Memorandum from Guide Dogs for the Blind
Association and the Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and
Partially Sighted People (RS 33)
INTRODUCTION
Our organisations welcome the Transport Committee's
decision to conduct an inquiry into road safety. The pedestrian
environment can be very hostile for blind and partially sighted
people and crossing the road can be particularly difficult on
occasion dangerous.
Blind and partially sighted people find the
pedestrian environment particularly difficult. Government research
(Gallon et al, 1995) surveyed 300 people with sight problems
and discovered that all had had an accident while walking and
over a half had sustained injuries.
We have organised our response under the headings
of the seven questions that the Committee has asked for evidence
on.
1. To what extent have targets for casualty
reduction been a useful tool for focusing professional activity?
Targets can provide focus for local authorities
but they can also be a blunt tool that may present a distorted
view of the impact of certain measures. Take for example, the
design concept of "Shared Space" which is being adopted
enthusiastically by local authorities across the country. Some
of the aims of the concept, such as making streets more attractive
and "people-friendly", and reducing the dominance of
vehicles, are welcome. However, the concept is often delivered
by means of shared surfaces which have a severely detrimental
impact on the ability of blind and partially sighted people, and
other vulnerable pedestrians, to use town centres safely and independently.
Protagonists point out that accident rates in
these schemes are lower. What is less clear is whether the most
vulnerable pedestrians, amongst them blind and partially sighted
people, are still able to use the space independently. If they
are not present in the composition of the population using the
space, then they will not show up in accident statistics. A good
result for the statisticians, but a poorer result for those who
are no longer able to use their local town centre.
The main problem with shared surface schemes,
which render them a barrier to blind and partially sighted people
is that they involve the removal of street features including
the kerb and in some cases controlled crossings. Priority and
right of way is expected to be negotiated by "eye contact"
between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists—posing a very
serious problem for blind and partially sighted people.
Guide Dogs research shows that many blind and
partially-sighted people simply avoid the area:
"I keep away from this area—I stay
away". (Guide dog owner, Coventry)
"It is actually limiting what I feel I want
to do independently". (Guide dog owner and mother to young
children, Leamington)
"Although I have some sight, I go home absolutely
exhausted due to sheer concentration and tension". (Woman
who uses a symbol cane, Dundee)
Those who do use shared space schemes have experienced
some quite nasty accidents:
"I got smacked by a bike. I had a busted
lip, damaged tooth and bleeding nose. He raced away". (Partially
sighted person, Newport)
Shared surfaces also pose a threat to other
vulnerable road users, such as those with physical, cognitive
or hearing impairments. Organisations representing a wide range
of disabled people have endorsed a joint UK statement directed
at local and central government stating that they will only support
streetscape and public space developments, including those that
follow the "shared space concept", that meet the needs
of all disabled people. The joint statement was in turn welcomed
in an Early Day Motion signed by 117 MPs in the 2006-07 Parliamentary
Session. The concerns of such a wide range of disability organisations
should be taken into account in local authority policy and planning
decisions, not least because of their duties under the Disability
Discrimination Act.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE
The Manual for Streets, published by
the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities
and Local Government, and the Welsh Assembly Government at the
end of March 2007, recognises the concerns about shared surfaces.
It states that, in many instances, a protected space with appropriate
physical demarcation, will need to be provided so that those pedestrians
who may be unwilling, or unable, to negotiate priority with vehicles
can use the street safely and comfortably.
GUIDE DOGS
RESEARCH HAS
NOT FOUND
A SOLUTION
Guide Dogs has recently carried out research
with University College London, involving trials with potential
delineators for pedestrian paths which might be suitable replacements
for the traditional kerbs in shared space streets. The delineators
were tested with blind and partially sighted people and also with
wheelchair users and people with walking difficulties: in a shared
space street wheelchair users and people with walking difficulties
may wish to cross the street at will rather than at designated
crossing points where dropped kerbs are normally provided.
On the basis of the research results none of
the proposed delineators as tested could be recommended by Guide
Dogs as an effective replacement for the traditional kerb in terms
of being consistently detected and useful for navigation by blind
and partially sighted people and not presenting an impediment
to wheelchair users and people with walking difficulties.
In the meantime, we urge that any local authority
undertaking street schemes or considering planning proposals which
include shared surfaces require, (where appropriate, through planning
conditions), inclusion of clearly defined paths/footways and safe
spaces. These could then be a choice for disabled people and other
pedestrians who would not be able or willing to use shared surfaces
with vehicles and cyclists. If the traditional footway and kerb
is not used the method of defining the safe space should be backed
up by evidence of research showing it can be used by blind and
partially sighted people and other disabled people.
We believe that the potential benefits of "shared
space" proposals,—of attractive streets with less clutter
and reduced dominance of vehicles—can be achieved without
putting the lives of blind and partially sighted and other disabled
people at risk, or creating "no-go" areas which are
dangerous and intimidating for disabled people.
2. What further measures need to be adopted
to reduce deaths and injuries from drinking and driving?
Escaping a drunk driver is particularly difficult
for a blind or partially sighted pedestrian who can't see a drunk
driver coming. We have therefore worked with colleagues in the
safer streets Coalition to campaign for the drink drive limit
to be reduced to 50 mg in line with other European countries.
3. How does Great Britain compare with other
EU countries in its approach to reducing deaths and injuries?
Our organisations have no comments to make on
this issue.
4. How do approaches in reduction in risk
on the roads compare to those adopted in other modes of transport?
In the UK we tolerate speeds 5 miles and more
over the speed limit. In urban areas, this means that blind and
partially sighted people have a 50/50 chance of dying if they
are hit by a car. We would not tolerate such risks on other modes
of transport.
5. Are there specific blockages caused by
shortages of appropriately trained and skilled Staff?
As members of the Safer Streets Coalition Guide
Dogs have supported the coalition in calling for more road safety
staff in local authorities. Despite calls from coalition member
PACTS they are not aware of any major improvements in the situation.
We believe that it is essential that road safety staff also have
disability equality training so that they can understand how blind
and partially sighted people and disabled people in general are
affected by road safety issues in general and the specific provision
needed to meet the needs of blind and partially sighted people,
for example appropriate tactile paving and dropped kerbs.
6. What further policies, not already widely
used, might be consider for adoption and what evidence is there
for success?
We believe that a programme needs to be promoted
which reduces the volume and speed of traffic.
We support the Safer Streets Coalition in calling
for a 20 mph default urban speed limit. A TRL report concluded
that 20 mph area reduced crashes by 56%.
Road engineering should prioritise vulnerable
road users to reduce risks to them. For example, cycle paths can
reduce the dangers of cyclists having to cycle on busy roads,
but if they are not segregated from the footway they can create
hazardous environments for blind and partially sighted people.
The increase in footways and footpaths shared
by cyclists and pedestrians is causing widespread concern not
only to people with a sensory impairment but also to other pedestrians
and facility planners. These concerns and needs should be taken
into account.
RNIB research showed an almost universal condemnation
of shared facilities by blind and partially sighted people with
96% thinking that it was either essential or desirable that there
were no shared use facilities. Research by the Cycling Touring
Club (2000) showed how widespread these concerns were among the
general public with half of the pedestrians and cyclists fearing
crashes.
The provision of safe, well designed and convenient
cycle routes is important. The National Cycling Strategy states
that: "most cycling takes place on the road and this will
continue to be the case. So it is essential that the road network
is made suitable for cycling". Traffic management to enable
safe on road cycle routes should be actively promoted.
Where it is not possible for cyclists to be
on the carriageway we would call for cycleways which are separate
from both the road and the footway.
Properly segregated adjacent pedestrian and
cyclist facilities, using the recommended tactile indicators,
are only acceptable as a last resort where completely separate
cycleway are not possible and where there is sufficient width
to accommodate both users' needs. The pedestrian side of the facility
should always provide an adequate minimum obstacle free clear
passage.
In all types of route it should be clear through
signage and other information that pedestrians have precedence
over cyclists.
Suitable and safe arrangements must be made
for pedestrian access to all footway amenities, for example, crossing
points, bus stops, telephone boxes, rest places and public toilet
facilities etc. In particular, controlled crossings should be
fitted with audible signals (where it is appropriate to do so)
and in all cases with tactile signals to assist blind and partially
sighted people, including deafblind people.
All routes must be provided with warnings to
cyclists to take care and give right of way to pedestrians.
Adjacent or shared cyclist and pedestrian facilities
should never be permitted within the following types of location,
which we consider are totally inappropriate for cycling:
— shopping areas and footways.
If a cycle path is required for instance to
ensure the continuity of a cycle route, a totally separate route
must be provided.
The Department for Transport's Inclusive
Mobility Guide of 2002 states that shared use facilities should
be a last resort and every effort should be made to keep pedestrians
and cyclists totally separate.
The Government also need to undertake a road
safety spending review as the last one was undertaken in 1996.
This review should consider the money spent by police and hospitals
and how by investing more money road safety money spent by the
police and hospitals can be saved along with people's lives.
7. What should be the priorities for Government
in considering further targets for casualty reduction beyond 2010?
We believe that the following should be the
priorities for the Government in reducing casualties:
— Working to reduce the dangers to
blind and partially sighted pedestrians caused by shared surface
schemes and shared use cycle paths.
— Increased spending on footway maintenance
which has been neglected much to the detriment of blind and partially
sighted people.
— Reducing speeds particularly on urban
and residential roads.
February 2008
| 
