> Those who can't probably have some form of support, be it a walker, scooter, etc

Yeah, mostly something like a car. Who would want to go that far with a walker? Have you ever tried it?

Personal mobility for local areas without cars is a solved problem. People who can't use walkers can use wheelchairs or numerous other options.

Just thinking about my 90 year old dad, who could get out of the house and to a car, just fine with a stick - but not much further.

Your dad would only be affected if he was looking to get an Uber or into his own car while on Market St and unable to get to the other streets.

Yeah, except when winter comes around and using walkers and wheelchairs for even medium distances becomes dangerous.

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?

> 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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Yeah, wheelchair is a pretty OK way to get to a car. Anything further? Sorry but I consider that purposefully making disabled people's lives significantly worse. There are probably many disabled people around you that only have a wheelchair, and yet you don't see them on the street - because it's too damn hard to push yourself using your hands while your body is broken. I don't understand the hate against disabled people, is it really that bad to give them a slight advantage?

People don't hate disabled people.

They have little patience when they're rolled out as an excuse against every change of use to a street, almost always by people who aren't disabled but simply want to drive everywhere.

It's the "think of the children!" counter argument for local transport planning.

Again, this is a solved problem in countries that have significantly larger pedestrian areas than San Francisco's Market Street. People use a variety of mobility solutions, including wheelchairs, walkers, and mobility scooters.

Pedestrian streets are, on the whole, beneficial to disabled people. There is more space, fewer chances of collisions, and crossing the street is trivial instead of harrowing. Go look in any city that has larger pedestrianized areas and see for yourself: it works for pretty much everyone.

I’m not even sure what your argument is. That taxis+buses+cars on all adjacent and cross streets to Market are insufficient to get people in wheelchairs where they need to go?

Millions of disabled people use walkers and canes. Or wheelchairs. Or motorized scooters.

We're talking about banning cars on a single main road to make it more people friendly. There are still buses, taxis and shuttles on this road. And there are roads with cars right next to it.

What exactly is so challenging here that you claim is "hate against disabled people"? That those living right on Market St suddenly have to go a tiny bit farther if they want to take Uber?

> because it's too damn hard to push yourself using your hands while your body is broken

There are motorized wheelchairs for people who can’t push themselves. People in wheelchair for life I met have a motorized one.