1


With many thanks to my opponent for replying to my arguments, I should like to say it was certainly not my intention to be offensive – only to vary my vocabulary. Repeating the same words ad-infinitum makes reading a passage very tedious. That is why I varied "disabled person" with other words such as "spastic", "cripple" and "handicapped person". All of these are, or were until recently, perfectly legitimate and inoffensive words – for example, the charity Scope was called "the Spastic Society" until 1994. Moreover, the voters will have noted, I hope, that I have avoided using blatantly derogatory terms such as "flid", "spazza" and "joey".

Moving on, I certainly agree that children shouldn't be allowed to drive just because they have a disability and blind drivers certainly pose a potential danger to other road users. But that is the law of the land, at least here in England (the law in Scotland may differ, I'm not sure).

Anecdotally, I remember having to cycle three miles to school every morning through wind, rain and snow and being splashed most days by a boy my age as he drove past in a brand new car. You'd think I would have cornered him in the playground and punched his lights out wouldn't you? But I didn't. Why? Firstly because he only had one leg, which is why he was allowed to drive a car so young and, secondly, because he was actually pretty handy with his crutches! The point is that the disabled deserve to have their own independence and it is right that the taxpayer should pay for their private transport – but not sports cars and 4x4s (SUVs) – only invalid carriages.

Certainly, this would mark the disabled out, as my opponent rightly suggested, but that is to the advantage of other road users. When a driver sees a bright turquoise invalid carriage heading his way, he can take evasive action. Similarly, pedestrians could dive for cover when they heard the distinctive racket of the Invacar's two-cylinder engine approaching.

By the way, these cars, like mopeds, are banned from using the motorways because they are too slow. There are anecdotal stories of Invacars being souped up so that the owners could achieve their ambitions of getting a speeding ticket but, in reality, they were only capable of 40mph or so.

Together with their light weight and low speed, the momentum, and therefore the potential for damage, of these little cars is much lower than a big 4x4 travelling at full pelt.

With regard to Weegie neds (Glasgow chavs (hoodlums)) and similar young drivers elsewhere in the world, I agree that they can be a menace on the roads. For that reason, drivers under 25, especially males, pay huge insurance premiums which effectively preclude the possibility of buying fast cars. As for the coffin-dodgers, it's true that they are getting away with creating havoc on the roads and something should be done about them too, but that's for another debate.

Thank you.


I would like to thank my opponent for posting a very thorough reply and apologising for using the word cripple etc even though a lot of disabled people don't find it offence a lot still do.

but back to the point.
I find it rather funny the way you say " when other road users hear the distinctive engine noise made from an invalid car engine this would give them time to take action and pedestrians to jump for cover " lets be honest if that was the case of the car being that dangerous then it wouldn't get out of the street never mind onto the road. you make disabled people seem like lunatics when in actual fact the vast majority are probably less likely to have an accident than most drivers because they know that there disability effects their driving meaning that they will have to pay more attention etc , but these cars are probably more likely to cause accidents than a modern car designed for the disabled , built with safety features and suitable to the needs of most disability.

another thing I would like to point out is that I actually forgot these cars were not aloud on motorways , but know that you have pointed that out I would say that is very unfair on disabled people who would have to drive cars , remember if they wanted a good job chances are they will have to drive on a motorway to get there. Also if they were dangerous drivers they are more likely to have an accident on the street rather than a motorway.

but referring back to my original point, why should these people have to drive around in cars that make them look like social outcasts and lunatics . I would honestly say its just discrimination as in this day an age we have all the things to help disabled people live everyday life as normally as possible.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
Not a strong debate due to lack of factual evidence. However, the Argument from Political Correctness is not compelling.

In the US, habitual drunk drivers have their licenses revoked, but almost always continue to drive without a license. they have to drive to get to work, etc, because the US has too low a population density to support mass transit outside of cities. Perhaps something like an "invalid carriage" should be provided to them to minimize the damage they can do. Or maybe a scooter.
Posted by Ragaxus 7 years ago
The big point of "singling out" invalids didn't go to either side; neither side proved that the safety of other drivers is more important than the respect of the invalids (or vice-versa). Pro's other points not substantially refuted, though, and his spelling's better, so I give the round to him.

Speaking as an American, being right is more important than being polite.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Ragaxus 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40