Issues affecting design policies for highways and streets are explored in terms of the functional capabilities of disabled and encumbered pedestrians. The analysis and design process for disabled and encumbered people is explored to complement the emphasis accorded driver and vehicle movements in current codes and design policies. Issues related to the integration of code requirements and documented design procedures with the physical capabilities of disabled people in relation to existing policies are examined. Considerations include the location of the visibility viewpoint, associated sight lines, the observation–reaction time immediately before crossing, the distance traveled across footways, and movement characteristics while traversing the carriageway and while completing the crossing. The data described include experimental movement observations obtained by video and documented values. The links with physical disability categories are briefly described. A numerical illustration of the total time required to cross is made. The major issues are summarized, and an outline of areas needing further investigation is presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Department for Transport. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Geometric Design, Vol. 6 and 6A. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1993 and updates.
2.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Places, Streets and Movement: a Companion Guide to Design Bulletin 32, Residential Roads and Footpaths. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1997.
3.
Department for Transport. Pedestrian Facilities at Signal Controlled Junctions. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/05, Parts 1 through 4. Department for Transport, London, March 2005.
4.
A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2002.
5.
OxleyP. R.Inclusive Mobility: Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure.Mobility and Inclusion Unit, Department for Transport, London, 2001.
6.
OxleyP. R. and AlexanderJ.Mobility in London—A Follow-up to the London Area Travel Survey.TRL Project Report PR 34. Transport Research Laboratory, Department for Transport, Crowthorne, United Kingdom, 1994.
7.
DawsonD.Designing Accessible Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. ITE Journal, Sept. 2004, pp. 46–48.
8.
WindleyS.Towards Accessible Public Right-of-Way. ITE Journal, Sept. 2004, pp. 42–44.
9.
Department for International Development. Enhancing the Mobility of Disabled People: Guidelines for Practitioners. Transportation Research Laboratory Ltd., Crowthorne, United Kingdom, 2004.
10.
CarrM.LundT.OxleyP. and AlexanderJ.Cross-Sector Benefits of Accessible Public Transport.Project Report 39. Transport Research Laboratory, Department for Transport, Crowthorne, United Kingdom, 1994.
11.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Developing a Strategy for Walking. The Stationery Office, London, 2002.
12.
WilliamsK.SavillT. and WheelerA.Review of the Road Safety of Disabled Children and Adults.TRL Report 559. TRL Ltd., Crowthorne, United Kingdom, 2002.
13.
Driving Standards Agency. The Highway Code. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1999.
14.
SchoonJ. G.Pedestrian Observation–Reaction Times: Concepts and Pilot Study. In Proceedings of the Universities’ Transport Studies Group, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, United Kingdom, 2003.
15.
Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
16.
KnoblauchR. L.PietruchaM. T. and NitzburgM.Field Studies of Pedestrian Walking Speed and Start-up Time. In Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996.
17.
FuggerF. T.Jr. and RandlesB. C.Analysis of Elderly Pedestrian Gait and Perception/Reaction at Signal-Controlled Crosswalk Intersections.Presented at 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,Washington, D.C., 2001.
18.
HuntJ. and AbduljabarJ.Crossing the Road: A Method of Assessing Pedestrian Crossing Difficulty.Traffic Engineering and Control, London, Nov. 1993.
19.
SchoonJ. G. and HounsellN.Observation–Reaction Times of Wheelchair Users—A Comparison with Non-Disabled Users.Presented at 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.
20.
OlsonP. L.Driver Perception Response Time. In Motor Vehicle Accident Reconstruction: Review and Update, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, Pa., 1989.
21.
MourantR. R. and RockwellT. H.Strategies of Visual Search by Novice and Experienced Drivers. Human Factors, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1972.
22.
GreenshieldsB. D.Reaction Time in Automobile Driving. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1936, p. 335.
23.
VelichkovskyB. M.RothertA.MiniotasD.DornhöferS. M.JoosM. and PannaschS.Visual Fixations as a Rapid Indicator of Hazard Perception. In Operator Functional State and Impaired Performance in Complex Work Environments, IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2003.
24.
BentzenB. L.BarlowJ. M. and FranckL.Addressing Barriers to Blind Pedestrians at Signalized Intersections. ITE Journal, Vol. 70, No. 92000, pp. 32–35.
25.
LeakG. R.MayA. D. and ParryT.An Ergomatic Study of Pedestrian Areas for Disabled People.TRRL Contract Report CR184. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Department of Transport, Crowthorne, United Kingdom, 1991.
26.
EubanksJ. and HillP.Pedestrian Accident Reconstruction.Lawyers and Judges Publishing Co., Tucson, Ariz., 1998.
Department of Transport Local Government and Regions. The Installation of PUFFIN Pedestrian Crossings. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/02. The Stationery Office, London, 2002.
29.
LaplanteJ. N. and KaeserT. P.The Continuing Evolution of Pedestrian Walking Speed Assumptions. ITE Journal, Sept. 2004, pp. 32–40.
30.
Transport Canada. Canadian Accessible Transportation Guide. Canadian Department of Transportation, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1998.
