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

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

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/

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.

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

wrote:
On Jun 11, 5:26 pm, JNugent wrote:
Ekul Namsob wrote:
JNugent wrote:
But why would a *disabled* person want a VAT-free *bicycle* when they
could get a car for almost nothing?
The last time I checked, the running costs of a bicycle were
significantly less than the running costs of a car.
Yes, but there's the question of the disabled person being fit enough to
ride a bicycle, which is more physically demanding than sitting at the
wheel of a car.

Why should it follow that a disabled person is unfit?

Quite right - good point.

Read "fit" as "able".

It seems to me that a lack of "able-bodiedness" which is sufficient to
justify the handing out of a "free" car paid for by one's fellow
citizens sort of implies that activities which require significant
effort are beyond the normal capabilities of the recipient of that
assistance.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.