Disabled cyclist denied access to Brighton Pier.

On 18 Aug, 08:02, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
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.

In which case they could be arrested, assuming the police are not too
busy harassing political protesters or drug users instead.

*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.

No instead peds would just barge into a heavy wheelchair and injure
themselves or worse and what about motorised wheelchairs?

*It is also easily recognised as being a disabled
person carriage while a bicycle is not.

And that is the underlying issue which is down to popular perception
and not the actual needs of those with varied types of disability.

Doug

On 18 Aug, 13:31, Doug wrote:
On 18 Aug, 08:02, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

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.

In which case they could be arrested, assuming the police are not too
busy harassing political protesters or drug users instead.

*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.

No instead peds would just barge into a heavy wheelchair and injure
themselves or worse and what about motorised wheelchairs?

**It is also easily recognised as being a disabled person carriage while a bicycle is not.

And that is the underlying issue which is down to popular perception
and not the actual needs of those with varied types of disability.

Doug

I'm with you on this. How about adding a kiddie stabiliser to make it
a tricycle, which is after all the original self powered wheelchair
for an invalid.

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


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.

Shock horror! Police not friendly towards law breakers!

I was pulled over a while ago, my van exhaust was smoking badly, it was
booked into a garage to be sorted.

The police were very friendly, even helpful & sympathetic. They were more
interested in me getting home safely than anything else. Nice chaps.

Of course that might be because I was polite & didn't try to claim I had the
right to do whatever I liked.


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

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Tue, 17 Aug 2010
18:58:25 +0100 the perfect time to write:

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)

Even private premises are subject to the requirements of the
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which include
facilitating access for invalid carriages. When used by a disabled
person, a bicycle meets all the legal requirements for being a class
one invalid carriage, so it would seem the operators were in breach of
the Act in denying access.
If the presence of an invalid carriage (of any sort) poses a risk, it
is only because the operators have been negligent in their duties
under The Act.

a standard bicycle is not an invalid carriage. quote :
Invalid carriage: A mechanically propelled vehicle (mpv) designed &
constructed -not merely adapted! - for the use of a person suffering from
some sort of physical defect or disability & used SOLELY by such a person.

Phil W Lee wrote:
Doug considered Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:10:28
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

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".

It is illegal for them to bar invalid carriages, which is an accurate
description of a solo bicycle used by a chronically sick or disabled
person.
They cannot force you to use one particular type of invalid carriage -
anything that meets the definition must be allowed (and indeed,
facilitated).
I hope you took details of the person obstructing your access so that
you can take the matter further.

Invalid carriage:
A mechanically propelled vehicle (mpv) designed & constructed -not merely
adapted! - for the use of a person suffering from some sort of physical
defect or disability & used SOLELY by such a person.

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Tue, 17 Aug 2010
18:58:25 +0100 the perfect time to write:

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)

Even private premises are subject to the requirements of the
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which include
facilitating access for invalid carriages. When used by a disabled
person, a bicycle meets all the legal requirements for being a class
one invalid carriage, so it would seem the operators were in breach of
the Act in denying access.

Very bullish.

Why don't you write to the Brighton Argus and complain?

Phil W Lee wrote:
Doug considered Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:10:28
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

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".

It is illegal for them to bar invalid carriages, which is an accurate
description of a solo bicycle used by a chronically sick or disabled
person.

In what language?

Everyday-Lee-Speak, or the language of the relevant statute and regulations?

They cannot force you to use one particular type of invalid carriage -
anything that meets the definition must be allowed (and indeed,
facilitated).

And does it?

I hope you took details of the person obstructing your access so that
you can take the matter further.

On Aug 18, 7:45*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
Doug considered Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:10:28
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

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".

It is illegal for them to bar invalid carriages, which is an accurate
description of a solo bicycle used by a chronically sick or disabled
person.
They cannot force you to use one particular type of invalid carriage -
anything that meets the definition must be allowed (and indeed,
facilitated).
I hope you took details of the person obstructing your access so that
you can take the matter further.

Invalid carriage:
A mechanically propelled vehicle (mpv) designed & constructed -not merely
adapted! - for the use of a person suffering from some sort of physical
defect or disability & used SOLELY by such a person.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps Doug should have used one of these?

www. monarchmobility.com

Phil W Lee wrote:
Doug considered Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:10:28
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

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".

It is illegal for them to bar invalid carriages, which is an accurate
description of a solo bicycle used by a chronically sick or disabled
person.

No it isn't SFB's

They cannot force you to use one particular type of invalid carriage -
anything that meets the definition must be allowed (and indeed,
facilitated).

Bollox as usual.

I hope you took details of the person obstructing your access so that
you can take the matter further.

And waste everybodys time.


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

On Aug 18, 7:30*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Tue, 17 Aug 2010
18:58:25 +0100 the perfect time to write:



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)

Even private premises are subject to the requirements of the
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which include
facilitating access for invalid carriages. *When used by a disabled
person, a bicycle meets all the legal requirements for being a class
one invalid carriage, so it would seem the operators were in breach of
the Act in denying access.
If the presence of an invalid carriage (of any sort) poses a risk, it
is only because the operators have been negligent in their duties
under The Act.

My house is private premises, are you sugusting that it is subject to
the Disabled Persons Act?

Or is it just more hot air from a poster who has yet to post anything
correct?