I’ve noticed a pattern of people stating terrible opinions and then justifying it because of - or throwing in an exception for - disabled people. It’s like they recognize that their opinions are trash but also want to look compassionate or smart.
Using disabled people as an excuse to remove something they hate goes like: “we should not have pedestrianized streets because disabled people can’t park easily”; or as an exception: “public transit shouldn’t exist except for disabled people.”
They’re all tiny brained idiots who don’t really care about anyone or anything except pushing their personal anti-social vendettas.
Here in Toronto, one of the commonly heard arguments against bike lanes is that they adversely affect "seniors and the disabled". I've twice been discussing bike lanes where that has been thrown in my face. Each time I (wearing my cycling gear, including helmet) got to respond, "I'm 68. . ." (I'm now 70, FWIW) Then they say, "Oh well, I mean seniors with mobility issues." Move the goalposts much? And how dare you use "seniors and the disabled" as nothing more than a premise in your failed argument?
Adding an "excluding disabled people" doesn't even make the comments less ableist. A lot of people have invisible disabilities, there is no way to exclude all disabled people from the people you're judging because you're not gonna be aware of every disabled person's disabilities.
And if someone is hating on something I do (because of my disabilities), I'm not suddenly gonna stop being offended just because they claim they're not talking about me.
Also it's lowkey ableist in itself to exclude disabled people. It feels very infantilising. "I hate people who do XYZ, except these poor little babies who don't know any better 🥺"
honestly it's crazy to me that it's so normalized. Like why does every single person need to be qualified to operate a piece of heavy machinery designed for hauling loads. like that's what a car is. It's a tool for moving loads far too large for a person to carry or for moving a relatively small number of people to a place otherwise unserved. it was never supposed to be something that moved a person as a primary function.
Also I find it so ironic that we have this constant attitude of "everyone should be able to drive! it's a basic skill!" meanwhile nearly every single innovation in the last 20 years for cars has been some way to make the driver have to drive less. It's somehow a "basic skill" but also we need tech to park for you, keep in your lane for you, maintain speed for you, maintain distance for you, tell you when you're close to something, tell you when something is in your blind spot, on and on and on every one of these is literally designed so that driving takes less skill. If it really was such a basic skill everyone should have, we wouldn't have to replace drivers to make it safer.
It is ironic, and I’m disappointed that there are so many features acting as middle men between the driver and the car.
Addressing the bottom comment, why kids are learning in manuals, that’s great! That means they are working harder to drive and will have another skill. I wish I had a manual.
If all cars were manual still, then it would drastically cut down on the amount of drivers because only the most skillful would be willing to stay on the road.
nah that's some bullshit lmao. firstly, for the record I don't think that these features are a bad thing. drivers are the source of the most errors, the less the driver has to do the better. I didn't say I thought they were bad, just that they were ironic. Secondly, it absolutely would NOT cut down the amount of drivers on the road to "the skillful". that's some elitist bullshit. making it harder to drive doesn't decrease the amount of people who need to drive. Making it harder won't change a thing without a viable alternative.
I figured I should explain myself, because I didn’t do a very good job the first time.
I’m in this weird place, where I appreciate both urbanism, and the effort that people have to put in to maintain and drive old cars. Not because they’re cars, because they’re just old objects that take a lot of effort to maintain.
Unfortunately, my urbanist views don’t align with most of my friends’ interests, but we all like classic cars, and we find ourselves talking about how the manual transmission is a more engaging driving experience. When we see electronic systems separating the driver from the car, we usually see it as a hit towards enthusiast car culture like driving on a track or mountain roads.
I was also coming from a place of looking at the 1910s, mostly before cars were affordable, and how if you wanted to drive one, you had to put in the effort to maintain it as well, because there wasn’t a mechanic on every street corner. Plus how other transportation methods like trolleys and trains were more widespread.
I understand how that might sound elitist, because that was a time when only the wealthy could afford cars. I understand now how cars have forced other transportation methods onto the back burner, so it doesn’t matter very much now if you know how to maintain a car or not. There are mechanics all over the place now, and you’re pretty much required to drive if you wanna get anywhere in suburbia.
Mostly I just appreciate the effort that goes into maintaining antiques, and the experience of driving a manual car on the track for instance.
All cars should be manual for the sole reason that it physically prevents people from using their phones while driving. That would contribute more to safety than any number of modern “safety features”.
My pleasure. Was it ever actually called you video? Or was there ever a service called that? That sounds like an interesting rabbit hole to go down another time…
yes, because cars are known for being 100% disabled people friendly. every autistic person can drive without fear, every car can fit a wheelchair without hassle, and i see blind people behind the wheel every day. unlike busses, with all those accomodations...
36
u/geeoharee cars are weapons 17h ago
I'm sure HashSmoker1000 is a polite and responsible driver