ユニバーサルデザイン、タクシー運転手の心に響かず　　　　　　　　　　　　気ままなリライト１０９

車いす乗車拒否、3割超　UDタクシーで民間調査 - 日本経済新聞

The much-applauded concept of 'universal design', celebrated for making spaces wheelchair-friendly, often has turned out to be merely cosmetic. While it is aligning ostensibly with societal values of inclusivity and disability rights, it is frequently lacking the genuine commitment and empathy those values demand. This gap between principle and practice is becoming glaringly obvious in the taxi industry. Taxis designed to be universally accessible are paraded as emblems of diversity, yet the reluctance of drivers to serve wheelchair users is revealing a troubling contradiction. It's a problem rooted in the interplay of personal values and a wider moral climate, undermining the very essence of what 'universal design' should represent.

The increasing refusal to serve wheelchair users by taxi drivers, has overshadowed ethical considerations and legal obligations across 17 prefectures in Japan, including Tokyo. Findings from an October study by the Japan National Assembly of Disabled Peoples’ International uncovered a concerning trend in the attitudes of drivers operating taxis with universal design. Over 30% of those drivers were found to harbor discriminatory attitudes. The study's specifics painted a stark picture. Out of 109 wheelchair-using participants, 38 were denied service in various scenarios, whether at taxi stands, through pre-bookings, or when hailing cabs on the streets. This pattern of marginalization has escalated since 2019 when government subsidies of up to 600,000 yen per vehicle were introduced to encourage the adoption of universal design. Back then, the denial rate was 26.7%, indicating a worsening situation. The disparity between urban and rural experiences was particularly striking. In Tokyo, 17.2% of wheelchair users reported being denied service, a slight improvement from 21.4% in 2019. In rural areas outside Tokyo, the situation was alarming, with 41.3% of wheelchair users facing discrimination, up from 29.5% in 2019. Those figures are not just underscoring an increasing trend of marginalization among wheelchair users, especially in less urbanized areas, but also exposing a disheartening misuse of the universal design’s concept, ironically supported by government subsidies.

Among taxi drivers who are more inclined to refuse service to wheelchair users, there tends to be a focus on the peace of mind they gain from such refusal, rather than the peace of mind achieved through a strong sense of ethical responsibility or empathy. Their pursuit of peace of mind overshadows the path towards empathizing with wheelchair users. Even when they find their discriminatory refusal at odds with the principles of universal design, their personal peace of mind takes priority, pushing any sense of guilt to the margins of their consciousness. They are adept at crafting justifications to quiet any internal moral conflict, transforming any scenario into a defense for their decision. For instance, the lack of training in assisting wheelchair users becomes a shield behind which they hide their unethical behavior. The thought of accommodating wheelchair users is swiftly dismissed as overly time-consuming or financially impractical, especially in a business model that rewards the number of trips over the quality of service.

Addressing the challenges faced by wheelchair users is hinging on a shift in the mindsets of taxi drivers. Despite the calls from Disabled People’s International (DPI) for government intervention, real change may remain elusive without a fundamental change in how drivers find their peace of mind. This requires a specialized moral training program that reframes empathy with wheelchair users as a primary source of personal fulfillment, as personal peace of mind always comes first, ethical obligation follows secondly. The principles of universal design as a mere ethical obligation, are not embraced primarily for the sake of their peace of mind. Through such training program, those drivers could be guided to reconcile the dismissed distress of wheelchair users with their own sense of peace, prioritizing their self-contentment nurtured through empathy over the ethical obligation superficially attached to universal design.