There’s wheelchair accessible bikes, but you are actually correct. Good urbanism requires us to take into account not just those who conform to society, but all it’s people. Interestingly an inclusive and accommodating city is also an economically strong one - in the long run more productive potential is freed and less resources are spent on patch-fixing a broken structure (this isn’t why its good to do, but it’s a nice argument to have when you’re talking to people who are afraid that wed be making a better world for no reason other being good people).
This is your reminder to read Invisible Women by Criado Perez
oh damn that’s cool as hell. as a general statement i’m not anti-bike or anything, i am just annoyed at how little care some people here have for those who are less able than they are
Good urbanism requires us to take into account not just those who conform to society, but all it’s people
100% agreed, and i think our rhetoric should reflect that inclusiveness rather than just defaulting to “can’t do it? fuck you”
Yeah the bikes are super cool, there’s lots of different ones too. I once got overtaken by a guy who pedalled with his arms, made me feel like a scrub.
It is a big issue when we don’t plan for those that don’t fit into our ideal of a “normal” person, because when we default to that we default to planning for men - and really planning for no one.
If you’re interested you should look up “gendermainstreaming”. Vienna has a very good manual on it.
I think people here get defensive about bikes because they’re used to arguing against carbrained folks all the time. It should also be noted a city designed for bikes and walkability will be easier to travel in for those who have trouble walking, than a city designed for cars, even if concessions aren’t made.
There are many forms of personal mobility devices (some are even like speed limited, miniature, single person EVs) that make navigating a car free city easy for someone with impaired mobility.
Getting cars out of the way makes it easier to accommodate many levels of movement ability, not harder.
Yes we agree. So the response is not “its not an issue” the response is that there are alternatives to bikes. I perceived your response as a sort of sarcastic dismissal and I see now I misread the tone and content, sorry.
no, saying skill issue to people who aren’t able to bike up steep hills when there are other options such as pedal assist is unhelpful and ableist. it doesn’t take being a ‘thinker’ to deduce that.
Why double down on this of all things? It’s not even necessarily about a medical condition (but it’s that too, for many of us it’s not a skill issue but a heart and lung issue), it’s about the fact that biking up a hill can be fucking hard and I wouldn’t begrudge anyone for not wanting to do it all the time living in a hilly city, let alone if they’re trying to get home after working all day and are dead tired. The person who you were first responding to, who was asking in good faith from everything I can tell, also said “how do elders deal with what other citizens would take for granted in terms of mobility?” You completely disregarded that. Would you tell your 80 year old grandparent just to bike harder in their hilly city? This is a totally legitimate concern and responding “skill issue, just bike harder” really is heading into some ableist territory.
“obviously the exceptions that make it so my comments aren’t fitting and showcase ableism don’t count. Everyone know that. You are the stupid one. I have depicted myself as the streamer for a third time to hammer this home.”
The initial question is about those who are too physically unfit to scale a steep hill. Responding with “skill issue” is ableist specifically because we’re talking about the “exception”
skill issue. i live in a very hilly area and when i reach a steep slope i simply bike harder.
this is ableist as hell tbh
There’s wheelchair accessible bikes, but you are actually correct. Good urbanism requires us to take into account not just those who conform to society, but all it’s people. Interestingly an inclusive and accommodating city is also an economically strong one - in the long run more productive potential is freed and less resources are spent on patch-fixing a broken structure (this isn’t why its good to do, but it’s a nice argument to have when you’re talking to people who are afraid that wed be making a better world for no reason other being good people).
This is your reminder to read Invisible Women by Criado Perez
oh damn that’s cool as hell. as a general statement i’m not anti-bike or anything, i am just annoyed at how little care some people here have for those who are less able than they are
100% agreed, and i think our rhetoric should reflect that inclusiveness rather than just defaulting to “can’t do it? fuck you”
Yeah the bikes are super cool, there’s lots of different ones too. I once got overtaken by a guy who pedalled with his arms, made me feel like a scrub.
It is a big issue when we don’t plan for those that don’t fit into our ideal of a “normal” person, because when we default to that we default to planning for men - and really planning for no one.
If you’re interested you should look up “gendermainstreaming”. Vienna has a very good manual on it.
I think people here get defensive about bikes because they’re used to arguing against carbrained folks all the time. It should also be noted a city designed for bikes and walkability will be easier to travel in for those who have trouble walking, than a city designed for cars, even if concessions aren’t made.
Use an ebike?
Consider people who are physically impaired instead of dismissing real problems?
There are many forms of personal mobility devices (some are even like speed limited, miniature, single person EVs) that make navigating a car free city easy for someone with impaired mobility.
Getting cars out of the way makes it easier to accommodate many levels of movement ability, not harder.
Yes we agree. So the response is not “its not an issue” the response is that there are alternatives to bikes. I perceived your response as a sort of sarcastic dismissal and I see now I misread the tone and content, sorry.
Removed by mod
just a friendly heads up, I think you misgendered the person you were referring to.
oh shit! i feel like an asshole. my bad, i am fixing it
Removed by mod
no, saying skill issue to people who aren’t able to bike up steep hills when there are other options such as pedal assist is unhelpful and ableist. it doesn’t take being a ‘thinker’ to deduce that.
Removed by mod
Why double down on this of all things? It’s not even necessarily about a medical condition (but it’s that too, for many of us it’s not a skill issue but a heart and lung issue), it’s about the fact that biking up a hill can be fucking hard and I wouldn’t begrudge anyone for not wanting to do it all the time living in a hilly city, let alone if they’re trying to get home after working all day and are dead tired. The person who you were first responding to, who was asking in good faith from everything I can tell, also said “how do elders deal with what other citizens would take for granted in terms of mobility?” You completely disregarded that. Would you tell your 80 year old grandparent just to bike harder in their hilly city? This is a totally legitimate concern and responding “skill issue, just bike harder” really is heading into some ableist territory.
because im not being ableist and “hills exist therefore bikes are impossible” is fucking carbrain bullshit
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
“obviously the exceptions that make it so my comments aren’t fitting and showcase ableism don’t count. Everyone know that. You are the stupid one. I have depicted myself as the streamer for a third time to hammer this home.”
The initial question is about those who are too physically unfit to scale a steep hill. Responding with “skill issue” is ableist specifically because we’re talking about the “exception”
Removed by mod
deleted by creator