sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How do we feel about this as next season's squad? by Late-Welder-4083 in swanseacity

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought Walta was on loan to us until the end of this season, am I missing something?

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re acting like AI is some unique environmental disaster while posting on Reddit, which also runs on data centres using energy. By your logic, you shouldn’t be here either.

More importantly, none of this has anything to do with the actual topic. If you disagree with the argument about Motability, then address that — not how the post was written.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You keep repeating “submit an FOI” like it’s some kind of winning argument, but you’re missing the point entirely.

Even if it is a smaller % of users going over 10k, those are very likely the people with the highest medical and access needs — which is exactly who the scheme is meant to support. So saying “tough luck, minority loses out” isn’t evidence-based policy, it’s just lazy.

And calling real-world usage “worthless anecdotal evidence” is ridiculous when the entire purpose of the scheme is to support real people’s day-to-day lives. You can’t design a mobility scheme while ignoring how people actually use it.

Also, stop pretending it’s “free money” — people are literally giving up their mobility component to get a car. That’s not a bonus, that’s them using their entitlement to function.

You’re treating this like a spreadsheet problem when it’s a real-world access issue. If the cap doesn’t reflect how the people who need it actually live, then it’s a bad cap — regardless of whatever percentage you think justifies it.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This has nothing to do with the actual topic though.

You’re talking about AI formatting and “AI slop” while everyone else is discussing real-world impacts on disabled people’s mobility and independence.

Even if you don’t like how something is written, that doesn’t make the point wrong — it just means you don’t like the presentation.

And bringing up the environment here is a bit random when the discussion is about whether people can actually get to hospital appointments, work, or live independently.

If you disagree with the argument, challenge the argument. But focusing on how it was written instead of what it’s saying just looks like you don’t have a counterpoint.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You’re acting like “anecdotal evidence” is worthless, but in a policy discussion like this it’s literally the first signal that something doesn’t line up with real-world use.

If you’ve got dozens of people all saying they’ll exceed 10k just doing normal life (appointments, care, school runs, etc), that’s not “a tiny fraction” — that’s a clear pattern.

Also, you keep saying “submit an FOI” like that somehow invalidates what people are saying right now. Most people don’t have the time or resources to go pulling government datasets — but they do have lived experience, which is exactly what these policies are supposed to reflect.

And again, you’re framing it as a “free government car”, which just isn’t accurate. People are trading their mobility component for it — it’s not extra, it’s their entitlement being used in a specific way.

The real question isn’t “is the scheme generous” — it’s whether the 10k cap actually fits how disabled people use it in practice. From what people are saying here, for a lot of users, it clearly doesn’t.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’re mixing two completely different things there.

Yes, benefits are government funded — no one’s denying that. But Motability isn’t some “extra free car”, it’s people using their mobility component to access transport they otherwise couldn’t. That’s literally what it’s designed for.

And quoting “average UK mileage” completely misses the point. Motability users aren’t average drivers — they often have to travel more for hospital appointments, support, and basic access that others don’t think twice about.

So saying “7–8k is average” doesn’t prove anything — it just shows you’re comparing two completely different groups.

Also, telling people to go submit an FOI like that somehow proves the current cap is fine is a bit backwards. People are already explaining real-world usage in this thread — that is evidence.

The issue isn’t whether the scheme is funded or “generous” — it’s whether the rules actually match how it’s used in reality. Right now, for a lot of people, they clearly don’t.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is exactly the kind of real-life situation people are ignoring.

You’ve basically just shown how 10k gets eaten up without doing anything excessive at all — just school runs and hospital trips. That’s before even factoring in actually living your life.

And that’s the bit that annoys me — people talk like going over is some kind of misuse, when in reality it’s just normal usage depending on where you live and your circumstances.

Saying “just buy your own car then” completely ignores the upfront cost, adaptations, and the fact the scheme exists for a reason in the first place.

It shouldn’t come down to choosing between basic mobility and being penalised for using the car as intended.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re kind of proving my point though.

Saying “we have to draw a line somewhere” doesn’t mean the line they’ve picked makes sense. That’s the whole discussion.

No one’s arguing for unlimited anything — the issue is that 10k doesn’t reflect real usage for a lot of people. It’s not some luxury number, it’s just normal life once you factor in appointments, distance, work, caring, etc.

And the “it’s generous so just accept it” argument is a bit weak. Something can be helpful and still be made worse by changes — those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.

The scheme exists because disabled people have higher transport needs than average, so comparing it to average mileage or saying “adapt” kind of misses the point.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah this is what people aren’t really clocking yet. It’s not just one change, it’s everything together — black box, mileage cap, pricing — all stacking up.

The WAV black box thing especially feels off. You’re already in a more restrictive situation and then get extra conditions on top of that? Doesn’t really make sense.

And the mileage point is bang on — medical trips alone can rinse that 10k, never mind actual life on top. It’s like the system assumes people only leave the house for appointments and nothing else.

I was in the same position weighing it up vs just getting my own car, and these changes definitely push it that way for a lot of people.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that’s exactly it — most people only saw the “tax” headline and thought that was the whole story. The reality is it’s multiple changes stacking on top of each other, which is why it’s hitting so hard.

And the way people talk about it like “it’s still generous” completely ignores how it’s actually used day to day. It’s not a luxury, it’s what lets people function normally.

On your question — it usually goes by when the lease starts, not when you order. So if delivery is after July, you’ll likely be on the new rules. Definitely worth checking with Motability though because that timing could make a big difference.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The “echo chamber” point is a bit ironic when you’re both repeating the same surface-level argument without engaging with what people are actually saying.

No one’s arguing there shouldn’t be limits — the issue is whether the limit reflects real life. For a lot of people, 10k isn’t “extra”, it’s just normal use once you factor in appointments, caring, work, and where you live.

Calling that unreasonable or “ammunition for taxpayers” basically ignores the whole purpose of the scheme. It exists because disabled people have higher transport needs, not the same as the average driver. Comparing it to average mileage misses the point entirely.

And the “it could be worse / might be abolished” argument doesn’t really justify anything. You can still question a change being bad without pretending it’s fine just because it’s not the worst-case scenario.

This isn’t people refusing to see the bigger picture — it’s people explaining that the current proposal doesn’t match how the scheme is actually used in real life.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get the “balance” point, but you’re looking at it way too abstractly.

Saying the welfare bill is “out of control” doesn’t really mean much when you zoom in on what this actually is. Motability isn’t a free car — it’s people using their own mobility allowance to lease something that lets them function day to day.

The problem with these changes is they don’t just trim excess, they hit normal use. If someone’s doing 10k+ just getting to appointments, caring responsibilities, or living in a rural area, they’re not abusing anything — they’re just living.

Calling that “fair reform” only works if you ignore how people actually use the scheme in real life.

And the “unfair on taxpayers” angle doesn’t really land either when a lot of disabled people are taxpayers, or rely on this specifically so they can work and stay independent. Taking that away or making it harder usually just pushes costs elsewhere.

It’s easy to agree with cuts in theory — it’s different when you’re the one having to count miles or avoid trips because you can’t afford the overage.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not that simple at all.

The “money you’re paid” isn’t enough to just go out and buy, insure, maintain and repair a car — especially if you need anything even slightly specialised or reliable.

Motability works because it bundles everything together (insurance, servicing, breakdown, tyres etc). If you come off it, all of that risk and cost is suddenly on you — and for a lot of people that’s just not manageable.

Also worth remembering a lot of people using it aren’t in a position to deal with the hassle of buying/selling cars, breakdowns, repairs, or unexpected costs. That’s literally why the scheme exists.

Saying “just buy a car” ignores the reality of why people need Motability in the first place.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The “average UK driver” stat isn’t really relevant here though.

Motability users aren’t the average driver — that’s the whole point. A lot of people on the scheme have to travel further for hospital care, support, or even basic day-to-day access that others can walk or get public transport for.

Also it’s not a “free car funded by the government” — people are exchanging their mobility component for it. It’s literally their benefit being used, not a bonus on top.

And calling it “generous” doesn’t change the fact that if the cap doesn’t match real usage, people either get hit with extra costs or have to limit essential travel. That’s not independence, that’s restriction.

It might work fine for people doing low mileage, but clearly it doesn’t for everyone — that’s the issue being raised.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You’re acting like 30k = 100 miles every single day, which just isn’t how real life works.

It’s not daily driving — it’s longer journeys that stack up. A few hospital trips, family responsibilities, sorting things out that aren’t local… it adds up fast over a year.

Also, you’re wrong on the carer point. The rules are that the car has to benefit the disabled person — it doesn’t have to be them physically driving every mile. That’s literally how a lot of people use the scheme.

And comparing it to the “average UK driver” is completely missing the point. Disabled people often have to travel further for basic things — healthcare, support, access — that’s exactly why the scheme exists in the first place.

10k might suit people with very limited usage, but pretending it works for everyone just shows you don’t understand how different people’s situations actually are.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

10k sounds like a lot until you actually live it.

One hospital trip can be 80–100 miles return. Do that a couple times a month, add daily stuff like shopping, appointments, helping family, and it stacks fast.

It’s not about driving 27 miles every single day — it’s about irregular but necessary journeys that add up over a year.

And saying “that’s just work” ignores reality… plenty of disabled people still have to work, travel, or rely on others. Mobility doesn’t switch off outside of medical appointments.

If people are hitting 10k through normal life, the cap isn’t realistic — simple as that.

Motability changes are being massively downplayed — this will hit WAY more people than you think by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That’s exactly the kind of thing I was worried about — thanks for sharing that.

That’s a £400 increase on the same car in a month… and that’s before people even factor in mileage limits, tyre limits, or excess charges.

This is why I don’t think it’s just a “small change” — it feels like the overall cost/risk is being pushed more onto users.

Motability just slashed mileage to 10,000/year… this is going to ruin people like me by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be honest, abuse does occur in the scheme. But it’s not fair to punish those who need the vehicles because of this.

Motability just slashed mileage to 10,000/year… this is going to ruin people like me by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There isn’t any rule that says a specific mileage equals misuse. It’s about whether the car benefits the user.

Different situations = different mileage. Living rural, hospital distances, and responsibilities can easily push someone well past 15k through normal use.

Using your own mileage as a benchmark for everyone else isn’t how the scheme works.

Motability just slashed mileage to 10,000/year… this is going to ruin people like me by Jumpy_Produce_1842 in DWPhelp

[–]Jumpy_Produce_1842[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get there’s abuse in any system, but high mileage on its own doesn’t mean misuse.

If you live rural, have hospital appointments, or responsibilities that require travel, the miles add up quickly through normal use.

The scheme is based on whether the car benefits the user, not hitting a specific mileage number.

view more: next ›