|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabledmotorists?
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. 's obvious, innit. In a previous thread, it was 'proved' that everyone always maintains downwad pressure on both pedals. If you only have one leg, you're not having to waste energy pushing the other one up, so you can go faster! HTH TL |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabled motorists?
Doug wrote:
On 11 Jun, 16:59, JNugent 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. - Nigel -- Nigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabled motorists?
Quoting Dave Larrington :
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. -- David Damerell Distortion Field! Today is Second Gloucesterday, June. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabled motorists?
Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Mark wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:13:13 +0100, Mark McNeill wrote: Going ever-so-slightly OT, hitting RANDOM got me http://xkcd.com/346/ which made me laugh till it hurt, which is pretty good going after only one coffee. Is it just me that has no idea what this is about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_Co...entos_eruption And a response to this, I think: http://webcomicssobad.blogspot.com/2007/11/xkcd.html -- Robin Johnson http://rdouglasjohnson.blogspot.com |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabled motorists?
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabled motorists?
Doug wrote:
On 12 Jun, 07:58, JNugent wrote: Rob Morley wrote: "Guy Ballantine" 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? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabled motorists?
Doug wrote:
On 11 Jun, 16:59, JNugent 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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabled motorists?
Nigel Cliffe wrote:
Doug wrote: On 11 Jun, 16:59, JNugent 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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabledmotorists?
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:58:28 +0100
JNugent wrote: Rob Morley wrote: "Guy Ballantine" 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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabledmotorists?
On 12 Jun, 15:54, "Nigel Cliffe" wrote:
Doug wrote: On 11 Jun, 16:59, JNugent 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/Disabled...ce/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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can SA 7sp coaster brake be safely disabled? | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | June 29th 06 04:17 AM |
No-frills bike for disabled son--update | [email protected] | General | 0 | June 4th 05 08:02 PM |
No-frills recumbent trike for disabled son | bfrey | General | 21 | March 22nd 05 06:27 AM |
Disabled mountain biking in Scotland. | David Martin | UK | 1 | February 20th 05 04:12 PM |
disabled swimmer | Nancy U | UK | 8 | August 3rd 04 10:19 PM |