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

[Fnaar]

Write a blog, man! Then you can write short letters to the press saying there are issues, and suggesting they read your blog.

 

[disabled rider]

DR said that `One in which my constitutionally protected right of freedom of movement is being challenged' but all of us have out freedom of movement either challenged or restricted! Car drivers cannot drive on canal paths, UK cyclists cannot cycle on motorways and there are some road bridges here that I cannot cycle over and do not get me started on about freedom of movement in buildings - those doors that are marked `Authorised Personnel Only` are restricting my freedom of movement!

Disabled Rider, do you lock your apartment door when you go out and at night? You do? How dare you, how bl--dy dare you! You are restricting the movement of your friendly neighbourhood burglar! Leave it unlocked and he may take pity on a poor person and leave stuff for you; he is just like Santa Claus!

If you are poor and/or disabled then you cannot cycle on Hwy 52 and guess what? If you are rich and able-bodied you still cannot cycle on Hwy 52!

You missed the point I been driving from the beginning.

The examples you used, shows to me that you missed the point I was making about freedom of movement.

we have under the US constitution a right to freedom of movement from point a to point b city to city and distances in between. roads, trains, planes, boats. over land isn't an option because most of it private.

the distinction between poor and rich is the availability of the above options. from the poor stand point there is only 1 real option road via foot or bicycle. Roads are public spaces. so lets say a poor man lives in the twin cities. How is he going to move to Rochester for work when his only options due to income is either by foot or bicycle. And 52 is the only real access to get between the two? asking for rides and asking for money for the move is not available to him.

Our constitution protects his right to get from twin cities to Rochester. "Freedom of movement." problem comes in that state law VIOLATES his constitutionally protected rights by forbidding bicycle on 52. I know for fact its not a safety issue with 10-12ft shoulders and it is straight with very few rises or dips that block viability, nor is there a barrier at the shoulders that would bounce a car back on to the road if it crashed.. So the chances of actually getting hit are very low.

Basically what your interpretation of what I said is tough luck, that poor person MUST stay in the city and die. or break the law in order to survive.

This is unacceptable to me and I am challenging that way of thinking and that kind of action. What I had been suggesting is to amend laws like this to coincide with the constitutionally protected rights, or civil rights.. To allow poor/disabled freedom of movement that the rich enjoy, The rich won't even be using a bike, they will be using a car because they can afford it with impunity. or quicker yet fly if its available.

 

[disabled rider]

Write a blog, man! Then you can write short letters to the press saying there are issues, and suggesting they read your blog.

A moderator suggested the same I explained the traffic just does not come and is useless for advocacy, advocacy only really works in large numbers, when dealing with disability rights. Blog doesn't really provide that kind of exposure especially free blogs.. Then if you had actually read the thread you would have already known that.

 

[disabled rider]

I stopped reading this post after the first sentence, not because I am LAZY! But because you are calling many, who have taken the time (and it has taken plenty!!) to read and post on this thread LAZY! How rude?! It is evident from the amount of replies that most people are trying to understand and question. If you don't like what you see why post in the first place?

I said many of the readers, I did not say all of the readers BIG difference, I can tell many don't read it based on how they comment. I don't know what your getting upset about, if your one who has actually read my posts completely through, then the comment doesn't apply to you does it? Then there is no need for you to get upset then is there?

I was calling the people who were not reading it, or skimming so quickly that they misunderstand it. Based on how they comment, they would say get lost or completely interpret me as saying something completely different , Or their posts were uncivil and not even related to the thread or particular point..

Did I ever say "You posters, who have read my posts all the way through, are being lazy?" no But you did accuse me of that by saying Quote:" But because you are calling many, who have taken the time (and it has taken plenty!!) to read and post on this thread LAZY!" I did no such thing. You interpreted more into what I wrote , than what was actually there.

The number of replies does not mean to much, it is the content of the replies that count. I don't want to contemplate the ones that were removed/ edited.

May I make a suggestion , reread stuff to ensure you understood it right. I do. Anything longer than a few lines, I often read 2-3 or more times to ensure I understood it. It is an ADAPTATION to my LD. to me its second nature, since I been doing it from my early school days. It is One of the reasons it takes me longer to process stuff.(this does not mean less successful)

Some times, especially when Offended, I reread it up to 5 times or more to make sure i Understood it. I did it to couple of Oldspices comments, especially when she started going on about the mental health/ employment issue.

I reread yours at least 4 times or more.

No, it is not a compulsive disorder. If you missed it above its an adaptation to the LD taught to me in school.

Its embarrassing, misunderstanding another person. Or to get caught with your pants down so to speak, as another poster put it..

I reread my own posts so many times it is not funny. One of the reasons the core content stays the same. I burn it to long term memory.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------


Then I am not look for attention, I am trying to deal with a painful issue, that effects many disabled / poor. when cycling.
OK those of you who think I am looking for attention. Consider this and just maybe you will understand, Why I don't like attention, and don't really want it. I am not complaining, when I am talking about my past I am sharing, there is a big difference, which several postings have over looked, or misinterpreted, complaining about me complaining, I wasn't complaining about my past, was sharing.. Here it goes: The vast majority of attention in my past is been of a "painful nature" Constant bullying not just by a couple people , but many, I have had entire crowds gang up on me. I HATE pain. I avoid it as much as I can. Now I associate attention with pain. Remember I just got done saying I avoid pain. That means, things that remind me of pain I try to avoid. Meaning I try to avoid or do not like attention, even of the good variety. Because I am reminded of PAIN. I do not associate attention with good feelings. When I won that award for the MCC I was proud of winning it, I hated the attention and wanted out ASAP, went to the front accepted the award, turned around, refusing to look at anyone-else, went straight back to my seat and tried to shrink. That is C-PTSD for you. This is Very difficult to fix, been working at it, for more than 30 years.

I have no idea how many posts, other than number of pages, when I look at it, other than that I am not even keeping track.
I don't care about point systems or anything else that keeps score here.

Heck I am still trying to find that post I promised to reply to, every time I post it takes me to the end and not where I left off, most likely related to not allowing cookies? each post that side tracks me from that promise, only galvanizes me to make sure I do respond to the post.

I hereby vow, that when I come back next, that I will not post to any other post, till I have responded to the member I made the promise to get back to their post, earlier this afternoon, my time.

disabled rider. (meaning I am leaving for the night and will be back to fulfill the vow promise. before responding to anyone-else post.)

 

[mr_hippo]

You missed the point I been driving from the beginning.

The examples you used, shows to me that you missed the point I was making about freedom of movement. .

You have freedom of movement; you may not have the means but you still have freedom of movement!
You give an example of a poor man living in the Twin Cities and moving to Rochester. If it were you, I will assume that as well as a bicycle you also have personal possessions. How many bicycle trips would it take you to move all your possessions to Rochester? For the benefit of readers who are not familiar with the area it is about a 200 mile trip

 

[Longshot]

If I'm reading the live film feeds correctly, he'll be back online within the next five minutes as he's just arrived home again.

Longshot, Yesterday at 22:49


and...

Whatever

disabled rider, Yesterday at 22:56

Ohhhh, 2 minutes out!!

 

[Mugshot]

Longshot, Yesterday at 22:49


and...


disabled rider, Yesterday at 22:56

Ohhhh, 2 minutes out!!

I noticed that and got scared, the force is strong with you young Longshot.

 

[on the road]

The rich won't even be using a bike, they will be using a car because they can afford it with impunity. or quicker yet fly if its available.

How do you know?

I have a car and also ride a bike, a lot of people have cars and also ride bikes. And I'm sure it's the same in America.

 

[classic33]

I am allergic to alcohol I can't drink, I don't do drugs, don't smoke for same reason I don't drink

Doesn't mean you were not drinking before or at the time you were stopped (Post Number 394, Page 20)
Remains unanswered. You have evaded the question.

See
#363, Page 19
#378. Page 19
#380, Page 19

Ok keep in mind the FIRST POST is not even the issue It was establishing grounds as to how this thread should be conducted as to not get derailed. It was also a warning, that what I was going to write about is sensitive topic that was going to push people buttons, yet it really needed to be addressed. I am not trolling here. It is a real issue that gets shunned in public places, especially when it involves who is talking and bringing it up. People get very uncomfortable, when a person with Impairments, brings up discrimination towards them.

I originally planned doing it in chapters "prelude" 1,2 ,3,4,5 After chapter 1, I abandoned the format due to peer pressure and bad comments made by posters who were derailing the thread before it even got off the ground.. The bad comments were removed mostly, by one of the moderators. The moderator had warned other members to be civil towards each other. I was and am being civil which is why it was not really directed at me.

MrJamie said: ↑
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.

A few minor mistakes now showing on your part.

You drive, yet you don't take the car when going hunting. To do so would allow you to use the shorter route. Since you insist that we do not chop your posts up & mis-quote, can you show the same respect. Also read, learn & digest what is being said to you. You want us to do it with your posts,but will not reciprocate.

You have posted links to places/mentioned places off this forum & when what has been found there & elsewhere, you insist we are wrong or that we do not know what you mean. In some of the posts

Disabled rider
How many deer carrying, pavement cyclist live in your area?
This question raised because you evade answering the first one asked about drink.

My post(#385, page 20) was worded using what you have posted on here & elsewhere. Yet you disagree/don't like it. Why is that?

 

[classic33]

Having just come off the phone with East Grand Forks Police Department, Minnesota. I'm posting the following. I don't think he believed I was phoning from the UK.
Cycling on the pavement is not illegal, but the cyclist must cycle at a speed releative to those walking on it. They must also give way to those walking on it, as those on foot have prioritity. Fail to do so & the cyclist is at fault. If a complaint is made against a cyclist, they(the police) will go and speak to them. To get them to stop.

If they "believe you represent a hazard to those walking", they will "require you to move onto the road". Regardless of ability.

Certain routes are off limits to cyclists over there for similar reasons over here. As is the case in the UK, you get caught on one of these off-limit routes you will be talked to, regarding your actions. Regardless of ability.


Note, where cyclist is given above for the US, read bicyclist. For footpath, read sidewalk.

 

[hobbitonabike]

Two words...paranoid and delusional....do with them what you will!!!

 

[classic33]

I never knew that
That's discrimination for sure. Any of us could get sick on a plane, so what?

Thats due to the epilepsy. A fit/seizure whilst the plane is in flight would require an immediate emergency landing. Normal restraint methods that can be used on an aircraft are not allowed.

 

[Jodee1kenobi]

I said many of the readers, I did not say all of the readers BIG difference, I can tell many don't read it based on how they comment. I don't know what your getting upset about, if your one who has actually read my posts completely through, then the comment doesn't apply to you does it? Then there is no need for you to get upset then is there?



May I make a suggestion , reread stuff to ensure you understood it right. I do. Anything longer than a few lines, I often read 2-3 or more times to ensure I understood it. It is an ADAPTATION to my LD. to me its second nature, since I been doing it from my early school days. It is One of the reasons it takes me longer to process stuff.(this does not mean less successful)

Nope I understood perfectly well thanks. May I make the same suggestion to you, as I didn't say ALL readers, like you I used the word MANY.

 

[classic33]

"Minnesota Bicycling law gives cyclists the same rights and responsibilities as motorists. This means that you have the freedom to ride on all streets, except for those which prohibit cyclists. In Minneapolis, prohibited streets include the limited access freeway system (such as I-94, I-35W, I-394, MN 62). As a cyclist, you also have the responsibility to follow all traffic laws. Among other things, this includes signaling turns, following traffic signals and signs, using headlights and rear reflectors (although taillights are advised), riding with the flow of traffic, following right-of-way rules, and yielding to pedestrians who have entered a marked or unmarked crosswalk."

 

[Mugshot]

Having just come off the phone with East Grand Forks Police Department, Minnesota. I'm posting the following. I don't think he believed I was phoning from the UK.
Cycling on the pavement is not illegal, but the cyclist must cycle at a speed releative to those walking on it. They must also give way to those walking on it, as those on foot have prioritity. Fail to do so & the cyclist is at fault. If a complaint is made against a cyclist, they(the police) will go and speak to them. To get them to stop.

If they "believe you represent a hazard to those walking", they will "require you to move onto the road". Regardless of ability.

Certain routes are off limits to cyclists over there for similar reasons over here. As is the case in the UK, you get caught on one of these off-limit routes you will be talked to, regarding your actions. Regardless of ability.


Note, where cyclist is given above for the US, read bicyclist. For footpath, read sidewalk.

Did you ask them about dragging animal carcases along?