#but also I'd be a real liabillity and danger on the road

[clownfangs]

-

[flimsy-roost]

interesting sort of ableist double-standard thing I've been thinking about for a while:

I have a neighbor who is disabled in some kind of developmental/intellectual/mental way. I don't know his folks well enough to feel comfortable asking, and he either can't or won't acknowledge me when I say hi (tbh nbd, I'm not entitled to communication, I only mean to articulate that I can't ask him about any of this directly).

he wanders around a lot, including across a busy intersection in our neighborhood. I admit I do worry about his physical safety a bit, but I haven't heard of him running into any issues in my several years of living here, so I assume he's found some kind of sustainable system.

some people who've seen him crossing against the light will idly expand on my basic worry, saying that he should probably be under more constant supervision and care.

...but, should he really? in my state (California), jaywalking was recently decriminalized, so you can only be ticketed if in immediate danger of causing a collision (in effect for things like crossing busy highways), so there's no real legal/liability-related reason he needs to be policed in that way. would a neurotypical habitual jaywalker also have to be assigned close supervision?

one could argue that a non-disabled person would at least be able to make better decisions about when and where to jaywalk safely, but the thing is, he's pretty discerning. he doesn't meander in occupied roads or walk into traffic, he always crosses corner-to-corner at an intersection with stoplight. he just seems to be unaware/not care about which lights are on, like he'll often start crossing in front of stopped cars right before their light turns green.

which, agreed, not the safest, but I've watched completely neurotypical people cross roads in much more dangerous ways just because they felt like it. who's to say he doesn't just feel like it? I have no way of knowing, because I can't ask him. in an ideal world sure, someone should check that he understands how to safely cross the road and teach him if he doesn't, but who's to say he doesn't know already and just doesn't really care?

there's an underlying assumption because he's visibly disabled, that when he does something "wrong" or less than safe, that he must be completely incapable of knowing better, and therefore should not be trusted with his own wellbeing. but I compare him to my AuDHD self, who is less noticeably disabled but capable of some severe fuckups and disruptions, and I find myself incapable of agreeing. before autopay was common, I'd gotten each individual utility shut off at least once due to accidental nonpayment, and have paid the ADHD tax many times over on rental late fees. should I not be allowed to live alone? nobody seems to think that. I have meltdowns in class a few times a year, and frequently have to leave early or opt out of activities to prevent them. should I be punted to the limited online-only curriculum, or kicked out of academia entirely? nobody seems to think that.

idk how my neighbor experiences the world, or what his needs are, so I could be totally off base in the literal sense. but it's eye-opening to notice these casually ableist double-standards, and to see the ways in which competency is assumed (and not).