Sure, any generalisation is open to exceptions, but the essence of legislation is generalisation, and as things stand, far from resolving a problem, this bloody Court has created a discrepancy in the Law. Be helpful, you're not a Pollard - and I was targetting those who are unhelpful. And taking what was a gentle rib in the case of Andy this far is downright obnoxious - there are many wheelchair users who say in their hearts "if only", and precious few who are in that position, not dependent on it. That's because a wheelchair comes with almost as many problems as it solves, narrow doorways, tables too high, transport, you name it - if you don't absolutely have to go there, you don't. And that's not the only problem: equally significant is the deterioration in health because the exercise gained from standing and walking is lost, and that's important.
This is not some malicious fiction, I've seen it and had to act on it, when the prioirty was clear. What has happened, in London at least, is that what was a sensible use of spare space has become an entitlement, simply through usage - the race for the space, when there are more buggies that slots. It's mostly 3 and 4 year-olds, able to walk while mum folds the buggy, but does she ever? Some hope. And then they take a seat, which hasn't been paid for, "health and safety" - even though an older person who is far less able to cope with the bounces and who has paid for his seat has to stand. Sweet, innit?
The old argument for kids under 6 not paying for a seat is because they can sit on a parent's lap. Now that this isn't happening, perhaps it's time to review that thinking...