4 ms·
There are some lucky circumstances where this is true, but most such accommodations are not like that. Usually some trade-off must be made, in cost or in funct
by readams 2y ago
There are some lucky circumstances where this is true, but most such accommodations are not like that. Usually some trade-off must be made, in cost or in functionality. For example, with those same cut curbs, we now need to put a bumpy panel to allow blind and visually impaired people to feel the transition from curb to street, but these make the cut much worse for anything with wheels.
- clipsy 2y ago> but these make the cut much worse for anything with wheels. Worse than the original curbs? Not in my experience.
- ndriscoll 2y agoI found that whatever material they used in San Francisco for those bumpy curb ramps was incredibly slippery when it rained. Wouldn't surprise me if someone ends up disabled because of them at some point.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Kye 2y agoAll the panels I've encountered in Georgia have had plenty of grip when wet. I wonder what the difference is. Maybe it's because we get more rain and less slippery oil and goop is able to accumulate. I've heard that's part of why drivers in southern California have so much trouble with rain.
- Sharlin 2y agoDo they use plastic bricks there? I've heard about such things existing, but ours are molded concrete at least. And the pattern is quite unobtrusive as well.
- darby_nine 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- whoistraitor 2y agoI would say actually in the vast majority of cases of accessibility interventions, it benefits everyone. Everyone is, at various points in their lives, a varying degree of disabled (defined in terms of functional deficits). Whether injured, pregnant, chronically ill, a wheelchair user, elderly, or — heh — even intoxicated, thinking broadly about users of the spaces and tools we design is always going to yield more positive than negative externalities imho. In cases where this is not true, I’d challenge designers and engineers to find more novel designs that can genuinely be used by anyone and not cost too much inconvenience. This can sometimes mean starting from scratch and questioning our assumptions. Eg. Even the need for a curb-to-street indicator presupposes a street that is used by both big metal vehicles and pedestrians, whereas perhaps there’s a solution that means those paths never cross. Ie. More fundamental urban and transport design instead of band-aiding atop legacy systems.
- wizzwizz4 2y agoI don't find it that hard to cycle between the bumps. If you know what to expect, it's easier than a cattle grid.
- mcmoor 2y agoAny more example where it needs to be a tradeoff? I've been very skeptical about the concept since first hearing it. Seems too good to be true.
- readams 2y agoFrankly it's harder to come up with examples where it's actually just a Pareto improvement that was undiscovered until considering accessibility. This isn't to say that this is not worthwhile anyway to make tradeoffs but claiming that tradeoffs don't exist is just magical thinking. Some obvious examples (even ignoring higher cost, since they are all also higher cost): * Coloring for colorblind people is worse for people with normal vision. * Large format type is cumbersome for people with normal vision. * Traffic signals that are long enough for the elderly to cross cost everyone time every time they are used. * Stalls in bathrooms suitable for disabled people means fewer stalls can fit. * Ramps for wheelchairs require way more space than stairs and take much longer to traverse. Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't do these things.