Read on Twitter
Transport Twitter is always full of arguments about how a move away from cars in cities could negatively affect accessibility for disabled people.
What I don't see is anyone really spelling out the case for how it would *positively* affect accessibility.
So, thread.
What I don't see is anyone really spelling out the case for how it would *positively* affect accessibility.
So, thread.
Some disabled people need motorised transport to get around. But disabled people are not a monolithic group.
For many people with disabilities or medical conditions—for instance, blindness or epilepsy—driving isn't an option at all.
For many people with disabilities or medical conditions—for instance, blindness or epilepsy—driving isn't an option at all.
Here's the DVLA's list of the conditions that may affect someone's ability to drive, temporarily or permanently. It's long. https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
For some disabilities or medical conditions, walking and public transport are the best way to get around. These people need safe, accessible crossings and well-maintained, wide, clutter-free pavements. They need reliable, affordable, accessible public transport.
For some disabilities or medical conditions, non-motorised wheeled transport is the easiest way to get around, door-to-door. There are people for whom an e-assist bike, recumbent bike, hand cycle, or trike is an ideal mobility option.
I know people with chronic fatigue, back injuries, ankylosing spondylitis, epilepsy, and cerebral palsy who fall in this category.
But these people need a safe place to ride – they need proper infrastructure for non-motorised, wheeled transport.
But these people need a safe place to ride – they need proper infrastructure for non-motorised, wheeled transport.
For people who *do* need motorised transport, there are options beyond the car. Electric wheelchairs are one. Birò – tiny electric cars – are another. Both use cycle infrastructure in the Netherlands – a safe place to travel, away from cars.
And if a car is the best option – well, a better transport system serves essential car use too, because it gives people who don't need a car more appealing options. This means reduced traffic and parking demand, leaving more space for those who need it.
Believe it or not, there are loads of people who actually want to leave their cars behind! They're crazy expensive. Parking is annoying as hell.
But if public transport isn't comprehensive and cycling is terrifying, these people are forced into car use.
But if public transport isn't comprehensive and cycling is terrifying, these people are forced into car use.
Accessibility also extends beyond disability. What about age? Right now, many people hit transport crisis when they become too old to drive. Not ideal! And poverty? Buying and running a car is damn expensive.
Let's also not forget multi-modality. A single trip could use an electric wheelchair + tram, or trike + car-share. And people's mobility needs change: from trip to trip, with temporarily illness & injury, with parenthood, across the lifespan.
A city that makes it easy to get around without a car serves a range of people with a range of accessibility needs.
People who need a car must obviously be given the mobility options they need. But people who can't drive deserve mobility too.
People who need a car must obviously be given the mobility options they need. But people who can't drive deserve mobility too.
To be clear: I'm far from an expert on this, just an enthusiastic reader/observer. I wanted to set these arguments down in one place for easy reference, and with compassion & understanding for people not in the urbanism bubble.
I'd love to build a list of people to follow who are working on this, like @Wheels4Well and @drschweitzer. Please add suggestions!