Consultation Responses:
DfT consultation on proposed changes to the laws governing powered mobility scooters and powered wheelchairs

DPTAC response - pdf (Adobe Acrobat - 66kb)
DPTAC response - rtf (Rich Text File - 300kb)

DfT consultation document

To: Mr T Deere
Chief Medical Advisor's Strategy Unit
Department for Transport
Zone 2/15, Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London, SW1P 4DR

1. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) welcomes the opportunity to provide detailed comments on this consultation.

2. As you know, DPTAC was established under the Transport Act 1985 to advise the Government on the transport needs of disabled people. DPTAC has identified four overarching principles on which we base our advice to Government, other organisations and disabled people. These are that:

  1. Accessibility for disabled people is a condition of any investment;
  2. Accessibility for disabled people must be a mainstream activity;
  3. Users should be involved in determining accessibility;
  4. Achieving accessibility for disabled people is the responsibility of the provider.

3. These principles are also the basis on which we offer the following comments.

Introductory remarks

4. Individual mobility and expectations of improved access to facilities, including the wider public realm have increased over the last 25 years, and mobility scooters have enabled a historically mobile generation to continue to enjoy that mobility. We do not consider that we can expect people to readily accept it being reduced.

5. DPTAC is pleased that the Department for Transport is beginning to actively involve us in the development of this area of policy. DPTAC would seek full research in this area now, to ensure future actions are soundly evidence based.

6. DPTAC consider the research (and development of this policy area) on the use of PMS, should be as all embracing as possible. We would seek that research and evidence gathering should cover the full usage of PMS:

  • on public transport;
  • on the road;
  • within buildings; and
  • where possible conflicts with pedestrians and other road users could take place.

7. DPTAC considers that a clear outcome of the research should be the production of a sound evidence base, flexible enough to support future technological developments covering: increase in traffic; improvement in size and effectiveness of PMS themselves; changes in proposed street scape (shared space); developments from the EU; and any other technical developments in personal transport.

8. DPTAC has to state our concerns over this consultation document as it appears to have been largely developed following a "Review of Class 2 and Class 3 Powered Wheelchairs and Powered Scooters (Invalid Carriages)" which was published in February 2006 - although your document refers to it having been published by the DfT in 2005, and research from the 'Mobility Roadshow' in 1999. Even if those attending the roadshow provided a sound cross section of users, it is now over 10 years old and can no longer be viewed as representing current or indicating future trends.

9. A seminar took place in December 2009, however minutes were not available that might have helped inform the consultation document - this was disappointing as people had given their time to attend to help develop this policy area.

10. DPTAC was pleased that its Secretariat was able to input into the development of this consultation document, although we consider more time would have enabled a more thorough and valuable consultation exercise to be offered.

Concluding comments

11. The principal concern of DPTAC is to ensure continued and increased accessibility for disabled people. We believe that PMS already make a significant contribution towards these aims, and they have the potential to achieve more.

12. DPTAC consider that detailed research in this area by the Department for Transport is essential. The production of a sound evidence base, flexible enough to take account of technical developments and changes in personal expectation, will in the long run save time and money in the drafting of effective legislation in the future.

13. Given the lack of guidance currently available on the use of mobility scooters, their size and laden weight, and given the promotion of all transport users to use public transport, DPTAC would ask that the Department consider producing guidance now as an interim measure. This would have the extra benefit of providing invaluable information for those intending to travel to the Olympics by public transport.

14. Some of the comments provided above may appear a little negative, but they represent some frustration felt amongst our Members that DPTAC was not used in a more timely fashion to assist in this work. DPTAC now looks forward to a sound partnership, over the coming months, to develop this area.

Thank you,

Dai Powell
Chair, Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

Our Response

Section A: Legal classification of vehicles

Q1. Do you think that the term "invalid carriage" should be replaced with a different term?

Yes.

Q2. What term would you suggest?

Personal Mobility Vehicles.

Do you think that the terms "Class 2" and "Class 3" should be replaced by more descriptive terms such as "slower speed mobility vehicle" and "faster speed mobility vehicle"?

Yes.

If yes, what terms would you suggest?

Class 2 - Personal Mobility Vehicles for pavement use.

Class 3 - Personal Mobility Vehicles for highway use.

We would further recommend that literature should include a comprehensive and descriptive list that makes clear the specifics of each Class.

Q4. Do you think the legislation should make a distinction between mobility scooters and powered wheelchairs?

Yes.

Powered wheelchairs should not be used on the public highway (except in areas where no pavement exists).

Section A: Design standards for mobility vehicles

Maximum speed capability

Q5. Do you think that Class 3 vehicles should be designed to be capable of travelling at speeds higher than 8mph on the carriageway?

No (as current designs exist - see below).

Q6. If you think there should be a higher speed capability, what maximum speeds do you suggest, and why?

At present the answer has to be no. But we believe that new design and technology exists that would allow for more robust vehicles to be introduced that would allow faster speeds, but would still remain safe. A new road only Class could be introduced that would include such vehicles.

Vehicle weight limits

Q7. Do you think the current unladen weight limit is still appropriate? (The weight limit for Class 2 vehicles is 113.4kg, and for Class 3 vehicles is 150kg?

Yes (Class 2 vehicles).

Yes (Class 3 vehicles).

But recognise in the future that the use of carbon fibre which would create lighter vehicles but that would be suitable for larger users (better and smarter materials).

Q8. If you think the permitted unladen weight should increase, what should it increase to, and why?

To increase the weights permitted would begin to take the PMV out of the range of use for people with reduced mobility and bring them into another class vehicle, more associated with recreational use.

Q9. Should some mobility vehicles permit the carriage of a baby or a small child as a passenger?

No.

Q10. If you suggested changes in reply to questions 8 and 9 above, do you have evidence to support your suggestions? If you have evidence what is it? Or do you believe that further research and trialling is needed before a decision is taken?

Although the answer to Q9 is no, DPTAC would suggest that this could be achieved in the future with the help of detailed research that would cover aspects such as safety, design training and licensing regimes.

Safer vehicle design

Q11. Do you think that technology is available that could reduce the likelihood and severity of injury caused by a collision with a mobility scooter?

Yes.

If yes, what technology do you have in mind?

Elements of current vehicle design could be used for PMV use such as, bumper protection, reversing sensor beepers, lights and reflector technology.

Q12. Should any increase in weight only be permitted if such technology is used?

This question falls unless the DfT produce research and information on which we can offer advice.

Conspicuousness

Q13. Do you think that additional requirements should be imposed to make mobility vehicles more conspicuous to help to improve the safety of the mobility vehicle user and the safety of other road users?

Yes.

Q14. If you do think that additional requirements should be imposed, what do you suggest?

DPTAC considers that Class 3 already has a number of requirements that help make them visible. We would suggest that these requirements should also be applied to Class 2 vehicles. In addition, those requirements already in existence for Cyclists should also apply.

Section C: Users of mobility vehicles

Minimum age

Q15. Do you think that the minimum age of 14 when a person may use a Class 3 vehicle should be kept the same, removed or lowered?

As below - Q16.

Q16. If you think the minimum age should be lowered, what do you suggest it be lowered to?

We would suggest that use of PMV is related to need rather than age. A requirement for 3rd party insurance and training would ensure users are competent irrespective of age.

Information, training and fitness to drive

Q17. What do you think should be done to improve the information and advice that is available to people who want to use a mobility vehicle?

If there is a requirement to obtain 3rd party insurance (and we consider there should be) then to obtain that insurance some form of training would be part of the qualification process. Information that clearly lays out the minimum level of fitness and knowledge required to use PMV, i.e. sight, highway code (for class 3 vehicles) should be available from manufacturers, DVLA, DfT and other agencies.

We also consider that the introduction of a 'metal plate' that was affixed to the vehicle that gave details of use (refer to Q3). We believe this would also help with enforcement and would help better handle the second-hand market.

Q18. Should all mobility vehicle users be required to undergo compulsory training?

Yes.

Q19. How do you suggest such training might be organised and delivered? How could it be funded (for example through user fees)?

-

Q20. Should all users be required to undergo an assessment of their suitability to drive a mobility vehicle?

Yes.

Q21. How do you suggest such an assessment might be organised and delivered? How could it be funded (for example through user fees)?

In response to Q18,19,20, 21:

DPTAC believes that further consultation is required before being able to provide comprehensive answers to these particular questions as there are too many complicated issues to be able to respond effectively at this early stage.

That said, we nevertheless believe that some level of competency is required.

Section D: Vehicles in use

Registration

Q22. Do you think a mobility vehicle registration scheme is needed?

Yes.

If so, why?

Such a scheme needs to be proportionate to the nature of the vehicle - but should be linked to insurance to assist in both the PMS user and other users of the pavement and highway to have greater confidence should an accident happen. We further think that this information - chassis number - could be included on the 'metal plate' referred to in Q17.

Q23. Do you think the current registration scheme with DVLA should be improved, for example, through better enforcement?

Yes.

If yes, how?

It needs to be linked to at least 3rd party insurance for all PMV. We would also wish the DfT to investigate if there is any need / benefit for class 3 vehicles to pay an element of road tax.

Changes in ownership of Class 2 and 3 Vehicles should be registered with DVLA to ensure 3rd party insurance is in place.

Q24. Do you think the current registration scheme should be replaced by a locally run registration scheme? (We would be interested in exploring whether this could be linked to existing schemes, for example the Blue Badge disabled parking scheme.)

The consultation document does not in fact refer to the Blue Badge scheme.

We would disagree with this question that the 'Blue Badge' administration system is a suitable means of registration for PMV. Linking it to the Blue Badge would place another burden on local authorities and prove difficult to monitor. A single national scheme should be easier to administer and, if linked to 3rd party insurance, the better home for this would be the DVLA.

Q25. Do you think it would be better to register users rather than registering vehicles?

No.

If so, how might it work?

Blue Badge registers the person - but the vehicle to which a Blue Badge can be applied would also be separately registered, insured and taxed as appropriate. This is not the best way forward for PMS where the basics are not already in place.

The DVLA is best placed to manage registration- whether Class 2 or 3.

Q26. Do you have any other suggestions for how a registration scheme would work?

As above.

Q27. Do you think the registration should be required for Class 2 vehicles as well as Class 3 vehicles?

Yes.

If so, why?

A lot of the 'bad press' appears to be around PMS use on pavements and in shops - licensing Class 2 and having them take out third party insurance would give greater confidence to all users of the road and pavements.

Registration will be required to ensure 3rd party insurance is in place.

Insurance

Q28. Do you think that a minimum of third party insurance should be compulsory for users of mobility vehicles?

We would suggest that whilst not compulsory, it is strongly advised - if the vehicle is registered then it will be easily traced and therefore in the interest of the individual to take out insurance. We think that this advice should be supported by an information campaign. After a period of time this area could be revisited, if take up on insurance has been successful then no mandatory requirement would be necessary - if unsuccessful the requirement could be reconsidered.

Criminal offences

Q29. Do you think that the section 35 offence (drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving) is adequate?

No.

Which driver behaviours do you think are not at present adequately covered by the legislation and should be the subject of further detailed proposals?

PMV are a motorised vehicle and should be subject to the same legislation as, say a moped - this could assist both to cover current vehicles and to cover any technological development.

Maximum permitted speed

Q30. Do you think that a Class 3 vehicle should be permitted to travel faster than the current limit of 8mph on the road?

No (at present - but see Q6).

Q31. What do you see as the potential benefits and risks of an increased speed limit?

If additional speed is required then the PMV is unlikely to meet the users' needs and other forms of transportation should be considered by the user.

Increased speed limits may require additional fitness, training and insurance requirements and benefits are unlikely to offset increased risk of serious accident and injury.

Q32. What do you think the new maximum permitted speed should be?

N/a - see above.

Q33. When the speed limiter is switched off, users of Class 3 vehicles may drive above 4mph provided they are on the carriageway and not on the footway. To aid concordance with this regulation, should mobility vehicles then automatically display a sign on the rear that indicates that they must not be used on the footway?

No.

DPTAC believes that such an introduction would be nonsensical but would consider an aide for the driver that would ensure that they know what the limits were on the pavement.

Data collection

Q34. What type of data do you think it would be helpful to record and why?

DVLA to license and record users (registration/chassis numbers) of all classes of PMV and recording all accidents (including a new tick box on hospital and police accident record forms) - these to be part of those collected and issued by DfT statistics. Also spread across the country - to indicate areas of density.

This would also provide information on the number and type of vehicles being used round the county.