Hacker News Reader

Comment by veltas | Hacker News Reader

What about the disabled and elderly?

In pedestrianised places, you see these people actually walking, or the closest equivalent.

I can run across three lanes of traffic in the 40 nanoseconds of pedestrian green I'm given, or stamp on the pedals when cycling so I can make a turn in 25 mph traffic. My dad can't - so the majority of the town, for him, doesn't exist.

Those groups are exactly the people most screwed over by car-friendly design, and using them as a reason to push it more is rather poor taste.

There is a large number of disabled people that are physically unable or legally not allowed to drive, but can get around pedestrian spaces and public transport just fine. This includes most wheelchair users and blind people.

The point is already moot.

Also if you can use a car, you could use a mobility scooter or electric wheelchair, and you will greatly benefit from denser, more developed pedestrian areas featuring amenities such as elevators.

"pedestrian-first" might be better described as "car-last". "Pedestrianised" areas are usually better for folk with mobility scooters, wheelchairs, mothers with pushchairs and bairns and that.

Less private vehicles with one occupant taking up space means there is more bandwidth for busses and trams etc that can transport many people (and which have ramps for pushchairs, wheelchairs, etc).

A mobility scooter works if you live close or can use transport that uses that. And also if you want one or have access to one, lots of e.g. elderly people don't use them. They're limited to where they can drive and walk an increasingly short distance.

Exactly, removing some private cars from the roads and private car infrastructure (car parks, parking bays, over-engineered roads) means more bandwidth for public transport which those with mobility scooters, prams, etc, can use.

Public transport is less accessible to people who can drive and walk very short distances.

> Public transport is less accessible to people who can drive and walk very short distances.

Perhaps I'm just stupid, but I can't parse the intent behind this response - what do you mean, exactly?

I know an elderly person that:

- does not have a mobility scooter

- cannot walk more than like 20 feet

- is able to drive

So if e.g. their hairdresser was suddenly in a pedestrianised place they would not be able to go there anymore. A bus would not help, they would not be able to walk to a bus stop, the bus might not go near enough to the hairdresser. So in their case the bus is less accessible than a car. I'm not saying this is true in general, as some disabled cannot drive but can get the bus.

Thanks for the clarification.

But - n=1? Seems like this context disacknowledges improvement of infrastructure.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. We should not invest in public transport for the less able because it will inconvenience people who currently prefer to drive or walk?

I didn't say anything about investing in public transport.

Are the disabled and elderly supposed to be able to wield two ton death machines better and safer than an electric wheelchair or walker?

Not everyone who struggles to walk more than 20 feet wants to use a scooter (or can even afford one), many elderly people in that situation already have a car, and many of them are able to drive relatively safely. Like people with respiratory or heart issues.

And right now they have the option to use a mobility scooter or a car, if they lose the option to use a car then there will be places that will take a lot longer to get to. I think it's reasonable for people like this to prefer being able to drive everywhere, it gives a huge amount of independence and is clearly can be more convenient than public transport.

And there is a dignity aspect as well, I don't know how seriously people will take that argument but I understand that many older people would avoid doing trips rather than using a mobility scooter. I think that deserves consideration as well.

I think there are reams of people living in cities like SF, NYC, and DC that are retired and make do without a car. In fact, I would bet that the elderly live better lives on all metrics when they are able to live carless in a walkable neighborhood.

Cars probably do help them kill their dignity- at the expense of their grandchildren's quality of life.

What about them?

A lot of accusations flying around here about my intent. But just bear in mind that I have a particular person in mind that I know is unable to visit anywhere in pedestrianised places. They do not have a mobility scooter, can only walk like 20 feet, are able to drive still.

So my comments are not motivated by some kind of hidden agenda, I am just thinking about someone who has apparently fallen through the cracks of the desire that some people have to make cities less accessible for cars.

It's a consideration I voice when I get the opportunity, and hopefully it will be factored into whatever planning happens. Not all elderly people like using mobility scooters, can afford them, want to spend extra time getting public transport etc etc.

Remove all parking spots instead of those for disabled people and your issue is resolved. No one will drive into the center unless they're disabled because they won't be able to find parking. So you can massively reduce car lanes, speed limits, etc. and thus effectively pedestrianizing the area.

It is possible to have it both ways. Look at some of the city design in the Netherlands. The YouTube channel "https://youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes" is a great start.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com