• No_Maines_Land@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    18 days ago

    Think of people who are disabled and can’t walk the 600 meters to the metro station or get on a bike.

    To be clear, those people should have mobility options available to them. But why do we put primacy on disabled people who can drive over disabled people who cannot drive?

    • Photonic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      18 days ago

      I don’t mean they would have to be able to drive themselves – although autonomy is very important. But a car or some other form of stable four-wheeled transport that can move them from door to door is necessary for a disabled person’s mobility. Could be their SO driving or a taxi.

      Also it was just an example, and just the first one that came to mind as someone who recently broke their hip by falling off their bicycle.

      • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        Disabled people and poor people are both disproportionately negatively affected by automobiles. The idea that they “have” to have access to a car because they are disabled isn’t proof that disability requires cars, it’s proof that even the people who can least afford it are burdened with having to have a car.

      • Zagorath@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        But a car or some other form of stable four-wheeled transport that can move them from door to door is necessary for a disabled person’s mobility

        Which disabled person? Disabled people are not a monolith, and many are unable to drive but perfectly capable of riding a bike, adaptive or otherwise.