'Access' needs to mean more than just wheelchair access

[donkeyderby]

As I am sure some of you know, when you have a child with severe learning disabilities, or severe autism, so many activities and places can be inaccessible, despite the presence of ramps, disabled loos and hearing loops etc.

I am struck by the difficulties my friends and fellow parent-carers have keeping their severely autistic children safe anywhere. We have recently been on a holiday in a centre especially adapted for disabled people. For wheelchair users, it was great - more hoists than you could shake a stick at - but it was a nightmare for some of the parents whose children are runners with no sense of danger - exits everywhere, straight onto a road and no way of locking the doors from the inside, unsafe light fittings, kitchens with no gates, no stair gates anywhere. I really felt for them because they couldn't relax for a single minute.

It's the same with parks, most holiday homes/caravan parks, leisure centres, cinemas and almost anywhere really, unless it is specifically designed for severely autistic people (where are these places?) or they have constant 1:1's round the clock. Why, for instance, are there more and more wheelchair accessible caravans, but apparently no fences allowed round caravans in most parks?

I would like the concept of 'access' to be officially extended to include this group of children and adults and for every area to have a centre that is truly accessible for them, i.e., completely safe with key pads on the doors, safe fittings, strong furniture etc.

Do the NAS do any work on this? Does anyone know of organisations who work on autism-friendly designs/features in buildings?

(donkeyderby hopefully you will come back to thread, I have been meaning to mention to you, at the club our dc's go to, I have picked dd up early an the door is always unlocked, so I can just walk in........is that bad?)

anber you continue to ask "why should it be wheelchair users" that is why I got the idea that this is not a thread(now) about access for all.

But clarissimo's axample isn't about £££ as Amber is saying (w/chair adaptations taking up all of the budget) as window locks are pennies & attitudes, understanding & educations would of helped with her ds3.
Not installing lifts in buildings would not make any difference in thses cases.

Surely we should be EXPECTING all areas accessible to ALL.

DS1 couldn't go to a club where the door was unlocked. It's why there is only one playscheme (of 6 places a day) that he can access - the only one with locked doors and high fencing.

I'm not sure you can expect access for all. I would never expect free access all the time for ds1- it's just not practical. I do want him to have some services he can access though. Before his playscheme was introduced there was nothing that he could access- no playschemes at all - I don't want him to necessarily access mainstream events all the time - I just want him to have some events he can access.

Do take the cinema- no he'll never manage a regular show. But special events he could manage. They don't need to be every day but a regular occurrence would be good and would mean that he isn't excluded in the way he is now.

I wish there was a bit more swimming available to him - but I don't mind that he can't go on a Sunday afternoon because there's special session he can go to on a Sunday morning.

I truly ebieve we should aim high & expect all to be accessible to all - the reality hopefully will be somewhere in between

What doesn't sit comfortably is discussing trading accessibilty for one type of disablity at the expense of another - I just cannot see how anyone benefits wether in practical terms or in terms of education & attitude.
AIt just doesn't feel right somehow - why withdraw something that benefits one group of people just because there isn't access for another group.

It's not possible though is is. Ds1 needs locked doors and high fences- I don't want that for ds2 and ds3.

And if I take ds1 to a restaurant I can't keep him out of the kitchen/microwave etc- but restaurants can't easily operate kitchens without a freely swinging door!

I don't think anyone is suggesting trading access - just highlighting that disability access means more than a wheelchair ramps etc and that access policies need to be thought through more.

I;m not sure what the answer is for Katymac's case, but it does seem unfortunate that a building that could be used for all members of the local community - even if not fully accessible to every corner for everyone- will be left to rot because it happens to have an upstairs. It may be that no-one with a wheelchair would have even wanted to use it before the money was raised for a lift. Maybe there needs to be access grants to help small businesses with the costs of disability access?

see that is it st turnip, she was talking about a business, where she would make money,so surley employ people, so if they can't access all the building, no one in a WC could be emplyed..
(my message to DD about youth scheme was more a should we say something one, as of course dd can't escape)

You are right & there are times when I just accept that ds2 cannot do all of the things that ds1 can do & if you restrict things so much it becomes impossible for all - thats just life.
Grants to help small businesses more accessible is exactly the sort of thing that would help but I got the impression from Ambers posts(please correct me if I am wrong Amber) that she was arguing against that sort of thing because too much is already spent on access for people with mobility impairments.
Its that kind of thing that I just can't get my head around.

Its like anything isn't it, you have to walk a day in someone elses shoes to can be & I suppose the grass always seems greener etc etc

sorry that last sentence was utter gibberish, missed out "understand how hard it"
Thinking quicker than I can type

well no-one at all has been employed instead 2shoes- like KM I struggle to see the sense in that and think there must be some sort of compromise available. She said the nursery would have been downstairs so it would have been accessible.

I can think of nursery after nursery with upstairs and no lifts (and schools too). The one the boys went to had steps up to the front door. It seems a little over zealous maybe to be so restrictive?

I can't see that a decaying building with no access for anyone at all benefits anyone.

IME attitudes make more difference to accessibility than ramps- and KM sounds as if she had exactly the sort of attitude needed to make somewhere accessible. Far more use than a lift and a dodgy attitude. Usually something workable can be found.

I would never take ds1 to a stage show for a example because he would ruin it for everyone. But if he was very into musicals I might approach the theatre, explain the situation and ask whether he could attend the dress rehearsal or something like that. I would expect an accessible organisation to consider it- and the accessibility would depend enormously on the attitude of the people running the theatre.

Nope, I'm not arguing that too much is spent on access for mobility. I'd just like the equivalent amount spent on the other equivalent disabilities. Trouble is, if there's only (say) £50k to go round, something has to give way.

As I say, there aren't any easy answers.

Wheelchair users who are employees don't have a statutory right to access every room in every building, no. As long as they can do their job in a safe way that respects their dignity and needs, then that is deemed to be OK. So, for example, my wheelchair-using friends have offices where one floor is adapted for them, which contains all they need for themselves and their work, and they can decree that people visit them rather than them have to go to visit the other people.

In a nursery, a workers who is a wheelchair user could ask that the ground floor be made fully accessible with the right loo and a small meeting room that offers privacy, and any activities involving his or her group of children could be organised around that space. If the building caught fire, then the knack would be to find alternative accessible accommodation using the insurer's monies, since the insurers would have to build in a clause saying they'd pay for equivalent access somewhere else for a while.

It doesn't have to mean that the wheelchair user is not able to work if they can't access every room or every floor.

Me and supermarkets...that's an essay in itself. OK, from first principles - I can't navigate traffic on foot safely because of the noise/fumes/feel of the tarmac under my feet etc. Can in a car, can't on foot. Weird but true. And I'm not allowed to park in the disability spaces as I'm not mobility-impaired enough. So I have to risk my life getting to the shop if I go alone.

Then I have to get past the doors that have a high pitched whining self-opening mechanism and a carpet pattern that stops my brain working and makes me feel sick.

Then I have to walk down the hallway with flickering overhead lighting that likewise cuts across my eyesight, whilst being jostled by the crowds, which hurts like hell thanks to skin sensitivity issues.

Then I have to go into the avalanche of smells (designed to tempt people to buy) and sights (likewise) and announcements and noise and chaos and they've moved lots of things (to keep people moving and interested, except it panics me totally), all whilst not colliding with people.

I end up not buying things because I can't talk at that point and can't get into aisles with overhead flickering lighting and can't figure out how to solve any of that because my brain just panics.

At the checkout, I have to try to handle conversation, unpacking, more conversation, flickering lights, beeping tills, opening bags (or having a conversation with a bag packer and them packing things in ways I can't handle due to OCD issues around food) and I drop the change everywhere and forget my PIN and act in a 'suspicious way' thanks to the body language issues that means I get tailed by security guards or stopped for Shopping Whilst Autistic

Then I've got to get me, my trolley, the shopping back across traffic without actually getting killed by a passing car or lorry

I can end up in tears in a corner, or 'shut down' completely and unable to fend for myself at all. It's so embarrassing, and then I have to go home and find I can't cook what I need because I've forgotten things in the panic or couldn't buy some things because of the access problems.

But it's all invisible disability. Staff in the shops are generally nice, but it'd be so much more dignified if they'd designed it to make it accessible for me, or had any autism training.

No wonder small children with autism sometimes fight as if their lives depend on it when taken into a supermarket. It's a bit like entering the front lines of World War 1.

Thinking about it maybe disability access is about common sense. So rather than thinking that a ramp means you've dealt with disability (after all if you're met by a door with high handles at the end of your ramp and a high bell you still won't have access) perhaps it should be about considering users needs.

Every individual with a disability has a different set of needs. Sometimes the needs of one person may be in conflict with the needs of another.

So rather than insisting that every inch of a building can be accessed by a wheelchair user maybe the onus should be on service providers to listen to the needs of people who want to use the building. Is it sensible for example to insist that a new small business installs a lift when that lift might only need to be used once in 5 years (and there may well be an alternative way to get someone upstairs in a wheelchair for that one occasion, or the activity could take place in different downstairs room for that time).

Legislating for a decent attitude towards disability access would be difficult but it might be more practical- and actually provide better access for a wider group of people - including wheelchair users.

Ds1 used to be like that in supermarkets. Now he loves them and finds all the hidden cupboards and blasted burglar alarm keypads- which he tries to set off. He is just feral though which is why he has so many access problems.

SDMT, yup. Also, each wheelchair user have very different access requirements to other wheelchair users. When I co-ran an arts weekend for disabled people last month, we had five different wheelchair users to cater for in a residential course in a Listed building, which took months of very careful planning and thought. We also had people with a huge range of other equal disabilities to plan for and fully include, which also took a lot of careful planning and thought.

Each of the wheelchair users had different requirements for different kit and different assistance. A standard checklist of 'how to make it accessible for a wheelchair user' wouldn't have come close to helping more than two of them, leaving the other three stranded.

Did it work? Oh yes . We had a brilliant time together and everyone was able to do arts and crafts even if they could only move their head. That was access at its best, even in a building that fought us all the way. It didn't cost a fortune, and everyone got equal fun, but each of us had to compromise a bit. No-one got cross or upset by any of it because we all saw that we were all working together to do our best for each other and to all have a good time.

The attitude counts for a lot.
I'd rather have a building that's 75% accessible (and safely respectful) and the people will help if needed, than one which is 100% accessible and I'm left alone to fend for myself with no help because people in it don't give a fig.

So access can be about attitude and willingness as well as facilities.

Hmm, I'm rambling. Do ignore me

I agree amberlight.

I think roughly speaking, physical modification of a building should reflect the needs of a physically disabled person - for autism/LDs it is more about changing attitudes. Also given that autism/LDs is such a broad category, consensus is unlikely. I am still not convinced that I want to take DS1 to an autism screening at the cinema. I know many asd children who don't need them and many non asd children who do. I'm still holding out for helping him to cope in a non asd cinema ( I don't know if I am being realistic or not though ! ) It might be just me but I really don't want 'autism town' where everything has been changed to fit with some arbitrary idea of what my DS might or might not want. I do like meeting nice people though who help us to fit in.

Dunno - about two thirds of the problems I have relate to my need for predictability and signage and advance information I can read or the sensory stuff that really is a physical access problem, or the car parking so I don't end up injured or dead. Attitudes are great, but they're not enough of an answer without the other things, I find.

Ds1 will never be able to access a normal screening though.

I don't think it should be autism town- but maybe opportunities for learning disabilities/autism via special sessions. If something's there then you can choose not to attend. if it's not there there's no choice at all.

Yes I think that's what I meant really and I do think special screenings are a great idea - maybe it's channelling it all as autism specific that is the problem - it might be better just to use some other form of words. I know two mothers locally with children with GDD who feel that autism gets more attention at least as an issue than other developmental disorders.

The difference for ds2 in accessing services & leisure stuff is that much of it he finds stressfull & upsetting much of making things accessible for him would be about patience & understanding. No amount of planning is ever going to change that.
If however we found something that he could enjoy it would be good if it were physically accessible - just a standard lift to upstairs would do.

Amber your insights in to the supermarket are very useful, I can see alot of ds2 in there, but much of what he struggles with, the social interaction, the sensory overload is not possible to remove, the nature of the activity dictates those things rather than the environment IYKWIM.

If the law, on employers responsibilities only make minimal provision for building to be accessible then a disabled potential employee is at a disadvantage. Employers generally want their employess to be versatile & dynamic in order to get the best business use of their skills.
Restricting a person to certain accessible parts of the building would limit their use, also it would limit their chances of progression & possibly promotion & why shouldn't a w/chair user be able to access the same areas as his/her collegues if the staff rest room is upstairs it means they miss that social interaction - even the basics like the jokes on the staff noticeboard!

There are lots that ds2 will never be able to do or never wnat to do, or enjoy doing BUT where there is the desire services should be accessible.
Yes, some access is better than no access but we should constantly demand more only then can equality truly mean equality.

Yep i'd agree

what we need is cpnsideration- I can accept what we cannot do but alternatives are nice please.

small adaptations that kids with LD and non physical Sn ofetn needs (ep. at milder end) are often desirable when there are smaller kids anyway- window locks again- so not just benefitting a % of the population

access should be part of a wider think about participation. A lady at uni coudln't access the lift as she had a special chair that was too big. So they moved the class downstairs. Solved.

An access limitation that emans someone could not be employed putely becuase of their disability when suited in all other ways is wrong if at all solvable (and quite probably wrong but immovable if not) but many things can be solved with lateral thinking, and quite often things don't need solving- such as MrsT's son accessing ms cinema or ds3 accessing swimming

in which case alternatives are nice please

oh cyber- I agree about the autism thing - I prefer to talk about it as being accessible for those with learning disabilities. Partly because I think it's a wider group and party (selfishly) because ds1 cannot access many of the specialist autism schemes but can usually access the learning disabled ones.

Any employer who is using a disability to limit someone's progression would be discriminating and liable to an award of up to £500,000 at present (possibly double that from next year).

One building that comes to mind has an accessible floor in which all the staff noticeboards etc are on that floor and people socialise and communicate and meet and greet on that floor. The other floor is a load of filing and utility space that hasn't a bit of use for career progression or employment prospects or social inclusion.

They don't seek to stop people accessing the things they need, and those things extend to the social and career options too. But they don't have to get everyone into every inch of the building. They just need to plan it sensibly. Such things can be done, with enough thought.

The £200k it would have cost to get a wheelchair user to the top floor for no apparent reason can then be spent on things that benefit the other disabled staff too.

Not unreasonable.

No Amber you are right, in the case you quote it seems a sensible use of money.. Unless of course the peson ever wants to apply for a job as filing clerk

I'm nosy & curious but i know i would be thinking, whats at the top of those stairs?

in truth I don't quite like the move towards the ld explanation as I find its another reason to say no to ds3: but thats bigoted prats who can't see beyond the IQ= model and accept that there are other types of ld such as kids like ds3 who have very narrow understanding of motivation / safety / etc combined with absences even if they could whack out an iq test (not that ds3 e4ver did- ed psych just assumed)

I completely accept it makes sense as a term though for people with very severe kids: I guess experience has scared me off an ever widening definition of able - to - copethat only supports help for those with very severe needs and whilst we tend not to get that on MN I do in RL a lot