Accessible signs should not discriminate
“A person must be big enough to admit mistakes, smart enough to profit from them, and strong enough to correct them” --John C. Maxwell, author, speaker, pastor
COMMENT: I read your article about accessible signage in the February issue of Public Works magazine (“Signs, signs, everywhere a sign,” page 18), and I have a problem with the red canceling circle. Where in the code does it say to mark non-accessible entrances with a sign? The sign itself just looks just plain politically incorrect. A red line going through the symbol looks discriminatory in and of itself. -- Chip "Champion for Accessibility"
RESPONSE: I am so grateful for your comment. Often, when I am speaking, training, or consulting I tell people “what comes out of spring water goes in a muddy river.” I knew what message I was trying to convey, but it came out misleading. Thanks to you, Chip, I can correct my canceled-out wheelchair logo.
The sign itself does bring about a negative connotation and the code does not require that. However, the code does require that if an entrance is not accessible, a sign must be present showing where the accessible entrance is located:
Signage 4.1.2 Accessible Sites and Exterior Facilities: New Construction (c) Accessible entrances when not all are accessible (inaccessible entrances shall have directional signage to indicate the route to the nearest accessible entrance.)
I agree with Chip: DO NOT use my sample with the red canceling circle
. It is important to approach from the positive side, and not the negative.
Again, I truly appreciate not only questions but also comments. Chip has helped me to see the other side of one of my suggestions, which I will no longer use since I agree completely with his comment.
Wishing you all a great spring and an end to all of these snowstorms!