My wife broke her ankle this summer and we spent 2 months with her rolling around with a knee scooter, it was interesting to see the number of sidewalks without ramps is larger issue then I expected.
It doesn't seem like it should be a huge expense to add one in the grand scheme of things and seems way more flexible than adapting everyone with varying needs with some sort of device. Also, given this isn't a new problem it seems like it might be possible that building wheelchairs that can go up stairs and be practical might not be as simple of a project as many here seem to believe.
Yes the world is a disorganized, bumpy, and unwelcoming place for folks using wheelchairs (or scooters), but the question is how to ameliorate that problem economically. "Not huge in the grand scheme of things" does not help us decide which strategy is better, and is an attitude that fails to address the huge invisible drag induced by thousands of individually modest requirements.
Going up multiple stairs is a completely different problem. It's naively quite plausible that it's maximally efficient to modify wheelchairs so they go over curbs while still putting ramps and elevators in public buildings wherever there are multiple stairs.
Also, I'm a physically able-bodied person who exercises most days. Even I have almost been injured from tripping and falling over uneven surfaces in sidewalks while walking or running. I don't understand why you think it's so unreasonable to demand that sidewalks be built and kept in good working condition. It costs a totally insignificant fraction of overall tax revenue, way less than we spend on roads and mass transit, for instance.
This is Bulverism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
Do you really not see the problem with a fully able-bodied person saying that we shouldn't bother making any concessions to less able-bodied people by asserting that "it's obviously not worth the cost", without providing any evidence of such? To me, it is obviously worth the cost to build proper sidewalks, as everyone uses and benefits from them.
We have a question: "is it cost-effective to build better sidewalks?" You think the answer is obviously yes. Jess does not think the answer is obviously yes. The thing to do here is to try to work out why the two of you disagree.
The thing not to do is to accuse Jess of being unable to put himself in others' shoes. That's Bulverism, and it's shit. You can't just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is fundamentally deficient. Apart from being factually inaccurate, and unconvincing to anyone who isn't already convinced, it's a massive failure of empathy.
Likely factually true.
> and maybe then you will change your tune. It's unfortunate that you can't yet put yourself in the shoes of those people.
Not a statement of fact. The subtext is: "If you understood what these people are going through, you would agree with me".
And, quite frankly, yes, if you had empathy, you'd be all for making sure that these people could get around and participate in society.
Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.)
Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less.
Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)
Completely wrong. As I said, we are not robots. We do not operate solely on cold, unfeeling logic.
"Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.)"
In what way?
"Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less."
Do what less? Speak in things that aren't programming statements?
"Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)"
I very much do believe they lack empathy. And quite frankly, I believe this push for speech to be "nothing but a pure factual statement, akin to a programming statement" to be part of the problem.
I said like four different things (not incompatible/persuasive/Bulverism/should not have been said), and I'm quite sure you don't disagree with all of them, but I'm not sure what you do disagree with.
I certainly do not think that people are robots who operate solely on cold, unfeeling logic. That is not even close to a thing that I think, and I think I can vaguely see how you got that impression, but it's just wrong. I'm sorry, I sometimes trigger that impression in people, I know this but I'm not very good at avoiding it.
> In what way?
In what way would I like to be called out? "This is Bulverism" would be fine.
> Do what less?
In this specific case, Bulverism. At other times, other kinds of speech too, like slurs, gibberish, factually untrue statements. (This is not an exhaustive list.)
> I very much do believe they lack empathy.
Well, uh. Okay. Tangents upon tangents, but - do you think that because that's the only possible explanation you can think of, for why he said what he said? Or some other reason?
I note that your stated beliefs about my internal experiences do not match my actual experience of my internal experiences. Does that make you less confident in your beliefs about Jess' internal experiences?
> I believe this push for speech to be "nothing but a pure factual statement, akin to a programming statement" to be part of the problem.
Again, not even close to what I'm pushing for. (For example, "it should not have been said" is not a pure factual statement.) Also, I'm not sure what problem you're referring to.
Here's some counter-evidence: It doesn't cost anything more to include proper curb cuts and such when the sidewalk is first built. The stadium infrastructure in the linked article post-dates ADA legislation requiring such, and yet was simply not built properly.
This is just false. The only use of "obvious" was in the line
> We would never consider building ramps everywhere for strollers or suitcases because the benefits are just obviously not worth the cost.
Which is not even close to how you describe it.
America is disorganized, bumpy, and unwelcoming. Western Europe is much better in this matter. You should visit.
This is a random street in a random French town (Lille): https://goo.gl/maps/9g8xSwnobKv
This is a random street in a random American town (Pittsburgh): https://goo.gl/maps/LSNJdN3L2Cr
I just picked randomly from Google Maps, of course we would need a larger sample.
Or a bit less random comparison of some small towns:
Princeton, New Jersey: https://goo.gl/maps/mek7u1zJFmC2
Lund, Sweden: https://goo.gl/maps/dKe8k9EDuUT2
Princeton is also a special case because it's a community that has a lot of fights about trees. Cutting down trees is heavily regulated there, you literally have to apply for a permit to cut down a tree (though I believe there are exemptions for emergencies), and the township and community are committed to the aesthetic of shaded roadways throughout. That almost universally (basically everywhere but right downtown, and even a fair amount there) means planting trees between the sidewalk and the curb, which in turn leads to increased damage to sidewalks from tree roots, so maintaining sidewalks becomes more expensive. It also means that sometimes you have to decide between having a flat sidewalk and doing enough damage that winter might kill a tree that's been growing for 30+ years. Those are things that are important to a lot of people living in town.
I've lived next door to Princeton off and on for 20 of the last 30 years, hence the unnecessary knowledge of their social emphasis on trees. I think it's nice. I haven't seen any complaints about disabled access at the township level, and nothing came up in a quick google search.
Sure, we can go to a random street next town over to New Brunswick: https://goo.gl/maps/uCrkh5fuMC62
You seem like you're fishing about until you find a decent parallel, rather than actually having a decent one as a result of well researched comparisons.
But more importantly, is the random production of poor sidewalks ever going to be convincing? If your point is "Western Europe does it better," it seems like the appropriate evidence would be statistical in nature, and if you don't have it random examples aren't actually a convincing alternative.
Rutgers University in New Brunswick: 69 000 students (but some are in campuses in other towns; Newark, Camden).
Lund University: 42 000 students.
If you don't like the towns I chose, why don't you suggest some town that you think would be acceptable here?
I'm not sure that even given your selection criteria I could do so, but if I did your methodology is still fundamentally flawed. There is very little reason to continue attempting to prove an argument if you know the outcome is fictional because the method of proving it is flawed.
Most of our roads are old colonial paths. They are twisty, high speed (these are main roads people use to get places), and cut into the hillsides in places. There's no curbing, no shoulder and no storm drains.
The roads are lined with big old trees, utility poles are a foot or two off the side of the road, bridges are barely wide enough for two cars, fences and even houses are sometimes right up on the edges of these roads.
----------
They looked into putting in sidewalks on one of those roads at one point. It was going to cost millions of dollars and embroil them in lawsuits forever.
Huge numbers of old-growth trees would have to come down, multiple bridges would have to be built (or the road ones would need to be rebuilt wider), the drainage ditch would have to get replaced with curbing and storm drains, a couple people with old houses that closely abut the road would no longer be able to use their driveways (which are currently just long enough to fit cars and not be in the road)....and on and on.
Not surprisingly, the idea was dropped and never brought up again.
Sometimes the street is paved with cobblestones, but missing stones are still replaced. I doubt any street in any city has been untouched for centuries, since at points it will have been dug up to lay sewers, water pipes and power cables. The difference with America, is that it's more likely the street was put back the way it was after the pipes were laid.
The UK doesn't have any sidewalks...
... they have footpaths.
It should definitely be possible to make a wheelchair that can go up a single step. Especially for $30k.
This is far from true. Curbs are a huge issue for people who aren't totally able-bodied. You've really never seen a frail elderly person who is walking with the assistance of a cane or a walker struggle mightily with a curb? Not even your own grandparents or other aging relatives?
The most relevant section:
"It is often difficult or impossible for a person using a wheelchair, scooter, walker, or other mobility device to cross a street if the sidewalk on either side of the street ends without a curb ramp. It is also dangerous. If curb ramps are not provided, these individuals are forced to make a difficult choice. They can either stay at home and not go to their chosen destination, or they can risk their personal safety by using their wheelchairs, scooters, or walkers to travel alongside cars and other vehicles in the streets. This is a choice that people with disabilities should not be required to make."
You know how awful this sounds, right? I'm not sure you meant it the way it sounds. Please clarify. Do you mean that by reducing the physical weight of her body you think the sidewalks would somehow be easier for her wheelchair to navigate? Hopefully not because that's absurd.
> It should definitely be possible to make a wheelchair that can go up a single step. Especially for $30k.
It's not like there is no innovation in this area (see the "tank chair" for a good example). But there are many obstacles, of many kinds, here. Of course.
This is not just your comment: All through this thread people who haven't thought the issue through in detail seem to be waving their hands at the real problem (environment is not suitable for all users) and proposing these ad hoc solutions as though nobody has thought of them before.
Until we can all float around in hoverchairs, we need the damn sidewalks to be functional. I have no problem thinking outside the box but at some point you have to come back to reality
Yes of course. For uneven pavements and similar. It's simple physics. It sounds like it would need a redesign of the wheelchair to go up full kerbs, but it would definitely be easier to design that wheelchair if the weight limit was 100kg rather than 150kg.
We cannot control the person's physical size or abilities. We can broaden the range of humans for whom we design things by doing better work. That's all we can do. That's what we should do.
That is because I was envisioning a standard wheelchair with large wheels designed to be propelled by the user as well as a helper. YouTube is full of wheelchair curb hopping (and more) instructional videos. I had visions of picking my ~100LB wife up over a big stair/whatever.
Anyway, I'm going to basically agree with you, and say that it appears that motorized wheelchair manufactures are partially to blame here. That wheelchair is more like a motorized bed than what I would consider a wheelchair.
So whats the excuse (regulation cant be all of it)? Particularly now that battery technology has gotten to the point where the battery packs to move a person around for 10-15 minutes (see electric scooters) are just a few lbs, and materials technology allow us to build mechanically stable structures which are also super lightweight. Without going into questionable tech, i'm sure I could build a large wheel segway style device with a low center of gravity seat that could just drive over most curbs. Probably could even do it for less than $30k... We wouldn't even be talking about cracked/broken sidewalks at that point. In fact, I was having a similar conversation with a friend the other day about certain SF style devices probably being in reach for locomotion today.
According to the article, "Chicago [...] spent $140 million in five years repairing sidewalks and pedestrian rights of way". The cost of the author's wheelchair is $30 thousand. If we assume this cost is typical, fixing sidewalks would have been cheaper than replacing 5000 wheelchairs with new all-terrain models - and would have benefits for residents and visitors without wheelchairs too.
That's on top of making life easier for seniors with walkers, parents with strollers, kids riding bikes on sidewalks, etc. I mean you have to build a curb eventually, might as well slope it down when it intersects with a sidewalk. Its not a radical idea and those Chicago curbs would have been replaced eventually with the new ADA standards, its just that federal money made it happen sooner.
> A standard, manual wheelchair costs an average of $500, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation . A chair meant for everyday use costs between $1,000 and $2,000 depending upon the features of the chair, which can include an individualized seat, various types of wheels and a lightweight frame.
And how many electoral cycles do you think it'd take for that program to be canceled, given the 'American disease' of not wanting tax dollars spent on 'other people'?