Wheelchair Car is 100% Electric

Posted on by
Print Friendly

 

A Hungarian company has created a car specifically for wheelchair operators with a top speed of 30 mph. The tiny vehicle can also travel up to thirty miles on a single charge, and weighs over 600 pounds without batteries.

Called the Kenguru, it can be backed up to a curb with the rear hatch open so a wheelchair user can roll him or herself into it. It also has a small ramp which lowers to allow a wheelchair to be rolled down or up for exiting or entering.

Once inside, the wheelchair can be locked down, so it does not move. In fact, the engine will not start until the wheelchair has been secured, and the rear door closed.

The car’s controls can be operated from within a wheelchair. Steering is accomplished with a motorcycle-style handlebar, and there will be a joystick option available some time in the future.

The Kenguru is classified as a scooter because of its light weight, so a car driver’s license is not required. Head lamps and turn signals are built into the sleek design, so it can be driven on city streets safely.

The Kenguru is small enough it can be driven right up to doorways with wheelchair ramps. People who are restricted to wheelchairs could use the tiny car for shopping, work, attending school or socializing — in other words, to participate more fully in life. Loss of mobility is socially isolating, which in turn can be depressing.

Being 100% electric, the car is also relatively green.

Made by a company that has been creating aids for the handicapped since 1915, it  will be available in the UK soon.

Image Credit: Kenguru Cars

 

Jake Richardson (150 Posts)

Hello, I have been writing online for some time, and enjoy the outdoors.


  • http://www.electric-wheelchairs-101.com/ chris

    This wheelchair car looks great. Even those who are not in wheelchairs would love to try it out.

  • http://soltesza.wordpress.com/ sola

    Wow, I haven’t seen this in our local media.

    Wondering how much it will cost here in Hungary. There was an earlier EV introduced here called the “Puli” but that was for two people. I haven’t heard about that eithe rlately.

  • slave2liberty

    cool car, i just hope that it’s not made from any oil byproducts or uses electricity from coal or nuclear power plants. Otherwise, it being called a 100% green car, is just slightly pretentious and misleading.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Did you intentionally or accidentally post a claim not made?

      “Being 100% electric, the car is also relatively green.”

      Perhaps you were blinded by the steam from your tea getting in your eyes…

      • slave2liberty

        my mistake of course. what was i thinking?

        You could just have easily said, “relatively dependent on subsidies, coal, nuclear and oil by-products”. But that wouldn’t fit well with the narrative now would it?

        I am serious though, that this is a cool car and more power to progress – let’s just knock off with the charades.

        • Bob_Wallace

          Perhaps you were thinking “What would Rush say?”.  ;o)

          Yes, another interesting electric car.  I wonder if it’s large enough.  I don’t see room for groceries.

          Now to  the rest of your concerns  (I’ll start by assuming you’re actually concerned) coal is a dead man walking.  In fact, coal is a dead man running the green mile.  

          Coal has fallen from 57% of US electricity supply to under 36% with a lot more plants going off line over the next few years.

          Nuclear is also dead.  Zombie nuclear will live on in the form of old plants pushed past their sale date and by a handful of new plants built by confiscation of private money.  But all in all, nuclear is too expensive to avoid extinction.

          Oil byproducts.  We’ll continue to use oil for plastics during the transition to plant-based plastics and sustainable materials.  It’s a path we are already on.

          And finally subsidies.  There are two types of subsidies, those that are investments in our futures and those who prop up/enrich industries that have had well enough time to make it on their own.

          The subsidy for residential rooftop solar, for example, is hugely paying off.  It has been an incredibly successful investment of taxpayer money.  It’s brought the cost of solar PV panels from “$100/watt” to less than $1/watt.  And it’s a subsidy that naturally disappears because it’s based on the cost of the technology.  30% of $1 is much less than 30% of $10.

          But we’ve got subsidies for industries which have been profitable for decades.  Look at how we subsidize the oil industry.  That industry makes billions and billions of dollars per year and yet we continue to cut it tax breaks.  

          Then there’s the $9 trillion dollars we’ve spent fighting oil wars.  That’s a heck of a big subsidy, Brownie.

          • slave2liberty

            Aside from the supercilious comment about Rush, your points are fair.

            But the mistake which is often made by many enviro-statists, is that they never consider the probability for unintended consequences. As if every grand idea worked out in a vaccuum, without consideration for economics (alternatives, costs, supply, demand, etc.) should be pursued at any cost to the taxpayer and liberty. Of course, it’s easy to continue with this line of thinking because usually there is a path that has already been greased between the idealist and the state (Solyndra, Severstal, Ener1, GM, Amonix, etc.), and rarely are there consequences for those who make all these grand promises.

            There is no one solution which will lead us to the promised land that i’m aware of. The solution to our energy needs will be a combination of various sources and needs to come from the private sector, not the unrestrained, irresonsible state.

            Many forget that this fervor that we see today about plant based plastics and solar, occurred with Corn ethanol. So, what did we get for it? Higher food costs, more farm subsidies, crappy gas, and more government interference into the marketplace.

            I’m all for sustainability and practice what i preach in most regards, especially as a small-scale farmer. However, i understand that when you dedicate large amounts of energy into producing energy from plants which can be eaten, you will see more farmers growing energy and less food available for the marketplace – economics.

            in summary, i just wish that advocates of environmentally “responsible” energy would be a little more realistic; consider the impact beyond the narrow context of the science, and refrain from the holier than thou guarantees, and rely on private capital rather than extorting the taxpayers.

            As far is this car goes – great! I do wonder though, was this car created with private funds or with the funds of unwitting taxpayers?

          • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

            this whole anti-science, statist claim is so absurd that i have to admit i find it rather amusing. you’d have to be Very detached from the actual situation today to buy that one.

            it’s an overwhelming consensus of scientists telling us to move forward as fast as possible with clean energy such as solar and wind.

            it’s Big Business heads and a few hired hands telling us that we don’t need to.

            on corn ethanol: i’ve never been sold on that solution. that has consistently received support from both sides of the aisle (not a solely liberal or conservative sector of support).

            there is clearly an overwhelming amt of *scientific* evidence telling us to move fwd with wind and solar.

            but anyway, no need to pay attn to that, better to read a book by an extreme conservative with a political agenda and no scientific backing. :D

          • Bob_Wallace

            slave – I’m replying here to gain a bit more column width.

            First, your claim that those working to change our energy/transportation technologies “never consider the probability for unintended consequences” is categorically incorrect.  Side effects, unexpected consequences and economics are constantly discussed and addressed.

            We do need a variety of solutions.  No one disputes that.

            We cannot depend on private industry/the market to solve the problem.  They have had ample opportunity and they have not.  We do not have the luxury of waiting decades to start serious efforts.

            If your solution is to look at failures and walk away you will promote failure.  How many of our rockets failed before we learned how to send people to the Moon?

            You’re a small scale farmer.  Good for you.  I grew up in a farming family.

            Our farm enjoyed electricity brought to us by a government funded grid and generated by government built dams.  The part that came from coal enjoyed the government assisted railroads that brought that coal to the burner.  

            We transported our milk, grain and tobacco to market on government built roads.  We used a government provided monetary system to facilitate those sales.  We put our money in government secured banks.

            We made money on tobacco only because the government regulated the amount each farm could grow.  Tobacco was almost our total source of cash.

            When someone got really sick they were treated in a government built hospital.

            We relied on government provided weather forecasts in making the decision to cut hay or wait until a system passed.

            We got the education we needed in government provided schools.

            Get my point?

          • Bob_Wallace

            Enviro-statism.  That was a new one for me, so I google it.  Apparently it comes from a book by Mark Levin.

            “Science, broadly defined, is a door to knowledge. Although the Statist is found of accusing the Conservative of slamming the door shut, it is actually the Statist who abandons science – just as he abandons the laws of nature, reason, experience, economics, and modernity – when he promotes what can best be characterized as enviro-statism.”
            Isn’t that an interesting charge?

            Environmentalists have abandoned science.

            Environmentalists have abandoned the “laws of nature, reason, experience, economics, and modernity “.

            Wouldn’t you just love to see those claims proved?  Wouldn’t you just love to be able to haul that guy into court and collect when he was put into a position of proving or paying?

          • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

            That is hilarious. I had never run across the term, either.

            Hilarious, given that environmentalism has been closely tied to science from Day 1. And that it is only by ignoring important scientific findings in various fields that one can ignore the need for clean energy.

          • slave2liberty
          • Bob_Wallace

            slave –  Out of respect for liberty and other people’s money please build a bonfire in your front yard.

            On that bonfire toss your computer, you phone, your electrical appliances, any medications you might take, your car.

            Then out of respect for liberty and other people’s money please refrain from using public roads and public transportation.  Keep your children out of public schools and stay out of libraries.

            If someone breaks into your house please do not call the police.  In case of fire please do not call the fire department.

            If you get really sick, please respect liberty and other people’s money do not to the hospital but dig a hole in your back yard and crawl in.  Be sure to pull the dirt over yourself so that other’s don’t bear that expense.

            Oh, and have a nice “this man is an island” day….

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      the long tailpipe argument is a mistake, if not a dishonest attempt to falsely discredit EVs: 
      http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/16/a-short-tale-%E2%80%9Cthe-long-tailpipe%E2%80%9D/

      quite simply, the car itself is green.

      now, if one is really concerned about the source of the electricity, it’s still clear that an EV is cleaner almost anywhere:

      http://cleantechnica.com/2012/04/18/electric-vehicles-greenhouse-gas-emissions-save-money/ 

      and it can be made much cleaner by putting solar panels on one’s roof.don’t give yourself a headache you don’t need :D  

    • wheeler-in-life

      Interesting that your focus is strictly on how green this vehicle is … what do you drive?  And how are you working to help aleviate the disabled social isolation?