In an American city I would bet on the mobility impaired people to win the cage match against the fewer cars people. They are tougher than they look.

Edit: The responses reasonably talk about the officially mobility impaired people. I was thinking more about the unofficially mobility impaired people by obesity, like me. French obesity rates are ~16% compared to ~42% in the US. That contributes to a fierce US constituency for cars.

A city with less cars is a net positive for mobility impaired people.

It frees space for people (wider sidewalks...), reduce the risks of navigating the streets, and for the ones that have to use a car, there's less traffic and less people stealing dedicated parking spots.

Less cars also means less mobility impaired people. Cars create them through crashes and a lifetime of sedentariness.

Finally, it should be noted that most of the time when someone says "what about mobility impaired people?", when debating reallocating public space to people instead of cars, they are not mobility impaired themselves and don't actually care about them. They just try to guilt shame their opponents to win.

> I would bet on the mobility impaired people to win the cage match

Why frame it as a fight? There’s no need to start there; you don’t need to waste time fighting against people not in your group. You just need to establish group status. If the constituency of obese people is strong, why not seek to establish policy on behalf of obese people and not everyone? As the article and others here have said, reducing traffic congestion benefits everyone in multiple ways, including benefits for the people who still have to drive. Given a choice that doesn’t affect your ability to drive, I assume you’d rather have less pollution, less noise, and fewer other drivers on the road?

The other angle missing from your comment is e-bikes. Most of those ~42% of obese people in the U.S. are still capable of riding an e-bike, and for short trips in busy areas, e-bikes are more convenient and easier to park than cars.

Fewer cars overall should increase the availability for those who need it. Same for drivers overall but most can’t see past the first step which is reducing lanes and parking.

Cars are enclosed sofas that move around. Could car dominance be contributing to obesity?

> I was thinking more about the unofficially mobility impaired people by obesity, like me

The vast majority of obese people are not meaningfully mobility impaired.

My buddy with no arms or legs would beg to differ. He can't afford taxis because he can't work a real job. His friends/family can't drive him around because you need a custom vehicle for his chair. But he can use bike lanes and sidewalks independently without too muuch trouble.

Car-dependent sprawl creates mobility impaired people where there were previously none. Many people are too old, too young, too intoxicated, too vision impaired or too poor to drive. Lack of viable transportation options is the greatest barrier to upward economic mobility for Americans today.

Huh? Fewer cars seems like a win to those who really rely on them. Could probably wind up with more accessible spots if done right.