Online Interview Feedback
Introduction
The online interviews were conducted using the methodology described in Section 2. The participants responses were coded, and this section contains a summary of the most prevalent and prominent coding of themes over the online interviews carried out for this phase of the research.
The details of each of the volunteer participants that took part in Phase 3 of this research are listed in Table 3-1 below.
In the online interviews the participants concentrated on discussing strategies for navigating the streets around them, their lived experience from interacting with different kerbs, and their methods used to navigate to a crossing point. A secondary topic of discussion was the properties of the streets that were presented. The participants’ ‘capabilities’ referred to in Table 3-1 are with respect to the task of negotiating kerbs and are discussed further within this section of the report.
Capabilities
As shown in Table 3‑1, participants that took part in the Phase 3 online interviews included people with various levels of capabilities for the functions of vision; hearing; physical movement; thinking ability, and other systemic capability issues that affect multiple functions.
| Participant | Age | Gender | Capability | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 60-74 | Male | Low visual capability | Cane user. Took part in Phase 2 interviews |
| 2 | 18-29 | Male | No vision. Low hearing capability | Registered blind. Hearing adequate for close speech/ Took part in Phase 2 interviews. |
| 3 | 30-45 | Male | Low visual and hearing capability | Assisted hearing adequate for close speech Requires assistance for specific situations |
| 4 | 60-74 | Male | Low visual and hearing capability | Low visual capability, Assisted hearing adequate for close speech. Uses subtitles on TV. Dexterity good - balance weak. |
| 5 | 60-74 | Female | Very low physical movement | Spinal injury - arms an upper body only. Use wheelchair. Assistance required occasionally |
| 6 | 30-45 | Female | Low physical capability | Ambulatory wheelchair user. Can walk with crutches. Electric wheelchair. Mobility Vehicle. |
| 7 | 60-74 | Male | Very low visual capability | Registered blind with guide-dog. |
| 8 | 60-74 | Male | Very low physical movement | Spinal injury - arms an upper body only. Use wheelchair. Assistance required occasionally |
| 9 | 60-74 | Female | Physical movement difficulties. Thinking, systemic and hearing difficulties | Weakness, balance and vibration sensitivity. Occasional wheelchair user. Hearing aids. Mild cognitive impairment. Recent improvement in requiring assistance. Heart condition. |
| 10 | 75-85 | Female | No vision | No vision. Uses long cane. Has been a guide-dog user. |
| 11 | 18-29 | Female | Uncoded | Incomplete data. Did not complete online interview |
Coding Results
The coding method used throughout this research study has been explained in Section 2.4.
This information is then counted with the highest occurring themes and key criteria to provide commonalities between participants. This can be seen in Table 3‑2, below.
| Name | Files | References |
|---|---|---|
| Street properties | 9 | 295 |
| Crossings | 10 | 220 |
| Methodology | 8 | 215 |
| Hazards | 10 | 161 |
| Capabilities | 10 | 89 |
| Strategy | 5 | 72 |
| Wheelchairs and Mobility Scooter | 6 | 69 |
| Cyclists and cycle lanes | 8 | 60 |
| Maps apps | 8 | 51 |
| Cities and towns | 4 | 15 |
| General remarks | 1 | 3 |
| Policies | 2 | 3 |
For more detailed descriptions of what coding is in the academic context as well as how the coding for this study was developed, please refer to the Phase 2 Study and appendices.
Vision
The participants that took part in the online interviews represented a range of visual capabilities, from no vision at all to those with partial vision that may still fall in the very low vision category. This category covers those who have low visual capability resulting from loss of peripheral vision, loss of central vision, and other conditions that may significantly reduce vision, depending on the retinal area affected. Many of the participants had developed this impairment later in their lives and some noted that they had full vision at some point in their history. Some participants had previously been drivers and therefore will be more familiar with roads in general, and some of the road layouts that are the subject of this research.
Navigating various crossings and diverse kerb heights present notable challenges to those with low visual capabilities. As a baseline, current standard kerbs (100mm upstand) have been noted to be of at least an acceptable height for a cane and guide dog to detect and recognise with respect to the older style footway compared to lower profile newly streetscaped footways.
The participants in the low visual capability category used various methods to recognise dropped kerbs and their angles and heights, necessary to perceive the start of a crossing at the kerb. This included the use of long canes and guide-dogs, which is discussed further in Sections 4.2 and 4.5. Successful navigation of varying kerb heights was dependant on a number of factors, such as familiarity of routes, or use of apps but cane use or dog help was required for immediate situational awareness, and to prevent life-threatening levels of risk. Assistance was invariably necessary for unfamiliar, complex, and challenging routes.
According to Participant 7:
Quote 1: “I'm using a long cane, in the approved manner. So, I would expect to identify it with the cane. But if I didn't notice it with the cane by chance, I can tell it by what's under my feet. You can expect to feel the conspicuous edges.”
They further reiterate what they meant by use of the cane in an approved manner:
Quote 2: “I've been trained and there's a specific long cane technique that you use, which means that you're moving your wrist so the cane follows the arc in front of you. So, it covers the width of your walking and identifies things on the ground or a reasonably low level…it doesn't identify head height obstacles”
Many of the visually impaired participants required assistance from third parties, helping to guide them. These may be relatives and carers, or passers-by. The participants are often trained in a standard way for assisters to guide them. The challenging aspect reported was that people don’t always offer their arms in the expected way that facilitates safe movement. Also, it emerged that a number of participants in this survey had not been trained by mobility instructors. This may be age-dependent considering that there is an age difference of approximately 40 years between the oldest and youngest participants.
However, for those that were trained, training provided a vocabulary for describing and articulating the preferred methods of assistance. Distress and distraction were potentially possible, when well-meaning people address the participants during an approach to the kerb, or when trying to locate a crossing on the road. This distraction could lead to misinterpretation of the road layout and result in the impaired users being hindered in travelling the route.
Hearing
A number of participants reported different levels of hearing capability, some simultaneously with vision issues. Hearing aids have improved as technology advances which is leading to less people being functionally impaired from hearing loss.
However, hearing capability, particularly with hearing aids, can be greatly affected by ambient noise of the street environment (e.g. masking effects), as discussed in Section 3.8.4.
According to the Participant 4:
Quote 3: “a lot of Deaf people become deafer when they're outside so they're even more reliant on their eyes”
The main factor relating to hearing-impaired people having specific difficulties with kerbs and roads generally centred on visual issues, such as the ability to detect hazards or perceive Red-Man/Green-Man signals at controlled crossings. This was further impacted by the lack of availability of haptic signals at crossings, this is discussed further in Section 3.4.
Hearing loss could be progressive. Participant 4 further states:
Quote 4: “But I think most hearing-impaired people have incurred their hearing loss gradually. So, I don't think they would be affected, I think unless they've got other issues, of course, like dementia, for example, or other cognitive issues. But I don't think the hearing loss per se is likely to be a major issue”
Other hearing challenges mentioned were silent cyclists and electric vehicles, which represent a hazard for someone who is deaf or near deaf to contend with. Kerbs often mark the boundary between different usage areas such as footways and cycleways which can give the user an indicator that they need to be aware of possible interactions with certain other types of traffic which may represent a hindrance to their travel or a risk to their safety.
Physical Movement
A number of the participants faced challenges of capability with physical movement. The participants in this category had varying degrees of physical movement constraints, for example, as resulting from spinal injuries leading to paralysis of legs requiring a wheelchair.
Experienced wheelchair users benefited from more knowledge of how to operate their equipment and interact with the surrounding environment due to greater time developing those skills. However, they required assistance with crossings and kerbs when not on familiar ground or when specific kerb heights were untraversable. A number of potential crossing hazards included the following: the descent down a kerb and the ascent up a kerb on the far side of the roadway, potentially exceeding the tipping angle of the chair; physical drops also generate shocks that could have adverse effects for some, including spasms, discomfort, or falls, in many cases this limits the participants to the use of controlled crossings only. Offers of assistance from pedestrians may be dangerous as the public understanding of the use and manoeuvring of the wheelchair is variable and if carried out incorrectly the participant may endure discomfort or injury.
According to Participant 5:
Quote 5: “I have had situations where people have caused me to fall out of my chair. They just try and stand me up. just give me a minute. And I'll tell you what you need to do.”
Furthermore, such handling may cause anxiety because of a lack of understanding of how to support someone with spinal cord complications. It was reported that it might even become necessary to call emergency services to intervene with an ambulance. This was deemed to be a potential source of embarrassment and stigma since the participant was not obviously injured.
One solution, available to mobility drivers (See Section 3.8.4), was seen as acquiring familiarity with routes by reconnaissance driving through areas to ascertain access. However, this also had its limitations, especially regarding the distance from the origin to the destination. According to Participant 4:
Quote 6: “I maybe would drive round a route in advance, just to check it out. But I wouldn't drive an hour to Glasgow, to drive down the street to see if I could have access.“
It was acknowledged by those with low visual capability, that assistance was often required, to plan routes or deal with potential obstacles. In addition, some of the participants with physical movement issues experienced difficulty getting in and out of their wheelchairs requiring assistance to bring them to the wheelchairs. Others, however, were able to build skills using foldable chairs, allowing them to manage, for example, driving a car unassisted.
As well as kerbs there were other roadside features and risks that were raised by the participants. There is a constant moderate risk as a result of the increasing numbers of pedestrians using mobile phones with minimal awareness of their immediate surroundings, especially at lower than head height, meaning non-impaired users are unable to see wheelchair users which could result in evasive actions being required or a collision.
Also, for those using walking sticks and canes, while negotiating steps or going down a staircase a handrail is required. Hence, they also reported difficulty dealing with, either the mild or steep steps, as steps were generally difficult to negotiate, particularly downwards and on curves.
Crossings
Both visually affected and physically affected participants noted that they have resorted to locating a nearby controlled crossing if conditions of risk proved adverse. However, controlled crossings were reported to not always be correctly configured. Different categories of crossing (Zebra, Pelican, Puffin, Toucan, etc) remained a key challenge for people with varying degrees of capability, depending on crossing equipment, operation, and layout. Controlled crossings such as these were the main resort if uncontrolled crossings were deemed too risky due to kerb heights.
Visually Affected Participants
One of the challenges reported by participants with low visual capability is related to the use of tactile paving and its layout relative to the controlled crossing. When the tactile paving is constructed, it may terminate at some distance before the location of the beacon post. There may be a ramp to the kerb edge which is relatively flush with the vehicle trafficked carriageway. It emerged that identifying where the actual kerb of the crossings is located could be a significant problem. The result of this is that the impaired user does not know where they are with reference to the crossing or road itself which is a risk to their safety. According to Participant 7, who narrated their experiences, and the response of their guide-dog:
Quote 7: “But she [dog] sees that happens quite often - that the tactile paving doesn't get right up to the width stops, and even stops even before the traffic light pole, so we are standing there going…”
The account from another participant who is a cane user is slightly different. In this case, the tactile paving is used to orientate and locate the user in the space between the building’s line and the “step down” at the kerb at the crossing edge. Although ramps are normal at these crossings, the kerbs may still not be flush with the roadway and variable heights of kerb are frequently left. This can lead to critical or hazardous problems, especially in adverse weather.
According to Participant 10:
Quote 8: “I swing working forwards and backwards, from right to left. And at the same time, I'm stepping forward on the canes going to the left, and stepping forward with that, so that I know that I'm not going to step down anything. I need to find tactile if I know I'm going to cross the road.”
As well as kerbs there were other roadside features and risks that were raised by the participants. There were accounts of tactile paving positioned in inappropriate places: tactile paving could occur in locations on the road or on footways without crossings, a potential source of confusion and apprehension.
Also, at controlled crossings, sunlight could impinge on users’ eyes, making it impossible for them to see the lantern signal of opposingly mounted Green Man signals on the far side of the road. This was considered high risk and users’ reported anxiety and fear of the possibility of vehicles hitting them. This was a concern for participants with partial vision, reinforcing their overall frustrations with the challenges of the crossing locations and their positionings.
It was reported that many sets of traffic lights at controlled crossings do not have rotating haptic cones and tactile cones on the push button unit. Also, there was a false understanding that all crossings with traffic lights have audible signals to cross. Not all have the audible signal to alert people to cross. This is difficult for people with different levels of hearing or visual capability. In situations where there were multiple crossing points at adjoining crossings, for example, there were multiple sets of signals. The audible signal has the potential to be misidentified and may be of uncertain location due to the general auditory environment at busy crossings. If a sound is generated at an adjacent or connected crossing, it has the potential for confusion as the low-capability individuals at adjacent crossings tend to think that they can cross the road. It was reported that such complex crossing intersections are generally risky for users, especially those with canes, guide dogs and wheelchairs interacting or competing for space with pedestrians.
Participants also used auditory, and sensory information to assist the decision-making at crossings. It was observed that the auditory signal device could fail to operate at the crossings, creating a hazard. Other hazards included the failure of visually affected users to detect a potential collision with a car or other vehicles (motorcycle, bicycle) due to the quietness of the vehicle, possibly an electric vehicle, scooter, or bicycle.
Cyclists and cycle lanes
The interaction of people with different levels of capability and the presence of cyclists on the cycle lanes and footways introduces risk to all users. These interactions were noted to be most prominent causes of anxiety, fear, and apprehension. According to Participant 7:
Quote 9: “They are a complete nightmare and bikes, and scooters tend to go into the pavement as well and that's really disheartening”
Participants reported that a number of newly pedestrianised areas they had experienced had minimal or undetectable kerbs. For considerable distances there is no kerb, which means there is no physical marker to prevent inadvertent excursion onto the road. In certain cases, a cycle path begins where tactile paving is positioned along the front of the cycle path. People who are of extreme visual impairment can encounter this tactile paving and become disoriented; they will search for a push button unit to press a demand button. However, due to this unanticipated arrangement it was then possible for the impaired user to be located in the middle of a cycle path, putting their safety at risk. According to Participant 7:
Quote 10: “That's part of the problem so much of that did not have a kerb, so you didn't know when they cycled past… stuck … and for the whole street there are quite a distance there is actually no kerb, so you can actually walk onto the road, and you wouldn't really know as some people use canes”
They continue:
Quote 11: “It’s hard to explain how the cycle path is separated with road. I have fallen over them a few times.”
Another challenge noted by the participants is that bikes and electric vehicles were not producing sounds audible enough to hear, especially for those with low or very low hearing and visual capability.
The participants who recreationally used bicycles and recumbent cycles noted a challenge in sharing facilities with other cyclists and pedestrians. While they attempted to avoid use of busy roads they were often forced to use them because the usable cycle paths provision connecting them to their destinations were exhausted. The poor condition of some cycle paths and their footways were considered to be contributory to this. Participant 5 states that:
Quote 12: “We came across a lot of hazards on route, there are so many parts that we had to use the cycle map. But still it wasn’t clear where you were going. And we obviously tried to stay off busy main roads. But sometimes it was unavoidable.”
It was emphasised that cycle lanes should be low-risk spaces, which they are not currently perceived as being. It was perceived by the participants that fatalities had occurred, causing widespread apprehension.
Participants using wheelchairs expanded that they could get stuck between the kerbs of cycle paths as they can form a long channel. This can result in a long wheeling effort until the next suitable exit point.
As well as this there was a perception of an emerging threat from new cycle paths obstructing people on wheelchairs from safely accessing their parked cars. Participant 4 states:
Quote 13: “They not so much with roads, but with cyclists and, cycle lanes in particular, this wave (COVID) started rolling out floating bus stops and floating parking in edge, you need to cross a cycle lane to get to your parked car…And cyclists simply don't stop… I don't know, for whatever reason. That is a concern.”
Design efforts using surface colours to differentiate the cycle paths and the roads were perceived as helpful, nevertheless, risk levels remained too high. There was a problem of using road markings with paint because of drivers’ lack of compliance with the markings for cyclists. This point reinforces the importance of using kerbs to define the boundaries between footways, cycleways and the carriageway.
Hazards
Safety is the main priority for participants that have to cross the road. Numerous examples were identified which described different situations and scenarios that constitute hazards for their interactions with pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers on the roads, particularly on the shared facilities such as the footways and the controlled crossings. In many cases hazards were repeatedly described by the participants during the online interviews, as listed below:
- One hazard identified and described was the absence of kerbs in some streets which makes users with capability variation vulnerable to stress and accidents. Examples were given where individuals had inadvertently walked directly into roads and the cycle paths.
- Also, new road developments have led to increased risk, in which there were undetectable kerbs separating the footway and the cycle paths. Similarly, the participants reported incidences of collision hazards involving parked vehicles on the footways and with the disorderly café boundaries located on footways.
- The convergence of footway and cycle paths with inappropriate tactile paving and kerb interfaces exposes users to the risk of collision with cyclists. Also, there were a number of controlled crossings without tactile paving, haptic cones or other inclusive features which they noted are a form of hazard to their mobility and interactions within their urban space.
- The hazard that electric vehicles present in terms of the absence of sounds was emphasised by the participants, especially those with low visual capability as they are unable to see the oncoming vehicles and at the same time, have no form of awareness of their environment due to the lack of noise from the vehicles. Battery-operated cars produce no sound and constitute a hazard, especially in places where there is no tactile paving and kerbs separating the different traffic streams.
- There were moderate hazards from people using mobile phones rendering them inattentive. More serious were collisions resulting from the opening of car doors. Issues of obstructions on the footways were raised in different forms as for instance, that of unfixed rubbish bins constituting hazards on the way.
Also, identified as a general factor raising risk were the potholes on the roads and footways which can trap the wheelchairs, sticks, canes, and feet. Uneven slabs were noted to be enough to knock down users. According to Participant 8:
Quote 14: “I nearly had a quite bad accident with bad pavement because my front caster caught the pavement, and it tipped me forward. And it was only lucky that, there was a bus going by, so I managed to push myself back off the moving bus. If it had been about two seconds later, I would have been under it.”
They continue:
Quote 15: “As a wheelchair user, I've had very few problems because the buttons tend to be at a sensible height. And I don't tend to have to go into the road to press them and things like that. As a (recumbent) cyclist. They're dreadful, the Toucan crossing ones because I'm so low down, and quite often, I have to roll slightly into the road to be able to get up and reach them.”
Negative psychological effects resulting from participants perceptions of hazards and levels of risk. This was reported as potentially incremental, and location related. This was reported to potentially lead to restlessness and fear. In other situations, anxiety at crossings could be generated by other coincident causes, including aircraft noise, roadworks, other pedestrians, dogs, and cyclists.
Maps Apps and Navigation
A number of participants reported using route finding apps such as Google maps and various apps aiming to aid impaired users. The advantages were noted, while the challenges they faced using the various apps were also narrated especially by the visually impaired participants. In general, most of the participants reported finding the use of a map app helpful for planning routes and finding crossings, especially if designed for visual or mobility impaired users.
Participants who have low physical capability reported using in-car navigation and reconnaissance drives for routes in unfamiliar areas. Notable among the apps being reported as useful were Google and Apple maps, however, these do not help with orientation in the street or with the location of appropriate landmarks.
There are apps under development for the use of those with varying degrees of capability. According to Participant 7:
Quote 16: “I was invited to the Forth Valley sensory impairment unit and there is… something that's been developed at Glasgow University”
Also, the participants noted that some apps are difficult to understand despite accessibility features and as such were not user friendly. There were other apps developed to aid crossings, especially for people with low dexterity. Participant 4 states:
Quote 17: “The idea is to carry that little app on your smartphone. And to have some technology in the crossing. If you stand near the box, for five seconds, it activates the Green Man. Just press the button. And it's designed for people who for whatever reason, to access the green, then it might be people with dexterity issues that aren't able to push the button.”
Several other apps were mentioned that were based on specifying routes using disability landmarks and exact distance descriptions. The Google “street view feature” was reported as helpful in looking for parking, assessing kerbs and the layout of the road ahead of crossings on route as it gives a static camera view in different directions from a given point in the street (360 degree cameras).
From the discussions in the online interviews, it can be seen there is a desire within the functionally impaired community to integrate the use of technology in how they travel. Technology was seen as a key element in reducing stress and ensuring the participant would be able to easily travel from their origin to their destination. Also, the participants made it clear that reconnaissance was a key element in how participants plan their journeys and interact with spaces whether that be from technological sources such as apps or in person events such as drive or walk throughs.
Street properties
The key properties of the streets mentioned by the participants undertaking the online interviews included the layout of the street, the type and condition of the road, footways, and kerbs, and any specific issues. The layout of the roads and conditions of kerbs and footways were described as giving a form of identity to respective streets. The participants noted that in some streets the footways were broken, and the kerbs functionally deficient. Street layout can further influence the interactions with every type of traffic, much of which has already been described in earlier sections. Again, the lack of clear separation of roadways and cycleways from the sufficient use of kerbs to delineate the boundary of the footways was prominent.
Ambiguity of Tactile Footways and Gutters
Ambiguity of tactile footways near kerbs were seen as sources of confusion and disorientation because it was perceived as being used for multiple purposes, many of which were unclear to those with capability variation. The clear use of consistent kerb types and heights to highlight boundaries could provide a solution to this ambiguity.
Other significant properties of streets are sloping kerbs and drainage gutters which are noted to be acceptable but depends on the angle and the height. According to Participant 2:
Quote 18: “…a very shallow kerb that then sloped down to a shallow angle might not be as easily identifiable as some as a steeper or higher one. But, I recognize the need to have dropped out kerbs and that users are fine, as long as they are sufficiently conspicuous”
Relating to the slope, Participant 5 states:
Quote 19: “...up to 30 degrees. Certainly, I do take that a lot and I haven't been for quite a while, but George Street I think, I remember it poses great problems because it's such a high kerb drop”
Design inconsistency
The participants further highlighted some inconsistencies in the design of kerb environments on the roads assessed during the online interviews. For instance, it was noted that in Edinburgh, temporary cycleways had been bounded by intermittent rubber kerb elements, each containing a 1.5m baton. The rubber kerbs and batons were seen as potential crossing obstacles and the gaps between batons were reported as not easily identified, leading to a dangerous exposure as no physical boundary existed at that point between cycleways/parking and the roadway. It was perceived that efforts to make streets congenial for pedestrians, had generated inconsistencies which negatively impact the level to which impaired users can interpret the route. In some cases, the road has been narrowed and parking reduced to allow for faster throughput of cyclists, with the overall intention of making the streets more visually pleasing as well as usable for all categories of users. This, however, led to restructuring of the typical layouts and the creation of additional problems for impaired users that have not been fully considered and communicated, which included issues of delineation of different traffic types and inconsistent use of kerb styles and heights.
The designs of kerbing in specific roads was frequently mentioned. For example, multiple references were made to new developments in streetscaping. According to Participant 2:
Quote 20: “There's a site, being remodelled with a cycleway and a more restricted roadway. ……. they’ve narrowed that down and they're going to reduce the amount of parking so that the idea is to have a quicker throughput of cyclists and that the intention is to make it more congenial for pedestrians and cyclists and all road users. But safer presumably because of parked vehicles……. But the way they've managed it is not good in terms of kerbs. So, there is virtually no delineation, no marking, no tactile marking between the cycleway and the pavement. I mean, it's quite difficult to detect even when it's new. So, it's virtually a shared surface between pedestrians and cyclists at that point”
Participant 2 continues:
Quote 21: “And there's a particular intersection that I've looked at. That you have to worry if you want to cross the whole width of the cycleway and the road. There are no kerbs. There are kerbs where you don't want to cross. But they've raised because of the table. What do you call it raised table on the road? Yeah. Which of course eliminates the kerb. Because they haven't raised the pavement. So, it's sort of a ramp for the traffic, but no kerb, it ends up making the road the same height as the pavement. Therefore, you don't know when you've crossed the cycleway, and you don't know when you're on the vehicle bit.”
The height of the kerbs at these newly streetscaped examples attracted widespread criticism from the participants. The general consensus was for a consistent and distinctive layout without excessive height kerbs. The existing provision was described as highly inconvenient and hazardous for wheelchairs as well as for people with other types and levels of impairment. A particular difficulty occurred for those who were of high physical impairment with respect to movement; and with high visual impairment, who expect the kerb to be detectable and dropped at the point of crossing.
Design Inconsistency with Street Furniture, Obstacles, and Roadworks
With respect to the pedestrianised areas, the participants highlighted the key issues of congesting street space with street furniture and other objects that are typical of such areas. Participants described their expectation of a typical footway was to have lamp posts on the building side, with perhaps dust bins, and to the roadside a cycleway. However, this expectation can no longer be relied on with the development of new streetscaping techniques. According to Participant 2:
Quote 22: “they tend to be littered with street furniture that's one problem. And the other problem is if it's a pedestrian street that was a traffic street before and has been pedestrianised. Normally, they would leave the pavements in place. But you wouldn't be expected to walk on them, because they have all sorts of clutter on them.”
Navigation and situational awareness were affected on the kerbed footways resulting from obstructions which include planters, bollards, bike racks and shops. In some cases, it was no longer adequate to proceed along the centre part of the footway with the expectation that the traffic sound will be detected before crossing the road. Some newly developed pedestrianised areas were considered by the participants as challenging for individuals with capability variations.
Tactile paving was a familiar property of the streets and encouraged confident progress through areas with tactile indicators for the impaired users. However, this trust was broken in cases where the tactile indicators were removed due to utility work and omitted or incorrectly fixed back.
It was frequently reported that temporary roadworks presented a considerable hazard, particularly when they changed their position and form. In some cases, road markings bore no relationship to the layout of kerbs and were considered by the participants as a hazard to cyclists and those with functional impairments, alike.
The participants observed the need for appropriate combinations of kerb height for a given longitudinal gradient, noting that this is not clear. New and legacy parking bay markings for physically affected drivers were considered to be often dangerous or inappropriate, as the information in the road markings were missing, incomplete or inadequate for the width of modern vehicles.
Traffic noise and Echolocation
Traffic noise was noted as an issue to some of the survey participants. They noted that at times the noise can be helpful for the visually impaired, especially the noise from oncoming vehicles. Also, the use of echolocation was reported as a key element of cane users. In particular, trained users were capable of detecting the noise from the cane when it hits many objects, contributing to situational awareness. Traffic noise and subtle changes in noise reflection were routinely used as locators for the shop frontage and the roadway, respectively.
Conversely traffic noise or lack thereof was also noted to be a distraction to participants. Hearing impaired users noted that peripheral noise often caused their remaining hearing capability to decrease, this has been discussed in Section 3.3.2. As well as this traffic which is silent or near silent was noted as a hazard, e.g. electric cycles.
Wheelchairs and Mobility Scooters
The participants using wheelchairs reported challenges getting in and out of the wheelchairs and using the shared kerbside facilities with other users such as cyclists and pedestrians. These challenges are divided below into the initial in and out of the wheelchair and the issues the wheelchair designs have with the street environment.
These issues can be considered for manual wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters.
Getting In and Out of the Wheelchair
The design of the wheelchair can facilitate ingress and egress of the wheelchair. Older, more rigid designs can prove more difficult than newer more flexible designs. However, not all users have newer designs. Participant 5 describes their particular type of wheelchair:
Quote 23: “it's what's called a rigid frame wheelchair. instead of folding in sideways, the back comes down onto the seat, and the wheels come off just pressing a button. I put the wheels safely in behind the passenger seat and find my seat and I move the body over me, and it sits in the passenger seat”
The ease at which the participants can transfer between their wheelchair and their car will influence how they travel to and from any point of interest. This in turn will influence the roads and footways they are required to navigate. This could impact parking locations and pick up/drop off points as it relates to kerbs.
Design and Features of Wheelchairs
The design and the features of the wheelchair or scooter can determine the ease of manoeuvring and traversing various heights of kerbs, and the comfort level in use.
Participant 8 describes their wheelchair, stating:
Quote 24: “It's a lightweight chair. With Spinergy wheels. So, it's got these carbon fibre ones. They're, great. So, they sort of absorbed I mean, they've had them for years”
Participants described their experiences with traversing kerbs at different places. This was managed with varying degrees of difficulty, with some athletic participants comfortable with traversing the kerbs of standard height. However, other participants perceived these as a hazard and they were not able to ascend standard kerbs with their wheelchairs and aborted the manoeuvre as too risky.
Tyre technology was potentially a factor according to Participant 8:
Quote 25: “The tires are relatively smooth, and you can get like mountain bike tires. But the ones I've got are relatively smooth, just probably run-at-the-mill wheelchair tires. They are expensive ones that I've got a special coating inside to try and prevent punctures”
This highlights that the participant’s familiarity and confidence in their wheelchair can influence when and how they will navigate kerbs and where they perceive the risk is low enough to attempt a crossing.
These findings were supported by participants, reinforcing the importance of the kerb height factor as a key challenge to wheelchair and scooter users. Participants indicated that it may be that the greatest problem faced while using a wheelchair is the height of the kerb due to the potential tipping hazard or inability to crest the kerb and move from the carriageway to the pedestrian footway. A steep familiar kerb could be negotiated with assistance from somebody by tilting back the wheelchair and pushing. However, significant height required a high degree of tilt to get down or up to the footway. This could also result in issues as described in Section 3.3.3.
Participant 6 reported it to be easier descending kerbs with an electric wheelchair; without the small castors but identified a greater hazard in ascending the kerbs to the footway.
Some wheelchairs have available accessories for increasing stability that consist of forward-facing larger wheels or anti-tip wheels that can be fitted to project at the rear. Participants reported these to be assistive but difficult to fix to the chair, leading to a requirement to add at the beginning of a journey or risk hook-up trouble later as they could not easily be removed on the streets by a single person. Participant 9 continues:
Quote 26: “I've got on the wheelchair that I've got is stabilisers, which are good, because that would prevent you from tipping right back. But in general, it would be quite difficult to negotiate, I'd probably have to look for something like a crossing, which has got a, you know, a ramp down”
Another area of comment regarded the design of wheelchair suspension to reduce vibration and shocks. With prolonged use, the uneven condition of the footways, kerbs, and roadway generated vibrations and oscillation that caused severe back pain. Extreme acceleration shocks, and vibrations from casters, could lead to immediate significant pain and muscle spasm.
Strategy
Participants explained that side roads and private accesses which cross or interrupt the footway were common locations for them to negotiate changes in kerbs heights, and as such were considered by the participants as hazards. This was particularly evident at gaps for business entrances and private housing driveways for example.
For the visually impaired participants they detected these changed using a number of methods, for example, elements such as cane use, dog assistance and physical touch.
During the online interviews participants described their approach to such crossings. Participants agreed they would initially look for a controlled crossing, and if a controlled crossing was unavailable, they would attempt an uncontrolled crossing where they felt personally safe to do so.
Situational awareness, built internally using tools such as apps, sensory scanning, or human assistance were discussed as being helpful to inform these decisions.
Visually impaired participants reported a strategy generally involved progression along the middle of the footway while taking in navigational information and assessing crossing points and potential hazards. The current traffic situation would also be taken into account. According to Participant 2:
Quote 27: “I wouldn't normally expect to use the kerb to navigate along the pavement as it were. Unless it's a very narrow pavement, when you can't avoid locating the kerb with your stick and, and you can use that the ones not to accidentally step out into the road, for a wide pavement with plenty of room, I would, I would try to walk along in the middle of the pavement as far as possible, because if you were to follow the kerb, there are lamp posts and all sorts of other stuff, usually on the outside”
To maintain a centreline in such excursions, progress was made in centre of the footway using a mixture of indicators. This included echolocation to identify solid shopfronts and footway obstacles.
For example, Participant 2 states:
Quote 28: ”it’s a mixture of the noise of the cane and your footfall as well. I think those are the main things, you're getting a signal from solid objects, especially solid objects beside you. It's easy to detect objects next to you rather than in front of you, interestingly. So, Echolocation is very useful for navigating a straight line along a pavement in built-up areas where you generally have an assortment on your left or right or whatever it is”.
However, not all visually impaired participants were trained in the use of this strategy or able to use it. They relied upon the use of their primary aid, e.g. a cane or guide dog, to maintain their central position and assess hazards.