I find these statistics very surprising - re Disabled people

I presume that in this case 'disability' is self-defined and not necessarily meaning registered disabled so could apply to poor hearing or mild arthritis depending on how it affects the individual.

It could be a temporary disability following an operation or an illness, but I'm not surprised at the findings when we know that demographically we have an ageing population. The impact of this is already here.

given that only about 3.4 million people receive DLA
the rest must be ESA, or as you say self-diagnosed (but it is misleading to use the 11m figure in arguments about disability cuts)
how would they know the self-diagnosed people?
I suppose the 'disability' costs/numbers for the pensioners is including in the 'pensions and associated benefits' figures.

My mother was classed as disabled in her later years (she is 97 now) she has a heart condition and up until recently she appeared OK but in fact got very breathless if she walked for any distance.She has blue badge. I was always on a mission getting really angry with people who clearly weren't disabled but use a blue badge

grannyonce so do I (find that surprising). My first thought was 'that can't be right"

whitewave how is it possible that people have a blue badge and not be disabled? Do they 'borrow' them?

I still have my late husband's blue badge (I don't use it). I didn't return it to the LA as it has his picture on it.

It should be remembered that because someone doesn't look disabled doesn't mean they don't have a hidden condition. In my husband's case he looked fine but having terminal cancer meant he was weaker and couldn't walk any distance.

grannyknot the answer to your question might be that it is a "hidden" disability or it might be that they are cheating.
But to go back to the statistics, some figures whether to do with disability or life expectancy or age can be misleading but some seem fair enough.

4 out of 5 acquire their disability within their lives

That sounds reasonable enough, other than being born with a disability, how else would they acquire it?
The % of over 50s with a long term health condition ( presumably including asthma, obesity, arthritis etc) is also hardly surprising.

I am amused at the name of the website though, "Livability" at least sounds better than the alternative. And bottom line is that statistics can be made to prove or disprove anything. Remember that well known quotation?

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics"

Well yes of course it goes like that. We are living longer and that means we are living longer enough to develop the joint and other mobility issues which come with being older.

Joints and other "bits" wear out. In fact I think how quickly your joints wear out seems to be down to people's family suscepitibilty to develop arthritis.

Sight gets affected most blind people are over 75.
"Sight loss affects people of all ages but especially older
people: 1 in 5 people aged 75 and 1 in 2 aged 90 and over
are living with sight loss."

I cannot quite see why those results are suprising. Apart from those born with a disabilty when else is anyone going to develop one?

I wonder what %tage of the over 60s do not have some health and mobility issues which need tretament or affect lifestyle.

gran yes both they borrow and acquire them there is a hefty fine but not sufficient to stop the buggers - if you are a disabled bod and can' t park it is sooooo annoying. I used to take Mum shopping could find nowhere to park because disabled bays all used and then leave her on the pavement find somewhere to park then run back to her , I used too get exhausted all because so e selfish b------y couldn't be bothered to walk a few yards.
Sorry about the disjointed stuff computer in the bin and using a tablet which has now run out of battery.

That should be b------d can't even swear correctly

I don't find the info in the OP surprising at all. There are a multitude of hidden disabilities, many of them minor but still a nuisance to the people they affect. Out of my four siblings and me (all of us over 50) plus my mother, 50% of us have disabilities of some kind that have come with age or as a result of accident. None of them are 'visible' to people who are only getting a passing view of us.

A former work colleague of my daughter's got caught using his dead MIL's Freedom Pass. He was fined £1000. So I suppose I am being naive. I just can't imagine the sheer cheek of faking disability.

I do realise that some disabilities are not apparent.

But bags surely there is a world of difference between something that is minor and merely a nuisance, and being classed as being disabled?

I do realise that some disabilities are hidden
but to me 'disabled' means the inability to function with/manage daily life without some form of assistance - ergo this means those in receipt of DLA/PIP either care or mobility. (this would be the 3.5 million)
I assume you could add in the attendance allowance (for over 65s) and support group ESA - but I would not include the people temporarily ill or post-op or hard of hearing or needing strong glasses
I have neck and back problems, need strong glasses, have hearing loss in one ear and arthritus in my knees (and a pensioner) - am I disabled? - of course I am not by my definition.
I feel the 11m figure is being bandied about to make a point - sceptic that I am.

Grannyknot I should B well hope he did get a massive fine. Serves him right.

There's certainly a difference between something that is minor and a nuisance and something severely disabling, but that does not mean that the less serious disabilities shouldn't be counted. No-one in my family has a disabled sticker or takes advantage of anything or anyone, they just need their limitations to be recognised when necessary, and counted.

As I said earlier, I'm not surprised at all by the stats in the OP.

Definitions of 'nuisance' will cover quite a large range from quite serious nuisance (preventing someone from getting long term employment, for instance) to a drag that has to be dealt with day in day out.

A few years ago I had a terrible chest infection that made it almost impossible to walk more than a few yards without having to stop. I parked in a disabled bay at a supermarket. When I went inside I told the security guard and explained why. He told me it was OK on that occasion. When I struggled back to the car I was accosted by a lady with a walking stick who laid into me for parking there even though there were lots of spaces. I tried to explain that I had permission but she wouldn't have it.

I agree that disabled spots should be for blue badge holders most of the time but occasionally an exception needs to be made.

I see your point, vq, but how are the exceptions to be identified?

Well my total inability to breathe was a bit of a give away

I'm not justifying the wholesale use of disabled spots if you don't have a blue badge but sometimes you do have a genuine excuse and I did have permission from the security guard. I hadn't simply parked there because I couldn't be bothered to walk.

I am deeply sceptical of these figures, where they apply to the under 80s. I am in my early 70s and a many of my friends are of similar ages, including DH. Many are on medication for a variety of medical problems; high blood pressure, high cholesterol, mild type 2 diabetes, mild asthma but only one or two of them could or would describe themselves as disabled. The mjaority do not need any assistance with any aspect of living, they do not have mobility problems, they still drive, go on holidays.

I do understand many people are not visibly disabled, I was a benefit advisor for Age Concern, as was, for 10 years, so I have met many of these.

I would be very interested to know exactly how liveability defined 'disabled' and how their self-select questionnaire was worded and sample size and distribution.

Further thought, there is a big difference between having a disability and having a problem that requires assistance.

DD has a disabled arm following a road accident. The disability is mild, although the scarring is extensive. There are things that are more difficult for her to do, she uses an electric tin opener and jar opener and she cannot type for more than 5 minutes without a break. She will now have to pay people to paint the outside of the house rather than do it herself, but most people do that anyway. She now only drives cars with automatic gear boxes.

But her disability has no practical effect on how she lives her life, there is nothing she has to now get done for her that millions of able people do not get done for themselves anyway. I suspect that this applies to a number of older people describing themselves as disabled.

FlickB - exactly how I viewed this assertion about the number of people 'disabled'
where one has heart problems/blood pressure, diabetes, hypothyroidism and so on which afflict older people - modern medicine is very effective in enabling us to lead a near normal life.
problems with aging are like 'advisories' when MOTing a car - they need attention/fixing in time but the car will still run
I am sure genuinely 'disabled people' (sorry should say people with a disability to be PC) would not consider the pensioners 'nuisances' that make life a bit harder as 'disabilities'.

Supermarket car parks are not covered by the Blue Badge regulations. So, if you are unwell you can park in them. It is private property.