Is car culture good for disabled people?
Mar. 17th, 2021 09:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livOut of frustration with pandemic restriction arguments on Twitter, I made a comment saying, why don't we just ban cars instead of all these daft rules? And immediately got several replies of, but that's ableist! Obviously banning cars completely from one day to the next is not in any serious sense feasible. Fine. But it's exactly the same knee-jerk response you see, sincerely, anytime anyone makes a suggestion for any planning policy which makes things even the tiniest bit worse for drivers: what about disabled people?!
I just don't believe it, basically. And maybe this is my ableist prejudices but I really think this 'what about disabled people?' shows a similar bias to the way that any move at all to encourage driving alternatives is immediately 'too expensive', but the ongoing cost of cars and the damage they cause is just normal and therefore invisible. I don't think a culture where the only reasonable way to get anywhere is to drive is good for disabled people any more than it's good for any other humans.
I acknowledge that there are some people who really can't travel anywhere except by car. And they do need to be accommodated. But surely there must be at least as many people whose disabilities mean that they can't drive, and who are screwed over by the total inaccessibility of the world to non-drivers? Why is it ableist to exclude people who are 100% car dependent, but not ableist to exclude people who can't use cars? Epilepsy, some cognitive issues, visual impairments, in addition to a range of physical disabilities and body differences which mean that only highly customized vehicles would be usable and those aren't available except to ultra-rich disabled people.
I would guess that most disabled people are somewhere in between these two extremes of must always drive and can't ever drive. If driving is cheaper and more convenient and less tiring than other forms of transport, then the gap is going to be wider for many disabled people than for abled people who can choose to do the less convenient thing in order to promote social good. But it's not a law of nature that driving is easier, it's because driving is heavily subsidized and towns are built to make driving as convenient as possible, and if this were changed then a higher proportion of disabled people would be able use other forms of transport.
On a very simple level, if all public transport had level access, and enough space for several wheelchairs, and seats comfortable for a wide range of bodies, disabled people wouldn't "have to" drive instead of taking trains and buses. If accessible public transport were also affordable, and served most places frequently, then disabled passengers wouldn't be unfairly restricted by needing to rely on public transport. Also if we didn't fill up the roads with one car per adult, public transport would be able to move much faster so disabled people, who might be more time-pressured than some abled people, wouldn't need to worry about a half-hour journey taking two hours by public transport.
Equally, if towns were designed for, rather than against, active transport, then many disabled people would also be more able to get around without needing a car. Wide, unobstructed pavements are good for wheelchair users as well as foot-passengers. More disabled people would be able to ride bikes if there were safe, segregated cycle infrastructure and you didn't have to be able to cycle and react fast to dodge cars. And some disabled people who can't ride a standard bike can ride a trike as long as there's enough space for a wider pedal vehicle as well as a narrow one. If pedestrians and cyclists weren't squeezed into sharing the same inadequate spaces then wheelchair and scooter users would be able to mix with either (depending on speed) without everybody obstructing or colliding with everybody else.
If there were fewer cars there would be less air pollution and people whose disabilities include respiratory problems would have fewer symptoms. There would also be fewer disabling injuries caused by road accidents, if it's acceptable to mention prevention of acquiring disability as a benefit. All the bad effects of climate change, which over-use of cars hugely accelerates, are likely to be at least as bad for disabled people as for abled people, so I would argue that disabled people benefit from more environmentally sustainable transport in the long term even if it is more disabling than cars in the short term. But mostly I don't think it should be; underfunded, bad public transport which competes at a huge and contrived disadvantage with cars disables people, but good public transport, which is what I am arguing for, would not.
I think when people say that we can't have pedestrianized city centres, or reduce the amount of space dedicated to parking, or restrict or financially penalize the most polluting cars, or create Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (currently a huge controversy around here), because 'what about disabled people?' they are possibly thinking of disabled people who are do not have the capacity to travel independently from their home to a station where they could pick up public transport. At the moment, because public transport is extremely inadequate, this could be a very long distance, but some disabled people aren't able to travel even short distances, even with the best available mobility aids. Honestly, if we had human-friendly towns and cities and prioritized infrastructure for public and active transport over infrastructure for cars, we could make accommodations for the small numbers of people who still couldn't travel.
IOW, I'm ok with cars as mobility aids for people who really need them. Those disabled drivers (or perhaps passengers of publicly subsidized taxis?) would have a much better time than currently because the roads wouldn't be overcrowded, and there would be parking near all facilities because there wouldn't be any competition with all the abled drivers for the prime spots.
So what am I missing here? Is it really ableist to ever even consider supporting transport solutions other than each individual driving a single private car? Do we have to put up with all the fatalities caused directly by too many cars and indirectly by climate disaster forever because doing anything about it at all is ableist? My feeling is that what's ableist is making isolated changes without thinking through the consequences in an integrated way, but refusing to even imagine a better approach doesn't seem like the right answer.
I just don't believe it, basically. And maybe this is my ableist prejudices but I really think this 'what about disabled people?' shows a similar bias to the way that any move at all to encourage driving alternatives is immediately 'too expensive', but the ongoing cost of cars and the damage they cause is just normal and therefore invisible. I don't think a culture where the only reasonable way to get anywhere is to drive is good for disabled people any more than it's good for any other humans.
I acknowledge that there are some people who really can't travel anywhere except by car. And they do need to be accommodated. But surely there must be at least as many people whose disabilities mean that they can't drive, and who are screwed over by the total inaccessibility of the world to non-drivers? Why is it ableist to exclude people who are 100% car dependent, but not ableist to exclude people who can't use cars? Epilepsy, some cognitive issues, visual impairments, in addition to a range of physical disabilities and body differences which mean that only highly customized vehicles would be usable and those aren't available except to ultra-rich disabled people.
I would guess that most disabled people are somewhere in between these two extremes of must always drive and can't ever drive. If driving is cheaper and more convenient and less tiring than other forms of transport, then the gap is going to be wider for many disabled people than for abled people who can choose to do the less convenient thing in order to promote social good. But it's not a law of nature that driving is easier, it's because driving is heavily subsidized and towns are built to make driving as convenient as possible, and if this were changed then a higher proportion of disabled people would be able use other forms of transport.
On a very simple level, if all public transport had level access, and enough space for several wheelchairs, and seats comfortable for a wide range of bodies, disabled people wouldn't "have to" drive instead of taking trains and buses. If accessible public transport were also affordable, and served most places frequently, then disabled passengers wouldn't be unfairly restricted by needing to rely on public transport. Also if we didn't fill up the roads with one car per adult, public transport would be able to move much faster so disabled people, who might be more time-pressured than some abled people, wouldn't need to worry about a half-hour journey taking two hours by public transport.
Equally, if towns were designed for, rather than against, active transport, then many disabled people would also be more able to get around without needing a car. Wide, unobstructed pavements are good for wheelchair users as well as foot-passengers. More disabled people would be able to ride bikes if there were safe, segregated cycle infrastructure and you didn't have to be able to cycle and react fast to dodge cars. And some disabled people who can't ride a standard bike can ride a trike as long as there's enough space for a wider pedal vehicle as well as a narrow one. If pedestrians and cyclists weren't squeezed into sharing the same inadequate spaces then wheelchair and scooter users would be able to mix with either (depending on speed) without everybody obstructing or colliding with everybody else.
If there were fewer cars there would be less air pollution and people whose disabilities include respiratory problems would have fewer symptoms. There would also be fewer disabling injuries caused by road accidents, if it's acceptable to mention prevention of acquiring disability as a benefit. All the bad effects of climate change, which over-use of cars hugely accelerates, are likely to be at least as bad for disabled people as for abled people, so I would argue that disabled people benefit from more environmentally sustainable transport in the long term even if it is more disabling than cars in the short term. But mostly I don't think it should be; underfunded, bad public transport which competes at a huge and contrived disadvantage with cars disables people, but good public transport, which is what I am arguing for, would not.
I think when people say that we can't have pedestrianized city centres, or reduce the amount of space dedicated to parking, or restrict or financially penalize the most polluting cars, or create Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (currently a huge controversy around here), because 'what about disabled people?' they are possibly thinking of disabled people who are do not have the capacity to travel independently from their home to a station where they could pick up public transport. At the moment, because public transport is extremely inadequate, this could be a very long distance, but some disabled people aren't able to travel even short distances, even with the best available mobility aids. Honestly, if we had human-friendly towns and cities and prioritized infrastructure for public and active transport over infrastructure for cars, we could make accommodations for the small numbers of people who still couldn't travel.
IOW, I'm ok with cars as mobility aids for people who really need them. Those disabled drivers (or perhaps passengers of publicly subsidized taxis?) would have a much better time than currently because the roads wouldn't be overcrowded, and there would be parking near all facilities because there wouldn't be any competition with all the abled drivers for the prime spots.
So what am I missing here? Is it really ableist to ever even consider supporting transport solutions other than each individual driving a single private car? Do we have to put up with all the fatalities caused directly by too many cars and indirectly by climate disaster forever because doing anything about it at all is ableist? My feeling is that what's ableist is making isolated changes without thinking through the consequences in an integrated way, but refusing to even imagine a better approach doesn't seem like the right answer.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-03-17 11:08 pm (UTC)- is fat
- has chronic health issues that affect stamina (including a really sharp drop off when I guess wrong about how much more time I can be out doing things. When that hits, I get to "Cannot walk safely" within five minutes.)
- has migraines (which are mostly not a problem when I can manage triggers, but certain kinds of background noise, light patterns, and movement are things I usually try to avoid, and all three are moderately common in public transit settings.)
- has cranky lungs (both in the sense of being reactive to smoke/some other triggers as well as allergy issues, and in the sense that I usually have some degree of cough, even when I am not remotely contagious to other people around me. I get side-eyed a lot from people wondering if I have TB, even in non-pandemic times.)
I live about half a mile from the nearest bus stop, and about a mile from the nearest subway stop, to put this in some context.
My biggest reason for needing to drive is that the car transit is predictable and I can adjust a lot of factors for my personal needs.
It's that part that I find hardest to deal with with public transit.
- I am sitting down in a seat that I am used to (not crammed in or possibly needing to stand, and I don't know which until I get on that particular bit of transit.)
- I don't have to feel guilty about how much space I'm taking up, in a body that takes up more space than some. (I have not come in for super large amounts of harassment for this, but I've had some, I've had pushback against needing a seat before I fall down, and the whole process of bracing for maybe needing to deal with it is exhausting.)
- I can have stuff in the car that helps if I am on the edge of a migraine (multiple pairs of backup sunglasses, stuff to listen to that is tolerable and drowns out road noise, etc.)
- I don't have to deal with super unpredictable noise from other people right near me. (I do not blame small children for sometimes needing to make loud noise. This does not make the resultant migraine less annoying to deal with. And then we have all the people who make loud unpredictable noises with less cause...)
- I have a reasonable amount of control over the immediate climate. (I am fairly heat sensitive: AC in buses and subway locally is usually fine, but in the winter I overheat really easily, and a bus is not a great place to strip layers. In the car I can shrug off a layer or two without much bother.)
- I am not subjected to scents or allergens from someone sitting next to me (sometimes not a big deal, sometimes it is.)
- I can choose routes that involve less stop and go, or at least more predictably. (Rather than the lurching of buses, which when I'm dealing with a certain combo of issues, is really exhausting.)
- I don't need to be paying constant attention for the unpredictability of things going on. Obviously, stuff happens when you're driving, but I have designed my life so that my usual route is unlikely to have weird stuff come up (it's mostly smaller streets in three towns.)
But I don't need to adjust constantly for "that person needs more space, this kid is increasingly unhappy, oh, there's a slow down here, I need to remember where my stop is." I don't have to monitor for pickpocketing or forgetting that I put something on the seat (and with brain fog sometimes being a thing, the number of times I have done "Oh, yay, the phone is actually in the car" is not tiny.)
- My driving commute is about half the amount of time of what a bus commute would be (bus stop to bus stop).
(Theoretically, a more direct set of bus routes could solve this, but I live in the Boston suburbs, where the roads were designed by drunken cows, and our transit is basically a wheel and spoke system. To get from the suburb I live in at about 10:30 on a clock dial to the one I work in at about 9 on a clock dial, the only two options are to walk half a mile to a bus stop, bus for 20 minutes, change to a subway for two stops, bus for 30 minutes, walk half a mile or bus, bus, and walk about a mile on the other end. If any piece of that is running late, I will be an hour later to work.)
- The amount of walking needed on either end is currently mostly manageable for me (about half a mile on each end for my 'I need bus to work' route), but there are a regular number of days in my life where that is too much.
On the stamina front right now, that's probably 3-4 working days a month on average, but it can be a longer stretch of a month or two at a time if I get a bad cold. I spent between 2010 and about 2016 where relying on doing even a quarter of a mile a day was not viable.
Some days, it's a factor of the weather: right now I could regularly manage it about seven or eight months of the year, but there's a couple of winter months and a couple of summer months where the temperatures would make me good for nothing by the time I got to the other end. (Which as a method for "go to work and use my brain a lot as soon as I arrive" leaves something to be desired...) And that's without things like "have people adequately shovelled the sidewalks early enough in the day" (which they haven't).
I keep eyeing biking as an option (I live right off one bike path, and they have recently opened another that means I could do the about 5 mlles to work almost entirely on bike paths) but that still wouldn't solve the winter or height of summer issues, even on days when the stamina wasn't a problem.
Moving closer to my unusual job is a lovely theory, but in practice finding housing that fits my budget there is... not super realistic.
There are definitely some pieces of this that better transit systems (and a wider spread of affordable housing options) would help, but some of it would still be awfully complicated for me in terms of my core work commute unless I lived walking distance from work. (Which given my limited walking distance....)
I would definitely be a fan of "regular van or small bus commute with multiple known people, a consistent route, etc." if I didn't have to drive for that, but the logistics and timing of that are complex. I would still need some solution for things like medical appointments, and seeing friends (one set of people I normally see is a bit over a mile, just outside my viable walking range on a regular basis, the others are 30 minutes away by car with no usefully viable way to get to their house other than a car.) Plus things like medical appointments.
I spent almost 4 years living in rural Maine, and the options there if you didn't drive were horrendous. There was a route the town provided that hit main points (hospital complex, the two big grocery stores, downtown in the town of 9000 people) a couple of days a week, but other than that you were reliant on the 2 car taxi service, or hiring someone privately to drive you somewhere. Given that most medical specialist visits involved at least a 45 minute drive each way, and in many cases 2 hours each way, that got complicated really fast.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-03-18 02:03 am (UTC)From an extremely cynical perspective, it seems like reducing parking and increasing high-fitness modes like biking is the only step that people in the US make a sustained push towards in city centers, without handling the stuff that would make it more feasible for me. (When I do have to go into Seattle from 30 miles away, I do prefer public transit at least from the nearest big transit hub in my city, when the connection is good enough on the other end.) I am in the liminal space of disability where I can walk enough that I am unlikely to be eligible for a disabled parking space, but walking from the nearest parking garage to wherever I am going is likely to be extremely exhausting, and standing at the transit stop can be unbearable.
Reduced parking without increased other-methods means that I am unlikely to be able to score a parking place within a distance that I can walk with a cane. Carrying anything reduces that distance.
Disability means that I have to carry more things than an abled counterpart, including water and layers of clothing and sometimes temperature-sensitive food. My experience with bus-riding is that you may have one of a mobility aid more than a cane, or a large bag, otherwise you are subject to verbal and possibly physical abuse from other bus riders.