Walking a bicycle into a store

TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 9:16:59 AM4/7/12

to

That's what I call convenience. I asked at Target, just to make sure,
and they told me that it wasn't allowed for "liability issues." What
the hell is that?

You may bump someone with a shopping cart easier than a bike. And
needless to say, when you leave the bike outside, you may not find it,
adding stress to your shopping experience.

Is this a case of discrimination or simply a confirmation of the fact
that we are insignificant? It is said that THE REVOLUTION IS ABOUT
SOLUTIONS, and this is an issue to be addressed. They just making the
life of the monkey more difficult than it need be.

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

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

Squashme

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 5:52:37 PM4/7/12

to

On Apr 7, 2:16 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's what I call convenience. I asked at Target, just to make sure,
> and they told me that it wasn't allowed for "liability issues." What
> the hell is that?
>
> You may bump someone with a shopping cart easier than a bike. And
> needless to say, when you leave the bike outside, you may not find it,
> adding stress to your shopping experience.
>
> Is this a case of discrimination or simply a confirmation of the fact
> that we are insignificant? It is said that THE REVOLUTION IS ABOUT
> SOLUTIONS, and this is an issue to be addressed. They just making the
> life of the monkey more difficult than it need be.
>

And you might be making the life of a shop worker or a fellow shopper
more difficult than you should make it. Why risk other people's legs,
ankles or clothes because you don't want to cycle home and fetch your
lock?

It's all about give and take.

TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 10:31:16 PM4/7/12

to

No, the lock is a DETERRENCE. Either you ride a jalopy or you risk
being hit. Sometimes they take a tire or seat, or whatever is the
weakest link.

Doug

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 2:08:16 AM4/8/12

to

What about when a bicycle is used as a mobility aid by the disabled?
Example, the saddle taking the body weight off worn-out leg joints.
Also, walking around a store with a bicycle affords some support to
the leg joints by leaning on it.

I am very aware of the discrimination being used against the bicycle
when it is used as a mobility aid.

Doug.

Dave - Cyclists VOR

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 6:27:40 AM4/8/12

to

If you can ride a bike you can't be disabled. Stop swinging the lead.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

Simon Mason

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 6:28:53 AM4/8/12

to

On Apr 7, 10:52 pm, Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> And you might be making the life of a shop worker or a fellow shopper
> more difficult than you should make it. Why risk other people's legs,
> ankles or clothes because you don't want to cycle home and fetch your
> lock?
>
> It's all about give and take.

That could apply to mothers with prams and push chairs of course.

--
Simon Mason

NM

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 11:28:14 AM4/8/12

to

Cycles were not permitted in my shop because they have snaggy bits
that the stock can catch on, they are dirty and oily which can rub off
on the display goods also when its been raining they drip over the
floor and leave a trail that needs to be cleaned up. It's an anti
social nuisence taking a bike inside a shop, if you really need
support for your hip joints then get a mobility buggy.

Bob F

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 1:41:32 PM4/8/12

to

Or do like my 88yo mother did. Lean on a grocery cart. They work way better than
a bicycle.

thirty-six

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 3:14:23 PM4/8/12

to

On Apr 8, 11:27 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

Bullshit. A bicycle grossly reduces the effort required for mobility
as compared to walking. With an appropriate gear it takes less energy
and less stress than standing.

JNugent

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 6:11:50 PM4/8/12

to

On 08/04/2012 07:08, Doug wrote:

Wouldn't a zimmer frame be better?

Wes Groleau

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 7:44:46 PM4/8/12

to

On 04-08-2012 15:14, thirty-six wrote:
> Bullshit. A bicycle grossly reduces the effort required for mobility
> as compared to walking. With an appropriate gear it takes less energy
> and less stress than standing.

Less than standing? I think not.

As for walking, there are more than a few hills in my city where
pedaling uphill with the lowest gear is more difficult than walking it.

--
Wes Groleau

Pat's Polemics
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 7:40:44 PM4/8/12

to

On Apr 8, 12:14 am, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:

> "Ed(NY)" <e...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >> That's what I call convenience. I asked at Target, just to make
> >> sure, and they told me that it wasn't allowed for "liability
> >> issues." What the hell is that?
>
> >> You may bump someone with a shopping cart easier than a bike. And
> >> needless to say, when you leave the bike outside, you may not find
> >> it, adding stress to your shopping experience.
>

> > Private companies can discriminate all they want as long as it
> > doesn't involve a protected group (race, e.g.).
>
> > They can also ban people wearing red hats if they like.
>
> Also, a bike is much more likely to be dirty, etc...

That may lead to language such as "those dirty cyclists"... ;)

>
> The real problem here is not really target, it's a society where
> criminal activity is so taken for granted that people have to worry
> about leaving their bike outside a store (even when it's not a
> particularly expensive bike).

True. But even in Holland is, which is not to say it can't be fixed.

>
> Of course if target were to be nice and progressive, they'd provide
> real bike parking, sized according to observed demand... so where
> monkey lives presumably 1-2 spaces ... :/

The key word is CONVENIENCE. Once you have to lock the bike, carry a
full pannier, and risk that it gets stolen, the car starts looking
more appealing. Many people do ride a road bike but not for errands.
Others strap it to the car and also become part of the problem. If you
just walked the bike into the store it would definitely add to the
convenience. You may be pick up a shoulder bag at the entrance that
helps you put the stuff.

Make it easy and they'll come out. Maybe our engineers have even
better ideas. They don't get paid to be dumb, right?

Dave - Cyclists VOR

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 8:07:36 PM4/8/12

to

Bullshit. You are swinging the lead.

Dave - Cyclists VOR

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 8:08:26 PM4/8/12

to

Top man. Carry on.

His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 12:33:50 AM4/9/12

to

On Apr 8, 8:08 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

Walmart lists bicycles under "toys." Let's sue them. ;)

Stores sure accommodate the car though. Everything for the car. They
make sure no car gets stolen.

"Drive, shop, and wait for Armageddon."

Joy Beeson

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 12:45:41 AM4/9/12

to

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 23:11:50 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> Wouldn't a zimmer frame be better?

A walker is a dang nuisance to carry on a bicycle. The grocery cart
is already there. And my store has started offering short-wheelbase
carts that work even better.

Come to think of it, it's been a long time since I limped out of a
store desperate to get back on my bike. Comes of walking a mile
every Sunday, I guess -- the stretch of slanted sidewalk doesn't hurt
my hip any more, either. (The slant always hurt less when I walked
faster.)

Or maybe it's that it's been a year or so since I got up the energy to
go all the way to Walmart.

I wouldn't even consider bringing my bike into a shop without a direct
and spontaneous invitation. I do try to park where I can see the bike
from inside the store -- particularly in restaurants; I'll take my
food to an outside table when they have one, or I'll look in through
the windows for an empty booth and park the bike beside it.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

Bret Cahill

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 12:42:33 AM4/9/12

to

> That's what I call convenience. I asked at Target, just to make sure,
> and they told me that it wasn't allowed for "liability issues." What
> the hell is that?

A bike could break loose and kill a shopper!

> You may bump someone with a shopping cart easier than a bike.

What's really obnoxious are the electric wheelchair types who think
it's OK to nudge other shoppers with their ride.

> And
> needless to say, when you leave the bike outside, you may not find it,
> adding stress to your shopping experience.

Lock up the bike outside and take your back pack into the store. If
anyone says anything tell him that Walmart has bike boxes out front
where you can lock your bags and purchases from other stores as well
as your bike.

Bret Cahill

Doug

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 1:40:47 AM4/9/12

to

On Apr 9, 12:44 am, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 04-08-2012 15:14, thirty-six wrote:
>
> > Bullshit. A bicycle grossly reduces the effort required for mobility
> > as compared to walking. With an appropriate gear it takes less energy
> > and less stress than standing.
>
> Less than standing? I think not.
>
> As for walking, there are more than a few hills in my city where
> pedaling uphill with the lowest gear is more difficult than walking it.
>

As one who can't walk far due to arthritis but who find it easier to
cycle, because as I pointed out my body weight on my leg joints is
taken up by the saddle, I am very aware of the discrimination used
against disabled cyclists. I am unable to now cycle up steep hills and
for that reason use an electric bike. Most of my shopping is done with
a mobility buggy but its range is much more limited than with the
bike. Fortunately I can take the electric bike on a train, which I
can't do with the mobility buggy, but when arriving at my destination
I am forced to walk along very long railway platforms due to the anti-
cycle discrimination and the same applies to pavements and inside
large stores. A few stores have just one electric wheelchair but if it
is in use I would be stymied.

Of course the temptation is, in this car-centric society, to use a car
instead with a folding wheelchair in the boot but even then I would be
up against many places which have no wheelchair access and I would
lack the healthy exercise my electric bike brings.

I have also read of people with one leg who cycle and should be
regarded as disabled.

Doug.

Doug

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 1:47:02 AM4/9/12

to

Can you imagine the uproar if the authorities decided to discriminate
against those mums as they do with cyclists?

Also what about those people who leave their massive shopping trollies
sprawled or swerving across isles?

Doug.

Mrcheerful

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 5:08:36 AM4/9/12

to

they must be big trolleys, can you see them on google earth?

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 5:55:37 AM4/9/12

to

Outrageous!!

Shopping trolleys in supermarkets - being used by people!!!

Whatever next?

NM

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 6:11:31 AM4/9/12

to

I can't agree that you are discriminated against, cycles are banned
for good reason and as a disabled person you can be provided with
alternatives at our expense.

Banning of cycling on a railway platform for example is not to
discriminate against the disabled it's to avoid possible loss of
control which could have disasterous consequences for both the rider
and innocent bystanders plus considerable expense for the rail company
in legal fees.

I too am disabled, I also cannot walk long distances however I'm more
than happy with the concessionary parking permit, I use my car a lot
you should try it. My friend who is wheelchair bound can be taken out
shopping by special taxi, again at our expense, why can't you or does
your irrational hatred of cars extend to taxis as well?

Mr. Benn

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 6:29:42 AM4/9/12

to

"Judith" wrote in message
news:p7c5o7da9r6u2plfh...@4ax.com...

========================================================

He's lucky he wasn't asked to leave the store.

Simon Mason

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 8:39:43 AM4/9/12

to

Yebbut - those nurses locks through the back wheel might as well not
exist for all the good they do.

--
Simon Mason

JNugent

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 9:15:19 AM4/9/12

to

You can be fairly sure that anyone with fewer than the normal number of legs
(more than 0.999999999999999999, fewer than 2.0) will be regarded - and
classified - as disabled.

His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 10:34:33 AM4/9/12

to

The problem is that in America you are well respected when you are
bounded to a wheelchair, but treated as a hobo when you ride a bike.
Ramps at corners are made for the handicap and we just take advantage
of it when we ride on sidewalks. Without it we would be riding on
roads or not at all.

Judith

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 12:01:49 PM4/9/12

to

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 05:39:43 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It's amazing that there are million of bikes in Holland fitted with such locks.

Perhaps the Dutch people, Dutch cycle manufacturers, and Dutch cycle shops do
not collectively know as much as numb-nuts Mason does about cycling matters.

Doug

unread,

Apr 10, 2012, 1:19:54 AM4/10/12

to

What alternatives? Whose expense?

>
> Banning of cycling on a railway platform for example is not to
> discriminate against the disabled it's to avoid possible loss of
> control which could have disasterous consequences for both the rider
> and innocent bystanders plus considerable expense for the rail company
> in legal fees.
>

But wheelchairs are not banned on platforms and some can reach 20mph.
What about when they go out of control?

>
> I too am disabled, I also cannot walk long distances however I'm more
> than happy with the concessionary parking permit, I use my car a lot
> you should try it. My friend who is wheelchair bound can be taken out
> shopping by special taxi, again at our expense, why can't you or does
> your irrational hatred of cars extend to taxis as well?
>

There are several reasons why I do not wish to use a car, despite
conventional pressure to do so, and I do not wish to make a habit of
using taxis, except in an emergency. For me, compared to a bicycle,
the range of a wheelchair is limited and I am not yet sufficiently
disabled as to be confined to a wheelchair.

Of course, as a regular car user you will be unaware of the
discrimination against disabled cycle use.

Doug.

NM

unread,

Apr 10, 2012, 3:57:29 AM4/10/12

to

Wheelchairs are for the disabled cycles are not.

> > I too am disabled, I also cannot walk long distances however I'm more
> > than happy with the concessionary parking permit, I use my car a lot
> > you should try it. My friend who is wheelchair bound can be taken out
> > shopping by special taxi, again at our expense, why can't you or does
> > your irrational hatred of cars extend to taxis as well?
>
> There are several reasons why I do not wish to use a car, despite
> conventional pressure to do so, and I do not wish to make a habit of
> using taxis, except in an emergency. For me, compared to a bicycle,
> the range of a wheelchair is limited and I am not yet sufficiently
> disabled as to be confined to a wheelchair.
>
> Of course, as a regular car user you will be unaware of the
> discrimination against disabled cycle use.

>

I think this discrimination dwells in your head alone, I understand
the many and various restrictions on cycles but none of them are
specific to disabled use of cycles.

TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

unread,

Apr 10, 2012, 12:05:40 PM4/10/12

to

I think he refers to discrimination compared to wheelchairs. Perhaps
we should consider that a wheeled vehicle is no worse than another
just because it's human powered.

NM

unread,

Apr 10, 2012, 2:12:37 PM4/10/12

to

On Apr 10, 5:05 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

Of course it is, a cycle is considerably larger and is cumbersome in
close quarters.

JNugent

unread,

Apr 10, 2012, 3:12:12 PM4/10/12

to

On 10/04/2012 06:19, Doug wrote:

> On Apr 9, 11:11 am, NM<nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:

[ ... ]

>> I can't agree that you are discriminated against, cycles are banned
>> for good reason and as a disabled person you can be provided with
>> alternatives at our expense.

>> Banning of cycling on a railway platform for example is not to
>> discriminate against the disabled it's to avoid possible loss of
>> control which could have disasterous consequences for both the rider
>> and innocent bystanders plus considerable expense for the rail company
>> in legal fees.

>> I too am disabled, I also cannot walk long distances however I'm more
>> than happy with the concessionary parking permit, I use my car a lot
>> you should try it. My friend who is wheelchair bound can be taken out
>> shopping by special taxi, again at our expense, why can't you or does
>> your irrational hatred of cars extend to taxis as well?

> There are several reasons why I do not wish to use a car, despite
> conventional pressure to do so, and I do not wish to make a habit of
> using taxis, except in an emergency. For me, compared to a bicycle,
> the range of a wheelchair is limited and I am not yet sufficiently
> disabled as to be confined to a wheelchair.

> Of course, as a regular car user you will be unaware of the
> discrimination against disabled cycle use.

We are all aware of the amount of "discrimination": it is precisely NIL.

Anywhere an able-bodied cyclist may go by bike, so may you.

Anywhere a car may go (except for motorways and similar routes such as those
involving significant distance in tunnels), you may go - and a lot of other
places besides.

What you want is to be treated, when riding a bike, as though you were
walking. But you aren't and so may not be. It isn't safe for others (you
know: the people you're not too bothered about).

Simon Mason

unread,

Apr 11, 2012, 1:22:16 AM4/11/12

to

> just because it's human powered.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think that people with prams and pushchairs should have to leave
them outside the shop's doors.
If bikes are not allowed in then neither should they be, especially as
they have four wheels and not two and take up far more space anyway.

--
Simon Mason

Doug

unread,

Apr 11, 2012, 2:07:43 AM4/11/12

to

Duh! That is the whole point! So who decides what mode of transport is
for the disabled or not?

>
> > > I too am disabled, I also cannot walk long distances however I'm more
> > > than happy with the concessionary parking permit, I use my car a lot
> > > you should try it. My friend who is wheelchair bound can be taken out
> > > shopping by special taxi, again at our expense, why can't you or does
> > > your irrational hatred of cars extend to taxis as well?
>
> > There are several reasons why I do not wish to use a car, despite
> > conventional pressure to do so, and I do not wish to make a habit of
> > using taxis, except in an emergency. For me, compared to a bicycle,
> > the range of a wheelchair is limited and I am not yet sufficiently
> > disabled as to be confined to a wheelchair.
>
> > Of course, as a regular car user you will be unaware of the
> > discrimination against disabled cycle use.
>
> I think this discrimination dwells in your head alone, I understand
> the many and various restrictions on cycles but none of them are
> specific to disabled use of cycles.
>

Again duh! Of course not because cycles are not officially recognised
as for disabled use, even when they are. Hence the discrimination.

Doug.

Doug

unread,

Apr 11, 2012, 2:42:26 AM4/11/12

to

This is about ***walking*** a bicycle into a store, in the same way
that say a Zimmer Frame can be used and people who lean on trollies or
prams are allowed. Hence the irrational discrimination against
bicycles when used as a mobility aid. Very large
mobility scooters are also allowed in many shops which are
considerably more obstructive and potentially harmful than a walked
bicycle.

This issue is all down to a false perception of bicycles which leads
to the discrimination. As I have pointed out, some manual
wheelchairs can exceed 20mph but because they are widely perceived as
an aid for the disabled they are nevertheless allowed in stores and on
railway platforms, as are powered wheelchairs, regardless of safety or
obstruction and regardless of whether the
wheelchair user can walk or not.

Doug.

Dave - Cyclists VOR

unread,

Apr 11, 2012, 3:46:17 AM4/11/12

to

On 11/04/2012 07:07, Doug wrote:

>>
> Again duh! Of course not because cycles are not officially recognised
> as for disabled use, even when they are. Hence the discrimination.

That's to stop lead swingers like you from taking the piss.

JNugent

unread,

Apr 11, 2012, 4:08:12 AM4/11/12

to

Why do you hate children and their parents so much?

JNugent

unread,

Apr 11, 2012, 4:11:41 AM4/11/12

to

*False* perception, you say?

So they aren't bulky and cumbersome? They don't damage surfaces against which
they are placed? They aren't usually filthy and over-provided with protruding
parts, many of which are liberally covered in oil or grease? They can't fall
over, causing extra hazard to innocent users of premises?

> As I have pointed out, some manual
> wheelchairs can exceed 20mph but because they are widely perceived as
> an aid for the disabled

You know *why* they are so perceived, don't you...?

> they are nevertheless allowed in stores and on
> railway platforms, as are powered wheelchairs, regardless of safety or
> obstruction and regardless of whether the
> wheelchair user can walk or not.

That's life.

Use a wheelchair if you're envious of the disabled.

Simon Mason

unread,

Apr 11, 2012, 4:14:22 AM4/11/12

to

On Apr 10, 7:12 pm, NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:

>
> > I think he refers to discrimination compared to wheelchairs. Perhaps
> > we should consider that a wheeled vehicle is no worse than another
> > just because it's human powered.
>
> Of course it is, a cycle is considerably larger and is cumbersome in

> close quarters.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

unread,

Apr 12, 2012, 12:57:30 AM4/12/12

to

That is because you obviously do not suffer from a walking disability
and so do not realise how painful having to walk with a bike along
lengthy platforms and large concourses can be.

Doug.

Doug

unread,

Apr 12, 2012, 1:07:07 AM4/12/12

to

Some wheelchairs are just as bad but they are not discriminated
against, except where there is no step free access.

>
> > As I have pointed out, some manual
> > wheelchairs can exceed 20mph but because they are widely perceived as
> > an aid for the disabled
>
> You know *why* they are so perceived, don't you...?
>

Yes, because the perception is false.

>
> > they are nevertheless allowed in stores and on
> > railway platforms, as are powered wheelchairs, regardless of safety or
> > obstruction and regardless of whether the
> > wheelchair user can walk or not.
>
> That's life.
>

No its discrimination.

>
> Use a wheelchair if you're envious of the disabled.
>

You clearly have no idea of the difficulties of the disabled and no
sympathy for them nor do you understand the many ways in which a
disability can manifest itself. Disabled people choose the mode of
transport best suited to them and their condition but some are more
discriminated against than others, particularly cyclists who have a
walking disability.

If I were to use a wheelchair instead of a bicycle my range would be
much more limited because my arms are not as strong as my legs,
obviously, but eventually I will probably end up in a wheelchair if I
live that long.

Doug.

NM

unread,

Apr 12, 2012, 1:09:33 AM4/12/12

to

They have balanced your pain against general public safety, your pain
lost, tough, make some other arrangements instead of whingeing.

Wes Groleau

unread,

Apr 12, 2012, 1:27:55 AM4/12/12

to

On 04-11-2012 04:11, JNugent wrote:
> So they aren't bulky and cumbersome? They don't damage surfaces against
> which they are placed? They aren't usually filthy and over-provided with
> protruding parts, many of which are liberally covered in oil or grease?
> They can't fall over, causing extra hazard to innocent users of premises?

No.
Depends on the surface and how you place it.
No.
Only if the operator is incompetent.

(Which is NOT to say I agree with the whining about discrimination.)

--
Wes Groleau

Heroes, Heritage, and History
http://UniGen.us/webtrees

JNugent

unread,

Apr 12, 2012, 4:10:07 AM4/12/12

to

On 12/04/2012 06:07, Doug wrote:
> On Apr 11, 9:11 am, JNugent<jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 11/04/2012 07:42, Doug wrote:

[ ... ]

>>> As I have pointed out, some manual
>>> wheelchairs can exceed 20mph but because they are widely perceived as
>>> an aid for the disabled

>> You know *why* they are so perceived, don't you...?

> Yes, because the perception is false.

You frequently see able-bodied people being pushed along the streets in
wheelchairs in Sahf Lahndan, do you?

Yeah, right...

>>> they are nevertheless allowed in stores and on
>>> railway platforms, as are powered wheelchairs, regardless of safety or
>>> obstruction and regardless of whether the
>>> wheelchair user can walk or not.

>> That's life.

> No its discrimination.

That's your view.

>> Use a wheelchair if you're envious of the disabled.

> You clearly have no idea of the difficulties of the disabled and no
> sympathy for them nor do you understand the many ways in which a
> disability can manifest itself. Disabled people choose the mode of
> transport best suited to them and their condition but some are more
> discriminated against than others, particularly cyclists who have a
> walking disability.

How about drivers with bad hips, bad backs, worn-out knees, etc?

Having chosen the mode of transport best suited to them, should they be
allowed to drive along platforms and park their vehicles there until their
return by train?

Or is that Completely Different?

> If I were to use a wheelchair instead of a bicycle my range would be
> much more limited because my arms are not as strong as my legs,
> obviously, but eventually I will probably end up in a wheelchair if I
> live that long.

As will we all.

It usually beats the alternatives.

Peter Keller

unread,

Apr 12, 2012, 5:24:00 AM4/12/12

to

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:47:37 +0100, Judith wrote:

> fuckwit

According to this theory, the vertebrates have been evolving separately
from the hagfishes during the last 500 million years or so

--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

NM

unread,

Apr 12, 2012, 6:48:32 AM4/12/12

to

Seems you have a hagfish fetish, is it recent, are you getting
treatment?

Peter Keller

unread,

Apr 12, 2012, 7:51:42 PM4/12/12

to

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:48:32 -0700, NM wrote:

>
> Seems you have a hagfish fetish, is it recent, are you getting
> treatment?

Why would I want to get treatment?
It is great to have found one on this group!

Doug

unread,

Apr 13, 2012, 1:09:32 AM4/13/12

to

On Apr 12, 9:10 am, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 06:07, Doug wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 9:11 am, JNugent<jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> On 11/04/2012 07:42, Doug wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>> As I have pointed out, some manual
> >>> wheelchairs can exceed 20mph but because they are widely perceived as
> >>> an aid for the disabled
> >> You know *why* they are so perceived, don't you...?
> > Yes, because the perception is false.
>
> You frequently see able-bodied people being pushed along the streets in
> wheelchairs in Sahf Lahndan, do you?
>
> Yeah, right...
>
> >>> they are nevertheless allowed in stores and on
> >>> railway platforms, as are powered wheelchairs, regardless of safety or
> >>> obstruction and regardless of whether the
> >>> wheelchair user can walk or not.
> >> That's life.
> > No its discrimination.
>
> That's your view.
>

Naturally.

>
> >> Use a wheelchair if you're envious of the disabled.
> > You clearly have no idea of the difficulties of the disabled and no
> > sympathy for them nor do you understand the many ways in which a
> > disability can manifest itself. Disabled people choose the mode of
> > transport best suited to them and their condition but some are more
> > discriminated against than others, particularly cyclists who have a
> > walking disability.
>
> How about drivers with bad hips, bad backs, worn-out knees, etc?
>

What about them?

>
> Having chosen the mode of transport best suited to them, should they be
> allowed to drive along platforms and park their vehicles there until their
> return by train?
>
> Or is that Completely Different?
>

Of course, that should be obvious to you, because they can carry a
folding wheelchair in their boot, unlike a cyclist.

>
> > If I were to use a wheelchair instead of a bicycle my range would be
> > much more limited because my arms are not as strong as my legs,
> > obviously, but eventually I will probably end up in a wheelchair if I
> > live that long.
>
> As will we all.
>
> It usually beats the alternatives.
>

Does it?

Doug.

JNugent

unread,

Apr 13, 2012, 4:13:19 AM4/13/12

to

Please explain why you are entitled (in your view) to choose a bicycle
instead of a wheelchair, whereas a driver (in your view) is not entitled to
choose a car instead of a wheelchair.

Is this simply because you have more rights than anyone else?

>>> If I were to use a wheelchair instead of a bicycle my range would be
>>> much more limited because my arms are not as strong as my legs,
>>> obviously, but eventually I will probably end up in a wheelchair if I
>>> live that long.

>> As will we all.
>> It usually beats the alternatives.

> Does it?

What is the main alternative?

Simon Mason

unread,

Apr 13, 2012, 4:27:28 AM4/13/12

to

As I have learned more about this species of fish over the last six
months, I have decided to put some in my garden pond.
Can you spot any?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/fishpond.htm

--
Simon Mason

NM

unread,

Apr 13, 2012, 8:01:52 AM4/13/12

to

On Apr 13, 12:51 am, Peter Keller <muzhm...@centrum.sk> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:48:32 -0700, NM wrote:
>
> > Seems you have a hagfish fetish, is it recent, are you getting
> > treatment?
>
> Why would I want to get treatment?

I assumed you may find such an invasive fetish a trifle inconvenient
in your day to day life therefore I assumed some treatment would be in
progress.

> It is great to have found one on this group!

>]

One with a fetish you mean? Why do you assume there others who share
your, or for that matter, any other fetish?

Peter Keller

unread,

Apr 14, 2012, 12:29:13 AM4/14/12

to

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 05:01:52 -0700, NM wrote:

> On Apr 13, 12:51 am, Peter Keller <muzhm...@centrum.sk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:48:32 -0700, NM wrote:
>>
>> > Seems you have a hagfish fetish, is it recent, are you getting
>> > treatment?
>>
>> Why would I want to get treatment?
>
> I assumed you may find such an invasive fetish a trifle inconvenient in
> your day to day life therefore I assumed some treatment would be in
> progress.

It is not safe to assume anything about anybody.

NM

unread,

Apr 14, 2012, 3:57:56 AM4/14/12

to

Question neatly avoided, now there's a surprise.

Doug

unread,

Apr 14, 2012, 3:02:31 AM4/14/12

to

No you are simply wrong, as usual.

>
> >>> If I were to use a wheelchair instead of a bicycle my range would be
> >>> much more limited because my arms are not as strong as my legs,
> >>> obviously, but eventually I will probably end up in a wheelchair if I
> >>> live that long.
> >> As will we all.
> >> It usually beats the alternatives.
> > Does it?
>
> What is the main alternative?
>

A car with a wheelchair in the boot which allows access to virtually
anywhere which is step free.

Bicycles for the disabled would be much more popular if they were not
discriminated against and banned from pavements, railway platforms and
stores, unlike wheelchairs.

I was forced to walk with my bike along a long railway platform
yesterday and it left me in much pain which would not have occurred if
I had been allowed to ride my bike.

Doug.

JNugent

unread,

Apr 14, 2012, 4:39:58 AM4/14/12

to

Why didn't you just ride to wherever you wanted to go and not bother with the
train?

NM

unread,

Apr 14, 2012, 7:04:43 AM4/14/12

to

You were not forced: You chose to take your bike with you. For obvious
(at least to most people) reasons cycle riding on rail platforms will
never be allowed, you will just have to either put up with it or make
an alternative provision, constant whinging will not make the
situation change.

dr6092

unread,

Apr 14, 2012, 7:05:06 AM4/14/12

to

On Apr 12, 5:57 am, Doug <smi...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> That is because you obviously do not suffer from a walking disability
> and so do not realise how painful having to walk with a bike along
> lengthy platforms and large concourses can be.

Of course, in most peoples' view only super athletes can ride a
bicycle and isn't something for ordinary people like them. So it must
be impossible to imagine that it is suitable for someone with physical
problems.

I agree that a bicycle is far easier to manage while being ridden (at
walking pace) instead of being walked. I am able to walk so respect
local custom in pedestrian areas but the idea that is for safety
reasons is total nonsense.

NM

unread,

Apr 14, 2012, 10:17:27 AM4/14/12

to

On Apr 14, 12:05 pm, dr6092 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
. I am able to walk so respect
> local custom in pedestrian areas but the idea that is for safety
> reasons is total nonsense.

Why? Cycles being ridden amongst pedestrians could result in damage or
injury to a pedestrian if the rider lost control for whatever reason,
thus for safety of pedestrians it's banned, what is nonsensical about
that?

JNugent

unread,

Apr 14, 2012, 12:41:28 PM4/14/12

to

On 14/04/2012 15:17, NM wrote:

> dr6092<dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I am able to walk so respect
>> local custom in pedestrian areas but the idea that is for safety
>> reasons is total nonsense.

> Why? Cycles being ridden amongst pedestrians could result in damage or
> injury to a pedestrian if the rider lost control for whatever reason,
> thus for safety of pedestrians it's banned, what is nonsensical about
> that?

Only that it doesn't suit Doug or dr6092 to be asked to think of others.

dr6092

unread,

Apr 14, 2012, 1:22:14 PM4/14/12

to

On Apr 14, 3:17 pm, NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 12:05 pm, dr6092 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> . I am able to walk so respect
>
> > local custom in pedestrian areas but the idea that is for safety
> > reasons is total nonsense.
>
> Why? Cycles being ridden amongst pedestrians could result in damage or
> injury to a pedestrian if the rider lost control for whatever reason,

Loss of control can happen while walking it.

> thus for safety of pedestrians it's banned, what is nonsensical about
> that?

unread,

Apr 14, 2012, 4:33:28 PM4/14/12

to

On Apr 14, 6:22 pm, dr6092 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 3:17 pm, NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 12:05 pm, dr6092 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > . I am able to walk so respect
>
> > > local custom in pedestrian areas but the idea that is for safety
> > > reasons is total nonsense.
>
> > Why? Cycles being ridden amongst pedestrians could result in damage or
> > injury to a pedestrian if the rider lost control for whatever reason,
>
> Loss of control can happen while walking it.

Seldom with serious consequences.

>
> > thus for safety of pedestrians it's banned, what is nonsensical about
> > that?
>
> Why did you snip "...a bicycle is far easier to manage while being
> ridden (at walking pace) instead of being walked."?

I wasn't commenting on cycles being pushed by a pedestrian.

NM

unread,

Apr 14, 2012, 4:39:58 PM4/14/12

to

On Apr 14, 7:01 pm, "Simon Mason" <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk>
wrote:

You have considerably less kinetic energy whilst walking thus are less
liable to inflict severe damage to whoever is unfortunate enough to
collide with you. Aside from that in the event of any sort of action
that could result in a claim or process of law you would automatically
be in the wrong if you were riding on the pavement.

dr6092

unread,

Apr 14, 2012, 4:42:38 PM4/14/12

to

As I said, I only get off and walk because of mistaken belief.

Doug

unread,

Apr 15, 2012, 2:49:43 AM4/15/12

to

Good point and perfectly feasible. I will do so in future. I have had
enough of long railway platforms. That said though, it will rule out
other longer distance journeys and I will continue to complain about
discrimination against disabled cyclists.

Doug.

Doug

unread,

Apr 15, 2012, 2:52:42 AM4/15/12

to

But it does illustrate how disable cyclists are discriminated against,
as are wheelchair users when there is no step-free access. Why should
it be naturally assumed that everyone is able to walk, hence the
provision of many steps/stairs everywhere?

Doug.

Doug

unread,

Apr 15, 2012, 2:53:57 AM4/15/12

to

On Apr 14, 3:17 pm, NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:

As I have already pointed out, the same applies to wheelchairs but
they are allowed.

Doug.

NM

unread,

Apr 15, 2012, 5:32:34 AM4/15/12

to

And we are talking cycles, cycles are not wheelchairs, wheelchairs are
for the disabled, cycles are not, what do you find so difficult to
understand about that?

The fact an individual disabled person finds it suitable to use a
cycle does not make the cycle a general aid for the disabled thus it
will not gain any concessions.

Get over it.

JNugent

unread,

Apr 15, 2012, 5:51:36 AM4/15/12

to

(a) How fast does a bicycle go, and what is its approximate minimum speed in
the hands of an ordinary rider in order to remain stable?

[Note: an ordinary rider, not a circus performer.]

(b) How fast does a wheelchair go, and what is its approximate minimum speed
in the hands of an ordinary passenger in order to remain stable?

JNugent

unread,

Apr 15, 2012, 5:52:43 AM4/15/12

to

AIUI, you are allowed to take your bike on a train as some form of freight or
luggage. Of course. you might have to package it like freight or luggage.

Simon Mason

unread,

Apr 15, 2012, 11:55:55 AM4/15/12

to

"dr6092" <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:db37b670-7134-410d...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

>> > Why did you snip "...a bicycle is far easier to manage while being
>> > ridden (at walking pace) instead of being walked."?
>>
>> I wasn't commenting on cycles being pushed by a pedestrian.
>
> As I said, I only get off and walk because of mistaken belief.

I only get off and push on pavements - never for cyclist dismounts signs.
--
Simon Mason

JNugent

unread,

Apr 15, 2012, 12:30:37 PM4/15/12

to

What a rebel you are.

Simon Mason

unread,

Apr 15, 2012, 2:49:09 PM4/15/12

to

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:c3b48bc4-5e8d-495f...@o4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> That's what I call convenience. I asked at Target, just to make sure,
>> and they told me that it wasn't allowed for "liability issues." What
>> the hell is that?
>
> A bike could break loose and kill a shopper!
>
>> You may bump someone with a shopping cart easier than a bike.
>
> What's really obnoxious are the electric wheelchair types who think
> it's OK to nudge other shoppers with their ride.

Yes and they take up much more pavement space than a mounted cyclist does.

--
Simon Mason

Doug

unread,

Apr 16, 2012, 1:12:59 AM4/16/12

to

On Apr 15, 10:32 am, NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 7:53 am, Doug <smi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 3:17 pm, NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:> On Apr 14, 12:05 pm, dr6092 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > . I am able to walk so respect
>
> > > > local custom in pedestrian areas but the idea that is for safety
> > > > reasons is total nonsense.
>
> > > Why? Cycles being ridden amongst pedestrians could result in damage or
> > > injury to a pedestrian if the rider lost control for whatever reason,
> > > thus for safety of pedestrians it's banned, what is nonsensical about
> > > that?
>
> > As I have already pointed out, the same applies to wheelchairs but
> > they are allowed.
>
> > Doug.
>
> And we are talking cycles, cycles are not wheelchairs, wheelchairs are
> for the disabled, cycles are not, what do you find so difficult to
> understand about that?
>

What you find so difficult to understand is who decides which is for
what and why.

>
> The fact an individual disabled person finds it suitable to use a
> cycle does not make the cycle a general aid for the disabled thus it
> will not gain any concessions.
>
> Get over it.
>

So you admit then that disabled people who use bicycles are
discriminated against?

Doug.

Doug

unread,

Apr 16, 2012, 1:14:18 AM4/16/12

to

What about tricycles used for the disabled, as some are, and they are
discriminated against too?

Doug.

NM

unread,

Apr 16, 2012, 4:47:50 AM4/16/12

to

Tricycles constructed and adapted for the specific use of a disabled
person? Is there such a thing marketed in the EU, approved, with CE
mark, etc, (I don't think so but would be prepared to be shot down)
home made/modified, maybe.

NM

unread,

Apr 16, 2012, 4:42:34 AM4/16/12

to

It's obvious to any right thinking person that disabled people who use
cycles are not discriminated against because they choose to use a
cycle.

Whatever restriction there is on cycling use would apply to all
cyclists not just the disabled, therefore there is no discrimination.

dr6092

unread,

Apr 16, 2012, 6:44:31 AM4/16/12