New York City passes law barring weight discrimination | Hacker News Reader

New York City passes law barring weight discrimination

bbc.co.uk

4 pointsmellosouls13 comments

At some point this gets unsustainable. No bike will support a 400lb person. Obesity is the number one voluntary disability and all cause mortality factor. If you are overweight, you are still an amazing human and deserve dignity, but some things are going to be denied to you by physics.

Since I am even more of a curmudgeon than you, I will point out that most humans are not "amazing".

No bike will support a 400lb person.

And this you know from ... the laws of physics?

Seriously, please explain why it is physically impossible to design a bike that can support people in that weight range.

It's possible to support a bike with 1000 lb weight but it's subideal for everyone else by a far measure.

Does every airplane seat need to be capable of carrying literally anyone? We can design them that way yes. It'd be horrible for the planet though.

Shall we try applying some basic logic to the above?

Not every bike needs to fit all weight classes.

Not every toilet seat on the plane ... you get the idea.

Agreed. This seems sensible. I'm unsure exactly what NY is asking for here.

How sensible will the ask be, barring weight discrimination? It's hard to predict the ramifications. I'm not opposed to the general idea, I just hope we can find a sensible path for it. Hopefully with ease & grace, & not overmuch bedlam.

Actually it's pretty straightforward - as with current guidelines for other form of accessibility.

Doesn't mean there won't be badly crafted guidelines, abuse (especially via litigation), etc. As with everything.

But the basic concept is sound, and very straightforward.

I generally am open to the idea, but starting your defense with "actually" says your judgement is perfect & all that counts. I think more humility & willingness to say we don't know yet is essential. We don't know yet. We are trying & that's good. But let's not pretend this is the final last & only answer.

Actually, it's just a fill word. That doesn't actually have the passive-aggressive import that some people like to write attention-grabbing articles (and to conduct seminars on "violence-free communication" no less) claiming that it has.

But I agree that the topic is open to further interpretation and exploration.

Actually, that's not true. Actually actually says, "this is true."

It is absolutely possible to design those bikes, but in order to strengthen the frame you're going to have to use heavier materials and components.

So then to support a person that's double the weight, your bikes are all now also double the weight. And anyone within the average range who wanted to use a bike to pop around town is now having to put in some real effort to pedal hard on a heavy bike.

My goodness.

> supporters cited difficulty navigating seating at restaurants and theatres, getting turned away by landlords, and butting up against weight limits on the city's bike sharing programme.

I don’t see how that is the city’s fault at all. The bikes’ weight limit has nothing to do with discrimination, and entirely to do with the way that F=ma and we can’t change physics.

Well they can always copy ex Australian PM Scott Morrison and say "The laws of physics are fine, but the only laws that apply in the city of New York are the laws of New York".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com