disabled rider
Regular
Update: Not easy being a self advocate and an advocate for other people with impairments.
Talked to city again. As it stands they tried to give the end run not to do anything and to uphold the status Quo for normalized discrimination. I pointed out the part where it is discrimination when considering the level of risk comparison. That the data is not there to show one way or other and it needs to be looked as at a case by case basis as result. He started to get real nervous, when I mentioned that if this is not resolved. It would be heading for the DOJ ADA complaint under title 2 discriminatory policy. If I can show that my risk of getting killed personally following current rules is higher than the average able bodied. And how current policy will stop my ability to care for myself. Case is over. DOJ will make them adapt policy to include. DOJ may up the ante and go after the state law itself.
In doing so every disabled rider benefits. Because of the secular segregation and disenfranchising of our lives, this is the tactics disabled people are left with, when trying to advocate for themselves and for the larger body of people with impairments. We stand alone when trying to enforce or rights in The vast majority of cases. Rarely do we come together for things like the ADA, only real reason that happened was the large support by able body community, who helped connect us for that goal.
If this was a race issue. I would better be able to find the other people in the race areas due to there better rights of assembly. Martin Luther King and groups like the Black Panthers was big part of making their rights to assembly possible. They could rise up and cause havoc and have. Thus the rest of the population gave them leeway we do not have in disability community.
The point is when I was asked here specifically who else this effects. I can't give you individual names I can only give you class of impairments, Like extreme poor sight, or epilepsy, or deaf, or impairment to balance, Down syndrome, etc All of these groups have a significant increase in risk of getting killed over the able bodied when cycling, when you look at it from a case by case basis. If you try to use the flawed data collection, collected by able bodied, then the there is no risk difference. Like how many Impaired people were killed. Data shows very few to none, because The impairments a person had, was not recorded because it was not deemed to have any validity as contributing factor of being killed. Able bodied just record "cyclist got killed". And NOT "deaf cyclist got killed" The data collection itself was discriminatory when collecting statistical data. By leaving out relevant data that did not match an able bodied criteria of the data needing to be stored.
------------------------------
------------------------------
Sorry been out, Writing a petition and appeal to the city, been getting hopelessly behind, I glanced at a few of the latest post. I said my example is only one I have direct access to, So it going to look self absorbed, I am sorry for that. I can not help it. I cannot find other people in my boat specifically writing about it. There are multitude of reasons(NOT EXCUSES) for not finding it. Like there are so few of us. The disenfranchised nature of our lives. which society wants. (You know they want it, by how the rules are set to prevent us from assembling in mass and saying we had enough.) I know for fact people with severe sight and people with epilepsy have the same issues in how the law discriminates when They ride their bikes as utility purposes from point a to point b.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
I have not been using any other impairment examples because I have no direct contact with people with such impairments and as result. Anything I post from their direct point of view would be pure speculation, But it does not mean that the speculation isn't true.
I don't want to give false information by accident because it would do more harm in the long run. So I stick to "my" specific example in how it applies.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
You ever consider that what you see as being self absorbed, is a result to the forced segregation by society in its practice of normalized discrimination of exclusion? My only real contact with the outside world is people at the farmers market for a few hours on Sat. An appointment with a professional. And talking to one of two neighbors every now and then, one being bound to wheel chair the other lives with epilepsy who has a hard time following conversation that I spend 1/2 or more of my time explaining what I am trying to tell her. Lot of times she still doesn't get it. The rest doesn't even warrant a conversation. I might have to go talk to City hall or something every once in great while. something like that..
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
have you ever considered that cycling is vital to my ability to survive? If I can't get from point A to Point B without a cycle, I physically CAN NOT TAKE CARE OF MYSELF. I would starve to death, I would not be able to get to appointments, get other necessities etc. I am having it taken away from me because I will not risk getting killed for sure. "EXCLUSION FACTOR"
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
You ever consider that the reason I do not have other examples, is other people with major impairments are so terrified of getting killed, that A they are illegally riding on sidewalks themselves, or B they are not riding at all and are cut off and suffer as result. That due to being cut off. That it is extremely difficult to impossible to advocate and plead to able body people, to take up the mantle of justice for the fight of inclusion? Or when they do plead to able body people they are told flat out sorry there is nothing they can do. In reality they don't want too because it is such an uphill battle that can last 5 or more years to correct.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
I am having to do this all by ear here, There really is no form for me to follow. Things that would work for able bodied would not work here. Due to the format being able bodied generated that does not consider or include things that effect people with severe impairments.
----------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
The claim that I did not interpret the law right: What I been describing all along is not my interpretation It was the police officerS in bicycle safety training. That said this. The part about being as far right if there is a shoulder you go far right as possible only to move out away from edge to pass obstructions or to turn left. If there is no shoulder then you are to be as far right in the right hand lane, only moving away from edge to get around obstacles or turning left.
lets say I am using a trike I am only going 2-4 miles an hour, Downtown there is a space of several hundred ft You need to move right between where you are and the storm drain ahead, and move out into the lane when you get close to avoid running over said drain. This is an example of the portion Highlighted you claim, I fail to understand. If the pot hole and storm drain and a parallel gap in the road in the direction of travel are spaced 10 ft apart from one another then you move left to pass all three and back right after you have passed them. If you do not see another obstacle short distance of 10 ft or whatever you move right again till you get to the next one. If your going 20 miles an hour then the distance traveled to do a safe pass increases so the farther the obstacle is before merging out left to pass.
How much time you spend as close to edge is based on your speed. use some common sense. When I was describing it I was factoring multiple speed levels.
when I been talking as far right there is no shoulder DOWNTOWN
You left out this (c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway or shoulder shall not ride more than two abreast and shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane. (means you have to be right as much as possible downtown unless your doing 10 miles an hour or higher. At that speed your going weaving sporadically. All though 10 maybe on low side on main street which also happens to be a highway at the same time. What is "practicable " at 2-3 miles an hour is not at 10-20 miles an hour. What I was describing is the speed at which I am traveling when using examples. The distance to next object increases the faster you go. Thus moving left sooner inorder to safely pass.)
Where I live, if you stay in the lane to avoid the so called obstacles, because your too lazy to pull right your impeding traffic. Traffic downtown Is congested. What I was trying to show is how the law fails when the roads were not specifically designed to be wide enough to allow cycles.
When I say far right on a shoulder, that is common sense, because traffic coming from behind are going to have a lot of turbulence. I was talking in reference to 52 specifically. When they banned cycles claiming safety as excuse. When it wasn't due to shoulders being 10-12 ft wide, if you stay far right when traffic is going by you at 65 miles an hour you do not get the turbulence pull/push.
I am trying to track down over head shots diagrams of what is required here. I am having trouble locating them my safety training(part of boy scouts) was back before the internet was in wide use. It is the same now as it was then. I bumped in to this in the process.: Anyway if your interested here is one in our state, who have to deal with this and know first hand, discussing the finer points on this http://www.city-data.com/forum/minn...06-crazy-bicyle-riders-costing-us-more-4.html pay particular attention to "Golfgal" That is not me. Snofarmer is off base he/she tried to use an article that doesn't exist now but is re-posted. They were applying OHIO case about what is "traffic" to minnesota. Ohio laws have no barring on minnesota interpretation. Snofarmer is trying to apply your interpretation. Golfgal is using the interpretation the courts use here in MN.
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
I don't know why many of you folks have such a hard time following this. I run this same information past people at the farmers market and they get it right away, vast majority, aren't even cyclists. And the 2 people in the building I talk to, they get it. My psychologist gets it. City hall staff gets it, making them nervous. City attorney gets it. I think one of the biggest things that makes the council nervous is they don't control the entire city. MAYO Clinic has power at the same level or more than the city. MAYO is a company which thinks its above the law most times. And has a record of butting head with the city council if MAYO doesn't like something. In the end City has to abide the federal law ADA title 2. I do not envy the city council on this. Yet I am not backing down till my risk of life is lowered to be more on par with able cyclist. This is do or die literally.
Even a woman, who has had close calls, with crazy riders, trying to blow through bus stop area, across from ST Mary's on the sidewalk, understood what I was talking about. UM the crazy riders she mentioned were able bodied.
----------------------------
----------------------------
I just got off the phone with the LT from the police department. I described exactly what I wrote above. He says that is absolutely correct. You must move right between obstacles, (only time you leave the curb is to navigate around obstacles) riding just to right of traffic is not allowed, unless your rate of movement say 30 miles an hour causes you to frequently weave in and out of the main lane of traffic to miss pot holes every 10 - 20 ft or berm of snow along road, gravel that would destroy speed bike tires, etc. even at those speeds your still required to move as far right as possible if there is a shoulder you move right as long as the hazards are not blocking your path at the speed of which your traveling..
So people that are claiming I am incorrect, stop. I just had the information verified by the police department here. It is as hazardous as I have been claiming. I am not exaggerating anything, regarding how we are required to ride. To continue to say, it is incorrect, you saying the police department is wrong. You are claiming the courts interpretation is wrong.
---------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
food shelf = http://www.channel-one.org/ http://www.emergencyfoodshelf.org/ all you would of had to do is do minnesota "food shelf" in google
@mr hippo refrain from name calling "deranged rider" is not an accurate description of me. you took me out of context. I really do not want to break the law. I said that if my life is being threatened by laws that will cause my death, then I will steal "NECESSITIES ONLY, FOOD, WATER, ETC" in order to survive, to prevent death to me. http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-i...means-by-which-the-food-may-be-obtained?p=yes http://www.ehow.com/info_8118380_ethical-dilemmas-accountability.html http://d2bb.org/morality.htm If you read through these links, you would understand there is nothing deranged about stealing food if there is absolutely no other means to acquire food at all. ESPECIALLY taking in to account the person doesn't want to do it and is given only two options die or steal.
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com...ead_Yes__Sneakers_Maybe__DVDs_Not_Likely.html
Quote:"In some cases, stealing is permissible, and New Orleans presents one of those cases. Thomas Aquinas argued that in cases of desperate need, stealing to meet basic needs would involve no moral crime. Aquinas reached this conclusion by distinguishing natural right from human right. He argued that the goods of creation exist to meet human needs. While the uneven distribution of these goods throughout society may be protected by human law, nonetheless, the goods were intended to meet the needs of all people. Even in normal conditions, through a quotation from St. Ambrose, Aquinas reminded the wealthy to remember that "it is the hungry man's bread that you withhold, the naked man's cloak you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man's ransom and freedom." In other words, our claims to our possessions always are limited by the needs of others." "needs of others" are necessities to survive only
Quote;"Anyone who has watched video from New Orleans will acknowledge that Hurricane Katrina created just the kind of "dire need" Aquinas described. Moving video of elderly in wheelchairs and without medication, of young mothers with babies at their breast, of parentless children wandering aimlessly, confirms that in these kinds of cases "stealing" may not only be permissible, it might even be morally obligatory. To take from a Walmart, or a pharmacy or grocery store, formula, medication, water, and food ceases to be stealing in this context and becomes the exercise of one's natural right to survive. The police and other authorities who recognized this and ignored and apparently even facilitated such behavior knew this."
This is the context in which I speak of. In my case it is a lack of "compassionate action"(donation of food to food shelf as example) by people and laws in which prevent me from caring for myself.
If you consider my exercising my natural right "right to live" to survive from death "deranged" then I am guilty of it.
The context you tried to twist me into doing, was stealing, when I had other options available to me. THIS context is immoral and unethical for me to do. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CONTEXT I WROTE. So one of two things happened. Either you do not comprehend what I was talking about. OR you willfully manipulated what I said to argue something that doesn't exist because I simply did not say it, in the manor of context of your arguing that I am deranged.
In the real world from the perspective of a person with impairments: Blocked access means there is no way in. Any time I talk I am talking from the perspective of the person with impairments, I try to announce if I am using from any other perspective. "like from the perspective of an able bodied".
You would have known, what this meant, if you were using the perspective in which I suggested you had from the start. person with impairments. you would have realized its talking about exclusion in how able bodied people threw up a physical and policy barrier that prevented access. to that whole area. The whole southern tip of rochester is cut off to anyone not in a car past the 52 bridge crossing 63. 63 is Broadway south. 63 is the highway, Broadway is the city street, bisecting east and west. They share the same roadbed to the city limits.
your still looking at it from an able bodied perspective.
Talked to city again. As it stands they tried to give the end run not to do anything and to uphold the status Quo for normalized discrimination. I pointed out the part where it is discrimination when considering the level of risk comparison. That the data is not there to show one way or other and it needs to be looked as at a case by case basis as result. He started to get real nervous, when I mentioned that if this is not resolved. It would be heading for the DOJ ADA complaint under title 2 discriminatory policy. If I can show that my risk of getting killed personally following current rules is higher than the average able bodied. And how current policy will stop my ability to care for myself. Case is over. DOJ will make them adapt policy to include. DOJ may up the ante and go after the state law itself.
In doing so every disabled rider benefits. Because of the secular segregation and disenfranchising of our lives, this is the tactics disabled people are left with, when trying to advocate for themselves and for the larger body of people with impairments. We stand alone when trying to enforce or rights in The vast majority of cases. Rarely do we come together for things like the ADA, only real reason that happened was the large support by able body community, who helped connect us for that goal.
If this was a race issue. I would better be able to find the other people in the race areas due to there better rights of assembly. Martin Luther King and groups like the Black Panthers was big part of making their rights to assembly possible. They could rise up and cause havoc and have. Thus the rest of the population gave them leeway we do not have in disability community.
The point is when I was asked here specifically who else this effects. I can't give you individual names I can only give you class of impairments, Like extreme poor sight, or epilepsy, or deaf, or impairment to balance, Down syndrome, etc All of these groups have a significant increase in risk of getting killed over the able bodied when cycling, when you look at it from a case by case basis. If you try to use the flawed data collection, collected by able bodied, then the there is no risk difference. Like how many Impaired people were killed. Data shows very few to none, because The impairments a person had, was not recorded because it was not deemed to have any validity as contributing factor of being killed. Able bodied just record "cyclist got killed". And NOT "deaf cyclist got killed" The data collection itself was discriminatory when collecting statistical data. By leaving out relevant data that did not match an able bodied criteria of the data needing to be stored.
------------------------------
------------------------------
Sorry been out, Writing a petition and appeal to the city, been getting hopelessly behind, I glanced at a few of the latest post. I said my example is only one I have direct access to, So it going to look self absorbed, I am sorry for that. I can not help it. I cannot find other people in my boat specifically writing about it. There are multitude of reasons(NOT EXCUSES) for not finding it. Like there are so few of us. The disenfranchised nature of our lives. which society wants. (You know they want it, by how the rules are set to prevent us from assembling in mass and saying we had enough.) I know for fact people with severe sight and people with epilepsy have the same issues in how the law discriminates when They ride their bikes as utility purposes from point a to point b.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
I have not been using any other impairment examples because I have no direct contact with people with such impairments and as result. Anything I post from their direct point of view would be pure speculation, But it does not mean that the speculation isn't true.
I don't want to give false information by accident because it would do more harm in the long run. So I stick to "my" specific example in how it applies.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
You ever consider that what you see as being self absorbed, is a result to the forced segregation by society in its practice of normalized discrimination of exclusion? My only real contact with the outside world is people at the farmers market for a few hours on Sat. An appointment with a professional. And talking to one of two neighbors every now and then, one being bound to wheel chair the other lives with epilepsy who has a hard time following conversation that I spend 1/2 or more of my time explaining what I am trying to tell her. Lot of times she still doesn't get it. The rest doesn't even warrant a conversation. I might have to go talk to City hall or something every once in great while. something like that..
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
have you ever considered that cycling is vital to my ability to survive? If I can't get from point A to Point B without a cycle, I physically CAN NOT TAKE CARE OF MYSELF. I would starve to death, I would not be able to get to appointments, get other necessities etc. I am having it taken away from me because I will not risk getting killed for sure. "EXCLUSION FACTOR"
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
You ever consider that the reason I do not have other examples, is other people with major impairments are so terrified of getting killed, that A they are illegally riding on sidewalks themselves, or B they are not riding at all and are cut off and suffer as result. That due to being cut off. That it is extremely difficult to impossible to advocate and plead to able body people, to take up the mantle of justice for the fight of inclusion? Or when they do plead to able body people they are told flat out sorry there is nothing they can do. In reality they don't want too because it is such an uphill battle that can last 5 or more years to correct.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
I am having to do this all by ear here, There really is no form for me to follow. Things that would work for able bodied would not work here. Due to the format being able bodied generated that does not consider or include things that effect people with severe impairments.
----------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
The claim that I did not interpret the law right: What I been describing all along is not my interpretation It was the police officerS in bicycle safety training. That said this. The part about being as far right if there is a shoulder you go far right as possible only to move out away from edge to pass obstructions or to turn left. If there is no shoulder then you are to be as far right in the right hand lane, only moving away from edge to get around obstacles or turning left.
lets say I am using a trike I am only going 2-4 miles an hour, Downtown there is a space of several hundred ft You need to move right between where you are and the storm drain ahead, and move out into the lane when you get close to avoid running over said drain. This is an example of the portion Highlighted you claim, I fail to understand. If the pot hole and storm drain and a parallel gap in the road in the direction of travel are spaced 10 ft apart from one another then you move left to pass all three and back right after you have passed them. If you do not see another obstacle short distance of 10 ft or whatever you move right again till you get to the next one. If your going 20 miles an hour then the distance traveled to do a safe pass increases so the farther the obstacle is before merging out left to pass.
How much time you spend as close to edge is based on your speed. use some common sense. When I was describing it I was factoring multiple speed levels.
when I been talking as far right there is no shoulder DOWNTOWN
You left out this (c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway or shoulder shall not ride more than two abreast and shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane. (means you have to be right as much as possible downtown unless your doing 10 miles an hour or higher. At that speed your going weaving sporadically. All though 10 maybe on low side on main street which also happens to be a highway at the same time. What is "practicable " at 2-3 miles an hour is not at 10-20 miles an hour. What I was describing is the speed at which I am traveling when using examples. The distance to next object increases the faster you go. Thus moving left sooner inorder to safely pass.)
Where I live, if you stay in the lane to avoid the so called obstacles, because your too lazy to pull right your impeding traffic. Traffic downtown Is congested. What I was trying to show is how the law fails when the roads were not specifically designed to be wide enough to allow cycles.
When I say far right on a shoulder, that is common sense, because traffic coming from behind are going to have a lot of turbulence. I was talking in reference to 52 specifically. When they banned cycles claiming safety as excuse. When it wasn't due to shoulders being 10-12 ft wide, if you stay far right when traffic is going by you at 65 miles an hour you do not get the turbulence pull/push.
I am trying to track down over head shots diagrams of what is required here. I am having trouble locating them my safety training(part of boy scouts) was back before the internet was in wide use. It is the same now as it was then. I bumped in to this in the process.: Anyway if your interested here is one in our state, who have to deal with this and know first hand, discussing the finer points on this http://www.city-data.com/forum/minn...06-crazy-bicyle-riders-costing-us-more-4.html pay particular attention to "Golfgal" That is not me. Snofarmer is off base he/she tried to use an article that doesn't exist now but is re-posted. They were applying OHIO case about what is "traffic" to minnesota. Ohio laws have no barring on minnesota interpretation. Snofarmer is trying to apply your interpretation. Golfgal is using the interpretation the courts use here in MN.
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
I don't know why many of you folks have such a hard time following this. I run this same information past people at the farmers market and they get it right away, vast majority, aren't even cyclists. And the 2 people in the building I talk to, they get it. My psychologist gets it. City hall staff gets it, making them nervous. City attorney gets it. I think one of the biggest things that makes the council nervous is they don't control the entire city. MAYO Clinic has power at the same level or more than the city. MAYO is a company which thinks its above the law most times. And has a record of butting head with the city council if MAYO doesn't like something. In the end City has to abide the federal law ADA title 2. I do not envy the city council on this. Yet I am not backing down till my risk of life is lowered to be more on par with able cyclist. This is do or die literally.
Even a woman, who has had close calls, with crazy riders, trying to blow through bus stop area, across from ST Mary's on the sidewalk, understood what I was talking about. UM the crazy riders she mentioned were able bodied.
----------------------------
----------------------------
I just got off the phone with the LT from the police department. I described exactly what I wrote above. He says that is absolutely correct. You must move right between obstacles, (only time you leave the curb is to navigate around obstacles) riding just to right of traffic is not allowed, unless your rate of movement say 30 miles an hour causes you to frequently weave in and out of the main lane of traffic to miss pot holes every 10 - 20 ft or berm of snow along road, gravel that would destroy speed bike tires, etc. even at those speeds your still required to move as far right as possible if there is a shoulder you move right as long as the hazards are not blocking your path at the speed of which your traveling..
So people that are claiming I am incorrect, stop. I just had the information verified by the police department here. It is as hazardous as I have been claiming. I am not exaggerating anything, regarding how we are required to ride. To continue to say, it is incorrect, you saying the police department is wrong. You are claiming the courts interpretation is wrong.
---------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
food shelf = http://www.channel-one.org/ http://www.emergencyfoodshelf.org/ all you would of had to do is do minnesota "food shelf" in google
@mr hippo refrain from name calling "deranged rider" is not an accurate description of me. you took me out of context. I really do not want to break the law. I said that if my life is being threatened by laws that will cause my death, then I will steal "NECESSITIES ONLY, FOOD, WATER, ETC" in order to survive, to prevent death to me. http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-i...means-by-which-the-food-may-be-obtained?p=yes http://www.ehow.com/info_8118380_ethical-dilemmas-accountability.html http://d2bb.org/morality.htm If you read through these links, you would understand there is nothing deranged about stealing food if there is absolutely no other means to acquire food at all. ESPECIALLY taking in to account the person doesn't want to do it and is given only two options die or steal.
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com...ead_Yes__Sneakers_Maybe__DVDs_Not_Likely.html
Quote:"In some cases, stealing is permissible, and New Orleans presents one of those cases. Thomas Aquinas argued that in cases of desperate need, stealing to meet basic needs would involve no moral crime. Aquinas reached this conclusion by distinguishing natural right from human right. He argued that the goods of creation exist to meet human needs. While the uneven distribution of these goods throughout society may be protected by human law, nonetheless, the goods were intended to meet the needs of all people. Even in normal conditions, through a quotation from St. Ambrose, Aquinas reminded the wealthy to remember that "it is the hungry man's bread that you withhold, the naked man's cloak you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man's ransom and freedom." In other words, our claims to our possessions always are limited by the needs of others." "needs of others" are necessities to survive only
Quote;"Anyone who has watched video from New Orleans will acknowledge that Hurricane Katrina created just the kind of "dire need" Aquinas described. Moving video of elderly in wheelchairs and without medication, of young mothers with babies at their breast, of parentless children wandering aimlessly, confirms that in these kinds of cases "stealing" may not only be permissible, it might even be morally obligatory. To take from a Walmart, or a pharmacy or grocery store, formula, medication, water, and food ceases to be stealing in this context and becomes the exercise of one's natural right to survive. The police and other authorities who recognized this and ignored and apparently even facilitated such behavior knew this."
This is the context in which I speak of. In my case it is a lack of "compassionate action"(donation of food to food shelf as example) by people and laws in which prevent me from caring for myself.
If you consider my exercising my natural right "right to live" to survive from death "deranged" then I am guilty of it.
The context you tried to twist me into doing, was stealing, when I had other options available to me. THIS context is immoral and unethical for me to do. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CONTEXT I WROTE. So one of two things happened. Either you do not comprehend what I was talking about. OR you willfully manipulated what I said to argue something that doesn't exist because I simply did not say it, in the manor of context of your arguing that I am deranged.
In the real world from the perspective of a person with impairments: Blocked access means there is no way in. Any time I talk I am talking from the perspective of the person with impairments, I try to announce if I am using from any other perspective. "like from the perspective of an able bodied".
You would have known, what this meant, if you were using the perspective in which I suggested you had from the start. person with impairments. you would have realized its talking about exclusion in how able bodied people threw up a physical and policy barrier that prevented access. to that whole area. The whole southern tip of rochester is cut off to anyone not in a car past the 52 bridge crossing 63. 63 is Broadway south. 63 is the highway, Broadway is the city street, bisecting east and west. They share the same roadbed to the city limits.
your still looking at it from an able bodied perspective.
+1000000 and a tin of tuna (dolphin friendly)
