I agree serious questions need asking because we are talking about law and rights and provision of opportunities in the present, the 'here and now', and it seems to me it is all being ignored.
We are well beyond the analysis based on what the position was with previous law, rights and denial of opportunities for travel on this one.
Your question "...how far one goes (and how many resources are devoted) to accommodate a small proportion of the travelling public", if it belonged anywhere, was rooted in the past.
We are talking about Equal Opportunities here for a group which may indeed be a small proportion within the current profile of the travelling public, but they are a growing and significant proportion of the general public who might dream of travelling.
In a democracy we lobby, protest, fight and vote to get change in the law. A new law was borne out of it on this one.
Are we therefore condoning the consignment of this law into the same bin as the Hunting Ban? I.e. those controlling the purse-strings surrounding the outlawed activity set themselves above such a law and claim common support, and the man in the pub either nods, nods off, or goes quiet?