I canвЂ™t begin to count the number of times IвЂ™ve heard a crip say, вЂњIf I were out of the chair, I could be driving a (fill in the blank) for what my van cost.вЂќ IвЂ™ve said the same thing too, many times. ThereвЂ™s a strong desire for something different, something better. But even though VPG failed, the rest of the mobility industry could learn a valuable lesson from the interest and excitement that the MV-1 generated. And I saw their relief once they saw it up close. I saw the concern on mobility dealersвЂ™ faces and heard their worries when the MV-1 was launched. It could have been a game-changer, much like ramped minivans were. Still, itвЂ™s a damn shame the MV-1 never lived up to its promises. Which means that, along with accessibility, dependability and cost - style, comfort, performance and status also weigh heavily on our buying decisions. The company forgot that weвЂ™re just like any other consumer, except we sit down a lot. VPGвЂ™s careless disregard of wheelersвЂ™ wants and desires had much to do with the MV-1вЂ™s failure as a personal mobility vehicle. (The mobility industry is currently appealing that decision.) Unfortunately that didnвЂ™t stop New York from making its approval of Nissan final, although we may not have seen the last of that battle, nor did it stop VPG from shedding all but three of its employees last October. VPG won that battle, making the MV-1 the only accessible vehicle that could qualify for federal funds. to qualify for federal funding where applicable. In August 2012 VPG petitioned the Federal Transit Authority to rescind the Buy American waiver the mobility industry had received, allowing minivans adapted in the U.S. It ceased production by the end of June 2012, just about the same time the ADA lawsuit lost a major round in court. Last year when New York City fought an ADA lawsuit challenging its right to choose the inaccessible Nissan NV200 van to be its Taxi of Tomorrow - which would require most of the cityвЂ™s 13,000-plus taxis to be replaced with Nissans when they aged out of service - I wondered if VPG could survive without access to that huge market. I was equally clear that I liked it as an accessible taxi. When I reviewed the MV-1 shortly after its introduction, I was clear about its faults as a personal mobility vehicle. And, non-driving wheelers needed only to compare the MV-1вЂ™s features and costs with the adapted vehicles already offered by their local mobility dealers to find that, despite VPGвЂ™s over-inflated boasts, there were a number of competitive choices available to them. Wheelers who wanted to drive it found there were no provisions for them to do so. Taxi owners balked at the vehicleвЂ™s price and poor gas mileage. Unfortunately, it proved to be neither a very practical taxi nor a satisfactory accessible vehicle. Its wheelchair accessibility and natural gas options may have been forward thinking, but in the end, I suspect, both were just PC-friendly ways to qualify for government funds. But presenting Marc Buoniconti with the keys to the first MV-1 did little to make up for the fact that it was the brainchild of a Chicago taxi magnate, designed and built for the taxi industry - and even initially introduced as the Standard Taxi. After all, a vehicle built from the ground up to be wheelchair accessible - without all the compromises and extra costs that an adapted vehicle requires - is pretty much the holy grail of crip transportation. Initially I was willing to overlook the Tiny Tim tone of the ads. The company had burst into the adapted vehicle market in 2011 with big, glossy ads, a great PR campaign and a well-designed website - all claiming, among other boasts, that the MV-1 was, вЂњthe only vehicle inspired by you and factory-built for you.вЂќ However, the thing never lived up to its hype. When VPG, the maker of the MV-1, shut its doors in May, the closing came as no great surprise to me. This tiny ultra-green Urbee isnвЂ™t accessible, but adaptive vehicle developers could learn a lot from its manufacturerвЂ™s design process.

Vpg mv 1 van