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.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot of hostility on this thread towards disabled people.

Try being a cyclist . . .

The difference is that cyclists, unlike the disabled, have earned it.

Earned it how? And does this apply to all cyclists? If so, what omniscience allows you to make such sweeping generalizations?

even cyclists think cyclists are jerks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot of hostility on this thread towards disabled people.

Try being a cyclist . . .

The difference is that cyclists, unlike the disabled, have earned it.

Earned it how? And does this apply to all cyclists? If so, what omniscience allows you to make such sweeping generalizations?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot of hostility on this thread towards disabled people.

Try being a cyclist . . .

Not even close.

-- Parent of a cyclist and a kid with a mobility disability.

You really think that posters on this thread are more hostile to the disabled than to cyclists? Because that was the claim that was being responded to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot of hostility on this thread towards disabled people.

Try being a cyclist . . .

Oof, immediate PP this is just wrong (and I’m a cyclist).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot of hostility on this thread towards disabled people.

Try being a cyclist . . .

Not even close.

-- Parent of a cyclist and a kid with a mobility disability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot of hostility on this thread towards disabled people.

Try being a cyclist . . .

The difference is that cyclists, unlike the disabled, have earned it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twelve percent of D.C. residents are disabled. I'm guessing the percentage of D.C. residents who use bike lanes is on the order of 0.00005 percent.

Why would anyone care in the slightest about your guess? There are actual statistics that anyone interested in an informed discussion can look up.

The Census Bureau says two percent of commuters claim to bike. That's about one percent of residents.

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.

Great. How about we start with making sure the handful of loudest complainers at the table don't get to make everyone else suffer?

That’s how we had bike lanes forced upon the rest of us in the first place.

Do you even understand the word “irony”?

I didn't realize that irony mattered much to dead cyclists. Or that they constitute "loud complainers".

Anonymous wrote:Twelve percent of D.C. residents are disabled. I'm guessing the percentage of D.C. residents who use bike lanes is on the order of 0.00005 percent.

Why would anyone care in the slightest about your guess? There are actual statistics that anyone interested in an informed discussion can look up.

Anonymous wrote:Lot of hostility on this thread towards disabled people.

Try being a cyclist . . .

Twelve percent of D.C. residents are disabled. I'm guessing the percentage of D.C. residents who use bike lanes is on the order of 0.00005 percent.

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.

Great. How about we start with making sure the handful of loudest complainers at the table don't get to make everyone else suffer?

That’s how we had bike lanes forced upon the rest of us in the first place.

Do you even understand the word “irony”?

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Per the lawsuit:

12 percent of DC residents have mobility disabilities
Three-quarters of them are African American
One third of them are over the age of 65

Bicyclists five times more likely to be white than Black
Bicyclists predominantly male, white, 25-40, higher income
[/quote]

Yeah, because that has absolutely nothing to do with nearly zero bike infrastructure existing in the majority minority areas of the city or the fact that those areas are literally separated from the downtown core by highway bridges that have the world's tiniest sidewalks (absent the brand new bridge, which is quite nice). Yeah, of course it has nothing to do with that...[/quote]

"Are highways racist?" PP has some thinking to do. [/quote]

We can argue about -isms until the cows come home but it’s not hard to understand how the quality of life enjoyed by almost everyone in DC who lives east of the Anacostia River would be dramatically improved by the removal (or, failing that, covering) of 295.[/quote]
[Quote]
While that may be true it is not in any way relevent to this discussion.[/quote]

The racial composition of cyclists is not particularly relevant either to the ADA compliance of the bike lane designs, but evidently whoever drafted that hot mess of a lawsuit - and whoever reposted the relevant passage here - thinks it beneficial for them to engage in patently nonsensical racial politics that try to pit different groups in this city against one another.[/quote]

So the impact should not be looked at with a racial lens?

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Per the lawsuit:

12 percent of DC residents have mobility disabilities
Three-quarters of them are African American
One third of them are over the age of 65

Bicyclists five times more likely to be white than Black
Bicyclists predominantly male, white, 25-40, higher income
[/quote]

Yeah, because that has absolutely nothing to do with nearly zero bike infrastructure existing in the majority minority areas of the city or the fact that those areas are literally separated from the downtown core by highway bridges that have the world's tiniest sidewalks (absent the brand new bridge, which is quite nice). Yeah, of course it has nothing to do with that...[/quote]

"Are highways racist?" PP has some thinking to do. [/quote]

We can argue about -isms until the cows come home but it’s not hard to understand how the quality of life enjoyed by almost everyone in DC who lives east of the Anacostia River would be dramatically improved by the removal (or, failing that, covering) of 295.[/quote]

While that may be true it is not in any way relevent to this discussion.[/quote]

The racial composition of cyclists is not particularly relevant either to the ADA compliance of the bike lane designs, but evidently whoever drafted that hot mess of a lawsuit - and whoever reposted the relevant passage here - thinks it beneficial for them to engage in patently nonsensical racial politics that try to pit different groups in this city against one another.