|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Yet more discrimination against disabled cyclists
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Yet more discrimination against disabled cyclists
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Yet more discrimination against disabled cyclists
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... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Yet more discrimination against disabled cyclists
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Yet more discrimination against disabled cyclists
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Yet more discrimination against disabled cyclists
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Yet more discrimination against disabled cyclists
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Yet more discrimination against disabled cyclists
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Yet more discrimination against disabled cyclists
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
More on disabled cycling and discrimination. | Doug[_10_] | UK | 31 | October 26th 10 09:10 AM |
The relative danger of disabled cyclists on railway platforms. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 67 | October 25th 09 05:27 AM |
Disabled cyclists. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 210 | October 19th 09 08:35 AM |
More discrimination against cyclists. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 82 | May 14th 09 08:41 PM |
Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabled motorists? | Doug[_3_] | UK | 67 | June 15th 08 05:54 PM |