>>1771028either you're simply being pedantic, or
you're arguing that calls for public and active transport in urban areas, the culture, laws, infrastructure surrounding, and the active disincentivising of car-use, and large car-use, is inherently bigoted.
This is an absolutely nonsense arguement.
Firstly, a society which relies heavily on cycle transport is healthier and will have far less health issues to begin with.
Secondly, car transport is not inclusive. MANY disabled people cannot drive and there is also a large financial cost on the individual to such transport meaning it's doubly restrictive.
Thirdly, a landscape dominated by cars, is inherently dangerous, and this risk is higher for many disabled people.
Fourthly, there ARE numerous, not theory, but real initiatives to integrate disabled people into this mode shift, and to make it work for them, like those fucking microcars they have in the netherlands that wheelchair people can just roll into and roll around in bike lanes. That's WAY better than all the fat and disabled fucks in the US who have to ride mobility scooters on the footpath and or get harassed and risk death on the roads.
Actually you're simply frightened of change, and YOU are virtue signalling about your great empathy for disabled people, to justify it. But it's nonsense. There's nothing inherently about such movements and ideas which is bigoted, it's the opposite. You are concern trolling.
>fixing structural issues that make it difficult for people to use those modes of transport, so that they're more likely to choose themurban transport is a zero sum game.
