Topic Title

One of our venerated, loved, PROLIFIC, members over on the DBUG forum - Jim Horecka - just posted about a NEW highway crossing near his home, where some of the most advanced technology has just been installed for accessibility. A crossing, that (according to him) may never (or once in a lifetime) may be crossed, has the latest, greatest, most technologically advanced warnings available.

What a shame/pity that this isn't/hasn't been applied to where it's NEEDED most - in an urban area as opposed to a very rural area.

I think it is good to keep in mind that this is just one man's opinion. We are not privileged to all the planning and decision making behind this decision.

For the most part I stayed out of the thread only making one comment. The general tone I felt (which surprised me) was that accessibility is just a hassle to designers, businesses and architects.

Having dealt first hand with family members with disabilities over the years I don't take these things for granted.

Possibly every architectural student should spend a week in a chair...might change their perspective.

FWIW,

Robert

I just spent the last 6 months learning to walk again after a major reconstructive knee surgery. It has completely opened my eyes to how important accessibility is for just every day things I never gave a second thought to. I had always appreciated that people needed accessibility, but always had that 'what a hassle' vibe in the back of my mind when working accessibility design out. It has been a very humbling experience to say the least.

I don't think the tone in the dbug thread is intended to marginalize the needs of the disabled (at least that was not the intent of my comments). I think it has more to do with the extremes that regulation and litigation has gone. James Horecka's story about the new voice enabled traffic signal that was installed at a remote, little used intersection is a case in point.

The new ANSI regulation, that may wind up in the next edition of the building codes, changes the 60" diameter turning radius to 67" ostensibly to accommodate power chairs. Why not allocate a fraction of the resources that will be spent by building owners to meet this new standard on development of a power chair that can turn in a 60" diameter?

Most of the regulations and requirements are excellent and very appropriate, but we can't always afford to build the church to handle Easter services.

Jim picked up on my intent of the post - frustration of legalistic bureaucracy that leaves common sense at the side of the road.