Shared Surface Street Design Research Project The Issues: Report of Focus Group
Shared Surface Street Design Research Project The Issues: Report of Focus Groups Shared Surface Street Design Research Project The Issues: Report of Focus Groups 3 Contents Acknowledgements 4 Foreword 5 Executive Summary 8 1. The Shared Surface Street Design Research Project 13 2. Policy Context 15 3. Focus Groups 18 4. Summary of Key Findings 35 5. Conclusions and Next Steps in the Research Project 37 Appendices 1. The Shared Space Concept 38 2. Guide Dog and Long Cane Mobility – an Introduction 40 3. Description of Focus Group Locations 42 Front cover photograph: Newbury town centre. This shows a shared surface scheme where there is no kerb to demarcate footway and carriageway. Vehicles and pedestrians share the same surface. All photographs are described for the benefit of blind and partially-sighted people who are accessing this report. ISBN 0-9524038-6-9 ISBN 978-0-9524038-6-9 Copyright © 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. Registered Head Office: The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading RG7 3YG Registered Charity No. 209617. Registered Company No. 291646 Tel: 0118 983 5555 Fax: 0118 983 5433 Website: www.guidedogs.org.uk The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Shared Surface Street Design Research Project The Issues: Report of Focus Groups Foreword How many of us reading this report would ask our loved ones to go somewhere in a town centre that was unsafe? I suspect very few could honestly answer in the affirmative. How many of us think it is fair that a loved one should be deprived of going somewhere in town because they are afraid of being run over by moving traffic? I believe we would be up in arms at the prospect. Yet in this report, that is exactly what blind and partially-sighted people are telling us they have experienced in those places where traffic and people share the same thoroughfare – a so called shared surface. At a time when legislation has been enacted to ensure the safety of our citizens, this report has unveiled a number of town centre design schemes that appear to achieve just the opposite. At the heart of the issue is the need to distinguish between Shared Space and shared surfaces. The former can be successful in meeting everyone’s needs provided that physical ‘clues’ including kerbs and tactile surfaces are retained. The latter is generally taken to mean the removal of all delineation between areas traditionally used by vehicles or pedestrians. This results in an environment that is both frightening and dangerous; not only for people with reduced vision (and about one million people in the UK are registered or eligible to be registered as blind or partially-sighted) but also for many other disabled and older people. I confess to having a personal interest in these shared surface designs. As a registered blind person I require consistency of street design features to get around. This report, frighteningly, demonstrates a total lack of such consistency. It clearly brings out into the open an argument that must be aired for the benefit of all – must we choose aesthetics over safety? I hope that the report acts as a catalyst for this debate to begin. I suspect the solution will be that inclusively designed town centres can be accessible and beautiful to all. Tom Pey Director of Public Policy and Development Guide Dogs Acknowledgements Guide Dogs wishes to acknowledge the contributions of each and every one of the participants of the focus groups, and the support of the following: Beryl Moss, National Client Representative, Guide Dogs Bill Cox, former National Client Representative, Guide Dogs Brenda Wallman, Head of Access Team, City of London Diana Evans, Newport Social Services Representatives of local authorities in locations where focus groups were held Gill Kenyon, Jan Peake, Guide Dog district teams and local visual impairment societies who helped organise the focus group meetings Gareth Evans and Tom Ferreira for photography Ben Hamilton-Baillie, Hamilton-Baillie Associates All those who have contributed to the research project Advisory group: Ann Frye Limited Commission on Architecture in the Built Environment (CABE) Department for Transport Disabled Persons’ Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People JMU Access Partnership, RNIB Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers Institution of Highways & Transportation Local Government Association Royal Town Planning Institute Editor: Carol Thomas Contributors: Helen Aluko-olokun, Peter Barker, Veronica Barton, Susan Cassell, Jane Horsburgh, Graham Kensett, Caroline Lewis, Dr Femi Nzegwu and Pete Smith. Designed by: The Design Studio, Communications Department, Guide Dogs. Published by: The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading RG7 3YG Tel: 0118 983 5555 www.guidedogs.org.uk To obtain this report in alternative formats (Braille, large print, audio or electronic format), please contact Gill Kenyon at Guide Dogs’ Head Office. Tel: 0118 983 8359. Email: sharedsurfaces@guidedogs.org.uk The report is also available to download from the Guide Dogs website: www.guidedogs.org.uk/sharedsurfaces The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Shared Surface Street Design Research Project The Issues: Report of Focus Groups “Whether ambulant disabled or wheelchair-using, people with arthritis are likely to feel vulnerable in shared surface areas where cyclists and others may be travelling at speed. Without the physical ability to navigate such spaces deftly, people with arthritis are at a level of risk which, as with people with sensory impairments, may reduce their confidence in travelling to such an extent they will in effect be excluded.” Neil Betteridge, Chief Executive, Arthritis Care “It is entirely to miss the point of the disability movement’s endeavours during the past 35 years to suggest that the inclusion of some sections of our community inevitably means the exclusion of others. Any such suggestions abysmally fail to understand the concept of Inclusive Design which the disability movement has so carefully fostered; clearly if design solutions fail to accommodate the needs of any particular group(s) in favour of another, they cannot be deemed as ‘inclusive’. We need look no further than to the origins of tactile paving to recognise the long-standing unity of purpose that exists amongst disabled people. Many years have passed since blind and partially-sighted people conceded the essential presence of a kerb edge at street crossings so as to enable wheelchair users to cross safely and, in contributing to that same compromise, wheelchair users accepted the added bumpy-ride which comes with the enhanced guidance delivered by tactile paving – a compromise which illustrates that for all disabled people ‘inclusion’ cannot be achieved at the cost of another’s exclusion. So: think again those who may seek to excuse the shortcomings of their design solutions by playing off mobility against sensory interest groups…” Peter Lainson, UK Institute of Inclusive Design; former Chair of the RADAR Access Committee; and former Chair of the Access Committee for England “The Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People will only support shared surface schemes which make suitable and safe provision for people with mobility, visual and hearing impairments. Meeting the needs of some groups of disabled people at the expense of others is unacceptable. Developments must be fully inclusive, whether people’s impairments are physical or sensory. Nothing less will do.” Joe Hennessy OBE, Chair of Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People “The British Council of Disabled People (BCODP) will only support Shared Space schemes that meet the needs of all disabled people. BCODP does not believe that schemes where there is no difference in the surface between the road and the pavement, and which rely on drivers and pedestrians making ‘eye contact’, can possibly meet the needs of blind and partially-sighted people. BCODP would however welcome the opportunity to contribute to the development of general guidance on the design of Shared Space schemes that are fully inclusive of the access needs of all disabled people.” Janet Seymour Kirk, Deputy Chair, British Council of Disabled People “The Royal National Institute for Deaf People is very concerned about the consequences of shared surface schemes and their possible impact on deaf and hard of hearing people who may be unable to hear vehicles approaching, and need to focus on companions rather than their environment in order to be able to communicate. A shared surface could remove the relative safety that deaf and hard of hearing people enjoy. RNID would welcome the chance to contribute to discussions about street design to ensure that for deaf and hard of hearing people Shared Spaces are, above all, safe spaces.” Brian Lamb OBE, Director of Communications, Royal National Institute for Deaf People The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Shared Surface Street Design Research Project The Issues: Report of Focus Groups Executive Summary Background Several local authorities in the UK have redesigned town centres and high streets using the concept of Shared uploads/Management/ 23-shared-surface-street-design-research-project.pdf
Documents similaires
-
45
-
0
-
0
Licence et utilisation
Gratuit pour un usage personnel Attribution requise- Détails
- Publié le Jui 12, 2022
- Catégorie Management
- Langue French
- Taille du fichier 1.1490MB