Designing for Disabled People in Home Zones
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements
1.0 Introduction and Background
2.0 Literature Review
3.0 Site Tests
4.0 Focus Groups
5.0 Questionnaire on General Issues and Experiences
6.0 Method of Analysis
7.0 Findings Report
8.0 Conclusions
9.0 Bibliography
Appendix A Literature Review
Appendix B Full Findings of Literature Review
Appendix C Draft Analysis of Focus Groups
Appendix D Draft Analysis of Site Testing Data
Appendix E General Issues and Experience Questionnaire
|
This document has also been made available in Adobe Acrobat format for downloading.
The Adobe® Acrobat Reader® can be freely downloaded.
Viewers with visual difficulties may find it useful to investigate services provided to improve the accessibility of Acrobat documents - www.adobe.com/accessibility/index.html
|
Executive Summary
The concept of a Home Zone is one in which the design and layout of the road and
pedestrian space within a residential area are designed and managed to be shared
between pedestrians, vehicles and other road users. It is proposed that sharing a
space in this way encourages motorists to drive with greater care and at lower
speeds, whilst pedestrians, children and cyclists have greater choice of accessible
areas in which to move, play and socialise.
A successful Home Zone should improve the quality of life for all residents and
other users. What is paramount however is that all players using the environment
should do so with respect and consideration to the needs of other people using the
space.
In general, however, disabled people do experience difficulties when using Home
Zones and, for some, those difficulties can significantly affect their frequency and
independent use of the external environment. Design issues such as the lack of
any traditional delineation within the space to identify the proposed uses for
particular areas clearly has a negative effect on people's experiences. The lack of
'protection', whether perceived or real, that disabled people can feel within Home
Zones is also clearly an issue.
In terms of design, there is no single 'blueprint' for a Home Zone and any guidance
that can be offered to those designing Zones can never be prescriptive. However,
there are clear issues for disabled people relating to the manner in which likely or
preferred uses for different spaces within a Zone can be identified, and how their
safety when using the Zone can be ensured.
Therefore, whilst the concept of a Home Zone is one of a shared area that
incorporates little or no use of hard physical features to delineate space, users
clearly prefer that the areas that represent the most likely routes to be used or
followed by vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists are clearly identifiable, unambiguous,
and, to some degree, offer a level of protection.
Understanding such issues and paying careful attention to the design, layout and
management of features used within a Zone can go some way to addressing the
concerns of disabled people. The data gathered in this study from a representative
sample of site tests, focus groups and user questionnaires has contributed to our
understanding of these issues. It has also identified how a generic approach to the
provision of design features within a Home Zone can assist in making decisions
and selections that will improve the quality of life for everyone.
Key Findings and Guidance
This project has identified several key areas that affect the use of Home Zones by
disabled people, and the extent to which they feel comfortable and safe when doing
so.
These can be summarised as follows:
- Home Zones and similar shared areas can pose problems for disabled
people. In general, disabled people prefer to have the option of using a
complementary delineated pedestrian area that is clearly defined and
unambiguous (7.1.1.4 and 7.1.1.5);
- Orientation is aided where there is a continuous building line or where
there is a readily identifiable pedestrian pathway or route (7.1.3.4);
- Identifying the proposed uses of areas or routes to be used or followed
by vehicles and pedestrians can be done by -
- delineating space and activity at surface level (using, for
example, visual contrast - although this will not be of benefit
blind people with no remaining vision);
- physical features at ground level (using, for example, tactile
surface finishes);
- intermittent physical features above surface level (using, for
example, bollards, trees, individual planters, lampposts, and
individual seats); or,
- continuous physical features above surface level (using, for
example, long planters, rows of seating and railings)
(7.1.1.4 and 7.1.2.4);
- Any method used to delineate space should not unduly restrict the
general freedom of movement of pedestrians (7.1.2.4);
- Whilst clearly identifiable pedestrian pathways benefit disabled people,
attention is also needed to the siting and provision of appropriate
crossing points or routes (7.1.4.4 and 7.2.7.5);
- The provision for disabled people to cross the paths of vehicles or to
identify the preferred uses of different areas should be clearly
identifiable and unambiguous for drivers, disabled pedestrians and
cyclists (7.1.2.4 and 7.1.5.3);
- Pedestrians are more positive about using a Home Zone if it has
identifiable pedestrian pathways and the speed of vehicles is kept below
20mph to aid detection (7.2.2.4, 7.2.3.5, 7.2.5.4 and 7.2.8.4);
- Freedom of movement is a positive factor within a Home Zone. However,
safety and security are also important factors to be considered;
- Gateways to a Home Zone should be readily identifiable to all users.
This can be done by the appropriate provision and positioning of signs, and by a tactile indicator incorporating the use of differing surface
finishes (7.1.6.4);
- At gateways, care should always be taken that the design and extent of
any tactile surfaces do not impede access and egress to the Zone by
people using mobility aids. (7.1.6.4);
- The position of areas allocated for parking and the vehicle routes to
those areas should be identifiable and predictable (7.1.7.5);
- Informing residents, motorists, cyclists and the wider community of
what a Home Zone is and how it should be used will have an important
and beneficial effect on how it is used (7.2.8.4, 7.2.9.4, and 7.10.5);
- Street furniture can be used to assist in identifying the preferred use of
areas, provide protection, and influence the movement and flow of
vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists (7.1.8.4);
- It is important that street furniture is only provided where it is necessary
and it should always act as an integral part of the overall design
(7.1.8.4);
- The potential for street furniture to present a tripping or collision hazard
will be lessened if it:
- is logically placed;
- extends at least one metre above surface level;
- is positioned such that any horizontal elements do not project
into circulation routes (i.e. the horizontal section of a seat);
- has its position identified by surface level visual contrast or a
tactile area;
- contrasts visually against the background against which it will
be viewed in both natural day-light and artificially-lit situations
(7.1.2.4 and 7.1.8.4);
- Good lighting is essential to enhance a feeling of personal safety, to
identify routes and obstacles, and to gather information (for example,
from signs and visual contrast) (7.1.10.4);
- Lighting should not cause undue or confusing shadows and be
positioned to deliver a uniform distribution of lighting within the Zone
(7.1.10.2);
- The recommended standard maintained illuminance within a Zone
should be between 20 and 50 lux (7.1.10.4);
- The selection of light sources (bulbs and lamps), should consider their
effect (for example, colour rendering performance) on the visual
contrast selected to identify features within the Zone. Management
practices should be in place to ensure that lighting is appropriately
maintained (7.1.2.5 and 7.1.10.3);
- Surface finishes should be smooth, level, and slip resistant in all
weather conditions. Surfaces should always be appropriately managed
to reduce seasonal hazards, such as ice and leaves (7.1.9.5);
- Surface gradients should be kept to a minimum but should always be
designed to prevent standing water. Adverse cambers should be
avoided (7.1.12.4);
- Drainage features should be located away from main pedestrian routes
and any drainage covers and gratings used should have a maximum
size of openings of 13mm (7.1.12.4);
- Obstructions overhanging circulation routes caused by projecting
features such as seating, signs, trees and other vegetation etc, should
be avoided. Where unavoidable, the obstruction should be protected
with a barrier at low level and clearly identified using visual contrast
(7.1.11.5);
- Overhanging trees and shrubs should not extend below 2.1m above
surface level (7.1.11.5).
Acknowledgements
The Research Team would like to express grateful thanks to all the organisations
and individuals who participated and helped in the research phases of the project,
and in offering advice during the project. These included:
Barking and Dagenham Access Group
Brighton and Hove City Council
Bristol City Council
Bristol Physical Access Chain
Cardiff School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University
Cheshire County Council
Department for Transport
Disability Advice Project
Disability Gateshead
Disability in Camden
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee
Dundee Blind and Partially Sighted Society
Dundee Access Group for the Disabled
Dundee City Council
Faber Maunsell
Faculty of the Built Environment, University of the West of England
Fareham Access Group
Fareham Active Blind
Fareham Borough Council
Gateshead Access Panel
Gateshead Council
Greater London Authority
Guide Dogs
Hampshire Association for the Blind
Hampshire County Council
Harrow Association of Disabled People
Hearing Concern
Hearing Dogs (UK)
Hull Access Improvement Group
Hull and East Riding Institute for the Blind
Hull City Council
Hull Council of Disabled People
Hull Deaf Club
IHIE Home Zone Working Group
Jacobs Babtie
Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People
Kirklees Council
Lacey Hickie Caley
Leeds City Council
London Access Forum
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
London Borough of Camden
London Borough of Harrow
London Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
Malvern Access Group
Manchester City Council
Martin Stockley Associates
Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland
Monmouthshire County Council
Newport Access Group
Open Space Research Centre, Edinburgh College of Art
Oxford Brookes University
Oxfordshire County Council
Peter Brett Associates
Phil Jones Associates
Plymouth City Council
Scope (Plymouth)
Scottish Disability Equality Forum
Scottish Executive
Sight Services Gateshead
St Dunstans
Sustrans
The Access Association
United Kingdom Institute for Inclusive Design
University of Reading
Worcestershire Access Group
Worcestershire County Council
WSP Development and Transportation Ltd
[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]
|
