Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionstransportationStarted 11mos agoActive 1wk ago

Should the government require public transportation systems to be fully accessible to people with disabilities?

Full accessibility ensures that public transportation accommodates people with disabilities by providing necessary facilities and services. Proponents argue that it ensures equal access, promotes independence for people with disabilities, and complies with disability rights. Opponents argue that it can be costly to implement and maintain and may require significant modifications to existing systems.

22 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...11mos11MO

Yes

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...11mos11MO

No

  Deletedanswered…1wk1W

For most forms, for example if some stations are not retrofitted for accessibility but the stations before or after are then leave it as it is

 @B3CPZL7answered…1mo1MO

Should the Ireland prime minister aboved grades area's when accessible of disability has records on parking slots issues by new Zealand national party leader and prime minister on the reminders of slides tickets in footages and witness

 @B36YYHVfrom Ontario  answered…1mo1MO

Not all train cars/buses need to be fully accessible, but a certain percentage of them must be fully accessible (i.e. at least ~50%)

 @B35WYBCfrom Ontario  answered…1mo1MO

No, 'people with disabilities' is such a large and diverse group that things that are accessible to some are inaccessible to others.

 @B2WYZQJfrom Washington  answered…2mos2MO

i believe that their should be some accessable trasportation avalible but it is not efficiant or practical to convert everything

 @B2VP3KDNew Democraticfrom Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

No, they are already held to an acceptable standard

 @B2HGVJJConservativefrom Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

Only if its emergency Case and Depending on the situation of Indiviual

 @B2CMT6Q  from Montana  answered…3mos3MO

Yes, public transportation should be accessible to everyone.

 @9ZXDXJQfrom Ontario  answered…4mos4MO

I don't think they should be fully accessible but I do think the price should be decreased for those with disabilities.

 @9ZVPFDRfrom Rhode Island  answered…4mos4MO

Maybe, to an extent where it doesnt harm the rapid construction of public transportation

 @9ZMZ74WConservativefrom Ontario  answered…4mos4MO

Yes but it can't happen all at once gradually get more accessable

 @9WQY7BPCommunistfrom Ontario  answered…5mos5MO

Yes, and increase penalties for disability discrimination

 @9WHRDPNfrom Quebec  answered…5mos5MO

yes but define fully accessible, the gov can't give personalized transport to everyone

 @9WGGM9Manswered…5mos5MO

yes but it is under the decision of the local government not the state or federal

 @9TS28Y8from New Brunswick  answered…6mos6MO

Government should find a balance that is the most economical for assisting people with disabilities get to where they need to go, whether that is through upgrading of a public system, adding accessibility to existing infrastructure, or building unique infrastructure.

 @9RZPX67from Alberta  answered…8mos8MO

to a certain point, taxpayer funded anything should be accessible to those who actually pay taxes

 @9RCJ67TNew Democraticfrom Nova Scotia  answered…8mos8MO

Not require, but provide incentives for municipalities that do

 @B43GRHFfrom Ontario  answered…2wks2W

it depends on the disabilities, for example if the disability is something that could cause it to be dangerous for that person and the other people on the road they shouldn't be allowed to drive

 @B3RXYKKfrom Alberta  answered…3wks3W

No, but provide options for people with disabilities.

 @9P8NRFMNew Democratic from Alberta  answered…10mos10MO

Yes, and transportation systems that are not as easily accessible to disabled individuals should be renovated or if need be, replaced so that they able to provide appropriate accessibility for both people with disabilities and without disabilities.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Hegseth Out, DeSantis In? Trump Rethinks Defense Pick

President-elect Donald Trump is considering Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as a possible replacement for Pete Hegseth, his pick to run the Pentagon, according to people familiar with the discussions, amid Republican senators’ concerns over mounting allegations about the former Fox News host’s personal life.Picking DeSantis, a 2024 GOP primary rival for the presidency, would amount to a stunning turn for Trump. But he would also find in the governor a well-known conservative with a service record who shares Trump’s—and Hegseth’s—view on culling what they see as “woke” policies in the military.Trump allies increasingly think Hegseth might not survive further scrutiny, according to people close to the president-elect’s team, which considers the next 48 hours to be crucial to his fate.DeSantis, who served as a Navy lawyer in Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, was on an earlier list of potential defense-secretary candidates that transition officials presented to the president. Trump ultimately went with Hegseth. But as Hegseth’s nomination has faltered, that list has been revived and DeSantis is again among the choices Trump is considering, the people said.The discussions are in their early stages, one of the people said, adding that Trump has floated DeSantis’s name in casual conversations with guests at Mar-a-Lago, his private Florida club.Trump could decide not to choose DeSantis and select another replacement, if Hegseth’s nomination falls apart, the people said. Another potential defense-secretary candidate who has been discussed by Trump allies, according to people familiar with the matter, is Elbridge Colby, a former Pentagon official and ally of Vice President-elect JD Vance. Trump is also considering Sen. Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) for the job, some of the people said.DeSantis was once seen as an acolyte of Trump but his decision to challenge the former president in the 2024 GOP primary began a conflict between them, with Trump casting DeSantis as disloyal. Trump easily prevailed in the primary and friends of the two have worked to repair the relationship.

▲  279 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Border Bombshell: 8 Million New Arrivals Under Biden

The immigration surge of the past few years has been the largest in U.S. history, surpassing the great immigration boom of the late 1800s and early 1900s, according to a New York Times analysis of government data.Annual net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — averaged 2.4 million people from 2021 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Total net migration during the Biden administration is likely to exceed eight million people.That’s a faster pace of arrivals than during any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States. Even after taking into account today’s larger U.S. population, the recent surge is the most rapid since at least 1850.The numbers in the Times analysis include both legal and illegal immigration. About 60 percent of immigrants who have entered the country since 2021 have done so without legal authorization, according to a Goldman Sachs report based on government data.The combined increases of legal and illegal immigration have caused the share of the U.S. population born in another country to reach a new high, 15.2 percent in 2023, up from 13.6 percent in 2020. The previous high was 14.8 percent, in 1890.Several factors caused the surge, starting with President Biden’s welcoming immigration policy during his first three years in office. Offended by Donald J. Trump’s harsh policies — including the separation of families at the border — Mr. Biden and other Democrats promised a different approach. “We’re a nation that says, ‘If you want to flee, and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,’” Mr. Biden said during his 2020 presidential campaign.After taking office, his administration loosened the rules on asylum and other immigration policies, making it easier for people to enter the United States. Some have received temporary legal status while their cases wend through backlogged immigration courts. Others have remained without legal permission.

▲  1512 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2019 replies5 agree1 disagree6