Suggesting people should bike isn't ableist, or, at least, is no more ableist than suggesting people should drive.
Thank you for listening to this PSA.
Cars are ableist because some people have a condition where if they get hit by one they fucking die.
Well, you're supposed to go to a doctor so they can hit you with a car and see if you die or not, but I've never seen anyone get called out for self-diagnosing by someone with an actual diagnosis, so knock yourself out ig.
I heard if you go private, then they inject you with a series of deactivated cars to find out which types are actually a problem for you, but who can afford that? And anyway, my aunt says that they contain bits of crushed up tom-toms that the government uses to track you, and also that the injections are based on material derived from baby seats, which is just inhumane.
The number times I have seen abelism used in bad faith arguments vastly outweighs the times I've seen it used in good faith.
I know that in theory it is supposed to be used to highlight issues of accessibility, but I wonder if it's just been co-opted by the worst people in the world at this point
I see this all the time in my area when people talk about homeless people camping on the sidewalks. They act so concerned about the welfare of people who use wheelchairs, but really they just want a nice mask to wear while they advocate for throwing all homeless people and their possessions in the dump
I've seen people with disabilities raise the point that they don't believe if bike infrastructure was to be done that they'd be properly accomodated, seeing how much of an uphill battle what little in accomodation exists now was and I think I can see their point.
Most of it though, especially on this topic? Pure hypocracy. It's always think of the poor disabled people, but it's only ever exclusively people with disabilities that allow them to drive and never about those who get fucked daily from cars parking over accessibility infrastructure and such.
’ve seen people with disabilities raise the point that they don’t believe if bike infrastructure was to be done that they’d be properly accomodated, seeing how much of an uphill battle what little in accomodation exists now was and I think I can see their point.
I know it's not your argument, but this still doesn't make much sense to me. They are basically arguing that infrastructure is zero sum, where we have to choose between bikes or public transit?
Not really, at least I don't think. I mean there was a clear "bicycle infrastructure if for elitists in lycra" component here, but mostly it was about, say, on street parking theyd need to be removed for bike lanes. I guess I can see it, if you're able bodied you park a block further and walk there (allthough people still go :frothingfash: at the idea), with a disability? One asshole who parked in a curb cut, some misplaced street furniture or a construction site or any number of reasons and that just gets exponentially harder and I'd be lying if I said I'd believe in every planning process including thse knock-on effects to an acceptable level.
I can see their point that every accomodation they have in the public space was long and hard fought for and if we change the entire thing drastically, like getting away from car oriented planning, there's a good chance they'd have to do it again and get the short end of the stick for a while.
I don't agree, obviously, solving for good bike infrastructure has all the same requirements as solving for disabilities, but I don't think that sort of thinking for this case comes entirely from a point of malice
Thanks for sharing.
When they re-did Washington Ave in Philadelphia they didn't even get to the "bikes are abelist" stage of discourse. We got stuck on :frothingfash: business owners losing the ability to park their cars on the sidewalk or use a travel lane to double park.
Although there was some astro turf groups making rumblings about how it's racist to create bike lanes because that's gentrification and all gentrification is racist, but I think most of it was just being done to distract from the businesses on west broad that didn't want anything to change.
I once had the owner of a dive bar at a community meeting say he'd have to close his location if the on street parking was removed because then his guests wouldn't come lol
idk i've heard of business going out because of road construction, if there's a better dive bar closer to wherever the parking or transit is that could be legit enough to worry about.
fuck (small) business owners though.
The parking spaces are stil there btw so I'm guessing this is the first actual dril-tweet-based policy decision
Why yes I do create drunk drivers all the time, how can you tell? :meemaw:
That argument would hold more water with me if there were anywhere that had a significant number of curb spaces restricted to parking for people with disabilities. But as it is now they're just fighting with everyone else for street parking and their odds aren't any better that the spot in front of where they need to go will be available. Like, it's accessible if you consider a coin flip accessible.
Beats no coin flip.
I'm not convinced of the argument either, but I think you gotta wrestle with the fact that some people might have actual grievances here and aren't just wokewashing their concerns, and that's me saying it on this topic.
Edmonton, AB just did this exact thing. They set up a trial run of bike lanes that were poorly thought out and inconvenient for cyclists, and also removed curbside parking spots. Which, you know, is the normal neoliberal playbook: promise something for the public good, then compromise with the hogs, and the final product is something everybody hates. Oops, we can't do anything unless it's cops or freeways! Sorry!
One of the main rationales for declaring the project a "failure" is because disabled folks now have nowhere to park. Ignoring the fact that the road borders a fucking golf course that's just bare open land. :honk-enraged:
I know it’s not your argument, but this still doesn’t make much sense to me. They are basically arguing that infrastructure is zero sum, where we have to choose between bikes or public transit?
Okay I will say at this point though, infrastructure is basically zero-sum. That's exactly the reason why you can't have a transportation system that caters to the needs of car-brains, pedestrians & public transportation all at the same time. There is a finite & largely fixed amount of physical space that you can allocate to both commuters (of all kinds), and localities for use in whatever they need to do, and various forms of automated locomotion (cars, trains, busses) all take up a lot more space than walking or cycling somewhere.
I agree with 7bicycles conclusion though, btw. But the thing you're saying here is not the part of the argument that's wrong.
Good point, I should have clarified that I meant zero-sum, when it came to pedestrians, bicyclists, and disability accommodations. Basically all three are against cars, but the ableism discourse pits the three against one another, to the benefit of cars
Often times it's genuinely nonsensical. Like a lot of the strike busting tactics around gig workers has been weaponizing ableism, but the suggestion that people with disabilities use doordash for every meal, instacart all their groceries, or take uber everywhere seems genuinely unbelievable. I'm sure some do, but I doubt the average person can afford that.
the suggestion that people with disabilities use doordash for every meal, instacart all their groceries, or take uber everywhere seems genuinely unbelievable
At which point we should ask that if those services are so vitally necessary for the survival of the disabled, should they be in the hands of private, profit-driven companies?
I know that in theory it is supposed to be used to highlight issues of accessibility, but I wonder if it’s just been co-opted by the worst people in the world at this point
Don’t worry, it has! In unrelated news, I just baked my neighbors some chili.
I know that in theory it is supposed to be used to highlight issues of accessibility, but I wonder if it’s just been co-opted by the worst people in the world at this point
I mean, probably yeah, but it would be worth considering that at least part of the intent there is not just to make the obvious bad-faith claim, but also to get people to take genuine concerns over ableism less seriously than they otherwise would. I think it's often worth approaching these kinds of arguments in a similar way to which you would "I identify as an attack helicopter" memes.
gonna reiterate once again that the impending climate catastrophe is unlikely to be fantastic for accessibility either
All marginalized groups will bear a greater proportion of suffering in the years to come. I hope I'm wrong about this, but recent history has not given me any reason to be optimistic.
Effective Altruism dictates that I get my treats. Because if I can't have my treats I will be soooooo angry that I'll make a trillion future people suffer.
So if you don't give me my treats, you're being ableist.
everyone else who talks to the basilisk is insufferable which made it psychotic for a while there
We have a guy in my area who has some sort of mental disability that I'm pretty sure prevents him from being able to drive a car and he rides a tricycle to all the local events, he's cool as hell
I have a cousin with epilepsy who can't drive within 6 months of an event. Bikes seem like a reasonable compromise, but I think he just gets people to drive him.
I think even with dutch style infrastructure and a tricycle this'd seem like a dangerous game to play to me. I think public transport would be optimal here.
the no driving for epileptics is probably an insurance thing because of the property damage. a trike or something is safer for everybody especially if that guy wears a helmet.
A large swath of epileptics can feel seizures coming, so bikes are perfect because you can just dismount before it starts. Speaking from experience, biking makes my life so much easier and ebikes have allowed me to get around without having to depend on others for rides or use my town's limited and unreliable public transit. Also the 6 month thing is state law. Radpower also just released its first electric trike for people concerned about stability on ebikes.
hey that's great
Also the 6 month thing is state law.
yeah i mean i assume it was motivated by some misguided lib shit
They even bought a car recently but they don’t have a license so their boyfriend drives it.
Why would you buy something that costs tens of thousands of dollars that you can't use?! As for thefts, in my area more apartments/rental places have indoor bike storage which I really appreciate.
Nashville or like suburbs just outside of Nashville? Your cousin could very well be a friend of mine.
Not sure. We don't keep in touch that much. I think he lives in East Nashville these days.
If more people bike, the people who can't will still enjoy safer streets, safer places to walk/roll, less air pollution, and denser, more diverse land use.
This kind of topic is a good way to tell the difference between people operating in good faith and those who either just like to fight or who have some other reason they'd like to oppose you and are weaponizing an identity to do so rather than just dealing directly with the issue. Folks operating in good faith can add a, "yes, and" reminder so that we don't lose sight of an excluded marginalized group.
Nobody's suggesting that everybody must cycle. Rational urbanists just want to make the built environment conducive to cycling for everyone who can. If 60% of people cycle that's amazing. I don't suggest my mother should cycle because she is 87.
There will be a Soviet Commissar pointing a Makarov at the back of your head telling you to get on the bike
:frothingfash:
:top-use-words: You will be on the back seat of the tandem bike
i can't drive but i can bike so i would like you all to weaponize your knowledge of my existence to bully people who say this, thank you
Hi I am also in your situation. Wanna bike to the dwellings of people with this position and egg them?
tbh the only reason why i bike is to have better lungs to chainsmoke better
tbh the only reason why i bike is to have better lungs
:dean-smile:
to chainsmoke better
:dean-frown:
There are so many accessible bike designs for a wide array of disabilities. What's an accessible car?
The Dutch do have this thing, which fits a wheelchair and can go in bike lanes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canta_(vehicle)
And there are accessibility aids for cars, like accelerator and brake paddles for the wheel rather than pedals, but, to me, if we're talking accessibility aids that allow someone to travel independently, cars and bikes are, at least, equal.
That's neat! There are also solutions to this problem in the motorcycle community, but AFAIK nothing mass-produced so it all tends to be custom made and expensive.
You can get hand control conversions and so forth, back when I did group therapy I knew a couple of paraplegics that drove themselves to meetings.
Expensive af though, but South Africa doesn't really have great public transport.
knobs on the steering wheel, hand operated pedals, lifts/extendable ramps, interior refits to fit wheelchairs...
there are a bunch of things that people have done to cars so that disabled people can drive them
i agree, fuck cars, fuck people who try to argue that bullshit..been hit by five fucking cars adn it has been a contributing factor to my brain being like broken beyond repair, so what about people like us??
:amerikkka:
fuck cars
People who have the take that they are cant imagine public transportation at all
Edit: wtf autocorrect?? I'm leaving it like this lmao
c/transit: Buses, and the bikes which run between them.
Personally I really struggle with driving and sitting with my spine, so car centric infrastructure is terrible in regards to that.
There are so many different disabilities, even when only talking about physical disabilities, that you can't really do a generic "x is ableist" type thing.
