![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jul. 11th, 2018 12:14 am
New and improved access barriers
There are lots of reasons that disabled people continue to encounter barriers to access, even though the ADA was passed over 25 years ago and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act dates from 1973. There are some, not many, but some legitimately historic buildings. There are buildings that have not been renovated since 1990 and can not be made accessible by readily achievable methods. There are small stores with one step to enter and no place to put a ramp without blocking the sidewalk. There are legitimate conflicting access needs, such as a coworker who needs a service dog and one with a severe dog allergy. NFB experiments non-withstanding, there really isn’t yet technology to make a car drivable by a blind person.
These true barriers are of course outstripped by attitudinal barriers. The inaccessible entrance is unlocked but the accessible door, around the back, is only unlocked by a request to security. The elevator is being used as a storage space. The clothing racks are too close together and it would be “readily achievable” to create space for customers to move, but the space is not created. Here’s one I encountered a few weeks ago at a Starbucks. The counter was accessible. Seating was a step down. There was a door to the outside to the seating area. However, staff would not open that door for me. Here’s one I encountered a few years ago at an apartment building. The main entrance had three steps to the elevator. There is an accessible entrance to the building through the garage. However, only tenants with cars would be given access to the garage. Job postings for professors list “walking” as an essential function, as though a person can’t teach Spanish or economics from a seated position. I recently spoke with a librarian who has difficulty standing. She was offered a job in an academic library but they would not provide her with a chair when she taught classes, or at least, not without substantial documentation from a physician about her need. It’s still really really bad out there.
But what gets me the angriest, in some ways, is the creation of new barriers.
Here’s a few personal examples. I have difficulty with touchscreen technology. I never used to have difficulty paying with a debit card, picking up a prescription or voting. These now require touch screens, or require me to beg staff to help me operate a touch screen. Some staff are told they are not permitted to sign for someone as an accommodation. They have not been trained in what to do if a customer cannot use the touch screen independently. I suppose I am supposed to bring someone with me to the pharmacy to pick up my prescriptions for me. I used to step up to the counter at the airport and be checked in. I now have to convince the staff that I cannot use the self-serve kiosk and that I will not gain the ability to use it if they “show me.” I went to the CVS minute clinic and had to find a pharmacy staff member to sign me in, as the NP did not know a patient had arrived without the touch screen system. Now, there were not really touch screens in 1990. I know, because I was there. So every touch screen system that does not have an alternative is in violation of the ADA. (A push button system may be an alternative for some people. A voice system may be for others. A sign stating that staff will assist customers as needed, and staff trained to assist, would be a third.)
There are other reasons I stopped driving, but one factor is the decreased availability of cars I could shift out of park. I could shift many of the older cars. Then they improved the system by requiring the driver to push a button and keep it pushed in while moving the lever. I finally had to get an adaptive device to press the button for me. This worked for my car, but I couldn’t rent a car. There was no way to request a specific model of rental car that I knew I could shift.
Right now, I can use my insulin pump and glucose sensor. More and more of the systems are moving to touch screens. I keep a syringe as backup. I can use a syringe. I cannot use an insulin pen, which are more widely available and considered the newer and better option.
No one purposefully made these systems inaccessible, but no one seemed to have considered that their new design may create access barriers for people with disabilities.
So I don’t have a personal horse in the straw race, but I have a lot of empathy for those who do. Recently, the city of Vancouver voted to outlaw use of bendable plastic straws within city limits. Starbucks is going to discontinue use of single use plastic straws. Other cities and restaurants are soon to follow. The idea is that plastic waste is hurting sea wildlife. Even though I am given to understand that plastic straws are a very small component of the plastic waste that enters the oceans, straws have become a major target for environmentalists.
There are disabled people who cannot really drink liquids without a straw. And in particular, a bendable straw. I just learned the bendy straw was created as an accessible tool so people could drink from different positions. Now, there are other straws out there. For example, Starbucks is offering a paper straw for customers on request. And this will work for some people. But some disabled people drink so slowly a paper straw would disintegrate, or are at risk of chewing on and choking on straw parts. They also don’t position as well. Pasta has been proposed, which may work for some people. Others may be allergic to the ingredients, and again, they don’t bend. There are metal and glass straws, which need to be cleaned and can cause mouth damage. They also don’t handle hot beverages or soups well. And who is supposed to clean these reusable straws? The restaurant? The disabled person themselves or their caregivers?
So disabled people write out against the straw ban. They suggest that straws could be opt-in, offered but not automatically provided, or available on request. And they get met with the above suggestions. The assumption is that the restaurant will of course keep bendy straws on hand for disabled people and won’t gatekeep who needs them, just like pharmacists never gatekeep who needs what prescriptions and no one harasses walking people who use accessible parking or bathroom facilities. Or they suggest disabled people bring their own straws, because it’s not like we don’t carry enough stuff around with us. And that we all have dishwashers and caregivers. One commenter suggested anyone who can’t wash a straw should have nursing provided. I mean, people can’t get sufficient nursing hours to help with ventilators. Someone suggests straws be made available by prescription or that doctors issue a straw license.
Because disabled people can’t decide for themselves what they need to drink, and doctors don’t have enough to do without filling out forms certifying that patients deserve access to straws. Oh, and anything certified as a medical device almost invariably becomes more expensive and harder to find. I can very easily see a dystopian future when bendy straws are only available through mail order medical supply companies which require an updated doctor order every six months. That’s the reality for my diabetes supplies already. And my insurance company chooses the specific supply company. And I can’t order them online.
No one enacting the straw bans likely set out to make life more difficult for disabled people. But they haven’t exactly stepped forward to ensure disabled people can continue to access liquids in restaurants that sell them.
We’re used to lack of access and having to plan every meal, every drink, and bring all sorts of supplies and equipment with us, and dealing with gatekeepers. But what’s galling here is the creation of a new barrier that did not exist before. The ADA mandates removal of barriers that are readily achievable and provision of reasonable accommodations that do not create a fundamental alteration of the services provided by an establishment. They’ve had to do this since 1990. How are cities and shops getting away with adding new ones in 2018?
These true barriers are of course outstripped by attitudinal barriers. The inaccessible entrance is unlocked but the accessible door, around the back, is only unlocked by a request to security. The elevator is being used as a storage space. The clothing racks are too close together and it would be “readily achievable” to create space for customers to move, but the space is not created. Here’s one I encountered a few weeks ago at a Starbucks. The counter was accessible. Seating was a step down. There was a door to the outside to the seating area. However, staff would not open that door for me. Here’s one I encountered a few years ago at an apartment building. The main entrance had three steps to the elevator. There is an accessible entrance to the building through the garage. However, only tenants with cars would be given access to the garage. Job postings for professors list “walking” as an essential function, as though a person can’t teach Spanish or economics from a seated position. I recently spoke with a librarian who has difficulty standing. She was offered a job in an academic library but they would not provide her with a chair when she taught classes, or at least, not without substantial documentation from a physician about her need. It’s still really really bad out there.
But what gets me the angriest, in some ways, is the creation of new barriers.
Here’s a few personal examples. I have difficulty with touchscreen technology. I never used to have difficulty paying with a debit card, picking up a prescription or voting. These now require touch screens, or require me to beg staff to help me operate a touch screen. Some staff are told they are not permitted to sign for someone as an accommodation. They have not been trained in what to do if a customer cannot use the touch screen independently. I suppose I am supposed to bring someone with me to the pharmacy to pick up my prescriptions for me. I used to step up to the counter at the airport and be checked in. I now have to convince the staff that I cannot use the self-serve kiosk and that I will not gain the ability to use it if they “show me.” I went to the CVS minute clinic and had to find a pharmacy staff member to sign me in, as the NP did not know a patient had arrived without the touch screen system. Now, there were not really touch screens in 1990. I know, because I was there. So every touch screen system that does not have an alternative is in violation of the ADA. (A push button system may be an alternative for some people. A voice system may be for others. A sign stating that staff will assist customers as needed, and staff trained to assist, would be a third.)
There are other reasons I stopped driving, but one factor is the decreased availability of cars I could shift out of park. I could shift many of the older cars. Then they improved the system by requiring the driver to push a button and keep it pushed in while moving the lever. I finally had to get an adaptive device to press the button for me. This worked for my car, but I couldn’t rent a car. There was no way to request a specific model of rental car that I knew I could shift.
Right now, I can use my insulin pump and glucose sensor. More and more of the systems are moving to touch screens. I keep a syringe as backup. I can use a syringe. I cannot use an insulin pen, which are more widely available and considered the newer and better option.
No one purposefully made these systems inaccessible, but no one seemed to have considered that their new design may create access barriers for people with disabilities.
So I don’t have a personal horse in the straw race, but I have a lot of empathy for those who do. Recently, the city of Vancouver voted to outlaw use of bendable plastic straws within city limits. Starbucks is going to discontinue use of single use plastic straws. Other cities and restaurants are soon to follow. The idea is that plastic waste is hurting sea wildlife. Even though I am given to understand that plastic straws are a very small component of the plastic waste that enters the oceans, straws have become a major target for environmentalists.
There are disabled people who cannot really drink liquids without a straw. And in particular, a bendable straw. I just learned the bendy straw was created as an accessible tool so people could drink from different positions. Now, there are other straws out there. For example, Starbucks is offering a paper straw for customers on request. And this will work for some people. But some disabled people drink so slowly a paper straw would disintegrate, or are at risk of chewing on and choking on straw parts. They also don’t position as well. Pasta has been proposed, which may work for some people. Others may be allergic to the ingredients, and again, they don’t bend. There are metal and glass straws, which need to be cleaned and can cause mouth damage. They also don’t handle hot beverages or soups well. And who is supposed to clean these reusable straws? The restaurant? The disabled person themselves or their caregivers?
So disabled people write out against the straw ban. They suggest that straws could be opt-in, offered but not automatically provided, or available on request. And they get met with the above suggestions. The assumption is that the restaurant will of course keep bendy straws on hand for disabled people and won’t gatekeep who needs them, just like pharmacists never gatekeep who needs what prescriptions and no one harasses walking people who use accessible parking or bathroom facilities. Or they suggest disabled people bring their own straws, because it’s not like we don’t carry enough stuff around with us. And that we all have dishwashers and caregivers. One commenter suggested anyone who can’t wash a straw should have nursing provided. I mean, people can’t get sufficient nursing hours to help with ventilators. Someone suggests straws be made available by prescription or that doctors issue a straw license.
Because disabled people can’t decide for themselves what they need to drink, and doctors don’t have enough to do without filling out forms certifying that patients deserve access to straws. Oh, and anything certified as a medical device almost invariably becomes more expensive and harder to find. I can very easily see a dystopian future when bendy straws are only available through mail order medical supply companies which require an updated doctor order every six months. That’s the reality for my diabetes supplies already. And my insurance company chooses the specific supply company. And I can’t order them online.
No one enacting the straw bans likely set out to make life more difficult for disabled people. But they haven’t exactly stepped forward to ensure disabled people can continue to access liquids in restaurants that sell them.
We’re used to lack of access and having to plan every meal, every drink, and bring all sorts of supplies and equipment with us, and dealing with gatekeepers. But what’s galling here is the creation of a new barrier that did not exist before. The ADA mandates removal of barriers that are readily achievable and provision of reasonable accommodations that do not create a fundamental alteration of the services provided by an establishment. They’ve had to do this since 1990. How are cities and shops getting away with adding new ones in 2018?