Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_itsmo8k wrote

Reply to comment by bufallll in The NIMBYs are reviving the traffic board to hold up bike lanes by IntelligentCicada363

I'm personally disgusted with your response. I am temporarily disabled, probably wouldn't be able to use a bike (due to pulmonary restriction because of cancer) for a year. And probably shouldn't use public transportation for a few months because of a weakened immune system because of chemo. The place where I was diagnosed was Mt. Auburn Hospital which is in the area in question. You should really try to consider that anyone you encounter could actually have a disability they don't exactly wear a sign saying they are.

−3

greemp t1_itt2g5y wrote

In your case, wouldn't it be better for you to have more people on bikes and using public transport, freeing up the roads and parking so that you can actually get places more easily? It's not ableist to encourage healthier and more sustainable transport choices for those who are able. In fact, it makes.more space for those who actually need it.

14

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ittochv wrote

Correct, if it makes sense for the specific area or road. If you read the entire op-ed the authors aren't against car alternative transportation, in fact they state they are for it, they're against decisions on bike lanes being made without consulting residents in areas where bikes lanes might make little sense for those residents.

−2

IntelligentCicada363 OP t1_ituktit wrote

They are against them. They have never proposed a single solution other than to rip them all out.

10

greemp t1_itvx5xo wrote

This is a new argument and unrelated to our previous discussion.

Roads are communal and public. They may travel through communities, but they are not for the exclusive use of that community. This argument especially falls apart when looking at major thoroughfares such as Brattle. Why should the residents have any more say over those.roads than the people who use that road? There are many Cambridge residents that bike, walk, and scoot through that area daily. Why is their safety secondary to the concerns of the community on the road (concerns, which I may add, that are trifling compared to the daily threat of serious injury or death faced by vulnerable users of that space.)

9

bufallll t1_itsq3bm wrote

ugh okay i’m sorry to hear that and sorry for the harsh language, i have seen a lot of abled people make that argument when it doesn’t include them and i assumed that was you too. i hope you get better. however i stand by the core of what i said, getting more people out of cars and onto bikes and public transit should free up the streets for people who need to drive and our community should rely on cars as little as possible. i moved here largely for the access to public transit and walkability and i want to see that character maintained and strengthened, and i also bike. this area is not safe for cyclists and the facts are that we do need more bike infrastructure.

10

IntelligentCicada363 OP t1_itukqen wrote

You’re disgusted? What about the large number of disabled and elderly people who can’t drive at all? Just fuck them right?

10