(For those who didn't notice, there's a space for overweight people, a space for wheelchair users that can also be used by people with guide dogs)++
A bus stop in my city in Brazil, which tries to be accessible architecture but is also hostile. It made me reflect on the people who design these projects, that they know the need for accessibility, but they do this crap.
Does infrastructure associated with public transit networks really need to be our main focus? It does need to be able to serve its role.
Contrast that with public spaces that are made malicious for the sake of private interest. That could be the publicly maintained or owned space in front of a business, or it could be a website that pretends to take the role of a public commons all while erasing commercially incommodious comments or discussion.
How is adding the barriers in the seats changing the ability to serve the role? You wouldn't need space for overweight people if you only had not had barriers in the seats
Yeah, could be an ADA issue. There probably is a reg on minimum seat width.
I didn't know we had a main focus.
Looks pretty accessible to me. I don’t think a wheelchair person and a service dog are going to sit in the same corner.
Wait what is the issue here? What is hostile?
The 'armrest' bars are to prevent people sleeping on it, although it looks pretty challenging to sleep on already.
Can’t the armrests just be armrests?
Look at the shape, does that look like a comfy armrest? it's also common to not have these on the end of benches / seats, since they aren't actually for resting your arms on, but rather preventing people lying down.
Not putting one on the end is actually an accessibility improvement. It makes me laugh that the OP's photo actually shows a sign saying it's for fat bastards, normally it's just implied. (citation: am a fat bastard)
the sign is pretty funny yeah
That's the plausible deniability, yes.
You can totally sleep on this