Publications:
Designing for Disabled People in Home Zones

7.0 Findings Report

The comments contained in this section are derived from the comments made by the participants in the site tests. The comments are described on a pan-disability basis and in terms of whether they represented positive or negative views to individual participants. Where appropriate, reference is also made to comments received in the Focus Groups to enhance or explain the information gathered in the site tests.

7.1 Design Features

The 73 people who took part in the tests made 186 positive statements about the design features in the Home Zones. Overall, 26 people (36%) made positive statements about the shared surface design of the Home Zones they experienced.

They also made 500 negative statements about design features encountered. Overall, 41 people (56%) made negative statements about the shared surface design features of the Home Zones experienced.

The following résumé of the findings derives from the positive and negative comments on common issues experienced by disabled people with regard to design features, layouts and interactions.

Where additional information was recorded in the Focus Groups or identified in the analysis of the site tests by the common issues experienced by people with similar disabilities (see Section 6.2.2.3) or the Site Specific analyses that either enhances, conflicts or is otherwise relevant to this résumé, this has been identified in the sections entitled "Complementary Information". The full findings are included in the Appendices.

7.1.1 Using Shared Surfaces with Delineation

7.1.1.1 Positive

Fifteen people (21%) mentioned that they used cues and delineation such as colour contrast, surface texture, bollards and trees to navigate in shared surface areas.

"Within the shared surface area (with yellow lines, bollards and trees separating the vehicle path from the pedestrian area) the user felt safer as they could tell the different area was for pedestrians and had a clear view of what was approaching."
Comment from a wheelchair user.

7.1.1.2 Negative

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."
Comment from a partially sighted participant.

7.1.1.3 Complementary Information

In the Focus Groups, comments were made by several participants regarding the provision of delineation by various methods including by visual contrast, surface texture and changes in level. In general, designers identified the need for more detailed guidance, especially on what constitutes appropriate visual contrast in an external environment, and users commented on the usefulness in different types of surface in conveying information about where they are walking. Asphalt was identified as being particularly useful to identify preferred vehicular routes. Examples of the latter were given as Portchester (see 3.2.6) and Hull (see 3.2.5). Both were seen as useful methods of delineating space.

What was also identified however was that visual contrast often diminished with time as materials 'weathered in' and that should be factored into the initial selection process.

The potential for paved and cobbled areas to cause discomfort both for people with mobility impairments and using mobility aids such as long canes was identified, which concurred with the findings of the site tests.

Some comments were made about the use of shared surfaces generally. For example, concerns about interacting with vehicles when using shared surfaces and finding safe areas in which to feel safe from approaching vehicles were identified by a large number of disabled participants.

It was also noted that the concerns raised were, in the main, primarily about interactions with vehicles, motorists' attitudes/behaviour and perceptions of safety i.e. non - design features (see also Section 7.2.6).

On design features, issues identified or suggested included ideas for an alternative to a current kerb provision, and also how to effectively protect a pedestrian area whilst maintaining the perception of shared space to drivers. Some participants considered that intermittent above surface features, such as bollards, did not provide sufficient separation as some vehicles could still access the safe area, and were the features are often not easily identifiable.

The site specific analysis identified areas which illustrate examples of good and bad practice with regard to using shared surfaces with little or no delineation. For example, in a focus group session, visual contrast at the Portchester Home Zone (see Section 3.2.6) was identified as a good example of how to indicate to users where they were in the space (the grey area), and where vehicles were less likely to be moving.

In the site tests, several participants with reduced mobility identified that they experienced difficulty negotiating uneven surface textures used to delineate spaces. This was also the view expressed by several access professionals during the Focus Groups.

7.1.1.4 Summary - Using Shared Surfaces with Delineation

See Section 7.1.2.4.

7.1.1.5 Guidance - Using Shared Surfaces with Delineation

See Section 7.1.2.5.

7.1.2 Using Shared Surfaces that have Little or no Delineation

7.1.2.1 Positive

Fourteen people (19%) made positive statements about using shared surfaces that had very little delineation; these included having no problems using a shared surface (mentioned by 7 people), being able to cross the space at will and how guide dogs will improvise in order to navigate in the space.

7.1.2.2 Negative

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."
Comment from a wheelchair user.

7.1.2.3 Complementary Information

Few references were made to the use of shared surfaces that have little or no delineation although some comments were made about the use of shared surfaces generally. These are described in Section 7.1.1.3 earlier.

Home Zones where a lack of delineation was identified as real issue of concern were Portchester (see 3.3.6) and Camden (3.3.2).

7.1.2.4 Summary - Using Shared Surfaces

The site tests and Focus Groups identified the dichotomy between the need to provide an environment shared by pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles and the need to ensure it can be designed to be safe, both in reality and in the perception of the users. Indeed some users and access professionals suggested that the issues of safety and navigation were so compromised that shared surfaces should not be a recommended design feature.

The project also confirmed the commonly held view amongst designers that there is insufficient evidence-based guidance on important, but complex, issues such as the use of visual contrast, and that the conflicting benefits and problems amongst people of different disabilities in using some surfaces such as raised tactile remains an important, as yet still unresolved, issue.

There is also a clear conflict amongst designers, access consultants and users of how to provide areas that allow sharing of the space whilst maintaining some element of delineation. However, an example of the effective use of visual contrast to identify delineation between use by vehicles and pedestrians was the Duke of Edinburgh Way, Worcestershire Home Zone (see 3.2.7).

7.1.2.5 Guidance - Shared Areas and the Delineation of Space

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, the areas that represent the most likely routes to be used, or followed, by vehicles and pedestrians should be identifiable to all users of the area.

Whether this is done by providing information -

to delineate space and activity at surface level
(using, for example, visual contrast - although this will not be of benefit blind people with no remaining vision);

by physical features at ground level
(using, for example, tactile surface finishes);

by intermittent physical features above surface level
(using, for example, bollards, trees, individual planters. lampposts, and individual seats); or,

by continuous physical features above surface level
(using, for example, long planters, rows of seating, and railings),

- it is important for all users that they can identify any likely or preferred uses for different areas within the Zone, and that any methods used to do that are clear, unambiguous, and do not unduly restrict general freedom of movement.

7.1.3 Orientation Cues in the Home Zone

7.1.3.1 Positive

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 or by using surface 'lips' or partial kerbs to navigate in the space. Eight people (11%) indicated that they were able to use the building line to move in the space as well as identifying places to cross. Two participants used audio cues such as the sound of traffic and one participant indicated that their guide dog used the edge of parked cars as a line to follow.

7.1.3.2 Negative

30 participants (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."
Comment from a partially sighted participant.

7 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 7 people who tested the Harrow site, which had a guidance path, 3 people could not detect the guidance path when it was provided.

7.1.3.3 Complementary Information

In the Site Test held in the Southville Home Zone (see section 3.2.1), 2 participants indicated that they were able to use the sound of vehicles as an orientation clue. However, in several tests, participants identified a number of problems cause by vehicles obstructing orientation clues.

"I started off along using the edge of the building (the front garden) until I went around a parked car. At this point I lost my sense of direction and diagonally crossed the road. If I had not been helped and told to turn left at the end of the road I would have ended up in someone's front garden."
Comment from a blind or partially sighted participant.

7.1.3.4 Summary - Orientation Cues in the Home Zone

Of the comments received in the Site Tests and in the Focus Groups it is clear that identifying and understanding orientation clues is a major factor in a person's ability to use a Home Zone independently and, importantly, safely. The problem appears to be compounded by the unpredictable and often inappropriate influence of nonpermanent factors such as vehicles.

However, using kerbs as an orientation cue was a common issue amongst participants with around one third of participants making negative statements about the lack of a kerb. In addition, there were twice as many negative comments than positive ones regarding the lack of a readily identifiable pedestrian pathway.

7.1.3.5 Guidance - Orientation Cues in the Home Zone

Orientation is aided where there is a clear and continuous building line and where there is a readily identifiable pedestrian pathway.

7.1.4 Provision of a Footway or a Pedestrian Pathway

7.1.4.1 Positive

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 and good widths of pathways and footways.

7.1.4.2 Negative

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."
Comment from a participant with reduced mobility.

7.1.4.3 Complementary Information

Comments made by participants about experiencing problems because of the lack of a footway were made by all disability groups with the exception of those with a learning disability.

An example of where good practice had been experienced in terms of the positioning of planters was Bristol (see 3.2.1) and for widths of pathways and footways was Worcestershire (see 3.2.7).

7.1.4.4 Summary - Provisions of a Footway or a Pedestrian Pathway

In the Focus Groups, some design professionals suggested that people with different disabilities often identified conflicting requirements for the provision of features within Home Zones. One feature identified was that of a kerb, where design professionals stated that they thought people with reduced mobility preferred no kerb and blind and partially sighted people preferred a kerb so they can use it as a reference point. However, in the site tests, some 47% of participants with restricted mobility experienced problems using shared surfaces and over half (53%) identified a preference for a pathway of some kind.

7.1.4.5 Guidance - Provisions of a Footway or a Pedestrian Pathway

Identifiable pedestrian pathways will benefit disabled users, but careful attention is needed in the design of the Home Zone to the provision and siting of appropriate crossing points.

7.1.5 Crossing the Space

7.1.5.1 Positive

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 road humps to cross on, using well positioned tactile paving and how the shared surface provides more options to cross.

"The good thing is that I don't have to go a long way to a 'proper' crossing to cross the road."
Comment from a wheelchair user.

7.1.5.2 Negative

23 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, a desire for controlled crossings and a lack of indication of where it is safe to cross.

7.1.5.3 Complementary Information

Little comment was made in the Focus Group sessions specifically related to crossing the space. However, participants did suggest that the provision of 'pseudocrossing' areas with orientation cues for disabled people would be helpful.

Suggestions on how this could be achieved included using different materials to aid navigation using acoustics, tactile surfaces, lighting, and the use of aromatic plants to assist navigation using aromas.

Note: A 'pseudo crossing' is the term adopted by this project to describe an area that is delineated by visual contrast at surface level, physical features at ground level, or intermittent obstacles above ground (see also Section 7.1.2.5), and which 'suggests' a crossing route for pedestrians within a Home Zone. However, due to the level and 'open' nature of the space, it may not be the only crossing route actually used.

7.1.5.4 Guidance - Crossing the Space

The method used to provide routes for pedestrians to cross the path of vehicles should be unambiguous and clearly identifiable to pedestrians, motorists and cyclists.

7.1.6 Gateways to Home Zone

7.1.6.1 Positive

12 people (16%) indicated that they could tell when they were entering or exiting the Home Zone, this included using features such as tactile paving, planters and signs (mentioned by 6 people, 8%).

7.1.6.2 Negative

30 people (41%) made negative comments about identifying and using gateways to the Home Zones. These included having problems using signs (21 people, 29%) such as signs positioned too high, not seeing Home Zone signs, confusion caused by conflicting signs and suggestions to put signs on the ground surface. 2 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.

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

7.1.6.3 Complementary Information

The Focus Groups identified a clear preference amongst users for the provision of appropriately placed signs at Gateways to Home Zones. However, it was also acknowledged that the height of signs needed to take into account issues such as the need to discourage vandalism.

Tactile surfaces were also identified as a useful 'sign' of the approach of a Home Zone and Southville, Bristol was identified as a good example of this (see 3.2.1 and Appendix C).

The project identified that it is blind and partially sighted people who experienced the greatest difficulty with Gateways, with almost half of the blind and partially sighted participants in the site tests indicating they experience problems identifying the entrances and exits to the Zones. However over one third of deaf and hard of hearing participants also experienced difficulty at Gateways, particularly with not being able to identify signs.

7.1.6.4 Summary - Gateways to Home Zones

The project identified several issues for users with identifying where Home Zones start and finish, and the importance across disabilities of appropriate signs. Interestingly, the provision of tactile surfaces to indicate the presence of a Home Zone was also identified across people with different disabilities as a useful cue.

7.1.6.5 Guidance - Gateways to Home Zones

The gateway 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.

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 such as wheelchairs, frames and crutches.

7.1.7 Parking

7.1.7.1 Positive

Out of the 73 participants, 6 people (8%) made positive comments about cars parking in Home Zones. This included being able to identify parking areas by colour contrast and surface texture and parking being well positioned so as not to reduce the width of the pedestrian pathway.

7.1.7.2 Negative

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.

7.1.7.3 Complementary Information

Participants in Focus Groups supported the negative experiences of parking identified in the site tests, with confirmation that it represented a 'significant' problem in Home Zones. A general view was expressed that delineating parking spaces by physical above ground barriers, rather than by using surface level delineation (such as visual contrast) presented a more effective design practice.

7.1.7.4 Summary - Parking

There was a clear and significant feeling amongst participants of the negative influence of cars on their ability to use a Home Zone, and to feel safe and confident when doing so. The unpredictability both of the routes that vehicles would take and the hour-to-hour changing nature of where they would be parked were issues. The ability of vehicles to provide unexpected obstructions, or to reduce/remove clear manoeuvring space was also clearly an issue for disabled users.

7.1.7.5 Guidance - Parking

The position of areas allocated for parking and the vehicle routes to those areas should be identifiable and predictable.

7.1.8 Street Furniture

7.1.8.1 Positive

16 people (22%) indicated that they had positive experiences with street furniture in the Home Zones. These included statements about 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."
Comment from a partially sighted participant.

7.1.8.2 Negative

32 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.

5 people (7%) had problems with temporary street furniture such as A-frames and wheelie bins, 6 people (8%) also complained about seating including a lack of seating, seats having no back and being too low. 4 people (5%) made negative comments about inconsistently placed and poorly colour contrasted lampposts.

7.1.8.3 Complementary Information

In Focus Groups, discussions included the use of intermittent above surface features, such as bollards, to delineate space and segregate pedestrian and vehicular use. Comments ranged from views that delineating space in such a way was contrary to the whole concept of a shared space to views that bollards do not provide sufficient segregation to protect disabled users. A clear consensus was identified in terms of the general lack of visibility of bollards, and this was both in terms of visual contrast and insufficient height. Stainless steel bollards were identified as being a particular problem in terms of identification using visual contrast.

In Southville Home Zone, there was a good example of seating which was accessible to 5 (71%) of the participants visiting this specific site (see Figure 5.1).

7.1.8.4 Summary - Street Furniture

Whilst street furniture can provide a positive experience and useful cue for disabled people when moving around and identifying routes/areas, it is clear that when provided inappropriately the negative consequences can be considerable. Simply identifying the presence of an obstacle itself in terms of its size and visual contrast can still cause problems for a considerable number of disabled people.

However, the method of classifying obstructions as developed in this project, and described in Section 3.3.1 earlier, does offer a very useful tool for the development of generic guidance on the use and provision of street furniture and other potential obstructions.

7.1.8.5 Guidance - Street Furniture

Street furniture can be used to assist in identifying the preferred use of areas, provide protection, and influence the movement flow of motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

The use of continuous or intermittent street furniture can be used to influence the mobility and movement of the various users of a Home Zone, and can be useful in achieving the desired aim of any design (See also Section 7.1.2.5).

Street furniture should only be provided where it is necessary. Its positioning should be logical and it should always act as an integral part of the overall design. The potential for street furniture to present a tripping or collision hazard will be lessened if it:

is logically placed;

extends at least 1m 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.

7.1.9 Surface Materials

7.1.9.1 Positive

19 people (26%) made positive statements about using surface materials in the Home Zones. This included using gravelled areas to navigate, good surface quality with few trip hazards, appreciating smooth tarmac and using changes in surface to find their way.

7.1.9.2 Negative

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%) and 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.

18 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.

7.1.9.3 Complementary Information

No specific reference was made to surface finish in the Focus Group sessions. However there were associated comments made and these are covered in other areas in this Section.

7.1.9.4 Summary - Surface Materials

The finish of the surface is an important issue to many users not only in terms of the need to ensure level, smooth and consistent surface finishes, but also in terms of the need to ensure that surfaces are slip resistant (especially when wet), and not affected by standing water, moss or seasonal hazards such as fallen leaves etc.

7.1.9.5 Guidance - Surface Materials

Surface finishes should be smooth, level, and slip resistant (including when wet).

Surface gradients should be kept to a minimum but should always be designed to prevent standing water. Home Zones should always be appropriately managed to reduce hazards to users from moss or seasonal hazards, such as ice and leaves.

7.1.10 Lighting

7.1.10.1 Positive

No positive comments about lighting were recorded at any of the sites tested. However, as all tests took place in the daytime, no inference should be drawn from the lack of positive statements.

7.1.10.2 Negative

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

7.1.10.3 Complementary Information

In the responses made in the questionnaire in relation to ease of navigation in the day or night a significant number of participants (60%) indicated that they considered that there would be a difference. 19 participants (26%) mentioned that better street lighting would be needed to aid night time navigation. Other concerns included reduction in colour contrast at night and potential collision with street furniture if not adequately illuminated.

7.1.10.4 Summary - Lighting

Participants highlighted principally negative concerns in relation to the provision of lighting within a Home Zone. The largest response was from the questionnaire where a significant number of people had concerns in relation to lighting at night although no specific testing was carried out.

However, as the tests took place in daylight, no meaningful examination of the participants' experiences in artificially lit situations was possible. Illuminance readings were not taken. The negative comments received were given as general and personal experiences of artificial lighting and did not relate to any particular Home Zone used in the test.

Lighting was not discussed in the Focus Group sessions. However, in the Questionnaire (see section 7.3.3), poor provision of lighting was identified by over 25% of the respondents as being an important factor in their ability to navigate and identify visual contrast at night.

7.1.10.5 Guidance - Lighting

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).

Lighting should not cause undue or confusing shadows and be designed to deliver a uniform distribution of lighting within the Zone. It is recommended that the standard maintained illuminance within a Zone is between 20 and 50 lux.

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.

7.1.11 Obstructions (including vegetation)

7.1.11.1 Positive

2 people (3%) made positive comments regarding the use of intermittent above ground obstacles such as bollards and trees to delineate the space. Some participants (deaf/hard of hearing) were able to negotiate street furniture successfully due to a good level of colour contrast.

7.1.11.2 Negative

The main obstructions encountered in the pedestrian pathway consisted of vegetation, parked vehicles, street furniture and a few objects identified as potential collision hazards (for example telephone boxes, wheelie bins, A-frames sign boards).

Out of the 73 participants, 22 people (30%) had concerns regarding vegetation which included walking into overhanging vegetation, falling onto open flower beds and tripping on exposed tree roots, which was considered a potential trip hazard. Some participants also indicated that they experienced difficulties with some aspects of street furniture, predominantly bollards and lampposts, which they considered were poorly contrasted and they perceived as obstacles.

An example of a poorly contrasted hazard is at Maryatt Avenue, Harrow where giant concrete balls were both low in height and poorly contrasted against the colour of the footway (see Figure 3.9).

7.1.11.3 Complementary Information

Some of the focus group participants stated that to reduce the potential collision hazards within a Home Zone any street furniture or planter should be at least the height of a car bonnet so it can be easily identified and located.

7.1.11.4 Summary - Obstructions (including vegetation)

Generally there were a higher number of negative comments in relation to obstacles than positive. Participants felt that reducing the risks associated with the obstacles identified would require improvements to tonal contrast on street furniture and a minimum height for all above surface street furniture. Also when considering landscaping in the design of the Home Zone, care needs to be taken in the type of flower beds used and the impact of trees and shrubs on the area in relation to ongoing maintenance. This is essential to prevent overhanging shrubs and exposed tree roots increasing the number of potential hazards.

Some participants welcomed the use of intermittent above ground obstacles (for example the use of trees and bollards) as they helped to delineate space. In the Camden Home Zone, wheelchair users welcomed the use of bollards and trees as it gave them a sense of safety from vehicles, but allowed them to see what was approaching. In contrast, in the same Home Zone some blind and partially sighted participants and some deaf/hard of hearing participants identified problems with above ground obstacles.

7.1.11.5 Guidance - Obstructions (including vegetation)

Some features, whilst being potential obstacles when moving around, can also be used in a positive way to identify pedestrian pathways or routes, something that will benefit disabled users. However, careful attention is needed to their design, the number used, and their location within the Home Zone.

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.

All potential obstacles should be readily identifiable in different lighting conditions and have a good level of visual contrast with the background against which they will be viewed. The use of high visibility bands on street furniture improves identification.

Overhanging trees and shrubs should not extend below 2.1m above surface level.

The position of areas allocated for parking should be identifiable and predictable to minimise potential obstructions.

The number of temporary obstacles located within circulation routes (for example, wheelie bins) should be kept to a minimum and, wherever possible, avoided.

See also Sections 7.1.2.5 and 7.1.5.4.

7.1.12 Drainage and Gradient

7.1.12.1 Positive

2 people (3%) made positive comments regarding drainage.

7.1.12.2 Negative

Out of the 73 participants, 9 (12%) indicated that they experienced difficulties with drainage features, this included tripping over gutters, the location of some drainage gulleys close to ramped areas, and walking sticks getting stuck in the drains.

8 people (11%) experienced problems with the gradient within the Home Zone area. The main areas of concern were adverse cambers, which caused wheelchairs to rock and destabilise and affected their turning ability (this was particularly evident at the Darcy Gardens Site, Dagenham, which is not a Home Zone Site but has some Home Zone characteristics). This resulted in some wheelchair users being concerned about losing their balance and experiencing backache. Also some wheelchair users experienced dizziness and discomfort from the undulations.

"Steep cambers designed to channel water into drains are a problem - wheelchair users feel unstable. I would prefer drains on both sides of the area in order that steepness of the cambers could be reduced."
Comment from a wheelchair user.

7.1.12.3 Complementary Information

No specific references were made in relation to drainage and gradients.

7.1.12.4 Summary - Drainage and Gradient

From the findings of the site tests there were generally more negative issues highlighted in relation to the adverse cambers and drainage features. These issues predominantly affected people with mobility impairments, both ambulant and wheelchair users.

7.1.12.5 Guidance - Drainage and Gradient

Adverse cambers should be avoided.

Drainage features should be located away from main pedestrian pathways.

Drainage covers and gratings used should have a maximum size of openings of 13mm (Inclusive Mobility, Department for Transport, 2002).

See also Section 7.1.9.5.

7.1.13 Summary of Comments - Design Features

The issue of shared surfaces were mentioned by the most number of people, with shared surfaces generating negative comments from over half the participants and positive comments from over a third of participants.

When these responses are broken down shared surfaces with no delineation seem to be the most contentious with over 40% of participants making negative comments. A shared surface that had some kind of delineation was slightly less contentious (under 20% of participants made negative comments about these areas) and actually more participants made positive comments than negative for this design feature. Shared surfaces with delineation provided by colour contrast were the most popular and areas where delineation was provided by surface texture proved to be less popular.

Significantly fewer participants made positive comments about orientation cues than those who made negative comments. Issues around the lack of a kerb as an orientation cue was the most popular theme with almost a third of participants making negative statements. Similarly the provision or lack of a pedestrian pathway generated many more negative comments than positive ones (more than twice as many).

Identifying gateways to the Home Zone also prompted more people to make negative comments than positive comments (41% negative, 16% positive) with tactile paving proving much more popular than signs in this design area. Overall street furniture was criticised by exactly as many people as those who made positive statements about it, with bollards being the feature most disapproved of.

Over 40% of participants made negative statements about surface materials compared to the 26% who praised certain aspects of surface materials. Vegetation was heavily criticised with ten times as many participants making negative statements than positive statements.

7.2 Non-design Issues

7.2.1 Parking Behaviour

7.2.1.1 Positive

3 participants (4%) out of the 73 participants indicated that they were not concerned about cars reversing into them.

7.2.1.2 Negative

7 participants (10%) indicated that they had concerns regarding parking behaviour within a Home Zone. Some of the concerns raised regarding parking behaviour included a resident reversing into a participant while using the Home Zone space, vehicles parking in front of entrances therefore restricting access, cars parking in the pedestrian pathway therefore restricting participants' movement in the space, drop kerbs being blocked by parked vehicles and participants having to walk around parked cars.

"Cars can easily park on the pavement which is a hazard when using British Sign Language."
Comment from deaf and hard of hearing participant.

7.2.1.3 Complementary Information

Feedback collected from the focus groups provided further evidence regarding people"s concerns about parking behaviour within Home Zones. The participants indicated that more use should be made of both physical enforcement and the strategic positioning of bollards and other street furniture to identify parking areas. However participants recognised that if more street furniture was used there could be implications for blind and partially sighted people. Whilst it was recognised that cars parked on a pavement posed a hazard for people using British Sign Language, participants in the focus groups also stated that it also affected their navigation and safety when they were lip reading.

7.2.1.4 Summary - Parking Behaviour

There was a higher number of negative concerns regarding the general parking behaviour of people within a Home Zone. Parking behaviour within the site tests impacted on the participants' ability to move freely through the space and having appropriate access to design features, for example using drop kerbs. Participants indicated that they would prefer an increase in the strategic use of street furniture to identify parking areas however they also recognised that this could have a detrimental impact on some users.

7.2.1.5 Guidance - Parking Behaviour

The position of areas allocated for parking should be identifiable and predictable, therefore providing pedestrians with free movement through the space without obstructions from parked vehicles.

7.2.2 Expected Behaviour

7.2.2.1 Positive

Out of the 73 participants, 3 (4%) indicated that they were happy to interact with vehicles in the Home Zone environment.

7.2.2.2 Negative

6 participants (8%) indicated concerns about the behaviour that was expected of them in a Home Zone. Areas of concern included participants not knowing what to do when approached by a vehicle, people not knowing what the tactile paving indicated and also not having a 'safe' area to use when approached by a vehicle.

"I was aware that there is no constant foot way, was concerned about required behaviour such as having to move off vehicle path."
Comment from a participant with reduced mobility.

7.2.2.3 Complementary Information

No specific references were made to expected behaviour within the questionnaires or focus groups.

7.2.2.4 Summary - Expected Behaviour

A small number of participants involved in the site visits had some negative concerns about expected behaviour within a Home Zone. Some of their concerns related to interaction with vehicles and lack of a 'safe" area when approached by vehicles.

7.2.2.5 Guidance - Expected Behaviour

Pedestrian behaviour can be more positive if the Home Zone has identifiable pedestrian pathways and vehicle speeds are reduced.

7.2.3 Vehicle Flow and Speed

7.2.3.1 Positive

3 participants (4%) indicated that there were not many vehicles using the site and this enhanced their feeling of security. 1 participant (1%) indicated that they liked the lower number of cars and that they were happy to use the shared surface if vehicle speeds remained slow.

7.2.3.2 Negative

Out of the 73 participants, 7 (10%) expressed concerns about the speed of vehicles, including cyclists. They suggested that speeds were reduced to10 mph.

7.2.3.3 Complementary Information

The feedback from the focus groups indicated that participants felt that once motorists became familiar with the Home Zone layout their speeds would increase. Design professionals stated that if vehicle speeds were reduced to less than 20 mph then the safety of both disabled and non disabled people would be improved.

7.2.3.4 Summary - Vehicle Flow and Speed

Although feedback from design professionals within the focus groups indicated that a reduction in vehicle speeds to less than 20mph, improved safety for all pedestrians would be achieved, there was still some concern about speeds of vehicles and cyclists particularly when people became familiar with the Home Zone layout.

7.2.3.5 Guidance - Vehicle Flow and Speed

Vehicle speeds of less than 20mph within a Home Zone will increase safety for all users, and enhance security.

7.2.4 Freedom of Movement

7.2.4.1 Positive

4 participants (5%) made positive statements about being able to move around the Home Zones space freely.

7.2.4.2 Negative

No significant negative comments about Freedom of Movement were recorded in the site tests, focus groups or questionnaires.

7.2.4.3 Complementary Information

In the responses made in the questionnaire, four participants (5%) made positive comments in relation to the freedom of movement that the Home Zone enabled.

7.2.4.4 Summary - Freedom of Movement

There was a general consensus that for some people a Home Zone provided freedom of movement within a space.

7.2.4.5 Guidance - Freedom of Movement

Freedom of movement within a Home Zone is a positive factor of such areas and should be maintained wherever possible. However, freedom of movement should never compromise other important factors such as, for example, safety and security.

7.2.5 Detecting Vehicles

7.2.5.1 Positive

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

7.2.5.2 Negative

No significant negative comments about detecting vehicles were recorded in the site tests, focus groups or questionnaires.

7.2.5.3 Complementary Information

No specific references were made in relation to detecting vehicles within the questionnaires or focus groups.

7.2.5.4 Summary - Detecting Vehicles

From the site findings, a small number of participants were able to detect slow moving vehicles and this allowed them to interact within the shared surface areas.

7.2.5.5 Guidance - Detecting Vehicles

Slower vehicle speeds within a Home Zone aids vehicle detection.

7.2.6 Attitude of Motorists

7.2.6.1 Positive

Out of the 73 participants, only one participant (1%) made a positive comment in relation to attitude of motorists.

7.2.6.2 Negative

Out of the 73 participants, 7(10%) made negative comments about the attitude of motorists. Concerns raised included motorists not changing their behaviour, expectations that motorists would still have priority and motorists' not familiar with the Home Zone unsure about what the area was for.

"My concern is whether 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."
Comment from a wheelchair user.

7.2.6.3 Complementary Information

No specific references were made in relation to motorists' attitudes within the questionnaires or focus groups.

7.2.6.4 Summary - Attitude of Motorists

From the findings, participants expressed more negative concerns regarding the behaviour of motorists. Their concerns focused on how familiar the motorist would be with the layout and the motorists understanding of who has priority. Also participants were concerned as to whether motorists' behaviour would change.

7.2.6.5 Guidance - Attitudes of Motorists

Providing information to motorists of the expected priorities and speed limits within a Home Zone is essential.

7.2.7 Interactions with Vehicles

7.2.7.1 Positive

No significant positive comments about interactions with vehicles in the Home Zone were recorded in the site tests.

7.2.7.2 Negative

6 (8%) out of the 73 participants made negative comments regarding interactions with vehicles within the Home Zone areas. Concerns raised included not knowing who has right of way, assuming that the area was pedestrianised, and people choosing the routes that avoided vehicle interaction. One participant stated that they would always be looking for a safe place off 'the road' as an area to go if approached by a vehicle.

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

7.2.7.3 Complementary Information

In the responses to the questionnaire, four participants (5%) indicated that they were concerned about interacting with vehicles.

7.2.7.4 Summary - Interactions with Vehicles

The main negative concerns identified both in the site survey and questionnaire was how pedestrians interacted with vehicles and again the mention of a 'safe place' for pedestrians (see also 7.2.2.4).

7.2.7.5 Guidance - Interactions with Vehicles

The safety, comfort and confidence of pedestrians when interacting with vehicles in a Home Zone can be improved if there are carefully sited and readily identifiable crossing points.

7.2.8 Perceptions of Safety

7.2.8.1 Positive

No significant positive comments about perceptions of safety were recorded in the site tests.

7.2.8.2 Negative

Of the 73 participants, 11 (15%) made negative comments in relation to their safety perception within a Home Zone. The main concerns related to a fear of colliding with vehicles, increased levels of anxiety associated with their interaction with vehicles and a general feeling of vulnerability. General concerns were also raised about children"s safety when playing in a Home Zone and people being less aware within the designated Home Zone area as it is 'supposed' to be a safe area and therefore providing pedestrians with a false sense of security.

7.2.8.3 Complementary Information

From the data collection relating to the design issues of delineation in shared surface areas 2 participants (3%) felt the use of above ground obstacles such as bollards or trees used to delineate the shared space made them feel safer.

In the responses made in the questionnaire to the perception of safety, over half of the participants indicated that they felt either very safe (8%) or safe (50%) while navigating around a Home Zone. Of the participants who felt unsafe, their concerns were in relation to driver behaviour, avoiding vehicles and their speed.

Participants also made negative comments in relation to using the shared space and lack of a footway, which affected their perceived safety. When comparing a Home Zone to a traditional street just over a third of participants (34%) thought that the Home Zone environment was better than a traditional street for safety.

7.2.8.4 Summary - Perceptions of Safety

Some participants from the site surveys had negative concerns in relation to their perceived safety within a Home Zone, principally concerned with interaction with vehicles and pedestrian vulnerability. However the results from the questionnaire indicated that over half of the participants felt safe navigating around a home zone.

7.2.8.5 Guidance Perceptions of Safety

A pedestrian's perception of safety is increased if there are identifiable pedestrian pathways and vehicle speeds are reduced.

7.2.9 Familiarity

7.2.9.1 Positive

Of the 73 participants, only 1 (1%) made a positive comment in relation to their familiarity within a Home Zone.

7.2.9.2 Negative

4 Participants (6%) indicated that they would need to be more familiar with areas before being able to use it. Unfamiliarity made using and navigating the Home Zone area much more difficult.

7.2.9.3 Complementary Information

In the responses made in the questionnaire, 6 participants (8%) indicated that if they were more familiar with the area then they might find it easier to use. From the focus groups it was suggested that to increase a person's familiarity with navigating through the Home Zone training could be provided, particularly of relevance to any resident. However some focus group participants felt that the Home Zone should be self explanatory. Feedback from focus groups also suggests that the profile of Home Zones needs to be raised to ensure that every user type knows how to use them and motorists change their behaviour accordingly.

7.2.9.4 Guidance - Familiarity

Informing residents about the design features and use of their Home Zone, together with increasing the general awareness within the wider community of what a Home Zone is and how it should be used, will have an important and beneficial effect on its use.

7.2.10 Cyclist Behaviour

7.2.10.1 Positive

Of the 73 participants, only 1 participant (1%) made a positive comment in relation to cyclist behaviour within a Home Zone. The person welcomed the opportunity to be able to interact with cyclists.

7.2.10.2 Negative

8 participants (11%) expressed negative concerns over cyclists' behaviour in relation to them approaching from behind and also at speed. Concern was also expressed that cyclists and skateboarders would weave in and out of street furniture. Generally, participants were reluctant to share the space with cyclists.

7.2.10.3 Complementary Information

No specific references were made in relation to cyclist's behaviour within the questionnaires or focus groups.

7.2.10.4 Summary - Cyclist Behaviour

From the findings more participants made negative comments in relation to cyclist behaviour, with the main areas being the speed cyclists approach pedestrians often from behind and their behaviour in treating street furniture as slalom courses and the associated safety risks.

7.2.10.5 Guidance - Cyclist Behaviour

The design should minimise the safety risks to pedestrians associated with cyclists using the space. As with motorists, cyclists should also be made aware of their responsibilities in ensuring the satisfactory operation of a Home Zone, and the influence their actions may have on the safety of other users of the area.

7.2.11 Guide Dog Strategies and Tactics

7.2.11.1 Positive

3 participants (4%) expressed negative comments in relation to Guide Dogs strategies and tactics. However, 4 participants (6%) indicated that their guide dogs navigated well in the Home Zone using parked cars as an orientation line and avoiding moving vehicles. One general comment that was made was that in a shared space without delineation guide dogs will improvise in order to navigate.

7.2.11.2 Negative

4 (5%) of the 73 participants made negative comments in relation to how their Guide Dog coped within the Home Zone. They felt that the Guide Dogs lacked cues to focus on and therefore became distracted.

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

7.2.11.3 Complementary Information

At one focus group a Guide Dog Mobility Instructor stated that cues were needed in the environment in order to train guide dogs to recognise and react to cues.

7.2.11.4 Summary - Guide Dog Strategies and Tactics

Both negative and positive comments were made by participants in relation to their Guide Dog's ability to cope with the Home Zone. Some owners felt that their Guide Dog would adapt and improvise whilst others felt that there was a lack of cues for the dogs to focus on.

7.2.11.5 Guidance - Guide Dog Strategies and Tactics

A Home Zone that has few orientation clues may have implications for guide dog users, and especially if they are also unfamiliar with the Zone. The transient nature of some of the obstacles likely to be encountered such as, for example, parked cars, wheelie bins etc, may also hinder the work of the guide dog or the owner's understanding of the area.

7.2.12 Summary of Comments - Non-design Issues

Fewer participants made comments about non-design issues (interaction, strategies and tactics), but the most contentious issue was perceptions and concerns over safety with over 15% of participants making negative statements about this issue. A concern 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 two issues, namely, freedom of movement within the Home Zones and being able to detect vehicles, prompted people to make more positive than negative statements.

In general, the comments made in the focus groups supported the findings gathered from the site tests.

Chapter 7 continues on the next page.

Publications: Designing for Disabled People in Home Zones