Thread: Accessibility Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029174
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Why do secular event organisers tend to take equality and accessibility more seriously than Christian event organisers?

A guide dog owner friend of mine went to a christian conference and was made to use the fire exit and was not allowed to go through the Church or use the same doors as everyone else. He felt very unwelcome throughout. This is a dog which can easily negotiate busy stations and airports! He was told that his guide dog was upsetting people (which is nonsense of course).

At the very least this was a lack of education.

How good/bad is your Church when it comes to accessibility for the disabled?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
To answer the first question you ask: I think that churches and (perhaps more so) other Christian organisations can sometimes be very bad at complying with established good practices generally, whether in respect of accessibility or other fields. I suspect that it's to do with an idea that 'hey, we're good people, aren't we, what mor do you want?'
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Companies have to, by law, accommodate wheelchair users, those with sensory impairments, etc. So they're used to complying with the legislation, and automatically factor that in.

Churches, not so much. Which is surprising, given that most congregations have at least one physically impaired member (often through age), also those who can't hear or see well either.

Accessibility was something I never really gave much thought about, probably in common with lots of others. Then I started wheeling children around in a pushchair. Huge perspective change, right there.
 
Posted by Coa Coa (# 15535) on :
 
My husband uses a service dog and except for one garden where folks were worried the dog would "do his business". (Service dogs are trained to go only in one spot or on demand- so to speak) His acceptance has been overwhelmingly positive. There is a great deal of education that needs to be done still around the rights of people with service dogs. By law, here in Canada, service dogs are allowed everywhere but sterile environments(operating rooms) but owners of businesses can provide alternative accommodation apart from the general conditions offered. The inconsistency in legislation around what constitutes a service dog and what training is required leads to confusion.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Bloody ignorance. Sometimes coupled with a lack of funds which prevents the more obvious accommodations. But mainly I think it's because with churches, everything is the Amateur Hour, and things that would never fly in the business world are "business as usual" in the churches.
 
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :
 
Legally churches have to comply with accessibility, or is this a devolved matter? I know that if there is a sound system at all there has to be a hearing loop (if there is no sound system, then I guess everyone is deemed to be in the same boat, as it were) and if there is plumbing there has to be a disabled access loo (often the only one). Guide dogs no problem, that i've ever come across, but ramps for wheelchairs can be a nightmare for older buildings!
I know of one church which fronts a busy junction with high steps and to get a ramp at the required level of slope would have taken said ramp right into the middle of the three-way traffic. And yet disability campaigners were arguing that to do anything else - i.e. To have a ramp by a rear door - would be to discriminate. A little give and take both wayside some common sense .....
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Accessibility was something I never really gave much thought about, probably in common with lots of others. Then I started wheeling children around in a pushchair. Huge perspective change, right there.
With old buildings, accommodating wheelchairs can be difficult (which doesn't mean impossible). With a modern building, there's no excuse.

As far as service animals go, there is an irreducible conflict between people who require a service animal and people who have an allergy to pet dander.

In this case, allergic people lose, and just have to suck it up (but it's reasonable to ask someone with a service animal not to share your pew).
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
The CoE does not have to abide by disability legislation in England. Now some churches have issues changing church accessibility because of the Victorian Society or other heritage groups blocking changes to the building, or the church is a listed building. However unfortunately there is an awful lot of bad practice (in many areas) that would not fly in secular business, and a feeling that being a Christian trumps having to put some effort in.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
My day job is as an accessibility counsellor at our local university. Our vestry has continually held yard sales in our inaccessible former rectory because it was " convenient, over my objections."

[ 27. May 2015, 14:12: Message edited by: Caissa ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
The CoE does not have to abide by disability legislation in England.
Really?

I didn't know this. What is the reasoning behind it, do you know?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Bloody ignorance. Sometimes coupled with a lack of funds which prevents the more obvious accommodations. But mainly I think it's because with churches, everything is the Amateur Hour, and things that would never fly in the business world are "business as usual" in the churches.
s

This. Well-meaning usual, but always on the cheap and very amateurish. It's one of our most charming, most maddening, and sometimes most horrible characteristics.
 
Posted by Ceesharp (# 3818) on :
 
My church (RC, 100 year old mock gothic style) has disabled ramp access,induction loop,accessible toilet and disabled parking bays. We have more than one wheelchair user in the regular congregation and and at least one guide dog usually attends, although our priest has had to request that children, and some adults, do not try to pet the dog while he is working.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
C of E guidance focuses on what is 'reasonable.'

In my church, a listed building, we have secured a disabled parking space outside the side door where someone can enter on a level and avoid the steps at the front, we have a ramp into the side chapel BUT we cannot yet affoerd disability oilets and our loop system isn't working.

It seems that as long as these shortcomings are on our 'to do' list then we are within the law.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The DDA states that 'reasonable' efforts should be made to provide access but accepts that because of the age of church buildings this may not always be possible.

At my own place we had temporary ramps from the early 1990s until 2007; at which point a 12th century doorway, blocked-up in the 16th century, was re-opened - but getting listed building consent for that (we're Grade I) was difficult, as was getting a faculty to make sure there was a path so the doorway could be accessed.

We were lucky that we had the money to do the job from a legacy, but the paperwork and meetings (drawings, applications, amendments, etc, etc, etc) meant it took 29 months before work could start.

Two things cost the most: (a) having to use a DAC approved architect when we had 2 in the wider parish family who would have done it for nothing, and one of whom had experience of being Surveyor of the Fabric at another 2 cathedrals; and (b) the insistence of the local authority Building Control department that the glass panel in the middle of the new door be double-glazed - this in a building with enough ancient and ill-fitting glass to surface a couple of tennis courts. We ended up paying for 2 doors and the cost of the drawings and re-drawings to please the DAC and local conservation officer meant architects' fees came to just over 40% of the total cost of the project.

We wanted a porch over the newly opened door because its on the side of the church that gets the worst of the weather but we've been refused permission 3 times, so even with an automatic door the disabled get soaked.

Oh, and the proper provision for a well for a doormat was not given permission so we now have a rotting floor that needs extensive repair/replacement - thanks DAC and Heritage Conservation Officer.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
We've just been refused permission yet again for a loo - either in an adjacent annexe or in the church itself.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
There is also the issue of invisible disabilities/conditions not being recognised. I think a lot of churches think that only people in wheelchairs are 'really' disabled. I have a number of chronic invisible conditions, which sometimes prevent (for example) kneeling at Communion. This happened when I attended my local church for the Christmas Day morning Eucharist, and I got some very dirty looks [Frown] I can't face going back. I attend a different church a town over now.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A guide dog owner friend of mine went to a christian conference and was made to use the fire exit and was not allowed to go through the Church or use the same doors as everyone else. He felt very unwelcome throughout. ... He was told that his guide dog was upsetting people (which is nonsense of course).
I think that people getting "upset" over trivia is one of the real curses of the Church. How much time and energy do clergy spend/waste in calming people down? And how much energy could be diverted by said people into getting genuinely upset by real issues in the world and then getting stuck into doing something about them?
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
A church in town where the vicar himself is a chair user still took something like 5 years to get around to making it accessible to him. The sticking point was that the original Norman door of this original Norman building had to be removed, and you can guess the ire that aroused in the non-church going townsfolk.

Got it through eventually - cue yet more moaning at the replacement door, which I thought actually blends in well - but life with (a) a listed building that (b) requires a PCC to (c) get faculties to alter is never going to be easy.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Only three theological colleges are themselves wheelchair accessible (Oakhill, Queen's, and St John's Nottingham). Not much help for disabled Anglo-Catholics.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Back in the 70s when wheelchair ramps were newly required, my Mom's church (quite wealthy, also an old building) complained that the government has no right to tell a church what to do, they should NOT be required to add a ramp. Peculiar stance for a church that had an internal ramp to the altar so little olds who don't do stairs (after somehow struggling up the stairs into the building) could go forward to receive communion.

I was puzzled why aren't churches leading the "include everyone" movement instead of protesting it?

In the late 80s the church I attended had a wheelchair rider who had to sit alone in a side alcove because there was no way to park a wheelchair with the congregation. (I sometimes sat on the floor next to her.)

I went to the clergy person with three different proposals of ways to seat her next to other congregation members. He laughed and said absolutely not, cutting away some pews to include a wheelchair would make the church less visually attractive for weddings.

Appearance is more important than including all of their own members in their most defining activity, the Sunday community worship? Yes, weddings are most important.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Quite right. Got a squint: what more do you want? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Every church I see here has pews cut away for wheelchairs. Unfortunately, it's a very hilly and floody place, so older churches are half a story above the street, and getting into the church in the first place is the problem--some have installed elevators, but ramps are usually physically impossible in older buildings.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
The Churches I frequent, (more through work than worship), had a big drive on wheelchair ramps some years ago. Unfortunately most of the congregations are now either non-existent, or so small there's only a tiny possibility it'll include someone in a wheel-chair.

However these ramps are much appreciated by people such as myself who have the job of removing and re-installing memorials [Smile]

As for the matter of the Christian faith rendering it's practitioners petit, intolerant and less compassionate or helpful than their secular counter-parts? That certainly does appear opposite from what one might hope and expect.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
As far as I know, ramps for church access are compulsory here as for any other public buildings, and all the churches I've seen have them – but then we don't have any 12th century heritage structures. Does being the Established Church mean the CofE is exempt from other legal obligations?
If you have chairs there's obviously no worries about wheelchairs; I'm not sure whether wheelchairs I've noticed on our Praise Be TV hymn programme are inset or in a wide aisle beside the pews.
As for the dirty looks for someone who couldn't kneel, it sounds like a good church to get away from. When we Pressies first exchanged visits with St Luke's down the road, I told the vicar beforehand that if I remained standing it wasn't because John Knox didn't approve but because I'd recently had hip surgery, and that was okay for him – but I do notice that nowadays standing and kneeling seem to be equally acceptable. I can think of several of our older Anglican friends might find kneeling as difficult as I would do now.

GG
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Every church I see here has pews cut away for wheelchairs. Unfortunately, it's a very hilly and floody place, so older churches are half a story above the street, and getting into the church in the first place is the problem...
New churches where I currently live (no snow) are flat on a slab, no stairs or ramp. Older churches had to add a ramp. In either, the rider needs a companion to hold the door open to get in the building and then into the sanctuary. But how much electronics should a church be expected to spend money on?

I don't remember seeing pews cut away in any local church. (I've seen it elsewhere.) Not in any church I've ever sung in here, old or new. Catholic church (modern) and the two biggest non-denominationals have very wide aisles plus lots of space behind the pews., that works fine. Epis aisles not spacious but wide enough that a wheelchair is not a safety hazard. Methodist and Disciples of Christ a wheel chair totally blocks the aisle, creating a fire safety hazard, nor is there open space at the back of the church.

As has been said up-thread, reconfiguring old churches to accept wheel chairs can be puzzlingly difficult.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
As far as I know, ramps for church access are compulsory here as for any other public buildings, and all the churches I've seen have them – but then we don't have any 12th century heritage structures. Does being the Established Church mean the CofE is exempt from other legal obligations?
If you have chairs there's obviously no worries about wheelchairs; I'm not sure whether wheelchairs I've noticed on our Praise Be TV hymn programme are inset or in a wide aisle beside the pews.
As for the dirty looks for someone who couldn't kneel, it sounds like a good church to get away from. When we Pressies first exchanged visits with St Luke's down the road, I told the vicar beforehand that if I remained standing it wasn't because John Knox didn't approve but because I'd recently had hip surgery, and that was okay for him – but I do notice that nowadays standing and kneeling seem to be equally acceptable. I can think of several of our older Anglican friends might find kneeling as difficult as I would do now.

GG
Yes, the CoE is exempt from a few areas of legislation - although some of those exceptions apply to all religious organisations and are not specifically due to being the Established church.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Are you sure the CofE is exempt from the disability parts of the Equality Act? I've never heard this before.

The duties are not absolute: I thought the duty was to make reasonable adjustments. That will take into account the nature of the building.

I am happy to be corrected, as an ignorant (fairly) recent transplant from a free church.

And at our place, quite a few people stand for communion, I doubt anyone else has thought twice about it.

M.

[ 28. May 2015, 06:26: Message edited by: M. ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
M.: I think you are right.

From the Diocese of Coventry's website re. the Equality Act:

"It stipulates that all service providers should make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to their buildings and services so that disabled people can use them. ... It is therefore very important that churches engage with the Equality Act and rethink how their buildings are used by others. ... Under the Equality Act churches are ‘service providers’ (in more ways than one!) and therefore all activities that take place in the church and church hall need to be considered in terms of the risk people face when interacting with that environment".

No sign of any special dispensation there!

P.S. In our Free Church, people sit for Communion anyway ... we don't have any kneelers!

[ 28. May 2015, 06:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I am sure you're right, M. - as is the Diocese of London, under the Equality Act (2010) all service providers have to make "reasonable adjustments" to make them accessible to disabled users.

It doesn't have to be ramps, that's just one of the options. The local church also provides:
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Of course, the person I mentioned in the OP didn't need any adjustments at all mobility wise - his guide dog is well able to negotiate crowds and steps.

All he needed was for people to let him go where everyone else was going.
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
I suppose in theory a dog could upset someone. I used to support a woman with Down Syndrome who was absolutely terrified of dogs, to the extent that if she saw one, she would just freeze and shake and refuse to move for ages. Not to say that guide dogs shouldn't be allowed equal access, but sometimes different disability needs can clash and there isn't always an easy answer. Such as 'autism-friendly' showings of films, where children can make as much noise as they need to. Great for those autistic kids who need to make noise - not so much for those who find noise painful.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I suppose in theory a dog could upset someone. I used to support a woman with Down Syndrome who was absolutely terrified of dogs, to the extent that if she saw one, she would just freeze and shake and refuse to move for ages. Not to say that guide dogs shouldn't be allowed equal access, but sometimes different disability needs can clash and there isn't always an easy answer. Such as 'autism-friendly' showings of films, where children can make as much noise as they need to. Great for those autistic kids who need to make noise - not so much for those who find noise painful.
Yes, that's very true fineline - but if it were the case I would have (at the very least) expected them to explain the situation to the guide dog owner.

The same problem can happen on buses as the same space is needed for wheelchair users and guide dog owners.
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
I suppose the specificity or vagueness of their explanation would depend on the extent to which the other disabled person (I'm talking generally) wanted to keep their disability confidential to strangers. In reality, I find in my experience that churches are often full of people who all know each other, and they can be a little afraid of something unfamiliar, because it can threaten the comfortable situation they are in. Also, when it comes to different disabilities and needs, it is often the people who are most influential, and who are the most vocal, whose needs are prioritised, at the expense of other needs.

At a church I used to go to, there were fellowship groups which were quite big. Sometimes the pastor would ask for our suggestions and I occasionally said I'd find it easier if we sometimes could split into smaller groups for prayer. One woman always would immediately say we couldn't possibly do that because her husband had hearing problems where he couldn't hear if more than one person in the room was praying aloud at a time. She seemed to assume that her husband's difficulty automatically trumped anyone else's possible difficulties, and that it was inconceivable that he should ever be put in a situation where he couldn't hear prayers. I never felt able to join in the prayers or sharing in such a big group, and I eventually left the church. Which, looking back, was a shame, really. When different people have different needs, surely some compromise could be made.
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
I don't think it's just churches though - I find a similar thing can happen in small, cliquey work-places, or small, cliquey colleges, particularly in out-of-the-way places where people aren't too hot on the legal requirements, and there isn't much outside influence. You get some places, which are generally bigger and more central, which are really hot on disability equality, and general etiquette and professionalism, and other, smaller, out-of-the-way, places where everything's a lot sloppier.

But then churches aren't supposed to be 'professional', I guess, and that could maybe make this more common in churches - churches often describe themselves as a 'family' and can be over-familiar with each other, and also with new people, in a way that would be frowned on in a workplace! You don't (well, shouldn't!) get welcomed on your first day in a workplace with 'Do you have a husband and children at home? Oh, you don't? That's okay - we have other single people here too!'
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I suppose the specificity or vagueness of their explanation would depend on the extent to which the other disabled person (I'm talking generally) wanted to keep their disability confidential to strangers.
None of us have the right to expect people to take account of our disability if we are equally determined that we shouldn't have to divulge its existence. The argument 'he/she should have known/been able to guess' is passive aggression in spades.
quote:

... At a church I used to go to, there were fellowship groups which were quite big. Sometimes the pastor would ask for our suggestions and I occasionally said I'd find it easier if we sometimes could split into smaller groups for prayer. One woman always would immediately say we couldn't possibly do that because her husband had hearing problems where he couldn't hear if more than one person in the room was praying aloud at a time. She seemed to assume that her husband's difficulty automatically trumped anyone else's possible difficulties, and that it was inconceivable that he should ever be put in a situation where he couldn't hear prayers. ...
I suppose when it comes to what trumps what, there's a difference between whether one is just giving vent to a preference, or whether this is based on an objective problem. I accept that you think she was just making a fuss on her husband's behalf, but partial deafness doesn't involve white sticks or wheel chairs. Much of the time it is invisible. There are quite a lot of people in the general population who have the sort of difficulties she was describing, particularly once they are past middle age. You may be dismissing her complaints as preciousness, but at least it might make you and others aware of something that is much more prevalent than most young people with good hearing in both ears will have realised.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I think it says quite a lot, in that little anecdote, that it was the wife of the partially deaf man rather than the man himself who would speak up. One wonders whether the disability was more of a big deal to her- as an opportunity to draw attention to herself- than it was to him. I have seen people behave like that.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I think it says quite a lot, in that little anecdote, that it was the wife of the partially deaf man rather than the man himself who would speak up. One wonders whether the disability was more of a big deal to her- as an opportunity to draw attention to herself- than it was to him. I have seen people behave like that.
Sure. But it's also true that often the spouse is more willing to advocate for you than you are yourself. The man may have been prone to just slink off and stop attending, while the wife is the one to speak up and advocate on his behalf. I've seen that dynamic quite often.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Maybe. Perhaps just projecting across from people I've known (and been annoyed by).
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I suppose the specificity or vagueness of their explanation would depend on the extent to which the other disabled person (I'm talking generally) wanted to keep their disability confidential to strangers.
None of us have the right to expect people to take account of our disability if we are equally determined that we shouldn't have to divulge its existence. The argument 'he/she should have known/been able to guess' is passive aggression in spades.


Obviously you have to disclose it someone in order to have it accommodated for, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to know. If you've told the person in charge that, say, you have a mental health problem that means you need certain certain support, then that is confidential. They should not then be saying to everyone else 'Oh, we can't do this because someone's got a mental health problem which makes it difficult for them.' That would go for a workplace, a university setting, and a conference setting.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
It's a hard one isn't it?

Say the reason was that someone was terrified of dogs - who gets the reasonable adjustments, the person who needs the dog for mobility or the person who is afraid of the dog?

Taxi firms have no choice but to take guide dogs, some have refused and got into a lot of trouble.

Here is an example of this.
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I accept that you think she was just making a fuss on her husband's behalf, but partial deafness doesn't involve white sticks or wheel chairs. Much of the time it is invisible. There are quite a lot of people in the general population who have the sort of difficulties she was describing, particularly once they are past middle age. You may be dismissing her complaints as preciousness, but at least it might make you and others aware of something that is much more prevalent than most young people with good hearing in both ears will have realised.
Wait - why do you accept that I 'think she was just making a fuss on her husband's behalf'? I didn't say that, and it's not even what I was thinking, so you shouldn't accept something I haven't said.

I'm very aware of the reality of hearing problems and auditory processing problems, and the impact they have. The disability he had was real. I don't think she was being 'precious'. I think it was important that she speak up for him - but what I am challenging here is that she totally dismissed the difficulties I was having. She was perhaps thinking I was being 'precious' - I don't know. But I think with more understanding, and a willingness to acknowledge and hear others' difficulties, a compromise could have been reached. I was quite young at the time - I just felt I had been silenced by her, that we couldn't possibly ever do it any other way because her husband had hearing problems and that was that.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Sorry, I was told by a member of the clergy that the CoE was exempt from the disabilities act - sorry if that's wrong!

Either way the CoE (and many other churches) is still pretty bad at accessibility provisions.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
We made some expensive alterations to make our church wheelchair accessible, and to incorporate a disabled toilet. I was under the impression we had to, to conform to current legislation. The wheelchair access is through a side door, rather than the main door.

We also removed two side pews (one from either side of the church), to create two wheelchair / pram-friendly spaces. We have occasionally found that that wasn't enough; not at regular services, but at funerals when we have more very elderly / disabled people in the church.
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Say the reason was that someone was terrified of dogs - who gets the reasonable adjustments, the person who needs the dog for mobility or the person who is afraid of the dog?
I don't think it always needs to be so black and white - especially not in a church setting, where hopefully we are motivated by more than just the desire the meet the minimum legal requirements. Compromises can be made, and both parties can be considered and made to feel valued. Some situations may be impossible to resolve, but I'm pretty sure in a lot of situations, some kind of compromise could be made, and both sides could reach a better understanding of each other and more compassion.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I was surprised when visiting London that all tube stations were not accessible. This would not be acceptable here. It's an absolute given that any publicly accessible space is accessible.

Churches are generally retrofitted to be accessible, with any new construction requiring it. I don't think I've heard controversy about it. It it just required. Toilets/washrooms - I cannot recall seeing any within the past 20+ years that were not accessible.

The current debate locally is whether public institutions should provide toilets/washrooms for people who identify as neither male or female.

Re dogs. They are automatically allowed if they are service dogs. They cannot be refused under any circumstances. Our church has a service dog in training coming. It was simply an announcement and is a short paragraph in the bulletin (pew service leaflet). The church went with it without any question whatsoever.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I was surprised when visiting London that all tube stations were not accessible. This would not be acceptable here. It's an absolute given that any publicly accessible space is accessible.
You know how old some of those stations are?

(The answer is 1863, btw.)

[ 28. May 2015, 19:07: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Orginally posted by no prophet's flag has set:
quote:
I was surprised when visiting London that all tube stations were not accessible. This would not be acceptable here. It's an absolute given that any publicly accessible space is accessible.

Churches are generally retrofitted to be accessible, with any new construction requiring it.
As somebody has already posted up-thread, the UK Equalities legislation specifies that organisations providing services to the public must take "reasonable steps" to ensure access. This is interpreted to allow reasonable time for adjustments to be made. The London underground stations are gradually being retrofitted to be accessible and I enjoy watching new "accessibility" symbols appearing on the tube maps. For a lot of the older stations on cramped premises this is quite a challenge - as it is for older churches - but when a station is refurbished or newly constructed it is compulsory.

As far as assistance dogs are concerned, I thought they were allowed anywhere and have been for years. I'm sure I can remember signs reading "No dogs except guide dogs" from my childhood. I'm surprised a church wouldn't accept a person with a guide dog as fully mobile throughout the premises. What did they think the dog was going to do????
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
I wonder if it's just that not everyone knows all the rules and legislation - that even though they are supposed to read it and know it, realistically not everyone does. You start a job and are supposed to read all the policies and procedures, in huge folders, but many people just skim though.

And I guess lack of awareness will happen more often in an environment where the people in authority are not challenged by people who know the legislation. When I was studying recently, I asked if I could go part time because of my disability, and the head of department said no, absolutely not - that no one was permitted to study the course part time. When I had my needs assessment, I was told that I have a legal right to be able to go part time, and the disability coordinator emailed the department to inform them of this, and so they had to let me go part time. But they clearly hadn't known (or had known but were hoping it wouldn't be challenged!) beforehand. It was a similiar story for other things - like asking if I could have lecture notes beforehand. They were very reluctant to do anything to help, but since then, more people with disabiliities have done the course, because now they can go part time, and now the department is hopefully more aware of the legislation and more accommodating.
 
Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on :
 
My very small Episcopal Church has a ramp into our narthex and is currently searching for a way to also make our undercroft accessible, so that everyone can enjoy coffee hour. The cost of any project is always a big issue but we believe this is very important.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Maybe. Perhaps just projecting across from people I've known (and been annoyed by).
I can certainly resonate with that! there are those
[brick wall] folks.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I was surprised when visiting London that all tube stations were not accessible. This would not be acceptable here. It's an absolute given that any publicly accessible space is accessible.
You know how old some of those stations are?

(The answer is 1863, btw.)
It makes no difference here, it simply has to be made accessible. They do a pretty good job mostly of keeping the architecture matching. In many places, it is necessary to build additional entrances, build elevators on the outside of existing structures etc. There is a tax scheme to compensate private businesses re this. I don't mean to start a pond war, but the time frame for these sorts of changes expired in 1988 in my province, so some places are rather behind.

They've also indicated via Human Rights that accessibility being possible is not sufficient. Accessibility must be with dignity, which means it is not okay for the wheelchair person to have to make special arrangements, find a staff person etc. They call the requirement "substantive equality" where mere "technical compliance" isn't enough. The concept of "universal design" applies, meaning all structures must be equally accessible by all.

"Accessibility should not just be a matter of whether or not it is possible for persons with disabilities to perform tasks, but also whether it is possible to perform tasks in a dignified and easy way." Link
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
One of the things poisoning the well here in the North West is that people have had bad experiences with dogs, not trained service dogs, but "therapy dogs", meaning an untrained pet that someone wants to take everywhere because they have a note from a compliant doctor saying they're a special snowflake who needs their pet.
When said pet misbehaves, people don't know the difference.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
One thing that really is making life more accessible to blind people is technology. I have several completely blind friends on facebook. We make sure all photos are described, of course. Speech technology is fabulous now on smart phones and tablets.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
One thing that really is making life more accessible to blind people is technology. I have several completely blind friends on facebook. We make sure all photos are described, of course. Speech technology is fabulous now on smart phones and tablets.
Do you mean you add your own audio descriptions to photos? How do you do this?
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
The London Tube is a hellish place to navigate with a mobility impairment. Only a quarter of stations are step-free, and apparently wheelchairs were actually banned until 1993 for fire safety.

This is only part of the problem. The corridors are narrow, very busy and people move fast - it's difficult to go slower than the crowd. There's also a massive amount of walking. I have a friend with rheumatoid arthritis and she struggles badly down there. A few day's visit is OK but she couldn't work in London any more.

That said, it's hard to see how this can be cured without an astronomical expenditure, and even then, London's so riddled with tunnels, deep foundations, cables etc that there's not necessarily space to improve some sections.

Interesting (and impressive) that Canada is so far head of the UK in terms of access. I've met loads of foreign visitors who felt we were streets ahead of their home countries, so I guess there's a wide spectrum.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It makes no difference here, it simply has to be made accessible.
You would have to essentially close a station at a time and take 5 years reboring all the tunnels. For each and every underground station, except the newest ones on the Jubilee and DLR.

It sucks hard not to have full (or even partial) accessibility, but the Tube does still manage to carry one and a quarter billion people every year.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
When tube stations have additional work done, accessibility (pdf map) is built in. Tottenham Court Road will have lifts when it reopens, Kings Cross St Pancras already does, as do Farringdon, Bank and Earls Court, all of which had work carried out recently. Oxford Circus certainly deserves the exclamation next to the name.

I started paying far more attention when my daughter was in a wheelchair for a time and that continued when I moved The Luggage™ across London regularly getting my daughter to and from university. I certainly wouldn't recommend supporting a wobbly daughter up escalators with one arm and carrying a wheelchair under the other.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
One thing that really is making life more accessible to blind people is technology. I have several completely blind friends on facebook. We make sure all photos are described, of course. Speech technology is fabulous now on smart phones and tablets.
Do you mean you add your own audio descriptions to photos? How do you do this?
No - written descriptions, all text is then converted to speech at the other end.

There are phones for the deaf-blind now too, telebraille (and dogs of course, dual trained. If you see a dog with a white and red chequered harness it is a guide dog plus hearing dog)
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I imagine that if your Facebook friends are anything like mine most of their picture descriptions will be either 'these are my kids' or 'this is my cat'... [Snore]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I imagine that if your Facebook friends are anything like mine most of their picture descriptions will be either 'these are my kids' or 'this is my cat'... [Snore]
DOG - naturally! [Biased]
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
Describing whatever picture you post is pretty standard in disability-oriented groups and pages on FB - all pictures posted are described in detail, including the colours. Often it's a meme with some quote on it, so the person posting will say what the words are, what colour the words are, and what the background picture is.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

I started paying far more attention when my daughter was in a wheelchair for a time and that continued when I moved The Luggage™ across London regularly getting my daughter to and from university. I certainly wouldn't recommend supporting a wobbly daughter up escalators with one arm and carrying a wheelchair under the other.
I often wonder how older people manage on the underground. My parents were not disabled, but easily tired in later years. There seem to be very few places where they could have had a rest between long walks.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I accept that you think she was just making a fuss on her husband's behalf, ...You may be dismissing her complaints as preciousness,
Wait - why do you accept that I 'think she was just making a fuss on her husband's behalf'? I didn't say that, and it's not even what I was thinking.

I'm very aware of the reality of hearing problems and auditory processing problems, and the impact they have. The disability he had was real. .. what I am challenging here is that she totally dismissed the difficulties I was having.
Yes, this is how I read it - she wanted her husband's disability honored but Findline's dismissed.

We've had discussions in the past about conflict of disabilities. Amber used to post about conflicts between adjustments for different disabilities.

The first I ran into conflict between disabilities was back in the 70s when they started cutting curbs into slopes so wheelchair riders could travel the sidewalks. Great! But it confused the guide dogs who had been trained to stop at a curb, signaling to the human a step into traffic. No curb, no stop before entering traffic!

Obviously the dogs have been retrained, but it's just an example of taking care of one person's needs blocking another person with different needs.

A handicapped toilet is usually higher because of people with bad knees or transferring from a wheelchair need height. A friend is a wheelchair rider but she is short, the higher toilets are too high and the lower standard toilet stalls to narrow for her wheelchair. Yet, how many different toilets can a place be required to install?
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

I started paying far more attention when my daughter was in a wheelchair for a time and that continued when I moved The Luggage™ across London regularly getting my daughter to and from university. I certainly wouldn't recommend supporting a wobbly daughter up escalators with one arm and carrying a wheelchair under the other.
I often wonder how older people manage on the underground. My parents were not disabled, but easily tired in later years. There seem to be very few places where they could have had a rest between long walks.
I imagine a lot of people simply avoid it. I've always found the underground difficult, for different reasons, and whenever I've been in London, I've increasingly tried to find ways to avoid the underground - walking, going by bus, etc. Then I moved away to a quieter part of the country so I could avoid London altogether! I think it must be hard for lots of disabilities. I find walking onto a moving thing like an escalator difficult because of visual processing difficulties and poor coordination. Normally, I avoid escalators, or I get onto an escalator very slowly, holding onto the sides tightly, but the underground is so full of people walking fast and pushing past each other that it's hard to do that.

But I agree it's difficult to change the underground system because it's so old, and so it will be a slow process. I noticed when I was living in Canada that buildings and transport were a lot more accessible than in the UK - well, actually, first I simply noticed that I saw a lot more people in wheelchairs than I'd seen in the UK, and then I realised it was because it was easier for people in wheelchairs to access things. And I saw that it was easier in Canada for things to be accessible because everything was so much newer, and there was more space. The streets where wider and straighter, the buildings were newer, bigger and more spacious - everything was more spacious, and more uniform.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Describing whatever picture you post is pretty standard in disability-oriented groups and pages on FB - all pictures posted are described in detail, including the colours.
I see this a lot, but it's usually in some filler photo that's added to an article. The purpose of the photo (it'll be a stock photo of a woman looking sad, or a mother and her children, or a police car of whatever) is to provide visual interest so you're not looking at a wall of text. It doesn't add information.

In those cases, for blind people, I wonder whether having the article interrupted by "a picture of a feminine-presenting person wearing a pink top sitting at a desk using a computer" is in any way helpful.

I don't know - I'm not blind - but I'm skeptical.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
One of the things poisoning the well here in the North West is that people have had bad experiences with dogs, not trained service dogs, but "therapy dogs", meaning an untrained pet that someone wants to take everywhere because they have a note from a compliant doctor saying they're a special snowflake who needs their pet.
When said pet misbehaves, people don't know the difference.
Or you have a serious anxiety disorder or agoraphobia and a dog allows you to leave the house.

Seriously, it's comments like this that help stigma against mental health issues going. Mental illnesses are as real reasons for getting a therapy/assistance animal as blindness or deafness.

FYI most countries require registration and training for therapy animals, the US being behind on this does not negate the helpfulness and often lifesaving help therapy animals provide.

Please educate yourself on the need for therapy animals before making ignorant comments like this.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

In those cases, for blind people, I wonder whether having the article interrupted by "a picture of a feminine-presenting person wearing a pink top sitting at a desk using a computer" is in any way helpful.

I don't know - I'm not blind - but I'm skeptical.
Yes they are - they ask for the descriptions and appreciate them.

I am sending a book of photos of Gypsy's puppyhood for her eventual owner. There is a chance s/he won't be able to see them, but a friend or member of the family will be able to describe them.

This is the pinned header to our Facebook group "For ALL photos please remember that some members cannot see the pictures you post. Therefore don't forget to add a description of all images."
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I see this a lot, but it's usually in some filler photo that's added to an article. The purpose of the photo (it'll be a stock photo of a woman looking sad, or a mother and her children, or a police car of whatever) is to provide visual interest so you're not looking at a wall of text. It doesn't add information.
True. However, if you don't caption it, the blind person is left uncertain about what they missed and if it was important. The website becomes that bit less user-friendly for them.

Similarly, a photo on Facebook saying "Me with the kids in the kitchen" might not mean a lot to someone who can't see it, but they are then more part of the conversation.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

I am sending a book of photos of Gypsy's puppyhood for her eventual owner. There is a chance s/he won't be able to see them, but a friend or member of the family will be able to describe them.
But in this case, the photos of the dog are the content. Your intent is to document her life as a puppy. If you had written a journal about her puppyhood and illustrated it with a load of dog-related clipart, would you expect the friend or family member doing the reading to describe the clipart? Would you also expect them so say "the heading is set in 20 point Garamond in dark blue"?

Unless it was a particularly beautiful layout that you were describing because it was particularly good, I don't think you would. Not every detail of the visual layout is important, or information, and doesn't necessarily translate to an audible presentation.

So I think you'd want to distinguish between images that are really part of the content and images that are mostly filler.

ETA: Clearly, if you are reading something to a blind person, he or she can ask you questions about the "unimportant stuff". That is where I would expect web screenreaders and the like to aim towards - presenting only the important stuff by default, but being able to present everything on request.

[ 29. May 2015, 16:10: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0