Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabled motorists?

Doug wrote:
On 11 Jun, 08:25, "Nigel Cliffe" wrote:
Doug wrote:
Not only are disabled cyclists not generally recognised as such and
are banned from many areas where wheelchair users are allowed but they
are also excluded from many of the benefits enjoyed by disabled
motorists, such as the following.......
[snip]

Exemption from VAT and road tax
Disabled people do not have to pay VAT on equipment for daily living,
wheelchairs, personal vehicles or on cars specially adapted to carry a
disabled person in a wheelchair. See VAT Notice 701/7, ....
Do your research first ?

Disabled cyclists can get VAT free cycles under the above rules.
I've seen one being sold by Kevin at D-Tek. Price of a trike with a few
modifications to a disabled chap was VAT free, subject to completing various
forms (much like the forms for cars, wheelchairs, etc).

What about the other benefits mentioned?


Disabled cyclists don't have to pay road tax ( neither does anyone else)
and they don't haver to pay for "cars specially adapted to carry a
disabled person in a wheelchair"

It looks to me as if they are treated in the same way a disabled car
driver is, they are given a mobility allowance and get to spend it how
they want!

JNugent wrote:
Ekul Namsob wrote:

JNugent wrote:

But why would a *disabled* person want a VAT-free *bicycle* when
they could get a car for almost nothing?

The last time I checked, the running costs of a bicycle were
significantly less than the running costs of a car.

Yes, but there's the question of the disabled person being fit enough
to ride a bicycle, which is more physically demanding than sitting at
the wheel of a car. I would expect that the Motability scheme would
require a significant level of disability before free cars were
handed out, and there is obvious scope for tension between the
competing requirements for being classified as "disabled" and for
being fit to ride a bike.

Hmm, so certain that their is a heirarchy where the car is at the top.

Not all people are capable of independently controlling a car regardless of
how many modifications are made to the controls. They might be capable of
independently controlling a cycle.

Wierd though it may seem to some, not everyone wants a car.


It may help if, in some circumstances, you think of a cycle as a wheelchair
which happens to use leg rather than arm muscles to propel it along. A
leg-propelled wheelchair which gives someone the ability to travel
independently for several miles, rather than walk a few yards with severe
difficulty, would appear to be a mobility aid.



- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

JNugent wrote:
Ekul Namsob wrote:

JNugent wrote:

But why would a *disabled* person want a VAT-free *bicycle* when they
could get a car for almost nothing?

The last time I checked, the running costs of a bicycle were
significantly less than the running costs of a car.

Yes, but there's the question of the disabled person being fit enough to
ride a bicycle, which is more physically demanding than sitting at the
wheel of a car. I would expect that the Motability scheme would require
a significant level of disability before free cars were handed out, and
there is obvious scope for tension between the competing requirements
for being classified as "disabled" and for being fit to ride a bike.

Of course, some disabilities may not have much outward sign.

A person with faulty legs would be perfectly capable of using a hand
powered trike. I must admit that someone with a dicky ticker would be
less able and would be better off with a car.

On Jun 11, 5:26*pm, JNugent wrote:
Ekul Namsob wrote:
JNugent wrote:
But why would a *disabled* person want a VAT-free *bicycle* when they
could get a car for almost nothing?
The last time I checked, the running costs of a bicycle were
significantly less than the running costs of a car.

Yes, but there's the question of the disabled person being fit enough to
ride a bicycle, which is more physically demanding than sitting at the
wheel of a car.

Why should it follow that a disabled person is unfit? Later this year
you will see many people with disabilities competing at the
paralympics. I guess most of them are at least as fit as me, and a lot
of them would beat me at their own sports. And many of them will be
disabled to the extent of needing adaptations to ordinary facilities
to let them travel.

Probably quite a lot of disabled people are unfit because of
difficulties in taking exercise. If they can use an adapted bike/
trike, it would bring great health benefits.

Cycling slowly also requires less energy than walking, so the fitness
level to get started isn't that high.

Rob

Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabled motorists?
Perhaps because cars cost a huge amount more to run than bicycles
(even without the artificial extra costs)? Perhaps because the car is
a proper, necessary, useful form of transport that disabled people
actually want to, and are able to, use (how many disabled cyclists do
*you* see)?

Don't forget, trolls, Doug is a self-confessed motorist-hater, so his
views are clearly nothing like yours. No doubt Doug would like every
single disabled person to get rid of their car and get on a bicycle,
and that's what this topic is *really* about. No doubt he'd like
disabled motorists' benefits to end, to "encourage" them to take the
"correct" form of transport (and if they physically can't cycle, then
tough...car use must end, and that's that). Perhaps he should go
round telling disabled drivers that they're "addicted" to their cars.
Most of them would hopefully have at least two limbs with which to
beat the **** out of him.

I should think that disabled people, for whom the car is the only
practical form of transport, get even more fed up than others at the
constant persecution faced by motorists. They're the ones who suffer
the most, and it shows how cold-hearted and callous the trolls who
advocate anti-motorist measures really are. The trolls purport to
think it's fair that a disabled person who's caught driving safely at
35 in a 30 four times in three years is banned. They purport to think
that that's in the public interest. They know it isn't really, of
course; but it is in the callous, rabid motorist-hating *******s'
interest. Bullying disabled people with anti-motorist measures:
they're the lowest of the low. Pure scum.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:58:51 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
said in
:

Perhaps because the car is
a proper, necessary, useful form of transport that disabled people
actually want to, and are able to, use (how many disabled cyclists do
*you* see)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handcycle

Thanks for the demonstration that you are a bigot, though, it chips
away still further at whatever vestigial shadow of credibility you
might ever have had. Oh, wait, you never had a shadow of
credibility. Ho hum.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Nuxx Bar wrote:


I should think that disabled people, for whom the car is the only
practical form of transport, get even more fed up than others at the
constant persecution faced by motorists. They're the ones who suffer
the most, and it shows how cold-hearted and callous the trolls who
advocate anti-motorist measures really are. The trolls purport to
think it's fair that a disabled person who's caught driving safely at
35 in a 30 four times in three years is banned. They purport to think
that that's in the public interest. They know it isn't really, of
course; but it is in the callous, rabid motorist-hating *******s'
interest. Bullying disabled people with anti-motorist measures:
they're the lowest of the low. Pure scum.

Speaking as a frequent pedestrian I feel that 30 in a 30mph zone is
often too fast. How the devil I am expected to cross the road when every
Tom, Dick and Nuxx Bar feels they have the right to file past at thirty
plus miles per hour I don't know.

In article , Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:58:51 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar

Perhaps because the car is
a proper, necessary, useful form of transport that disabled people
actually want to, and are able to, use (how many disabled cyclists do
*you* see)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handcycle

I've also met someone who used a normal bicycle at walking pace because
it caused much less shock to her spinal injury than walking.

Not long ago I saw someone with one leg riding a Brompton. (He had
crutches strapped to it, and the pedal had a wooden block on the underside
and a toeclip so he could lift it to "ratchet" the crank, but I'm still
not sure exactly how he set off.)

Terry Duckmanton writes:

A person with faulty legs would be perfectly capable of using a hand
powered trike. I must admit that someone with a dicky ticker would be
less able and would be better off with a car.

At least unless the heart stops while they're driving it.


-dan

On 11 Jun 2008 22:17:23 +0100 (BST),
(Alan Braggins) said in
:

Not long ago I saw someone with one leg riding a Brompton.

What was the other leg riding?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound