Hacker News Reader

Comment by fnordpiglet | Hacker News Reader

In the US? I assume ADA was the kicker. A lot of folks even in government don’t realize the ADA isn’t unthinking. If the activity or environment doesn’t lend itself to accessibility it’s not required. Cutting a wheel chair ramp into a mountain face is a good example where the ADA wouldn’t apply because it’s impractical given the environment to do so. Even national parks only offer a subset set of activities ADA complaint.

View on HN

No, it wasn't an ADA thing. It was a purely local thing. The local authority had adopted some resolution that no further "development" would happen before they added some sort of accessibility. So we couldn't move forwards even using donated money. We could repair things but not make substantive improvements.

Rock climbing areas tend to be inaccessible or at least very rough terrain. Ironically, a vertical rock surface can be made accessible. There are actually many disabled climbers out there. But with a mixed dirt/rock/scree slope you basically need to install a mile-long ramp.

I guess pointing at the cliff and saying that’s the accessible route doesn’t fly eh? It’s an inclined slope - just very inclined. And yes there are tons of disabled climbers.

We generally understand that disabled people have a right to access the spaces that everyone else does. But climbing/caving is different, different than most any other activity: Access to space is controlled by ability. I have stood on ledges that are impossible to get to without a certain set of skills. If there was a ladder or a staircase, standing on that ledge would mean nothing. We can make a pool or athletic field accessible, but making such a remote ledge half way up a sheer cliff accessible by people without those abilities isn't possible without destroying the nature of that space. So there is always going to be conflict.

I've never understood this argument. Why would somebody else getting to a point through a different easy way cause another to feel like the hard way lost its value?

Stand on a remote ledge, a few square feet of flat space half way up a thousand-foot cliff. Yes, putting a ladder up to that ledge would reduce its magic, just as offering helicopter rides up K2 would cheapen every summit photo taken there.

You have repeated the point as if it were self-evident, but you haven't explained it.

The value is showing that one has reached that destination by overcoming obstacles and having sufficient skill to get there. Removing the need for skill and overcoming obstacles makes reaching the destination pointless.

The obstacles are still there.

Just because we have Linux, Python and JavaScript doesn't mean nobody's playing with assembly and experimenting with new ideas at a more fundamental level.

I have a suspicion that the sort of people who think they wouldn't do something hard just because other people have it too easy weren't going to do it in the first place.

I like to think that each individual has a limit to their ability to access the physical world around them, which will likely go up and down through their lifetime. Factors which might affect this limit are physical or medical differences between individuals. These factors can be mitigated, such as a prosphetic, or medication to help with altitude sickness. Humans also have ways to change the physical world to mitigate these limits. I'm guessing that there is a road which brings you closer to this climbing area? And that most people use vehicles to get closer and leave those somewhere? That infrastructure is in place, but there was a time when it wasn't. Vehicles, great invention aren't they? You see where I'm going with this? Take away that infrastructure or take away the vehicles and the trail errosion problem is solved, because suddenly there is a massive drop in people accessing the area. I'm not suggesting either way that those steps should be built or not, that is indeed a conflict and no one can say where the line should be drawn, but please don't loose sight of the limits of your own ability, that your limit WILL change and the mitigating factors that are already in place that enable you to exceed your limit.

Making an on-the-record decision to not provide accessibility is grounds for a lawsuit on that basis. It doesn't matter if they think they'd win that lawsuit, it's a chilling effect, and a big one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com