Security guards refuse to open barrier for cyclist on permitted route near COP26 site

An Israeli representative to COP26 couldn't get in at all, according to the Grauniad - the premises aren't fully chair-accessible, she couldn't walk the distance from the barriers to the door, and they wouldn't allow her to take her car right up to the door.  They offered a shuttle-bus, but that also wasn't wheelchair accessible.

(PS - apparently Johnson is flying back to London in a private jet after COP26 - how's that for setting an example?)

COP26: UK apologises to Israeli minister for wheelchair access problems - BBC News

anke wrote:

One guy trying to force low wage labour to move the heavy barrier for him being the victim of motoristicm? (By low wage workers probably not even able to afford a car?)

Force them? Where's the force? What's he threatening them with? Weapons? A multi-tonne vehicle? A high court injuction? Fruity language? His really big dad that he's brought on the back of his bicycle?

I think we've all got this in us so useful to see it for what it is - someone who's an "outsider" coming and asking those in a position of authority / power for their full quota of "rights". This seems to quickly go from "irritating little person" to "entitled tosser" and in some cases this quickly becomes a percieved threat justifying violence ("he needs a good slap").

anke wrote:

A little hop onto the pavement would have done, seeming less selfish - in particular given the (negligible) frequency and (almost infinite) importance of this conference.

I personally wouldn't have made a drama out of it because the problem started with whoever put in that barrier rather than the bouncers. (The actual barrier design with those "chokepoints" has caused issues elsewhere too - think there were issues with a similar one in Cambridge). However I'm sure he'll also take this up with those in charge. Unless we all keep pointing out the issues wherever people - that we as the public collectively employ - effectively aren't doing their job things will slide.

International conferences actually happen regularly - you may recall this one from earlier this year - and I believe they plan them more than a couple of weeks before they happen. So it's not unreasonable to expect that we could master the changes to street design for these things. I recall there were also complaints about access issues at the Cornwall one which sounded a lot more "constrained by the location" that Glasgow.

As for the "infinite importance" - in theory it is, but that's got nothing to do with some basic street infrastructure. As for the "seriousness" from the news it looks much like business as usual at an international get-together sadly.

anke wrote:

And arguing that wheel and push-chairs could not have gotten through does seem a little constructed - I'm sure the guys would have been happy to help lifting them up/down the pavement. 

See comments from others. I think our society has mostly agreed that "they can wait for someone to carry them" isn't a suitable standard for acessibility.

anke wrote:

And arguing that wheel and push-chairs could not have gotten through does seem a little constructed - I'm sure the guys would have been happy to help lifting them up/down the pavement. 

I'm afraid that comment betrays a certain ignorance of how disabled people feel (I speak with the proviso that I'm only referring to those I know): they want to be able to get around independently when and where they wish. Yes, there will (nearly) always be people around to help them over/around/through barriers to their mobility - most folk are very decent and help when they can - but they don't want to have to rely on others, they want to be independent, that's why it's so important that planners ensure they can get around without needing to call on others to help them.

Sure - but why would anyone expect a wheel-chair on the road, rather than on the pavement where the gates were open?

An awful lot of discussion here about a scenario that quite possibly wouldn't happen. Wheelchairs and pushchairs would probably use the pavement, and if they had to use the road they might well receive a different reaction from the gatekeepers. We don't actually know (but what does that matter on the internet?).

anke wrote:

Sure - but why would anyone expect a wheel-chair on the road, rather than on the pavement where the gates were open?

Ehhem.

Rendel Harris wrote:

anke wrote:

And arguing that wheel and push-chairs could not have gotten through does seem a little constructed - I'm sure the guys would have been happy to help lifting them up/down the pavement. 

I'm afraid that comment betrays a certain ignorance of how disabled people feel (I speak with the proviso that I'm only referring to those I know): they want to be able to get around independently when and where they wish. Yes, there will (nearly) always be people around to help them over/around/through barriers to their mobility - most folk are very decent and help when they can - but they don't want to have to rely on others, they want to be independent, that's why it's so important that planners ensure they can get around without needing to call on others to help them.

Exactly this.

Any org or body that expects me to wait for - or even allow - somebody to lift me and my chair is going to be paying me very shortly thereafter.

EA2010 S.20(3),(4),(5),(9). S.21, S.29 and since this is a government gig, S.149 is in play.

Damages start at £1300, and are per-instance, not per-location.

We used to have a lady in a wheelchair at work. She had the "push" handles removed so no one could offer help (plus reduced the weight) and she propelled herself at speed around the office when she was in. 

In the regional office where she was based, we had a small electrical fire once. After the fire damage was repaired and the power was restored, the backup UPS didn't kick in so the local servers didn't start. She offered to get around the back of the comms cabinet and move the power cables around so the servers could come back up. In the meantime her local boss then rang up our manager to complain we were making a disabled lady drag herself around. As the IT bod said, she offered, was he to say "no you can't, you are disabled".

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

We used to have a lady in a wheelchair at work. She had the "push" handles removed so no one could offer help (plus reduced the weight) and she propelled herself at speed around the office when she was in. 

In the regional office where she was based, we had a small electrical fire once. After the fire damage was repaired and the power was restored, the backup UPS didn't kick in so the local servers didn't start. She offered to get around the back of the comms cabinet and move the power cables around so the servers could come back up. In the meantime her local boss then rang up our manager to complain we were making a disabled lady drag herself around. As the IT bod said, she offered, was he to say "no you can't, you are disabled".

I usually take the handles off my 'chairs for that exact reason (except in certain circumstances) - I do not want people to move me without my express consent, and I'm not going to provide an easy-to-grab interface for them to do so.

I also move a lot quicker around the office than the bipeds around me can - Helped by the fact that I can coast, you poor gits have to keep moving your legs

anke wrote:

One guy trying to force low wage labour to move the heavy barrier for him being the victim of motoristicm? (By low wage workers probably not even able to afford a car?)

A little hop onto the pavement would have done, seeming less selfish - in particular given the (negligible) frequency and (almost infinite) importance of this conference.

And arguing that wheel and push-chairs could not have gotten through does seem a little constructed - I'm sure the guys would have been happy to help lifting them up/down the pavement. 

Regarding silly motorcades: yep, they're increadibly wasteful - but having Joe Biden shot for "stealing the elections", while riding in on his (not armoured...) push-bike, is probably not what the world needs. (Even if the man himself would probably prefer to come by bicycle.)

How dare cyclists expect people to do their jobs, and not have to break the law to get from A to B.

Fun fact: If your job is to open and close a barrier for traffic you won't keep your job if you don't open and close the barrier for traffic.

anke wrote:

One guy trying to force low wage labour to move the heavy barrier for him being the victim of motoristicm?

[snip]

 

Regarding silly motorcades: yep, they're increadibly wasteful - but having Joe Biden shot for "stealing the elections", while riding in on his (not armoured...) push-bike, is probably not what the world needs. (Even if the man himself would probably prefer to come by bicycle.)

One guy asking low wage labour to do the job they're getting that low wage for. Is that what you mean?

As for Sleepy Joe, I doubt if he knows where he is and having him shot would solve the problem of how they;re going to remove him and put Kamala Harris in the hot seat.

I'd call it little-hitler behaviour. Something about how they guy says "I'm not opening this [gate] for you". Give a small minded person a little bit of power that he doesn't get much chance to use.

You know, it's not all about cyclists... 

(Although I agree that a lot more should be!!!)

a4th wrote:

I cycled to and from the conference centre this evening and while it's not perfect, it's still a lot more bike friendly than most other big conferences I've had the misfortune of attending in the UK and elsewhere.

You can lock your bike up 20 metres from the entrance, there are clearly marked cycle routes to all of the major destinations in Glasgow and there is detailed information on cycling available  to the people attending. It could definitely be better but it feels really misguided to be grumbling about little things at a time when there are a lot of people with really nefarious aims seeking to discredit the talks and any action on climate.

While I'm at it- the lack of a ramp making it "very difficult" for parents to access the footpath? At least he's got a sense of humour.

On the news this morning; disabled delegate in wheelchair trying to get in waits two hours then goes back to her hotel.

Yeah that isn't ideal isn't it. Sounds like she tried to drive to the venue and they wouldn't let her in which is sort of amusing in light of some of the tweets and comments in this article. Seen a number of people in wheelchairs at the event already this morning so this feels more like bad organisation than anything else. 

a4th wrote:

Yeah that isn't ideal isn't it. Sounds like she tried to drive to the venue and they wouldn't let her in which is sort of amusing in light of some of the tweets and comments in this article. Seen a number of people in wheelchairs at the event already this morning so this feels more like bad organisation than anything else. 

No.

The issue was a lack of accessible shuttles, and a refusal to allow her to simply access the venue "on foot" (as it were), in addition to refusing to allow her entry with her adapted vehicle.

Fun fact, she'd easily win if she wanted to put in a claim for damages.

Crippledbiker wrote:

a4th wrote:

Yeah that isn't ideal isn't it. Sounds like she tried to drive to the venue and they wouldn't let her in which is sort of amusing in light of some of the tweets and comments in this article. Seen a number of people in wheelchairs at the event already this morning so this feels more like bad organisation than anything else. 

No. The issue was a lack of accessible shuttles, and a refusal to allow her to simply access the venue "on foot" (as it were), in addition to refusing to allow her entry with her adapted vehicle. Fun fact, she'd easily win if she wanted to put in a claim for damages.

According to the news articles, the distance from the closed gate (that they wouldn't open for her) to the doors of the building (which was an inaccessible building anyway) was close to a kilometre.

The shuttle bus wasn't accessible (so what was it's point?), and she said that this was too far for her to travel 'on foot' (not unreasonably, IMO).

I presume she went back to the hotel and hit the minibar while drafting a complaint...

brooksby wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

a4th wrote:

Yeah that isn't ideal isn't it. Sounds like she tried to drive to the venue and they wouldn't let her in which is sort of amusing in light of some of the tweets and comments in this article. Seen a number of people in wheelchairs at the event already this morning so this feels more like bad organisation than anything else. 

No. The issue was a lack of accessible shuttles, and a refusal to allow her to simply access the venue "on foot" (as it were), in addition to refusing to allow her entry with her adapted vehicle. Fun fact, she'd easily win if she wanted to put in a claim for damages.

According to the news articles, the distance from the closed gate (that they wouldn't open for her) to the doors of the building (which was an inaccessible building anyway) was close to a kilometre.

The shuttle bus wasn't accessible (so what was it's point?), and she said that this was too far for her to travel 'on foot' (not unreasonably, IMO).

I presume she went back to the hotel and hit the minibar while drafting a complaint...

My understanding matches this, though with the added detail of her apparently not being permitted to access "on foot" (though as you say, quite reasonable for her to decline to do so).

Oh, and in not providing accessible shuttles?

Yeah, that's another violation of the law - in terms of EA2010 S.20, S.21, S.29, S.149, the event organisers are what is known technically as "fucked".

For added fun bonuses, go read S.109, S.111 and S.112.

In her place I would not have started drafting a complaint; I would have started drafting a Letter Before Action.

Great posts as ever !

This massive sample of one gives significant evidence for what exactly?

anke wrote:

This massive sample of one gives significant evidence for what exactly?

Obviously that there's a problem. Whether it's widespread or not isn't determined but it's highlighting a serious issue.

Really?  Is it a serious issue?  We dont know the full circumstances of what happened or why this one person couldnt access the Conference and decided to make a song and dance about it -  may be validly, maybe not.   I dont think its unreasonable to ascribe 1 incident more to the cockup than conspiracy side of the equation.   Now if others are having the same experience then maybe's there's an actual problem.

Even if it's only afffected one person, it's still a serious issue for them. Accessibility is hardly a new requirement and it's not difficult to implement when they are prepared to fly in leaders on jets (i.e. lots of money spent).

Yes, in the scheme of things, stripping one person's dignity might not be considered important, but the problem is that proper thought needs to be given to people with different needs. I don't think it's a conspiracy - just carelessness.

anke wrote:

This massive sample of one gives significant evidence for what exactly?

It's not a sample, it's a news report about an individual.

It would be interesting to know whether anyone else, whether wheelchair user or not, has had accessibility issues at Cop26.

With the correct framing every data point is a sample of one...