Designing for Disabled People in Home Zones

Appendix D: Draft Analysis of Site Testing Data

Overall Objectives

• Assess the safety of disabled people in Home Zones.
• Recommend solutions to identified problems.
• Disabled people, with a variety of disabilities, should be consulted throughout the fact finding and recommendation process.

Aims of this Task

• Understand the subjective assessments of the search, navigation and safety strategies adopted by disabled and non-disabled people when using Homes Zones;
• Analyse the data collected in order to establish the main results and analyse the consistency of data from the site tests.

1. Methodology

1.1 Primary data

The data generated from the 11 Home Zone site tests with 73 participants is in the form of questionnaire responses and notes made by the assessor. This is outlined in more detail below:

Questionnaire responses and notes made by assessor

1. Home Zone information
Information detailing the name, location and predominant features of each Home Zone.

2. Participant profile
Information about the age, gender and description of disability of the participant including history and use of mobility aids.

3. Knowledge of Home Zone
Information about participant's previous knowledge of the test Home Zone and other Home Zones, membership of access groups, training history and whether the participant usually goes out alone.

4. Questionnaire on general issues and experience
Participant's responses to questions about navigation and safety within the Home Zone. Participant's suggestions for improvement and comparison to traditional street environment.

5. Semi-structured questionnaire from walk through
A notated narrative of the participants comments as they walked through the site, commenting on design features, interactions, strategies and tactics and suggestions.

1.2 Analysis of the data

This data has been analysed in the following four ways:

1. Commonalities experienced by people with similar disabilities:
Considering blind people, visually impaired people, deaf or hard of hearing people, people with restricted physical mobility, people with learning disabilities and any others.

• Outlining any common issues highlighted by participants regarding navigation and safety, suggestions for improvement and comparison to traditional street environment;
• looking at any particular features, interactions, strategies and tactics experienced by people with similar disabilities in the Home Zone environment.

This forms section 3 of this analysis.

2. Common issues experienced with Home Zone design features, layouts and interactions:
Considering factors such as colour contrast, surface texture, tactile paving, gateways, kerbs, provision of footway, width of route, visibility and sight lines, lighting, interaction with vehicles, positioning of features, seating, parking, maintenance, sense of place and ambiguity.

Investigating any common issues highlighted by participants regarding navigation and safety, suggestions for improvement and comparison to traditional street environment; This forms section 4 of this analysis.

3. Outline of each Home Zone:
Considering any common issues highlighted by participants regarding navigation and safety. looking at any commonalities experienced with design features, interactions, strategies and tactics. In addition this section will take into account casualty statistics (STATS 19) and user levels at each of the sites. This forms sections 5 to 15 of this analysis.

4. Analysis of questionnaire on general issues and experience:
Analysing participant's responses to questions about navigation and safety within the Home Zone, suggestions for improvement and comparison to the traditional street environment. This forms section 16 of this analysis.

Much of the data captured from the site tests is qualitative. The 'questionnaire about general issues and experience' gave participants the opportunity to rate the zone on different scales and so is easier to categorise in this regard.

1.3 Methodological approach

Qualitative data
The 'semi-structured questionnaire from walk through' is a flowing narrative and so is slightly more complex to analyse. Consequently a coding system is used for this data. The system assigned interpretive tags to text based on relevant categories and themes (Cope, 2003). This method is also encouraged in the Magenta Book (Government Chief Social Researchers Office, 2004) which outlines "Thematic data ordering in which raw data from different cases are brought together under thematic headings" (Government Chief Social Researchers Office, 2004).

This means that the data is broken down into statements under headings such as ease of movement, colour contrast, surface texture and layout, etc and entered into a qualitative software program (XSight, QSR International). Within this, statements are broadly classified as to whether they were positive or negative. This allows the study to compare any patterns experienced with different features / layouts and experiences of people with similar disabilities.

Whilst the study has indicated the number and percentage of people making different statements, this is not meant to be interpreted for use in prioritising recommendations. Rather the proportions are intended to show the overall context of opinion and stated perceptions of the participants.

2. Background

2.1 Participant sample

Gender and age
Of the 73 participants 40 were male and 33 were female, which is a spilt of 55% male to 45% female.

There were very few people under 35 years of age that took part in the site tests. However the participants' age was quite evenly distributed for people over 35 years old, as Figure 2.1 shows.

Figure 2.1: Age profile of participants

Description of disability
Figure 2.2 shows the descriptions of disability for the 73 participants, blind and partially sighted people were in the majority with 23 people in this category (33%). Overall 34 people (47%) indicated that they were blind or partially sighted, in some cases in addition to other types of disability. These combinations of disability included:

• 4 Blind or partially sighted with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) people
• 6 Deaf hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted people
• 1 Deaf hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted and reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) person

The next most common description of disability was reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) with 13 participants (19%) describing this as their only disability. Overall 23 people (32%) indicated that they were a permanent wheelchair user, in some cases in addition to other types of disability. These combinations of disability included:

• 1 Deaf hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted and reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) person
• 4 Deaf hard of hearing and reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) people
• 4 Learning disability and reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) people
• 1 Reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) and no speech person

Overall there were 21 deaf and hard of hearing participants (29%), in some cases this was in combination with other types of disability. These combinations of disability included:

• 6 Deaf hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted people
• 1 Deaf hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted and reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) person
• 4 Deaf hard of hearing and reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) people
• 1 Deaf hard of hearing and reduced mobility (part-time wheelchair user) person
• 1 Deaf hard of hearing and reduced mobility (non wheelchair user) person

Out of the 73 participants only 3 (4%) indicated that they were a person with just reduced mobility (non wheelchair user). However several participants (12%) indicated that they had this disability in combination with other types of disability including:

• 4 Blind or partially sighted and reduced mobility (non wheelchair user) people
• 2 Learning disability and reduced mobility (non wheelchair user) people
• 1 Deaf hard of hearing and reduced mobility (non wheelchair user) person
• 1 Reduced mobility (non wheelchair user) person with a mental health problem
• 1 Reduced mobility (part-time wheelchair user) person

Overall 6 people indicated that they were a person with a learning disability (8%). All of these participants also had some kind of reduced mobility including:

• 4 Learning disability and reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) people
• 2 Learning disability and reduced mobility (non wheelchair user) people

Figure 2.2: Description of disability of participants

Key:

2.2 Home Zones sites

The 73 participants sampled in this analysis were using the following 10 designated Home Zones (and 1 non-designated Home Zone) described here.

Southville Home Zone (Bristol)
This retrofit Home Zone has a shared surface (no delineation between vehicles and pedestrians) and parking present but is not designated via colour surface or bollards.

Figure 2.3: Southville Home Zone

Former Royal Infirmary Home Zone, Constitution Road (Dundee, Scotland)
This new build Home Zone has various fixed above surface features (that allow freedom of movement - bollards, trees, planters, bins etc) and has colour contrasted demarcation of space.

Figure 2.4: Former Royal Infirmary Home Zone

Lupton Street Home Zone (London Borough of Camden)
This retrofit Home Zone has various fixed above surface features (that allow freedom of movement - bollards, trees, planters, bins etc) and has a limited use of colour contrast to demarcate space.

Figure 2.5: Lupton Street Home Zone

Staiths South Bank Home Zone (Gateshead)
This new build Home Zone has various fixed above surface features (that restrict freedom of movement - long walls, long planters). In addition it has various non-fixed above surface features e.g. designated and non-designated car parking. While some areas may have clear pedestrian routes, there are other areas where a pedestrian route is not clear. The scheme also makes use of many planted areas.

Figure 2.6: Staiths South Bank Home Zone

Albany Street Home Zone (Kingston Upon Hull)
This retrofit Home Zone makes use of a kerb (which restricts movement). A kerb line with 2m clear distance from the back of the footway to the kerb was utilised at the request of local blind/visually impaired groups. This was kept free from any street furniture. Conservation kerbs with a 450 splay and 50mm upstand used.

Figure 2.7: Albany Street Home Zone

Portchester Home Zone, Sunningdale Road and Castle Grove (Hampshire)
This retrofit Home Zone provides a clear continuous pedestrian route. It has a clear 1.2m width adjacent to property boundaries to assist the visually impaired.

Figure 2.8: Portchester Home Zone

Duke of Edinburgh Way Home Zone (Worcestershire)
This retrofit Home Zone demonstrates additional features for disabled access. Additional tactile paving is included at key crossing points to alert visually impaired residents of the most direct route into and out of the estate, along with corduroy paving at steps.

Figure 2.9: Duke of Edinburgh Way Home Zone

Morice Town Home Zone (Plymouth)
This retrofit Home Zone has fixed above surface features (that restrict freedom of movement such as long walls). The space has several routes that utilise bollards and planters and also has non-fixed above surface features such as car parking.

Figure 2.10: Morice Town Home Zone

Maryatt Avenue Home Zone (London Borough of Harrow)
This retrofit Home Zone has an upstand measuring 15mm in height of a contrasting, coloured, chamfered type block on both sides of the street delineating where the existing kerbs are currently in place.

Figure 2.11: Maryatt Avenue Home Zone

Magor Village Home Zone (Monmouthshire)
This retrofit Home Zone has fixed above surface features (that allow freedom of movement such as bollards, trees, planters, bins etc). The Home Zone also uses texture to demarcate space containing various different surface types including: Tegula Blocked paving, Stonemaster Flag paved area and cobbled areas.

Figure 2.12: Magor Village Home Zone

Darcy Gardens (London Borough of Barking and Dagenham)
This area is a paved shared surface cul-de-sac with non-fixed above surface features such as non designated car parking.

Figure 2.13: Darcy Gardens

3. Commonalities Experienced by People with Similar Disabilities

3.1 Blind and partially sighted people

The 34 Blind or partially sighted (BPS) people made 179 positive statements about the Home Zones and 646 negative statements.

3.1.1 Positive statements from blind and partially sighted people

Using shared surfaces
Eight BPS people (24%) mentioned that they used cues and delineation to navigate in shared surface areas including:

• colour contrast such as dark paving across the vehicle path mentioned by a blind and partially deaf participant at the Worcestershire site, contrast of planters and surface mentioned by a partially sighted and hard of hearing participant at the Hampshire site and BPS person at the London Borough of Camden site;
• surface texture such as the different textures between the vehicle path and pedestrian area at the Hampshire site mentioned by a partially sighted and hard of hearing person, a BPS person detecting the brick paving along the footway with a cane at the London Borough of Harrow site, a BPS person with reduced mobility at the Monmouthshire site detecting the path because of paving slabs;
• above ground obstacles (that are intermittent such as bollards and trees) - partially sighted participants at the London Borough of Camden and Worcestershire sites indicated that they used bollards to determine a pathway and at the London Borough of Camden site also used this feature to then locate the building line.

"the user could see the line of bollards up to the end of task area and this helped him make out the area to move and try to locate building line." Comments from partially sighted person

Using the building line (and audio cues to orientate)
Four blind and partially sighted people found that they could use the building line as an orientation cue in their navigation and wayfinding. Two participants also used audio cues to orientate and navigate in the Home Zones, including using the sound of cars on a nearby road.

Identifying gateways to the site
Eight BPS people (24%) mentioned being able to identify the beginning of the site using features such as:

• signage mentioned by a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user at the Bristol site, partially sighted person at the London Borough of Camden site and a partially sighted person at the Worcestershire site.
• surface texture and tactile paving mentioned by a BPS person at the Dundee site who used cobbling at the entrance to understand when they were entering and exiting the site and BPS people at the Bristol and London Borough of Harrow sites who knew they were leaving the Home Zones because of tactile paving;
• above ground obstacles (that are continuous such as planters) which indicated to a BPS person at the London Borough of Harrow site and a partially sighted and hard of hearing person at the Hampshire site that they were entering the sites.

Negotiating street furniture
Nine BPS people (26%) indicated that they could negotiate street furniture in the Home Zone environment due to the width of the pedestrian route or simply by getting close to each object.

Using surface materials
Six BPS people indicated that they were making use of surface materials to navigate including:

• change in surface type which was used by a BPS person at the Gateshead site;
• using gravel as a cue which was mentioned by a BPS person at the Dundee site who used it to indicate that they were out of the vehicle path.

Guide dogs interacting with Home Zones
Four BPS people indicated that their guide dogs were navigating well in the Home Zone using parked cars as an orientation line and would avoid moving vehicles.

Interacting with vehicles
One BPS person indicated that they liked the lower number of cars and that they were happy to use the shared surface if vehicle speeds remained slow:

"User would be able to notice if a car was approaching at a slow speed. Would be happy to stay on carriageway if a car came along as long as the driver knew it was a Home Zone and that cars were expected to behave differently." Comments from partially sighted person

3.1.2 Negative statements from blind and partially sighted people

Using delineation in shared surface areas
Using delineation in shared surface areas that are delineated by surface texture caused problems for seven BPS people (21%) including a partially sighted and hard of hearing person at the Hampshire site who couldn't understand what surface textures meant, for instance, no tactile line between the pedestrian area and vehicle path that caused confusion for two BPS people and a Deaf Blind person at the London Borough of Camden site. At the Worcestershire site one BPS person could not detect underfoot if they had moved into the vehicle path.

Problems with a lack of delineation in shared surface areas
Out of the 34 BPS people, 17 people (50%) indicated that they were having problems using the shared surface areas because of a lack of delineation. The majority of concerns were regarding safety and ranged from:

• feeling unhappy walking in "the carriageway" mentioned by two BPS people at the Dundee site;
• not knowing whether you were in the same area as vehicles mentioned by two BPS people at the Gateshead site, a BPS person at the Worcestershire site, two BPS people at the Plymouth site and four BPS people at the London Borough of Camden site who didn't like the lack of a kerb;
• not being protected from vehicles mentioned by a BPS person and partially sighted, hard of hearing and permanent wheelchair user at the Bristol site, a BPS person at the Worcestershire site;
• the cues needed by guide dogs which were mentioned by BPS people at the Bristol, Worcestershire and London Borough of Harrow site.

"Guide dog needs to be shown a route as he won't walk right, there is no line he can pick up and he must have one." Comment from blind person

The lack of a kerb as an orientation cue
Thirteen out of the 34 BPS people (38%) indicated that the lack of a kerb was seriously impacting upon there ability to orientate, navigate and feel safe in the Home Zone environment. Reasons for this included walking into the path of vehicles and using the kerb as a landmark to find a bearing.

Using the building line as an orientation cue
Similarly six out of the 34 BPS people (18%) mentioned experiencing problems either using the building line or because there was no obvious building line to follow. These problems included walking into parked cars while following the building line, having the sensation of being in a tunnel because of parked cars on one side and not being able to locate house entrances.

The lack of a footway or pedestrian path
Eleven BPS people (32%) indicated concern about the lack of a clear footway, this included problems with:

• the width of the pedestrian path provided (including street furniture reducing width) mentioned by a BPS person at the Worcestershire site, a BPS person, a BPS person with reduced mobility at the Monmouthshire site, a BPS person at the Bristol site and a BPS person at the London Borough of Harrow site;
• trying to find a dropped kerb mentioned by a partially sighted, hard of hearing and permanent wheelchair user at the Bristol site;
• a preference for the segregation of pedestrians and vehicles indicated by two BPS people at the Dundee site, a partially sighted, hard of hearing and permanent wheelchair user and a BPS person at the Bristol site.

Crossing the space
Out of the 34 BPS people, nine people (26%) reported issues and problems with crossing the space. This included a lack of consistency in surface and little indication of 'crossing areas' creating confusion about where the user should cross (mentioned by a partially sighted, hard of hearing participant at the Hampshire site and a BPS person at the Worcestershire site), poor visibility and lack of tactile paving.

Gateways to the site
Sixteen of the 34 BPS people (47%%) indicated that they were having problems identifying that they were entering the Home Zone environment. Issues included the user missing tactile paving, not knowing what tactile paving signified, signs being positioned too high, user not being able to use signage and the lack of reminders that the environment was different.

Parking
Eight of the 34 BPS people (24%) reported experiencing problems with car parking, the majority of the comments being linked to aspects of safety. Much of this related to the positioning of car parking including cars protruding and overhanging into users pathway, the user being worried about damaging cars and the parking behaviour of residents.

Street furniture
Out of the 34 BPS people, 15 people (44%) mentioned having problems with street furniture. Seven people indicated having a particular problem with bollards, mostly relating to bollards being a particular collision hazard. Other problems included the environment being cluttered (such as too many bollards, bins, trees at the London Borough of Camden site), the unpredictability of temporary furniture such as wheelie bins and the lack of colour contrast or tactile warnings for street furniture.

Problems with surface materials
Fourteen of the 34 BPS people (41%) reported problems with surface materials, the majority being about trip hazards and the safety of the user. Aspects such as parking studs, tree routes, guttering and broken paving were highlighted as being potential trip hazards. Other problems related to the use, understanding and lack of tactile paving and one partially sighted person indicated that a dark surface is better than a light surface due to sunlight reflection.

Issues caused by vegetation
Seven BPS people (21%) indicated that they were experiencing problems with vegetation in the Home Zone. This including users walking into overhanging vegetation and falling into open flower beds (mentioned by one partially sighted and hard of hearing person at the Hampshire site).

Colour contrast
Out of the 34 BPS people, seven people (21%) particularly mentioned issues with colour contrast. Much of this related to a lack of colour contrast on features within the Home Zone (such as suggestions for reflective bands on bollards at the Hampshire and London Borough of Camden sites and more contrast on street furniture at the Bristol site) and the suggestion of including more "markings" on the street.

Interaction among actors
Fourteen of the 34 BPS people (41%) made statements relating to the interaction among various actors in the environment. Six respondents related these statements to perceptions of safety, including feeling unsafe from vehicles, feeling anxious because the user is sharing the space with vehicles and the Home Zone providing a false sense of security.

Three people expressed concern over cyclist behaviour and the fact that skateboards, motorcyclists and cyclists could weave in and out of the different areas.

"I don't know where the vehicles and skateboards are coming from, they are too quick when you're not expecting them." Comment from blind person

Other concerns were raised about the attitude of motorists (such as motorists not changing their behaviour, and children's safety (such as concerns that children playing in the area are at risk from being hit by vehicles). It was also suggested that vehicle flow be reduced (for example removing vehicles on a wider scale).

Strategies and tactics
In terms of the strategies and tactics used by BPS people in Home Zones, four people indicated that they would need to be more familiar with the area before being able to use it. An additional four people expressed concern over being able to avoid vehicles, and another three people mentioned problems that their guide dog was having, including not having any cues to focus on, and so being distracted.

Suggestions
Suggestions for the improvement of the area included providing more indicators to aid wayfinding, clear delineation from traffic and reducing the number of cars on the street.

3.2 Deaf hard of hearing people

The 21 deaf hard of hearing (DHH) people made 114 positive statements about the Home Zones and 374 negative statements.

3.2.1 Positive statements from deaf hard of hearing people

Using delineation in shared surface areas
Out of the 21 DHH people, six (29%) indicated that they could use the shared surface, understanding where vehicles and pedestrians should be using:

• colour contrast on surfaces, mentioned by a partially sighted and hard of hearing person and DHH and permanent wheelchair user at the Hampshire site and a Blind and partially deaf person at the Worcestershire site who used colour contrast on the surface to navigate;
• texture contrast on surfaces, mentioned by a partially sighted and hard of hearing person at the Hampshire site.

Using the building line as an orientation cue
Three people (14%) indicated that they were making use of the building line to navigate, mentioned by a partially sighted and hard of hearing person and a DHH and permanent wheelchair user at the Hampshire site and a Deaf Blind person at the London Borough of Harrow site.

"Uses the cue of the vehicle route from driveways / lanes across pedestrian area to indicate to him when there is a clear place to cross." Comment about blind partially sighted and deaf hard of hearing person

Identifying the Home Zone using gateways
Out of the 21 DHH people, six people (29%) indicated that they were aware they were entering a Home Zone because of tactile paving, signage and planters.

Avoiding street furniture
Four people (19%) also mentioned that they were able to negotiate street furniture, this was thanks to good colour contrast and identifying objects up close (mentioned by a partially sighted and hard of hearing person and a DHH and permanent wheelchair user at the Hampshire site, a DHH person at the Kingston-upon-Hull site and a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user at the Bristol site).

Other positive comments
Other positive comments from DHH people included being able to interact with cyclists, enjoying the freedom of movement and the quality of the surface texture.

3.2.2 Negative statements from deaf hard of hearing people

Problems with using delineation in shared surface areas
Four DHH people (19%) reported that they were having problems navigating shared surfaces because of:

• inconsistencies in delineation, such as having planted areas on one side of the area and not on the other (as outlined by a partially sighted and hard of hearing person and DHH permanent wheelchair user at the Hampshire site);
• not knowing what above ground obstacles indicate such as bollards, as mentioned by a DHH person at the Plymouth site;
• concerns over safety as there was no indication of when they were in "the road" such as tactile paving as outlined by a deaf blind person at the London Borough of Camden site or because the user was moving too fast (mentioned by a DHH person at the London Borough of Harrow site).

Problems with a lack of delineation in shared surface areas
Out of the 21 DHH people, five (24%) indicated that they had problems because of a lack of delineation in shared surface areas. The main reason for this was a preference for segregation between pedestrians and vehicles for safety reasons, mentioned by a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user at the Bristol site and a DHH person at the London Borough of Camden site who found it "unnerving" and a DHH part-time wheelchair user at the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham site who didn't know where to go.

The lack of a kerb as an orientation cue
Three DHH people (14%) indicated that they use the kerb as an orientation cue and and to "alert" them where the carriageway begins (including a deaf blind person at the London Borough of Harrow site and a DHH person at the Kingston-upon-Hull site). These respondents found the absence of a kerb in this type of environment to be disorientating.

Provision of a footway or pedestrian pathway
Six DHH people (29%) mentioned that they were experiencing problems to do with a lack of footway or the type of pathway provided. These issues included:

• looking for a dropped kerb (mentioned by a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user at the Bristol site and a DHH permanent wheelchair user at the Hampshire site);
• preference for segregation mentioned by a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user at the Bristol site;
• inadequate width of pedestrian pathways mentioned by two DHH permanent wheelchair users at the Hampshire site who commented that wheelie bins and parked cars were reducing width, three DHH people at the Worcestershire site mentioned that the footway was too narrow for deaf people walking and using British Sign Language.

Crossing the space
Nine DHH people (43%) indicated that they had issues when crossing parts of the Home Zone, especially the vehicle path. This included the lack of consistency affecting their knowledge of when to cross and crossing the vehicle path without knowing they had done it (mentioned by a deaf blind person at the London Borough of Camden site).

Gateways to the Home Zone
Out of the 21 DHH people, seven people (33%) reported that they were having problems with the Home Zone Signage, particularly not being able to see signage.

Parking
Eight DHH people (38%) mentioned concern regarding car parking in the Home Zones. This included having to walk around parked cars, parking behaviour of residents and cars parking in the pedestrian pathway:

"Cars can easily park on pavement which is a hazard when using British Sign Language." Deaf hard of hearing person

Navigating street furniture
Out of the 21 DHH people, eight (38%) indicated that they were experiencing difficulties with aspects of street furniture. This was for reasons such as the positioning of street furniture reducing the effective width of the pedestrian path, poorly contrasted bollards and lampposts being obstacles and not wanting to use seating because of little protection from vehicles.

Problems with surface materials
Seven DHH people (33%) reported problems with surface quality including trip hazards and preferring asphalt surfaces.

Issues caused by vegetation
Twelve DHH people (57%) mentioned vegetation was impacting upon their safety in the Home Zone environment. This included walking into overhanging foliage, tree roots causing a trip hazard and a suggestion to demarcate flower beds with bollards to stop people walking into them.

Interaction among actors
Nine of the 21 DHH people (43%) made negative statements relating to the interaction among various actors in the environment. This included cyclists weaving in and out of features and approaching from behind, fear regarding speed and flow of vehicles. Concerns and perceptions of safety included being less aware because the area is "supposed" to be safer as a home zone, and fears about being hit by a vehicle (mentioned by a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user at the Bristol site, a DHH person at the Plymouth site and a DHH part-time wheelchair user at the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham site).

Strategies and tactics
In terms of the strategies and tactics used by DHH people in Home Zones, six people (29%) indicated concern over having to avoid vehicles and indicated a preference to stay in "pedestrian areas".

3.3 People with reduced mobility

The 32 people with some kind of reduced mobility (both permanent wheelchair users and non-wheelchair users) made 191 positive statements about the Home Zones and 674 negative statements.

3.3.1 Positive statements from people with reduced mobility

Using delineation in shared surface areas
Out of the 32 people with reduced mobility, seven (22%) made positive comments about using delineation in shared surface areas that were delineated using:

• colour contrast, these participants indicated that they understood colour contrast surface delineation including a DHH permanent wheelchair user at the Hampshire site and a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) and a learning disability at the London Borough of Harrow site and a permanent wheelchair user at the London Borough of Camden site;
• surface texture such as paving slabs identified by a reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) who is also BPS at the Monmouthshire site;
• above ground obstacles (intermittent) such as bollards or trees mentioned by two permanent wheelchair users at the London Borough of Camden site who indicated that they felt safer because of this.

"Within the shared surface area with yellow lines, bollards and trees separating the carriageway from the pedestrian area the user felt safer as could tell the different area was for pedestrians and had a clear view of what was approaching." Comments from a permanent wheelchair user

Using shared surfaces with no delineation
Seven people with reduced mobility (22%) made positive comments about using shared surfaces that have little or no delineation. This included comments about liking the level and smooth surface, how easy it was to cross over and the lack of obstructions such as drainage channels.

Crossing the space
Nine people with reduced mobility (28%) made positive comments about being able to cross the vehicle path, reasons for this ranged from the level surface providing more crossing options, good visibility and lack of traffic.

Street furniture
Out of the 32 people with reduced mobility, eight (25%) made positive comments, with four people complimenting the provision and design of seating and several positive comments about the positioning of street furniture such as lampposts.

Surface materials
Ten people with reduced mobility (31%) indicated that they were happy with the surface type and quality and that it was easy for them to use.

Overall layout and sense of place
Three people with reduced mobility (9%) commented on how they liked the overall design of the site and that there was a good sense of place in the Home Zones.

3.3.2 Negative statements from people with reduced mobility

Using delineation in shared surface areas
Out of the 32 people with reduced mobility, six people (19%) made negative comments about using shared surfaces that are delineated with colour contrast and surface texture. These comments included:

• preferring different colours for vehicle and pedestrian areas mentioned by a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) at the Bristol site and a permanent wheelchair user at the London Borough of Camden site;
• confused by double yellow lines mentioned by a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) at the London Borough of Camden site;
• confused by inconsistent surface textures such as a planted area that had inconsistent edging mentioned by a DHH permanent wheelchair user at the Hampshire site.

Problems with a lack of delineation in shared surface areas
Fourteen people with reduced mobility (44%) indicated that they were having problems with a lack of delineation in shared surface areas. The majority of reasons for this were regarding safety and included:

• concerns over straying into the path of traffic mentioned by two permanent wheelchair users at the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham site and a BPS person with reduced mobility at the Bristol site;
• not knowing where the vehicle path was mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user at the London Borough of Camden site;
• using a wheelchair on "the carriageway" mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user at the Dundee site;
• not having a vehicle-free area mentioned by two permanent wheelchair users at the Gateshead site;
• worries over vehicle behaviour mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user at the London Borough of Camden.

"The concern is will drivers know where the boundary is? I am terrified at zebra crossings but there, at least they know where the kerb and limits are; and they [drivers] know the difference." Comments from a permanent wheelchair user

Orientation cues (dropped kerbs and specially designed kerbs)
Out of the 32 people with reduced mobility, two people (6%) made negative comments about using a specially designed kerb edge which was chamfered and narrower than usual and easier to "fall off" when in a wheelchair mentioned by two permanent wheelchair users at the Kingston-upon-Hull site. A permanent wheelchair user at the Kingston-upon-Hull site had problems finding the dropped kerb where dropped kerbs were blocked by parked cars.

In addition to this four people with reduced mobility made negative comments about the lack of a kerb affecting navigation, including inconsistencies and confusion created by one area having a kerb and another area not having one and needing a kerb to navigate. These were mentioned by a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) at the London Borough of Camden site, a DHH person with reduced mobility at the Monmouthshire site, a permanent wheelchair user at the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham site and a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) at the Dundee site.

Lack of pedestrian pathway or footway
Out of the 32 people with reduced mobility, 14 people (44%) made negative comments about the provision or lack of a pedestrian pathway. Most of these were regarding safety and included:

• the desire for a traditional footway mentioned by a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) at the Bristol site;
• lack of width in the pedestrian pathway provided mentioned by a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) at the Bristol site, a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user), a permanent wheelchair user and a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) at the Monmouthshire site and two DHH permanent wheelchair users at the Hampshire site who found that wheelie bins, parked cars and bollards reduced the width;
• fear of getting stuck in a narrow section mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user at the Kingston-upon-Hull site;
• having an area that is separate from vehicles mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user at the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham site and a permanent wheelchair user at the Gateshead site, a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) and a hard of hearing, partially sighted permanent wheelchair user at the Bristol site.

Crossing the space
Eleven people with reduced mobility (34%) indicated that they had negative feelings about crossing the areas in the Home Zone. This included issues such as finding a place to cross because of parked cars and few dropped kerbs at the Kingston-upon-Hull site, preference for controlled pedestrian crossings (mentioned at the Gateshead site) and not wanting to cross with vehicles moving in the space.

Gateways to the Home Zone
Fourteen people with reduced mobility (44%) made negative comments about gateways to the Home Zones, including not knowing that they were in a Home Zone, signage information overload and signage being positioned too high for participant to see.

"Could not tell it was a Home Zone, didn't see a sign, not in vision of wheel chair users, could see swirls but didn't know if these meant you should behave differently." Comments from a permanent wheelchair user

Parking issues
Out of the 32 people with reduced mobility, 17 people (53%) indicated that they were having problems with car parking in the Home Zone. This included a dislike for cars parking on both sides of the pathway, having to navigate around parked cars into vehicle path and parking reducing the width of the pedestrian pathway. Of these 17 people, five expressed concern over the parking behaviour of residents including being reversed into while using the space and parked cars restricting participants movement in the space.

Above ground obstacles (street furniture)
Nineteen people with reduced mobility (59%) reported problems with street furniture, this included the positioning of street furniture reducing the effective width for pedestrians, objects placed in the pedestrian pathway creating a collision hazard, uncomfortable seating that is too low or without a back, poor colour contrast on street furniture and planters not high enough.

Problems with surface materials
Fifteen people with reduced mobility (47%) made negative comments about surface materials. These included discomfort for wheelchair users when using cobbles and compacted material, gravel creating a trip hazard and the surface type slowing the user down.

Vegetation
Ten people with reduced mobility (31%) indicated that they were having problems with vegetation including overhanging vegetation reducing visibility, seasonal foliage creating a slip hazard and tree roots.

Problems with gradient and drainage
Six people with reduced mobility (19%) mentioned problems with gradient including adverse camber affecting turning ability and rocking scooters and the steepness of ramped access. Seven people (22%) indicated that they were experiencing problems with drainage features such as adverse camber destabilising wheelchair users and sticks getting stuck in drains.

Interaction among actors
Out of the 32 people with reduced mobility, 14 people (44%) expressed concern over interaction among various actors within the Home Zones. This included parking behaviour, vehicle speeds, not knowing what to do when approached by a vehicle, how user should act to ensure their own safety and poor perceptions of safety.

Strategies and tactics
Eleven people with reduced mobility (34%) indicated that they had concerns about their strategies and tactics when using the Home Zones. This included not having anywhere to take refuge from vehicles and strategies for avoiding vehicles:

"User was concerned what to do when a car approached, presumed that they were required to move to the side of the [vehicle path] but was concerned that the road was not wide enough for cars and pedestrians." Comments from a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user)

Suggestions from people with reduced mobility
People with reduced mobility made various suggestions including making more use of bollards to limit vehicle movement and a continuously dropped kerb.

3.4 People with a learning disability

The six people with a learning disability made 45 positive statements about the Home Zones and 65 negative statements.

3.4.1 Positive statements from people with a learning disability

Using shared surfaces with no delineation
Three people (50%) with a learning disability made positive statements about using shared space with little or no delineation, indicating that they were not afraid to use it.

Kerb
Out of the six people with a learning disability, five (83%) made positive comments about the lack of a kerb, including comments about ease of moving around the space.

Surface materials
Five people (83%) made positive comments about using surface materials in the Home Zones. These included statements about smoothness of the surface, ease of using cobbled areas and the lack of trip hazards.

"The smooth surface is easy to walk on, there are no trip hazards." Comment from a person with a learning disability

3.4.2 Negative statements from people with a learning disability

Using shared surfaces
Two people with a learning disability (33%) made negative statements about using shared surfaces in the Home Zones. This included:

• users not being able to tell where they were in the space because no change in surface material which was mentioned by a person with a learning disability at the London Borough of Camden site, a person with a learning disability and reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) at the London Borough of Harrow site.

"I don't know where to go as it all looks like a road, except for a narrow area." Comment from a person with a learning disability

Crossing the space
Four people with a learning disability (67%) made negative statements about crossing areas within the Home Zones, this was because of reduced visibility:

"I wouldn't want to cross where the cars are parked because you can't see the vehicles approaching." Comment from a person with a learning disability

Above ground obstacles (intermittent)
Three people with a learning disability (50%) indicated that they were experiencing problems with bollards in the Home Zones, participants were concerned that they might collide with or trip over the bollards.

4. Common Issues Experienced with Home Zone Design Features, Layouts and Interactions

4.1 Common issues experienced with design features

The 73 disabled people who took part in the site tests made 186 positive statements about design features in the Home Zones and 500 negative statements.

4.1.1 Positive statements about design features

Overall 26 people made positive statements about shared surface design features in the Home Zones.

Using delineation in shared surface areas
Fifteen people (21%) mentioned that they used cues and delineation to navigate in shared surface areas including using features such as:

• colour contrast - participants at the Worcestershire site indicated that they used dark paving slabs to navigate in shared surface areas. Participants at the Portchester site mentioned that they knew that one surface colour indicated the vehicle path and another colour indicated pedestrian areas. Participants at the London Borough of Camden site indicated that they used double yellow lines and a concrete strip between the pedestrian path and vehicle path to navigate;
• surface texture - partially sighted participants at the Portchester and London Borough of Harrow sites indicated that they could recognise the change in surface texture between pedestrian and vehicle areas using their canes. A partially sighted participant at the Monmouthshire site mentioned that they could tell where the pedestrian path was by using the paving slabs;
• above ground obstacles (that are intermittent such as bollards and trees) - partially sighted participants at the London Borough of Camden and Worcestershire sites indicated that they used bollards to determine a pathway and at the London Borough of Camden site also used this feature to then locate the building line.

Using shared surfaces without using delineation
Fourteen people (19%) made positive statements about using shared surfaces without making use of delineation these included:

• having no problems using a shared surface (mentioned by 7 people) including a BPS person at the Bristol site, permanent wheelchair user at the London Borough of Camden site, three DHH people at the Worcestershire site;
• being able to cross the space at will, mentioned by participants at the London Borough of Camden (person with reduced mobility) and Worcestershire sites (DHH person);
• how guide dogs will improvise in order to navigate in the space which was mentioned by participants at the Bristol, London Borough of Harrow and Monmouthshire sites.

"There is no indication of a vehicle path but my guide dog would adapt" Comments from a blind person

Orientation cues in the Home Zone environment
Out of the 73 participants, 20 people (27%) made positive statements about using orientation cues in the Home Zones:

• nine people (12%) made positive statements about orientating without a kerb including permanent wheelchair users at the Gateshead and Monmouthshire site who liked the freedom of movement provided and three people with learning disabilities and reduced mobility at the London Borough of Harrow site. One BPS person at the Worcestershire site indicated that they used the lowered kerb at the shared space crossing junction to orientate;
• one BPS person at the Worcestershire site indicated that they might be able to use the slight surface 'lip' to orientate;
• eight people (11%) indicated that they were able to use the building line to move in the space, this included one DHH and permanent wheelchair user at the Hampshire site, two BPS people at the London Borough of Camden site, one BPS person at the Worcestershire site, two BPS people at the London Borough of Harrow site and two BPS people at the Gateshead site who used the grass verge and wooden fence to navigate. One partially sighted and hard of hearing participant at the Hampshire site used the driveways next to the pedestrian path to identify places to cross;
• two BPS participants used audio cues such as the sound of traffic at the Bristol and London Borough of Camden sites;
• one participant at the Bristol site indicated that their guide dog used the edge of parked cars as a line to follow and one BPS participant at the Monmouthshire site mentioned that their guide dog used the change in kerb and colour to stop.

Provision of pedestrian pathway
Out of the 73 participants, 11 people (15%) made positive comments about the provision of a pedestrian pathway. This included statements about the positioning of planters creating a pathway mentioned by a BPS person at the Bristol site and good widths of pathways and footways mentioned by three DHH people at the Worcestershire site and three permanent wheelchair users at the Monmouthshire site.

Crossing the space
Eighteen people (25%) made positive comments about crossing in the space, this included being able to use textured areas across the vehicle path, good visibility, using speed bumps to cross on, using well positioned tactile paving and how the shared surface provides more options to cross:

Gateways to the Home Zone
Twelve people (16%) indicated that they could tell when they were entering or exiting the Home Zone, this included using features such as:

• tactile paving which a DHH person at the Kingston-upon-Hull site and two BPS people at the Bristol and London Borough of Harrow sites made use of to identify when they were in the Home Zone;
• planters which indicated to a BPS person at the London Borough of Harrow site and a partially sighted and hard of hearing person at the Hampshire site that they were entering the sites;
• signage (mentioned by 6 people, 8%) including a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user at the Bristol site, BPS person at the London Borough of Camden site, a BPS person and three DHH people at the Worcestershire site.

Parking
Out of the 73 participants, six people (8%) made positive comments about car parking in Home Zone, this included being able to identify parking areas by colour contrast and surface texture and parking well positioned so as not to reduce the width of the pedestrian pathway.

Street furniture
Sixteen people (22%) indicated that they had positive experiences with street furniture in the Home Zones. These included statements about the good design, being able to detect above ground features with a cane, being able to negotiate street furniture when it is well colour contrasted (mentioned by 3 people, 4%), good effective width created by well positioned furniture and appreciating the provision of seating in the space (4 people, 5%).

"Seating is at a good height - easy to get up from via edge of planters." Comments from a partially sighted person

Surface materials
Nineteen people (26%) made positive statements about using surface materials in the Home Zones, this included:

• using gravelled areas to navigate mentioned by a BPS person at the Dundee site;
• good surface quality with few trip hazards and appreciating smooth tarmac mentioned by BPS person at the Kingston-upon-Hull site, a BPS person and a part-time wheelchair user and a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user at the Bristol site and a person with a learning disability at the London Borough of Camden, three DHH people at the Worcestershire site, three people with a learning disability and one permanent wheelchair user at the London Borough of Harrow;
• using changes in surface to find their way mentioned by one BPS person at the Gateshead site.

4.1.2 Negative statements about design features

Overall 41 people (56%) made negative statements about shared surface design features in the Home Zones.

Using delineation in shared surface areas
Fourteen people (19%) mentioned that they experienced problems using shared surface areas that had delineation provided by colour contrast (5 people, 7%), surface texture (9 people, 12%) and bollards and trees (4 people, 5%). This included problems with not being able to understand what different coloured surfaces symbolised, inconsistencies in the layout of street furniture, not being able to tell when in the vehicle path, confusion about the use of tactile paving and not feeling protected from vehicles.

"It's okay having bollards but it's not enough to indicate that you have moved out of the pedestrian only area." Comments from a partially sighted person

Problems with a lack of delineation in shared surface areas
Out of the 73 participants, 32 people (44%) made negative statements about using shared surface areas that have no delineation. These included issues over not being able to tell where the pedestrian path ended and the vehicle path began, a lack of distinguishing features to navigate with, guide dogs being unsure about how to use the space, not being protected from vehicles, participants walking in vehicle path and not having a 'safe' area to go when approached by a vehicle.

"I crossed the central area without thinking about vehicles approaching due to a lack of designated footway and carriageway, I forgot that this was not all pedestrianised." Comments from a wheelchair user

Orientation cues in the environment
Thirty people (41%) indicated that they were having problems using or finding orientation cues in the Home Zone environment. This included problems using audio cues (3 people, 4%) and using a kerb (23 people, 32%) such as the lack of a kerb, falling off a sloping kerb, no colour contrast on kerbs, no cue for guide dogs and areas that used a mixture of kerb and shared surface.

"I prefer the kerb as you know that when you're up it you are in a pedestrian area and when down it you're in the vehicle area, without it you don't know where anything is, you really have to concentrate." Comments from a partially sighted person

Seven people (10%) had problems using the building line as an orientation cue, this included identifying entrances to houses, becoming lost in private gardens and walking into parked cars while following the building line. Of the seven people who tested the Harrow site, which had a guidance path, three people could not detect the guidance path when it was provided.

Pedestrian pathway
Out of the 73 participants, 23 people (32%) made negative comments about pedestrian pathways, this included a desire for a footway with a kerb, poor width on pedestrian pathways and street furniture and parked cars reducing the effective width of pathways.

"I prefer separation because if a car came, for my own peace of mind, I could go somewhere safe and get out of the way." Comments from a person with reduced mobility

Crossing the space
Twenty three people (32%) indicated that they were having problems crossing parts of the Home Zones such as the vehicle path. This included dropped kerbs being blocked by parked cars, poor visibility, no tactile paving at crossing points, desire for controlled crossings and a lack of indication of where it is safe to cross.

Gateways to the Home Zone
Thirty people (41%) made negative comments about identifying and using gateways to the Home Zones. These included having problems using signage (21 people, 29%) such as signage positioned too high, not seeing Home Zone signs, confusion caused by conflicting signs and suggestions to put signage on the ground surface. Two people (3%) had problems understanding what tactile paving at the entrance meant and several people indicated that they did not know that they were in the Home Zone.

Parking
Out of the 73 participants, 23 people (32%) made negative statements about car parking in the Home Zones. The majority of these comments related to safety including walking into cars parked on the pedestrian pathway, participants walking into vehicle paths to avoid parked cars, car parking reducing crossing options and the need for disabled parking bays.

Issues with street furniture
Thirty two people (44%) indicated that they were having problems with street furniture in the Home Zones, this included problems with furniture reducing the width of pathways (5 people, 7%) problems with bollards (14 people, 19%) such as bollards not being sufficient to stop vehicles, colliding with low bollards and stainless steel bollards having little colour contrast. Five people (7%) had problems with temporary street furniture such as A-frames and wheelie bins, six people (8%) also complained about seating including a lack of seating, seats having no back and being too low. Four people (5%) made negative comments about inconsistently placed and poorly colour contrasted lampposts.

Lighting
Eight people (11%) made negative comments about the provision of lighting in the Home Zones. These included a lack of lighting and inconsistent distribution of lighting.

Surface materials
Out of the 73 participants, 31 people (42%) indicated that they experienced problems with surface materials such as discomfort caused by cobbling, compacted gravel and slabs (8 people, 11%), confusion caused by different surface patterns (3 people, 4%). In addition there were problems with tactile paving (6 people, 8%) such as paving causing discomfort, inconsistent use and a lack of tactile paving.

Eighteen people (25%) identified trip hazards in the Home Zone caused by dispersed gravel, gutters, drain covers, parking studs, tree roots, broken paving slabs and uneven block paving.

Issues with vegetation in the Home Zone
Twenty two people (30%) made negative comments about vegetation and foliage in the Home Zones. This included issues with overgrown bushes and branches reducing visibility and being a collision hazard, dead leaves creating a slip hazard, tree roots creating a trip hazard and participants inadvertently walking into flower beds.

"The plant areas that are not contained within the blocks are difficult, I can't detect them as there is no lip. So I wander into this area - it's especially difficult when it is sunny." Comments from a partially sighted person

Drainage and gradient
Nine people (12%) with reduced mobility indicated that they experienced problems with drainage features, this included tripping over gutters and worries about losing balance on adverse camber. Eight people (11%) mentioned problems with gradient in the Home Zones including issues such as camber rocking wheelchairs and causing back ache and undulations causing dizziness and discomfort.

4.2 Common issues experienced with interaction, strategies and tactics

The 73 disabled people who took part in the site tests made 22 positive statements about interaction and strategies in the Home Zones and 105 negative statements.

4.2.1 Positive statements about interaction, strategies and tactics in the Home Zone

Parking behaviour
Three people (4%) indicated that they were not worried about cars reversing into them.

Expected behaviour
Three people (4%) also indicated that they were happy to interact with vehicles in the Home Zone environment:

"Would be happy to stay on vehicle path if a car came along as long as the driver knew it was a Home Zone and that cars were expected to behave differently." Comments from a partially sighted person

Vehicle flow and speed
Three people (4%) mentioned that there were not many vehicles using the site and that this enhanced their feelings of safety.

Freedom of movement
Four people (5%) made positive statements about being able to move around the space freely.

Detecting vehicles
Two people (3%) made positive comments about being able to detect slow moving vehicles in the Home Zone and how this allowed them to interact within shared surface areas.

4.2.2 Negative statements about interaction, strategies and tactics in the Home Zone

Attitude of motorists
Out of the 73 participants, 7 people (10%) made negative comments about the attitude of motorists in the Home Zones, this included expectations that vehicles would still have priority, vehicles would cut corners and non-local motorists not knowing what the area is for.

Expected behaviour
Six people (8%) expressed concerns about the behaviour that was expected of them in a Home Zone, such as being expected to walk on the vehicle path, not knowing what to do when approached by a vehicle, not knowing what tactile paving indicated and not having a 'safe' area to use when approached by a vehicle.

"User was aware that there is no constant footway, was concerned about required behaviour such as having to move off vehicle path." Comments from a person with reduced mobility

Speed of vehicles and cyclists
Seven people (10%) expressed concerns about the speed of vehicles and cyclists coming into the Home Zones and some suggested restricting speeds to 10mph.

Parking behaviour
Seven people (10%) also expressed concerns about vehicle parking behaviour including residents reversing into them and cars parking in front of entrances and reducing access.

Perceptions of safety
Out of the 73 participants, 11 people (15%) were concerned about safety in the Home Zone, including fears of colliding with vehicles, feeling anxious about interacting with vehicles and increased feelings of vulnerability:

"I feel vulnerable, cars frequently encroach on pedestrian areas, this didn't happen prior to the Home Zone." Comment from a person with reduced mobility

Cyclist behaviour
Eight people (11%) mentioned concerns over cyclist behaviour in the Home Zones, these included cyclists approaching from behind, not wanting to share area with cyclists and cyclists approaching at speed.

Guide dog strategies and tactics
Four people (5%) expressed concern about how guide dogs will use the Home Zone environment, including dogs not knowing that they are in the vehicle path and navigational tactics;

"The dog chose to cross at bollard area - because there was more space to one side of this area and the dog didn't know it was a road so it crossed - if the dog knew differently he might not go into this area." Comment from a blind person

Familiarity
Five people (7%) mentioned that familiarity was an issue when using a Home Zone and that unfamiliarity made using and navigating in the area much more difficult.

Interaction with vehicles in the Home Zone
Out of the 73 participants, 6 people (8%) made negative comments about interacting with vehicles in the Home Zones. This included not knowing who has right of way, assuming that the area was pedestrianised and choosing routes that avoided vehicle interaction.

Figure 4.1: Percentage of participants making positive and negative statements about Home Zone design features

Figure 4.2 shows a summary of the percentage of participants making positive and negative comments about interaction, strategies and tactics adopted in Home Zone environments.

Much fewer participants made comments about these issues, but the most contentious issue was perceptions and concerns over safety with over 15% of participants making negative statements about this issue. Concerns over cyclist behaviour was also important to many participants (over 10%).

Negative statements were made about parking behaviour, the speed of vehicles, the attitude of motorists and interaction with vehicles by over 8% of participants. Only the two issues of freedom of movement within the Home Zones and being able to detect vehicles prompted more people to make positive statements than negative statements.

Figure 4.2: Percentage of participants making positive and negative statements about interaction, strategies and tactics

• Personal mobility
• Top of page