>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 mode

>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?