Who’s lashing out? The user above mentioned “infirmed and/or disabled people” in general, you said they could use e-bikes or “light vehicles.” I saw your answer, and immediately thought of my friends who can’t use bikes because of their disabilities. (And I was hoping it wouldn’t need to be mentioned, but the costs involved in obtaining a specialized “light vehicle” like the Canta are prohibitive. Both friends are dependent on disability insurance for income, in the United States.)
I’m not sure what part of that is considered “lashing out.” Not everyone who participates in a conversation is doing so from a hostile standpoint. One of these friends obtained her injuries through a car accident and is 100% on board with ditching cars, but the system as-is makes it impossible for her to have a choice in the matter. Assuming her needs is something that lots of well-intentioned people do, and both friends frequently hear the same suggestions you’ve offered. Does it suck to mean well and still be told your solution won’t work? Yes. Does that mean whoever is telling you it won’t work is “lashing out” or trying to hurt you? Absolutely not.
I’m not sure what part of that is considered “lashing out.”
You misrepresented what I said while simultaneously calling it “problematic”. I’m not new to leftist circles, I know exactly what “problematic” means.
And, yes, granted, health insurance in the US sucks. That doesn’t make a Canta more expensive than modifying a car to be used with a wheelchair or such. If you can’t afford a bike lane solution you sure as fuck can’t afford a highway solution.
Your issue is not with e-bikes, it’s not with bike lanes, it’s not with light vehicles or powered wheelchairs, it’s not with what I actually said, it’s with the US. Then go ahead and call the US problematic.
Who’s lashing out? The user above mentioned “infirmed and/or disabled people” in general, you said they could use e-bikes or “light vehicles.” I saw your answer, and immediately thought of my friends who can’t use bikes because of their disabilities. (And I was hoping it wouldn’t need to be mentioned, but the costs involved in obtaining a specialized “light vehicle” like the Canta are prohibitive. Both friends are dependent on disability insurance for income, in the United States.)
I’m not sure what part of that is considered “lashing out.” Not everyone who participates in a conversation is doing so from a hostile standpoint. One of these friends obtained her injuries through a car accident and is 100% on board with ditching cars, but the system as-is makes it impossible for her to have a choice in the matter. Assuming her needs is something that lots of well-intentioned people do, and both friends frequently hear the same suggestions you’ve offered. Does it suck to mean well and still be told your solution won’t work? Yes. Does that mean whoever is telling you it won’t work is “lashing out” or trying to hurt you? Absolutely not.
You misrepresented what I said while simultaneously calling it “problematic”. I’m not new to leftist circles, I know exactly what “problematic” means.
And, yes, granted, health insurance in the US sucks. That doesn’t make a Canta more expensive than modifying a car to be used with a wheelchair or such. If you can’t afford a bike lane solution you sure as fuck can’t afford a highway solution.
Your issue is not with e-bikes, it’s not with bike lanes, it’s not with light vehicles or powered wheelchairs, it’s not with what I actually said, it’s with the US. Then go ahead and call the US problematic.