Discrimination and Loss of "freedom of movement" for poor and disabled

[Mr Haematocrit]

Discrimination is the prejudical or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on the membership of a specific group as such unless able bodied cyclists are permitted to cycle on the pavement/sidewalk and only you are prohibited from doing such can you claim discrimination.
If ALL cyclists are prevented from cycling on the pavement/sidewalk by the law which is then enforced by the police then you are not being discriminated against.
The fact is that we can not choose the laws we wish to obey no matter if you are able bodied or have a disability.

 

[classic33]

There is a specific term given to laws not enforced, that are on the books. example it is law, that all men here in my state must have beards.*
But its not enforced by the legal system in any way.
THink this will help clear it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenforced_law

*Incorrect.
That applies to the city of Brainerd,Minnesota.

 

[disabled rider]

ouch step out for a day and poof so much to read. Please forgive me, It is going to take some time to catch up. If I miss a response to someone, please forgive me, and quote the post to respond too.

 

[disabled rider]

Update I talked to the city sidewalk use/repair manager" The definition follows the interpretation that no downtown business district and also no posted areas.

So for 6+ years I been breaking the law for my safety. Police knowing this, has not bothered me. At least not till the neighbors forcing their hands.

I am taking steps such as going before the city for a policy adaptation to be ADA title 2 compliant.
If they fail to amend its policy I will be filing a complaint with the Department of justice for the violation of "title 2 violation" against the city and state.

Discrimination takes place by allowing the ambulatory impaired to use the sidewalk with their choice of form of wheeled transport, but not allowing other forms of disability like significant hearing loss , or sight impaired the same right. As far as not having the same right as the able on the street. The discrimination "is in the level of risk of getting killed" by not adapting policy to reduce the risk for impaired individual. like allowing them on the sidewalks to reduce such risk. Is the discrimination.

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

Sorry but your not being discriminated against, if you had the permitted mode of transport you would be allowed to travel on the sidewalk with it. The fact you are not permitted to use a cycle is not discrimination as other cyclists are prohibited as well... Unless you are arguing that ALL cyclists are being discriminated against by not being permitted to use the side walk.
The fact is that cars, vans and cycles are generally seperated from walkers and similar for safety reasons.
The fact that you have been breaking the law for years is neither justification or reason, the law should have been enforced earlier than apparent to ensure that the rights of law abiding citizens were considered. By overlooking your criminal behaviour the police were discriminating against the law abiding citizen imho

 

[disabled rider]

*Incorrect.
That applies to the city of Brainerd,Minnesota.

I have heard of the law back in the early 80's in school. It was quoted as a state law, that was unenforced. There was absolutely no mention of brainerd back in the day before internet came along.

I also suspect that those kinds of laws were not, put on the internet site for the state, because the law was so old and not enforced.

same reason my old medical records is not available electronically before the electronic recording took place at our local hospital.

wasted time scanning everything and money is in limited supply to pay someone to scan trivial things over. If I were to go to a historical MN law library it would be in one of the books , I am pretty sure.

Then this is off topic

I was just trying to point out I did not hear about that law on the internet. And I live no where near Brainerd.
This is not really a topic I just wanted to clarify where I heard it and when.
I had to do a school report on it, which is why it stuck.

 

[Jodee1kenobi]

Discrimination takes place by allowing the ambulatory impaired to use the sidewalk with their choice of form of wheeled transport, but not allowing other forms of disability like significant hearing loss , or sight impaired the same right. As far as not having the same right as the able on the street. The discrimination "is in the level of risk of getting killed" by not adapting policy to reduce the risk for impaired individual. like allowing them on the sidewalks to reduce such risk. Is the discrimination.

What?!!!! That doesn't make sense. If someone has a physical disability requiring a wheelchair or mobility scooter then of course they can use the sidewalk!!! Now that would be discrimination if they were stopped from using the sidewalk. If you have a hearing impairment, forgive me but that doesn't require any wheeled transport, so no you shouldn't use the sidewalk, like any other person.

How you view your disability baffles me. My son, wants to be like everyone else and he will never have the mental capacity to be able to cycle unassisted whether that be on the road or the path. But he never moans about it, he uses the ABILITIES he has got the best he can.
And if that means he doesn't get to ride on the road (because he would be a danger to himself as well as others then so be it!)

 

[disabled rider]

Hi DR,

with some effort I've read through your lengthy explanation of the problems you encounter.

Other than recognising problems that we all face as cyclists, I was struck by one particular comment

This hardly seems either likely or even helpful when you consider how many disabled people rely on adapted motorised vehicles for their mobility. Wouldn't you therefore be condemning people in your position to the life of exclusion you're arguing against?

GC

I was referring to cars truck on street driving in general. There are so few with severe impairments driving, when looking at total drivers out there. I was not referring to mode for disabled like electric scooter..

When you read the quoted part you mentioned out of context, I can see why you would think that.

 

[disabled rider]

What?!!!! That doesn't make sense. If someone has a physical disability requiring a wheelchair or mobility scooter then of course they can use the sidewalk!!! Now that would be discrimination if they were stopped from using the sidewalk. If you have a hearing impairment, forgive me but that doesn't require any wheeled transport, so no you shouldn't use the sidewalk, like any other person.

How you view your disability baffles me. My son, wants to be like everyone else and he will never have the mental capacity to be able to cycle unassisted whether that be on the road or the path. But he never moans about it, he uses the ABILITIES he has got the best he can.
And if that means he doesn't get to ride on the road (because he would be a danger to himself as well as others then so be it!)

Sorry Was making two separate points
I should of separated that in two the first part was dealing with 1 type of impaired use of sidewalk vs another impaired lack of right. The second is dealing with the able body and impaired that are of a "non ambulatory" and street use.

I was comparing the ambulatory impaired person in scooter, that goes 10 miles an hour, as having right to use said side walk, but excluding the deaf or mostly blind as having that same right to use a wheeled transport on side walk as a person on the scooter.

Able body part of it was in reference to the red part deaf or mostly blind using a bicycle or trike or other wheeled transport Was at a HUGELY greater risk of getting killed by driver than a able bodied. that was the discrimination by changing the policy to allow them on the sidewalk would alleviate the level of UNFAIR risk of getting killed more in pare with able body riding the street.

My apology for the misunderstanding

 

[Norm]

ouch step out for a day and poof so much to read.

Who says Americans don't do irony, huh.

 

[Longshot]

ouch step out for a day and poof so much to read. Please forgive me, It is going to take some time to catch up. If I miss a response to someone, please forgive me, and quote the post to respond too.

Who are you calling a poof (nttawwt)?

 

[classic33]

I was referring to cars truck on street driving in general. There are so few with severe impairments driving, when looking at total drivers out there. I was not referring to mode for disabled like electric scooter..

See #242 above.
You see the driver not the dis-ability. I have seen cars adapted that allowed a dis-abled driver to use it. With some it was as simple as changing to an automatic gearbox.
Others will see a cyclist & not the dis-ability. The difference, you want special treatment. Remember this, the Inequalities Act 2010, which replaced the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 works both ways. Your laws will probably work in similar ways. Designed to prevent either side claiming discrimination.

You are now starting to dicriminate against others by exclusion, your argument is getting thinner

I was comparing the ambulatory impaired person in scooter, that goes 10 miles an hour, as having right to use said side walk, but excluding the deaf or mostly blind as having that same right to use a wheeled transport on side walk as a person on the scooter.

The very thing that you claim is happenning to yourself, and you don't like it. You can say I have quoted out of context, but it was you that chose the words used, not me. I've been on a tandem with a blind stoker, also acted as a stoker for a blind pilot, on private land, giving him instructions on which way to turn.

And if you want point out to me you are disabled bicyclist 6+, I'll turn & say to you that I am a cyclist for over 30 years who happens to be dis-abled.

Having re-read all of what you have posted here, I have this feeling that there is more than one person involved in the postings made. Maybe they have told you how to word things I don't know. But the choice of wording changes from post to post.

 

[mcshroom]

Having digested as much as I can handle of this post I think basically you are either accidentally or deliberately misinterpreting the state law. The law states that you must ride as far right as practicable, and then lists a whole selection of reasons why you may not be able to do so. You also then read a line from a separate article of the same statute as a reason for gutter hugging. I personally don't care what some person at city hall who has never ridden a bike in their life believes the law states, you are the sole judge of what is reasonably practicable.

What your considerable tomes read as is someone who is scared of traffic and unhappy that people are no longer turning a blind eye to something that may or may not be legal (I don't know whether this is in the CBD or not). The traffic may seem bad but in general 99.999999999% of drivers are not trying to cause you harm, they are mainly just like you, trying to get from one place to another.

I will put my response as simply and politely as I can.

• You are riding a road vehicle, therefore should be riding on the road. Whether you like your neighbour's reaction or not this would solve the problem.
• Ride about 3ft out from the curb (using your own judgement) as this is is a sensible distance when considering the avoidance of grids and other street furniture therefore as far right as practicable.
• Look around more - if you feel unsafe looking round on your bike, find a parking lot or similar and practice doing so when there's no chance of hitting anything.

It's a UK orientated book, so keep that in mind, but Have a look for a book called 'Cyclecraft'. It is very good at explaining a lot of different parts of road riding and de-constructing what look like hazardous situations into manageable riding.

 

[disabled rider]

OP, I have no wish to have a "My deafness is greater than yours" pi55ing contest with you but if someone were to whisper into my left ear from a few inches away then I would not hear them! Friends of mine know that they should sit on my right side and if I am driving a RHD car to either speak up or shut up! You mention hearing aids - none will aid my deafness.
You mention the 'lifesaver' check and that means you are not looking forward. Now how long does it take to do a 'lifesaver'? Do not tell me in seconds but rather in distance travelled. I am not interested in what is happening within a few yards of my fromt wheel; it is already too late to react.
How are you defining poor? I think Elton John has been quoted as being poor because "I am down to my last 50 million"! I often ride with the owner of my LBS, he had a nice Trek Madone with the latest Shimano ekectronics (I have a Trek 2.5 set up as a light, fast tourer) Am I poor because I cannot afford his bike or maybe I do not want it. However if anyone here want to buy me a Trek Madone, I normally ride a 62 cm frame but will accept a smaller one as it will be easier to sell!
You talk about your disabilities - think of them as difabilities (different abilities) Older members here may remember the TV personality Patrick Campbell from 'Call My Bluff'; compared to me he was a fluent speaker. I have not concentrated on what I cannot do but rather on what I can do and suggest you do the same..

Its the frequency of the "lifesaver check" based on "speed of traffic vs you" and the "closeness each car is from one another". Divers go much to fast for the conditions they find themselves in and much too close to one another, to give them enough response time. In the end your looking over your shoulder way more than your looking forward to ensure all the cars are giving clearance.

Poor is based on cost of living vs what is available to you. If you can't do the most basic needs then poorer you are.

Cost of living is necessities not luxuries. Shelter , food, communication, transportation, medical care, etc.

I do not refer to poor being comparing USA cost of living with say Africa cost of living. for milk here its $6.49 but in Africa it may only be cents. $0.02

Its based on what the person finds themselves in.

When I have to spend more money on medical stuff I have less available to me for say transportation thus cheap bicycle instead of cheap car etc. Yea I probably get more in a month in disability insurance than an African does an entire year in Africa.

What I am considering poor is when 2 people from the same community that "Should have the relatively same cost of living"
The resources available to one is in excess of 1,000,000 vs the resources of 10,000 for the other. The burden of struggle is much harder for the person of 10,000 vs that of the 1,000,000 Thus one with 10,000 can only afford a bicycle which is restricted where it can go vs a person getting 1,000,000 who can easily afford a car with no struggles and have no restriction of movements because they own said car.

Its the disparity within the same community. that says 1 set of rules is for the well off while another sat of rules is hampering the ability of the person who is less well off as their rich counter part. The reason the poor is less well off is not the lack of car but policies that do the restricting. Like "no bicycles on highway 52" this restricts poor, not rich. Poor is made up of mostly people disproportionately with some kind of impairment,not necessarily an impairment of their persons..
-------------------------------------------------
off topic of thread.
I am riding a $500 bicycle I don't want a more expensive one due to Minnesota winters Have a hard enough times getting tires to last without sidewalls blowing out or going flat. It is the road salt and other chemicals in the deicer used on roads. washing it off when get home doesn't seam to help other than, strip even more oils from the rubber. or degrading of the cords in the sidewall where there is no rubber.

 

[disabled rider]

See #242 above.
You see the driver not the dis-ability. I have seen cars adapted that allowed a dis-abled driver to use it. With some it was as simple as changing to an automatic gearbox.
Others will see a cyclist & not the dis-ability. The difference, you want special treatment. Remember this, the Inequalities Act 2010, which replaced the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 works both ways. Your laws will probably work in similar ways. Designed to prevent either side claiming discrimination.

You are now starting to dicriminate against others by exclusion, your argument is getting thinner

The very thing that you claim is happenning to yourself, and you don't like it. You can say I have quoted out of context, but it was you that chose the words used, not me. I've been on a tandem with a blind stoker, also acted as a stoker for a blind pilot, on private land, giving him instructions on which way to turn.

And if you want point out to me you are disabled bicyclist 6+, I'll turn & say to you that I am a cyclist for over 30 years who happens to be dis-abled.

Having re-read all of what you have posted here, I have this feeling that there is more than one person involved in the postings made. Maybe they have told you how to word things I don't know. But the choice of wording changes from post to post.

OK HOLD IT RIGHT THERE. your not understanding what I am trying to say! I am not discriminating I wasn't even talking about "disabled drivers" I was talking and referring about "negligent drivers." Only reason I even got in to the whole disabled driver was someone else ALSO misunderstood, what I was saying and I was trying to clarify to them regarding what I meant by "taking motorized transportation away".. i was talking about "negligent drivers" and how you can not correct their driving behavior, unless you took there cars away from them. Problem is at least here, that is like 98% of all the drivers on the road. I NEVER said take cars from the disabled. Unless they fall under the negligent driver . SOMEONE ELSE said I was claiming that I was insisting taking cars way from disabled drivers NOT ME.

I AM THE ONLY POSTER TO MY PROFILE I LIVE ALONE. I DO NOT HAVE FRIENDS OR ACQUAINTANCES TO WHOM I ASSOCIATE WITH FREQUENTLY. NO ONE ELSE HAS ACCESS TO MY COMPUTER HERE OR REMOTELY
edited to include the following in regards to nature of my learning disability and how it can seem as it might be several writers.
Your seeing my learning disability related to short term memory playing out. If I leave it for even a few hours, It changes due to short term memory. Core info is the same the style changes. I have to reread a lot to ensure it stays on topic and consistence of what I say. The "rereading is an adaptation" to compensate for the short term memory. Content is the same the way its said changes. Its an adaptation not several people, split personality or anything else I have an extremely detailed history of testing that confirmed it to be the nature of my learning disability.

Again the content is the same, its how it is presented that changes. It is not intentional, It changes especially the longer I go between writings.