Disabled cyclist denied access to Brighton Pier.

JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 16 Aug, 09:26, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
Imagine my surprise when walking my diminutive folding bike towards
the entrance to the pier I was denied access. Most people are
unaware that disabled cyclists are widely discriminated against,
compared to say manual and motorised wheelchair users, but at
least disabled cyclists are allowed to wheel their bikes in such
places as railways stations and along pavements.
I suffer from a condition that makes walking difficult and painful
but much less so with cycling. Also, walking the bike has similar
benefits to using a walking frame. Still, I did have the
consolation of not parting with my money to the traders on the
pier. Doug.
You were not denied access, your bicycle was, this may well be
partly because of the IRA Brighton bombing attempt in 1994 which
used bicycle borne bombs.

Bicycles are also a major safety problem as a trip hazard in the
event of an emergency evacuation due to fire or other disaster, and
piers have often caught fire. Rather like the same way you would
not be allowed to take a bicycle into a cinema

I applaud the staff that turned you away in order to safeguard
others.
In exactly the same way wheelchairs can prevent a problem but they
are allowed on the pier. Hence the discrimination against disabled
cyclists.

What problem - other than the obvious lack of mobility of their users
- do wheelchairs prevent?

I think he intended to write 'present' rather than prevent.
Disabled cyclists (which must be quite a small number of people nationwide)
could always bring sticks to use in areas where bicycles are not a good idea
or banned.
Brighton pier is privately owned, so really they can ban any item they like,
especially if it represents a massive safety hazard (like a bicycle)

Mrcheerful wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 16 Aug, 09:26, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

[ ... ]

I applaud the staff that turned you away in order to safeguard
others.

In exactly the same way wheelchairs can prevent a problem but they
are allowed on the pier. Hence the discrimination against disabled
cyclists.

What problem - other than the obvious lack of mobility of their users
- do wheelchairs prevent?

I think he intended to write 'present' rather than prevent.

OK...

Disabled cyclists (which must be quite a small number of people nationwide)
could always bring sticks to use in areas where bicycles are not a good idea
or banned.
Brighton pier is privately owned, so really they can ban any item they like,
especially if it represents a massive safety hazard (like a bicycle)

Quite.

Mind you - they *could* provide a bike parking place at the entrance and rent
out wheelchairs to "disabled cyclists" desperate to use the pier.

Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 17:54, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 16 Aug, 09:43, webreader wrote:
On Aug 16, 9:40 am, maresh wrote:

On Aug 16, 7:29 am, Doug wrote:

Imagine my surprise when walking my diminutive folding bike
towards the entrance to the pier I was denied access. Most
people are unaware that disabled cyclists are widely
discriminated against, compared to say manual and motorised
wheelchair users, but at least disabled cyclists are allowed to
wheel their bikes in such places as railways stations and along
pavements.

I suffer from a condition that makes walking difficult and
painful but much less so with cycling. Also, walking the bike
has similar benefits to using a walking frame. Still, I did have
the consolation of not parting with my money to the traders on
the pier.

Doug.

Bicycles are obviously considered a danger & an inconvience on the
peir, so they are banned.

If cycles were allowed on the pier cyclist would be riding them
not pushing them.

If cyclists behaved in a better manner then perhaps such bans
would not be in place.

They have brought it on themselves, you only have to see the
amount of pavement cycling that happens in Brighton to know the
reason.

Indeed.
Did you cycle on the pavement while you were there Doug?

Fortunately Brighton is very cycle friendly, except for the pier,
and has a wide shared pavement along the length of the front.

I don't think so;

"Inspector James Biggs, of the Sussex Police road policing unit at
Hove, said: "Our communities in Brighton and Hove are regularly
raising concerns about anti-social cycling, where cyclists are
cycling on pavements, having no regard for red traffic lights and
cycling without lights at night".

"This behaviour puts both the cyclists and other road users at risk
and we will respond robustly to anyone found committing such
offences."

Well of course the police are not friendly, they never are.

Which bit of "Our communities in Brighton and Hove" didn't you understand?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

On 17 Aug, 19:17, JNugent wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 16 Aug, 09:26, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

[ ... ]

I applaud the staff that turned you away in order to safeguard
others.
In exactly the same way wheelchairs can prevent a problem but they
are allowed on the pier. Hence the discrimination against disabled
cyclists.
What problem - other than the obvious lack of mobility of their users
- do wheelchairs prevent?
I think he intended to write 'present' rather than prevent.

OK...

Disabled cyclists (which must be quite a small number of people nationwide)
could always bring sticks to use in areas where bicycles are not a good idea
or banned.
Brighton pier is privately owned, so really they can ban any item they like,
especially if it represents a massive safety hazard (like a bicycle)

Quite.

Mind you - they *could* provide a bike parking place at the entrance and rent
out wheelchairs to "disabled cyclists" desperate to use the pier.

Excellent idea! There is already a bicycle parking place outside but
this illustrates why the pier doesn't give a damn about the disabled,
unlike many large stores which provide wheelchairs.

Of course a wheelchair would present a similar obstacle hazard as a
bicycle in the event of the need for rapidly evacuating those on the
pier but they are allowed and bicycles are not.

Doug.

On 17 Aug, 18:22, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 13:52, Derek C wrote:
On Aug 16, 7:29 am, Doug wrote:

Imagine my surprise when walking my diminutive folding bike towards
the entrance to the pier I was denied access. Most people are
unaware that disabled cyclists are widely discriminated against,
compared to say manual and motorised wheelchair users, but at least
disabled cyclists are allowed to wheel their bikes in such places
as railways stations and along pavements.

I suffer from a condition that makes walking difficult and painful
but much less so with cycling. Also, walking the bike has similar
benefits to using a walking frame. Still, I did have the
consolation of not parting with my money to the traders on the pier.

Doug.

Are you sure that the bike was the only reason why you were refused
access Doug?

Yep they were quite specific, "NO BICYCLES".

Doug.

and so once again your post subject is mis-leading, the 'disabled' cyclist
was not denied access to the pier.

Yes he is if he is using his bicycle as an essential mobility aid,
which I was.

have you considered following this woman's example by cycling under the
pier?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8118578.stm

I did cycle under the pier.

Doug.

Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 18:22, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 13:52, Derek C wrote:
On Aug 16, 7:29 am, Doug wrote:

Imagine my surprise when walking my diminutive folding bike
towards the entrance to the pier I was denied access. Most people
are unaware that disabled cyclists are widely discriminated
against, compared to say manual and motorised wheelchair users,
but at least disabled cyclists are allowed to wheel their bikes
in such places as railways stations and along pavements.

I suffer from a condition that makes walking difficult and painful
but much less so with cycling. Also, walking the bike has similar
benefits to using a walking frame. Still, I did have the
consolation of not parting with my money to the traders on the
pier.

Doug.

Are you sure that the bike was the only reason why you were refused
access Doug?

Yep they were quite specific, "NO BICYCLES".

Doug.

and so once again your post subject is mis-leading, the 'disabled'
cyclist was not denied access to the pier.

Yes he is if he is using his bicycle as an essential mobility aid,
which I was.

have you considered following this woman's example by cycling under
the pier?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8118578.stm

I did cycle under the pier.


Not in the same way as she did.

As to the bicycle: what will happen if 'disabled' cyclists are allowed to
take bikes on the pier? Suddenly there will be dozens of hoody wearing,
'disabled' cyclists on bmx's weaving through the pedestrians , thieving,
injuring and being a nuisance. Let one take the pee and all the rest will.
In the event of emergency evacuation a wheelchair is likely to stay upright
due to its multi wheel construction and not become a low level trip hazard
the way a cycle would. It is also easily recognised as being a disabled
person carriage while a bicycle is not.

On Aug 17, 6:00*pm, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
David wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
messagenews:E7eao.33421$wf1.7361@hurricane...

You suffer from a condition all right, but it mental not physical.

Beautifully put, you spaztard.t

Do you think it acceptable to use terms that denigrate the mentally
challenged?

Its because of people like you tha The Sapstics Society had to change their
name to Scope.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

I don't often agree with your posts, but you are spot on this time.
I assume that the mistake was a typo.


Francis

On Aug 17, 6:07*pm, Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 17:54, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-

blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 16 Aug, 09:43, webreader wrote:
On Aug 16, 9:40 am, maresh wrote:

On Aug 16, 7:29 am, Doug wrote:

Imagine my surprise when walking my diminutive folding bike towards
the entrance to the pier I was denied access. Most people are
unaware that disabled cyclists are widely discriminated against,
compared to say manual and motorised wheelchair users, but at
least disabled cyclists are allowed to wheel their bikes in such
places as railways stations and along pavements.

I suffer from a condition that makes walking difficult and painful
but much less so with cycling. Also, walking the bike has similar
benefits to using a walking frame. Still, I did have the
consolation of not parting with my money to the traders on the
pier.

Doug.

Bicycles are obviously considered a danger & an inconvience on the
peir, so they are banned.

If cycles were allowed on the pier cyclist would be riding them not
pushing them.

If cyclists behaved in a better manner then perhaps such bans would
not be in place.

They have brought it on themselves, you only have to see the amount
of pavement cycling that happens in Brighton to know the reason.

Indeed.
Did you cycle on the pavement while you were there Doug?

Fortunately Brighton is very cycle friendly, except for the pier, and
has a wide shared pavement along the length of the front.

I don't think so;

"Inspector James Biggs, of the Sussex Police road policing unit at Hove,
said: "Our communities in Brighton and Hove are regularly raising concerns
about anti-social cycling, where cyclists are cycling on pavements, having
no regard for red traffic lights and cycling without lights at night".

"This behaviour puts both the cyclists and other road users at risk and we
will respond robustly to anyone found committing such offences."

Well of course the police are not friendly, they never are. But
Brighton seems to have loads of bicycles at stands and the
infrastructure is quite good for cycling, except for the usual
speeding, motorised vehicles of course but that is the same virtually
everywhere.

Doug.

So what you are saying is that Brighton is cycle friendly, but the
cyclist still abuse it.

Francis

On Aug 18, 6:42*am, Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 19:17, JNugent wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 16 Aug, 09:26, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

[ ... ]

I applaud the staff that turned you away in order to safeguard
others.
In exactly the same way wheelchairs can prevent a problem but they
are allowed on the pier. Hence the discrimination against disabled
cyclists.
What problem - other than the obvious lack of mobility of their users
- do wheelchairs prevent?
I think he intended to write 'present' rather than prevent.

OK...

Disabled cyclists (which must be quite a small number of people nationwide)
could always bring sticks to use in areas where bicycles are not a good idea
or banned.
Brighton pier is privately owned, so really they can ban any item they like,
especially if it represents a massive safety hazard (like a bicycle)

Quite.

Mind you - they *could* provide a bike parking place at the entrance and rent
out wheelchairs to "disabled cyclists" desperate to use the pier.

Excellent idea! There is already a bicycle parking place outside but
this illustrates why the pier doesn't give a damn about the disabled,
unlike many large stores which provide wheelchairs.

Of course a wheelchair would present a similar obstacle hazard as a
bicycle in the event of the need for rapidly evacuating those on the
pier but they are allowed and bicycles are not.

Doug.

That is because wheelchair users would not propell their wheelchairs
at a fast speed along the pier.

Francis

On 18 Aug, 08:21, francis wrote:
On Aug 18, 6:42*am, Doug wrote:



On 17 Aug, 19:17, JNugent wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 16 Aug, 09:26, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

[ ... ]

I applaud the staff that turned you away in order to safeguard
others.
In exactly the same way wheelchairs can prevent a problem but they
are allowed on the pier. Hence the discrimination against disabled
cyclists.
What problem - other than the obvious lack of mobility of their users
- do wheelchairs prevent?
I think he intended to write 'present' rather than prevent.

OK...

Disabled cyclists (which must be quite a small number of people nationwide)
could always bring sticks to use in areas where bicycles are not a good idea
or banned.
Brighton pier is privately owned, so really they can ban any item they like,
especially if it represents a massive safety hazard (like a bicycle)

Quite.

Mind you - they *could* provide a bike parking place at the entrance and rent
out wheelchairs to "disabled cyclists" desperate to use the pier.

Excellent idea! There is already a bicycle parking place outside but
this illustrates why the pier doesn't give a damn about the disabled,
unlike many large stores which provide wheelchairs.

Of course a wheelchair would present a similar obstacle hazard as a
bicycle in the event of the need for rapidly evacuating those on the
pier but they are allowed and bicycles are not.

Doug.

That is because wheelchair users would not propell their wheelchairs
at a fast speed along the pier.

Wrong. Some wheelchairs can exceed 20 mph. My belief is that it is all
due to image and not the nature of the disability. Wheelchair users
are popularly perceived as having no leg use at all while cyclists
obviously use their legs or a leg. Hence the actual nature of the
disability is not addressed and its only the popular image that counts
as far as those in control or who make the laws are concerned.

Doug.