Comment & Analysis: A disabled person can be ableist in their views about one thing or another. Disabled people are, after all, human and have different views, life experiences and biases.
It’s hugely problematic to say that nobody can civically question somebody else’s views because that person is disabled. Yet, that kind of thinking makes many people afraid to broach topics related to disabilities.
While care should be taken when talking about any sensitive subject, it’s not healthy to think that civil discussion of civic issues should not include talking to disabled people, regardless of whether you’re disabled or not.
Yet, as I write this, I am aware some of what I write here will very lightly be taken out of context.
As I think I have mentioned here before, I interact with people on social media regarding active travel, and I often get accused of all sorts of things just for robustly challenging people’s views, even when I try to be as civil as possible.
And it can be sometimes hard to be civil when so many people are so quick to name calling.
Today was one of those times when I maybe could have tried to be a little more careful in my approach. But, afterwards, I spotted the links the person was posting to a UK-based disability group that spends more than a considerable percentage of its time attacking fundamental parts of cycle paths, the combination of cycle paths and bus stops which are often called “floating bus stops” or “island bus stops”.
The group, called the National Federation of the Blind UK (NFBUK), also highlights the acute and very real issue in some London areas which lack proper regulation of bicycle share bikes. But while the group regularly retweets and posts soundbites and accounts that make Newstalk texters about cycling sound so mild, they rarely post anything, for example, about pavement parking, which is rampant (and semi-legal in much of the UK).
When the NFBUK are asked how can bus stops and cycle paths be made safer, their answer is usually: go back to the way it used to be, in other words mixing people cycling, everybody from children to the elderly, with a 15 ton bus. And when they are pushed into thinking about why that might not be acceptable or workable, it’s said that it is not up to them; it’s up to councils to design streets.
I think the second answer is understandable and correct, but authorities around the world have looked at the issue, and they keep coming to the conclusion that “island bus stops” are the way to go.
Of course, there are issues with cycle paths, such as the poor behaviour of some legitimate users, the illegal use by non-legitimate users, and poor design, but segregated cycle paths and separate bus stops are generally boring.
Many of the designs could be better. But trying to seek out some kind of agreed best practice is hampered by the level of fear inducted by scaremongering around the issues. Even some of the elements aimed at making people using cycle paths behave better can be counterproductive because experience indicates that narrowing in space for cycling and walking can increase conflict.
In one case in Dublin, the Clontarf to City Centre project’s bus stops were designed and redesigned in an attempt to make things better for bus users and disabled groups were consulted, the project team didn’t seem to talk to people who could tell them that a basic flaw was made at a number of stops — the distance between the bus stop shelter and the crossing of the cycle path is too short and this causes some issues with sightlines.
Worst of all, where groups campaign so hard against all situations where people cycling are given protected space at bus stops, this splinters opinions and even worse designs such as shared paths (where people cycling are fully mixed with bus passengers) or “bus stop boarders” (where people getting on/off buses have no protected space) are more often used when there is space for better designs.
But segregated cycle paths and separate bus stops are generally so dull that you can watch them for ages sometimes and not see a single example close to the highly edited videos created by anti-cycle path groups in the UK.
When the ironically named ‘War On Cars’ podcast interviewed UK-based cycling journalist Laura Laker recently, the NYC hosts of the podcast said that the UK’s tabloid media are collectively far more toxically anti-cycling than the media in the US.
The UK media clearly have made cycling and related transport issues into culture war issues. Some people are in denial of this.
Some of them really don’t like it when Brexit is mentioned, but it’s a core example of the UK media leading the public down the garden path to an extreme point, and it is not tenable to think that the media does not do the same thing on issues such as cycling. This does not mean that everybody who follows anti-cycling thinking is pro-Brexit, but rather that such a relentless anti-cycling media is going to have an effect on a lot of people. Companies don’t invest in repetitive marketing and advertising for the fun of it.
Thankfully, the anti-cycling nature of the media or general discourse in Ireland is not as destructive as the UK, but we should keep in mind that people here are influenced by the UK a lot. It would be unrealistic to think that disabled people would not be influenced by that as much as anybody else is.
Going back to the interaction today, I’m not going to link to the post in question because I don’t want the person identified, and I don’t want people annoying them. But it’s a Dublin City Council social media post, and this video is what the council posted:
This was the comment in question:
“Did you ever think of consulting with Vision Ireland or Disability organisations like IWA. These stops are lethal & they will cost DCC a fortune in injury claims from the most vulnerable in society. Another bad idea from cycle mad & ableist DCC”
This was my response — looking back, the “as hell” part could have been toned down:
It’s ableist as hell to try to imply that active travel is not something that benefits people with disabilities or that people with disabilities don’t cycle… maybe I’m misunderstanding what you are trying to say here?
The other person responded:
“I’d rather you not describe me as someone with a disability as being Ableist. I know what I’m talking about. You & your cyclist are the most Ableist of all.”
I have to add here: It takes some lack of self-doubt to say you cannot call somebody who is disabled ableist but then call a whole group of people — which includes disabled people — ableist.
Anyway, I replied… It’s a bit long, and I don’t blame anybody for skipping over it, but what came next was not exactly justified….
I don’t base my comments on what mode of transport or who a person is, I base it on what somebody is saying.
It seems like you have built up a hate for “cyclists” for some reason but what you call “cyclists” includes everybody from children to grandparents and other retirees, and generally just people who just want to get about safely. It includes carers (including some who have been killed cycling as part of their work), and people who cannot drive for various reasons, and a wide range of people with different abilities. It includes people with asthma and other conditions who don’t think the current way our society is car dominated helps anybody.
I’m also not calling you ableist, I am saying what you are saying seems to be ableist and I’ve outlined why. I also left it open that I might have misunderstood you, but I don’t think I have.
And yes, people with disabilities can say ableist things and they can disregard the safety of others with others — just like you have while you have been against basic road safety measures including roads for children to cycle to school.
A huge number of disabled people benefit from active travel infrastructure.
The combination of bus stops and cycle paths is a standard one and there is no evidence that the design is “lethal” — in fact it removes the fatal risk from buses running over people.
Cycle paths are also for more people than just “cyclists”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo
The person then replied:
oh dear hit a nerve have I? Oops. No hate. I come from a family of long time cyclists who can’t stand the cycle lobbyists. You are self serving, attention seeking fools.
The only nerve that was hit is that adults can go around acting this toxicly in full public view on Facebook or other platforms using their own names.
A claims of hate not being the issue, but that is quickly followed in the same breath spewing,: “You are self serving, attention seeking fools”.
I don’t know what the solution is here. Fear and hate can be hard things to tackle. Our proximity to the UK clearly does not help, but we need to resist letting fear overcome the issue without totally dismissing all he issues.
If somebody is blind, for example, the most perfect redesign of a street can be hard to get used to. But while we should not pretend there’s no issues with behaviour or designs, let’s also not pretend that the status quo is some kind of utopia for disabled people when our legacy designs are often disabling to the point that they force cars on people as the only option and for disabled people who cannot drive, they often rely on others to drive them around.
First off, your interlocutor referred to coming from “a family of long time cyclists”, which is a red flag. You get a lot of anti-cycling cranks starting off each deranged post with “As an avid cyclist….”
Second, there are numerous organisations purporting to advocate on behalf of the disabled, whose arguments line up with the worst motoring advocacy groups you can think of. I won’t name them, but the website of one such organisation you’ve written about previously, carried the most bizarre opinions concerning active travel measured, and even tried to portray life in the Netherlands as being a hellscape for the disabled.
Finally, I do recommend ‘The War On Cars’ podcast. ‘The Urbanist Agenda’ is also worth a listen.
My own theory is that for years, people with disabilities have been completely ignored and failed by the state – not unique to Ireland unfortunately. But by voicing anti-cycling views, the anti-cycling brigade, including the media, will welcome you with open arms and be delighted to listen and amplify said views to further their own agenda. So after decades being ignored on a plethora of issues, it’s easy to see why anti-cycling campaigning is an attractive topic for many.