You’re absolutely right about the need for public transit. Recommending e-bikes for disabled people as some kind of resolution is problematic, however. There are plenty of disabilities that make e-bikes (and e-scooters and other such vehicles) a poor or impossible choice for people. I know two people with spine damage, which not only limits their mobility and how they can position their bodies, but involves nerve damage that makes holding onto a handlebar for more than a few minutes impossible (or prohibitively painful.)
I sympathize with your goal of decreasing reliance on cars, but suggesting an uninformed one-size-fits-all solution to a community that rarely “fits one size” is not the right approach. We must consult with disabled people to figure out what accommodations they tell us they need first, before we can figure out a solution that works for them.
Recommending e-bikes for disabled people as some kind of resolution is problematic, however.
Good that it’s not something that I did, then. I said:
For the infirm and disabled there’s e-bikes and other light vehicles,
Note “infirm and disabled”, not just “disabled”. Plenty of seniors around here who use e-bikes because they can’t pedal as hard as they once could, or not as long, but are otherwise fit. Then, “and other light vehicles”. Things like the Canta, which the Netherlands class as a disability vehicle and can be used, legally, on bike paths. Motorised wheelchairs etc. are also no issue on bike paths and are, *drumroll*, light vehicles.
For wheelchair-bound people it’s certainly more convenient to take a bike path on their wheelchair to the supermarket a couple minutes away than it is to maneuver themselves in and out of a car to drive miles on the highway to get to a walmart.
Shall I get started on how car dependency affects blind people or can you make the necessary inferences yourself.
But randomly lashing out at an ally in defence of people who did not need defending, certainly not from sane urban design, surely made you feel good, so I guess you have that going for you.
Who’s lashing out? The user above mentioned “infirmed and/or disabled people” in general, you said they could use e-bikes or “light vehicles.” I saw your answer, and immediately thought of my friends who can’t use bikes because of their disabilities. (And I was hoping it wouldn’t need to be mentioned, but the costs involved in obtaining a specialized “light vehicle” like the Canta are prohibitive. Both friends are dependent on disability insurance for income, in the United States.)
I’m not sure what part of that is considered “lashing out.” Not everyone who participates in a conversation is doing so from a hostile standpoint. One of these friends obtained her injuries through a car accident and is 100% on board with ditching cars, but the system as-is makes it impossible for her to have a choice in the matter. Assuming her needs is something that lots of well-intentioned people do, and both friends frequently hear the same suggestions you’ve offered. Does it suck to mean well and still be told your solution won’t work? Yes. Does that mean whoever is telling you it won’t work is “lashing out” or trying to hurt you? Absolutely not.
I’m not sure what part of that is considered “lashing out.”
You misrepresented what I said while simultaneously calling it “problematic”. I’m not new to leftist circles, I know exactly what “problematic” means.
And, yes, granted, health insurance in the US sucks. That doesn’t make a Canta more expensive than modifying a car to be used with a wheelchair or such. If you can’t afford a bike lane solution you sure as fuck can’t afford a highway solution.
Your issue is not with e-bikes, it’s not with bike lanes, it’s not with light vehicles or powered wheelchairs, it’s not with what I actually said, it’s with the US. Then go ahead and call the US problematic.
You’re absolutely right about the need for public transit. Recommending e-bikes for disabled people as some kind of resolution is problematic, however. There are plenty of disabilities that make e-bikes (and e-scooters and other such vehicles) a poor or impossible choice for people. I know two people with spine damage, which not only limits their mobility and how they can position their bodies, but involves nerve damage that makes holding onto a handlebar for more than a few minutes impossible (or prohibitively painful.)
I sympathize with your goal of decreasing reliance on cars, but suggesting an uninformed one-size-fits-all solution to a community that rarely “fits one size” is not the right approach. We must consult with disabled people to figure out what accommodations they tell us they need first, before we can figure out a solution that works for them.
Good that it’s not something that I did, then. I said:
Note “infirm and disabled”, not just “disabled”. Plenty of seniors around here who use e-bikes because they can’t pedal as hard as they once could, or not as long, but are otherwise fit. Then, “and other light vehicles”. Things like the Canta, which the Netherlands class as a disability vehicle and can be used, legally, on bike paths. Motorised wheelchairs etc. are also no issue on bike paths and are, *drumroll*, light vehicles.
For wheelchair-bound people it’s certainly more convenient to take a bike path on their wheelchair to the supermarket a couple minutes away than it is to maneuver themselves in and out of a car to drive miles on the highway to get to a walmart.
Shall I get started on how car dependency affects blind people or can you make the necessary inferences yourself.
But randomly lashing out at an ally in defence of people who did not need defending, certainly not from sane urban design, surely made you feel good, so I guess you have that going for you.
Who’s lashing out? The user above mentioned “infirmed and/or disabled people” in general, you said they could use e-bikes or “light vehicles.” I saw your answer, and immediately thought of my friends who can’t use bikes because of their disabilities. (And I was hoping it wouldn’t need to be mentioned, but the costs involved in obtaining a specialized “light vehicle” like the Canta are prohibitive. Both friends are dependent on disability insurance for income, in the United States.)
I’m not sure what part of that is considered “lashing out.” Not everyone who participates in a conversation is doing so from a hostile standpoint. One of these friends obtained her injuries through a car accident and is 100% on board with ditching cars, but the system as-is makes it impossible for her to have a choice in the matter. Assuming her needs is something that lots of well-intentioned people do, and both friends frequently hear the same suggestions you’ve offered. Does it suck to mean well and still be told your solution won’t work? Yes. Does that mean whoever is telling you it won’t work is “lashing out” or trying to hurt you? Absolutely not.
You misrepresented what I said while simultaneously calling it “problematic”. I’m not new to leftist circles, I know exactly what “problematic” means.
And, yes, granted, health insurance in the US sucks. That doesn’t make a Canta more expensive than modifying a car to be used with a wheelchair or such. If you can’t afford a bike lane solution you sure as fuck can’t afford a highway solution.
Your issue is not with e-bikes, it’s not with bike lanes, it’s not with light vehicles or powered wheelchairs, it’s not with what I actually said, it’s with the US. Then go ahead and call the US problematic.