Blind pedestrian: ‘I am blind. Not knowing the difference between the place where I’m safe and the bit where I can be killed is scary!’
The recent Holmes report notes that:
“Shared space schemes remove regulations and features such as kerbs, road surface markings, traffic signs and controlled crossings. The number of shared space schemes is increasing, with many local authorities planning new schemes, despite the inherent difficulties”
There is no single definition of “shared space” but Government guidance defines it as:
‘A street or place designed to improve pedestrian movement and comfort by reducing the dominance of motor vehicles and enabling all users to share the space rather than follow the clearly defined rules implied by more conventional designs.’ (Department for Transport, 2011).
The same document continues to define sharing as:
‘The ability and willingness of pedestrians, facilitated by the sympathetic behaviour of motorists and others to move freely around the street and use parts of it that, in a more conventional layout, would be considered largely dedicated to vehicular use.’
The Holmes report used a self-selecting online survey, which is always problematic statistically. What it can throw up, however, are experiences of people to shared space and potential hazards and dangers.
An example is that quoted above, and another is this from another blind user:
“…for people with no sight like myself they are a death trap. I cannot express how terrible they are and how they make me feel so angry; to think all the people responsible for them expect us to use it when we cannot see. I use the one in Leek with my husband and never on my own.”
And another noted
“As I have a guide dog he finds it impossible to find the correct crossing points”
Mike Dun, who is a strong champion for the disabled said that:
“All public spaces should be designed from the disabled persons needs perspective. Granite cobbles or settes have no place in such schemes as they are unsuitable for many users. Changes in level should be clearly indicated and all signs and markings need to be obvious and easy to understand. The mixing of cyclists with pedestrians should so far as possible be avoided. There are far too many obstacles – ‘A’ frame signs, flower tubs, random bollards and other street "furniture" in pedestrian priority areas - but an absence of essential signs for "toilets" or other directional information in an accessible format”
One respondent said that shared spaces were statistically safer and then commented that:
“So you're suggesting that by pandering to the needs of the few you are willing to expose the majority to greater risk?”
I think that was an ill-judged and thoughtless comment.
On the contrary, the sighted can manage any space with a fair degree of acuity, but it is those most discriminated against who need to be helped not hinderd:
Many blind people use kerbs as an essential navigational tool. One man wrote about the:
“Difficulty in navigating due to absence of any clear indicator such as a kerb. Feeling of insecurity. Wished that I wasn't there.”
Another blind user with the same problem would not use the space alone:
“I could not use the shared space safely as there was no definition of a kerb to tell me where the pavement started or ended. I would not be able to use them on my own.”
A guide dog owner wrote that:
“It was horrific as I couldn't work out where the safest place for me to walk was. I also needed to be on the other side of the space numerous times and more than once had a close shave with cars and cyclists.”
The Guide Dogs for the Blind has a section on shared spaces;
https://www.guidedogs.org.uk/how-you-can-help/campaigning/shared-surfaces/
The shared surface concept is intended to be a way to provide:
"Guide Dogs has been campaigning against the use of shared surface streets as part of our Streets Ahead campaign, supported by organisations representing disabled people across the disability sector, older people and other groups."
"Shared surface streets are dangerous for people with sight loss, who rely upon the presence of the kerb to know they are on the pavement and not in the road. "
It lists “Key concerns for people with sight loss:”
Guide Dogs has done in-depth research into the problems of shared surface streets and potential ways forward looking at "The impact of shared surface streets and shared use pedestrian/cycle paths on the mobility and independence of blind and partially sighted people."
This report provides opinions on shared surfaces from a survey of 500 people with sight loss. And it has this note on "Accidents and near misses on shared surface streets". Not one was enthusiastic about shared spaces or thought they were a good idea - but then they have to live with the consequences of the street planners decisions!
The recent Holmes report notes that:
“Shared space schemes remove regulations and features such as kerbs, road surface markings, traffic signs and controlled crossings. The number of shared space schemes is increasing, with many local authorities planning new schemes, despite the inherent difficulties”
There is no single definition of “shared space” but Government guidance defines it as:
‘A street or place designed to improve pedestrian movement and comfort by reducing the dominance of motor vehicles and enabling all users to share the space rather than follow the clearly defined rules implied by more conventional designs.’ (Department for Transport, 2011).
The same document continues to define sharing as:
‘The ability and willingness of pedestrians, facilitated by the sympathetic behaviour of motorists and others to move freely around the street and use parts of it that, in a more conventional layout, would be considered largely dedicated to vehicular use.’
The Holmes report used a self-selecting online survey, which is always problematic statistically. What it can throw up, however, are experiences of people to shared space and potential hazards and dangers.
An example is that quoted above, and another is this from another blind user:
“…for people with no sight like myself they are a death trap. I cannot express how terrible they are and how they make me feel so angry; to think all the people responsible for them expect us to use it when we cannot see. I use the one in Leek with my husband and never on my own.”
And another noted
“As I have a guide dog he finds it impossible to find the correct crossing points”
Mike Dun, who is a strong champion for the disabled said that:
“All public spaces should be designed from the disabled persons needs perspective. Granite cobbles or settes have no place in such schemes as they are unsuitable for many users. Changes in level should be clearly indicated and all signs and markings need to be obvious and easy to understand. The mixing of cyclists with pedestrians should so far as possible be avoided. There are far too many obstacles – ‘A’ frame signs, flower tubs, random bollards and other street "furniture" in pedestrian priority areas - but an absence of essential signs for "toilets" or other directional information in an accessible format”
One respondent said that shared spaces were statistically safer and then commented that:
“So you're suggesting that by pandering to the needs of the few you are willing to expose the majority to greater risk?”
I think that was an ill-judged and thoughtless comment.
On the contrary, the sighted can manage any space with a fair degree of acuity, but it is those most discriminated against who need to be helped not hinderd:
Many blind people use kerbs as an essential navigational tool. One man wrote about the:
“Difficulty in navigating due to absence of any clear indicator such as a kerb. Feeling of insecurity. Wished that I wasn't there.”
Another blind user with the same problem would not use the space alone:
“I could not use the shared space safely as there was no definition of a kerb to tell me where the pavement started or ended. I would not be able to use them on my own.”
A guide dog owner wrote that:
“It was horrific as I couldn't work out where the safest place for me to walk was. I also needed to be on the other side of the space numerous times and more than once had a close shave with cars and cyclists.”
The Guide Dogs for the Blind has a section on shared spaces;
https://www.guidedogs.org.uk/how-you-can-help/campaigning/shared-surfaces/
The shared surface concept is intended to be a way to provide:
- an attractive street environment with slower traffic
- less street clutter
- a people friendly space
"Guide Dogs has been campaigning against the use of shared surface streets as part of our Streets Ahead campaign, supported by organisations representing disabled people across the disability sector, older people and other groups."
"Shared surface streets are dangerous for people with sight loss, who rely upon the presence of the kerb to know they are on the pavement and not in the road. "
It lists “Key concerns for people with sight loss:”
- You have to make eye contact: Pedestrians, motorists and cyclists have to make eye contact to decide who moves first. This obviously compromises the safety, independence and confidence of blind and partially sighted people.
- People rely on the kerb: Blind and partially sighted people, particularly guide dog owners and long cane users, use the kerb as a navigation tool to know where they are in a street.
Guide Dogs has done in-depth research into the problems of shared surface streets and potential ways forward looking at "The impact of shared surface streets and shared use pedestrian/cycle paths on the mobility and independence of blind and partially sighted people."
This report provides opinions on shared surfaces from a survey of 500 people with sight loss. And it has this note on "Accidents and near misses on shared surface streets". Not one was enthusiastic about shared spaces or thought they were a good idea - but then they have to live with the consequences of the street planners decisions!
"In terms of accidents and near misses, relatively small numbers of respondents with experience of shared surfaces had actually had an accident on shared surface streets (7%). However 42% of respondents had had a near miss – meaning that around half of the respondents who had experience of shared surface streets had had an accident or a near miss on one. "
"15% of these accidents/near misses were reported, 5% required medical attention. The vast majority of those who had had an accident or a near miss on a shared surface street (85%) felt it had affected their confidence to some degree."
And the Guide Dog's report concludes
"In order to make streets and pedestrian environments safer and more inclusive, it is important that the concerns which blind and partially sighted people have revealed in this research report are addressed. The requirements and experiences of all people, including those who are blind and partially sighted, need to be considered by those responsible for their design, development and management; and in government policy and guidance which influences this."
Quite frankly, shared space was motivated with the best of intentions, but put in place as much for ideological reasons as safety ones. Statistically, I am told by one correspondent, shared spaces are safer than other kinds of crossing, but while those statistics may apply to the entire population, they do not apply to the blind or partially sighted.
Rob Imrie, writing in Urban Studies on Shared Spaces noted that " Data from a study of English local authorities show that the diverse needs of vision-impaired people are barely recognised or given a platform to influence shared space policy."
The new discrimination law should mandate the Department of Infrastructure and the Parishes to ensure that is unlawful for public authorities, including highways authorities, to discriminate in the exercise of a public function. They also have a duty to make reasonable adjustments including changing practices, policies and procedures which have a discriminating effect and to take reasonable steps to enable disabled people to avoid substantial disadvantages caused by physical features. None of this seems to have been done with regard to shared spaces.
Tunnell Street now has plenty of signage and a zebra crossing, which has improved matters for sighted people. It is not so apparent it has been made safer for blind people. Has the Parish asked blind people for their opinion? Have they tested the road surface with those who cannot see or who are only very partially sighted?
The UCU notes that authorities should:
“Work with blind and partially sighted people to assess existing shared spaces on grounds of safety. Where safety issues are identified, mitigating measures need to be taken including the reintroduction of kerbs and crossings”
References
https://www.guidedogs.org.uk/media/1974/1253_tns_impact_report_executive_summary_gd_2010.pdf
https://www.guidedogs.org.uk/media/1975/1253_tns_impact_report_for_guide_dogs_2010.pdf
https://www.theihe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Unity-Law-Shared-Spaces-Report-v41.pdf
https://www.theihe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Holmes-Report-on-Shared-Space-.pdf
https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/8143/Shared-space-how-safe-is-it/pdf/shared_space.pdf
http://www.transportforall.org.uk/about/news/petition-against-shared-space-signed-by-50-organisations"In order to make streets and pedestrian environments safer and more inclusive, it is important that the concerns which blind and partially sighted people have revealed in this research report are addressed. The requirements and experiences of all people, including those who are blind and partially sighted, need to be considered by those responsible for their design, development and management; and in government policy and guidance which influences this."
Quite frankly, shared space was motivated with the best of intentions, but put in place as much for ideological reasons as safety ones. Statistically, I am told by one correspondent, shared spaces are safer than other kinds of crossing, but while those statistics may apply to the entire population, they do not apply to the blind or partially sighted.
Rob Imrie, writing in Urban Studies on Shared Spaces noted that " Data from a study of English local authorities show that the diverse needs of vision-impaired people are barely recognised or given a platform to influence shared space policy."
The new discrimination law should mandate the Department of Infrastructure and the Parishes to ensure that is unlawful for public authorities, including highways authorities, to discriminate in the exercise of a public function. They also have a duty to make reasonable adjustments including changing practices, policies and procedures which have a discriminating effect and to take reasonable steps to enable disabled people to avoid substantial disadvantages caused by physical features. None of this seems to have been done with regard to shared spaces.
Tunnell Street now has plenty of signage and a zebra crossing, which has improved matters for sighted people. It is not so apparent it has been made safer for blind people. Has the Parish asked blind people for their opinion? Have they tested the road surface with those who cannot see or who are only very partially sighted?
The UCU notes that authorities should:
“Work with blind and partially sighted people to assess existing shared spaces on grounds of safety. Where safety issues are identified, mitigating measures need to be taken including the reintroduction of kerbs and crossings”
References
https://www.guidedogs.org.uk/media/1974/1253_tns_impact_report_executive_summary_gd_2010.pdf
https://www.guidedogs.org.uk/media/1975/1253_tns_impact_report_for_guide_dogs_2010.pdf
https://www.theihe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Unity-Law-Shared-Spaces-Report-v41.pdf
https://www.theihe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Holmes-Report-on-Shared-Space-.pdf
https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/8143/Shared-space-how-safe-is-it/pdf/shared_space.pdf
Posts
1 comment:
Nothing is perfect, of course, and the concerns of sight impaired people are probably the major drawback to full acceptance of shared spaces. A thought. Should they construct a wheelchair ramp to the summit of Mount Everest? Listening to Mike Dun and his ideology might make one say yes. I say no. Get a grip.
As you accurately point out, that survey was a self-selecting one. These are notorious for skewing the reality of a situation. It's noticeable that a lot of the angst expressed was about people feeling less secure. I am afraid that the naysayers on PJ have completely missed the point about shared spaces - they are not designed to make people feel more secure, in fact, entirely the opposite. They are designed to restore a sense of trepidation when faced with being close to, or interacting with, vehicular traffic. Accidents are primarily caused by over-confidence and/or lack of attention, and making people a bit more cautious and conscientious is what share space is all about.
Post a Comment