Yes we agree. So the response is not “its not an issue” the response is that there are alternatives to bikes. I perceived your response as a sort of sarcastic dismissal and I see now I misread the tone and content, sorry.

Good thing that’s not what they’re saying

How do elders deal with …

Skill issue.

Being elderly or physically handicapped is not a question of “being out of shape”.

Also your dismissal of the fact that overweight people exist and also need to get around is indicative of a poor understanding of good urban planning.

“obviously the exceptions that make it so my comments aren’t fitting and showcase ableism don’t count. Everyone know that. You are the stupid one. I have depicted myself as the streamer for a third time to hammer this home.”

The initial question is about those who are too physically unfit to scale a steep hill. Responding with “skill issue” is ableist specifically because we’re talking about the “exception”

Consider people who are physically impaired instead of dismissing real problems?

Yeah the bikes are super cool, there’s lots of different ones too. I once got overtaken by a guy who pedalled with his arms, made me feel like a scrub.

It is a big issue when we don’t plan for those that don’t fit into our ideal of a “normal” person, because when we default to that we default to planning for men - and really planning for no one.
If you’re interested you should look up “gendermainstreaming”. Vienna has a very good manual on it.

I think people here get defensive about bikes because they’re used to arguing against carbrained folks all the time. It should also be noted a city designed for bikes and walkability will be easier to travel in for those who have trouble walking, than a city designed for cars, even if concessions aren’t made.

There’s wheelchair accessible bikes, but you are actually correct. Good urbanism requires us to take into account not just those who conform to society, but all it’s people. Interestingly an inclusive and accommodating city is also an economically strong one - in the long run more productive potential is freed and less resources are spent on patch-fixing a broken structure (this isn’t why its good to do, but it’s a nice argument to have when you’re talking to people who are afraid that wed be making a better world for no reason other being good people).

This is your reminder to read Invisible Women by Criado Perez

how do you travel to another city?

Train, bus, electrical bike, rideshares for the last mile maybe.

What do you do if the city has high slopes making walking and biking too hard?

Get off and walk, use a bike with electrical assistance, use a different type of mobility assistance if i am very physically impaired.

how do elders deal with what other citizens would take for granted in terms of mobility?

See above + Elders are typically more physically able due to having lived a life of regular everyday exery + their everyday destinations are not several miles away + “car free” doesn’t paradoxically mean free of cars, just almost all cars - ambulances are still needed for example - as such if a person is so impaired that no mobility assistance is enough to get them to their destination, then they can still be taxied by help.

True, but a bike costs a fraction of a car, so it’s also much less of an issue if it happens.

I’m gonna say I disagree. The only reason a bike is easier to steal is because the cops give even less of a shit about it.

Your parents failed in raising you

If you’re interested in theory on this subject I’d recommend looking into “theory of practice”. It’s all about this and, like with every single other good urban planning thing, it’s not at all new. We just pretend like it is so that politicians might finally do something other than build a fucking road.