Yet more discrimination against disabled cyclists

Had she been using a wheelchair instead of a trike she wouldn't have
been stopped.

"The charity Wheels For Wellbeing has complained to Lambeth Council
after a lady with a disability was ordered off her mobility tricycle
on the South Bank.

Ann Wright (pictured right) was stopped by a Community Support Officer
and told she should not be cycling along on the riverside path by
Lambeth Bridge.

When stopped Mrs Wright showed the PCSO her elbow crutch as proof of
her disability, but "without any effect".

The wide path, which runs by Thames from Lambeth Bridge to Westminster
Bridge, has recently had 'No Cycling' signs erected on it by Lambeth
Council, despite being used by cyclists for many years..."

Mo

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=2181

http://www.wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/

Doug.

Doug wrote:
Had she been using a wheelchair instead of a trike she wouldn't have
been stopped.

"The charity Wheels For Wellbeing has complained to Lambeth Council
after a lady with a disability was ordered off her mobility tricycle
on the South Bank.

Ann Wright (pictured right) was stopped by a Community Support Officer
and told she should not be cycling along on the riverside path by
Lambeth Bridge.

When stopped Mrs Wright showed the PCSO her elbow crutch as proof of
her disability, but "without any effect".

The wide path, which runs by Thames from Lambeth Bridge to Westminster
Bridge, has recently had 'No Cycling' signs erected on it by Lambeth
Council, despite being used by cyclists for many years..."

Mo

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=2181

http://www.wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/

Doug.

this is old news, she is a cyclist, cyclists are banned from that area.
when cycles and tricycles are officially recognised as disabled vehicles
then they will be allowed in 'no cycling' areas in all probability. Why do
you not campaign to get bicycles recognised as disabled vehicles? that
would be a good use of your time.

Doug wrote:

Had she been using a wheelchair instead of a trike she wouldn't have
been stopped.

"The charity Wheels For Wellbeing has complained to Lambeth Council
after a lady with a disability was ordered off her mobility tricycle
on the South Bank.

Ann Wright (pictured right) was stopped by a Community Support Officer
and told she should not be cycling along on the riverside path by
Lambeth Bridge.

When stopped Mrs Wright showed the PCSO her elbow crutch as proof of
her disability, but "without any effect".

The wide path, which runs by Thames from Lambeth Bridge to Westminster
Bridge, has recently had 'No Cycling' signs erected on it by Lambeth
Council, despite being used by cyclists for many years..."

Mo

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=2181

http://www.wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/

Whilst I believe it would be 'a good thing' for cyclists to be able to
ride there, as it is right now, they aren't. Therefore she broke the
law by cycling.

Why should she be allowed to ride her trike when others can't ride
theirs? Note, her trike is NOT a 'mobility tricycle' as you assert.

It appears that her disability is probably not a recognised one for
which she would be eligible for a 'blue badge' otherwise this may have
proven she had a disability and may have got her some leeway. Waving
her crutch in the air doesn't prove, or mean, a thing.

--
Paul - xxx

On 03/02/2011 17:40, Doug wrote:

Had she been using a wheelchair instead of a trike she wouldn't have
been stopped.
"The charity Wheels For Wellbeing has complained to Lambeth Council
after a lady with a disability was ordered off her mobility tricycle
on the South Bank.
Ann Wright (pictured right) was stopped by a Community Support Officer
and told she should not be cycling along on the riverside path by
Lambeth Bridge.
When stopped Mrs Wright showed the PCSO her elbow crutch as proof of
her disability, but "without any effect".
The wide path, which runs by Thames from Lambeth Bridge to Westminster
Bridge, has recently had 'No Cycling' signs erected on it by Lambeth
Council, despite being used by cyclists for many years..."
Mo
http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=2181
http://www.wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/

I wonder what "No Cycling" could *possibly* mean?

It's a really difficult one, isn't it?

Have *you* any idea what it might mean?

It's a mystery...

JNugent wrote:

I wonder what "No Cycling" could *possibly* mean?

It's a really difficult one, isn't it?

Have *you* any idea what it might mean?

It's a mystery...

It certainly is there because there is none of the legal process in place
to make it a no cycling zone. Indeed Lambeth Council has been challenged
on it and has backed down and is removing the signs. So it's a complete
mystery as to under what authority they were placed there in the first
place and were enforced.
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5077
--
Tony

On 04/02/2011 00:22, Phil W Lee wrote:

"Paul - wrote:
Doug wrote:

Had she been using a wheelchair instead of a trike she wouldn't have
been stopped.
"The charity Wheels For Wellbeing has complained to Lambeth Council
after a lady with a disability was ordered off her mobility tricycle
on the South Bank.
Ann Wright (pictured right) was stopped by a Community Support Officer
and told she should not be cycling along on the riverside path by
Lambeth Bridge.
When stopped Mrs Wright showed the PCSO her elbow crutch as proof of
her disability, but "without any effect".
The wide path, which runs by Thames from Lambeth Bridge to Westminster
Bridge, has recently had 'No Cycling' signs erected on it by Lambeth
Council, despite being used by cyclists for many years..."
Mo
http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=2181
http://www.wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/

Whilst I believe it would be 'a good thing' for cyclists to be able to
ride there, as it is right now, they aren't. Therefore she broke the
law by cycling.

Incorrect, see below.
It is not illegal for anyone to cycle there, and even if it was, she
would qualify for access due to her disability.
This is by act of parliament, and not subject to the restrictions of a
TRO.
Why should she be allowed to ride her trike when others can't ride
theirs? Note, her trike is NOT a 'mobility tricycle' as you assert.

Yet the Chronically Sick& Disabled Persons Act 1970 states:

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;

It goes on to define what an invalid carriage complying with the
prescribed requirements is:

"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;

As has already been pointed out at some length in a preceding thread, neither
a bicycle nor a tricycle is "constructed or adapted for use for the carriage
of one person, being a person suffering from some physical defect or
disability", any more than a bog-standard Mini or Ford Focus is.

It appears that her disability is probably not a recognised one for
which she would be eligible for a 'blue badge' otherwise this may have
proven she had a disability and may have got her some leeway. Waving
her crutch in the air doesn't prove, or mean, a thing.

The blue badge doesn't even get a mention in the act that allows
invalid carriages on footways (and rightly so, since it is entirely
concerned with the use of MOTOR vehicles, not invalid carriages).
All that is necessary is that she suffers from "some physical defect
or disability", and that the vehicle be "constructed or adapted for
use for the carriage of one person"

.... of which, of course, there is no evidence in the article.

Being used by a person suffering from "some physical defect or disability" is
not the same thing as being "constructed or adapted for use for the carriage
of one person".

To prevent her using the pathway (which appears not be a footway
within the meaning of the 1835 act anyway, since it does not appear to
be adjoining a carriageway), it would be necessary for the PCSO to
show that she was NOT disabled (and therefore entitled to use a
footway under the CSDPA) AND that the path was covered by a Traffic
Regulation Order prohibiting cycling (which it is not) - that is the
very essence of "innocent until proven guilty".

All that would be necessary would be for the lady concerned not to be able to
show that her vehicle was "constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of
one person, being a person suffering from some physical defect or disability".

It is unfortunate that a PCSO was apparently so badly trained (or
untrained) that they are allowed to get away with this clear act of
disability discrimination, although there is always the possibility of
disciplinary action against the officer concerned - even if they are
unaware of the CSDPA exemption, they should at least be familiar with
the TROs in force on their own beat - it's hard to understand how they
could function as a PCSO at all without that basic level of knowledge.

Actually, it's much harder to understand how you can function as a literate
person, when you have clearly not understood this issue when it was debated
here at some length, and not all that long ago.

On Feb 3, 7:04*pm, "Paul - xxx" wrote:
Doug wrote:
Had she been using a wheelchair instead of a trike she wouldn't have
been stopped.

"The charity Wheels For Wellbeing has complained to Lambeth Council
after a lady with a disability was ordered off her mobility tricycle
on the South Bank.

Ann Wright (pictured right) was stopped by a Community Support Officer
and told she should not be cycling along on the riverside path by
Lambeth Bridge.

When stopped Mrs Wright showed the PCSO her elbow crutch as proof of
her disability, but "without any effect".

The wide path, which runs by Thames from Lambeth Bridge to Westminster
Bridge, has recently had 'No Cycling' signs erected on it by Lambeth
Council, despite being used by cyclists for many years..."

Mo

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=2181

http://www.wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/

Whilst I believe it would be 'a good thing' for cyclists to be able to
ride there, as it is right now, they aren't. *Therefore she broke the
law by cycling.

Why should she be allowed to ride her trike when others can't ride
theirs? *Note, her trike is NOT a 'mobility tricycle' as you assert.

It appears that her disability is probably not a recognised one for
which she would be eligible for a 'blue badge' otherwise this may have
proven she had a disability and may have got her some leeway. *Waving
her crutch in the air doesn't prove, or mean, a thing.

In this case the problem lies with the Community Support Officer who
stopped her as the ban on cycling was not mandatory anyway. It is the
common perception of petty bureaucratic discriminators, such as cops
and railway employees, that disabled cycling is impossible, which
makes the choice of cycling as an aid so difficult for the disabled.
They wrongly assume that a person in a wheelchair cannot walk at all
while a cyclist must be able to walk relatively long distances,
neither of which is always true.

In my case even a doctor's certificate was ignored.

Doug.

On 04/02/2011 06:45, Doug wrote:
On Feb 3, 7:04 pm, "Paul - wrote:
Doug wrote:
Had she been using a wheelchair instead of a trike she wouldn't have
been stopped.

"The charity Wheels For Wellbeing has complained to Lambeth Council
after a lady with a disability was ordered off her mobility tricycle
on the South Bank.

Ann Wright (pictured right) was stopped by a Community Support Officer
and told she should not be cycling along on the riverside path by
Lambeth Bridge.

When stopped Mrs Wright showed the PCSO her elbow crutch as proof of
her disability, but "without any effect".

The wide path, which runs by Thames from Lambeth Bridge to Westminster
Bridge, has recently had 'No Cycling' signs erected on it by Lambeth
Council, despite being used by cyclists for many years..."

Mo

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=2181

http://www.wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/

Whilst I believe it would be 'a good thing' for cyclists to be able to
ride there, as it is right now, they aren't. Therefore she broke the
law by cycling.

Why should she be allowed to ride her trike when others can't ride
theirs? Note, her trike is NOT a 'mobility tricycle' as you assert.

It appears that her disability is probably not a recognised one for
which she would be eligible for a 'blue badge' otherwise this may have
proven she had a disability and may have got her some leeway. Waving
her crutch in the air doesn't prove, or mean, a thing.

In this case the problem lies with the Community Support Officer who
stopped her as the ban on cycling was not mandatory anyway. It is the
common perception of petty bureaucratic discriminators, such as cops
and railway employees, that disabled cycling is impossible, which
makes the choice of cycling as an aid so difficult for the disabled.
They wrongly assume that a person in a wheelchair cannot walk at all
while a cyclist must be able to walk relatively long distances,
neither of which is always true.

In my case even a doctor's certificate was ignored.

Doug.


How would a doctors certificate make a bike a mobility aid?

Tony Dragon wrote:
On 04/02/2011 06:45, Doug wrote:
On Feb 3, 7:04 pm, "Paul - wrote:
Doug wrote:
Had she been using a wheelchair instead of a trike she wouldn't
have been stopped.

"The charity Wheels For Wellbeing has complained to Lambeth Council
after a lady with a disability was ordered off her mobility
tricycle on the South Bank.

Ann Wright (pictured right) was stopped by a Community Support
Officer and told she should not be cycling along on the riverside
path by Lambeth Bridge.

When stopped Mrs Wright showed the PCSO her elbow crutch as proof
of her disability, but "without any effect".

The wide path, which runs by Thames from Lambeth Bridge to
Westminster Bridge, has recently had 'No Cycling' signs erected on
it by Lambeth Council, despite being used by cyclists for many
years..."

Mo

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=2181

http://www.wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/

Whilst I believe it would be 'a good thing' for cyclists to be able
to ride there, as it is right now, they aren't. Therefore she
broke the law by cycling.

Why should she be allowed to ride her trike when others can't ride
theirs? Note, her trike is NOT a 'mobility tricycle' as you assert.

It appears that her disability is probably not a recognised one for
which she would be eligible for a 'blue badge' otherwise this may
have proven she had a disability and may have got her some leeway.
Waving her crutch in the air doesn't prove, or mean, a thing.

In this case the problem lies with the Community Support Officer who
stopped her as the ban on cycling was not mandatory anyway. It is the
common perception of petty bureaucratic discriminators, such as cops
and railway employees, that disabled cycling is impossible, which
makes the choice of cycling as an aid so difficult for the disabled.
They wrongly assume that a person in a wheelchair cannot walk at all
while a cyclist must be able to walk relatively long distances,
neither of which is always true.

In my case even a doctor's certificate was ignored.

Doug.


How would a doctors certificate make a bike a mobility aid?

and even if it could, you might have stolen it or picked it up in the
street, in any case it is just anecdotal and so may be dismissed.

Phil W Lee wrote:

"Paul - xxx" considered 3 Feb 2011
19:04:33 GMT the perfect time to write:

Doug wrote:

Had she been using a wheelchair instead of a trike she wouldn't
have been stopped.

"The charity Wheels For Wellbeing has complained to Lambeth Council
after a lady with a disability was ordered off her mobility
tricycle on the South Bank.

Ann Wright (pictured right) was stopped by a Community Support
Officer and told she should not be cycling along on the riverside
path by Lambeth Bridge.

When stopped Mrs Wright showed the PCSO her elbow crutch as proof
of her disability, but "without any effect".

The wide path, which runs by Thames from Lambeth Bridge to
Westminster Bridge, has recently had 'No Cycling' signs erected on
it by Lambeth Council, despite being used by cyclists for many
years..."
Mo

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=2181

http://www.wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/

Whilst I believe it would be 'a good thing' for cyclists to be able
to ride there, as it is right now, they aren't. Therefore she
broke the law by cycling.

Incorrect, see below.
It is not illegal for anyone to cycle there, and even if it was, she
would qualify for access due to her disability.

I'm only going by the article content, I don't know specifics, but
assumed that the officer was correct and she wasn't allowed to cycle
there.

This is by act of parliament, and not subject to the restrictions of a
TRO.

Why should she be allowed to ride her trike when others can't ride
theirs? Note, her trike is NOT a 'mobility tricycle' as you assert.

Yet the Chronically Sick & Disabled Persons Act 1970 states:

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;

It goes on to define what an invalid carriage complying with the
prescribed requirements is:

"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;

Again, you may have more information than the article posted has, but
it seemed to me that it was a bog-standard tricycle and nothing like
"constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person, being a
person suffering from some physical defect or disability"

Indeed, there is nothing to say she actually has a disability or the
extent of it ...

It appears that her disability is probably not a recognised one for
which she would be eligible for a 'blue badge' otherwise this may
have proven she had a disability and may have got her some leeway.
Waving her crutch in the air doesn't prove, or mean, a thing.

The blue badge doesn't even get a mention in the act that allows
invalid carriages on footways (and rightly so, since it is entirely
concerned with the use of MOTOR vehicles, not invalid carriages).
All that is necessary is that she suffers from "some physical defect
or disability", and that the vehicle be "constructed or adapted for
use for the carriage of one person".

OK, fair point but is the tricycle "constructed or adapted for
use for the carriage of one person" ... you missed the salient point
of "being a person suffering from some physical defect or disability".

To prevent her using the pathway (which appears not be a footway
within the meaning of the 1835 act anyway, since it does not appear to
be adjoining a carriageway), it would be necessary for the PCSO to
show that she was NOT disabled (and therefore entitled to use a
footway under the CSDPA) AND that the path was covered by a Traffic
Regulation Order prohibiting cycling (which it is not) - that is the
very essence of "innocent until proven guilty".

It is unfortunate that a PCSO was apparently so badly trained (or
untrained) that they are allowed to get away with this clear act of
disability discrimination, although there is always the possibility of
disciplinary action against the officer concerned - even if they are
unaware of the CSDPA exemption, they should at least be familiar with
the TROs in force on their own beat - it's hard to understand how they
could function as a PCSO at all without that basic level of knowledge.

How do you know she is disabled and that it is "disability
discrimination"?

It also seems that the council themselves have acknowledged that the
"no cycling" signs have no legal standing, and are about to remove
them.
It's a shame that they exceeded their powers by erecting such signs
without obtaining the necessary TRO to make them legal.

Fair point if it's true, but again, that's not apparent from the link
posted.

As I said, it looks to me like cycles should be allowed there, it looks
wide enough based on the article pic, to allow all sorts of traffic
flow, but it appears that currently it isn't, so she shouldn't be
cycling there.

--
Paul - xxx