Controversial new handicapped symbol proposed

K_Z

Verified Anesthetist
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,496
A new handicapped symbol has been proposed. It shows a stick figure in side profile, leaning forward, with arms raised as if propelling a manual wheelchair forward at a fast pace.

What do you think? Is the new symbol a more positive image for disabled people? Is it confusing, suggesting only wheelchair patrons might use such a parking place or entrance? Is it a waste of money to replace old signs? Would it be confusing to visitors from outside of the U.S.?

Images of the old and new symbols in these links.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pe...ort-but-problems-remain/ar-AAfvZw4?li=AAa0dzB

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/handicapped-symbol-getting-a-makeover/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ol-gets-an-update-at-least-in-new-york-state/

http://accessibleicon.org/about/

I am especially concerned that this "movement" began by activists DEFACING handicapped signs to "make their point." That should not be encouraged at any level of official policy, IMO.
 
OMG I am sorry but give me a *advertiser censored**** break.
Waste of money for one thing. It's not different enough to warrant a change in the name of "political correctness". The old sign is a SYMBOL. It's not an indication of anyone and everyone who is considered handicapped and what their personal abilities are. It's not making a statement other than indicating services for those who require them for ANY reason. If people want to make a statement about personal abilities in relations to the well known symbol, keep it to the "street art" this started out with. I am so sick of everyone getting offended by every single thing in our society.
 
Well, I have to admit when I first saw the new proposed symbol, I thought it had something to do with wheelchair sports or basketball, or wheelchair athletes. It was confusing to me, and I'm a health care professional!

I think the "reserved parking" with only the symbol is especially confusing for the public. The dominant signs now instruct the public that a special placard or plate is required, and that there is a fine for parking there if you don't meet criteria. I think the "reserved parking" potentially implies (discriminates) that ONLY wheelchair patrons may park there. Excluding people with conditions like severe cardiac disease, severe lung disease, neuromuscular disorders, cancer, etc. That's my concern. And, of course, the vast amount of money to produce and replace existing signs. Even if the replacement is only confined to NEW signs, it's a huge expense, for no apparent gain, IMO.

Seems to me like a "solution in search of a problem". Another project aimed at showing how "politically correct " we can be, and creating statutes that will penalize, faux-shame, and generate $$ thru sales of new signs and fines for enforcement. No one is helped by this, IMO. And certain groups of the disabled are discriminated against by it, IMO.
 
I also think it's interesting that the comments section of some of the articles includes a lively debate over just "who" may use handicapped bathroom stalls!
 
While I understand the logic, I can't see how this image does anything to change the impression most people have about the handicapped/whatever term is best. Mind you, I would defer to whatever those affected think. This image, to me, doesn't convey ability, necessarily. It almost looks like someone stepping out of a manhole or hole in the space-time continuum.
 
I'm also bothered that the primary impetus behind these efforts is from the "able disabled", the image of which is described by activists as the person independently navigating their way thru the world, making decisions about their life, forward thinking and forward moving. That's all well and good, but there is a very significant swath of the disabled population that isn't able to do all that, for reasons of physical and cognitive disability. They are truly fragile, and need our respect, compassion (not pity), and accommodation, as a society. I almost feel like this is offensive (mocking) to those people and their caregivers and families. This new image marginalized them, in favor of a view of highly "able" disabled, IMO.

I don't think a new advisory symbol is going to change anyone's ideas about the disabled.

It's like saying we have to get rid of the stick figure with a skirt signs that symbolize which restroom is a women's restroom, because some activist might be offended that not all women wear skirts all the time! And yes, I know there is a movement to get rid of those signs, too. My high schooler's school has three options: pink square, green square, blue square. (The new students and foreign exchange students have a hard time finding the restroom and deciding which one to use!)

It's a directional, advisory symbol. I don't think there is any advantage to changing it.
 
Bad idea, for so many reasons. 1. It's never a good idea to change something that works just fine. 2. It's just a pictogram. It's not supposed to be a logo to make handicapped people feel good. It's just designed to be a universally recognized symbol that will be recognized by everyone. 3. The old pictogram is already the most recognized symbol in the world. Now instead of having one symbol that is pretty much 100% universally recognized worldwide, we will have two competing symbols, that not everyone might recognize. 4. The new symbol is just bad. It's hard to even tell what it's supposed to represent.
 
He doesn't look parked. Is it a he? He almost looks like he is on the toilet. jmo
 
The new symbol reminds me of a stroke patient with left side neglect that I've known, who was quite fast wheeling his new wheelchair, straight into the door frames and furniture and unaware people on the left. For him, the ability to be fast of the wheelchair was almost an additional disability.
 
I'm also bothered that the primary impetus behind these efforts is from the "able disabled", the image of which is described by activists as the person independently navigating their way thru the world, making decisions about their life, forward thinking and forward moving. That's all well and good, but there is a very significant swath of the disabled population that isn't able to do all that, for reasons of physical and cognitive disability. They are truly fragile, and need our respect, compassion (not pity), and accommodation, as a society. I almost feel like this is offensive (mocking) to those people and their caregivers and families. This new image marginalized them, in favor of a view of highly "able" disabled, IMO.

I don't think a new advisory symbol is going to change anyone's ideas about the disabled.

It's like saying we have to get rid of the stick figure with a skirt signs that symbolize which restroom is a women's restroom, because some activist might be offended that not all women wear skirts all the time! And yes, I know there is a movement to get rid of those signs, too. My high schooler's school has three options: pink square, green square, blue square. (The new students and foreign exchange students have a hard time finding the restroom and deciding which one to use!)

It's a directional, advisory symbol. I don't think there is any advantage to changing it.

Someone that I know was accosted by security in a restroom just yesterday and asked to show ID to show that they were in the proper restroom for their gender. As it happens, he was. Fortunately the guard did not require a crotch check.
 
I'm also bothered that the primary impetus behind these efforts is from the "able disabled", the image of which is described by activists as the person independently navigating their way thru the world, making decisions about their life, forward thinking and forward moving. That's all well and good, but there is a very significant swath of the disabled population that isn't able to do all that, for reasons of physical and cognitive disability. They are truly fragile, and need our respect, compassion (not pity), and accommodation, as a society. I almost feel like this is offensive (mocking) to those people and their caregivers and families. This new image marginalized them, in favor of a view of highly "able" disabled, IMO.

I don't think a new advisory symbol is going to change anyone's ideas about the disabled.

It's like saying we have to get rid of the stick figure with a skirt signs that symbolize which restroom is a women's restroom, because some activist might be offended that not all women wear skirts all the time! And yes, I know there is a movement to get rid of those signs, too. My high schooler's school has three options: pink square, green square, blue square. (The new students and foreign exchange students have a hard time finding the restroom and deciding which one to use!)

It's a directional, advisory symbol. I don't think there is any advantage to changing it.

I feel dumb asking, but is the green square for disabled? I have never heard of colors being used. It took me days to realize in Europe that WC was for toilets.
 
I also think it's interesting that the comments section of some of the articles includes a lively debate over just "who" may use handicapped bathroom stalls!

Huh? So some believe only the handicapped can use those stalls???

That is ridiculous! Small restrooms often only have TWO stalls to begin with, with one being handicapped.
 
I feel dumb asking, but is the green square for disabled? I have never heard of colors being used. It took me days to realize in Europe that WC was for toilets.

And isn't 'pink' and 'blue' kind of a sexist way to symbolize the genders? My daughter HATED pink.
 
Well, my 2 cents, looks like the guy has the runs and needs to roll into the john real fast....so move out of the way..
 
Will all the handicapped signs be required to change to the new one?
These are not cheap signs or cheap to replace.
 
Will all the handicapped signs be required to change to the new one?
These are not cheap signs or cheap to replace.

One such redesign, at the Museum of Modern Art, caught artist Sara Hendren’s eye several years ago. She blogged about it then and began thinking up alternatives to the classic symbol, eventually joining forces with Brian Glenney. The two made stickers as part of a guerrilla art project and began placing them on signs around Boston.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ol-gets-an-update-at-least-in-new-york-state/

Looks like it started out as graffiti in boston, it should have stayed and ended there. Hope it stays in NYC, but keep the picante rolling out. jmo
 
If it becomes a requirement then I will wait until I get a ticket or something, to replace mine!
The signs are over 150 dollars each, plus the price to install, we have four of them which is also a requirement.
 
Huh? So some believe only the handicapped can use those stalls???

That is ridiculous! Small restrooms often only have TWO stalls to begin with, with one being handicapped.

It would also be a waste of perfectly good stall since most of the time handicapped person wouldn't be using it.
 
OMG I am sorry but give me a *advertiser censored**** break.
Waste of money for one thing. It's not different enough to warrant a change in the name of "political correctness". The old sign is a SYMBOL. It's not an indication of anyone and everyone who is considered handicapped and what their personal abilities are. It's not making a statement other than indicating services for those who require them for ANY reason. If people want to make a statement about personal abilities in relations to the well known symbol, keep it to the "street art" this started out with. I am so sick of everyone getting offended by every single thing in our society.

Exactly. Instead of spending money on changing signs for pc reasons, how about spending money to actually help the disabled? I am sure there could be better ways to spend this money.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
2,531
Total visitors
2,665

Forum statistics

Threads
590,021
Messages
17,929,093
Members
228,039
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top