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

JNugent

Doug wrote:
> On 12 Jun, 07:58, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>> "Guy Ballantine" <nospamoliver-jo...@lineone.net> 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?

JNugent

Doug wrote:
> On 11 Jun, 16:59, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Not only are disabled cyclists not generally recognised as such and
>>> are banned from many areas where wheelchair users are allowed but they
>>> are also excluded from many of the benefits enjoyed by disabled
>>> motorists, such as the following.
>> [snip]
>>
>> No, you're wrong.
>>
>> The fact that a particular person owned a bicycle would not prevent them
>> (if disabled) from being eligible for a car under the Motability scheme
>> (or whatever it's now called).
>>
>> So they'd be treated exactly the same as anyone else.
>>
> What if they didn't have a driving licence and didn't want to go
> through the rigmarole of getting one? Or, they had tried many times
> and failed?

Then the car would be of less use to them. But another person might be
able to use it to transport the disabled person (for all I know).

> The point is this, a disabled driver can stick a wheelchair in the
> boot of their car and is free to go loads of places where disabled
> cyclists are not allowed and the driver can get financial benefits
> that are denied cyclists.

The cyclist can have exactly the same benefits. What matters is what
help is needed - not whether the disabled person has "cyclist" or
"motorist" tattooed on the soles of their feet.

JNugent

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 11 Jun, 16:59, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> Not only are disabled cyclists not generally recognised as such and
>>>> are banned from many areas where wheelchair users are allowed but
>>>> they are also excluded from many of the benefits enjoyed by disabled
>>>> motorists, such as the following.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> No, you're wrong.
>>> The fact that a particular person owned a bicycle would not prevent
>>> them (if disabled) from being eligible for a car under the
>>> Motability scheme (or whatever it's now called).
>>> So they'd be treated exactly the same as anyone else.
>
>> What if they didn't have a driving licence and didn't want to go
>> through the rigmarole of getting one? Or, they had tried many times
>> and failed?

> They can still get a Motability car and ask someone else to drive. Standard
> arrangement is that the car is covered for two other nominated drivers. I'm
> sure it could be extended to others if necessary.
>
> Much like an able bodied person who is unable/unwilling to drive is free to
> buy a car, tax and insure it, and then ask someone else to drive them
> around.

> The difference is that the disabled person gets benefits to help with their
> mobility, whereas the able bodied do not. (and quite rightly, that's one of
> the better uses for the taxes I pay).

>> The point is this, a disabled driver can stick a wheelchair in the
>> boot of their car and is free to go loads of places where disabled
>> cyclists are not allowed and the driver can get financial benefits
>> that are denied cyclists.
>
> The Motability scheme allows a person to convert their Higher Rate Mobility
> Component (HRMC) of the Disability Living Allowance into a leased car. The
> recipient of HRMC is not obliged to use their HRMC to get a car, instead
> they could spend it, for example, on taxi fares, or a cycle or pogo sticks.

> You seem to be arguing with a lack of basic research.

Best answer yet.

Rob Morley

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:58:28 +0100
JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
>
> > "Guy Ballantine" <nospamoliver-jones@lineone.net> 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 the interiors of shops and supermarkets. And the end of the row
> in a theatre or cinema.

I wouldn't find a bike useful in those situations, but I would in
pedestrianised shopping areas.

> And railway platforms (believe it or not, but
> someone recently suggested that cyclists should be allowed to cycle
> along the platforms!).

I think there are situations in which it's reasonable and useful to
cycle on railway platforms. You obviously don't.

Doug

On 12 Jun, 15:54, "Nigel Cliffe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 11 Jun, 16:59, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> Not only are disabled cyclists not generally recognised as such and
> >>> are banned from many areas where wheelchair users are allowed but
> >>> they are also excluded from many of the benefits enjoyed by disabled
> >>> motorists, such as the following.
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> No, you're wrong.
>
> >> The fact that a particular person owned a bicycle would not prevent
> >> them (if disabled) from being eligible for a car under the
> >> Motability scheme (or whatever it's now called).
>
> >> So they'd be treated exactly the same as anyone else.
>
> > What if they didn't have a driving licence and didn't want to go
> > through the rigmarole of getting one? Or, they had tried many times
> > and failed?
>
> They can still get a Motability car and ask someone else to drive. Standard
> arrangement is that the car is covered for two other nominated drivers. I'm
> sure it could be extended to others if necessary.
>
What if they live on their own and don't want to have to rely on
someone else every time they need to go out?
>
> Much like an able bodied person who is unable/unwilling to drive is free to
> buy a car, tax and insure it, and then ask someone else to drive them
> around.
>
> The difference is that the disabled person gets benefits to help with their
> mobility, whereas the able bodied do not. (and quite rightly, that's one of
> the better uses for the taxes I pay).
>
But, again, why do disabled motorists seem to get more help than
disabled cyclists?
>
> > The point is this, a disabled driver can stick a wheelchair in the
> > boot of their car and is free to go loads of places where disabled
> > cyclists are not allowed and the driver can get financial benefits
> > that are denied cyclists.
>
> The Motability scheme allows a person to convert their Higher Rate Mobility
> Component (HRMC) of the Disability Living Allowance into a leased car. The
> recipient of HRMC is not obliged to use their HRMC to get a car, instead
> they could spend it, for example, on taxi fares, or a cycle or pogo sticks.
>
Looking at

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Disable...nce/DG_10028000

It specifically mentions cars, powered wheelchairs or scooters.
Nothing about cycles.
>
> You seem to be arguing with a lack of basic research.
>
You seem to be arguing without any thought at all for some of the
problems faced by some of the the disabled. Even if they are allowed
to spend their HRMC or a grant on a cycle, which is questionable,
disabled cyclists are still banned from many places that motorists
with wheelchairs can go.

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

Doug

On 12 Jun, 16:17, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 12 Jun, 07:58, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >> Rob Morley wrote:
> >>> "Guy Ballantine" <nospamoliver-jo...@lineone.net> 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.

So what is the other one then?

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

Nigel Cliffe

Doug wrote:
> On 12 Jun, 15:54, "Nigel Cliffe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 11 Jun, 16:59, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>> The Motability scheme allows a person to convert their Higher Rate
>> Mobility Component (HRMC) of the Disability Living Allowance into a
>> leased car. The recipient of HRMC is not obliged to use their HRMC
>> to get a car, instead they could spend it, for example, on taxi
>> fares, or a cycle or pogo sticks.
>>
> Looking at
>
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Disable...nce/DG_10028000
>
> It specifically mentions cars, powered wheelchairs or scooters.
> Nothing about cycles.
>>
>> You seem to be arguing with a lack of basic research.
>>
> You seem to be arguing without any thought at all for some of the
> problems faced by some of the the disabled. Even if they are allowed
> to spend their HRMC or a grant on a cycle, which is questionable,

Its completely clear. DLA is outlined at:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Disable...ort/DG_10011731
DLA is paid into the recipients bank account. HMRC (the money which many use
for a Motability leased car) is a component of DLA. Clearly the recipient
can spend it as they wish.




- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

JNugent

Doug wrote:
> On 12 Jun, 15:54, "Nigel Cliffe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 11 Jun, 16:59, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Not only are disabled cyclists not generally recognised as such and
>>>>> are banned from many areas where wheelchair users are allowed but
>>>>> they are also excluded from many of the benefits enjoyed by disabled
>>>>> motorists, such as the following.
>>>> [snip]
>>>> No, you're wrong.
>>>> The fact that a particular person owned a bicycle would not prevent
>>>> them (if disabled) from being eligible for a car under the
>>>> Motability scheme (or whatever it's now called).
>>>> So they'd be treated exactly the same as anyone else.
>>> What if they didn't have a driving licence and didn't want to go
>>> through the rigmarole of getting one? Or, they had tried many times
>>> and failed?
>> They can still get a Motability car and ask someone else to drive. Standard
>> arrangement is that the car is covered for two other nominated drivers. I'm
>> sure it could be extended to others if necessary.
>>
> What if they live on their own and don't want to have to rely on
> someone else every time they need to go out?
>> Much like an able bodied person who is unable/unwilling to drive is free to
>> buy a car, tax and insure it, and then ask someone else to drive them
>> around.
>>
>> The difference is that the disabled person gets benefits to help with their
>> mobility, whereas the able bodied do not. (and quite rightly, that's one of
>> the better uses for the taxes I pay).
>>
> But, again, why do disabled motorists seem to get more help than
> disabled cyclists?
>>> The point is this, a disabled driver can stick a wheelchair in the
>>> boot of their car and is free to go loads of places where disabled
>>> cyclists are not allowed and the driver can get financial benefits
>>> that are denied cyclists.
>> The Motability scheme allows a person to convert their Higher Rate Mobility
>> Component (HRMC) of the Disability Living Allowance into a leased car. The
>> recipient of HRMC is not obliged to use their HRMC to get a car, instead
>> they could spend it, for example, on taxi fares, or a cycle or pogo sticks.
>>
> Looking at
>
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Disable...nce/DG_10028000
>
> It specifically mentions cars, powered wheelchairs or scooters.
> Nothing about cycles.
>> You seem to be arguing with a lack of basic research.
>>
> You seem to be arguing without any thought at all for some of the
> problems faced by some of the the disabled. Even if they are allowed
> to spend their HRMC or a grant on a cycle, which is questionable,
> disabled cyclists are still banned from many places that motorists
> with wheelchairs can go.

"Motorists with wheelchairs"?

How about "people with wheelchairs"?

JNugent

Doug wrote:
> On 12 Jun, 16:17, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 12 Jun, 07:58, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>>>> "Guy Ballantine" <nospamoliver-jo...@lineone.net> 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).

> 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.

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).

JNugent

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:58:28 +0100
> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>
>>> "Guy Ballantine" <nospamoliver-jones@lineone.net> 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 the interiors of shops and supermarkets. And the end of the row
>> in a theatre or cinema.
>
> 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. Live
with it.

>> And railway platforms (believe it or not, but
>> someone recently suggested that cyclists should be allowed to cycle
>> along the platforms!).
>
> I think there are situations in which it's reasonable and useful to
> cycle on railway platforms. You obviously don't.

I don't care how "useful" the cyclist may find it. It would be too
dangerous for others.

Mark

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:36:24 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>Rob Morley wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:58:28 +0100
>> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Guy Ballantine" <nospamoliver-jones@lineone.net> 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 the interiors of shops and supermarkets. And the end of the row
>>> in a theatre or cinema.
>>
>> 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. Live
>with it.

But pedestrian areas often allow delivery vehicles and even busses and
taxis sometimes .... but not bicycles. And we all know bicycles are
much more dangerous than white vans. The Daily Mail said so.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

JNugent

Mark wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:36:24 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:58:28 +0100
>>> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Guy Ballantine" <nospamoliver-jones@lineone.net> 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 the interiors of shops and supermarkets. And the end of the row
>>>> in a theatre or cinema.
>>> 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. Live
>> with it.
>
> But pedestrian areas often allow delivery vehicles and even busses and
> taxis sometimes .... but not bicycles. And we all know bicycles are
> much more dangerous than white vans. The Daily Mail said so.
>

JNugent

Mark wrote:

> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>>>> "Guy Ballantine" <nospamoliver-jones@lineone.net> 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 the interiors of shops and supermarkets. And the end of the row
>>>> in a theatre or cinema.

>>> 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. Live
>> with it.

> But pedestrian areas often allow delivery vehicles and even busses and
> taxis sometimes .... but not bicycles.

Delivery vehicles are essential to shopping areas (whether
pedestrianised or not). Bikes aren't. Unfortunately, due to the laws of
nature and the historical growth of most urban areas, some
pedestrianised zones cannot have specialised separate access for
delivery and other essential vehicles - particulrly true where the zone
consists simply of a network of town-centre streets as opposed to a
new-build multi-level "shopping centre". That is a disadvantage, but one
which is insurmountable unless deliveries are banned (or only allowed at
dead of night). I agree with you that no streets should be closed to
certain classes of traffic (unless the banned traffic consists of
particularly large vehicles unsuited to the conditions). If an area is
"too dangerous" for bikes and cars, it's also too dangerous for buses
and lorries.

But buses and taxis travelling thrugh pedestrian-areas?

Really?

Or do you mean they use streets which traverse otherwise pedestrian-only
areas in which private transport (including bikes) is prohibited?

I can see the argument for that, even though I don't agree with it.

Tim Hall

On 12 Jun 2008 15:59:14 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Quoting Dave Larrington <smert.spamionam@privacy.net>:
>>One Kevin Hickman has but one leg, yet has still managed an SR series on a
>>normal bike. I met him on last year's Cheddar Gorge 300, where he proved
>>embarrassingly faster up hills with a single leg than I could manage with
>>two.
>
>Well, he's light for his height and build, but with the same
>cardiovascular system as two-legged people.


But he'd be useless as Tarzan.
--

Tim

I understand very little of what's being discussed
but for some reason it's fascinating.

(Jon Thompson, urs)