[manigandham]

Are these disabled people really unable to go to the next road for a private car? And if so, are they unable to take the buses, shuttles, taxis and other emergency vehicles that are still allowed on this road?

How close do you need a private vehicle to be exactly? And is Market St in the middle of downtown really the place for someone who needs that accessibility?

Or is this just some out-of-context concern that doesn't really apply to this situation at all?

[BoorishBears]

> And is Market St in the middle of downtown really the place for someone who needs that accessibility?

You should be ashamed for saying this. Sickening.

[manigandham]

Really? Spare me the outrage. Accessibility is a factor in deciding where to live. And unless you're either waiting for Uber or driving your own car on Market St (while also unable to reach any intersection), this policy doesn't affect you.

[BoorishBears]

Why do people only picture someone born with a disability when they think of accessibility?

Any one of us could be temporarily or permanently disabled at the drop of a hat. You don't make you decision if where you live with that in mind though based on your comment.

Accessible design doesn't care if you broke your ankle and only have mobility issues until next month, it still helps you.

People have this weird mentality that accessibility is optional because it doesn't affect them. It doesn't affect you until it does.

That's not close to the only reason you should care, but even someone as needlessly cynical as you can at least appreciate that angle of it.

[manigandham]

And none of that is affected by this policy either.

We're talking about a specific street banning a few types of vehicles in downtown SF, not accessibility design principles across the world. Perhaps context is more important than outrage?

[BoorishBears]

The context of your original comment doesn't change how disgusting it was.

You're literally questioning someone's right to exist in a location, the fact it's a single street doesn't excuse it, do you really not see that?

[manigandham]

This policy has very little negative effects for disabled people. And if it does affect some then yes, that person might consider leaving as one option in response. The world doesn't revolve around you and when things change for the public good, you might have to adapt along with it. Why is this such a radical idea for you?

There is no "right to exist", and nobody can stop you from "existing", whatever that means. This is a nonsequiteur. A vague extremist statement thrown around to make things dramatic but is actually meaningless.

As for context, if you ignore it and just come in with a generic "what about the disabled people" in any possible conversation then there's no productive discussion to be had, which is clear in this case. You seem to be caught in an emotional argument against a position that was never made so I'll end it here.