Discrimination and Loss of "freedom of movement" for poor and disabled

[glasgowcyclist]

actually it does as long as your pedal doesn't catch

I think you're interpreting the law incorrectly to suggest that any cyclist is expected to ride so close to the kerb that his pedal only just clears it.

The Minnesota Driver's Manual gives a more reasonable reading of what's expected:

"• Bicyclists should travel just to the right of faster moving traffic. However, certain hazards such as rough surfaces, debris, drainage grates or a narrow traffic lane may require bicyclists to move toward the center of the lane. Bicyclists may also move out in the lane when passing another vehicle or when making a left. Bicyclists are allowed to ride two abreast. On a laned road, they must ride within a single lane."

Nowhere have I found a reference to support your interpretation of being forced to ride in the gutter.

Aren't you seeing a problem where none exists?

GC

 

[disabled rider]

I'd echo what 4F says - is there any way you can wheel the bike past the neighbours ? What is your mobility like off the bike ? I ask this as we've a number of paralympic cyclists in the UK who are world class athletes on the bike, but once 'off' the bike it's obvious to see their disabilities (i.e. mobility).

Is this just one or two people causing the problem ? TBH Police in the UK turn a complete blind eye to pavement cycling most of the time. Sounds like your local Police understand, but some 'locals' don't see it that way.

Do you stop and chat to those blocking your way so you can make them understand your situation. I assume they 'know you' so should understand you have disabilities.

BINGO!

You hit it right on the head.

I have gone into detail trying to deal with these people. There is no changing their views or understanding, even when management of our complex, / police supported my method of adaptation. Management has even tried explaining this to them that provided the greatest safety for all, and told them to leave me alone.

 

[Longshot]

There is a specific term given to laws not enforced, that are on the books. example it is law, that all men here in my state must have beards.
But its not enforced by the legal system in any way.
THink this will help clear it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenforced_law

I understand your suggestion but would argue that they are two different things. The law itself has not fallen away through lack of enforcement. You have experienced law enforcement officers overlooking that law in your case. That makes it no less a law.

I'm sure you'll explain to me why you're right and I'm wrong.

 

[MrJamie]

Being forced to ride in the gutter affects all riders though not just the disabled, why limit your minority group to only the disabled who are affected by it, if surely the majority of cyclists would agree with you if *you* werent excluding them?

The issues around not wanting to ride on roads with traffic, feeling safer on the pavement/sidewalk, not being good at shoulderchecking, doorzones (espeically USA by the sounds of it) also sound like things which all cyclists struggle with when they take to the roads.

Maybe im being dumb, but i don't see that a lot of this has anything to do with disability - Im unsure why you aren't able to cycle around like other cyclists, unless I missed that bit.

 

[disabled rider]

I think you're interpreting the law incorrectly to suggest that any cyclist is expected to ride so close to the kerb that his pedal only just clears it.

The Minnesota Driver's Manual gives a more reasonable reading of what's expected:

"• Bicyclists should travel just to the right of faster moving traffic. However, certain hazards such as rough surfaces, debris, drainage grates or a narrow traffic lane may require bicyclists to move toward the center of the lane. Bicyclists may also move out in the lane when passing another vehicle or when making a left. Bicyclists are allowed to ride two abreast. On a laned road, they must ride within a single lane."

Nowhere have I found a reference to support your interpretation of being forced to ride in the gutter.

Aren't you seeing a problem where none exists?

GC

there are two sets of rules governing bicycles. what you mentioned and the Minnesota statute 169.222 What I was trying to show is how 169.222 was conflicting with drivers manual. If it ever goes to court or enforced by police the 169.222 and local ordinance will be looked at, not the driver manual.
Subd. 4.Riding on roadway or shoulder.

(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(2) when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
(3) when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.(you have to move back to the curb once past the obstical and "c" plays in to this)
(b) If a bicycle is traveling on a shoulder of a roadway, the bicycle shall travel in the same direction as adjacent vehicular traffic.
(c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway or shoulder shall not ride more than two abreast and shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.. If your moving under 8 miles an hour your impeding traffic as far as drivers are concerned if your in the lane at all your impeding.at those low speeds.
(d) A person operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk, or across a roadway or shoulder on a crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal when necessary before overtaking and passing any pedestrian. No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within a business district unless permitted by local authorities. Local authorities may prohibit the operation of bicycles on any sidewalk or crosswalk under their jurisdiction.
(e) An individual operating a bicycle or other vehicle on a bikeway shall leave a safe distance when overtaking a bicycle or individual proceeding in the same direction on the bikeway, and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle or individual.
(f) A person lawfully operating a bicycle on a sidewalk, or across a roadway or shoulder on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

 

[disabled rider]

Being forced to ride in the gutter affects all riders though not just the disabled, why limit your minority group to only the disabled who are affected by it, if surely the majority of cyclists would agree with you if *you* werent excluding them?

The issues around not wanting to ride on roads with traffic, feeling safer on the pavement/sidewalk, not being good at shoulderchecking, doorzones (espeically USA by the sounds of it) also sound like things which all cyclists struggle with when they take to the roads.

Maybe im being dumb, but i don't see that a lot of this has anything to do with disability - Im unsure why you aren't able to cycle around like other cyclists, unless I missed that bit.

ok disability riders have a "greater risk" of getting killed by the negligent drivers 98% of the drivers are negligent around here simply by not following the proper passing method., than the able riders. is my point. I can't show you statistics, because there are so few of us riding and it may not be reported, that the person had a disability, that may have played a role in the accident, when hit by negligent drivers. When you allow us to use the sidewalks and abide by the pedestrian rules you drop that risk of death, more in par with the able rider. As long as that person abides by the pedestrian rule and never assumes they have right away, then the so called side walk statistics does not apply. If the statistics was correct about side walks, I should have been nailed many times over in a 6+ year time frame.

see being able to ride in the middle of the lane "which we can not do" would force said negligent drivers to do "Proper passing" by doing a "Full lane pass" riding in the gutter, negligent drivers don't think that they have to give the mandatory 3 ft clearance that is guaranteed to get us disabled riders killed. This is one of the reasons there are so few disabled riders out there except at races and purely recreational riding of trails that do not cross any streets. Our bike trails are pretty amazing in its ability to not have to get on the streets, when you ride the correct ones, problem is none of them even connect to the places of actual purpose. pure recreational not utility..

I am not saying there is no risk to able riders, I am saying it goes up exponentially for us. The risk needs to be reduced, by giving us permission to use the sidewalks in a manor of other disabled can.

When I linked to those scooters, I was trying to show that the speed issue isn't really justification to exclude by showing that other forms of transport that was given permission, goes at speeds that people claim bikes are going, that make them dangerous.

There had been times, when I was on the street and I am afraid to look over my shoulder, out of fear a truck, will knock my head off. Just because my head stuck out past the width of my shoulder a couple of inches.

I don't think your dumb, I think its just a case, never really thought about the impact or the level of risk vs other people.

Disabled rider and I got to go, return a library movie.

 

[disabled rider]

[QUOTE 2080240, member: 45"]Rider - you're talking to the wrong audience. We know what the issues are for disabled people.[/quote]
I Understand that What I am trying to encourage is you take action to correct them. in on that note, I think I have the right audience, who better to be our advocates of action for change, than those who enjoy cycling outside the sports version.?

 

[classic33]

I Understand that What I am trying to encourage is you take action to correct them. in on that note, I think I have the right audience, who better to be our advocates of action for change, than those who enjoy cycling outside the sports version.?

Speaking as a disabled rider, first things first.
First we get people to acknowledge the cyclist's. Then we get them to acknowledge that there may be some dis-abled cyclist's.
There are dis-abled car drivers, but many will only acknowledge them as car drivers. Not as dis-abled car drivers.

If you want to put dis-ability first, cyclist second. Then in my opinion, you are viewing the problem from the wrong angle.

 

[MrJamie]

ok disability riders have a "greater risk" of getting killed by the negligent drivers 98% of the drivers are negligent around here simply by not following the proper passing method.,
<huge snip>

That's what you've not conveyed to me at least... why are you at any greater risk than I, if for example I were to ride in Minnisota? It sounds to me that if i lived near you (as an able bodied non-driver) id have nearly the exact same problems and I don't understand how id be any safer. What I'm trying to say is that if your issue is really that the cycling laws/facilities are crap then it's an issue for all of your local cyclists to take up together with more weight behind it, irrespective of any disabilities. By the sounds of your arguement, if I lived in Minnisota id be quite annoyed if the disabled riders were allowed to cycle to the local facilities and hunting areas but i couldnt.

 

[MrJamie]

If you want to put dis-ability first, cyclist second. Then in my opinion, you are viewing the problem from the wrong angle.

Ahh, thats exactly what I was trying to get accross

 

[mangaman]

I wasn't talking to you DR. It was 'Mangaman' If you had looked properly, you would see that i qouted him in my post, thus refering to the comment he made.

Indeedy - sorry if I misread anything

 

[classic33]

I have to ask this, but do you actually cycle. As in do your feet propel you by them acting on the pedals alone. OR are they propelling you soley by being in contact with the ground. You have mentioned "three point contact" whilst cycling so I'm assuming from the wording used, by yourself, that at least one foot is in contact with the ground at all times. Hobby horse style.
You have also mentioned trikes, I had two of those in this avatar, suitable for load carrying. But limited to a safe top speed of around 12mph. It becomes a little twitchy above 15mph.

What about something like the above. You're going to be hard pressed to find a better machine for carrying a sizeable load. I've seen one which had been converted to hand cranking, whilst still keeping the pedals. Owner kept his feet off the ground with the pedals.

 

[mr_hippo]

Disabled rider and I got to go, return a library movie.

Do you have multi-personality disorder or is there more than one person sharing the nickname?
You talk about exclusion so how do you think I feel? I have raised some valid points and asked a few questions but you have ignored excluded me!

 

[ufkacbln]

To quote Dragon's Den - I'm out.

This seems more to me to be about an individual who wants to cycle on the pavements and his neighbours have asked the Police to stop him from doing so.

This has been seen as discriminatory, and I am afraid that I disagree from that point on.

 

[mattobrien]

I can't believe that this thread is still going. I have never seen so many words say so little.

There is no point to this thread any more, so I shall join the rest of the dragons and say I'm out.