I hate when there's talk of making a city less car-centric and somebody chimes in with "Well what about disabled people!? They need cars!" as a gotcha, like there aren't a fuckton of disabled people who need more buses, curb cuts, and crosswalks to navigate the city, or longer lights to cross, or sound and tactile cues to let them know where they are. There are many kinds of conditions with different kinds of needs, and being driven around everywhere addresses only a certain subset of this, not to mention the class issue of who can afford a car or who has access to someone who can drive them.

@ancient_domains_of_word@monads.online I also think it's funny that they never seem to consider how like, you can do both. regardless of how car-centric your streets are, emergency vehicles like fire trucks and ambulances are still going to need to be able to use them. so if the primary problem is the typical class of commuter vehicles in the city, it's entirely possible to ban those, while still allowing vehicles for transporting disabled people. preferably accompanied by an expansion of tax-funded paratransit services that people could use for free.

Follow

@heartles It's really all or nothing, and nothing inherently favors the cars. So you have arguments talking about how we need to keep things the way they are for vaguely described disabled people when disabled people were never really considered in the design of the city in the first place. It's very "think of the children!" Oh, you want wider sidewalks that would be great for people with walkers and wheelchairs? Well, actually we need to keep the street 4 lanes with not even a traffic light or curb cut because disabled people.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
monads.online

monads.online is a place for friends