Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabled motorists?

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:36:24 +0100
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't find a bike useful in those situations, but I would in
> > pedestrianised shopping areas.
>
> I don't care how "useful" the cyclist may find it. It would be too
> dangerous for others. A pedestrianised area is for... pedestrians.

And mobility scooters that charge around with no consideration for
pedestrians. I could legally use one of those, so why not a bike?

 

[JNugent]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:36:24 +0100
> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>> I wouldn't find a bike useful in those situations, but I would in
>>> pedestrianised shopping areas.
>> I don't care how "useful" the cyclist may find it. It would be too
>> dangerous for others. A pedestrianised area is for... pedestrians.
>
> And mobility scooters that charge around with no consideration for
> pedestrians. I could legally use one of those, so why not a bike?

And mobility scooters that charge around with no consideration for
pedestrians. I could legally use one of those, so why not a Jaguar XJS
or a Renault Megane?

Because users of mobility scooters can't walk (very far). The rest of us
don't have that difficulty.

How about you?

 

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:37:52 +0100
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Because users of mobility scooters can't walk (very far). The rest of
> us don't have that difficulty.
>
> How about you?

I don't walk very well but I don't usually have a problem cycling.
In fact cycling is usually more comfortable than driving (or just
sitting in one position for long).

 

[Doug]

On 13 Jun, 10:34, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 12 Jun, 16:17, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 12 Jun, 07:58, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Rob Morley wrote:
> >>>>> "Guy Ballantine" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> In your first paragraph you say that cyclists are banned from areas
> >>>>>> that a wheelchair can go. Like where?
> >>>>> Pedestrianised shopping areas.
> >>>> True.
> >>> And more.
> >>>> And the interiors of shops and supermarkets. And the end of the row in a
> >>>> theatre or cinema. And railway platforms (believe it or not, but someone
> >>>> recently suggested that cyclists should be allowed to cycle along the
> >>>> platforms!).
> >>> And what if they can cycle but find walking extremely painful due to
> >>> the extra weight on their leg joints which is otherwise avoided by a
> >>> saddle? There are very long railways platforms around these days.
> >> Can you not think of at least two separate good reasons for not allowing
> >> cycling on railway platforms?
> > So why not name them? If one of them is that the cyclist might fall on
> > the railway lines at speed, exactly the same applies to a manual
> > wheelchair, which is allowed on platforms.
>
> That is true. But the cycle is capable of much higher speeds and is much
> less inherently stable than a four-wheel vehicle, meaning that the
> likelihood of an over-the-edge-of-the-platform accident is much higher,
> whilst additionally, wheelchair users, if banned from railway platforms,
> would simply be unable to access railway trains, whereas a cyclist, by
> definition, has to be able to move independently of the bicycle and so
> has to be capable of accessing the railway on foot (unless it is your
> belief that it is possible for completely immobile people - eg,
> quadraplegics - to ride bicycles).
>
Some wheelchair users are able to walk short distances, just like
disabled cyclists, and manual wheelchairs can be quite fast too. What
about trikes then, they are fairly stable but are banned from
platforms?
>
> > So what is the other one then?
>
> The other one is even more obvious, and for a South Londoner, you seem
> to have forgotten that many railway platforms are very crowded places. A
> bicycle ridden on the platform (especially at the moment a train is
> approaching) would represent a completely unacceptable risk to innocent
> others. Be pushed in front of a moving train and it's game over.
>
Same applies to wheelchairs on crowded platforms.
>
> Anyone who would advocate allowing cycling on railway platforms must be
> mad or sociopathic (yes, I know one is a sub-set of ther other).
>
And those who discriminate against disabled cyclists are bigots.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

 

[Doug]

On 13 Jun, 22:37, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:36:24 +0100
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Rob Morley wrote:
> >>> I wouldn't find a bike useful in those situations, but I would in
> >>> pedestrianised shopping areas.
> >> I don't care how "useful" the cyclist may find it. It would be too
> >> dangerous for others. A pedestrianised area is for... pedestrians.
>
> > And mobility scooters that charge around with no consideration for
> > pedestrians. I could legally use one of those, so why not a bike?
>
> And mobility scooters that charge around with no consideration for
> pedestrians. I could legally use one of those, so why not a Jaguar XJS
> or a Renault Megane?
>
> Because users of mobility scooters can't walk (very far). The rest of us
> don't have that difficulty.
>
> How about you?
>
Disabled cyclists can't walk very far either that is why they are
disabled.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

 

[Doug]

On 14 Jun, 00:47, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:37:52 +0100
>
> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Because users of mobility scooters can't walk (very far). The rest of
> > us don't have that difficulty.
>
> > How about you?
>
> I don't walk very well but I don't usually have a problem cycling.
> In fact cycling is usually more comfortable than driving (or just
> sitting in one position for long).
>
Indeed.

As I have already pointed out, the saddle takes most of the weight
which would otherwise be on the leg joints when walking. The problem
with disabled cyclists is that they are usually banned at the other
end of their journey and have to dismount and walk regardless of their
condition. Disabled drivers can park up for free, get out their
wheelchairs and go around railway stations, pavements and
pedestrianised areas from which cyclists are banned.

--
Carfree Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
and public transport.

 

[JNugent]

Rob Morley wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Because users of mobility scooters can't walk (very far). The rest of
>> us don't have that difficulty.

>> How about you?

> I don't walk very well but I don't usually have a problem cycling.
> In fact cycling is usually more comfortable than driving (or just
> sitting in one position for long).

You can't make laws which apply so adversely to the general because of
the views (or needs) abberrant particular.

Allowing cycling on railway platforms is an idea which could only occur
(as a runner) to the insane. It would undoubtedly cause many deaths of
innocent pedestrian railway-users. That - I have no doubt - is why it is
banned. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

I can guess what's coming next - so please don't bother to try to
instance a case of a disabled cyclist who finds it difficult to walk and
whose nose was lost in a horrific attack by a Rottweiller.

 

[Doug]

On 14 Jun, 09:44, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Because users of mobility scooters can't walk (very far). The rest of
> >> us don't have that difficulty.
> >> How about you?
> > I don't walk very well but I don't usually have a problem cycling.
> > In fact cycling is usually more comfortable than driving (or just
> > sitting in one position for long).
>
> You can't make laws which apply so adversely to the general because of
> the views (or needs) abberrant particular.
>
How would allowing disabled cyclists the same rights as disabled
motorists/wheelchair users be adverse?
>
> Allowing cycling on railway platforms is an idea which could only occur
> (as a runner) to the insane. It would undoubtedly cause many deaths of
> innocent pedestrian railway-users. That - I have no doubt - is why it is
> banned. It's as plain as the nose on your face.
>
The same applies to manual and electric wheelchairs but they are not
banned from platforms and what about the rest of of mainline stations?

Also you haven't commented on the other places where disabled cyclists
ae banned?


--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.