Controversial new handicapped symbol proposed

[al66pine]

More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Symbol_of_Access Plus many links there too.

IDK why, but this http://accessibleicon.org/ and link w 'about' in OP did not work for me.

 

[CarmelEyesD]

 

[georgiagirl]

Controversial to whom?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hatfield]

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.

I totally agree.

I am going to start a new movement against Political Correctness and call it
"Correct Political Correctness".

Its gotten way out of hand and has gone too far. I vote for leaving the sign as it stands since the old sign looks fine and we are already accustomed to it.

Its one thing if people have mean intent and purposely discriminate others, but a lot of what has been going on is people choosing to interpret things wrong and choosing to see ill intent where there is not any.

Its gotten to the point where people are afraid to say anything publicly. People are afraid to give interviews to the news media and people are not being honest anymore. It is stifling honest and open opinions. It is stifling the government from getting anything done.

Government committees and city wide meetings are prevented from having honest open debates on important topics.

The end result is either no decisions or very poor decisions are being made. It is preventing improvement for cities and states. All because people are afraid to be honest with each other and afraid their words will be taken out of context.

A perfect example is the debate on "illegal immigration". Valid concerns about social services cost and money for states are twisted into saying people just don't care about other people. Same thing is what has happened with the Syria refugee crisis. Valid concerns about where the money can come from to pay for social services for too many influx of people are twisted into saying people just don't care about a certain other people.

For this sign change I think it makes the sign more confusing. It could end up being a very poor decision to change it.

 

[sonjay]

The new symbol looks like someone racing in a wheelchair.

I used to go rollerblading at a place that had a 13-mile paved pathway around a reservoir, no roads or traffic at all. Very popular with joggers, bikers & bladers. Wheelchair-racing guy used to go there at around the same time I did. He was fast! He looked like this symbol — except he had Popeye forearms. When he goes to the grocery store or mall, he probably parks in the farthest-away row, to stay in shape and get the exercise.

Wheelchair users who look like this symbol aren't the ones who need handicap parking. I think it's demeaning to all those who really need handicap parking.... Because, you know, they should all look like this symbol.

 

[K_Z]

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

Not graffiti-- vandalism, which carries a heftier penalty. Defacing property with "stickers" is listed expressly as vandalism in many statutes (which is one reason why political activists can't just slap a bumper sticker supporting their candidate on dozens of cars in a parking lot).

The real issue, as I see it, is that "activists" conducted criminal mischief/ vandalism, as some kind of misguided social experiment. Instead of seriously considering changing handicap signs, Hendren and Glenny, and anyone else who participated, should have been charged with felony vandalism (most likely felony vs misdemeanor, due to the number of signs that were defaced, and the value of the signs).

But instead of holding the miscreants responsible for vandalizing handicap signs, the media "rewards" their social activist experiments (vandalism of handicap signs) by pretending that their "ideas" are somehow a valid public policy discussion, or an expression of some warped form of social justice. This is political correctness at its worst, IMO.

Should we encourage all kinds of "activists" to remove or deface signs they don't like? I think I remember reading that some young adults were charged with manslaughter for removing traffic signs that lead to a fatal car accident.

When did laws become optional? There is a proper way to go about effecting change for things like signage. We need to encourage people to effect change in a lawful and socially proper way, IMO. Otherwise we just encourage misfit people to pick and choose which laws they feel like they want to follow.....or not. And that's not what a lawful, civilized society is about, KWIM? For some reason, a lot of activists think they can just make up their own rules as they go along, and never be held accountable for anything they do. We should not encourage this.

 

[cluciano63]

I have a handicapped parking thing and would never have noticed a different symbol if not pointed out to me. I only see the blue and white. Good grief.

 

[SweetT]

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.

That high school blue pink green would seem confusing even to me. I mean is the girls bathroom the pink square? Thats a little sexist isn't it ? I mean implying that girls like pink and not blue. LOL anyway, I think the old handicap signs are universal and nice and do let everyone know that you will be fined etc for using this space if not handicap. Also the new ones imply that the space is reserved so some handicap persons may even get confused. Overall I would say to keep the old ones everyone knows what they mean and imply.