Invalid Carriages on Highways

The Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Consultation 2010 - Results summary
Overview

1. 239 responses were received from individuals, organisations representing disabled and older people, healthcare professionals, commercial organisations, central and local government and public transport organisations. A list of those who responded is attached at the end of this document, excluding 7 respondents who requested that their personal details and views be treated as confidential. One response was received with no name or address supplied.

2. From the raw data, a majority supported the following changes to legislation:

Changing the term ‘invalid carriage’ (81%)

Introducing compulsory insurance (72%)

Introducing mandatory assessment of suitability to drive (69%) and training (64%)

Making vehicles and users more conspicuous (62%)

3. The views of different groups of respondents were as follows:

The general public favoured improving conspicuousness and introducing mandatory training, assessment and third party insurance.

Users of invalid carriages supported changing terminology and classification, allowing people to carry infants and improving conspicuousness. They were against a registration scheme.

Disability and age representative organisations favoured changing terminology and classification, improving conspicuousness and requiring compulsory insurance. They were against increasing the speed of Class 3 vehicles.

Industry/manufacturers supported mandatory insurance, training and assessment and also favour changing terminology, increasing the unladen weight, improving conspicuousness. They were against increasing the permitted speed, enabling people to carry infants, requiring additional safety technology.

The healthcare sector favoured changing the terminology and classification, increasing the unladen weight, allowing people to carry infants, improving conspicuousness, requiring training, assessment, registration and insurance. It was against increasing the speed.

Local authority organisations supported changing the terminology and classification, improving conspicuousness, requiring training, assessment, registration and insurance. They were against increasing the speed and allowing people to carry infants.

The public transport sector supported changing terminology and classification, requiring training, assessment, vehicle registration, personal licensing and insurance.

To read more see attachmant