Sunday Short: Saying no to hatred

Today's Sunday short is brought to you from a Facebook post originally shared on the 10th January. 

Screen shot of a Twitter Post from user Casey Forbes (@caseyf) that reads: I deleted that Build the W*ll hat that was posted to @Ravelry. It goes in the bin along with the confederate flag patterns. I'm especially thankful for the latinx ravelers who toot the time to write me about it and I'm sorry that you had to look at that shit. The tweet is dated Jan 9 2018 from 1L35PM

This is how you do it if you are a website owner/manager/moderator or any organisation really.
You don't just have T&C that say no racist content. You stand by your policies. When somebody violates those policies, you don't look for a loophole, you don't look for an excuse, you don't play devils advocate.
You stand by your policies and principals and you take action.

In this case that means deleting a knitting pattern which supports a racist and xenophobic policy and person.

Remember this is nothing to do with free speech. This is a website owner who has said "I will not tolerate intolerance on this website". If that knitter wants to knit and wear their hat in their own time off of Ravelry, they can. But other people have every right to call them out on it. And a content manager has every right to say "you have broken our terms and conditions and we well not allow that.".

I haven't knit anything or even been on Ravelry in ages. But this is why they are awesome. Even if you don't do any sort of fibre art, there's a lot we can learn from Ravelry.

Open letter to the Trades Club about accessibility

An open letter to The Trades Club in Hebden Bridge following my visit there. This was sent on 17th December. I waited for a response from them and include any response from them below. There is further comment and thoughts at the bottom of the post. 

To you all,

Apologies for contacting via facebook, I was unable to find a contact email address.

I made my first visit to The Trades Club on Friday 14^th of December. Knowing the reputation of the place as inclusive and socially liberal I was looking forward to my visit. Sadly that excitement was soon quashed when I realised there was one group of people you are not inclusive for and discriminate against: disabled people. I am fortunate that I can manage stairs, but due to my disability it is not without pain and difficulty. There are many others who simply wouldn’t have made it passed the front door. Understandably considering there is no step free access, no accommodations have been made for wheelchair access such as wide aisles for getting through the main hall or adequate seating options in the bar. However these accommodations don’t just benefit wheelchair uses but help people with other disabilities including mobility issues.

You have no accessibility statement on your website. No accessible toilet (which isn’t just a matter of allowing a wheelchair in). No notices about hearing loops, lighting, seating or signing.

There are no accommodations what so ever for disabled people. As a minority group we have been forgotten or dismissed as not worth a thought or the time and money. Without even an accessibility statement on your website there isn’t even an indication that accessibility for disabled people has been considered at all.

What particularly makes this a sore issue, apart from people not even being able to get into the venue, are your multiple statements and posters stating that you are an inclusive venue. You promote acceptance and outlaw discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality and ethnicity. This is wonderful. I am included in more than one of those minority groups and appreciate that sentiment. But it is a bitter pill to swallow when you continue to discriminate against disabled people and I was lucky to get into the venue at all.

I understand the building is difficult. I understand you are not a big corporation with plenty of financial backing. But I don’t believe that is an excuse. How you choose to spend your budget, what you choose to say, what modifications to the building you do and don’t make are choices. I don’t expect every business and building to be a flagship of accessibility, but I do expect that groups which espouse inclusivity, acceptance and equality to make choices that do not discriminate against disabled people.

I am disappointed.

I am let down.

I am unlikely to visit again unless changes are made.

As is my standard practice I will be posting this as an open letter on my blog Axes n Yarn in one week’s time. I will include any reply I have received from you. I do this because disableism is an issue that needs to talked about and because disabled people as a minority group need their voices to be heard.

Though this is a personal email based on personal experience I should also disclose that I work freelance as an accessibility consultant and advisor via my website www.Accesscheck.net

Yours sincerely.

Robin Tynan

Their response on facebook on the 17th of December:

Hi Robin - thanks for your email. I can assure you, making the Trades Club accessable for all is at the top of our priorities. Will elaborate on email, of course. Best wishes Mal Campbell [email address redacted]

I gave them my email address so they could contact me there. I then received the following email on December 18th

Thanks for forwarding your email address. The Trades Club secretary, Michael Coneys, will be back with a response shortly.

Final Thoughts

As of writing this blog on 31/01/2018 I have had not further contact from The Trades Club. My original letter said I would publish this post a week after sending, but due to various factors I've left it until now - roughly two weeks. I appreciate that during that period it has been Christmas and the associated public holidays. However, I should note that The Trades Club has been open during this period.

I think my concerns and feelings on the subject are clear from the letter I sent to them. I am of course not pleased with their lack of response. It does not leave me feeling assured that accessibility is a top priority. It is difficult to believe that accessibility and ending discrimination toward disabled people is a priority when a business has no mention of accessibility or disability on their website or any of their public information. It is difficult to accept that accessibility is a priority when a business has been open for over 35 years and no modifications or adaptations have been made, save for a single line of small print text stating that they are not accessible on their website.

I am of course disappointed at the lack of response from the Trades Club. Though it has many qualities to recommend it, I am somewhat soured by this experience and even if accessibility weren't an issue (there are some days when I wouldn't make it past their front door) I would be hesitant to support them in the future. I honestly feel that any venue or business that claims to be inclusive and welcoming of all minorities and yet fails to address the barriers which are excluding a group of people is disingenuous and needs to examine their ethics closely.

Should I receive any further correspondence from The Trades Club I will post an update.

UPDATE 08/01/19

I received the following email on 07/01/19. I haven't replied as I am not sure if a reply is necessary at this point. I may follow up their offer to telephone to talk over various points but will be doing so in a professional capacity as Access:Check. I am accepting of their apology and acknowledgement of problems. I continue to dislike, from any group, passing blame on to landlords. That is not because I believe the landlords are without fault, but because I believe there is a shared responsibility between tenants and landlords to address structural accessibility concerns, especially in long term leases.

Hi, Robin,
Mal passed on your comments regarding the Trades Club.
Firstly, could I apologise for the delay in responding and secondly,
for the Clubs shortcomings.We fully acknowledge your critical
comments.
While major structural changes are in the hands of our landlord ,(plans have been drawn up to link the lower and upper floor ),
there can be no excuse on our behalf for the lack of information
on the website . Clearly,we will set about trying to implement many of your suggestions.
In the meantime if you wish to discuss this in more detail, please
feel free to contact me. [redacted]
Kind Regards ,
Michael Coneys, Secretary ,The Trades Club

Sunday Short - Can't we have pretty things?

So I need a new shower stool right. But I have this thing where I loathe things commonly sold as "shower stools" in the UK. They are so often aluminium and white or grey plastic. At first I thought this was some sort of internalised disableism, and in part it may be, but it's actually mostly something else.

The grey plastic and aluminium is very institutional, very medicalised. It is reminiscent of, in-fact often the same items as, those used in hospitals.

And I hate being pathologised like that. I hate being reduced to a disability and being classified as a medical problem.

Just because I have a chronic illness, just because I am disabled does not mean that I shouldn't be allowed to have personal preferences or style. 

photograph showing shower stools and adaptive devices made of aluminium and grey and white plastic.

This is just a part of the wider problem of how disabled people are treated in the UK. It is a symptom of “othering” and of creating an “us” and “them”. Disabled people are the “them” of society, segregated and kept in place, identified and marked out by their aluminium and grey. These hospital style contraptions are the modern black triangle patches*.

Only when we start recognising that disabled people are, shockingly I know, people who are individuals with their own lives and interests that have nothing to do with their health will we start to break down the barriers between “us” and “them”.

And in the mean time I have to deal with the fact that something as basic as a wooden shower stool is seen as a luxury item costing £50 and up: my choices are to buy something cheap and not fit for purpose or a sturdy but ugly and medical styled aluminium stool.

*Disabled people were designated with black triangle patches in Nazi Germany as part of the asocial group. However some modern disability rights groups are reclaiming the symbol for their campaigns.

On the Subjugation of Animals for Human Entertainment.

An open letter to the curator of the exhibition held in Studio 24, Leeds, 16th & 17th November.

This letter was sent to the Curator of the exhibition on Saturday the 17th November. As of today, Sunday 25th November, I have not had a reply so am publishing without a response. Should I receive a reply I will update the post to include it.

I visited the Orwell Room 103 exhibition on Friday evening and for the most part really enjoyed it and appreciated many of the pieces of art on display. There was however one piece that gave me great concern and that I want to raise with you as curator.

Sadly I am unable to remember the artists name but the piece was I believe titled "Goldfish Bowl". At first I was struck by the powerful yet simple symbolism. I also assumed that the fish was fake, an illusion created by clever painting or resin pouring, a projection or even a well made puppet. But then I realised it was in fact a live fish. That was when my appreciation of a clever piece of art became horror and disgust.

The bowl was tiny and entirely unsuitable for housing a fish of that size as it does not allow for free and natural movement. It also didn't have a filter in to provide suitable oxygen for the fish to breathe and there was no cover again restricting natural behaviour and increasing stress. This is essentially a method of slowly torturing a fish. There is plenty of documentation available about the correct care and housing of fish of this type and size, and the days of a goldfish in a tiny bare bowl as the norm are long gone and criticised by the pet industry and aquatics enthusiasts alike. This would imply that the artist conceived of the idea of using a live animal as art and either did no research on proper care and animal ethics or did do the research and dismissed it in favour of making an artistic statement.

The piece then takes on a significantly different meaning - it highlights that we as a population, as a species, as people are content with the subjugation and ill treatment of living creatures as long as we can justify it with lofty terms like "art" and "symbolism" or even a more simply "entertainment". This itself is a critique of humanity in line with Orwellian ideology and a cruel reflection of ourselves, but to subjugate and mistreat an animal in an Orwell exhibit would seem to go against the man's own ethics and beliefs.

Even if that was the intention I can not agree with it. It would be one of those ideas that is wonderful in theory but that can not be put into practice because of basic ethical considerations. If the artist was cognisant of this and that sort of statement was intentional then to display the piece without commentary, explanation or at least a disclaimer about the care of the animal is irresponsible.

It may be that every evening the fish is removed and placed into a suitable environment but I and many others would argue that even temporary deliberate cruelty toward an animal is still not acceptable. Again to do so without any disclaimer or explanation is also irresponsible as it spreads the message to people that fish and other animals are essentially disposable and to be used as any inanimate object for the will of humans without thought or care.

While much of my complaint focuses on the decisions of the artist, as curator I believe you also share responsibility here. You choose to include the piece in your show. You chose to do so without requiring disclaimer or commentary. In doing so you give implicit support to this practice. From a legal perspective there is strong argument that this breaches the Animal Welfare Act of 2006 which requires need for a normal environment, need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, and need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

I understand that this is a very short exhibition and you may receive this message to late to be able to make alterations or remove the goldfish. However I would appreciate it if you give my comments proper consideration and issue a public statement on the matter to ensure that the use of live animals in art without the proper care or information is not considered acceptable.

I would hope that the artist is given proper feedback and critique so that this piece is a one off example and not repeated elsewhere.

Thank you for your time and I sincerely hope you understand that I appreciate and enjoyed the rest of the exhibition and that my critique is entirely meant to be constructive and informative as well as conveying my personal ethics and opinions.


Yours sincerely

Robin Tynan

Selling Art for Lyme Disease

I have talked about my experience of Lyme disease several times on this blog. It's a big part of my life.
The 28th of October was my 7th anniversary of being infected with Lyme disease: I was bitten by the tick that infected me on 28th of October 2011.

Each year I like to do something to mark it, and if possible to raise money for Lyme Disease Action, one of the few registered charities that is both educating and supporting research into Lyme Disease.

I decided to mark the occasion this year with some art. Both the animals I chose to paint are carriers of ticks in the UK and may be carriers of Lyme Disease. The hedgehog of course holds particular significance to me as I was roleplaying as a hedgehog at the time of being bitten. Never say I don't really get into character.

Each painting started with an ink and fountain pen sketch and was then coloured with water colours before being finished off with a little more ink. While I went down a natural route for the hedgehog I decided to go a little more whimsical with the badger which is painted in a beautiful mixture of teal and magenta handmade water colour paints.

image description: painting in shades of blue and magenta of a badger.
Original Painting by Robin Tynan available to purchase for £35

image description: watercolour painting of  a hedgehog with a mottled green and brown background.
Original Painting by Robin Tynan - SOLD

Both paintings are available as prints from Society6  and all profit will go to Lyme Disease Action.

The original painting of the badger is available to purchase for £35.
Please contact for details.

Let's talk about death

It being Halloween, All Hallows Eve, Samhain, Dia de los Muertos and so on, this seems like a good time to have a conversation about death and dying.

No, not the horrors of death, undead corpses walking around and spooky ghosts, but the actual realities of death and dying. For many people of different faiths and cultures, Halloween is more than an opportunity for costumes and scary films, it is a time where we consider grief and loss. There are often remembrances for the dead or the opportunity to accept loss and grieving and to move on. This ritual of being at peace with death and loss doesn't have to stop at others, it can extend to yourself too. Often this is metaphorical - saying goodbye to difficult circumstances or grieving a loss of self due to illness.
But maybe it can be more practical too. One of the many ways we can be more at peace with the concept of death in general and our own deaths in particular is toactually take time to think about what happens at the time. This doesn't just mean spiritual beliefs about the afterlife or what happens to a persons soul or spirit but can and should include practical considerations about how you physically want your death handled.

Ideally by considering these things and being open with loved ones about your own wishes you can encourage others to open up and talk about their wishes. While the thought of a loved one dying might be filled with sadness and fear, knowing what their beliefs are and what their wishes are can help to bring us to terms with their death (long) before the fateful day. If the only benefit is not having to worry about guessing at their wishes and making the practical aspect easier, that's still a weight off the shoulders of a grieving person.

In the therapy practice DBT this would probably be counted as the "coping ahead" skill in which a person visualises and works through a potentially distressing event in advance in order to lessen the impact of future feelings and to understand and cope with things which may be difficult.

But starting those conversations can be difficult. So let me go first.

I don't know what I believe about the afterlife. I am open to the concept of spiritual afterlives such as some non-Christian version of heaven. I don't really believe in reincarnation and I don't really believe in ghosts and the spirits of the dead haunting the living plane. I also don't believe that what you do to the body of the deceased impacts on any potential afterlife.

That doesn't mean I don't care what happens to my body. I actually do. I live my life in a manner which tries to be as environmentally friendly as possible within my circumstances and I would like that to be taken into account with what could be called my final act.

Ideally I would like to donate my body to medical science. I am also a registered organ donor. The process of donating your body to science happens long before you die. You have to submit a form or request to your chosen university of medicine giving your explicit consent while you are alive. It's not possible in most circumstances for somebody else to consent on your behalf after you have passed. If this is something you want then the earlier you arrange it the better. If you are in the UK can read the information on the Human Tissue Authority website. You will have to identify your local facility and contact them individually. I will be submitting a form to Leeds University as that is my local university. Should I move out of their "catchment area" then I will have to submit a form to whatever is the closest medical university there.
However, I also stated that I am an organ donor. Unfortunately this can be incompatible with donating your body to science. Medical researchers generally want whole bodies, so if your organs are donated after your death then the research institute may not be able to accept your body. There are other reasons they may not be able to take your body including some causes of death - each university has guidelines on what they can and can't accept. For this reason it's best not to leave your wishes at simply "donating to science".

image description: picture of a body wrapped in an unbleached linen shroud with yellow primroses resting on a wicker pallet. image from Respect Everybody Shrouds

I need a back up plan should my body not be accepted. For me there are a few considerations.
I specifically do not want to be embalmed and given a traditional British burial: the whole casket, 6ft down in a grave liner thing is not for me. It's too unnatural and too steeped in Christian traditions for me to be comfortable with. Embalming is also pretty nasty stuff. Sure I'll be dead and formaldehyde isn't going to harm me but it is a carcinogenic and there is the potential for harm to embalmers and also to wildlife and plant life should that fluid seep into the earth. Even worse, there have been cases of flooding in cemeteries which have washed that formaldehyde into our general water supply. Let's not do that.
So if I am to be buried I want it to be a natural burial without embalming and preferably in a shroud (I'm not going to lie if there is an eco friendly black option available, I'd love it) or all natural casket rather than the traditional big wooden box with all the fancy bits. This is usually called a Natural Burial or a Green Burial.

The other option I'd be interested in is sadly not licensed in the UK, but if it does become available before my death then it's super cool. It's called Alkaline Hydrolysis but is sometimes called "water cremation" or resomation. It's a process of essentially dissolving the body in an alkaline solution and then filtering the water. It's way more environmentally friendly than traditional cremation, though as it's less understood people are nervous about the thought of water filled with human remains. In reality this is cleaner than the smoke and vapour filled with human remains that gets pumped out of a crematory. My hope is that as it's talked about more people will become more comfortable with it and it will become legal in the UK. To be honest part of me likes this option because it has a slightly sci-fi feel to it.

image description: diagram of how an alkaline hydrolysis machine works showing a body in a cylindrical chamber. diagram from the BBC article "Dissolving the Dead"

And that's it. I have no specific wishes or requirements about funerals, wakes or memorials. I don't think that's up to me. That's something that is important to the living and I am happy to leave it to them to choose something that works for them and their grieving process. My concern is that my body is treated in a way that reflects my values. I would like my loved ones to know and be aware that they can be a part of this process if they want to be - if they want to prepare the body or be there at the burial or water cremation,  if they want a body that can be viewed. I want them to know that they have rights and some measure of control over how they mourn and deal with this event. It doesn't have to be completely taken out of their hands by a formal and clinical funeral home unless that's what they want. And a wake or memorial service can take place at any point and in any place they see fitting. That's ok with me.

I hope this helps you think about your own death in more positive or at least pragmatic terms. Let's start having these conversations and making death a less scary and incomprehensible thing.
There will always be sadness and grief around death and that's ok. But we don't have to make it harder on ourselves if we don't have to.

Reconsidering the "Walkable City"

Based on previous posts (and chatter on facebook if you follow me there) you may be aware that I am interested in the concept of solarpunk and future cities. For those not initiated to the idea of solarpunk it is the concept of a better society that is built using modern (or future) science and is harmonious with the environment and with the people who live in it. If you read my post on Wakanda you will know my delight about a city that is not only environmentally sound, scientifically advanced but also people friendly and accessible and that’s a big deal.

The concept of walkable cities then, surely that fits into my solar punk future science ideal? Well yes and no. A recent article from the Guardian inadvertently provides the perfect example of this. The article itself is well written and well sourced with examples of a number of cities and studies but really the first indication of an issue is the title “a walkable city”. This name itself discounts large proportions of the population who can’t walk at all or easily. You could argue that the title isn’t specific but instead is referring to a concept. However the wording, as innocent it may be, directs people’s thoughts to walking and overlooking those that can’t walk.

A walkable city isn’t always about places being totally pedestrianised but the aim is for pedestrians to take priority and to be safe navigating on foot. The benefits are undoubted - lower levels of pollution, less collisions and accidents, better footfall and sales especially for small businesses. These are undoubtedly good things as is encouraging those who are able to to walk a little more to get more fresh air and be more active. But a potential benefit that is ignored is allowing disabled people to be more independent as well.

The article cites a number of cities and projects and the approaches they have taken. In London they have been using cameras and software to track the movement of cars, pedestrians and cyclists in order to determine the most efficient routes and road layouts to encourage more pedestrians. In Auckland the council have taken steps to make areas more “pedestrian friendly” by adding more trees and benches and removing car parking. Greater Manchester are creating “beelines” a joined up system of paths and cycle routes across their city to aid people walking from place to place and reducing the reliance on cars.

What is missing from all of these projects are considerations or even an acknowledgement of disabled people and the needs they may have or how their experiences may impact what counts as a “walkable” city.

Tracking footfall, bicycles and cars is a useful and important project and will certainly provide important information, however it only leads to an accessible city if those various pathways are wide enough for pedestrians and power chair or mobility scooter users. Trees and benches are great, especially providing seating for those who fatigue easily, but they must be placed in such a way that they don’t provide impediments to those who are blind or partially cited, and leave room for walking and chair based pedestrians alike to use the paths concurrently. Likewise for cycle and footpaths that span cities.

Creating pedestrian zones that allow easy walking is a wonderful idea but we also must recognise that walking across a city centre, even a walk of only a few hundred yards is impossible for some people. There still needs to be adequate disabled parking - and for there to be a cultural shift which doesn’t restrict them to only those who have been granted a Blue Badge (Blue Badges are often awarded based on your PIP award, since not everybody is awarded PIP no matter how high the need, this means people who need the badges may not have them).

But it goes even beyond that. According to some metrics York would be considered a “walkable city” by many. Much of the city centre is pedestrianised with limited traffic flow and priority given to pedestrians. This encourages a high percentage of thriving independent businesses. Anybody with mobility or other access issues would be quick to point out though, that it is most definitely not an accessible city. The streets are narrow and crowded, they are winding and uneven: a mix of narrow kerbs, cobbles, paving stones, sign-posts, bike racks and more. Getting around on foot with mobility issues is difficult: getting around in a chair is prohibitive. That’s even without addressing things like noise and visibility or the additional barrier of steps into buildings. A walkable city is not an accessible city and it’s very easy to end up with one at the cost of the other.

What frustrates me most about this article is how many of the project authors have been keen to consider inclusivity, for example Action Aid’s app and program to allow people to document streets and buildings they feel safe or unsafe in (and then hopefully passing that on to organisations that can make improvements). It quotes Susan Claris of Arup as saying “[a] huge indicator of a civilised walkable city” is safe public toilets. Clearly some thought and care is going into these studies. But what of people who don’t have access to a public toilet at all, safe or otherwise? Of the many public facilities across the UK (including over 4000 council run toilets) only a fraction of those are labelled accessible, fewer still are actually accessible (it’s not accessible if it’s also your storeroom) and even less are rated by Changing Spaces as suitable for an adult who needs a carer. In these pedestrianised walkable cities in which people aren’t able to dive into their car and speed home if caught short accessible toilets absolutely should be a priority.

Even worse in my eyes is that the article cites the “double buggy” test, being used by the Manchester project to determine if paths are wide enough that somebody could get a double pram down. That is important: parents and pushchairs should be thought about (and let’s not forget many of those parents may be disabled in someway themselves - using a double buggy instead of carrying a child may even be an accessibility adaptation for them) and it inadvertently helps disabled people - if a double buggy can get through so can the majority of mobility scooters, manual and power chairs. But nobody likes being an inadvertent afterthought, or in this case possibly not even an afterthought since we aren’t afforded the column inches by the journalist. It is significant because it would imply that the needs of disabled people aren’t being considered in these plans at all. If a double buggy can get down a path then yes a chair can too. But whereas a parent may be able to push a chair up or down a kerb, and over uneven surfaces or around awkwardly placed signs, a person in a power chair may not be able to and that’s just not a concern for these project builders.

Disabled people already struggle with getting out and about. But their absence from everyday public view on the streets of our cities isn’t because we don’t want to be there, it’s because of the barriers architects, councils, town planners and engineers have put in our way. The reason so many visionaries of future cities seem to have forgotten about us is because we are already kept out of site and out of mind by the societies we live in. Creating a fresh new walkable city or a city of the future is an admirable goal but if you look at your artists impressions and computer simulations and all you see are non-disabled people then you’ve gone wrong. You have neglected and discriminated against a large group of people who have every right to enjoy the businesses, places of work and attractions of a city with the same ease, safety and comfort as any other citizen disabled or not. That shouldn’t be forgotten about and it shouldn’t be reduced to an afterthought.

Truly revolutionary design and development comes by considering all the people who will be using your creation. Truly functional design that stands the test of time is something that can be embraced by the whole population and is fit for purpose, avoiding the need for decades of patching and re-engineering. That absolutely means considering the needs of everybody including disabled people.

So what of my shiny solarpunk dream cities? Would they be “walkable”? No. They would be accessible. Accessible to all who need to be there. For many that will mean safe and easy walking for others that will mean spaces and access routes for personal vehicles (electric and self driving of course, this is my dream after all). Streets that can be navigated with ease, clear road signs with braille or audio that can be picked up by a user’s app. Plenty of seating, and yes, good clean accessible toilets. Designated cycle lanes that don’t encroach on pedestrian space. Charging points for electric chairs and scooters. Smooth surfaces and ramps between different levels. Good lighting (reactive for energy efficiency and to reduce light pollution). Options and services for those people who need help carrying things (drones maybe?). Good public transport with easy access points and methods for getting into the centre of “pedestrian” spaces.

Yes some of these are out of our reach right now but many of them aren’t are are what I would think of as basic and minimal changes to a city to make it both accessible and pedestrian friendly. If the money can be spent on these existing projects then it can be spent on improving accessibility.

I don’t want to see any more think pieces on walkable cities. I want to see think pieces on accessible and inclusive cities. I don’t want to be erased from a future that hasn’t happened yet.

Amazingly, the Guardian has written on this subject themselves with an article called "What would a truly accessible city look like" from February 2018. They just must have forgotten about it.