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.
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?
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?
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.
You should be ashamed for saying this. Sickening.