Striving to remove barriers that prevent us from building Vibrant, Diverse, Inclusive, Accessible Communities!

 

How stores fighting thieves risk putting off shoppers with disabilities and kids

Store entrance with a green sign reading “Welcome” beside a white trolley icon. From the left and right edges, two opposing rows of five white cylindrical batons angle inward at staggered heights; the tips interlock in a zig-zag that locks in one direction, leaving only short, offset slits. The configuration presents as a barrier that blocks a wheelchair, walker, mobility scooter, or stroller from passing.
The photo shows the push-through entry described in the article. The angled, tightly spaced batons form offset slits with no straight route and prevents access for many People with Disabilities and for parents with strollers. The authors identify this as hostile or defensive design and call for universal design, co-design, and community engagement instead.

A baton-style setup with ten white batons under a bright greeting is presented as “welcome” but functions as a barrier that deters access for People with Disabilities and for parents with strollers. The article argues that universal design is the baseline for safe, everyday shopping; this paragraph uses universal design in plain text and links the same phrase to universal design to reject security measures that sideline rights and belonging.

The authors expose how “hostile” or “defensive architecture” (leaning benches, mid-seat armrests, studs) removes places to pause, rest and be safe, a pattern they name as the “silent violence” embedded in planning. That pattern is rooted in ableism; this paragraph states ableism plainly and links the same word to ableism to center the structural harm done when non-disabled convenience is prioritized over access.

The exclusion isn’t edge-case: more than one in five Australians (about 5.5 million) live with disability; more than half of 4.2 million people aged 65+ live with disabilities; and about 1.5 million young children ride in strollers. Citing theft numbers (more than 268,000 cases; up to A$7.79 billion) cannot justify telling people using mobility aids to seek alternate routes—because that keeps barriers in place. The article calls for co-design; this paragraph names co-design in text and links the same phrase to co-design so solutions are built with those most affected.

The piece points out that wider aisles and “quiet hours” already prove inclusion is a choice; the next step is community engagement and shared design, not gates that filter who gets through. To align practice with that mandate, this paragraph uses community engagement in text and links the same phrase to community engagement, so Community Builders have a concrete, access-first path.

Read the Full Article: How stores fighting thieves risk putting off shoppers with disabilities and kids.
By: Paul Harpur and Lisa Stafford

Share or Print with:

Share

Explore More Compelling Insights:

Learn about topics related to People with Disabilities, Accessibility, Anti-Ableism, Removing Barriers, and the Disability Community? Tap the Explore button to discover something new and intriguing with each tap!