ThatOneGuy
REGISTERED
Hello all,
Lately I've been running into an argument against providing accessible features for first responders. For example, in reviewing plans for an ambulance building. It goes something like this: "Well, they aren't going to hire EMTs in wheelchairs!" The details vary but you get the idea. I end up having to go through every nook and cranny in the code hunting down and eliminating exceptions so that I can prove, yes you do need to make that bathroom meet ADA, and no it doesn't matter who is using it.
Have others here gotten similar type of pushback? And if so how do you typically deal with it? Do you just stand on the letter of the law and say it doesn't matter what your reasoning is the code says do it? Or do you actually argue about the intent and why it matters? How would you suggest dealing with people who are essentially arguing that ADA should be limited to the "public" only?
Lately I've been running into an argument against providing accessible features for first responders. For example, in reviewing plans for an ambulance building. It goes something like this: "Well, they aren't going to hire EMTs in wheelchairs!" The details vary but you get the idea. I end up having to go through every nook and cranny in the code hunting down and eliminating exceptions so that I can prove, yes you do need to make that bathroom meet ADA, and no it doesn't matter who is using it.
Have others here gotten similar type of pushback? And if so how do you typically deal with it? Do you just stand on the letter of the law and say it doesn't matter what your reasoning is the code says do it? Or do you actually argue about the intent and why it matters? How would you suggest dealing with people who are essentially arguing that ADA should be limited to the "public" only?