Disabled cyclist denied access to Brighton Pier.

On 18 Aug, 19:45, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

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.

For VAT exemption on the purchase of a motor car, I believe. Not
particularly relevant.

On 18 Aug, 17:56, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
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.

Well of course the police are friendly to fellow drivers but not
cyclists. It is plainly apparent where, for example, a car or taxi
deliberately rams a cyclists and the police almost always sides with
the driver. It is deeply embedded in their nature, unless they happen
to be a serious cyclists themselves, which is rare.

You smoking van is a prime example. It should have been taken off the
road immediately by the cops but they probably didn't want the hassle
and hence seemed sympathetic. Lucky old you!

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.

On 18 Aug, 23:45, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk 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.

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.

When are you motorists here going to grudgingly admit that disabled
cyclists are discriminated against? Maybe I should start posting
threads criticising disable motorists and all the privileges they
enjoy.

Doug.

On Aug 19, 7:00*am, Doug wrote:
On 18 Aug, 23:45, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-

blueyonder.co.uk 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.

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.

When are you motorists here going to grudgingly admit that disabled
cyclists are discriminated against? Maybe I should start posting
threads criticising disable motorists and all the privileges they
enjoy.

Doug.

Please feel free to start making an idiot of yourself

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Wed, 18 Aug 2010
19:44:51 +0100 the perfect time to write:

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.

Maybe you should read the actual Act cited, not a completely different
one relating to traffic law.
You may also wish to check The Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways
Regulations 1988, which defines the three classes of invalid
carriages, namely:
a "Class 1 invalid carriage" means an invalid carriage which is
not mechanically propelled;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^---NOTE THIS BIT HERE



so you say that a bicycle is not mechanically propelled ?

Doug wrote:

[ ... ]

When are you motorists here going to grudgingly admit that disabled
cyclists are discriminated against? Maybe I should start posting
threads criticising disable motorists and all the privileges they
enjoy.

What am I allowed to do which a "disabled cyclist" (to the extent that there
is any difference between that and a disabled person who happens to want to
ride a bicycle) is not allowed to do?

Please be specific.

I shouldn't be surprised to hear that there is no difference at all between
our rights and privileges and that he is allowed to do anything and
everything that I am allowed to do - ie, that he is not being discrimunated
against for any normal and acceptable construction of "discrimate" and its
derivatives.

OTOH, that probably isn't a reversible argument - there will almost certainly
be things a disabled person is allowed to do which I am not allowed o do.

Mrcheerful wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:


so you say that a bicycle is not mechanically propelled ?

He wouldn't understand the question Mr C, it has 2 long words in it.


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

Doug wrote:
On 18 Aug, 17:56, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
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.

Well of course the police are friendly to fellow drivers but not
cyclists.

I wonder why? Is it because they are all tedious little ****s who 'know
their rights'?

It is plainly apparent where, for example, a car or taxi
deliberately rams a cyclists and the police almost always sides with
the driver. It is deeply embedded in their nature, unless they happen
to be a serious cyclists themselves, which is rare.

This ramming appears to be a figment of your imagination. The police would
have a duty to take action against anyone proven to have done it.


You smoking van is a prime example. It should have been taken off the
road immediately by the cops but they probably didn't want the hassle
and hence seemed sympathetic. Lucky old you!

It could have been taken off the road, but I politely explained that it had
been to the garage to be diagnosed, they had ordered the part and it was
booked in to be done.

They appreciated that I'm self employed (instead of being a scrounging
layabout like you) and that having the van off the road would cost money.
They also realised that I was acting in a responsible manner by having the
problem sorted.

Of course if I'd been a bolshie **** like most cyclists & 'knew my rights'
they probably would have taken action.


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

Doug wrote:


When are you motorists here going to grudgingly admit that disabled
cyclists are discriminated against?

When it actually happens.

Maybe I should start posting
threads criticising disable motorists and all the privileges they
enjoy.

You talk enough crap as it is.


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

On 19 Aug, 18:49, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Thu, 19 Aug 2010
09:16:27 +0100 the perfect time to write:



Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Wed, 18 Aug 2010
19:44:51 +0100 the perfect time to write:

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.

Maybe you should read the actual Act cited, not a completely different
one relating to traffic law.
You may also wish to check The Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways
Regulations 1988, which defines the three classes of invalid
carriages, namely:
* * *a "Class 1 invalid carriage" means an invalid carriage which is
not mechanically propelled;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^---NOTE THIS BIT HERE

so you say that a bicycle is not mechanically propelled ?

Legally speaking, no, it isn't.
The words "mechanically propelled" are used to encompass all forms of
power assistance, and to exclude human only power, however it is
transmitted.

Huh, that means a pony is mechanical propulsion yet a bicycle which
contains most definitely a mechanism does not, how queer. Are you
certain there is an explanation detailing this peculiar language?