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

[disabled rider]

[QUOTE 2088693, member: 45"]If you can ride a bike and work a computer, you're employable.[/quote]

that is your opinion that does not have anything to do with reality I have explained when 100% of employers refuse to hire you based on impairments you are "unemployable." "THE EXCLUSION FACTOR"

Your mixing "your capable of working" with "your employable." even then your still off because the two tasks that I am doing do not apply to the task at a job. Example those two things mean nothing , when your job is to Build a house. Those skills have nothing to do with building houses. Therefore your not employable for building houses.

yea I can use a computer, I do not know how to do programming or use corporate spread sheets and I wouldn't know the first thing about being a secretary, computer programmer, etc. not to mention, my hearing impairs my ability to use the phone which is vital for secretary position, My LD impairs my ability to understand computer programming.

Seriously what specific jobs, can I use those two "very general" skills to do? and HOW SPECIFICALLY do they apply to that job? I will tell you, if we even have that kind of job here. We do not have delivery by bicycle here, WINTER SNOW. Position is called material transporter Involving delivery trucks, I have applied for such positions here, soon as they find out about my LD they say position is filled even though they have not filled the position. They give me bodily ques their expression changes body position changes, display discomfort, look down their nose a little more, interview speeds up, etc.

I have thoroughly explained in previous posts.

I am going to have to assume your goading / harassing me. With the simple fact you responded with 12 words. which probably took you less than 2 minutes to write. with NO SUPPORTING DATA .

Then My employment status is not even meant to be part of this thread discussion. It was part of establishing a perspective. It wasn't even open for debate.

shame on you for being so callus and narrow minded, and not actually thinking it through.

Disabled rider

 

[Oldspice]

@DR How old are you?

 

[disabled rider]

I've read all of this thread, please show me where you've explained why you need to ride on the sidewalk.
This is the vague comment im talking about, you don't explain why you're more at risk just say that you are.


Here you state the same "fact" again that you will get killed and an able bodied cyclist might not, but without any reasoning or evidence, that's not how a discussion works.

Q. Why with your self-professed good cycling ability are you personally more at risk than able bodied cyclists and in need of riding on the sidewalk?

I'm not trying to trip you up or pick an arguement with you, but you absolutely need to be able to answer that question if you want to convince people to agree that you should cycle on the sidewalk. You've had 18 pages of replies and an incredible amount of tolerance from this forum.

actually its been edited by moderator regarding the tolerance the worst of the intolerance been edited out. earlier
I will get back to you on your points. Actually they are in previous posts what you think i am being vague about, I was trying to not balloon my post even further by going back and re-quoting what I have already wrote previously in prior post. I am trying to avoid the super post incident.

quick answer to the biking I have gone in to detail on HEARING

I have an appointment to get to right now

 

[Mugshot]

Most of the 29 jobs interviews, came through the local workforce center, the rest from the paper. I have done everything locally short of illegally lying or steeling or breaking other laws. I did not have the resources to move, I have less resources now than I did then.

May I just check that I'm reading this right, you've been to/had 29 job interviews and because you have been unsuccessful you've decided you're unemployable and given up? There are people that will go for many many more interviews and send off hundreds of applications taking knock back after knock back, yet they keep on doing it until they find something because sometimes that's what you've got to do.

 

[Saluki]

I have had hundreds of job interviews and got quite a few jobs. Recently as I have a banjaxed arm, I have opened my own business as employers don't seem keen to offer me a job with my useless arm. My doctor thinks that I shouldn't actually have an office job. Good job that I don't have one then.
I have spent a lot of time and effort going for job interviews in the past, and getting knocked back again and again. But like a weeble, I get back up and keep on going.

I have about 40% hearing loss, which is not nearly as bad as you DR, but I still have impared hearing.
I broke my back and my doctors say that it is a miracle that I can walk, let alone that being the bloody minded cow that I am, that I have run marathons, triathlons and now like to do the odd sportive. My right arm is pretty useless now and I keep my hand in my pocket a lot, to keep it out of the way, but I manage to work quite effectively.
A lot of jobs I cannot do, so I have gone and found something that I can do. I am very good at it too.

I am not disabled. I am differently abled and I ride a bike. I have also been known to skin and joint the odd deer too, but I can't' carry one as lifting is not my 'thing'.

Just my fourpennath worth as I can't see why you see yourself as unemployable when you seem to have a bit more motility that I do.

 

[on the road]

DR, Couldn't you get a job as a paper boy, at least you can cycle on the sidewalk then like all paper boys do, oh and if you're deaf then get a hearing aid and then you'll be employable.

 

[Andy_R]

I have had hundreds of job interviews and got quite a few jobs. Recently as I have a banjaxed arm, I have opened my own business as employers don't seem keen to offer me a job with my useless arm. My doctor thinks that I shouldn't actually have an office job. Good job that I don't have one then.
I have spent a lot of time and effort going for job interviews in the past, and getting knocked back again and again. But like a weeble, I get back up and keep on going.

I have about 40% hearing loss, which is not nearly as bad as you DR, but I still have impared hearing.
I broke my back and my doctors say that it is a miracle that I can walk, let alone that being the bloody minded cow that I am, that I have run marathons, triathlons and now like to do the odd sportive. My right arm is pretty useless now and I keep my hand in my pocket a lot, to keep it out of the way, but I manage to work quite effectively.
A lot of jobs I cannot do, so I have gone and found something that I can do. I am very good at it too.

I am not disabled. I am differently abled and I ride a bike. I have also been known to skin and joint the odd deer too, but I can't' carry one as lifting is not my 'thing'.

Just my fourpennath worth as I can't see why you see yourself as unemployable when you seem to have a bit more motility that I do.

And there lies the diference methinks. As a culture, here in the UK, we tend to look at what you can do with your abilitiies, not at what you can't do. As was evidenced by recent summer events.

 

[Arch]

@DR There is nothing offensive about mental illness and if a person is in need of assistance from a health care professinal then they should get the help (it's free)

To be fair, remember DR is in the States. I don't know what mental healthcare provision is like over there, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it cost money. They don't have the benefit of our NHS, in fact they seem to think the NHS is the beginning of the end of the world...

I remember reading that some opponents were saying the NHS was so bad, Stephen Hawking wouldn't have survived if he was British. It had to be pointed out that he was British, and the NHS saved his life. It's just a shame that the only artificial voice available to him had an American accent.

 

[classic33]

Am I the only one on here that feels no matter how many times we ask the same question, he will not answer? Should all those that are still answering ask/put the same question to him.

33 Pages, half inch margin all round. Arial 10
28,413 Words.
128.642 Characters(no spaces)
157,430 Characters(with spaces)
77 Paragraphs
2102 Lines
And the best I can work out is that poor hearing is causing him to ride on the pavement. This has caused him to be caught breaking the law and he doesn't like it. This breaking of the law was previously overlooked until someone/more than one complained. From that point on it became discrimination against the dis-abled & poor. Some of the same poor presumably "walk on the same pavement(s) he wants to ride on.
The roads are not safe to cycle on. My only answer on that part is learn to ride on the roads or get off & push. I've said that to non dis-abled people on bikes on the pavements when I'm walking on one. No discrimination or exclusion there, by me at least. It(cycling on the footpath,whilst carrying an oversized, heavy load is dangerous) for those actually walking on them. It puts the P.O.B. into the same class as those they say are trying to kill him

Posted earlier, sorry for the repeat.
"$500 is a cheap bike. He doesn't want one from a third world country.
He is poor, hence the low amount he has spent on the bike.
He has this idea that only the rich can afford to drive. Anyone who doesn't drive is being excluded as they are poor.
He doesn't mind the idea of moving to another continent, where he could be one of the rich(elite)."Live like a king". So long as its not a third world country.
Everyone is out to get him. Be it because he is dis-abled & unable to see past the dis-abilty. Also because he's poor
Because he is deaf he is unemployable. No-one but him alone in this world is deaf to the same extent.
We don't know what he's talking about. Question is, does he?
He is not an irrational person. We just think he is.
He broke the law, got caught & doesn't like the fact he got caught."

Disabled rider, please read
Q. Is cycling on the pavement against the law?
A Yes. Cycling on the footway (pavement) is an offence under Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 as amended by Section 85 (1) of the Local Government Act 1888.


Q. Who is responsible for enforcing the laws and what are the penalties for breaking the laws?
A.The enforcement of cycling offences is an operational matter for local police forces.The police use the Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) of £30, which provides them with a direct means of dealing with most minor offences.The Road Traffic Act 1991 makes the two most serious cycling offences parallel to those of dangerous and careless driving. The maximum fines are currently £2,500 for dangerous cycling and £1,000 for careless cycling.

Q. I would like to report a cycling on the pavement incident, what should I do?
A. As with other offending the Government encourages members of the public to give evidence of specific problems and of particularly dangerous behaviour to the police, which will help ensure that the police target their resources effectively.
The Government fully realises that illegal cycling on footways causes much concern particularly to our most vulnerable road users, such as elderly, disabled and visually impaired people. There is no excuse for cyclists who break this or other road traffic laws such as going through red lights.

Q. Are children allowed to cycle on pavements?
A Whilst there is no exemption to this law for children, the police have always used common sense and discretion in exercising their powers over children cycling on the pavement. Very young children should not be expected to cycle on the road and we would not recommend any child does so until they have received cycle training. Enforcement of cycling on pavements is usually dealt with by a fixed penalty notice, which cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16.

I now call upon you to name two second world countries & explain where the second world was & is?

How do work in a Call Centre(answering phones, that sort of thing) when you have problems talking. I have, please explain how this was possible.

Sorry its so long folks, I think I may be catching/coming down with something something.

 

[Oldspice]

There is state and social funded health care groups in Minnesota, there is a whole host of community resources available as well.

 

[Oldspice]

To be fair, remember DR is in the States. I don't know what mental

healthcare​

provision is like over there, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it cost money. They don't have the benefit of our NHS, in fact they seem to think the NHS is the beginning of the end of the world...

I remember reading that some opponents were saying the NHS was so bad, Stephen Hawking wouldn't have survived if he was British. It had to be pointed out that he was British, and the NHS saved his life. It's just a shame that the only artificial voice available to him had an American accent.

There is state and social funded health care groups in Minnesota, there is a whole host of community resources available as well.

Considering America was doing compulsory sterilization till the early 70's there not that great, and since Health care was given over to the Insurance companies by Nixon, Hawkins would have died a long time ago as there is no way he would have gotten the insurance company's to pay for his treatments.

 

[Oldspice]

PS
Hawkins would have been told that he has a pre existing condition or he failed to fill out his insurance application form properly. Insurance company's in the States pay people to look for any fault with a claim in order to avoid paying, it could be something like not saying you had treatment for spots or that you had a bruised toe. If they can find a way to avoid paying the big bucks they will.

 

[Andy84]

I do kind of think the op has got a bit of a point regarding the cycling on the pavement issue, however I'm struggling to find the words to say it properly!

Some disabled people choose to use a standard, typical wheelchair.

This might sound a bit politically incorrect, but when people see disabled people / people in wheel chairs, they feel sympathetic / sorry for them. Most people would give way to them on the pathway & in supermarkets, and offer their seat on a bus or train.

Other disabled people, like the op, choose to use a bike or an adapted bike/trike. I doubt these people get the same treatment as the ones who choose to use a standard wheelchair.


So I suppose what I'm actually asking is:

At what point (in the eyes of pedestrians / the law / train operators) does a wheelchair become a bike?

 

[roadrash]

at no point it doesnt happen ...they are two completley different things, whatever the reason for using either
but the fact remains if as he says "cycling on the pavement is illegal thit it is simply illegal whether rich, poor able bodied or otherwise dr seems to enjoy the vicious circle that HE chooses to put HIMSELF in dr is in my honest oppinion beyond all help simply because HE DOESNT ACTUALLY WANT IT hes quite happy wallowing in his own self pity ,for reasons only known to him,,he refuses to answer specific questions time and time again.i have a phrase for people like dr but unfortunately im governed by the swear filter

 

[Arch]

I do kind of think the op has got a bit of a point regarding the cycling on the pavement issue, however I'm struggling to find the words to say it properly!

Some disabled people choose to use a standard, typical wheelchair.

This might sound a bit politically incorrect, but when people see disabled people / people in wheel chairs, they feel sympathetic / sorry for them. Most people would give way to them on the pathway & in supermarkets, and offer their seat on a bus or train.

Other disabled people, like the op, choose to use a bike or an adapted bike/trike. I doubt these people get the same treatment as the ones who choose to use a standard wheelchair.


So I suppose what I'm actually asking is:

At what point (in the eyes of pedestrians / the law / train operators) does a wheelchair become a bike?

No, I think you've said it perfectly well...

There are grey areas. I know that some trike owners have challenged rail companies on access to trains, because they need a trike to be mobile, and can't use a bike. Success is variable, and access can often be down to the staff on the day. I think a forummer on here might once have extracted from a train company a letter to show to any staff in order to ensure access.

I think (I don't know, but thinking it through...) that a wheelchair is a thing that is directly propelled by the wheels (or pushed by another person.) A bike, or trike, or handcycle, is propelled via a chain (normally, let's leave Penny Farthings out of it), which generally allows for gearing, and a greater potential speed. Perhaps it's the method of drive that makes a difference?

I suspect most people see a wheelchair as a thing that impedes the user, when compared with an able bodied person (steps, width restriction, being at a seated level etc), whereas a bike, or trike, or handcycle is a thing that allows the rider to go faster than walking, and could be used by anyone, disabled or able bodied.

(with electric mobility scooters, I think there are different regulations depending on the top speed, as to whether it can be used on the pavement or the road, but I think it's more that the slower ones can;t be used on the road, only on the pavement, whereas the faster ones can be used on either. To me, mobility scooters are a far worse hazard than a careful pavement cyclist, but hey ho, them's the rules)