Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have to figure out how everyone can share the roads together. We all have rights to them no matter the modality.
Read the lawsuit. It says that there are ways to accommodate both public transit with full access to the curb plus bicycles. However, the district intentionally selected a plan that did not include ADA accommodations for both drivers and passengers. The current plants require disabled drivers and passengers to stop and unload and assemble/configure their wheelchair in an actively used bicycle lane then have to direct their wheelchair to the nearest corner for them to access the curb and sidewalk.
The way to accomplish what you suggest is for the district to follow the federal law and select a plan that allows ADA accessible access to the curb and sidewalk without having to disembark their vehicles or public transit in active traffic lanes and to travel in the street to a corner in order to access the sidewalk. There are several proposed options, but the district ignored all of them when selecting their design plans. The lawsuit is trying to force them to reconsider and use one of the ADA accessible options.
How is this different from the current state of affairs? Right now, they still have to exit into an active lane of traffic and assemble the wheelchair in a treebox, or walk to the corner to get to a curbcut. If anything this is an improvement because they could assemble the wheelchair in the bikelane, then take the bikelane to the curb cut. This is a cheap attack on bike lanes.
Is this a joke? They would get mowed down by some a**hole on an ebike going 30mph.
From what I see on 15th street, the bicyclists stop for pedestrians far more than drivers. There are crosswalks without a stop sign so you can get a good comparison.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have to figure out how everyone can share the roads together. We all have rights to them no matter the modality.
Read the lawsuit. It says that there are ways to accommodate both public transit with full access to the curb plus bicycles. However, the district intentionally selected a plan that did not include ADA accommodations for both drivers and passengers. The current plants require disabled drivers and passengers to stop and unload and assemble/configure their wheelchair in an actively used bicycle lane then have to direct their wheelchair to the nearest corner for them to access the curb and sidewalk.
The way to accomplish what you suggest is for the district to follow the federal law and select a plan that allows ADA accessible access to the curb and sidewalk without having to disembark their vehicles or public transit in active traffic lanes and to travel in the street to a corner in order to access the sidewalk. There are several proposed options, but the district ignored all of them when selecting their design plans. The lawsuit is trying to force them to reconsider and use one of the ADA accessible options.
How is this different from the current state of affairs? Right now, they still have to exit into an active lane of traffic and assemble the wheelchair in a treebox, or walk to the corner to get to a curbcut. If anything this is an improvement because they could assemble the wheelchair in the bikelane, then take the bikelane to the curb cut. This is a cheap attack on bike lanes.
Is this a joke? They would get mowed down by some a**hole on an ebike going 30mph.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have to figure out how everyone can share the roads together. We all have rights to them no matter the modality.
Read the lawsuit. It says that there are ways to accommodate both public transit with full access to the curb plus bicycles. However, the district intentionally selected a plan that did not include ADA accommodations for both drivers and passengers. The current plants require disabled drivers and passengers to stop and unload and assemble/configure their wheelchair in an actively used bicycle lane then have to direct their wheelchair to the nearest corner for them to access the curb and sidewalk.
The way to accomplish what you suggest is for the district to follow the federal law and select a plan that allows ADA accessible access to the curb and sidewalk without having to disembark their vehicles or public transit in active traffic lanes and to travel in the street to a corner in order to access the sidewalk. There are several proposed options, but the district ignored all of them when selecting their design plans. The lawsuit is trying to force them to reconsider and use one of the ADA accessible options.
How is this different from the current state of affairs? Right now, they still have to exit into an active lane of traffic and assemble the wheelchair in a treebox, or walk to the corner to get to a curbcut. If anything this is an improvement because they could assemble the wheelchair in the bikelane, then take the bikelane to the curb cut. This is a cheap attack on bike lanes.
Is this a joke? They would get mowed down by some a**hole on an ebike going 30mph.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have to figure out how everyone can share the roads together. We all have rights to them no matter the modality.
Read the lawsuit. It says that there are ways to accommodate both public transit with full access to the curb plus bicycles. However, the district intentionally selected a plan that did not include ADA accommodations for both drivers and passengers. The current plants require disabled drivers and passengers to stop and unload and assemble/configure their wheelchair in an actively used bicycle lane then have to direct their wheelchair to the nearest corner for them to access the curb and sidewalk.
The way to accomplish what you suggest is for the district to follow the federal law and select a plan that allows ADA accessible access to the curb and sidewalk without having to disembark their vehicles or public transit in active traffic lanes and to travel in the street to a corner in order to access the sidewalk. There are several proposed options, but the district ignored all of them when selecting their design plans. The lawsuit is trying to force them to reconsider and use one of the ADA accessible options.
How is this different from the current state of affairs? Right now, they still have to exit into an active lane of traffic and assemble the wheelchair in a treebox, or walk to the corner to get to a curbcut. If anything this is an improvement because they could assemble the wheelchair in the bikelane, then take the bikelane to the curb cut. This is a cheap attack on bike lanes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I thought bike lanes were supposed to be used by wheelchairs and would increase racial diversity in upper NW? At least that's what the proponents hqve claimed.
So only black people use wheelchairs? Seriously?
Anonymous wrote:I thought bike lanes were supposed to be used by wheelchairs and would increase racial diversity in upper NW? At least that's what the proponents hqve claimed.
Anonymous wrote:Seems like something DC should have thought about beforehand
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1594741861222162432
Anonymous wrote:Basically D.C.'s bike lanes violate federal law. Great planning, guys.
Anonymous wrote:As the complaint says, though, "This is not a choice between accessibility and bicycle lanes."
And it's specifically complaining about the design of the 17th Street bike lane, not just flatly declaring (as many people are here) that all bike lanes are bad.
Glad to see there are a lot of allies for disability rights in D.C. now, I assume you'll all be out there fervently supporting this cause in situations when their goals don't directly line up with your preferred policy outcomes, too?
Anonymous wrote:As the complaint says, though, "This is not a choice between accessibility and bicycle lanes."
And it's specifically complaining about the design of the 17th Street bike lane, not just flatly declaring (as many people are here) that all bike lanes are bad.
Glad to see there are a lot of allies for disability rights in D.C. now, I assume you'll all be out there fervently supporting this cause in situations when their goals don't directly line up with your preferred policy outcomes, too?
Anonymous wrote:I'm baffled how all these bike lanes were even built in such blatant violation of ADA law. Did the city think disabled people might not notice?