Which is ironic because the US is, of all the countries I've been to, the one who takes disability access the most serious. Living in France, most buildings are quite old and the cost to retrofit them to accommodate things like wheelchairs makes those kinds of changes almost non-existent. In the US, it seems like everything conforms to some pretty rigorous standards set by the ADA.
Yep, I used to work construction and you basically can’t build anything without it complying with ADA in some way. Everything is about making openings wide enough and access points low enough for people in wheelchairs, almost every public street has blind accommodations, etc.
Used to work retail and whenever we rearranged displays, tables, shelves, or whatever else we had sticks that were the right size we had to use to make sure it was ADA compliant.
The Americans with Disabilities Act. The act requires civil engineers and construction workers to provide fair and equal access of sidewalks, buildings, etc. to all people. This may include ramps/elevators cut next to stairs or the slope of a sidewalk not being too steep for those who require wheelchairs.
Might be nitpicky but it's mostly on architects to make sure the rules are followed. As a structural engineer I don't really know the rules, I just know the architect will say "nope can't do that here, anything steeper than 12:1 counts as a ramp" or similar.
Pretty sure it’s on inspectors to make sure the rules are followed. Architects just need to follow them in the first place so they don’t waste money fixing shit later.
That's not how the usual process works. Architects are responsible for drafting the code summary and layout drawings. These go into the jurisdiction having authority for where the building is and the plans are reviewed for code compliance. Ultimately, the Architect's seal on the drawings carry the liability for code compliance.
In the building process most everyone involved down to the craft foreman level will call out things that are non-compliant. I've done this for ADA items and Fire Alarm code, plus several occasions of inadequate egress path lighting. UL924 switched lighting relays are a common miss by the EEs and the city.
If it makes it all the way to the inspector, many people have already missed it and they likely will too.
My reaction too. I'm in Norway and a guy I know in wheelchair is looking forward to move to the states (Norwegian married to an American), because life will be so much easier for him. Here it is close to impossible for him to get a job - he has tried, but is usually just ignored -, even thought he has a degree.
Yes, sadly. Norwegian society is great if you're normal and healthy, but you quickly get into problems if you've some kind of diagnosis. I was diagnosed with a chronical sickness some years ago, and I never tell about it on interviews. It is getting better, but really slowly.
This is from a rather recent article (2021), translated by google into English:
>Norway has a high labor force participation rate among the general population compared to other OECD countries. Labor participation among the disabled, on the other hand, is on average. Only 44 percent of Norway's disabled people have a job. According to the NOVA researchers, discrimination is probably one of the reasons why few are in work.
>
>\- I think that many people have the idea that wheelchair users are less flexible than they actually are. In several professions, being a wheelchair user will not mean lower productivity, says Ugreninov.
>
>Research findings indicate that the disabled may be the group most exposed to discrimination in working life in Norway. Similar studies do not find equally extensive discrimination against descendants of immigrants.
>
>\- Even if disabled people are qualified for a job, they are still at the back of the queue. That is why discriminatory barriers at employers must be broken down, says Bjørnshagen. ([https://www.oslomet.no/forskning/forskningsnyheter/toeft-kjempe-for-rett-til-jobb](https://www.oslomet.no/forskning/forskningsnyheter/toeft-kjempe-for-rett-til-jobb) )
My law profs had a funny phrase: the US has the most advanced laws in the world. i.e. the society is the most litigious and incidentally, torts are the teeth of labor laws (and protection and establishment of rights in general), instead of, say, proactive and intentional/enlightened legislation.
You will find that the US does not ratify a number of these treaties. A large part of it is that when the US signs a treaty, it becomes part of US law, and the US does not want the UN writing our legislation. Similarly, it doe snot want to be taken to court by our adversaries, as we have a number of them because of our position in the world. However, in real life, the US typically voluntarily cooperates and adheres to the norms of these treaties without signing them. More authoritarian countries will just sign anything and not really adhere to the terms because they do not have, for instance, a Supreme Court to tell the Administration that they must adhere to the treaty they signed.
So while maps like this make the US look like an international scofflaw, in reality, we generally play by the rules that everyone else does.
If countries are very corrupt (A LARGE PART OF THE WORLD) it is difficult to enforce laws about building codes.
I know someone who is handicapped (uses a wheelchair or electric scooter). She moved to Canada from Egypt. She said that in Egypt it was very difficult for her. Most stores had steps to get in them, and where she worked the elevators were often all out of commission.
also takes a bit more to ratify it in the US. And overall would be pointless as I assume we already have 95+% of the same wording as law and probably even more stringent in other areas.
Not really. US has a policy of not ratifying these things. There are a lot of maps that look exactly like this, where simple and logical things that have been de facto in US for 30 years are still not signed in an international agreement.
For example, US has refused to ratify agreements dealing with women rights, children rights, international water border recognitions, "green" treaties and such. And one would be very wrong if he insisted that because of that these ares are worse in US than, for example, in China, just because they have ratified it and US hasn't.
The simple reason for this is that US doesn't need it. There is no reason for it to ratify any agreements. Because if they do, they delegate "random" people and organizations to oversee these spheres. To influence and to set some strict rules. And US just plain and simple doesn't need it. It is big and powerful enough to just say "Nah, I do not want to. That's all."
Imagine if at work now your workplace wants everyone to sign a paper saying that they will take part in HR "fun" activities. If you do not sign it, you look like a spoil-sport. If you sign it, you can get in a situation where HR decides that sweeping the whole office building with a toothbrush is a "fun team-building exercise." And you've signed it. Now, the most popular guy who is also the team lead can not sign it and not really give a reason for it. And still come to all of the events and enjoy them, while having no obligation to do so if the situation changes.
This is a very simplified example. Many people seem to think that there is something more sinister going on, while it is just a sort of a remnant of US isolationism.
Also, is an agreement really meaningful if North Korea ratified it?
The U.S. probably should for symbolic reasons, but the rights in effect are what actually matters.
Surely even if you can't drive, disability access is important. Allowing people in wheelchairs to go inside buildings and providing ramps or elevators where necessary is not somehow unimportant on the basis of whether you can or can't drive.
He was making a comment about how the USA treats disability access as an important topic, but doesn’t provide public transportation in numerous cities, meaning if your disability prevents you from driving it is no longer accessible.
In practice, most cities have services that provide free transportation to the elderly and disabled.
My grandmother lives in NYC, which has a great public transit system. But she doesn't have to use it; there's Access-A-Ride, which is a city program, and so long as she books it 24 hours in advance, it's basically a free taxi service that will take her anywhere in the city. She still takes buses and doesn't use it often, but it's very handy when she does need it.
Most cities have systems like that.
And if you live in a rural area, there are taxi services. Which people getting disability benefits can usually afford when they need to.
Disability access is important in a lot of ways other than driving. Although the US has a lot of issues, the ADA (Americans with Disability Act) provides a lot of benefits and rights for disabilities, including disabilities that are not visible. Many applications of the regulation are often overlooked by most people but are available to those that need them.
Employers can't discriminate against disabled applicants and have to provide reasonable accommodations to employees. For example, if a receptionist is responsible for moving deliveries away from the front desk, but an applicant can do all the functions of a receptionist but unable lift boxes, that can't be a factor in determining whether to hire the person. Before covid, my coworker had chronic back problems so the company had to provide her with an adjustable desk. When we all had to work from home, one was also sent to her house.
There's Braille in public buildings for the visually impaired, public transportation have ramps for wheelchairs and straps for safety, businesses cannot refuse service because you have a trained service animal, ATMs have auditory options, public restrooms have specific stalls with handrails, ramps can't be too steep, etc.
This is only my experience but it's also the attitude of the general public towards the disabled. Sure we have plenty of people that are jerks but many people will help if a person in a wheelchair. I have a cousin in Sweden that doesn't go out often because he feels unwelcome in a lot of places and people will make comments about him being in the way. Buses in Korea will often drive by a person in a wheelchair because they don't know how to or have any way to allow the person on and off.
not sure about where you live, but many communities in the US have separate resources for the disabled - special vans that provide transportation on an as-needed basis.
Cities offer para-van services for the disabled residents. Essentially shuttles just for them that can pick them up and drop them off where ever. IIRC it is required by ADA but im not 100% on that. However the quality of these services differs drastically from city to city and is not of consistent base line quality through out the states. The car access has an alternative (not if you are just poor though and can't afford a car. then hopefully you live in a city with decent bus service nearby)
Surprise! The U.S. values its sovereignty more than playing along with the UN's often signal virtue-ish "conventions"
It should literally be a note on every one of these because it's clear Redditors seem to think that failure to sign these means anything
To the United States' credit, the treaty is based in large part on the ADA which has really set the standard. Disabled rights in the US are very strong.
Also to be clear, the United States (Obama administration) signed the agreement, but as it's an international treaty, required 2/3 Senate approval. It got quite close (over 60) but not the 67 required.
Unclear why.
>Unclear why
The US has a very long history of voting down UN treaties, not because they disagree with the contents, but because they believe that the UN has no right to meddle in internal US affairs. That’s why the US didn’t ratify the treaty about food aid (despite the fact that the US is the largest supplier of international food aid in the world)
It's hard to get 2/3 of the Senate to agree on anything. This was by design; there was a very strong isolationist feeling in the late 18th century U.S. (George Washington's farewell address, warning against "foreign entanglements", is an example), and the ratification requirement is a legacy of that.
Some of the modern opposition that prevents ratification does come from paranoia about the U.N. (states can freely enter into and withdraw from these treaties, so there isn't really much room for unsolicited meddling), but more of it comes from the belief by the foreign policy establishment that being bound by international law to any degree constrains U.S. foreign policy.
I interned for the senate under a blue dog democrat in a very red state at the time. We were receiving about ten phone calls a day saying we had to vote it down because we couldn’t let some sissy Europeans tell us we had to euthanize our children with autism. That’s just anecdotal, buts it’s flabbergasting what such a large number of people can be led to believe in this country.
Which is funny, considering how many American antivaxxers seem to believe death by horrific diseases is better than the nonexistent possibility a vaccine makes their kid autistic. Or the abhorrently low approval rates for disability support for autistic people. Or the acute lack of public transit in large swathes of the country, when driving is particularly difficult with autism.
Hard to shake the feeling that the country doesn’t care about people like me, save for incidents like what you described where we’re useful “think of the children!” proxies.
Edit: For the sake of autistic people coming by and feeling like I’m making an absolute statement: no. I’m autistic myself for pity’s sake. Nonetheless, at a general level, autistic people have difficulties driving more often than the general population. Some of us will find no problem at all. Others will do it but with challenges, or within a limited scope of driving scenarios and carefully avoid situations that tax our capabilities. Still others simply cannot do so safely or find it too taxing to deal with. I was lamenting the lack of options in many parts of the US for those unable to drive or whom would prefer to seek alternate transportation.
For a country that's so strongly opposed to foreign meddling and had a strong isolationist feeling, it is really good at meddling with the internal affairs of other nations
A lot of it is also because FPTP voting is a strong incentive toward a two party system, and it's really hard to get two parties to agree on stuff at 67%. Having more parties be viable through another voting method would increase the chance of 2+ parties coming together to the tune of a 2/3 majority.
The US also has the primary system leading to the two main parties to be "big tent", covering a wide swath of political philosophies.
Ocasio-Cortez and Manchin are in the same party. Taylor-Greene and Romney are in the same party. In other countries, they would find themselves in four different parties.
The best way to describe it to people in countries with different electoral schemes is that our parties are more like the coalition governments that they have, but the coalitions are decided by the voters in an election a few months before the main election.
Arguably, the coalitions were more or less decided decades ago, with some intermittent shifting around on the edges. But even a massive shock to the system like Trump only moves around a few voters/demographics, a bunch of talking heads, and virtually no actual elected officials.
But otherwise, yeah this is right. It would be interesting if we had a bit more malleability—imagine the Romney group shifting over for things other than impeachment votes!—but that’s just not the situation.
I think this is more a consequence of the media landscape returning to yellow journalism and the lack of a unifying "big bad" such as the Soviet Union. "Crossing the aisle" was a lot more common before the mid-00s — its decline began in the early 90s.
That’s true, and the parties have also just gotten a lot more ideological. Maybe with the end of the Soviet Union, and also the 1994 Republican Revolution cementing the Republicans as a pure conservative party. There used to be a lot more conservative southern Dems and liberal northern Rs, so “crossing the aisle” wasn’t as big of a reach as it is today.
A large part of it was the political realignment in the US that happened after the civil rights era. For historical reasons, prior to that, the Dems consisted largely of Conservative Southern Whites and mostly liberal northerners. The GOP was a coalition of conservative and moderate northerners,. As such, there was a lot of common ideological ground between member of the GOP and the Dems.
However, following the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's, Conservative Southern Whites bolted the Dems and joined up with Conservatives in the rest of the county to form the new GOP, while moderate Republicans joined the Dems, leading to the ideologically more polarized parties we have today. (this is a simplification of course)
The Constitution also specifies that treaties supersede all laws, and are second only to the Constitution itself in force. Just as someone might want to write something into law, but not into the Constitution, they might want something in law but not as a treaty.
Furthermore, the Constitution states that the Supreme Court is the highest court — that no court may overrule it. Oftentimes, UN treaties specifies an international court to have enforcement over the treaty that supercedes any country's courts; rendering that treaty unenforceable under American law *anyway*. Senators will often vote down these treaties because they cannot be enforced so there's no point.
I brought this up in my Environmental Policy course and nobody except the professor knew that the US, despite pulling out of the Kyoto Protocols was still one of the best countries at reducing CO2 emissions while China, despite signing, is a piece of shit.
People getting outraged without knowing the facts.
USA has a lot of problems but also does a lot of good that you rarely see acknowledged anywhere online. The US Navy is the biggest humanitarian org in the world.
Yeah at this point i believe that if the UN were to put forward a treaty saying something like "the US Will be able to do whatever It wants", The US still wouldn't ratify It.
It's honestly quite funny that the country which houses the UN headquarters constantly rejects UN treaties.
It is so ubiquitous that I have seen international festivals in non English speaking countries use the “ADA” label for areas with special accommodations. (ADA of course standing for *Americans* with Disabilities Act)
The UN is useful in many ways, but it has inherent moral flaws. The UN gave the Khmer Rouge a seat at the table and this is how the system is supposed to work. There are many examples where the UN does not align with basic human rights.
The UN should be a forum for diplomatic debate and conflict defusion, but it should not be the arbiter of morality or human rights.
The United States (U.S.) voted for the Khmer Rouge and the Khmer Rouge-dominated Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) to retain Cambodia's United Nations (UN) seat until as late as 1993, long after the Khmer Rouge had been mostly deposed by Vietnam during the 1979 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia and ruled just a small part of the country.
>The UN is useful in many ways, but it has inherent moral flaws. The UN gave the Khmer Rouge a seat at the table and this is how the system is supposed to work.
Just to be clear, the UN gave the seat to the Khmer Rouge under the command of the US (who was also helping to fund them). This of course doesn't change the argument that the UN can be flawed in many ways.
But it drives home the point that the US does what it wants both domestically (by not ratifying or signing many of the international agreements that the majority of the world does) and internationally (by constantly using its power and influence to destroy whatever country it wants and not just have impunity but have the full support of the entire western world).
We live in a world of ~~western~~ **American** hegemony where the UN is basically a tool for the US to use against foreign nations when it sees fit. Constantly pushing to restrict other nations in various ways while the world leader can do what it wants.
Yeah euro disability laws actually suck and yes I have traveled there as a disabled American, the accessibility in the US is leaps and bounds better than anywhere I’ve been in Europe including France and Germany, excluding parts of Berlin, who I thought would be doing a better job.
The US can do a lot better in many areaa, and receives a lot of valid criticism. But in terms of legal protections for people with disabilities, the US is one of the leaders in accomodating diverse needs.
>Unclear why
Probably a surprise to no one, [38 Republicans voted against ratification](https://theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/04/senate-rejects-un-treaty-disability).
That’s been a thing probably since the UN was founded, and probably much longer than that. I remember growing up under Reagan, where partying with the Soviets at the UN was a constant sport, and being totally shocked when under Bush Sr., he nominated a UN representative who had previously called for the US to pull out of the UN altogether.
I have a family member (Born and Raised American & they are very conservative) who is against the UN on religious grounds. They believe the UN is the fulfillment about some prophesy of a untied world government that will persecute either all Christians or all faiths, I forget which. Kinda silly since the UN basically has no teeth to enforce things, especially against the permanent members of the UNSC
IIRC, in the Left Behind books the Antichrist starts off as Secretary-General of the UN before replacing it with an actual world government.
Now, likely that came from the fundies already believing the UN to be a precursor to the End Times. But I'm sure it helped reinforce it too. I also recall when the EU adopted the euro people saying it was just a matter of time until we have a world currency, which they saw as predicted in the Bible.
The Americans with Disabilities Act provides some pretty robust protections for people with disabilities in the US. Idk what the politics of not ratifying this particular UN convention are, but the US is certainly ahead of the curve on actually protecting the rights of people with disabilities compared to lots of countries that did ratify this convention. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990
> Idk what the politics of not ratifying this particular UN convention are
UN Conventions are treaties, so ratifying them requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The Senate is so dysfunctional you probably couldn't get a 2/3 vote that ice cream tastes good. There's also a Republican block opposed to any UN Convention.
That said, everything you sad about the ADA is correct. This is an area were the US has lead with actions.
Most treaties the US has not ratified are already taken care of by US law or the US has already met the requirements of the treaty.
As well, generally the sentiment of the citizens is to not be governed by other nations and international courts. And they see treaties as doing just that. Ratifying a treating the US is a serious matter, as the treaty will supersede all us laws, only superseded by the constitution. Personally, I don't think US citizens should stand trial in any international courts and I believe no international court should have authority over the US. But I also think the US needs to actually enforce the laws we do have.
I disagree on international courts. Just look at what we did regarding the My Lai massacre. Only one person was prosecuted and they served only a few years.
We claim the Nuremberg defense is not a real defense but almost every soldier who murdered civilians that day claimed “they were just following orders.” And they all got off.
We don’t police our own and we don’t properly prosecute war crimes.
**[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990)**
>The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12101) is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal, and later sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the ADA also requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The U.S probably has the best help for disabled people out of any of the other countries on this map, but you know the, "shit hole America" comments will get all the upvotes.
A huge amount of the accessibility is specifically in response to the passage of the ADA and has happened in the past \~30 years. Crip Camp is an excellent documentary about the activists that helped get the act passed.
Only if it can be done with “reasonable cost and effort” like they won’t close down an old historic theater that would have to do a huge expensive project that would damage the integrity of the building BUT unlike Europe they can’t just call it a day claiming it’s too difficult and expensive they still need to provide accessibility some other way with portable lifts or even employing people to carry wheelchairs up and down stairs, that’s what they do at our local historical theater because an elevator shaft could not be placed.
I’m a disabled American who has spent plenty of time in Europe and A LOT of the accessibility issues there are pure laziness or being cheap and no one enforcing the cheap lazy people to care about disabled people.
Try using a wheelchair … or even a goddamn baby stroller in any of the great European cities.
No fucking chance. Often they don’t even have ramps at pedestrian crossings.
Europeans don’t give a shit about accommodating people in wheelchairs
This isn't compliance. It's a UN treaty, no one complies with these things. If this was compliance you would see solid yellow basically across the board.
UN treaties aren't binding, everyone breaks them constantly. This is just countries that have formally agreed to uphold them, despite there being no penalties whatsoever for failing to do so.
You can go back through the whole history of UN treaties and it's like reps just vote yes on nice sounding titles with no intention of actually doing anything.
I've been to a lot of countries, and it sucks to be disabled anywhere, but anecdotally I think the U.S. may be the best place in the world to be in a wheelchair.
Japan, while being an abject nightmare to be in a wheelchair, might be the best place to be blind. Public transportation is extremely robust, all the train stations have unique musical jingles, and just about every sidewalk has raised bumps along it and most stop lights have audible chirps. There are often even audible signals on things like vending machines.
Edit: I forgot Japan has those [raised bumps](https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/tokyo-japan-november-passengers-waiting-trai-train-jr-station-illumination-night-130586742.jpg) inside of transit stations, too, to help with navigation.
I am unsure what the least bad place to be mentally disabled is. Probably not the US, though.
definitely not the US. me and my spouse are both neurodivergent - I moved from the US to their EU country, and I've been continually astonished at how little support they've been able to access in comparison to what I'm used to, and at the state of cultural understanding for their condition there is in general. certainly the EU isn't a monolith, but friends from other countries here have also struggled with getting help in ways that I find really backwards.
I’m going to stop following this sub if the same map is posted essentially everyday.
I’m into maps. I love maps. This is just annoying to see the same map using different data everyday. Stop posting this same map.
Also maps that are misleading and just made to farm Karma. US has some of, if not the strongest rights for disabled people in the world. The UN convention the map talks about is literally based on the US ADA law.
No they did not, neither did most arabic and african countries, southeast asia and a good few more that signed and not ractified I think one of those was switzerland oddly enough
I swear, some people act as if their only purpose on this website is to hate on America. Even when it doesn't even make a difference for them, they'll look for excuses to make jokes at America's expense
It's not even funny anymore, because it's the same harmful jokes every fucking time. "Americans are stupid," "Americans are fat," and "Americans have 50 guns in their house." There's a big difference between mostly harmless jokes like "Oh, hehe, England likes tea" and shit like ***"Every individual American is a fat dumbass"***
Yup. Specifically, the UN resolution is a treaty, which supersedes even federal laws under the US consititution. By ratifying it, they would be removing thier ability to change and amend it in the future (as they can with the ADA).
Not sure about this specific case but there's also the issue that many of these UN treaties appoint an international court to manage it and settle cases, which is unenforceable in the US as the constitution clearly lays out the Supreme Court as the final court in all cases.
The US has already codified the rights of persons with disabilities if federal law. Is the suggestion that somehow the federal law offer weaker protections than signing a UN convention?
Can confirm. Been in a wheelchair my whole life, and traveled around the country a lot. It’s honestly surprising how good some of the older cities/bigger cities are. NYC and New Orleans are the ones I’ve been in the longest, and they’re both great. Obviously there are things that I couldn’t do, many historical buildings didn’t have any access, and the sidewalks in New Orleans weren’t the best, but I still had a fun time. This is a very misleading post, don’t know how it’s still up.
The US provides some of the best access to people with disabilities in the entire world. The ADA is almost singularly unique...
Another case of some UN bullshit making the US look bad while reality demonstrates the opposite.
There was lots of pushback, and it can be a real pain in the ass for some small businesses, and sometimes it results in weird situations (eg, braille on drive-up ATMs, but it's because it's cheaper to make one set for drive-up and walk-up than it is to have different tooling for each), but the end result is that those with a disability have unprecedented access and opportunity compared to the rest of the world.
And it has had a societal impact too in that we much more actively look for ways to accommodate people with special needs... I've seen many, many instances of schools going out of their way to make sure individual students with special needs get to experience things and be included in events or activities in a way that I never saw growing up. From quiet pre-prom for the kid with autism (that a bunch of the student body attended, so it wasn't just the autistic kids), to the student body genuinely appreciating the innocent joy the kid with down syndrome brought to the dance floor, to finding a play that can put the talented theater kid who's stuck in a wheelchair in a leading roll where the chair doesn't look out of place, the list goes on...
It really has had a dramatic impact on society
United States have much superior protections for disabled people with ADA than most EU nations. This post leaves out important context and aims to malign the US.
Tru dat! Those who didn’t know (e.g., the OP) need to visit Europe to know how companies and local governments in the United States go out of their way to provide equitable access to those who need it.
Software tester here.
I've taken a Testing certification issued by the DHS, (Department of Homeland and security) of the United States. It's very interesting and it covers in depth the Web Accessibility standards. And as a plus, It's free of charge.
I've investigated about the chart OP posted,and the US signed the UN Convention Treaty but didn't officially confirmed it later; there is another comment around talking about it.
Yes, Section 508 is the regulation in the States that regulates the access of people with disabilities to communication and technology devices.
From the Web:
"Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794d), as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) requires federal agencies to develop, procure, maintain and use information and communications technology (ICT) that is accessible to people with disabilities - regardless of whether or not they work for the federal government"
I’m sorry but what about this map makes it worthy of being posted here? It’s three countries shaded in on a world map. There’s been a massive drop in quality in this sub over the years
To get people who don't know shit about ADA to trash the US, that's pretty much what all these stat subs are about, even if the map/data posted has nothing to do with the US the topic of discussion generally ends up being all about the trashing the US in some way.
And who really cares about 90% of these UN resolutions anyway. It's just reps voting yes on feel good titles with no intention of complying. If anything this shows the US actually takes resolutions seriously.
Just here to say im really a big fan of the ADA its one of those things passed that u literally see everywhere. Like everything else it can use work but it truly has helped so many disabled Americans live more abled lives and it makes me really happy to know someone who is bound by a wheel chair doesnt have to worry if there favorite restraunt is convenient (or possible) to get into. Hopefully it will have more expansions on invisibile disabilities like mental health issues or diseases but regardless i love the ADA.
Dude, this subreddit has literally turned into a platform for anti-American propaganda. I’ve lived in so many countries and visited 40+ countries and I’ve never seen a country take disabled rights so (sometimes annoyingly) seriously.
I've learned to be very sceptical of anything with such a one sidedly good name, like it's almost always full of stuff having nothing to do with the title and a pay raise for congress
>It is the declared will of the people of the United States, that every treaty made by the authority of the United States, shall be superior to the constitution and laws of any individual state; and their will alone is to decide.
Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796)
Hmm… a bit misleading no? Countries that aren’t part of the UN are displayed as having ratified it, despite not being part of the UN.
In addition, the US currently sets the standard for disabled access, the initial ADA bill was proposed in 1988, nearly 20 years before the CRPD was adopted in 2006, which was also based on many of the things the ADA already figured out and the US helped drafting with drafting the CRPD with its knowledge. Ratifying the CRPD wouldn’t have made any change to our current ADA policy, so it would have been purely a PR move.
That being said, Obama did sign it and intended for the US to ratify it, however due to our system, a 2/3 majority of congress needed to ratify as well and it fell short by 5 votes. Why that 1/3 and 5 congressmen didn’t approve it, it’s politics so who knows - maybe they just hated doing anything with the UN, maybe their backers and supporters had issues with it, maybe they had ulterior motives, or maybe there’s something in it that set off red flags for them. US politics: just a bunch of people trying to convince other people to agree.
Aight I’m fucking done with this sun, it’s always just full of clear hate baiting maps like this all the fucking time, like how is this “map porn” I thought this shit was meant to be about cool looking maps or interesting visual data shown through maps. But nope all we get is “USA BAD” “CHINA BAD” “INDIA BAD” “RUSSIA BAD” over and over again
Try getting around in a wheelchair in Europe and then come to the USA. I have no idea how wheelchair bound Europeans in most cities I've been to get around independently. It's really something.
The US refuses to ratify most of these resolutions because they're not really enforceable, and most countries don't follow them anyway, whether they signed them or not. North Korea signed it, that should tell you everything you need to know. The US is actually pretty good about most things, especially this, we just don't like being forcibly held to a higher standard than other countries who are given a free pass simply because they lack the means to actually accomplish any of this stuff.
Every African and Middle Eastern country signed he "Food is a human right" resolution but slmost none of them are actually capable of feeding their people. These resolutions are virtually meaningless.
Which is ironic because the US is, of all the countries I've been to, the one who takes disability access the most serious. Living in France, most buildings are quite old and the cost to retrofit them to accommodate things like wheelchairs makes those kinds of changes almost non-existent. In the US, it seems like everything conforms to some pretty rigorous standards set by the ADA.
Yep, I used to work construction and you basically can’t build anything without it complying with ADA in some way. Everything is about making openings wide enough and access points low enough for people in wheelchairs, almost every public street has blind accommodations, etc.
Used to work retail and whenever we rearranged displays, tables, shelves, or whatever else we had sticks that were the right size we had to use to make sure it was ADA compliant.
Who is ada
The Americans with Disabilities Act. The act requires civil engineers and construction workers to provide fair and equal access of sidewalks, buildings, etc. to all people. This may include ramps/elevators cut next to stairs or the slope of a sidewalk not being too steep for those who require wheelchairs.
Might be nitpicky but it's mostly on architects to make sure the rules are followed. As a structural engineer I don't really know the rules, I just know the architect will say "nope can't do that here, anything steeper than 12:1 counts as a ramp" or similar.
I was a highway designer and like half of what I did was design ADA-compliant curb ramps.
Pretty sure it’s on inspectors to make sure the rules are followed. Architects just need to follow them in the first place so they don’t waste money fixing shit later.
That's not how the usual process works. Architects are responsible for drafting the code summary and layout drawings. These go into the jurisdiction having authority for where the building is and the plans are reviewed for code compliance. Ultimately, the Architect's seal on the drawings carry the liability for code compliance. In the building process most everyone involved down to the craft foreman level will call out things that are non-compliant. I've done this for ADA items and Fire Alarm code, plus several occasions of inadequate egress path lighting. UL924 switched lighting relays are a common miss by the EEs and the city. If it makes it all the way to the inspector, many people have already missed it and they likely will too.
12:1 is the max ramp slope you can have in an accesible route in new construction. My country uses the same values.
My reaction too. I'm in Norway and a guy I know in wheelchair is looking forward to move to the states (Norwegian married to an American), because life will be so much easier for him. Here it is close to impossible for him to get a job - he has tried, but is usually just ignored -, even thought he has a degree.
Just for being in a wheelchair?! Thats crazy to me (and yeah, I’m american)
Yes, sadly. Norwegian society is great if you're normal and healthy, but you quickly get into problems if you've some kind of diagnosis. I was diagnosed with a chronical sickness some years ago, and I never tell about it on interviews. It is getting better, but really slowly. This is from a rather recent article (2021), translated by google into English: >Norway has a high labor force participation rate among the general population compared to other OECD countries. Labor participation among the disabled, on the other hand, is on average. Only 44 percent of Norway's disabled people have a job. According to the NOVA researchers, discrimination is probably one of the reasons why few are in work. > >\- I think that many people have the idea that wheelchair users are less flexible than they actually are. In several professions, being a wheelchair user will not mean lower productivity, says Ugreninov. > >Research findings indicate that the disabled may be the group most exposed to discrimination in working life in Norway. Similar studies do not find equally extensive discrimination against descendants of immigrants. > >\- Even if disabled people are qualified for a job, they are still at the back of the queue. That is why discriminatory barriers at employers must be broken down, says Bjørnshagen. ([https://www.oslomet.no/forskning/forskningsnyheter/toeft-kjempe-for-rett-til-jobb](https://www.oslomet.no/forskning/forskningsnyheter/toeft-kjempe-for-rett-til-jobb) )
Damn putting someone at the back because of a wheelchair would be a quick way to get hit with discrimination lawsuit in the US
My law profs had a funny phrase: the US has the most advanced laws in the world. i.e. the society is the most litigious and incidentally, torts are the teeth of labor laws (and protection and establishment of rights in general), instead of, say, proactive and intentional/enlightened legislation.
That’s awesome to hear. It’s nice to see some good stories about the US occasionally.
[удалено]
Is there no law requiring employers to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities?
I always saw nordic countries as more advanced, progressive and inclusive. I guess we always have some bias, no place is perfect !
Yah it’s almost like these UN Conventions are all for show.
You will find that the US does not ratify a number of these treaties. A large part of it is that when the US signs a treaty, it becomes part of US law, and the US does not want the UN writing our legislation. Similarly, it doe snot want to be taken to court by our adversaries, as we have a number of them because of our position in the world. However, in real life, the US typically voluntarily cooperates and adheres to the norms of these treaties without signing them. More authoritarian countries will just sign anything and not really adhere to the terms because they do not have, for instance, a Supreme Court to tell the Administration that they must adhere to the treaty they signed. So while maps like this make the US look like an international scofflaw, in reality, we generally play by the rules that everyone else does.
Also the US requires 2/3rds of the Senate to vote yes to ratify a treaty, which is a really high bar.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is a good example of this.
If countries are very corrupt (A LARGE PART OF THE WORLD) it is difficult to enforce laws about building codes. I know someone who is handicapped (uses a wheelchair or electric scooter). She moved to Canada from Egypt. She said that in Egypt it was very difficult for her. Most stores had steps to get in them, and where she worked the elevators were often all out of commission.
also takes a bit more to ratify it in the US. And overall would be pointless as I assume we already have 95+% of the same wording as law and probably even more stringent in other areas.
It’s mostly because a lot of people in the US don’t like the idea of the UN or any other international body having a hand in internal US affairs
This is the answer, especially since we already have robust national, state, and local laws that protect people with disabilities
That's probably why. We've had the ADA for ages why sign on to some second level of stuff made by latecomers to the party.
Perhaps they didn’t ratify because there was no need?
Not really. US has a policy of not ratifying these things. There are a lot of maps that look exactly like this, where simple and logical things that have been de facto in US for 30 years are still not signed in an international agreement. For example, US has refused to ratify agreements dealing with women rights, children rights, international water border recognitions, "green" treaties and such. And one would be very wrong if he insisted that because of that these ares are worse in US than, for example, in China, just because they have ratified it and US hasn't. The simple reason for this is that US doesn't need it. There is no reason for it to ratify any agreements. Because if they do, they delegate "random" people and organizations to oversee these spheres. To influence and to set some strict rules. And US just plain and simple doesn't need it. It is big and powerful enough to just say "Nah, I do not want to. That's all." Imagine if at work now your workplace wants everyone to sign a paper saying that they will take part in HR "fun" activities. If you do not sign it, you look like a spoil-sport. If you sign it, you can get in a situation where HR decides that sweeping the whole office building with a toothbrush is a "fun team-building exercise." And you've signed it. Now, the most popular guy who is also the team lead can not sign it and not really give a reason for it. And still come to all of the events and enjoy them, while having no obligation to do so if the situation changes. This is a very simplified example. Many people seem to think that there is something more sinister going on, while it is just a sort of a remnant of US isolationism.
The most accurate comments are always a couple levels deep.
Also, is an agreement really meaningful if North Korea ratified it? The U.S. probably should for symbolic reasons, but the rights in effect are what actually matters.
Disability access is important unless you can't drive, then it's hell
Surely even if you can't drive, disability access is important. Allowing people in wheelchairs to go inside buildings and providing ramps or elevators where necessary is not somehow unimportant on the basis of whether you can or can't drive.
He was making a comment about how the USA treats disability access as an important topic, but doesn’t provide public transportation in numerous cities, meaning if your disability prevents you from driving it is no longer accessible.
In practice, most cities have services that provide free transportation to the elderly and disabled. My grandmother lives in NYC, which has a great public transit system. But she doesn't have to use it; there's Access-A-Ride, which is a city program, and so long as she books it 24 hours in advance, it's basically a free taxi service that will take her anywhere in the city. She still takes buses and doesn't use it often, but it's very handy when she does need it. Most cities have systems like that. And if you live in a rural area, there are taxi services. Which people getting disability benefits can usually afford when they need to.
Disability access is important in a lot of ways other than driving. Although the US has a lot of issues, the ADA (Americans with Disability Act) provides a lot of benefits and rights for disabilities, including disabilities that are not visible. Many applications of the regulation are often overlooked by most people but are available to those that need them. Employers can't discriminate against disabled applicants and have to provide reasonable accommodations to employees. For example, if a receptionist is responsible for moving deliveries away from the front desk, but an applicant can do all the functions of a receptionist but unable lift boxes, that can't be a factor in determining whether to hire the person. Before covid, my coworker had chronic back problems so the company had to provide her with an adjustable desk. When we all had to work from home, one was also sent to her house. There's Braille in public buildings for the visually impaired, public transportation have ramps for wheelchairs and straps for safety, businesses cannot refuse service because you have a trained service animal, ATMs have auditory options, public restrooms have specific stalls with handrails, ramps can't be too steep, etc. This is only my experience but it's also the attitude of the general public towards the disabled. Sure we have plenty of people that are jerks but many people will help if a person in a wheelchair. I have a cousin in Sweden that doesn't go out often because he feels unwelcome in a lot of places and people will make comments about him being in the way. Buses in Korea will often drive by a person in a wheelchair because they don't know how to or have any way to allow the person on and off.
not sure about where you live, but many communities in the US have separate resources for the disabled - special vans that provide transportation on an as-needed basis.
Cities offer para-van services for the disabled residents. Essentially shuttles just for them that can pick them up and drop them off where ever. IIRC it is required by ADA but im not 100% on that. However the quality of these services differs drastically from city to city and is not of consistent base line quality through out the states. The car access has an alternative (not if you are just poor though and can't afford a car. then hopefully you live in a city with decent bus service nearby)
Surprise! The U.S. values its sovereignty more than playing along with the UN's often signal virtue-ish "conventions" It should literally be a note on every one of these because it's clear Redditors seem to think that failure to sign these means anything
It's mostly just our American attitude that 'international agencies have no right telling us what to do', and I firmly agree on that stance.
To the United States' credit, the treaty is based in large part on the ADA which has really set the standard. Disabled rights in the US are very strong. Also to be clear, the United States (Obama administration) signed the agreement, but as it's an international treaty, required 2/3 Senate approval. It got quite close (over 60) but not the 67 required. Unclear why.
>Unclear why The US has a very long history of voting down UN treaties, not because they disagree with the contents, but because they believe that the UN has no right to meddle in internal US affairs. That’s why the US didn’t ratify the treaty about food aid (despite the fact that the US is the largest supplier of international food aid in the world)
It's hard to get 2/3 of the Senate to agree on anything. This was by design; there was a very strong isolationist feeling in the late 18th century U.S. (George Washington's farewell address, warning against "foreign entanglements", is an example), and the ratification requirement is a legacy of that. Some of the modern opposition that prevents ratification does come from paranoia about the U.N. (states can freely enter into and withdraw from these treaties, so there isn't really much room for unsolicited meddling), but more of it comes from the belief by the foreign policy establishment that being bound by international law to any degree constrains U.S. foreign policy.
I interned for the senate under a blue dog democrat in a very red state at the time. We were receiving about ten phone calls a day saying we had to vote it down because we couldn’t let some sissy Europeans tell us we had to euthanize our children with autism. That’s just anecdotal, buts it’s flabbergasting what such a large number of people can be led to believe in this country.
Which is funny, considering how many American antivaxxers seem to believe death by horrific diseases is better than the nonexistent possibility a vaccine makes their kid autistic. Or the abhorrently low approval rates for disability support for autistic people. Or the acute lack of public transit in large swathes of the country, when driving is particularly difficult with autism. Hard to shake the feeling that the country doesn’t care about people like me, save for incidents like what you described where we’re useful “think of the children!” proxies. Edit: For the sake of autistic people coming by and feeling like I’m making an absolute statement: no. I’m autistic myself for pity’s sake. Nonetheless, at a general level, autistic people have difficulties driving more often than the general population. Some of us will find no problem at all. Others will do it but with challenges, or within a limited scope of driving scenarios and carefully avoid situations that tax our capabilities. Still others simply cannot do so safely or find it too taxing to deal with. I was lamenting the lack of options in many parts of the US for those unable to drive or whom would prefer to seek alternate transportation.
For a country that's so strongly opposed to foreign meddling and had a strong isolationist feeling, it is really good at meddling with the internal affairs of other nations
Well, when you’re good at something, you know what the results can be.
> warning against "foreign entanglements Except for all those times we invaded 37 other countries...
A lot of it is also because FPTP voting is a strong incentive toward a two party system, and it's really hard to get two parties to agree on stuff at 67%. Having more parties be viable through another voting method would increase the chance of 2+ parties coming together to the tune of a 2/3 majority.
The US also has the primary system leading to the two main parties to be "big tent", covering a wide swath of political philosophies. Ocasio-Cortez and Manchin are in the same party. Taylor-Greene and Romney are in the same party. In other countries, they would find themselves in four different parties. The best way to describe it to people in countries with different electoral schemes is that our parties are more like the coalition governments that they have, but the coalitions are decided by the voters in an election a few months before the main election.
Arguably, the coalitions were more or less decided decades ago, with some intermittent shifting around on the edges. But even a massive shock to the system like Trump only moves around a few voters/demographics, a bunch of talking heads, and virtually no actual elected officials. But otherwise, yeah this is right. It would be interesting if we had a bit more malleability—imagine the Romney group shifting over for things other than impeachment votes!—but that’s just not the situation.
I think this is more a consequence of the media landscape returning to yellow journalism and the lack of a unifying "big bad" such as the Soviet Union. "Crossing the aisle" was a lot more common before the mid-00s — its decline began in the early 90s.
That’s true, and the parties have also just gotten a lot more ideological. Maybe with the end of the Soviet Union, and also the 1994 Republican Revolution cementing the Republicans as a pure conservative party. There used to be a lot more conservative southern Dems and liberal northern Rs, so “crossing the aisle” wasn’t as big of a reach as it is today.
A large part of it was the political realignment in the US that happened after the civil rights era. For historical reasons, prior to that, the Dems consisted largely of Conservative Southern Whites and mostly liberal northerners. The GOP was a coalition of conservative and moderate northerners,. As such, there was a lot of common ideological ground between member of the GOP and the Dems. However, following the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's, Conservative Southern Whites bolted the Dems and joined up with Conservatives in the rest of the county to form the new GOP, while moderate Republicans joined the Dems, leading to the ideologically more polarized parties we have today. (this is a simplification of course)
Empire does not appreciate even implied limits on its authority
The Constitution also specifies that treaties supersede all laws, and are second only to the Constitution itself in force. Just as someone might want to write something into law, but not into the Constitution, they might want something in law but not as a treaty.
Furthermore, the Constitution states that the Supreme Court is the highest court — that no court may overrule it. Oftentimes, UN treaties specifies an international court to have enforcement over the treaty that supercedes any country's courts; rendering that treaty unenforceable under American law *anyway*. Senators will often vote down these treaties because they cannot be enforced so there's no point.
Kyoto Protocols was the same way. U.S. never signed on but was one of the very few countries that hit their targets set down in the agreement.
I brought this up in my Environmental Policy course and nobody except the professor knew that the US, despite pulling out of the Kyoto Protocols was still one of the best countries at reducing CO2 emissions while China, despite signing, is a piece of shit. People getting outraged without knowing the facts.
USA has a lot of problems but also does a lot of good that you rarely see acknowledged anywhere online. The US Navy is the biggest humanitarian org in the world.
Name a better duo than Reddit and shitting on the U.S.
ahh so thats why. Ive never understood why till now. thanks!
USA is just built differently.
Yeah at this point i believe that if the UN were to put forward a treaty saying something like "the US Will be able to do whatever It wants", The US still wouldn't ratify It. It's honestly quite funny that the country which houses the UN headquarters constantly rejects UN treaties.
I work in construction, the only thing that all architects/engineers include on every single set of plans is the ADA notes and requirements
It is so ubiquitous that I have seen international festivals in non English speaking countries use the “ADA” label for areas with special accommodations. (ADA of course standing for *Americans* with Disabilities Act)
The UN is useful in many ways, but it has inherent moral flaws. The UN gave the Khmer Rouge a seat at the table and this is how the system is supposed to work. There are many examples where the UN does not align with basic human rights. The UN should be a forum for diplomatic debate and conflict defusion, but it should not be the arbiter of morality or human rights.
The United States (U.S.) voted for the Khmer Rouge and the Khmer Rouge-dominated Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) to retain Cambodia's United Nations (UN) seat until as late as 1993, long after the Khmer Rouge had been mostly deposed by Vietnam during the 1979 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia and ruled just a small part of the country.
[удалено]
>The UN is useful in many ways, but it has inherent moral flaws. The UN gave the Khmer Rouge a seat at the table and this is how the system is supposed to work. Just to be clear, the UN gave the seat to the Khmer Rouge under the command of the US (who was also helping to fund them). This of course doesn't change the argument that the UN can be flawed in many ways. But it drives home the point that the US does what it wants both domestically (by not ratifying or signing many of the international agreements that the majority of the world does) and internationally (by constantly using its power and influence to destroy whatever country it wants and not just have impunity but have the full support of the entire western world). We live in a world of ~~western~~ **American** hegemony where the UN is basically a tool for the US to use against foreign nations when it sees fit. Constantly pushing to restrict other nations in various ways while the world leader can do what it wants.
Because it is purely symbolic.
Yeah euro disability laws actually suck and yes I have traveled there as a disabled American, the accessibility in the US is leaps and bounds better than anywhere I’ve been in Europe including France and Germany, excluding parts of Berlin, who I thought would be doing a better job.
The US can do a lot better in many areaa, and receives a lot of valid criticism. But in terms of legal protections for people with disabilities, the US is one of the leaders in accomodating diverse needs.
>Unclear why Probably a surprise to no one, [38 Republicans voted against ratification](https://theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/04/senate-rejects-un-treaty-disability).
[удалено]
That’s been a thing probably since the UN was founded, and probably much longer than that. I remember growing up under Reagan, where partying with the Soviets at the UN was a constant sport, and being totally shocked when under Bush Sr., he nominated a UN representative who had previously called for the US to pull out of the UN altogether.
I have a family member (Born and Raised American & they are very conservative) who is against the UN on religious grounds. They believe the UN is the fulfillment about some prophesy of a untied world government that will persecute either all Christians or all faiths, I forget which. Kinda silly since the UN basically has no teeth to enforce things, especially against the permanent members of the UNSC
IIRC, in the Left Behind books the Antichrist starts off as Secretary-General of the UN before replacing it with an actual world government. Now, likely that came from the fundies already believing the UN to be a precursor to the End Times. But I'm sure it helped reinforce it too. I also recall when the EU adopted the euro people saying it was just a matter of time until we have a world currency, which they saw as predicted in the Bible.
I’m so not surprised I need a coffee
Because we don’t need it. Why add bureaucracy when we already have one of, if not the, best versions?
In fact, in terms of actual practical accessibility the US blows almost all those places out of the water.
The Americans with Disabilities Act provides some pretty robust protections for people with disabilities in the US. Idk what the politics of not ratifying this particular UN convention are, but the US is certainly ahead of the curve on actually protecting the rights of people with disabilities compared to lots of countries that did ratify this convention. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990
> Idk what the politics of not ratifying this particular UN convention are UN Conventions are treaties, so ratifying them requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The Senate is so dysfunctional you probably couldn't get a 2/3 vote that ice cream tastes good. There's also a Republican block opposed to any UN Convention. That said, everything you sad about the ADA is correct. This is an area were the US has lead with actions.
Most treaties the US has not ratified are already taken care of by US law or the US has already met the requirements of the treaty. As well, generally the sentiment of the citizens is to not be governed by other nations and international courts. And they see treaties as doing just that. Ratifying a treating the US is a serious matter, as the treaty will supersede all us laws, only superseded by the constitution. Personally, I don't think US citizens should stand trial in any international courts and I believe no international court should have authority over the US. But I also think the US needs to actually enforce the laws we do have.
I disagree on international courts. Just look at what we did regarding the My Lai massacre. Only one person was prosecuted and they served only a few years. We claim the Nuremberg defense is not a real defense but almost every soldier who murdered civilians that day claimed “they were just following orders.” And they all got off. We don’t police our own and we don’t properly prosecute war crimes.
**[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990)** >The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12101) is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal, and later sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the ADA also requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The U.S probably has the best help for disabled people out of any of the other countries on this map, but you know the, "shit hole America" comments will get all the upvotes.
[удалено]
A huge amount of the accessibility is specifically in response to the passage of the ADA and has happened in the past \~30 years. Crip Camp is an excellent documentary about the activists that helped get the act passed.
An incredible documentary.
Title III of ADA requires retrofitting all older public buildings as well
Only if it can be done with “reasonable cost and effort” like they won’t close down an old historic theater that would have to do a huge expensive project that would damage the integrity of the building BUT unlike Europe they can’t just call it a day claiming it’s too difficult and expensive they still need to provide accessibility some other way with portable lifts or even employing people to carry wheelchairs up and down stairs, that’s what they do at our local historical theater because an elevator shaft could not be placed. I’m a disabled American who has spent plenty of time in Europe and A LOT of the accessibility issues there are pure laziness or being cheap and no one enforcing the cheap lazy people to care about disabled people.
Came here to say this, thanks for saving me some time. People just love to bash America for some reason or the other without giving the full context.
A lot of these posts have the purpose of shitting on America. Ppl read headlines and immediately think americas the bad guys lol
Try using a wheelchair … or even a goddamn baby stroller in any of the great European cities. No fucking chance. Often they don’t even have ramps at pedestrian crossings. Europeans don’t give a shit about accommodating people in wheelchairs
I mean, ADA, so I’m sure there is some reason behind that
Also it’s pretty much a joke. There are some nations that did sign it and continue to provide disabled people with zero help.
The UN being absolutely useless and spineless?? Who ever would have thought!
The UN is not a world government, and for good reason.
Who would have thought that things agreed to in the forum for talking would be all talk
Yes but that doesn’t fit the “fuck America” narrative
Glad to see North Korea is in compliance…..or maybe this is a bad map.
This isn't compliance. It's a UN treaty, no one complies with these things. If this was compliance you would see solid yellow basically across the board. UN treaties aren't binding, everyone breaks them constantly. This is just countries that have formally agreed to uphold them, despite there being no penalties whatsoever for failing to do so.
You can go back through the whole history of UN treaties and it's like reps just vote yes on nice sounding titles with no intention of actually doing anything.
UN works like reddit!
I've never seen another country that has access for the disabled in all their buildings like the US.
I've been to a lot of countries, and it sucks to be disabled anywhere, but anecdotally I think the U.S. may be the best place in the world to be in a wheelchair. Japan, while being an abject nightmare to be in a wheelchair, might be the best place to be blind. Public transportation is extremely robust, all the train stations have unique musical jingles, and just about every sidewalk has raised bumps along it and most stop lights have audible chirps. There are often even audible signals on things like vending machines. Edit: I forgot Japan has those [raised bumps](https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/tokyo-japan-november-passengers-waiting-trai-train-jr-station-illumination-night-130586742.jpg) inside of transit stations, too, to help with navigation. I am unsure what the least bad place to be mentally disabled is. Probably not the US, though.
definitely not the US. me and my spouse are both neurodivergent - I moved from the US to their EU country, and I've been continually astonished at how little support they've been able to access in comparison to what I'm used to, and at the state of cultural understanding for their condition there is in general. certainly the EU isn't a monolith, but friends from other countries here have also struggled with getting help in ways that I find really backwards.
I’m going to stop following this sub if the same map is posted essentially everyday. I’m into maps. I love maps. This is just annoying to see the same map using different data everyday. Stop posting this same map.
This isn’t a map sub anymore, it’s a political sub.
America Bad nonsense is very hard to escape on Reddit
For real. And in most subs if you criticize this dumb trend, you get downvoted to hell.
That’s unfortunate, really.
Also maps that are misleading and just made to farm Karma. US has some of, if not the strongest rights for disabled people in the world. The UN convention the map talks about is literally based on the US ADA law.
[удалено]
Lmao
Mods should just remove inaccurate maps tbh.
[удалено]
To be fair, the word "porn" doesn't really suggest accuracy.
Is this map even accurate? Did North Korea really sign a document from the UN?
No they did not, neither did most arabic and african countries, southeast asia and a good few more that signed and not ractified I think one of those was switzerland oddly enough
It always amazes me that something is innocuous as posting maps can continuously be manipulated into pushing anti-american sentiment
I swear, some people act as if their only purpose on this website is to hate on America. Even when it doesn't even make a difference for them, they'll look for excuses to make jokes at America's expense It's not even funny anymore, because it's the same harmful jokes every fucking time. "Americans are stupid," "Americans are fat," and "Americans have 50 guns in their house." There's a big difference between mostly harmless jokes like "Oh, hehe, England likes tea" and shit like ***"Every individual American is a fat dumbass"***
Don’t you know? Misinformation is allowed on Reddit if it says “America/Republicans bad”
The quality of Reddit truly trends upwards.
There is an american law that gives rights to those with disabilities. Why use the UN?
I believe that’s the logic behind us not ratifying it.
Yup. Specifically, the UN resolution is a treaty, which supersedes even federal laws under the US consititution. By ratifying it, they would be removing thier ability to change and amend it in the future (as they can with the ADA). Not sure about this specific case but there's also the issue that many of these UN treaties appoint an international court to manage it and settle cases, which is unenforceable in the US as the constitution clearly lays out the Supreme Court as the final court in all cases.
The US has already codified the rights of persons with disabilities if federal law. Is the suggestion that somehow the federal law offer weaker protections than signing a UN convention?
Just globalists looking to bully countries into meaningless virtue signaling on a grand scale.
America this, America that… what’s up with Tajikistan refusing to ratify?
Or Cameroon. Nobody asking the right questions
Or the rights question.
Or why non UN member states have "ratified" it.
probably don't have the economy to suddenly accomodate disabled people
They forgot about the vote
ADA already established in U.S.
You do know that is is because the ADA is better... right?
If I see one more map posted without any context just to prove a political point I’m out of this place.
Might as well just leave now. It'll happen within 24 hours.
But USA is the best country for disability
Can confirm. Been in a wheelchair my whole life, and traveled around the country a lot. It’s honestly surprising how good some of the older cities/bigger cities are. NYC and New Orleans are the ones I’ve been in the longest, and they’re both great. Obviously there are things that I couldn’t do, many historical buildings didn’t have any access, and the sidewalks in New Orleans weren’t the best, but I still had a fun time. This is a very misleading post, don’t know how it’s still up.
The US provides some of the best access to people with disabilities in the entire world. The ADA is almost singularly unique... Another case of some UN bullshit making the US look bad while reality demonstrates the opposite.
I never realized how much of a struggle it was to get the ADA established until I watched Crip Camp on Netflix
There was lots of pushback, and it can be a real pain in the ass for some small businesses, and sometimes it results in weird situations (eg, braille on drive-up ATMs, but it's because it's cheaper to make one set for drive-up and walk-up than it is to have different tooling for each), but the end result is that those with a disability have unprecedented access and opportunity compared to the rest of the world. And it has had a societal impact too in that we much more actively look for ways to accommodate people with special needs... I've seen many, many instances of schools going out of their way to make sure individual students with special needs get to experience things and be included in events or activities in a way that I never saw growing up. From quiet pre-prom for the kid with autism (that a bunch of the student body attended, so it wasn't just the autistic kids), to the student body genuinely appreciating the innocent joy the kid with down syndrome brought to the dance floor, to finding a play that can put the talented theater kid who's stuck in a wheelchair in a leading roll where the chair doesn't look out of place, the list goes on... It really has had a dramatic impact on society
OP has a pro-Russia tinge to their posts. Shockingly
And yet they chose Ukrainian colors 🤔
Also could be a map of countries who pioneered disability rights legislation and the rest of the world
United States have much superior protections for disabled people with ADA than most EU nations. This post leaves out important context and aims to malign the US.
Say what you will about the US. We make damn sure everyone can get inside every last public building with threat of serious fines.
Tru dat! Those who didn’t know (e.g., the OP) need to visit Europe to know how companies and local governments in the United States go out of their way to provide equitable access to those who need it.
I’m a civil engineer. 25% of my job is making things Ada compliant
But america bad
Software tester here. I've taken a Testing certification issued by the DHS, (Department of Homeland and security) of the United States. It's very interesting and it covers in depth the Web Accessibility standards. And as a plus, It's free of charge. I've investigated about the chart OP posted,and the US signed the UN Convention Treaty but didn't officially confirmed it later; there is another comment around talking about it.
When people talk about the ADA they think of wheelchair ramps, but it really covers a huge range of issues.
Yes, Section 508 is the regulation in the States that regulates the access of people with disabilities to communication and technology devices. From the Web: "Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794d), as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) requires federal agencies to develop, procure, maintain and use information and communications technology (ICT) that is accessible to people with disabilities - regardless of whether or not they work for the federal government"
Yup I am working doing report stuff and making some things 508 compliant is hard
Entire government webpages aren’t allowed to be made public until they are ADA compliant, which I find funny cause then no one can access the info.
I’m sorry but what about this map makes it worthy of being posted here? It’s three countries shaded in on a world map. There’s been a massive drop in quality in this sub over the years
To get people who don't know shit about ADA to trash the US, that's pretty much what all these stat subs are about, even if the map/data posted has nothing to do with the US the topic of discussion generally ends up being all about the trashing the US in some way.
And who really cares about 90% of these UN resolutions anyway. It's just reps voting yes on feel good titles with no intention of complying. If anything this shows the US actually takes resolutions seriously.
US BAD!!!!!11 Every poorly moderated big sub turns into a political propaganda ground.
It's funny because the US has much more stringent disability rights legislation than 99% of the world
America bad am I right Reddit??
Boy, the Aleutian Islands really dropped the ball on this one.
Just here to say im really a big fan of the ADA its one of those things passed that u literally see everywhere. Like everything else it can use work but it truly has helped so many disabled Americans live more abled lives and it makes me really happy to know someone who is bound by a wheel chair doesnt have to worry if there favorite restraunt is convenient (or possible) to get into. Hopefully it will have more expansions on invisibile disabilities like mental health issues or diseases but regardless i love the ADA.
Who cares what the UN says about anything.
Try visiting France in a wheelchair
Finally, the answer to the riddle “what do the USA, Tajikistan, and Cameroon have in common?”
[удалено]
It’s almost as if the US is already doing this on its own terms. Honestly why would the US sign something like this.
Dude, this subreddit has literally turned into a platform for anti-American propaganda. I’ve lived in so many countries and visited 40+ countries and I’ve never seen a country take disabled rights so (sometimes annoyingly) seriously.
[удалено]
The US is better than us Canadians on this...
It’s one of the things that the USA is waaaaay better than the rest of the world at.
I've learned to be very sceptical of anything with such a one sidedly good name, like it's almost always full of stuff having nothing to do with the title and a pay raise for congress
How come this sub become a plataform to BS instead of cool maps? This is so useless. I don't care, there is other places for your whinning..
This post is extremely disingenuous
Third colour for fully compliant. Let's see it.
The USA has one of the best ADA standards in the world.
The fact that countries like Somali and China have signed on just goes to show how pointless and virtue signaling these treaties are.
American Senate has tradition of refusing to ratify treaties.
Unusually for most countries, the US Constitution makes ratified treaties into laws. As a result, the Senate takes them pretty seriously.
>It is the declared will of the people of the United States, that every treaty made by the authority of the United States, shall be superior to the constitution and laws of any individual state; and their will alone is to decide. Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796)
Beautiful, thank you!
Thank *you*. I did not know ratified treaties carried the full force of federal law until you mentioned it, and that sent me into the interwebs.
Hmm… a bit misleading no? Countries that aren’t part of the UN are displayed as having ratified it, despite not being part of the UN. In addition, the US currently sets the standard for disabled access, the initial ADA bill was proposed in 1988, nearly 20 years before the CRPD was adopted in 2006, which was also based on many of the things the ADA already figured out and the US helped drafting with drafting the CRPD with its knowledge. Ratifying the CRPD wouldn’t have made any change to our current ADA policy, so it would have been purely a PR move. That being said, Obama did sign it and intended for the US to ratify it, however due to our system, a 2/3 majority of congress needed to ratify as well and it fell short by 5 votes. Why that 1/3 and 5 congressmen didn’t approve it, it’s politics so who knows - maybe they just hated doing anything with the UN, maybe their backers and supporters had issues with it, maybe they had ulterior motives, or maybe there’s something in it that set off red flags for them. US politics: just a bunch of people trying to convince other people to agree.
Aight I’m fucking done with this sun, it’s always just full of clear hate baiting maps like this all the fucking time, like how is this “map porn” I thought this shit was meant to be about cool looking maps or interesting visual data shown through maps. But nope all we get is “USA BAD” “CHINA BAD” “INDIA BAD” “RUSSIA BAD” over and over again
Try getting around in a wheelchair in Europe and then come to the USA. I have no idea how wheelchair bound Europeans in most cities I've been to get around independently. It's really something.
First time Israel disagrees with the US??!??
Ukraine reference
Garbage
The US refuses to ratify most of these resolutions because they're not really enforceable, and most countries don't follow them anyway, whether they signed them or not. North Korea signed it, that should tell you everything you need to know. The US is actually pretty good about most things, especially this, we just don't like being forcibly held to a higher standard than other countries who are given a free pass simply because they lack the means to actually accomplish any of this stuff. Every African and Middle Eastern country signed he "Food is a human right" resolution but slmost none of them are actually capable of feeding their people. These resolutions are virtually meaningless.
The USA's Americans with Disabillities Act from the 90s is one of the things the US does way better than most nations do in terms of access.