Bike lanes violate disability access laws, new lawsuit says

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep. This a cheap political stunt masquerading as a lawsuit. It's too bad the local media is not smart enough to see if for what it is.

DCCIL is the most prominent disability advocates in the city. You’re really showing your *ss by attacking them and in turn it exposes how deranged you and other cycling advocates are. Please keep doing it! I beg you.

I didn’t know there were know other parties to that lawsuit. I also didn’t realize that the other parties had a long history of advocating for disability causes. You can throw as many naughty words as you want but anyone who bothers to read the lawsuit can see it exactly for what it is.

Attacking the disabled is a pretty dumb. Hope this helps.

Pretty dumb, but not surprising. Unfortunately, we've seen and heard ageist remarks also, including even from some local ANC commissioners. Shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?)

Do you even know what ableism is as you try to “explain” accessibility to a disabled person and why the disabled person’s view is wrong but the nondisabled person is right, of course. Are you always such a bigot? Please recognize your own faults and educate yourself.

Can you please explain why four reserved disabled pickup/drop off spots on each block, located adjacent to a curb cut, would be an “ableist” solution?

You’re an amazing combination of arrogant and stupid. Before you presume whatever cockamamie idea you have satisfies the ADA and the needs of the disabled you should first start with understanding what the ADA requires and asking the disabled how to best serve their needs.

The fact that you are out here plumb ignorant like this is fascinating.

DP.

If only your grasp of the law and basic logic were as strong as your exotic insults.

I apologize for being an uneducated peasant. Can you please educate me on what the ADA requires and how that is verified?

You go around slinging ridiculous insults at other posters and now want us to educate you on what you claim we do not understand? Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep. This a cheap political stunt masquerading as a lawsuit. It's too bad the local media is not smart enough to see if for what it is.

DCCIL is the most prominent disability advocates in the city. You’re really showing your *ss by attacking them and in turn it exposes how deranged you and other cycling advocates are. Please keep doing it! I beg you.

I didn’t know there were know other parties to that lawsuit. I also didn’t realize that the other parties had a long history of advocating for disability causes. You can throw as many naughty words as you want but anyone who bothers to read the lawsuit can see it exactly for what it is.

Attacking the disabled is a pretty dumb. Hope this helps.

Pretty dumb, but not surprising. Unfortunately, we've seen and heard ageist remarks also, including even from some local ANC commissioners. Shameful.

What is really dumb is to mount a high horse based on misrepresentation of what was said or written.

[Anonymous]

From the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/11/22/disabilities-bike-lanes-lawsuit/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/11/22/disabilities-bike-lanes-lawsuit/

Pretty solid and fair, straight reporting.

It is notable that neither the Post nor DCist assigned the article for this story to their actual transportation reporters. Everyone can interpret that as they like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/11/22/disabilities-bike-lanes-lawsuit/

Pretty solid and fair, straight reporting.

It is notable that neither the Post nor DCist assigned the article for this story to their actual transportation reporters. Everyone can interpret that as they like.

Not entirely sure what's notable about that, especially for a lawsuit filed right before Thanksgiving when a lot of people aren't working, but the Post's reporter does cover transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/11/22/disabilities-bike-lanes-lawsuit/

Pretty solid and fair, straight reporting.

It is notable that neither the Post nor DCist assigned the article for this story to their actual transportation reporters. Everyone can interpret that as they like.

They assigned someone to regurgitate a press release. If you believe that constitutes “reporting” then I pity you for never having the privilege of being exposed to actual journalism. I would say that a bot could write a better article, but the same is probably true of a sea cucumber.

[Anonymous]

DDOT probably could have done better in accommodating the needs of disabled people when designing the bike lanes. Everybody who has rode along them probably could also can find ways in which DDOT could have done better in making them safer for cyclists and other users. The ADA is wide open to interpretation here, but its not a bad thing if this suit results in bike lane designs that are more accommodating of the needs of disabled people and safer for cyclists. Remedies that could conceivably come out of this case will, in a probability, reduce the number of general parking spaces and shrink road widths. I hope that will please the 50 members of the Dupont East Civic Association or whatever it is called.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DDOT probably could have done better in accommodating the needs of disabled people when designing the bike lanes. Everybody who has rode along them probably could also can find ways in which DDOT could have done better in making them safer for cyclists and other users. The ADA is wide open to interpretation here, but its not a bad thing if this suit results in bike lane designs that are more accommodating of the needs of disabled people and safer for cyclists. Remedies that could conceivably come out of this case will, in a probability, reduce the number of general parking spaces and shrink road widths. I hope that will please the 50 members of the Dupont East Civic Association or whatever it is called.

The ADA is simple, it requires “reasonable accommodation”. If you make no accommodation then it is definitionally not reasonable. The ADA also does not allow for self-certification for obvious reasons. Just because DDOT, DOT, a school or your employer prepares a document that outlines how they think they comply with the ADA, it does not in fact mean that they are complying with the ADA.

[Anonymous]

I still don’t understand why nondisabled people are making determinations for what is a reasonable accommodation for disabled people. Do white people tell black people what is and is not racist? Do Christians tell Jewish people what should count as anti-semite?

Imagine being physically disabled, and basically having to beg permissions to exist, for every single thing in your life, and the nondisabled people get to decide whether or not you’re worthy, of even being able to use the sidewalk or get out of a car? imagine this for the right to go to school, get a job, get healthcare, etc. The ADA is reactionary, it depends on people to report violations and then maybe, just maybe it will be enforced. For everything. Being disabled is hard enough without having to listen to all the ridiculous BS on this thread by cyclists and other experts who claim they know better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t understand why nondisabled people are making determinations for what is a reasonable accommodation for disabled people. Do white people tell black people what is and is not racist? Do Christians tell Jewish people what should count as anti-semite?

Imagine being physically disabled, and basically having to beg permissions to exist, for every single thing in your life, and the nondisabled people get to decide whether or not you’re worthy, of even being able to use the sidewalk or get out of a car? imagine this for the right to go to school, get a job, get healthcare, etc. The ADA is reactionary, it depends on people to report violations and then maybe, just maybe it will be enforced. For everything. Being disabled is hard enough without having to listen to all the ridiculous BS on this thread by cyclists and other experts who claim they know better.

Isn't that the way it is? If you ask for reasonable accommodations at work, who decides that? If you ask for consideration like this, who do you think you're asking from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t understand why nondisabled people are making determinations for what is a reasonable accommodation for disabled people. Do white people tell black people what is and is not racist? Do Christians tell Jewish people what should count as anti-semite?

Imagine being physically disabled, and basically having to beg permissions to exist, for every single thing in your life, and the nondisabled people get to decide whether or not you’re worthy, of even being able to use the sidewalk or get out of a car? imagine this for the right to go to school, get a job, get healthcare, etc. The ADA is reactionary, it depends on people to report violations and then maybe, just maybe it will be enforced. For everything. Being disabled is hard enough without having to listen to all the ridiculous BS on this thread by cyclists and other experts who claim they know better.

Isn't that the way it is? If you ask for reasonable accommodations at work, who decides that? If you ask for consideration like this, who do you think you're asking from?

I see, only nondisabled people are in authority, are in charge and have power, only they make the decisions for us. Got it

[Anonymous]

There are two things going on here: One, there's a lawsuit that appears to make a reasonable request to modify existing bike lanes a little bit so they allow mobility to people with disabilities, and which should guide future bike lane installations to avoid conflict between mobility and multimodal road use. Two, there's a group of DCUM posters who have latched onto that lawsuit to argue that all bike lanes are bad and all people who support them hate people with disabilities.

Seems very easy to build bike lanes that don't cause major problems for people with disabilities, and speaking as someone who bikes to work frequently, I'm all for doing that and found little to object to in the complaint. It is obviously possible to build bike lanes that make reasonable accommodations for people who need them; even the complaint says the plaintiffs are not opposed to bike lanes in concept, just to the specific design of the ones they're suing over.

The leap that some people here are making, to say that this lawsuit proves bike lanes are some kind of menace, is just silly. But it's disappointing to see people who support cycling infrastructure respond to it by bashing the plaintiffs or accusing them of some kind of nefarious motives, instead of just pointing out to the posters here (very few of whom seem to care about disability issues at all except insofar as they can use them to bash bike lanes) that their position is incoherent and reactionary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are two things going on here: One, there's a lawsuit that appears to make a reasonable request to modify existing bike lanes a little bit so they allow mobility to people with disabilities, and which should guide future bike lane installations to avoid conflict between mobility and multimodal road use. Two, there's a group of DCUM posters who have latched onto that lawsuit to argue that all bike lanes are bad and all people who support them hate people with disabilities.

Seems very easy to build bike lanes that don't cause major problems for people with disabilities, and speaking as someone who bikes to work frequently, I'm all for doing that and found little to object to in the complaint. It is obviously possible to build bike lanes that make reasonable accommodations for people who need them; even the complaint says the plaintiffs are not opposed to bike lanes in concept, just to the specific design of the ones they're suing over.

The leap that some people here are making, to say that this lawsuit proves bike lanes are some kind of menace, is just silly. But it's disappointing to see people who support cycling infrastructure respond to it by bashing the plaintiffs or accusing them of some kind of nefarious motives, instead of just pointing out to the posters here (very few of whom seem to care about disability issues at all except insofar as they can use them to bash bike lanes) that their position is incoherent and reactionary.

Bless your heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DDOT probably could have done better in accommodating the needs of disabled people when designing the bike lanes. Everybody who has rode along them probably could also can find ways in which DDOT could have done better in making them safer for cyclists and other users. The ADA is wide open to interpretation here, but its not a bad thing if this suit results in bike lane designs that are more accommodating of the needs of disabled people and safer for cyclists. Remedies that could conceivably come out of this case will, in a probability, reduce the number of general parking spaces and shrink road widths. I hope that will please the 50 members of the Dupont East Civic Association or whatever it is called.

The ADA is simple, it requires “reasonable accommodation”. If you make no accommodation then it is definitionally not reasonable. The ADA also does not allow for self-certification for obvious reasons. Just because DDOT, DOT, a school or your employer prepares a document that outlines how they think they comply with the ADA, it does not in fact mean that they are complying with the ADA.

oh yes “reasonable accommodation” is such a simple concept!

not sure what you mean by “self-certification”?