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

[disabled rider]

In addition to this helpful bit of advice from Cyclopathic, have you considered making sense?

who are you talking too regard to making sense?

 

[black'n'yellow]

i was talking about "negligent drivers" and how you can not correct their driving behavior, unless you took there cars away from them.

Negligence is defined as 'failing to take proper care' - and as such there is probably US legislation which outlaws negligence while driving. There are certainly several laws which cover it in the UK.

Other than that, I just don't get what your issue is.

 

[mr_hippo]

Like "no bicycles on highway 52" this restricts poor, not rich. .

So if you are rich, you can cycle on Hwy 52? How rich do you have to be?

I AM THE ONLY POSTER TO MY PROFILE I LIVE ALONE. I DO NOT HAVE FRIENDS OR ACQUAINTANCES TO WHOM I ASSOCIATE WITH FREQUENTLY. NO ONE ELSE HAS ACCESS TO MY COMPUTER HERE OR REMOTELY

Are you a stranger to the truth? Please explain the following:-

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

 

[classic33]

I feel I understand what you feel you are saying. That being because you can no longer ride a bike on the pavement you are being discriminated against. This on the basis that you were allowed to do it before, why can't you do it now. It is discrmination, being because you are being told you have to obey the law. Laws were made for people, whatever their ability.

You do not understand what I said, "You see the driver not the dis-ability." You mis-quoted me, please don't do that again.

And you are discriminating & the sooner you realise it the better. Right from you're opening post you have been telling others what they cannot do with regards to your posts. That is discrimination, in my book.

"but excluding the deaf or mostly blind as having that same right", your words, which you have said you chose to use. "Excluding" is exclusion, you are now guilty on that part. You are deciding what others can & cannot do, based on your own opinions, regardless of the law. So long as it suits youself.

Suggestion from me to you is that check what you are saying is correct, stop shouting & start learning. Learning how not to exclude others & not to mis-quote others (by choosing which parts you want to listen to).

If you feel like taking the system on, do so. I've taken on Government under the then Disability Discrimination Act 1995. When the legislation was that new, the forms had to be ordered from the printers. Its not that easy & "letting off" on somewhere like this wasn't an option then. The outcome being that they were in the wrong, but the time taken to get it processed & the loss, literally, on the day of the hearing of the person responsible for the decision meant it couldn't be taken further.

 

[disabled rider]

I've been reading this thread (with difficulty, English as a third language for me!) for curiosity, it's good to know what happens outside the uk from, so to speak, the horse's mouth, not the BBC news

In a nutshell, it seems that the op's problems as a cyclist are the very same we face here, he thinks he's the only one in the world feeling pushed about on the road when on a bike.
I can assure him this is not so!

Disabled Rider, we cannot help, but we can keep you company.
If you read the commuting forum, you will see what the UK riders face every time they set out for work on their bike

Actually I did not believe I was the only disabled cyclist. Which is why I am here and not simply trying to get the city to make exemption for me alone , Which by the way would be much easier to do, than say trying to change a system that discriminates whole classes of individuals with needs.

When I talk about my situation as an example of the struggles many of us face. Not just me. It is very hard to get accurate statistics for the disabled community due to how disenfranchised we are. So people do not really see a problem when there is one. Normalization of the discrimination of exclusion is one of the biggest reason and the most devastating of all discrimination.

I was aware of the commute issue I am simply trying to get people to realize that by forcing a "higher level of risk of getting killed" On to a "protected" group of people is discrimination and thus not making or remove policy to reduce said risk to a level more par with the able riders. is "exclusion"

Your right that I think your struggles is the same over the pond. Whats that song..... back in the 80's around 83ish I think, with many singers from all walks of life singing a song that was meant to unite the people together I think it starts "we are the people....." Not sure if that is the title or it is a different title. That is what I think of with your post and my goals.
United in prosperity and inclusion for all.

 

[disabled rider]

So if you are rich, you can cycle on Hwy 52? How rich do you have to be?

Are you a stranger to the truth? Please explain the followong:-

I can tell you had no idea what I was talking about. The rich can afford a car thus they can go on 52. poor can't afford a car thus they can't go on 52 with their bike which is all they could afford. This infringes on the poor persons right of freedom of movement within our borders. We do not have the financial resources, to take the state to court, for its discriminatory policy.

It is not a safety issue on 52 10-12ft shoulder, outside of the city limits, to have bicyclist This is the excuse for forbidding cyclist/ poor from moving from point A to point B. especially if everyone involved was educated on proper right away etc. like cyclist gives right away to all traffic on highway proper. This way there is no confusion on who has right of way which is the main reason for accidents on highways involving cyclists..

The last one was, I was signing out. I had to leave to go return a movie, I checked out from a library, that was due that night. I got there minutes before the library closed. which is 3 blocks from here. There were a lot of people posting at that time, thus did not want to be rude and disappear suddenly. Think of it as saying good bye see you later. I just don't like saying "bye" I was leaving a reason for my sudden departure instead.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Are you a stranger to the truth? Please explain the followong:-

"
disabled rider said: ↑
Disabled rider and I got to go, return a library movie."

I suspect this is simply a matter of poor punctuation that is creating the wrong idea that there is more than one person.

GC

 

[mr_hippo]

Disabled rider - I do know what you are talking about but do you? Cyclists no matter their financial status are not allowed on Hwy 52 so it is nothing to do with wealth. I could say that motorists are discriminated against in the north of England - I can, and have, cycled the Leeds-Liverpool canal but motorists cannot do the same route.
Don't 'poor' people in the US drive cars?
As for your reason for the 'Disabled Rider and I' quote - words fail me!

 

[classic33]

You're aware that there are places you cannot go, by bike, and you claim discrimination now on the grounds of money. Only the rich can afford cars it seems.
You ride around on a 500 dollar bike, yet claim you do so on the grounds of being poor. I know of many who who would like to spend an equivalent amount on a bike over here.
You carry 200 pound deer & yourself on the bike, so I'm guessing all up weight of 350 pounds. Over a quarter of a ton, on two wheels. Yet you still want to ride on the pavement.

We have motorways over here, no pedal cycles, pedestrians or horse drawn vehicles allowed. Not many with a pedal cycle would attempt it. Some will however, and as you are now doing, say they've done it for years & no-one has said anything. I've disobeyed the lawful instruction of a police officer in order to avoid going onto a motorway.

GC.
Poor punctuation alone does not explain the wording being used. I suspect english is not the first language & tried to explain it that way, but it doesn't cover everything which is why I said I feel the choice of wording made it seem as though more than one person was posting/that the words being used were from more than one person.

 

[MrJamie]

Presumably "disabled rider and i gotta go" should have read more like "[I'm] Disabled Rider and I have to go".

I can tell you had no idea what I was talking about. The rich can afford a car thus they can go on 52. poor can't afford a car thus they can't go on 52 with their bike which is all they could afford. This infringes on the poor persons right of freedom of movement within our borders. We do not have the financial resources, to take the state to court, for its discriminatory policy.

I think the point was just that it's not discrimination because you are not treated differently by the laws, if you have a mobility scooter you too could ride on the sidewalk and if you have a bicycle that's for the road.

You have also not explained (as far as ive seen) why you personally are more at risk on the road than a non-disabled cyclist.

The issue regarding being too poor to travel restricts many people, there are a number of us on here (myself included) who don't own a car, so have some limitations on our transport too.

I think we get that your situation is difficult and that it was probably alright when the police turned a blind eye to the pavement cycling, but in 14 pages we haven't really got to why you need special allowances over other cyclists who may be disabled, poor or other.

 

[disabled rider]

Your to blinked to listen to anyone else. You have had a lot of good comments and advise, but your to fixated on what you want to hear or see to take any of it on board.

Once again this is the UK. The things that effect you do not effect the UK.

With that said, i am out. Not much point offering any help or advise to someone who is incapable to of seeing nothing but there own agenda.

The way we treat one another is the same Especially when dealing with people we think are ill in some fashion. Get rid of them Or as far away from them as possible. Its the hardwired instinct to shun the sick. This is the same regardless where. The Hard part is getting intellectual to override instinct.

I am still trying to get use to posting here when quoting it takes me to the end of the thread and I loose place where I left off.

During the time of writing post I forget which page I am on so back tracking is not straight forward to me.

I refuse to allow cookies due to tracking. I have issues with people using my movements And have been targeted maliciously based on the movement. Mostly advertisers etc, but I have companies making orders out in my name and sending me a bill as if I ordered it myself, Then threaten to destroy my credit if I don't pay up.. Illegal Marketing strategy not identity theft.

Some one gave advice about different groups in MN Just because I don't post I intend to look into it doesn't mean I ignored the advice.

But others Like MCF I pointed out why I wouldn't as a means to get others to realize that I looked into that one prior or had looked into it after suggestion, but realized why it wouldn't help.. MCF is focused on SPORT racing and Marathon, Here is focused on all aspects of cycling. I don't ride Marathon Or sport cycle I ride utility purpose of cycling.

Would you follow advice if it did not fit your needs?? That is a bit of wasted time isn't it?

I don't just have the one agenda of getting policy changed for just my needs. My over all agenda was to motivate others into taking actions in their communities to include those in similar situations as myself , In to their communities. by being more aware to those individuals needs and adapting policy and rule to minimize the risk to them that does not force excessive routes that involves many miles or forcing them into situations where the danger to their lives goes up exponentially compared to the able body..

Equality act is NOT perfect. If it was, I would not be hearing about all the abuse going on, when dealing with people with impairments. especially the hostility by government and media that goaded the public into harassing the impaired people. Governments goal was to cut services to the people with impairments. By giving false information about those who were receiving services. like accusing free loader etc.


Also Like to point out when I am writing a long post I can not read other posts till I am finished. so some of those suggestions were being made when I could not physically see them. I have read them Once I have posted.

The one suggestion that actually had relevance to my specific needs was the Minnesota advisory one. But it does not help really help others in my shoes. in other communities.

Problem with most of the confusion is everyone seamed to be in TO MUCH HURRY trying to force me to hurry and as a result I was less organized than I could be.

My mistake was I caved in. rather than take it step at a time.

People really can't understand things from another person perspective, without all the details, many think is TMI. Not enough information or clearly organizations leads to BAD ADVICE, BAD SOLUTIONS because factors were not considered, when they had relevance.
Sorry for the following example to be about smoking instead of cycling. It just happens to be the one that pops to mind when trying to explain the point about "sharing all of the details" is important, when trying to get advice or setting policies.
Here is not enough information example of not enough information to make a good policy.

Should we bann smoking from the building
1 smoking is bad.
2.secondhand smoke is worse.
3 smokers smoke in their apartments.

Here is a lot of information that appears to be TMI but has relevance not everyone sees.
1. smoking is bad
2.second hand smoking is worse.
3 smokers smoke in their apartments.
4 people with respiratory problems have major health complications when exposed to second hand smoking.
5 the building is drafty.
6 The smoke from one apartment penetrates another apartment.
7 Smoking near a gas main is explosive hazard
8 smoking near the air intake to the building causes second hand smoke to penetrate apartments where sensitive people live.
9. smoking on traffic areas causes breathing problems for those walking by.
10 smoking on the balcony causes second hand smoke problems for those trying to exit the building via stairs or in their apartments.
11 smoking in the stairwell causes problems for those exerting while using the stairs.

Point of the example is based on the to little info bad policy would have been "not to ban smoking" or "limiting smoking to the outdoor common areas."
Both would be bad for every one but the smoker.

with the "more info" we can see the dangers smoking imposes on others in many areas thus a ban is put in place with designated smoking areas far enough from the building and far enough of the traffic path so as not to harm the health of non smokers.

eThis example is the reason I have a lot of info. And If I had not been so rushed I could have broken it apart and organized it better in steps. Which would have allowed you folks to give better more meaningful suggestions and followed my train of though easier.. Or have better understanding of the problem so as to know what to look for in your community, and better understanding on how it could be fixed, by being made aware that there is a problem, and how that problem harms certain people by exclusion "shunning of the sick" in case of the thread..,

 

[classic33]

So its KISS you're after!
That being the case here goes.
Does the law state clearly that a bicycle may not/cannot be ridden on the pavement?
If yes, then it will apply to all, regardless of ability or ability to pay for alternate means of transport. Get off & push.

 

[on the road]

I can tell you had no idea what I was talking about. The rich can afford a car thus they can go on 52. poor can't afford a car thus they can't go on 52 with their bike which is all they could afford. This infringes on the poor persons right of freedom of movement within our borders. We do not have the financial resources, to take the state to court, for its discriminatory policy.

So you're saying the rich don't ride bikes because they can afford cars?

I would assume some of those rich people also have bikes and are subject to the same restrictions as you, like not being allowed to ride on highway 52.

 

[disabled rider]

You're aware that there are places you cannot go, by bike, and you claim discrimination now on the grounds of money. Only the rich can afford cars it seems.
You ride around on a 500 dollar bike, yet claim you do so on the grounds of being poor. I know of many who who would like to spend an equivalent amount on a bike over here.
You carry 200 pound deer & yourself on the bike, so I'm guessing all up weight of 350 pounds. Over a quarter of a ton, on two wheels. Yet you still want to ride on the pavement.

We have motorways over here, no pedal cycles, pedestrians or horse drawn vehicles allowed. Not many with a pedal cycle would attempt it. Some will however, and as you are now doing, say they've done it for years & no-one has said anything. I've disobeyed the lawful instruction of a police officer in order to avoid going onto a motorway.

GC.
Poor punctuation alone does not explain the wording being used. I suspect english is not the first language & tried to explain it that way, but it doesn't cover everything which is why I said I feel the choice of wording made it seem as though more than one person was posting/that the words being used were from more than one person.

OK I can tell you have no inkling Of anything I am talking about. Because of this DO NOT assume you know what I am thinking or try to interpret what I am saying using your own words.

By doing so you are completely changing what it is I been saying.

I can also tell your selective reading. I have explained in details as to my struggles about writing.. I KNOW I have difficulty writing. I POINTED it out I have difficulties. I also explained WHY I have difficulties.

Punctuation difficulties is not same thing as LEARNING DISABILITY. What your seeing is a symptom of the learning disability in action. Stop assuming and simply ask me "Why is your wring so hard to understand?" I have already given that answer.

based On what you wrote about your interpretation of what I wrote. You do not understand or can not comprehend what it is I said in actuality.

I am not advising opening say the Autobahn to cyclists. any cyclist is dead when dealing with drivers doing in excess of 115 not enough response time for the driver.

There are other major roads between places similar to 52.

63 I would not advocate because there is NO shoulder, and Is hilly.

I mentioned using a utility bike or bike with trailer which also indicates you really did not understand what I was talking about or didn't actually read critical posts. bike and trailer is 4 wheels. trailer rated 175 bike rated 325 combined its about 400- 475 depending on load placement. If you balance the load perfectly over the axle of the trailer, you get 500

I only refer to 52 is that is the highway where there is space that I am familiar. but It is not the only highway in the world that is like it.

I never assumed to know your road lay out, I had advised you folks to review your own roads and policy to ensure that the policy isn't being discriminatory based on false beliefs that oh its not safe, when it has wide shoulders and doesn't have sound barriers or retaining walls etc That would in actuality make it unsafe.

Making a blanket policy about all highways is not good.

but having a policy that if certain criteria are met then yes allow bikes, also keep in mind where they go and is there another CLOSE option few miles, NOT dozens.

Did I ever say you need to make every highway open to cyclist??? NO

Another thing you made a fatal mistake in regards to poor comparison. You compared me to someone in your community.
After I got done explaining what poor was. People within the "SAME community Sharing the SAME "cost of living"
I also had showed why you can't use your understanding of it through the African example comparison.


To our cost of living here vs other people here. You are considered extremely poor. If the highest level of transport you can afford is a bicycle of $500 or less. Riding a bus or cab here is FAR MORE EXPENSIVE. over the life time of the bicycle.
Average American made bike is in excess of $1000, not the imported stuff. Imported stuff is mainly priced off the cost of living of cheap labor over seas. That $1000+ is based on the cost of living here.

With my bike I have spent its life time about 5 - 6 years I maybe spent total $700-800ish(including replacement tires tubes cables seat etc.) ALL OF my transport needs. appointments, entertainment, cargo transporting, shopping, recreational riding, everything that involves going from point a to point b when leaving the building. When you take all of that in to account with cost of living. It was almost nothing. No luck at all.

your comparison would be valid, if I moved to Africa and kept by disability insurance. Then I could live as a king by their standards. My money could buy a hell of a lot more there. Then yes I would be lucky Because I could probably buy a African car , and fuel for the year, for 500$

 

[disabled rider]

So you're saying the rich don't ride bikes because they can afford cars?

I would assume some of those rich people also have bikes and are subject to the same restrictions as you, like not being allowed to ride on highway 52.

Your flipping it and has nothing to do with what I said.

rich can afford a car Poor can not Therefore rich can go on 52 poor can not. The rich owning a bike has nothing to do with it when it involves the right to "freedom of movement."

rich can travel between the cities and past Rochester poor would be stuck within the city they live, because they can not afford a car but can a bicycle or walk.

I do not know how much more I can simplify it either your goading me or have comprehension issues. I don't know which, I can not read your body language through text, to determine that..

"So you're saying the rich don't ride bikes because they can afford cars?" This has nothing to do with anything I actually said. This is either a comprehension issue of yours or a goading comment.

Disabled rider signing out dinner time I am hungry.