3 ms·

The point of the article is that what is being done in places like San Francisco is what looking more broadly looks like. It's not ableist to allow people who'd

The point of the article is that what is being done in places like San Francisco is what looking more broadly looks like. It's not ableist to allow people who'd prefer not to drive to bike or walk instead, and it's also not ableist to build our cities to allow these different modes of transport in addition to cars. Framing it like it's ableist ignores the near century of subsidies and prioitization of the automobile in the US. The fact is that us able-bodied people need spaces that we can enjoy too. We need to find a way to inhabit the same space without inhibiting each other.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Someone1234 8y ago
You're taking away a mode of transport some disabled people depend upon, you have to take their needs into account while doing so. Simply adding ramps and slapping ADA stickers onto everything isn't an actual answer, just a convenient way to simplify the problem. If you go from heavily vehicled areas to large pedestrian areas where vehicles are banned, you've gone from one extreme to the other. In both cases disabled people are left behind. > The fact is that us able-bodied people need spaces that we can enjoy too. I thought that was everywhere, including nature.
- jschwartzi 8y ago
  I agree. The thing I'm concerned about is that reintroducing cars into these areas is a trickle opening onto a floodgate in terms of causing us to backslide into car-centrism. And by your argument ADA compliance becomes a good excuse to erase all the pedestrian- and cyclist-only areas and replace them with "good old" city streets again. It effectively becomes an argument for people who want car-centric infrastructure only to disguise their desire and hide behind the disabled to accomplish their goals. What I'm wondering is if there's a way to accommodate without using cars? In a market we could provide some scooters or other motorized transport that's more compatible with the market's layout.
- yardie 8y ago
  I fail to see how making a place pedestrian friendly is one extreme. Are you saying the disabled are only able to move around by car? This will bother some of my disabled friends who have to rely on unreliable buses, too narrow sidewalks, and other city failures. Also, a mobility scooter is a perfectly acceptable form of transportation in pedestrian areas.
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>It's not ableist to allow people who'd prefer not to drive to bike or walk instead, and it's also not ableist to build our cities to allow these different modes of transport in addition to cars. Well it doesn't have to be but it certainly can be. Like that GP comment up there ^^^ said, making walkable spaces that require foot travel can certainly be ableist to those who can't do that. I mean I could rephrase your comment in a way to say "it's not ableist to allow people who'd like to use the stairs to use the stairs and it's not ableist to build our cities to allow stairs" - except if what I mean by that is that I want the city to build places where stairs are the only option then yes, it is ableist. And if what I mean by "walkable" is that I want the city to build areas where walking is the only option then it's the same deal. >Framing it like it's ableist ignores the near century of subsidies and prioitization of the automobile in the US. No it doesn't. Those subsidies have nothing to do with what is being discussed. It's a completely separate issue. >The fact is that us able-bodied people need spaces that we can enjoy too. ... Lol, just reread what you said. >We need to find a way to inhabit the same space without inhibiting each other. By which you mean you would rather the able-bodied not be inhibited by having to accommodate the non-able-bodied?
kps 8y ago
> The point of the article is that what is being done in places like San Francisco […] Got it. For other places, step 1 is to build a dome over the city to establish San Francisco climate.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Someone1234 8y ago

You're taking away a mode of transport some disabled people depend upon, you have to take their needs into account while doing so. Simply adding ramps and slapping ADA stickers onto everything isn't an actual answer, just a convenient way to simplify the problem. If you go from heavily vehicled areas to large pedestrian areas where vehicles are banned, you've gone from one extreme to the other. In both cases disabled people are left behind. > The fact is that us able-bodied people need spaces that we can enjoy too. I thought that was everywhere, including nature.

jschwartzi 8y ago
I agree. The thing I'm concerned about is that reintroducing cars into these areas is a trickle opening onto a floodgate in terms of causing us to backslide into car-centrism. And by your argument ADA compliance becomes a good excuse to erase all the pedestrian- and cyclist-only areas and replace them with "good old" city streets again. It effectively becomes an argument for people who want car-centric infrastructure only to disguise their desire and hide behind the disabled to accomplish their goals. What I'm wondering is if there's a way to accommodate without using cars? In a market we could provide some scooters or other motorized transport that's more compatible with the market's layout.
yardie 8y ago
I fail to see how making a place pedestrian friendly is one extreme. Are you saying the disabled are only able to move around by car? This will bother some of my disabled friends who have to rely on unreliable buses, too narrow sidewalks, and other city failures. Also, a mobility scooter is a perfectly acceptable form of transportation in pedestrian areas.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

>It's not ableist to allow people who'd prefer not to drive to bike or walk instead, and it's also not ableist to build our cities to allow these different modes of transport in addition to cars. Well it doesn't have to be but it certainly can be. Like that GP comment up there ^^^ said, making walkable spaces that require foot travel can certainly be ableist to those who can't do that. I mean I could rephrase your comment in a way to say "it's not ableist to allow people who'd like to use the stairs to use the stairs and it's not ableist to build our cities to allow stairs" - except if what I mean by that is that I want the city to build places where stairs are the only option then yes, it is ableist. And if what I mean by "walkable" is that I want the city to build areas where walking is the only option then it's the same deal. >Framing it like it's ableist ignores the near century of subsidies and prioitization of the automobile in the US. No it doesn't. Those subsidies have nothing to do with what is being discussed. It's a completely separate issue. >The fact is that us able-bodied people need spaces that we can enjoy too. ... Lol, just reread what you said. >We need to find a way to inhabit the same space without inhibiting each other. By which you mean you would rather the able-bodied not be inhibited by having to accommodate the non-able-bodied?

kps 8y ago

> The point of the article is that what is being done in places like San Francisco […] Got it. For other places, step 1 is to build a dome over the city to establish San Francisco climate.