3 ms·

If lever handles were actually preferred by everybody, then there would be no need for this legislation. Is it really a great injustice in society that somebod

by jlgreco 13y ago

If lever handles were actually preferred by everybody, then there would be no need for this legislation. Is it really a great injustice in society that somebody with poor hand dexterity might have to replace doorknobs in a newly purchased home? An injustice so great that we must mandate poor-dexterity accessible handles in all new construction? Here is an idea: if lever style handles are a medical necessity for somebody, let those devices be provided for them by the state, as other medical necessities are in Canada. What's next, installing stair lifts in every home on the off chance that an elderly person might move in? Banning stairs and requiring all new homes to have elevators instead? Are we going to start requiring that all homes that have raised floors in some rooms come with ramps pre-installed?

derekp7 13y ago
From my understanding, the overall idea from the "inclusive" standardization process is if there is a choice between two things that are otherwise functionally and cost equivalent (or comparable), the inclusive item is what should be in the standard. Keep in mind that housing construction standards already have things like door height, door knob height, door width, stair tread rise/run ratios, etc. And the purpose of including new house construction in some of the standards, isn't for the benefit of the current home purchaser, but for the benefit of future owners of the dwelling, so that they have a greater selection of housing to choose from that doesn't require major retrofitting after purchase. And to further address the "banning stairs and requiring elevators" part of your comment, that falls under the Reductio ad absurdum informal logical fallacy -- that is, it isn't functionally / cost equivalent. However, I think you will notice that not to many new houses are built with only ladders connecting the various floors instead of stairs. Probably due to the current building standards.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > Probably due to the current building standards. No, probably because consumers demand stairs. There are plenty of places with very lax building codes; do you really think that ladders to get to the second floor are common in those places? Damn near nobody is interested in a house that forces you to climb a ladder to reach your kitchen, the absence of such houses isn't creditable to people in wheelchairs. You are the one reducing this conversation to the absurd. How "inclusive by default" are we suppose to be? Every few months you hear a story about firefighters cutting another fat person out of their own house, maybe we should double all door widths? Maybe we should ban glass coffee tables and make them all out of plexiglass instead, in case anyone with vertigo wants one. That would be pretty "functionally and cost equivalent". The only reason you think that is more absurd than replacing doorknobs is because I thought of it instead of you, and because I thought of it for the sole purpose of mocking it.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > Maybe we should ban glass coffee tables and make them all out of plexiglass instead, in case anyone with vertigo wants one. That would be pretty "functionally and cost equivalent". If you're making and selling coffee tables to the public you can't make it from any old glass - it needs to be glass that meets certain standards and is tempered. No one is saying that people who like door knobs must not have them - you can fit them once you've bought your house. The fact that you'd prefer to push the work of replacing door knobs onto the people who need the functionality of levers, rather than onto the people who prefer the aesthetics of knobs, is a clear inherent bias against those with accessibility needs.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > "The fact that you'd prefer to push the work of replacing door knobs onto the people who need the functionality of levers, rather than onto the people who prefer the aesthetics of knobs, is a clear inherent bias against those with accessibility needs." Or, you know, a clear bias towards rejecting emotion filled argument. I'm not going to arrest common sense just because a group of people that I am suppose to have sympathy for are involved. If only a minority of the population needs something, let that something be provided for that minority of the population. Hell, have the state pay for the purchase and installation of lever handles for anybody who has a medical need for them, other sorts of medical needs and accommodations are taken care of on an individual basis, why should this one be different? Elderly person needs some pills? Canada can hook them up with that. Elderly person needs a walker? Canada can hook them up with that. Elderly person needs lever door handles? .... (By the way, tempered glass can still do some damage to you, don't be lured into a false sense of security with it. I sliced my index finger open quite nicely a few years ago after my car was broken into. It didn't require stitches, but the scar is still visible. Plexiglass would almost certainly be safer.)
  - derekp7 13y ago
    I've never seen a glass coffee table come as part of a house construction, therefore it wouldn't be included in any type of building code. However, I do see what you are trying to get at. The basic issue is what is the thresholds of affected people needed before something should be included in a public standard? If something is unusable for, say, 20% of the population, then it should be modified for inclusion. If it only affects .0000001% of the population, then it probably isn't worth worrying about. And cost / aesthetics / personal preferences should factor in, based on how many people are affected -- that is, the fewer that would benefit from an inclusion rule, the more other factors (such as cost, or design considerations, etc) should weigh in against inclusion. And if half the population is affected, then that would put more weight on inclusion and less on cost. Then there is the threshold of public buildings vs. new construction for private residences. As mentioned previously, the purpose of including residences in the inclusion laws (and actually all building codes) isn't for the current owner, but for the benefit of future owners and their visitors. Again, the percentage of the population that would benefit from a particular building code can weigh in on how much other factors are considered that would weigh in against the code. Which is why door handles are specified to be at a specific height, so that it is usable for the greatest range of the population. Of course, the whole door knob vs. lever thing can be retrofitted without changing the door hardware -- someone just needs to invent a clamp-on device that would add a lever to an existing knob.

by jlgreco 13y ago

derekp7 13y ago

From my understanding, the overall idea from the "inclusive" standardization process is if there is a choice between two things that are otherwise functionally and cost equivalent (or comparable), the inclusive item is what should be in the standard. Keep in mind that housing construction standards already have things like door height, door knob height, door width, stair tread rise/run ratios, etc. And the purpose of including new house construction in some of the standards, isn't for the benefit of the current home purchaser, but for the benefit of future owners of the dwelling, so that they have a greater selection of housing to choose from that doesn't require major retrofitting after purchase. And to further address the "banning stairs and requiring elevators" part of your comment, that falls under the Reductio ad absurdum informal logical fallacy -- that is, it isn't functionally / cost equivalent. However, I think you will notice that not to many new houses are built with only ladders connecting the various floors instead of stairs. Probably due to the current building standards.

jlgreco 13y ago
> Probably due to the current building standards. No, probably because consumers demand stairs. There are plenty of places with very lax building codes; do you really think that ladders to get to the second floor are common in those places? Damn near nobody is interested in a house that forces you to climb a ladder to reach your kitchen, the absence of such houses isn't creditable to people in wheelchairs. You are the one reducing this conversation to the absurd. How "inclusive by default" are we suppose to be? Every few months you hear a story about firefighters cutting another fat person out of their own house, maybe we should double all door widths? Maybe we should ban glass coffee tables and make them all out of plexiglass instead, in case anyone with vertigo wants one. That would be pretty "functionally and cost equivalent". The only reason you think that is more absurd than replacing doorknobs is because I thought of it instead of you, and because I thought of it for the sole purpose of mocking it.
- DanBC 13y ago
  > Maybe we should ban glass coffee tables and make them all out of plexiglass instead, in case anyone with vertigo wants one. That would be pretty "functionally and cost equivalent". If you're making and selling coffee tables to the public you can't make it from any old glass - it needs to be glass that meets certain standards and is tempered. No one is saying that people who like door knobs must not have them - you can fit them once you've bought your house. The fact that you'd prefer to push the work of replacing door knobs onto the people who need the functionality of levers, rather than onto the people who prefer the aesthetics of knobs, is a clear inherent bias against those with accessibility needs.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > "The fact that you'd prefer to push the work of replacing door knobs onto the people who need the functionality of levers, rather than onto the people who prefer the aesthetics of knobs, is a clear inherent bias against those with accessibility needs." Or, you know, a clear bias towards rejecting emotion filled argument. I'm not going to arrest common sense just because a group of people that I am suppose to have sympathy for are involved. If only a minority of the population needs something, let that something be provided for that minority of the population. Hell, have the state pay for the purchase and installation of lever handles for anybody who has a medical need for them, other sorts of medical needs and accommodations are taken care of on an individual basis, why should this one be different? Elderly person needs some pills? Canada can hook them up with that. Elderly person needs a walker? Canada can hook them up with that. Elderly person needs lever door handles? .... (By the way, tempered glass can still do some damage to you, don't be lured into a false sense of security with it. I sliced my index finger open quite nicely a few years ago after my car was broken into. It didn't require stitches, but the scar is still visible. Plexiglass would almost certainly be safer.)
- derekp7 13y ago
  I've never seen a glass coffee table come as part of a house construction, therefore it wouldn't be included in any type of building code. However, I do see what you are trying to get at. The basic issue is what is the thresholds of affected people needed before something should be included in a public standard? If something is unusable for, say, 20% of the population, then it should be modified for inclusion. If it only affects .0000001% of the population, then it probably isn't worth worrying about. And cost / aesthetics / personal preferences should factor in, based on how many people are affected -- that is, the fewer that would benefit from an inclusion rule, the more other factors (such as cost, or design considerations, etc) should weigh in against inclusion. And if half the population is affected, then that would put more weight on inclusion and less on cost. Then there is the threshold of public buildings vs. new construction for private residences. As mentioned previously, the purpose of including residences in the inclusion laws (and actually all building codes) isn't for the current owner, but for the benefit of future owners and their visitors. Again, the percentage of the population that would benefit from a particular building code can weigh in on how much other factors are considered that would weigh in against the code. Which is why door handles are specified to be at a specific height, so that it is usable for the greatest range of the population. Of course, the whole door knob vs. lever thing can be retrofitted without changing the door hardware -- someone just needs to invent a clamp-on device that would add a lever to an existing knob.