Bike lanes violate disability access laws, new lawsuit says

[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.

the ADA is a law, not an identity politics blog. The courts determine what a “reasonable accomodation” is if there is a dispute. Prior to that, DDOT engineers use standards set out in district and federal guidance.

[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.

This is a mostly solid take but a good chunk of the language in the lawsuit (the racial politics and what not) and the statements made to the plaintiffs to the media go much further than making "a reasonable request to modify existing bike lanes a little bit so they allow mobility to people with disabilities". Given their history, is it not fair for people to also question the motivations of DECAA in joining the lawsuit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a mostly solid take but a good chunk of the language in the lawsuit (the racial politics and what not) and the statements made to the plaintiffs to the media go much further than making "a reasonable request to modify existing bike lanes a little bit so they allow mobility to people with disabilities". Given their history, is it not fair for people to also question the motivations of DECAA in joining the lawsuit?

Eh, I don't really care about what the lawsuit or the plaintiffs say about white guys. The point is, the city DID appear to screw up the bike lanes and should fix it, and the people who dislike bike lanes for other reasons should stop trying to use people with disabilities for their own unrelated purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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”?

Self-certification means that in the case of DDOT, they don’t get to create a guidance document on ADA compliance, follow it and then claim that they comply with the ADA.

Imagine if you employer got to decide what was ADA compliant and what is not and if you complain, they point to an internal policy they created and say that they are complying with their own policy. That is not how the law works and for good reason.

The people claiming that DDOT are just following their own policy are missing the point and do not understand how the ADA works. If DDOT wanted to avoid ADA litigation, they should have conducted proactive outreach with disabled groups about their bike lane plans in order to better understand what their reasonable accommodation needs are. There is no evidence presented to date that DDOT has done so. Nor is there any evidence that DDOT even consulted with disability groups in developing their own ADA guidance documents. You can compare this to how closely DDOT works with WABA and draw your own conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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”?

Self-certification means that in the case of DDOT, they don’t get to create a guidance document on ADA compliance, follow it and then claim that they comply with the ADA.

Imagine if you employer got to decide what was ADA compliant and what is not and if you complain, they point to an internal policy they created and say that they are complying with their own policy. That is not how the law works and for good reason.

The people claiming that DDOT are just following their own policy are missing the point and do not understand how the ADA works. If DDOT wanted to avoid ADA litigation, they should have conducted proactive outreach with disabled groups about their bike lane plans in order to better understand what their reasonable accommodation needs are. There is no evidence presented to date that DDOT has done so. Nor is there any evidence that DDOT even consulted with disability groups in developing their own ADA guidance documents. You can compare this to how closely DDOT works with WABA and draw your own conclusions.

You … don’t really understand how any of this works.

[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.

the ADA is a law, not an identity politics blog. The courts determine what a “reasonable accomodation” is if there is a dispute. Prior to that, DDOT engineers use standards set out in district and federal guidance.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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”?

Self-certification means that in the case of DDOT, they don’t get to create a guidance document on ADA compliance, follow it and then claim that they comply with the ADA.

Imagine if you employer got to decide what was ADA compliant and what is not and if you complain, they point to an internal policy they created and say that they are complying with their own policy. That is not how the law works and for good reason.

The people claiming that DDOT are just following their own policy are missing the point and do not understand how the ADA works. If DDOT wanted to avoid ADA litigation, they should have conducted proactive outreach with disabled groups about their bike lane plans in order to better understand what their reasonable accommodation needs are. There is no evidence presented to date that DDOT has done so. Nor is there any evidence that DDOT even consulted with disability groups in developing their own ADA guidance documents. You can compare this to how closely DDOT works with WABA and draw your own conclusions.

You … don’t really understand how any of this works.

I presume that you are referring to you buddies who think that having Plaintiffs that they don’t personally like somehow invalidates the claims.

[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.

the ADA is a law, not an identity politics blog. The courts determine what a “reasonable accomodation” is if there is a dispute. Prior to that, DDOT engineers use standards set out in district and federal guidance.

So disabled people wanting accommodations is a form of identity politics? Wow.

[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.

Unfortunately, there’s a really vocal group of cyclists who also appear to be raging narcissists. I suspect they’re the same people who don’t yield to pedestrians in crosswalks even at red lights.

[Anonymous]

I couldn't love this more. So awesome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't love this more. So awesome.

Lawyers padding their wallets by playing on unhealthy obsessions harbored by the leadership of the East Dupont Civic Action Association?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't love this more. So awesome.

Lawyers padding their wallets by playing on unhealthy obsessions harbored by the leadership of the East Dupont Civic Action Association?

Nah. Preachy cyclists gettin' the shaft.

[Anonymous]

This thread is mostly young, white cyclists trashing elderly, black disabled people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is mostly young, white cyclists trashing elderly, black disabled people.

I would also frame it that way if I was a disingenuous person

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't love this more. So awesome.

Lawyers padding their wallets by playing on unhealthy obsessions harbored by the leadership of the East Dupont Civic Action Association?

Nah. Preachy cyclists gettin' the shaft.

Yeah, you’ll be waiting a while for that. In the meantime, though, be sure to be entertained by the steady diet of narcissistic car addicts in denial shafting the entire planet and driving themselves and their ilk crazy in gridlock while incidentally killing and maiming all manner of other road users in the planet. Maybe you’re into that. The rest of us, not so much.