Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpark | Hacker News Reader

> Why to keep running large number of them despite other concerns including safety?

Because people apparently like them and because replacing an elevator is an expensive affair.

It’s not clear that paternoster lifts are really more dangerous than standard elevators. The failures of safeties described can happen with standard elevators as well.

View on HN

Yes but there are also accessibility concerns. These are public spaces, and at least in the US there are laws about public accessibility. How would someone on crutches, or in a wheelchair, or with a service dog, use such a thing? I assume that they aren’t the only option available in the building.

Accessibility isn’t always as guaranteed as people like to imagine. Lots of buildings have no accessibility today even in the US. Buildings with this sort of elevator are probably grandfathered out of accessibility requirements just like buildings without elevators.

They would use a separate elevator hidden a bit off to the side, and they wouldn't have to wait for it because most other people would be using the paternoster.

A paternoster can transport at least 12 people per minute (depending on the speed of course) per direction from any floor to any floor, more if their travel paths don't overlap or people ignore the "max two people per cab" sign.

Not clear? If you are not fast enough, paternoster lift will crush you.

If the safeties fail, sure. If the safeties on a traditional elevator fail, it can close the doors on you and then rip you in half. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com