Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

greemp t1_itt2g5y wrote

Reply to comment by Ok_Purpose_1606 in The NIMBYs are reviving the traffic board to hold up bike lanes by IntelligentCicada363

In your case, wouldn't it be better for you to have more people on bikes and using public transport, freeing up the roads and parking so that you can actually get places more easily? It's not ableist to encourage healthier and more sustainable transport choices for those who are able. In fact, it makes.more space for those who actually need it.

14

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ittochv wrote

Correct, if it makes sense for the specific area or road. If you read the entire op-ed the authors aren't against car alternative transportation, in fact they state they are for it, they're against decisions on bike lanes being made without consulting residents in areas where bikes lanes might make little sense for those residents.

−2

IntelligentCicada363 OP t1_ituktit wrote

They are against them. They have never proposed a single solution other than to rip them all out.

10

greemp t1_itvx5xo wrote

This is a new argument and unrelated to our previous discussion.

Roads are communal and public. They may travel through communities, but they are not for the exclusive use of that community. This argument especially falls apart when looking at major thoroughfares such as Brattle. Why should the residents have any more say over those.roads than the people who use that road? There are many Cambridge residents that bike, walk, and scoot through that area daily. Why is their safety secondary to the concerns of the community on the road (concerns, which I may add, that are trifling compared to the daily threat of serious injury or death faced by vulnerable users of that space.)

9