> Mandatory access ramps exists because we have decided it's a problem to be fixed by society, not the individual. The result is far greater access for people with wheelchairs.
I think that was a bad call. Society should not shape itself for the sake of a minority of people. That's just silly.
I forget where I read it, but this isn't a very thought-out view. _Especially_ with the example of access ramps -- yes, the ramps were originally put in after activism for better wheelchair accessibility. But who ended up using them a whole lot and benefiting from them? Parents with strollers. Would we say that the needs of parents of young children, or young children are a minority? Do we not care about their experience even when we're having a population crisis?
In hindsight, this is a pretty obvious conclusion if we would have taken a bit of extra time to consider why we might want accessibility ramps, but instead we get sidetracked by exactly the kind of thinking displayed by your comment.
When people say "accessibility is good for everyone" it's not a naive feel-good comment. It's an acknowledgement that at some point all of us could use help with accessibility (e.g. when you become a parent, when you get old, etc)
I think that was a bad call. Society should not shape itself for the sake of a minority of people. That's just silly.