• nifty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Bikes are ableist aren’t they? They work well for you if you don’t have any physical or cognitive issues.

      • calypsopub@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        But at least you can get taxis. The car-free utopia leaves out a lot of people like disabled and elderly.

        • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Car-free utopia doesn’t mean, can’t mean no roads and no taxis. Taxis are actually the important part of that car-free utopia. It just means you aren’t expected to own your own car and use it as the prime source of transportation.

        • Letto@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is where public transit would come in. And it’s not like most of us want to do away with all final mile delivery, emergency vehicles, etc. We just don’t want the car infrastructure to be the primary concern in the design of public spaces.

          Straw-maning the elderly and disabled for car use is also interesting, as those are probably both groups that either shouldn’t or can’t drive a car for other reasons.

    • Rev3rze@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A bike centric city would be just as, if not more, wheelchair friendly as a car centric one. There’s detachable front wheels that can be attached to wheelchairs and pedalled by hand so wheelchair users can use bike infrastructure just as well.

      • nifty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I get that, but how does take away the inconvenience of inputting more strength, energy, stamina and time for your commute? So it basically locks people in to finding opportunities which are commutable by biking distance?

        I don’t mind other people having bike centric cities, but I want to be to drive around as I find that a more productive way to commute. If public transport was less riddled with human misery and harassment issues, I’d prefer trains or buses.

        • Rev3rze@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh sure I get what you mean. In my idea of bike centric cities decent public transport is assumed by me simply because that is so ingrained in my experience with living in a place where the car has the lowest priority. Streets are disappearing and turned into bike paths where cars are explicitly “guests” and have to give way for cyclists. Public transport gets dedicated lanes and even roads and bypasses stoplights entirely by tunnelling under crossings. The result is that driving here is an absolute nightmare, you’d really have to have a good reason to justify taking the car into the center instead of taking the bus, tram or bike.

          • nifty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hmm, I hear you. Though note that Japan has one of the best public transport systems (and always have had it), but it is not immune to public transport harassment issues. It’s a human issue, not sure it has transportation solutions, but probably more policy ones.

      • nifty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, some people do talk about banning cars completely. I guess you’re a fuck cars moderate lol. Local ordinances can really change the way people live in an area, like banning plastic bags etc. So it’s not unreasonable to worry about total bans, people who want less car usage policies should try to understand other perspectives.

        • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          People might talk about banning privately own cars, but nobody seriously talks about completely banning cars at all. Service vehicles have their place in a walkable city, and taxi and carsharing is part of that, and even the most fuck-cars people are in favour of those.
          I mean, there is always someone with a weird position, but those are flat-earthers of the movement, nobody cares about those.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I know. FuckCars in general is a purity contest that doesn’t understand how certain things work. Cars are here to stay in our society for a variety of reasons, but that doesn’t mean all our decisions for city planning have to center around them.

          My city has less than 5% of people commuting by bike, and around 25% work from home. These numbers seem roughly typical of US cities. If we got 20% of people commuting by bike while keeping the work from home number, that would be transformative. That’s a huge number of cars off the road. Basically like adding a whole lane of traffic, but without the induced demand problems.

    • Taalnazi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      Nederlands
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      There are bikes for handicapped people. And if cognitive issues are a thing, then cars would be far more problematic: crash a bike into a person, you get minor wounds. Crash a car into a person, and you get a death caused by the car driver (who sometimes gets off scot free).

      And if something is ableist, it’s cars for disabling you from walking/wheelchairing anywhere safely due to the stroads taking up all the space.