Bike lanes violate disability access laws, new lawsuit says

[Anonymous]

I called this on the first long thread. It was so obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With any luck, the lawsuit will be upheld and the city will be forced to remedy the situation by raising the bike lanes to the same level as the sidewalk (as on Virginia Ave SE and The Wharf). This will have the added benefit of preventing cars and other motorized vehicles from parking or driving in them.

How will that solve the problem?

It would solve the problem of cars parking and driving in bike lanes very much. It would also provide parked / stopped vehicles with direct access to the curb. Set the bike lane back a few feet from the curb and add a sidewalk across the lane and it's as good as gold. Some other ideas here: https://www.ourstreetsmpls.org/ada_compliant_protected_bike_lanes. I'm not here to be an apologist for DDOT, who mess many things up, but the notion that bike lanes are generally incompatible with the ADA is just silly.

Are disabled people suing because cars are parked in “protected bike lanes”? It’s honestly pretty disturbing that you can be so self centered as to think that the “solution” is to improve your experience using bike lanes. Do you bother to listen to yourself?

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs are clear and say repeatedly that they DO NOT believe that bike lanes are incompatible with the needs of the disabled.

Maybe I'm being a little Panglossian, but I'd like to think that disability advocates would be interested in making the lanes as safe as possible for users - which include those confined to wheelchairs - so as to minimize the probability of those who use them being injured or worse.

No one is confined to a wheelchair. The fact that you use such an ableist term shows that you don't know anything about what people who use wheelchairs need.

People who are using wheelchairs are pedestrians. They don't belong in bike lanes. They are not safe there. They belong on the sidewalk. A solution that prevents motor vehicles from being in bike lanes might be needed to protect cyclists, but this is a suit that addresses the need to protect people with disabilities that impact mobility.

Yes, it's possible to design a raised bike lane that also protects people in wheelchairs, but raising the bike lane doesn't make wheelchair users safe. In fact, it makes them less safe, because as I posted above, sometimes a vehicle has to move into a poorly designed bike lane to allow someone with a disability to access the sidewalk, and raising the bike lane prevents that. It basically transfers the danger from the person who needs their wheelchair to the person whose hobby is biking.

And no, it's not "Panglossian" to say that we should care about your issue instead of ours.

Please feel free to go and tell them that they “belong on the sidewalk”. I doubt they care much for your advocacy.

Two of those are scooters and one is a walker. None of them are wheelchairs.

I can find pictures of cyclist on the street does that mean they don’t deserve access to a bike lane?

Do you think splitting hairs makes you sound smart? Two of the three are electric mobility aids that can travel at more comfortable speeds in a bike lane than on the sidewalk. Which is why the users are operating them in the bike lane.

DP: This completely misses the point about why the bike lanes are not ADA compliant. Isn't about mobility impaired people using the bike lanes, for Pete's sake. That tweet is insulting to the entire community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With any luck, the lawsuit will be upheld and the city will be forced to remedy the situation by raising the bike lanes to the same level as the sidewalk (as on Virginia Ave SE and The Wharf). This will have the added benefit of preventing cars and other motorized vehicles from parking or driving in them.

How will that solve the problem?

It would solve the problem of cars parking and driving in bike lanes very much. It would also provide parked / stopped vehicles with direct access to the curb. Set the bike lane back a few feet from the curb and add a sidewalk across the lane and it's as good as gold. Some other ideas here: https://www.ourstreetsmpls.org/ada_compliant_protected_bike_lanes. I'm not here to be an apologist for DDOT, who mess many things up, but the notion that bike lanes are generally incompatible with the ADA is just silly.

Are disabled people suing because cars are parked in “protected bike lanes”? It’s honestly pretty disturbing that you can be so self centered as to think that the “solution” is to improve your experience using bike lanes. Do you bother to listen to yourself?

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs are clear and say repeatedly that they DO NOT believe that bike lanes are incompatible with the needs of the disabled.

Maybe I'm being a little Panglossian, but I'd like to think that disability advocates would be interested in making the lanes as safe as possible for users - which include those confined to wheelchairs - so as to minimize the probability of those who use them being injured or worse.

No one is confined to a wheelchair. The fact that you use such an ableist term shows that you don't know anything about what people who use wheelchairs need.

People who are using wheelchairs are pedestrians. They don't belong in bike lanes. They are not safe there. They belong on the sidewalk. A solution that prevents motor vehicles from being in bike lanes might be needed to protect cyclists, but this is a suit that addresses the need to protect people with disabilities that impact mobility.

Yes, it's possible to design a raised bike lane that also protects people in wheelchairs, but raising the bike lane doesn't make wheelchair users safe. In fact, it makes them less safe, because as I posted above, sometimes a vehicle has to move into a poorly designed bike lane to allow someone with a disability to access the sidewalk, and raising the bike lane prevents that. It basically transfers the danger from the person who needs their wheelchair to the person whose hobby is biking.

And no, it's not "Panglossian" to say that we should care about your issue instead of ours.

Please feel free to go and tell them that they “belong on the sidewalk”. I doubt they care much for your advocacy.

Two of those are scooters and one is a walker. None of them are wheelchairs.

I can find pictures of cyclist on the street does that mean they don’t deserve access to a bike lane?

Do you think splitting hairs makes you sound smart? Two of the three are electric mobility aids that can travel at more comfortable speeds in a bike lane than on the sidewalk. Which is why the users are operating them in the bike lane.

DP: This completely misses the point about why the bike lanes are not ADA compliant. Isn't about mobility impaired people using the bike lanes, for Pete's sake. That tweet is insulting to the entire community.

Can you please explain, with reference to the ADA and the design of the bike lanes, why they are not ADA compliant? As far as I am aware, DDOT followed its Bicycle Facility Design Guide, which includes accessiblity requirements. https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/DDOT%20Bicycle%20Facility%20Design%20Guide%20-%20Version%202%20%28Final%29.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With any luck, the lawsuit will be upheld and the city will be forced to remedy the situation by raising the bike lanes to the same level as the sidewalk (as on Virginia Ave SE and The Wharf). This will have the added benefit of preventing cars and other motorized vehicles from parking or driving in them.

How will that solve the problem?

It would solve the problem of cars parking and driving in bike lanes very much. It would also provide parked / stopped vehicles with direct access to the curb. Set the bike lane back a few feet from the curb and add a sidewalk across the lane and it's as good as gold. Some other ideas here: https://www.ourstreetsmpls.org/ada_compliant_protected_bike_lanes. I'm not here to be an apologist for DDOT, who mess many things up, but the notion that bike lanes are generally incompatible with the ADA is just silly.

Are disabled people suing because cars are parked in “protected bike lanes”? It’s honestly pretty disturbing that you can be so self centered as to think that the “solution” is to improve your experience using bike lanes. Do you bother to listen to yourself?

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs are clear and say repeatedly that they DO NOT believe that bike lanes are incompatible with the needs of the disabled.

Maybe I'm being a little Panglossian, but I'd like to think that disability advocates would be interested in making the lanes as safe as possible for users - which include those confined to wheelchairs - so as to minimize the probability of those who use them being injured or worse.

No one is confined to a wheelchair. The fact that you use such an ableist term shows that you don't know anything about what people who use wheelchairs need.

People who are using wheelchairs are pedestrians. They don't belong in bike lanes. They are not safe there. They belong on the sidewalk. A solution that prevents motor vehicles from being in bike lanes might be needed to protect cyclists, but this is a suit that addresses the need to protect people with disabilities that impact mobility.

Yes, it's possible to design a raised bike lane that also protects people in wheelchairs, but raising the bike lane doesn't make wheelchair users safe. In fact, it makes them less safe, because as I posted above, sometimes a vehicle has to move into a poorly designed bike lane to allow someone with a disability to access the sidewalk, and raising the bike lane prevents that. It basically transfers the danger from the person who needs their wheelchair to the person whose hobby is biking.

And no, it's not "Panglossian" to say that we should care about your issue instead of ours.

Please feel free to go and tell them that they “belong on the sidewalk”. I doubt they care much for your advocacy.

Two of those are scooters and one is a walker. None of them are wheelchairs.

I can find pictures of cyclist on the street does that mean they don’t deserve access to a bike lane?

Do you think splitting hairs makes you sound smart? Two of the three are electric mobility aids that can travel at more comfortable speeds in a bike lane than on the sidewalk. Which is why the users are operating them in the bike lane.

DP: This completely misses the point about why the bike lanes are not ADA compliant. Isn't about mobility impaired people using the bike lanes, for Pete's sake. That tweet is insulting to the entire community.

The bike lanes are ADA compliant. The new parking spaces are the problem. The tweet does a good job of countering the ridiculous attempts by certain parts of this lawsuit and certain posters on here to pit different social groups against each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been physically disabled from birth. The ableism in every aspect of every day life is rampant and most people don’t even acknowledge it or care. Just remember, we are a group any person can suddenly find themselves a member of at any time. Don’t wait until then to re-evaluate.

I guarantee you there was not a single person with a physical disability that affected mobility in any part of the planning proceeds. There never is. It just doesn’t occur to people to actually ask people who are disabled what they might need or what might be an obstacle. Not before or after the fact. Ever. It just doesn’t cross anyone’s mind, to think maybe we should add some disability advocates or engineers on this project to make sure we are doing it right. Nope. Never. Seriously never.

This is how we end up with this crap. With lack of accessible curb cuts, with restaurant outdoor seating pods taking up all the disability parking, with bike lanes prevent access to the sidewalk, with idiots parking in the crosshatch next to a disabled space that prevents van access so the van ramp cannot be used, etc. We struggle and fight everyday. I’m so tired.

As for the Alexandria bike lane for blind people someone posted a few pages back, I am very familiar with that situation. The man who rules BPAC, a very successful BIL lobbyist group, volunteers with a blind cyclist organization that has blind people paired with non kind people to ride those double bikes together so the blind people can experience what it’s like to ride a bike. He had a bunch of blind people he knew through this organization contact the city stating that they thought it was too dangerous to cross seminary near Ft Williams, and that their lives depended on the city doing the road diet, adding the bike lanes, and putting a crosswalk in that was conveniently located directly in front of the BPAC’s head house. NONE of those blind people lived in that neighborhood. It was all orchestrated and calculated by BPAC and then his daughter told everyone about how clever he was. So basically he used his friends with disabilities for personal gain.

Same old same old.

Your problem isn’t bike lanes. It’s people who think they deserve free off-street parking. We could reserve 4 spaces (one at each end of the block) for disables pick up/drop off. That would never happen. Don’t blame accessibility issues on transit advocates. Place blame where it belongs: the selfish car drivers.

Your ableism is disgusting. Unless you’re physically disabled don’t ever tell me what I need or do re accessibility. GTFOH and have some self awareness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With any luck, the lawsuit will be upheld and the city will be forced to remedy the situation by raising the bike lanes to the same level as the sidewalk (as on Virginia Ave SE and The Wharf). This will have the added benefit of preventing cars and other motorized vehicles from parking or driving in them.

How will that solve the problem?

It would solve the problem of cars parking and driving in bike lanes very much. It would also provide parked / stopped vehicles with direct access to the curb. Set the bike lane back a few feet from the curb and add a sidewalk across the lane and it's as good as gold. Some other ideas here: https://www.ourstreetsmpls.org/ada_compliant_protected_bike_lanes. I'm not here to be an apologist for DDOT, who mess many things up, but the notion that bike lanes are generally incompatible with the ADA is just silly.

Are disabled people suing because cars are parked in “protected bike lanes”? It’s honestly pretty disturbing that you can be so self centered as to think that the “solution” is to improve your experience using bike lanes. Do you bother to listen to yourself?

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs are clear and say repeatedly that they DO NOT believe that bike lanes are incompatible with the needs of the disabled.

Maybe I'm being a little Panglossian, but I'd like to think that disability advocates would be interested in making the lanes as safe as possible for users - which include those confined to wheelchairs - so as to minimize the probability of those who use them being injured or worse.

No one is confined to a wheelchair. The fact that you use such an ableist term shows that you don't know anything about what people who use wheelchairs need.

People who are using wheelchairs are pedestrians. They don't belong in bike lanes. They are not safe there. They belong on the sidewalk. A solution that prevents motor vehicles from being in bike lanes might be needed to protect cyclists, but this is a suit that addresses the need to protect people with disabilities that impact mobility.

Yes, it's possible to design a raised bike lane that also protects people in wheelchairs, but raising the bike lane doesn't make wheelchair users safe. In fact, it makes them less safe, because as I posted above, sometimes a vehicle has to move into a poorly designed bike lane to allow someone with a disability to access the sidewalk, and raising the bike lane prevents that. It basically transfers the danger from the person who needs their wheelchair to the person whose hobby is biking.

And no, it's not "Panglossian" to say that we should care about your issue instead of ours.

Please feel free to go and tell them that they “belong on the sidewalk”. I doubt they care much for your advocacy.

Two of those are scooters and one is a walker. None of them are wheelchairs.

I can find pictures of cyclist on the street does that mean they don’t deserve access to a bike lane?

Do you think splitting hairs makes you sound smart? Two of the three are electric mobility aids that can travel at more comfortable speeds in a bike lane than on the sidewalk. Which is why the users are operating them in the bike lane.

DP: This completely misses the point about why the bike lanes are not ADA compliant. Isn't about mobility impaired people using the bike lanes, for Pete's sake. That tweet is insulting to the entire community.

The bike lanes are ADA compliant. The new parking spaces are the problem. The tweet does a good job of countering the ridiculous attempts by certain parts of this lawsuit and certain posters on here to pit different social groups against each other.

+1

DDOT can address the problem cited in the lawsuit, but it will make it worse for people who drive and try to park on 17th street.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With any luck, the lawsuit will be upheld and the city will be forced to remedy the situation by raising the bike lanes to the same level as the sidewalk (as on Virginia Ave SE and The Wharf). This will have the added benefit of preventing cars and other motorized vehicles from parking or driving in them.

How will that solve the problem?

It would solve the problem of cars parking and driving in bike lanes very much. It would also provide parked / stopped vehicles with direct access to the curb. Set the bike lane back a few feet from the curb and add a sidewalk across the lane and it's as good as gold. Some other ideas here: https://www.ourstreetsmpls.org/ada_compliant_protected_bike_lanes. I'm not here to be an apologist for DDOT, who mess many things up, but the notion that bike lanes are generally incompatible with the ADA is just silly.

Are disabled people suing because cars are parked in “protected bike lanes”? It’s honestly pretty disturbing that you can be so self centered as to think that the “solution” is to improve your experience using bike lanes. Do you bother to listen to yourself?

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs are clear and say repeatedly that they DO NOT believe that bike lanes are incompatible with the needs of the disabled.

Maybe I'm being a little Panglossian, but I'd like to think that disability advocates would be interested in making the lanes as safe as possible for users - which include those confined to wheelchairs - so as to minimize the probability of those who use them being injured or worse.

No one is confined to a wheelchair. The fact that you use such an ableist term shows that you don't know anything about what people who use wheelchairs need.

People who are using wheelchairs are pedestrians. They don't belong in bike lanes. They are not safe there. They belong on the sidewalk. A solution that prevents motor vehicles from being in bike lanes might be needed to protect cyclists, but this is a suit that addresses the need to protect people with disabilities that impact mobility.

Yes, it's possible to design a raised bike lane that also protects people in wheelchairs, but raising the bike lane doesn't make wheelchair users safe. In fact, it makes them less safe, because as I posted above, sometimes a vehicle has to move into a poorly designed bike lane to allow someone with a disability to access the sidewalk, and raising the bike lane prevents that. It basically transfers the danger from the person who needs their wheelchair to the person whose hobby is biking.

And no, it's not "Panglossian" to say that we should care about your issue instead of ours.

Please feel free to go and tell them that they “belong on the sidewalk”. I doubt they care much for your advocacy.

Two of those are scooters and one is a walker. None of them are wheelchairs.

I can find pictures of cyclist on the street does that mean they don’t deserve access to a bike lane?

Do you think splitting hairs makes you sound smart? Two of the three are electric mobility aids that can travel at more comfortable speeds in a bike lane than on the sidewalk. Which is why the users are operating them in the bike lane.

DP: This completely misses the point about why the bike lanes are not ADA compliant. Isn't about mobility impaired people using the bike lanes, for Pete's sake. That tweet is insulting to the entire community.

The bike lanes are ADA compliant. The new parking spaces are the problem. The tweet does a good job of countering the ridiculous attempts by certain parts of this lawsuit and certain posters on here to pit different social groups against each other.

Here we have an ADA expert and legal scholar that can declare this block compliant based on reading a couple page document without even assessing the claims on the Plaintiffs. Amazing.

[Anonymous]

It is ironic that one of the businesses on Connecticut in opposition to the bike lanes has an ableist sign in its window.

https://twitter.com/BeauFinleyANC3C/status/1596655515878424578

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is ironic that one of the businesses on Connecticut in opposition to the bike lanes has an ableist sign in its window.

https://twitter.com/BeauFinleyANC3C/status/1596655515878424578

Ironic how? I don’t think you know what irony means.

The Plaintiffs in question are suing related to the existing 17th street bike lanes being non-compliant with the ADA. The Plaintiffs have been clear that they are not opposed to bike lanes per se but only want DC to follow the law.

Your glib post lacks basic understanding of the lawsuit and the needs of people with disabilities.

[Anonymous]

DC is following the law. It is a crap lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC is following the law. It is a crap lawsuit.

According to who? You?

Thankfully that’s not how the law works but thanks for sharing your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who knows the law and read the suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been physically disabled from birth. The ableism in every aspect of every day life is rampant and most people don’t even acknowledge it or care. Just remember, we are a group any person can suddenly find themselves a member of at any time. Don’t wait until then to re-evaluate.

I guarantee you there was not a single person with a physical disability that affected mobility in any part of the planning proceeds. There never is. It just doesn’t occur to people to actually ask people who are disabled what they might need or what might be an obstacle. Not before or after the fact. Ever. It just doesn’t cross anyone’s mind, to think maybe we should add some disability advocates or engineers on this project to make sure we are doing it right. Nope. Never. Seriously never.

This is how we end up with this crap. With lack of accessible curb cuts, with restaurant outdoor seating pods taking up all the disability parking, with bike lanes prevent access to the sidewalk, with idiots parking in the crosshatch next to a disabled space that prevents van access so the van ramp cannot be used, etc. We struggle and fight everyday. I’m so tired.

As for the Alexandria bike lane for blind people someone posted a few pages back, I am very familiar with that situation. The man who rules BPAC, a very successful BIL lobbyist group, volunteers with a blind cyclist organization that has blind people paired with non kind people to ride those double bikes together so the blind people can experience what it’s like to ride a bike. He had a bunch of blind people he knew through this organization contact the city stating that they thought it was too dangerous to cross seminary near Ft Williams, and that their lives depended on the city doing the road diet, adding the bike lanes, and putting a crosswalk in that was conveniently located directly in front of the BPAC’s head house. NONE of those blind people lived in that neighborhood. It was all orchestrated and calculated by BPAC and then his daughter told everyone about how clever he was. So basically he used his friends with disabilities for personal gain.

Same old same old.

Your problem isn’t bike lanes. It’s people who think they deserve free off-street parking. We could reserve 4 spaces (one at each end of the block) for disables pick up/drop off. That would never happen. Don’t blame accessibility issues on transit advocates. Place blame where it belongs: the selfish car drivers.

Your ableism is disgusting. Unless you’re physically disabled don’t ever tell me what I need or do re accessibility. GTFOH and have some self awareness.

How is it “ableism” to propose a MORE accessible design than we have currently (with or without bike lanes?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is ironic that one of the businesses on Connecticut in opposition to the bike lanes has an ableist sign in its window.

https://twitter.com/BeauFinleyANC3C/status/1596655515878424578

Ironic how? I don’t think you know what irony means.

The Plaintiffs in question are suing related to the existing 17th street bike lanes being non-compliant with the ADA. The Plaintiffs have been clear that they are not opposed to bike lanes per se but only want DC to follow the law.

Your glib post lacks basic understanding of the lawsuit and the needs of people with disabilities.

Oh, they made it clear?

“DDOT has undertaken an aggressive program to provide hundreds of miles of protected bicycle lanes all while ignoring pleas to consider ADA accessibility and equal access for those who move around the District in ways other than by bicycle.”

"We aim to remedy this systemic discrimination by the District against residents as well as visitors with mobility disabilities who are prohibited from moving about this beautiful city with the same freedom and ease as those without disabilities,” says Richard A. Simms, Executive Director, the District of Columbia Center for Independent Living, Inc. (DCCIL)

Yep, sure sounds like its *just* limited to the 17th street bike lane.