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

[hobbitonabike]

If you are not able to physically ride on the road then why on Gods sweet green earth do you think you have a right to be on the pavement??? This is for pedestrians...they do not want to be flattened by some gun toting cyclist who thinks he should ride there because he cannot safetly do so in the correct place for his mode of transport!! You are now excluding them because they fear for their safety as you do on the road. I am all for fighting for your rights but you also have to be part of society and if you start lecturing people as you do they write you off as an peanut and exclude you. Not because you're disabled but because of your superiority complex. Oh and if you start dictating what people can and can't comment on you are blocking people having their opinion. A debate is a discussion with two sides not us giving our opinion and you telling us where we went wrong!! I suggest you spend some time and effort learning how to converse in society. And don't start spouting all the I can't because of my background rubbish...If you say you can't to everything then you never will!!! I watched a video last night of a man who climbed Mt. Killimanjaro on his hands as he had no legs. I suggest you find out about him...his attitude was amazing.

 

[classic33]

Mr Hippo. No offense taken. Anyway I might also fall in the river, because I suffer from epilepsy. Not have a fit/seizure causing me to fall in. Just the fact that I have this dis-ability that very few see, might put me at a greater risk of falling in.
I don't use the word epilepltic, I watch my wording in case I offend someone else, describing my condition. I'm living with it & I've to watch I don't offend others saying what I suffer from/with. Maybe someone else here could do the same.

As for the opening poster, questions were asked that remain unanswered. Unanswered I'd say because we both know the answers, if answered truthfully.

A number of riders on here complain about the sign language that is used against them. Universal sign language almost.. But not having met anyone who didn't come from this planet, I'm accepting the saying as it is used.

You are not sure why questions about your health have been asked. Take a look at the thread title & the questions at the start of this thread. You worded them, not me or anyone else posting here, and you disagree with it/are not happy with it.

Deafness is not a reason to seek any special treatment, just as epilepsy is not a reason(in my case). Get adjusments made, yes, so as to make it safer. But not the system(s) changed to suit myself. What would happen if I didn't like the new way of dealing with it at a later date. Start again maybe.

You never once mentioned the Equalities Act, you called it the DDA. Stop putting words in your own mouth at a later date. You were unaware of the Equalities Act, just like a load of things your information is outdated. I found more out in two hours than you appeared to have in six years. Six that magical number, six times you've mentioned it, sofar.

If your health is not to be called into question or not part of what this is all about then you cannot for the purpose of this thread define/class youself as disabled on health grounds. That just leaves the poor part.

If you feel you are unable to ride on the road, then the advice is simple, don't. Also don't take your riding onto the pavement. You are using the same tactics as used by car drivers, as descibed by yourself, against those on foot on the footpath. Something which is illegal, regardless of ability. Your own state laws back me up on this point..

Get off, push & shut up. Your other option is to learn to ride your bike, Which your own State Police have agreed is a road vehicle, on the road. Which is why your neighbours want you there. You are causing them the same trouble on the footpaths as motor vehicles are causing you on the road. They are not claiming discrimination, they just want the law as it stands, upholding to protect them against you.

Before you ask what questions need answering or why don't I post what I have on here. Consider what that would mean. This thread & susequent threads, in which you use the same methods to get the answers you want to hear, will result in them being locked as well. Your phd freind, lives/lived five-six blocks away. Just under twice the distance to the library you went to the other night. But not in the same direction.

I remind you,you have made the statement that this is not the first place you have posted this subject. Those were checked, as were links given in those, both by yourself & others. You don't like the answer you are being discriminated against.

 

[disabled rider]

Main problem is your reasons why it is 'safe' to cycle on the pavement apply equally to persons of no disabilities. If its allowed for you, why not them also?

YOUR missing the point. IT IS NOT ABOUT THEM being on the side walk It is to reduce the Impaired persons risk of getting killed to be more on par with the able bodies riding on the street. And eliminating the discrimination of favoritism.

What you said Is not from an impaired persons perspective Your comment was clearly written as an able bodied, Your failing to comprehend the level of risk of a able vs impaired when both use the street. The person with impairment FAR OUT WEIGHS in the level of risk of getting killed vs able. And your failing to see the discrimination by forcing the people with impairments to use the streets. when there is a way to reduce that level of risk to be more closely with that of able on the street.

The change of policy is to reduce the risk so they are closer to the same level, They are not going to be exact..

Yes able on sidewalk reduces their risk too as long as they follow ped rules, but then that isn't the point of this thread. Besides if you have too many cyclist on the side walks then you have an over crowding issue, Which is one of the reasons cyclists are on the street to begin with.

Your just trying to justify the discrimination, by trying to apply a "reversal tactic" and that is simply wrong. The "reversal tactic"
was used in the past and was not accepted well.

They tried that back with the deaf and dumb debacle. The modification of policy is to have an almost 1 on 1 teaching environment for deaf/ hard of hearing students in schools, to try to give them a more level playing field in education as their hearing counterparts.Then parents with children who had perfect hearing tried to block it by say why should they get 1 on 1 but not our children Our children could benefit just as much. (I was in 3rd grade when this was kicking in to high gear, and I joined my first hearing impaired class.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_deaf_education_in_the_United_States http://www.wvdhhr.org/wvcdhh/directories/07toc/pubschob.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act During this is when the reversal tactic was tried and failed. Here is the quote from the IDEA wiki "Providing mandated educational and related services is expensive and reduces schools' ability to educate regular education students[4" "See here this is when they had tried the reversal tactic" as a means to justify the exclusion in there attempt to not have to fund it.. This is very similar to your point about able on sidewalk, there is a limited amount of resource allocation (physical space). Your saying that able bodied would benefit too goes in line with the red part above . School reversal tactic failed in the end They still had to comply with NOT discriminating by exclusion. .

It came down to cost and space as why the hearing students could not get 1 on 1 and there is stuff the deaf and hard of hearing needed to learn besides the material the hearing students needed. Like speech therapy, word auditory recognition etc.

Your tactic is exactly what they tried then. "reversal tactic" Those who do not remember or study history is prone to repeat it.
The reversal tactic is also looked at as a shame on you for using tactic.

Then there is the factor as it stands the able body people are not being discriminated, able body people is NOT a protected class. Impaired riders are by the amount of undue risk over able bodied of getting killed and they are in a "protected class."

Then there is who has greater power. who can defend themselves better, etc. you give greater protection to the weaker group in policy to make up for that disparity.

If there was space on the walks for everyone I would say go for it. Then reality, in many business districts, it does not have the space for every single rider on the walks when peds are out in force.

disabled rider.

 

[Oldspice]

Your reply to 'CopperCyclist' makes absolutely no sense You never answerd his question.

 

[classic33]

YOUR missing the point. IT IS NOT ABOUT THEM being on the side walk It is to reduce the Impaired persons risk of getting killed to be more on par with the able bodies riding on the street. And eliminating the discrimination of favoritism.
disabled rider.

Explain how a state law that requires any cyclist, regardless of ability, to have to treat their road vehicle the same as any other road vehicle, can be classed as dicriminating against anyone.

You are again calling for equality through discrimination.
Something that others have fought for over the years for others, not themselves. You likened yourself to Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King Jr. was the man with "the dream", "the vision" whereby all men are created equally. You on the other hand just want special treatment.

And since you have already daid your health is not part of the problem & not open for discussion, From this point forward make no further reference to it.

I speak has someone who has a dis-ability, so by your own standards I'm qualified to speak on the problem

 

[classic33]

Your reply to 'CopperCyclist' makes absolutely no sense You never answerd his question.

He doesn't do questions remember!

 

[Longshot]

DR - for someone who is deaf, you're surprisingly fond of the sound of your own voice.

The trouble is, very few people are listening any more so you are wasting your breath. You will put this down to a lack of interest or understanding in the plight of the disabled cyclist. You'd be wrong. It's down to you and the way you communicate with others. You pick an inappropriate forum (ie UK rather than US) to air your views. You lay down rules about how people should respond to your posts - this is a PUBLIC forum and you need to understand what that means. You witter on and on about irrelevant stuff that is not germane to your real cause. You chastise people for 'not getting it'. You brook no argument or criticism - you won't listen even to helpful and constructive points.

You said early on that you've been kicked off three other forums. This is why.

As far as I can see it, you have a disability and you want special dispensation for it. I understand that and can sympathise with you in principle. It would appear that your Government (or State) believe that the dispensation you want is against the wider public interest. The needs of the few do not always outweigh those of the many. I'm sorry, but there you go.

 

[Cyclopathic]

I am trying a different tactic in writing this post, Since it required me to go to other pages to read as I wrote it. I used wordpad in windows. As result the format is different than others of my posts.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
OK I believe this was the post I had promised and vowed to reply too.
This is a reply to the post Mr Jamie Quote"

" 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 I'm 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 argument 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. "
-------------------------
------------------------
When I use caps I am NOT shouting. I sue(wow had a dyslexic fart flipping of letters I meant to use "use" Point here is I do have dyslexia I just hide it well) here it to get the reader to pay attention to those particular words because If they don't the point is easily missed in which I am trying to make. When I shout I use "!!!!!!!!!!!""

I am also using double "----------------------------" as a means to separate different trains of thought to help keep the different points separate, people are having trouble following, when not recognizing the shift points in the topics pointed out in my posts.
-----------------------
----------------------
I am going to do two things reply to you and recap. There is a lot of stuff going on, claiming I am saying stuff I am not. And I am seeing a lot of refusal to see it from an Impaired riders view.

I have pointed out in the beginning, if you do NOT look at it from the impaired person point of view you, fall for the "normalized exclusion" and DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM.

Example of saying something I did not say poof I am gone for a few days and I come back and there is so much to read "POOF' you know like a magic act its there one moment and gone the next.
----------------------
----------------------

I have said it in previous posts, multiple times, about the reason for riding On the side walk.

I First said it in post #77 chapter 1 "about myself"

Quote:"1. hearing loss, low end of moderate to profound. Moderate is 1/2. Profound is deaf. wearing in excess of $3000 in defective hearing equipment. "exclusion factor" is the reason I am being forced to wear expensive defective garbage."

Quote;"4. heart defect had heart surgery when was 26. Food additives and other chems used on food was the trigger to make this a big issue for me."

Quote:"5. Atypical panic attacks This was caused by the torture and abuse by my peers due to number 1 and 2 above. I have had bodily arson done to me for the sole purpose to entertain a bully who was bored. Another incident broke my right arm for same reason as first. The actions were linked to numbers 1 and 2. Fact is, many people get insecure when they feel someone they perceive as inferior is doing better than they are. (class standing in top 1/5 despite 2 major impairments, and exclusion, in point of fact)"

How I interact with people when a conflict happens, such as a close call with death, other aspects of the Chapter 1 come into play like the C-PTSD

Now when I been talking about riding side walks I been only using the "hearing impairments" disability. because I figured it was the easiest for people to follow when showing examples.

And suing the wheelchair and second floor scenario as well because it was an easy one to follow.

I been leaving out the "Atypical panic" in the discussion about which impairments should be considered when adapting policy to allow to be used in side walks, in my case (it coincides with the hearing loss), because most people have no clue what it means, and it is hard for those who have never experienced it, to understand its implication. It took the doctor, to explain this to me, I understood it, because I am the one who was suffering from it. I could directly relate to his definition of it. "Atypical panic ". Its not the same as a standard "panic attack", Panic attacks are not the same as anxiety attacks.

OK I had pointed out that chapter 1 was To establish a "point of perspective" "A PERSON WITH IMPAIRMENTS" such as the two I quoted just above.

This next point is not an insult to the readers it a point about my "naivity".
I was naive, to think, that the readers were going to understand how my impairments impact and relate to cycling, and understand what I wrote previously and actually look at my posts from the perspective of a person with impairments. Example, you yourself missed it, when I have already explained several times Why I am on the sidewalks. Like the mirror discussion.

post #127 was using the assumption people were reading from an impaired person perspective. about WHY you allow impaired people to use the sidewalks. MY naivity that people would do as I asked..
------------------------

I have also discussed the discrimination" Is in the level of risk vs able bodies vs impaired people. Your "FAVORING" the able bodied, by "forcing all" cyclist onto the road. Why the able body have a MUCH LOWER RISK OF GETTING KILLED. That is the "Favoritism". So to remove the discrimination, would lead to "modifying policy" to reduce the level of risk for the impaired person to bring it down to a level more on par with those able bodied on the roads, BY ALLOWING the IMPAIRED PERSON on the sidewalks. (Those that can not see this, it is the normalization of the exclusion I am referring too, Point here is its so normalized, your blind to this point about discrimination)

I am really going to dumb down this example to make a point.
to follow the law all people cycle the street. That includes a "TOTALLY BLIND" person is forced to ride the street, too. (There is some cutting edge tech out there, that would make it possible, for a blind person to ride very slowly. it adapts GPS and voice command auditory signaling that a blind person follows exactly.)

Now consider the risk of the able body person getting killed vs the blind person, getting killed.
If you don't see the difference in the level of risk of getting killed, then your not looking at it from the impaired persons perspective.

Now swap out the blind with the deaf. You have me.

------------------

The point about the mirror was it does not mitigate enough of the risk of getting killed, to be more on par with able bodied risk of getting killed. Just like the GPS tech does not tell a blind person there is a car right behind them ready to run them over. Not being able to hear the traffic cumming so not knowing when to look in the mirror.

------------------
------------------

My sharing of personal information wasn't meant to be a topic point, It wasn't complaining, it was meant to establish a perspective, from an impaired person view. In other words follow the thread in my shoes. AS an "IMPAIRED PERSON"

If you had been You would have picked up on, why I am on the sidewalk and not the street.

I reread, I don't know how I could have been anymore clear.

-----------------
-----------------

Now to answer you question near the bottom.

I said my 6+ years of zero accidents is "RIDING ON THE SIDEWALKS" Following PED RULES. NOT STREET, USING STREET RULES.

I also discussed That I can not give you statistics on the level of risk of able bodies vs disabled.

1. Not enough disabled riders to do the comparisons too.

2. The data collected would most likely not contain facts, Like the person is legally blind , or deaf, or had epilepsy episode, when accidents are recorded. (example of this point. When I had heart surgery, they did not put in the file, that I had been injured from the defibrillator, that still causes pain to this day. in report it says heart surgery was total success with no problems.)

3 You have to look at WHO is collecting the data as well. Were they, able bodies or impaired, for example. If it was impaired, they may have added the data about the persons impairments. which would of lead to a more accurate statistics. Example of my point I was in 1 minor fender bender in my early years when driving, only cracked their tail light. The able bodied police officer left out the facts that the car, I rear-ended, tail lights were covered in dirt and made it very difficult to see when your looking right at them, He also left out the fact I was hearing impaired. He also left out the fact the driver did not have his foot on the brake, while waiting to do a 90 degree, left turn, across another lane of traffic. (It is required to keep your foot on the brake when stationary to inform following drivers your not moving. He also left out fact I HONKED.

Now if that had been me, in the car in the front and able body in behind I would not have heard the honking to alert me. That would have been a contributing factor being I could not hear the horn. Point is the police officer being able body did not even consider that putting the fact I had hearing loss in the report was a mistake of leaving relevant facts out.

Because of the omission when they try to do statistics involving impaired drivers vs able bodied driver the statistics is wrong because vital facts were left out. The number of accidents involving the impaired people is much lower than in actuality.

My proof is going on a case by case basis. because I know I can not get accurate statistics.

I was using my own example, that involved me, to prove the point of greater risk. talking about mirrors etc and my not having any accidents vs able bodied aquatance I know. etc. DON'T QUOTE THIS POINT IT IS OUT OF CONTEXT go to the original posts where I have pointed this out. (i was on the side walks while he was on street.

I also pointed out I have had my mirror destroyed by passing car when I use to ride on the street before I went to the sidewalks.
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
I cannot hear the traffic, mirrors do not help me. So When I find a big truck right on top of me, so unexpectedly, less than 1ft to my left, I have a MAJOR ATYPICAL PANIC ATTACK. Which can at times, cause me to jump in unintended directions, Not to mention instant lethargy, that can last for hours, which makes it hard to stay upright. Then compound the problem, I have "defective heart" that still has other issues besides what the surgery corrected and is currently undiagnosed.

When you put all that together, I will get killed, NOT might get killed, If I try to ride the streets

When I move to the sidewalk USING PED RULES the above does not happen. Thus accident free, The risk to me getting killed drops to a more on par to the risk able bodied people riding the street.

------------------------------------

I know I jump in unexpected directions, from the time I lived in Adult foster-care, while I waited for the outcome of my Disability case from SSA. Even with hearing aids I could not hear people move around me even when they are making noise. I find them right next to me behind my perferial vision, when I turn they are right there, causing me to jump, the jump is exaggerated by the "Atypical panic attack."

I live alone since getting disability insurance. 6+ years ago

-----------------------------------

Knowing this fact There is a high probability and actually have it happen, several times while riding, If I am on the street on ice I will fall into traffic, happened on low traffic road, and I wasn't injured. Remember I also mentioned my balance is not great off center. Jumping can put me off center suddenly. weaving etc to try and compensate, drivers not giving me the mandatory 3 ft is not going to be expecting this.

------------------------------

If you look at what I described from a ABLE BODIED PERSPECTIVE, It looks like total irrationality, lying, delusional, mentally ill, etc.

When you put yourselves in my shoes and look at it through my eyes, NOT using your own experiences but mine. Everything I have said makes perfect sense and is quite rational.

That HELP oldspice keeps insisting I go get, I already have. I been running the stuff, I been writing about here past HIM. See he sees it from my perspective (And he is a PHD psychologist), He been with me for more than 6 years. He can put himself in my shoes, with my "entire history" at his finger tips. He can clearly see the discrimination, I can tell by the tears in his eyes.

See one of the cognitive behavioral therapy steps is to cross check your facts and information with an outside source (outside your head, like another rational person) To ensure that your thought process is not irrational / delusional.

He does not agree on every point I make, Which I why I trust him and let the things people say here go PARTLY through one ear and out the other-side. Especially those who insist there is something wrong with me and try to give the WRONG label. One of the key things like what oldspice was saying was ignoring the fact I already said I KNOW what is wrong with me.
The whole mental illness thing is another can of worms regarding the NORMALIZATION as well.
Like not wanting to distinguish between mental illness and psychological injury. Because admitting the difference has a fundamental change on how we perceive certain issues regarding health of the brain. I do not want to get into this debate here this one belongs in a mental health forum and does not have any relevance to this discussion other than establishing point of perspective from a person with impairments. I clearly pointed time and again that it is about establishing perspective not establishing point of topic about analyzing about everything wrong with me.

---------------------------
----------------------------
Then Why am I here? I have Talked about that too. See I am not unique nor alone when It comes to policy doing MORE HARM to people with impairments and that doing more harm is the discrimination, The difficulty lies with HOW NORMALIZED the discrimination is.

Normalized basically means people are blind to it and can't see how discriminatory their actions or lack of actions are.

Ask yourself, why people no longer use the term "DEAF AND DUMB" openly any more unless they seriously want to be sued.

Way back, it was normalized term and used back then on daily basis, in a manor that was not seen as discrimination.

But once we shown how widely it was used and disproved it, It became a "CLASSIC" of what not to do. Because it was finally cleared that in fact it was discrimination, and that the "NORMALIZATION OF IT' had been devastating for those with hearing impairments in their exclusion of education and participating in society. It had gotten better, but is still a big problem.
The big difference is it is not so "normalized" as it once was. But then that depends on who's perspective your using. This is proof that the normalized discrimination is still live and well http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-...ity-rights-education-disabilities-act-netflix If it had not been a problem still, it would not have gone to court in the first place.

The equality act isn't any better the Atco vid previously posted is proof of that. They were acting on instructions from the government within the equality act guidelines. If it hadn't been for a flaw in the policy the Atco incident would not have happened. The company was just an escape goat. It looks bad if it is shown so early after the act was put in place that there is a big flaw with it.

I had tried to address that in the disability post to "V" I think real early when he asked if I knew of the medical and social definition of disability. and mentioned the Equality act.

No one is perfect and I pointed that out about myself in "chapter 1" post. By sharing the impairments, I openly admitted I am not perfect, If anything Far from it.
----------------------------------
----------------------------------

Here is something to think about especially, those accusing me of complaining. Was Martin Luther king complaining? No he said there was a problem he went into detain what that problem was he also reflects his personal issue to show how the problem impacted the African American people. By using a specific personal examples.

Things will never change unless someone stands up and says this is not right and fight for change to correct the wrong doing.

A very common tactic used to shut the person up, Chase them out of town(banning or telling them to go elsewhere), to accuse them of complaining, say there is nothing wrong, except with the person themselves, etc. There are MANY reasons this happens, Like "well if I got to suffer, so should you", or "I really don't want to see that my actions or inaction is doing harm", "I like how things are now", on and on. The 3 reasons I have listed, I have seen in the way some people posted in this thread.

Disabled rider
OK this PS is absolutely not open for discussion.

I am now about 10 pages behind it is going to take me some time to catch up, and to compound the problem, I have other stuff to address like getting policy locally changed, to accommodate equal access, Acquiring a new firearm for hunting, get my winter Homemade wear etc, ready for cycling.(like Homemade winterized wrap around chaps, with crotch/butt windbreak/insulation, homemade wool/fake fur hat, with big dog ears and face flap.

FYI I been around firearms since birth, My mother started out as a caretaker for the local firearm clubs range. I been trained in proper use and safety, and have endorsements on my drivers license, I have had access to loaded firearms , like military pistols, 12ga, 22, BB, 30-06 etc, even through the roughest parts of my life. I have not once thought of using the firearm in any fashion not legal.
I brought FYI up because I know at-least 1 person is going to freakout irrationally, if I did not post the FYI, hearing that I am looking for a hunting firearm 12ga. Who knows they will probably still freak out . Oldspice I am NOT on the forbidden list of possessing firearms. To ban me you would have to ban almost every single police officer, military personnel, body guard etc. Only reason I do not already have one in hand, is I had to give the ones I had to extended family, (no I can not get those back), when I went in to Adult foster care, I could not take them with me, It wasn't anything to do with me, it was fear that other people there, who were on the banned list, would get their hands on one. Like schizophrenic.

I see.

 

[black'n'yellow]

25 pages of self indulgent tosspottery and I'm losing the will to live...

possibly my favourite word on the entire thread....

 

[Moss]

Is there a definition for the Word - Tosspottery?

 

[gary in derby]

This thread is cycling related just figured it out. its like a wheel! keeps going round and round and round and round BLAH BLAH BLAH.

 

[black'n'yellow]

Is there a definition for the Word - Tosspottery?

I may write a wiki entry for the word - if I do I will not provide an explanation - just a link to this thread..

 

[Tigerbiten]

My first post in this thread ..........

DR.
If you want to be safer on the road have you thought about getting a trike.
I'm another dis-abled rider.
On a two wheeled bike I'm not safe on the road but on three wheeled trike I am.

You can then go as slow as you like without the risk of wobbling into traffic. I dont like big lorries passing within a foot or so when I'm on the trike, but theres no risk of wobbling into the path. Also you can gear a trike a lot lower than a bike, less strain on your heart.

Because you ride something different passing traffic tends to give you more room. Also a trike rides a lot wider than a bike, so passing traffic tends to make a proper overtake and not just squeeze through a gap.

 

[disabled rider]

As far as I can see, disabled rider is partially deaf, unspecified heart problem, has panic attacks and prefers to ride on the sidewalk, am I right so far?
If Classic 33 does not mind, I will use him in this example. We live not too far away and have known each other for years. I have found out there is a new cafe open, down by the river and about 30 miles away so I phone him up and ask him if he wants to go on Sunday. He does not want to go with me so has to think of an excuse, we have all been there, have we not? One 'excuse' that he will not give is "I am an epilectic and may have a fit" Turn the tables around and one of my excuses will not be "I am deaf and I stutter".
Disabled rider, you have to learn to adapt, stop complaining and learn to turn disadvantages into advantages. I did. How? A lot of people who are bullied in school find a safe haven at home but my bullying continued at home so my escape was the bike and 53 years later I am still pedalling! Other posters on here have similar stories.

I have learned to adapt I have explained said adaptation, your example doesn't have anything to do with policy discriminating preventing say classic 33 from participating. .

The correct example is you and classic 33 wants to meet there at the cafe, you actually go to cafe and when you try to enter, the cafe says NO classic 33 can't come in, because we are concerned that other patrons would be injured if classic 33 were to have a seizure. See classic 33 is more than capable of participating but the only thing is cafe policy that says classic 33 can't participate. Change the discriminatory policy to allow classic 33 in. This is the relevant example based on what this thread is about. And what I been trying to convey.

Your example was PURELY to make an excuse on classics part to not participate in something classic doesn't want to do. but is capable of doing. I see absolutely NOTHING in your example about any policies that forbids classic 33 from participating or puts classic 33 in undue danger vs able body people.

Your point That I see is shut up and let society abuse you, that its all your fault and you have to take responsibility for societies wrong doing. and your not allowed to point out society wrong doing and ask others to correct their bad actions and behavior. And that your not allowed to modify or over turn discrimination, in order to remove it.

I am going to assume you only read one post based on what you mentioned about particular impairments. by reading only that one post you took everything I am talking about out of complete context of its actual meaning. of what this thread is about.

I am not riding on the side walk because I want to, I am because If I don't, a Negligent driver will kill me no if and or buts. And I am having to break a discriminatory policy to do so.

You can not adapt if all options are taken away by exclusion or resource restriction. If I follow your recommendation and stop riding how am I going to get food , go to appointments, shop for other necessities? Cycling IS THE LAST OPTION AVAILABLE TO ME. If I can not get from point A to point B via cycle I can not care for myself. I am stating a simple fact here.

Also your telling me to adapt is in essence the medical model of disability, Your ignoring the social model the part where society is EXCLUDING by policy or infrastructure . forcing one to so called adapt to overcome a exclusion by society is in kin of discrimination and inflicting undue burden on to the person with impairments who not only has to deal with their impairments but also has to deal with how to get around the society exclusion. For the average person this is either extremely difficult to impossible. And thus left out in participating in society. wait if society had not excluded could the person with impairments participate? yes. If yes then its society wrong doing and responsibility to remove the exclusion factor.

and you just accused me of refusing to adapt is wasting 3000$ on total junk aids for hearing not enough? where is the line drawn of putting undue burden On a person with impairments. I have meet society more than 1/2 way It is time society step up and remove its discriminatory policy and do its less than 1/2 .

I am trying to point out the injustice, when did that turn into complaining?? what exactly have I said that you view as complaining?? From where I sit I have not been complaining.

you really want to hear an example of complaining? why are you ganging up on me wa wa why won't you let me participate, wa wa wa I am going to tell mommy on you wa wa wa

There is discrimination happening and this is how its happening and this is how it is happening in my specific case as point of fact of how it discriminates. <<<----- is not complaining at all. It is showing a problem that exists and showing how it happens and effects real people by using your own personal example. I do not have anyone else to use example in my place. If I had been using someone else as an example then you would defiantly not be accusing me of complaining.

Now if this had been about scooters I have 10 or more people to use as examples from our building. And I can show discrimination towards them as well in other areas like the lack of clearing snow in the winter which is mandatory. to allow said people to move around town. If I had a scooter too and not use my own example you would not be accusing me of complaining or not adapting etc. Point of fact just because I am using my own example or talking about myself IS NOT complaining.

It is not complaining when your in a predicament of being blocked from physically taking care of yourself and your requesting to have policy changed so as to remove the barrier to allow that person to take care of themselves.

OK i can give a very specific example locally of cycling nature.

People informed the city that the MNDOT had blocked access to the local food shelf when It removed a vital intersection on main street. and installed a fence that prevented any poor cyclist from accessing the local food shelf.

There was absolutely NO WAY for the poor cyclist to adapt in order to get to said food-shelf legally. I was in on this. I stated the case similar to how I am trying to state the case here. on how the policy and physical barrier was discriminating our right to access the local food shelf. I wasn't complaining I wasn't alone others stated the case same or similar to how been stating the case.

In the end the city modified the physical barrier removing 1/4 mile of fence so we could cut across the main street highway. to get access to the food shelf and a large business district. we still have to cross illegally to get to the other side but at least we can actually get there. The police have been specifically told to leave cyclist alone when crossing in that area. I had a trooper physically watch me l2 weeks ago to see if I would cross there and not beyond that area where cycles were not permitted on the said highway.

Point I am trying to make Is I have ADAPTED as far as I can within the resources available to me. Your telling me to do do the physically impossible.

lets see what other ways could I adapt.
1. I could ask friends for rides, oh wait no friends with cars
2. I could buy a car. Oh wait I don't have the financial resources to even buy one.
3 I could use a cab or bus, Oh wait i can't do that for same reason as number 2.
4. Oh I could walk, OH wait I have skeletal problems that cause such extreme pain that I vomit and become bed ridden for 3 days. pain med don't help here due to physical damage while walking from the pinching of nerves on impact with each step.
5. I could ask the county for help, getting around, OH wait they don't have funding and kicked me off the assistance due to that lack of funding.
6. what is left? cycle. OH WAIT IF I RIDE THE STREET I WILL FOR FACT BE KILLED BY NEGLIGENT DRIVER
7 well what can I do about cycling to make it safer? use a mirror, OH WAIT I already almost got killed when a car ran into me and broke my mirror off.
8. How do I get away from said cars when mirror failed to help? sidewalks. OH wait I am not allowed there.
9 . If i can't ride sidewalks what is left? NOTHING!
10 hmmm wait I need to eat and every thing else. what left is there OH YEA why can't I ride on the sidewalk with the other allowed impaired people? I have impairments too That can severely compromise my safety, I have adapted and can't feasibly adapt any further legally..... HMMM wait why can't I ride the sidewalks, hmmmm OH the law itself is discriminatory in a manor that does harm to a protected citizen under civil right law. hmmmm remember the fence and intersection incident...... hmm is that any different than the discriminatory law,, They were both in violation of civil rights laws.... hhmm the fence was removed so as not to violate civil rights law, so it is reasonable to modify the state law by changing 1 or 2 words. from ambulatory impaired to sensortorial impaired which also includes hearing sight and other sensory impairments besides walking.
11. hmmm what to do hmmm how to adapt hhmmmm I have already said here, that I went before city council to modify the law and expand the type of impairments allowed to use the downtown business district sidewalks especially considering that my city was not set up to have cycles on the streets. To inform the city that in effect it is NOT ADA title 2 compliant in its policy of reasonable accommodation. when its policy harms a protected class under the ADA.
12. hmmm what else could I do to adapt........ request ADA complaint form from Department of Justice, So if city doesn't comply with title 2 and remove a policy barrier I can pursue it further to remove a discriminatory policy.
13... hmmmhmmmm wait I can't be the only one having this issue..... hhhmmmm CYCLING FORUM!!!! spread the word wake people up to the fact that a protected class is being actively discriminated against and encourage other communities to review their policies to ensure that their policies doesn't have similar violation of civil and human rights.
14hhmmm hhhmmm where do I go?? Google search cycling forums with high traffic that appeals to all walks of life.. WOH cycling-chat! caters to many types of riders not so specialized in one area, reaches a relatively large community.
That would be a good place to start to spread the word.
15.... hmmm ouch barely get started and being criticized and chased, long before I actually got started.
16... hhmmm I believe strongly in correcting injustice... stick around and take a risk hmm turning into a very big risk....
17... hhmmm seems people don't want to change society for the better based on comments being posted and ones already removed.
18.. hhmmm I really really dislike injustice. So I put up with people wanting to blame me for injustice that isn't even my fault.
Society imposed exclusion.
19.hmmm. I am seriously wondering why it seams that so many are refusing to look at it from another perspective. hhmmm LOTS of SPECULATIONS AS TO WHY.... In the end If I try to post them It will without a doubt piss people off.. hhmmm I have no intention of stooping that low.

20. what goes around comes around. If you insist that you tell someone to adapt when it is physically and financially impossible and make no attempt to change the policies that stopped that person from caring for them selves . You may wind up in his or her shoes one day What are you going to do? Sheesh If I had done something when someone by the name of disabled rider had pointed it out I would not have found myself in this predicament right now, of not being able to take care for myself for the sole reason of a society Discriminating policy or physical barrier stopping me because I have particular impairments..

Mr hippo if your not financially set till the day you die, you may find yourself in my shoes with no means of adapting other than your peddle powered wheels. As you age your body is breaking down if you don't die your going to have significant impairments. without a boat load of money your adaptation is extremely limited. Your going to have enough issues, You do not need society making it a 100 times more difficult by excluding you from taking care of yourself. do you?

I am not complaining here I am trying to get people like yourself to realize at this very moment people like me who are law abiding citizens are being forced to break discriminating laws just to survive. when it comes to cycling and other areas in life.

If I do not break the law, which I do not want to do, because it violates my sense of ethics and morals I will die from not being able to take care of myself. Fact

Why are you telling me to adapt, when I can not do that within the scope of civilized rule? Just because we have a rule does not always mean the rule is right or just. So why not change it? To make it just and fair? I have as much right to live as you do Do I not?

This is a fact for my situation, the only adaptation outside of having the rules modified to be fair and just is to become a criminal.
This is all that is left to me all other options is exhausted.

I seriously do not want to become a criminal. The fact of the matter is if society fails to stop its discrimination and exclusion I will have no choice in the situation. My will to live is so strong I will do what ever I have to do to survive, That includes stealing food and other necessities.

On behalf of myself and others that find themselves in my shoes I am getting on my knees and begging people like yourself to review your laws and barriers, remove or modify the ones that disproportionately harm protected classes such as people with impairments. I should not have to remind you that this is a social responsibility. You do know or remember what that is correct?

I have done mine and continue to do my share of social responsibility. I am not asking any more from you and others, that i have not done myself or currently am doing..

Disabled rider.

 

[disabled rider]

My first post in this thread ..........

DR.
If you want to be safer on the road have you thought about getting a trike.
I'm another dis-abled rider.
On a two wheeled bike I'm not safe on the road but on three wheeled trike I am.

You can then go as slow as you like without the risk of wobbling into traffic. I dont like big lorries passing within a foot or so when I'm on the trike, but theres no risk of wobbling into the path. Also you can gear a trike a lot lower than a bike, less strain on your heart.

Because you ride something different passing traffic tends to give you more room. Also a trike rides a lot wider than a bike, so passing traffic tends to make a proper overtake and not just squeeze through a gap.

Normally I would agree with you there is 2 factors I need to point out if you have not read the rest of the thread. SNOW

And our law forces me as far right as I can possible go a trike is too wide. YET IDIOT NEGLIGENT driver would try to fit in the same lane as I am in. especially the huge delivery trucks, at speed in access of 15 miles an hour or more difference. I would also be forced to pull over and stop frequently because we are not allowed to impede traffic. At that fast yet slow speed difference you would get pulled under not pushed away by a accident. the bumper or tire would ride up the rear left tire crush it in process and pull the rider under, mos likely killing rider in process. Drivers here are vicious and getting worse day by day.

Yea trike provides more stability. I know several trike riders in my community by sight They absolutely refuse to go on our streets with them especially when 98% of the drivers are negligent here.

Personally I would prefer tadpole same issue as trike but add your lower to the ground and not everyone understands a flag on a pole warning. I like the tad pole better because it gives better turning control than a trike. and is even more stable. Then the cheapest been able to find is about $1200 which is about 700 more than I can afford. and it wouldn't solve the safety and inter issues.

Disabled rider

I am out tired uh been up all night