At this point it would be cheaper to make a large investment into Boston Dynamics to develop walking chairs, instead of continuing with ramps and other things meant to accommodate wheelchairs.
It doesn't until the robots become cheap enough, but even before that baby strollers are much less sensitive to some amount of stairs than wheelchairs are.
Do you want fewer small businesses? Do you want everything to be more expensive for everyone? There are jobs where people realistically have to be able to carry over 50 pounds. Not everyone can do that, do you want anything over 50# to simply be banned?
Why are “number of small businesses” and “price of goods and services” relevant metrics here? We don’t create accessibility laws because of economics, we do it because it’s the right thing to do. If that means fewer small businesses, so be it.
Because not everything can, or should be usable by all of the population... Should all countertops have adjustable motors to change height before you can sell a house? Someone who is 6'7" tall can't really use the same counters comfortably as someone in a wheelchair.
The fact is, nothing is, has been or ever will be completely fair. And that's okay. Everyone makes decisions based on their environment. Most accessibility laws are only applicable to organizations of a certain size, which isn't even most
You're arguing scale, and I agree that it's probably not possible to make everything accessible (not until we get those brain-controlled robots, anyway ;) ).
But if the question is "Where do you set the bar," we already have laws for that. Are they too many?
I think in some cases yes, in others not so much... I mean in Cali, there are places that literally don't have a restroom for customers because of risk of suit over buildings nearly half a century old.
For others, maybe not as much. In the end, it's a balancing game, and I keep seeing discussion (especially political) lose all sense of nuance or negotiation.
