The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Travniki
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

It's time to bring back invalid carriages

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,811 times Debate No: 21366
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

The widespread abuse of disabled parking schemes by able-bodied motorists means that legitimate holders of handicapped badges and placards often can't find vacant designated disabled parking spaces and are thus forced to hobble, limp or stagger further than they otherwise would to get to the shops.

This didn't happen in the olden days though - until the 1980's spastics were only allowed to drive special turquoise invalid carriages, or "cripple cars" as they were known, and because they weren't fast or desirable normal people didn't want to be seen in them so, in practice, only genuine mongs used handicapped parking bays.

Bringing back invalid carriages would solve the problem of unscrupulous motorists using fake or borrowed handicapped badges and placards to deprive people with restricted mobility of their specially allocated parking spaces, and I therefore urge you to support this proposal by voting Pro.

Thank you.

For infrormation on the invavalid carriage, please click the link below.

http://www.virtualgaz.com...
Travniki

Con

I give many thanks to Herr brian_eggleston, for him presenting this problem and his unique if not egregious way of solving it, I look forward to this debate.

I must however begin with saying that The problem or premise that would warrent the re-institution of invalid carriages does not exist, and even if it did they are not a viable solution to fixing it.

Pros whole case is based on two things, the first being that people with disibilities are often deprived of a handicapped parking space because it is stolen by healthy people mis-using the handicapped badge. Firstly, this does not happen often enough to warrant such a huge (and rights-depriving) change in policy. The most accurate number I could find was that half a million handicaped badges are being misused (http://fullfact.org...) That seems to be at about 20% of all card holders, so at any given time there is a very small chance that, say, even 1 misuser will be occupying a spot at the local SuperMarket. It is an astronomically small chance that all the spots will be occupied by misusers at one location, so the problem and driving force for these cars as described does not exist. Your article seems to say that the car was invented to accomodate paralysed drivers more than stop fraud.

Secondly this does not solve the alleged problem because, while it's true that you only talked about motorists who borrow or fake these cards, most card misusers at one point had a legitimate claim to the card because of a temporary ailment. This is the real/main reason why a ill person might be deprived of a spot. At some point most misusers needed the card, so by forcing them to drive a car, you basically give them the option of still using the car long after their ailment has healed, which invites them to occupy the handicapped spaces, regardless of if they are ill or not, for their entire duration of owning the car.

I'd like to put one piece of constructive material forward, who in the bloody gods name do handicapped people think they are getting their own special type of car? Although the car looks ridicolous and is bad quality, it is probably given for free, or is atained quite easily. This does three things, it encourages people to apply for being handicapped, encourages people to continue the status of being handicapped, and puts a social gap between handicaps and "regular" people. More people will fight to obtain the labelment of being handicapped to obtain this car, even if they aren't seriously hurt. They will lie and coerce the administration to gain a free or cheap car, and then take up handicapped spaces that a real handicap could use. This also discourages people from getting rid of the status of handicapped after they have healed-they might fake illness so they can keep the car and keep using handicapped parking spaces, taking them away from people who need them the most. Lastly this imposes a gap, handicapped people will think they are better than the rest of us becuse they get their special cars and special parking spaces. I have no doubt in my mind they won't even twitch when they run over pedestrians with these special cars because they stepped inside a handicapped parking space and got it dirty.

For the reasons that this problem does not exist how pro described it-the problem is with people who had a legitimate claim to the permit (And these cars just encourage them holding onto that claim), the cars will in no means solve this non existent problem, and that this gaps Handicapped people and regular people.

I beg, to oppose

-Vlad

Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank Travniki for accepting this debate and to respond to the points he raised as follows:

"The problem or premise that would warrent {sic} the re-institution of invalid carriages does not exist, and even if it did they are not a viable solution to fixing it."

Although the problem of normal people using handicapped parking bays may be not widespread in all parts of the world: parking spaces in general are clearly at much more of a premium in the congested streets of London, England or Riga, Latvia than they are in Deer Lodge, Montana or Karakorum, Mongolia; the fact is that most of us who live in traffic-clogged cities have seen perfectly able-bodied people get in and out of cars parked in spastics' spaces.
Furthermore, invalid carriages are the perfect solution tom the problem because they instantly identify the driver as a legitimate user of disabled parking bays.

"Most card misusers at one point had a legitimate claim to the card because of a temporary ailment."

To address the points my opponent raised let's first examine invalid carriages' safety features:

* Automatic Stability Control
* Traction Control
* Anti-Lock Brakes
* Airbags
* Front and Rear Impact Crumple Zones
* Side Impact Protection Bars

None of the items above are available on invalid carriages, despite them being standard equipment on most modern cars. Furthermore, invalid carriages are made out plastic rather than metal which means the car's body provides all the protection of an ice-cream carton in the event of a crash.

And that event will happen soon rather than later because invalid cars are deficient in wheels to the tune of one in comparison to conventional cars and three-wheelers, such as invalid carriages and Reliant Robins, are inherently unstable: as the embedded Top Gear video clip clearly demonstrates.

What all this means is that if some malingering motorist masquerades as a mutant in order to exploit the cost and parking benefits driving an invalid carriage bestows upon its owner, he will soon be crippled, even if he wasn't before.

Finally, invalid carriages are very heavily subsidised by the government, this is true, but isn't it society's moral duty to support the most vulnerable members of the community by providing them with cripple cars to enable them to get about? I think most fair-minded people would say so.

Thank you.
Travniki

Con

I will show why my points still stand then refute what my opponent has said.


"the fact is that most of us who live in traffic-clogged cities have seen perfectly able-bodied people get in and out of cars parked in spastics' spaces.
Furthermore, invalid carriages are the perfect solution tom the problem because they instantly identify the driver as a legitimate user of disabled parking bays."

My point about them not being a viable solution to the problem still stands, and is actually re-inforced because these cars will not be able to function in "traffic-clogged" cities. They go well under the speed limit, and don't have traction control. These cars wouldn't last a minute on the streets of London, which means that the handicapped parking spaces will always be empty, and they won't be used by any one. The owners of these cars will be dead in a ditch buried in a grave of a crumpled plastic car.

Furthermore a car without a proper parking badge is almost as identifiable to a law officer as a invalid carriage, so if the former still is not enforced I don't see why the latter would be. This means that perfectely normal cars will be able to go in handicapped spots without much fear of having the penalties. Plus, people are jerks. They will always park their car in handicapped spaces out of slothfulness. This goes to show that invalid carriages still won't solve the problem of cripples having their parking spots stolen.

Refutation:
"What all this means is that if some malingering motorist masquerades as a mutant in order to exploit the cost and parking benefits driving an invalid carriage bestows upon its owner, he will soon be crippled, even if he wasn't before."

The moral issue that this leaves, and I think all reading this will agree with me, is that cripples are unwelcome, unwanted and unsightly, so we must never encourage of facilitate the disease known as disabilitiitis.
Pro's arguments really support and encourage promoting people to become crippled (out of desire for a car) and to continue being crippled (because the invalid carriage leads them into accident), yet being cripples are not desired members of society.

A last point about it being societies burden to help cripples get around is false. Most people own cars before they are crippled so they should be allowed to continue using those cars, society should not have to provide them with a dangerous car that sustains their crippled state, leeching further money from the economy. Societies duty is to help make these cripples normal again, not sustain or glorify their unsightly disability.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Shawn613 4 years ago
Shawn613
Clash of the titans. Ali vs Fraser. Yankees vs Red Sox. This is one for the ages. The echoes of time are etched into the history books, and this event will cause more rape than Ghengis Khan.
Posted by KRFournier 4 years ago
KRFournier
Lol. I can always tell a Brian Eggleston debate by it's title alone.
No votes have been placed for this debate.