Yet more evidence of a lack of pavement safety.

On 11/03/2011 10:09, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

What if the government suddenly decided that disabled cyclists should
no longer be discriminated against and instead be treated like any
other form of disabled pavement user, subject to appropriate conditions
perhaps?

I've got *great* news for you.

Sit down... you might be quite overwhelmed by the joy of it all.

Disabled cyclists are NOT discriminated against and ARE treated like any
other form of disabled pavement user.

What any other form of disabled pavement user is allwed to do, a cyclist
is allowed to so. What a cyclist may not do, no other form of disabled
pavement user may do.

All treated exactly the same.

Haven't you learnt by now? That's not what Duhg means by "discriminated
against". By "discriminated against", Duhg means "not allowed to do
whatever the **** I want to do".

Sorry.

I forgot.

On Mar 11, 9:47*am, Doug wrote:
Yes, we know that's what you *believe*, but it's currently unlawful.
Do you condemn it? *Or does a belief override the law? *For everyone
or just for you?

Its not just me. Laws can be repealed or modified when found wanting.
You on the other hand seem to believe laws should remain frozen in
perpetuity, right or wrong.

Yes, Doug, laws can be (and frequently are) repealed or modified.
Unless and until they are, though, they remain the law.

What if the government suddenly decided that disabled cyclists should
no longer be discriminated against and instead be treated like any
other form of disabled pavement user, subject to appropriate
conditions perhaps? Would this mean that the law, such as it is, was
wrong all these years?

No. Changes in statutory law are not retrospective. It would mean
that the law is different going forward - nothing more and nothing
less.

So, come on, answer the question: does a belief override the law? And
if so, is it the case for everyone's beliefs, or just yours?

On Mar 10, 3:34*pm, BrianW wrote:
On Mar 9, 3:52*pm, BrianW wrote:





On Mar 9, 7:17*am, Doug wrote:

On Mar 8, 8:25*am, Adrian wrote:

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Anyway, you don't seem to be maling any sort of point here (as
ever). You now seem to be saying that cyclingon the pavement is
dangerous because of all those cars careering into bus shelters
(which, BTW, they are not doing as a rule).
Are you trying to impose time limits, by way of an evasion, instead
of addressing the issues?
There's only one person "evading", Duhg.

I've explicitly, absolutely and outright condemned anybody who uses a
road vehicle on the pavement. I've invited you to do so, too.

You haven't. Will you do so now?
Only if you condemn pavement parking, Adrain.

I've done it before, and I'll do it again now. Cheerfully.

Now - back to you...

Well I am glad you have condemned all those motorists who park on
pavements, Adrain and I wonder how many motorists here support you.

At least four of us.

I too condemn the reason why cyclists choose to ride on pavements.

Evasion noted.

Here's another for you, Doug. *I unequivocally condemn ramming (and
other attacks) on cyclists by motorists. *Now, do you condemn:

- death threats
- mail bombs
- bricks through windows
- hitting people on the head with baseball bats
- intimidation
- arson
- paint stripper on cars
- poisoning food on supermarket shelves
- blackmail,
- digging up dead grannies, and
- "a relentless campaign synonymous with intimidation, violence and
terror".

in support of animals rights campaigns?

Time passed slowly ...

No answer, Doug?

Nothing to say, Doug?

On 11/03/2011 10:09, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

What if the government suddenly decided that disabled cyclists should
no longer be discriminated against and instead be treated like any
other form of disabled pavement user, subject to appropriate conditions
perhaps?

I've got *great* news for you.

Sit down... you might be quite overwhelmed by the joy of it all.

Disabled cyclists are NOT discriminated against and ARE treated like any
other form of disabled pavement user.

What any other form of disabled pavement user is allwed to do, a cyclist
is allowed to so. What a cyclist may not do, no other form of disabled
pavement user may do.

All treated exactly the same.

Haven't you learnt by now? That's not what Duhg means by "discriminated
against". By "discriminated against", Duhg means "not allowed to do
whatever the **** I want to do".

He doesn't even want to do it - he just wants to whinge that he can't do it.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Mar 11, 6:04*pm, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 11/03/2011 10:09, Adrian wrote:





*gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

What if the government suddenly decided that disabled cyclists should
no longer be discriminated against and instead be treated like any
other form of disabled pavement user, subject to appropriate conditions
perhaps?

I've got *great* news for you.

Sit down... you might be quite overwhelmed by the joy of it all.

Disabled cyclists are NOT discriminated against and ARE treated like any
other form of disabled pavement user.

What any other form of disabled pavement user is allwed to do, a cyclist
is allowed to so. What a cyclist may not do, no other form of disabled
pavement user may do.

All treated exactly the same.

Haven't you learnt by now? That's not what Duhg means by "discriminated
against". By "discriminated against", Duhg means "not allowed to do
whatever the **** I want to do".

He doesn't even want to do it - he just wants to whinge that he can't do it.

Yup, that's Gollum for you. My favourite is his views on Christmas.
He has said that he hardly ever eats out. But on Christmas Day,
because he can't eat out at most establishments, he suddenly wants to
do so. See:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...on-577688.html

The old turd will never stop whining. Even if everything was changed
in his favour, he'd still invent stuff to whine about.

On 11/03/2011 19:39, BrianW wrote:
On Mar 11, 6:04 pm, The Medway
wrote:
On 11/03/2011 10:09, Adrian wrote:





gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

What if the government suddenly decided that disabled cyclists should
no longer be discriminated against and instead be treated like any
other form of disabled pavement user, subject to appropriate conditions
perhaps?

I've got *great* news for you.

Sit down... you might be quite overwhelmed by the joy of it all.

Disabled cyclists are NOT discriminated against and ARE treated like any
other form of disabled pavement user.

What any other form of disabled pavement user is allwed to do, a cyclist
is allowed to so. What a cyclist may not do, no other form of disabled
pavement user may do.

All treated exactly the same.

Haven't you learnt by now? That's not what Duhg means by "discriminated
against". By "discriminated against", Duhg means "not allowed to do
whatever the **** I want to do".

He doesn't even want to do it - he just wants to whinge that he can't do it.

Yup, that's Gollum for you. My favourite is his views on Christmas.
He has said that he hardly ever eats out. But on Christmas Day,
because he can't eat out at most establishments, he suddenly wants to
do so. See:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...on-577688.html

The old turd will never stop whining. Even if everything was changed
in his favour, he'd still invent stuff to whine about.

And in the past he has also whinged & argued at a post that he himself
has made.

On Mar 11, 9:23*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 11/03/2011 19:39, BrianW wrote:





On Mar 11, 6:04 pm, The Medway
wrote:
On 11/03/2011 10:09, Adrian wrote:

* *gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

What if the government suddenly decided that disabled cyclists should
no longer be discriminated against and instead be treated like any
other form of disabled pavement user, subject to appropriate conditions
perhaps?

I've got *great* news for you.

Sit down... you might be quite overwhelmed by the joy of it all.

Disabled cyclists are NOT discriminated against and ARE treated like any
other form of disabled pavement user.

What any other form of disabled pavement user is allwed to do, a cyclist
is allowed to so. What a cyclist may not do, no other form of disabled
pavement user may do.

All treated exactly the same.

Haven't you learnt by now? That's not what Duhg means by "discriminated
against". By "discriminated against", Duhg means "not allowed to do
whatever the **** I want to do".

He doesn't even want to do it - he just wants to whinge that he can't do it.

Yup, that's Gollum for you. My favourite is his views on Christmas.
He has said that he hardly ever eats out. *But on Christmas Day,
because he can't eat out at most establishments, he suddenly wants to
do so. *See:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-from-christm...

The old turd will never stop whining. *Even if everything was changed
in his favour, he'd still invent stuff to whine about.

And in the past he has also whinged & argued at a post that he himself
has made.

Indeed, half the fun of "arguing" with Gollum is getting him to argue
against sources he himself has introduced. About ten times easier
than taking candy off babies, but at least ten times more fun.

On 11/03/2011 23:23, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered 11 Mar 2011 09:27:40 GMT the
perfect time to write:

Phil W gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

BTW, I also believe that disabled cyclists should be allowed to use
pavements, instead of remaining discriminated against.

Yes, we know that's what you *believe*, but it's currently unlawful.

Not according to section 20 (a) of the Chronically Sick& Disabled
Persons Act 1970.

No such section.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/44 If you mean 20(1)(a), otoh,
then does the bicycle you're referring to meet the test?

20 Use of invalid carriages on highways.

(1)In the case of a vehicle which is an invalid carriage complying with
the prescribed requirements and which is being used in accordance with
the prescribed conditions—

(a)no statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footways
shall prohibit or restrict the use of that vehicle on a footway;

From the same Act:
"invalid carriage" means a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or
not, constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person,
being a person suffering from some physical defect or disability;

So if it's constructed or adapted for the use of one person (as most
bicycles are) and the person using it is "a person suffering from some
physical defect or disability", the test is met.

No, it really really isn't.

The test is that the vehicle is constructed/adapted for the carriage of a
person suffering from a disability.

Except that it very clearly avoids saying that.

It really couldn't be a lot clearer
if it tried. Except, of course, you are deliberately trying to
misinterpret it for your own agenda.

If it was as you suggested, then any single-occupant vehicle would
automatically count as an invalid carriage so long as it was being used
by a disabled person.

There is no requirement that the construction be particularly to
compensate for the disability suffered by the rider

Yes, it is.

or that it be "customised" to a single individual - if that were so,
most conventional wheelchairs would fail the test.

ITYF that wheelchairs ARE constructed for the carriage of a person
suffering from a disability.

Nothing about the construction of a conventional wheelchair makes it
uniquely suited to those with disabilities - on the contrary, many
forms of disability need conventional wheelchairs to be extensively
modified in order for them to be suitable for their users.
Just like bicycles really.
The ONLY difference is that a very large number of perfectly
able-bodied people also find bicycles to be useful.
On that basis, if conventional wheelchairs became trendy, and
able-bodied people found some use for them, you would suddenly stop
recognising them as invalid carriages.
Or would you then only recognise the modified ones?
What would you then do if some able-bodied users suddenly realised
that (for instance) being able to propel a wheelchair one-handed was
actually rather useful, and that modification became popular?

The law has been very carefully phrased to prevent that
interpretation.

It's kinda the whole point of them.

So your position is that disabled people should only be allowed to use
a form of mobility aid so inconvenient, slow, and limited in range
that no right-minded able-bodied person would want to use it.

You are aware that such a position is a clear breach of the Equality
Act, and even the DDA that preceded it?

You threaten like a dockside bully.

On Mar 11, 11:26*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
BrianW considered Fri, 11 Mar 2011
01:39:01 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:



On Mar 11, 9:27*am, Adrian wrote:
Phil W Lee gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

BTW, I also believe that disabled cyclists should be allowed to use
pavements, instead of remaining discriminated against.
Yes, we know that's what you *believe*, but it's currently unlawful.
Not according to section 20 (a) of the Chronically Sick & Disabled
Persons Act 1970.
No such section.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/44Ifyou mean 20(1)(a), otoh,
then does the bicycle you're referring to meet the test?

20 Use of invalid carriages on highways.

(1)In the case of a vehicle which is an invalid carriage complying with
the prescribed requirements and which is being used in accordance with
the prescribed conditions—

(a)no statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footways
shall prohibit or restrict the use of that vehicle on a footway;
From the same Act:
"invalid carriage" means a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or
not, constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person,
being a person suffering from some physical defect or disability;

So if it's constructed or adapted for the use of one person (as most
bicycles are) and the person using it is "a person suffering from some
physical defect or disability", the test is met.

No, it really really isn't.

The test is that the vehicle is constructed/adapted for the carriage of a
person suffering from a disability. It really couldn't be a lot clearer
if it tried. Except, of course, you are deliberately trying to
misinterpret it for your own agenda.

If it was as you suggested, then any single-occupant vehicle would
automatically count as an invalid carriage so long as it was being used
by a disabled person.

There is no requirement that the construction be particularly to
compensate for the disability suffered by the rider

Yes, it is.

Hey, it occurs to me that high performance motorbikes are "constructed
or adapted for use for the carriage of one person". *If Phil is right,
it would be legal to ride one down the pavement. *Provided the rider
has a physical defect or disability.

But since motorcycles clearly fail to meet the requirements of any of
the three classes of invalid carriage specified in the 1988
regulations, your claim is specious.

thinks

FSVSVO, apparently.



Hey, Formula One cars are "constructed or adapted for use for the
carriage of one person". *Whereas they can't be driven on the road
unless modified to make them road-legal, a disabled person can
obviously use one on the pavement. *Blimey, things are going to get
might interesting on Britain's pavements ...

See above.

ITYAAW

On Mar 11, 9:56*am, JNugent wrote:
On 11/03/2011 09:47, Doug wrote:



On Mar 10, 10:55 am, *wrote:
On Mar 10, 8:54 am, *wrote:

On Mar 10, 8:04 am, *wrote:

*gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Are you trying to impose time limits, by way of an evasion,
instead of addressing the issues?
There's only one person "evading", Duhg.

I've explicitly, absolutely and outright condemned anybody who
uses a road vehicle on the pavement. I've invited you to do so,
too.

You haven't. Will you do so now?
Only if you condemn pavement parking, Adrain.
I've done it before, and I'll do it again now. Cheerfully.

Now - back to you...
Well I am glad you have condemned all those motorists who park on
pavements, Adrain and I wonder how many motorists here support you. I
too condemn the reason why cyclists choose to ride on pavements.
So you still refuse to 'condemn anybody who uses a
* *road vehicle on the pavement'
'Anybody'?

Yes, Duhg, ANYBODY who uses a road vehicle on the pavement.

In your little black or white world there seems to be no room for
exceptions. What about shared use pavements for cyclists, pavement
parking of cars and maintenance vehicles?

Maintenance vehicles are an exception. I'll grant you that. The "road
vehicleness" is a secondary consideration at that point.

But - otherwise - yes. Anybody. When pressed to do so earlier, you said...

Only if you condemn pavement parking, Adrain.

I did so. Now... Come on... You aren't going to go back on that, are you?

You seem to be finding it difficult to extrapolate your staunch
opposition to SOME road vehicles being used on the pavement - which I
share - to ALL road vehicles being used on the pavement. I invite you to
join me in doing so.

Now stop ****ing weaselling, and man up.

I am glad that you have finally corrected yourself.

Some so-called 'mobility scooters' are allowed to be used on both
roads and pavements and have been known to crash into pedestrians,
though who could possibly 'scoot' with one eludes me,

You see the answer is far more complicated than you hopefully imagined
with your simplistic 'yes or no' questioning.

I'll repeat again - I invite you to condemn anyone who *unlawfully*
uses a road
vehicle on the pavement. *I condemn anyone who parks on
the pavement. *Over to you, Doug.

BTW, I also believe that disabled cyclists should be allowed to use
pavements, instead of remaining discriminated against.

Yes, we know that's what you *believe*, but it's currently unlawful.
Do you condemn it? *Or does a belief override the law? *For everyone
or just for you?

Its not just me. Laws can be repealed or modified when found wanting.
You on the other hand seem to believe laws should remain frozen in
perpetuity, right or wrong.

What if the government suddenly decided that disabled cyclists should
no longer be discriminated against and instead be treated like any
other form of disabled pavement user, subject to appropriate
conditions perhaps?

I've got *great* news for you.

Sit down... you might be quite overwhelmed by the joy of it all.

Disabled cyclists are NOT discriminated against and ARE treated like any
other form of disabled pavement user.

Are you drunk or what?

What any other form of disabled pavement user is allwed to do, a cyclist is
allowed to so. What a cyclist may not do, no other form of disabled pavement
user may do.

All treated exactly the same.

Would this mean that the law, such as it is, was wrong all these years?

No.

I am not sure how to respond to this as you seem to believe somehow
that disabled wheelchair and cycle pavement users are treated the same
in law, which obviously they are not. Hence, the latter is unfairly
discriminated against.

Doug