Walking and Stopping over Tactile Paving Childs Craig

Walking and Stopping over Tactile Paving Childs, Craig R; Tyler, Nick Accessibility Research Group, UCL, London, UK

UK reports on Tactile Paving Loo-Morrey, 2005. Tactile Paving Review. – 5% wrong type – 12% wrong colour IDGO, 2010. Tactile paving design, siting and laying. – 17. 5% neighbourhoods have poorly laid tactile paving – ‘…fine provided they are in the right place and at the right angle, but so often they are not…’

Layout 1 ~30 m 2 Edge?

Layout 2

Previous study Childs et al, 2010. Shared Space Delineators : Are They Detectable? • Revisit data for detection distance

PAMELa Pedestrian Accessibility and Movement Environment Laboratory

Surfaces Table 2 Tactile Paving Test Characteristics Test 1 Depth Gradient Test 2 400 mm 800 mm level Test 3 Test 4 800 mm 1: 24 level

Participants Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Long Cane 22 16 14 17 Guide Dog 0 6 3 6 None 7 3 8 4 29 53 25 97 25 98 27 99 Participants Trials

Task 'walk towards me stopping if you detect change in surface otherwise keep walking at your normal walking pace'

Long Cane 400 mm 800 mm 1: 24 Guide dog 800 mm 1: 24 None 400 mm 800 mm 1: 24 Results 0 400 800 1200 Fail n

Results Long Cane 400 mm 800 mm 1: 24 48% 41% 3% 21% 23% 14% 15% 2% 5% Fail 23% 2% 0% 5% 29% 0% 6% 13% 29% 38% 46% 58% 56% 13% 0% 0% 24 24 16 8% 8% 0% 0% 69% 23% 26% 38% 15% 54% 53% 54% 15% 16% 8% 8% 0% 5% 0% 13 13 19 26 0 40% 26% 27% 34% 400 35% 800 1200 n 40 61 56 56 Guide dog 800 mm 1: 24 None 400 mm 800 mm 1: 24

Results Long Cane 400 mm 800 mm 1: 24 48% 41% 3% 21% 23% 14% 15% 2% 5% Fail 23% 2% 0% 5% 29% 0% 6% 13% 29% 38% 46% 58% 56% 13% 0% 0% 24 24 16 8% 8% 0% 0% 69% 23% 26% 38% 15% 54% 53% 54% 15% 16% 8% 8% 0% 5% 0% 13 13 19 26 0 40% 26% 27% 34% 400 35% 800 1200 n 40 61 56 56 Guide dog 800 mm 1: 24 None 400 mm 800 mm 1: 24

Results Long Cane 400 mm 800 mm 1: 24 48% 41% 3% 21% 23% 14% 15% 2% 5% Fail 23% 2% 0% 5% 29% 0% 6% 13% 29% 38% 46% 58% 56% 13% 0% 0% 24 24 16 8% 8% 0% 0% 69% 23% 26% 38% 15% 54% 53% 54% 15% 16% 8% 8% 0% 5% 0% 13 13 19 26 0 40% 26% 27% 34% 400 35% 800 1200 n 40 61 56 56 Guide dog 800 mm 1: 24 None 400 mm 800 mm 1: 24

Results Long Cane 400 mm 800 mm 1: 24 48% 41% 3% 21% 23% 14% 15% 2% 5% Fail 23% 2% 0% 5% 29% 0% 6% 13% 29% 38% 46% 58% 56% 13% 0% 0% 24 24 16 8% 8% 0% 0% 69% 23% 26% 38% 15% 54% 53% 54% 15% 16% 8% 8% 0% 5% 0% 13 13 19 26 0 40% 26% 27% 34% 400 35% 800 1200 n 40 61 56 56 Guide dog 800 mm 1: 24 None 400 mm 800 mm 1: 24

Results Long Cane 400 mm 800 mm 1: 24 0 40% 26% 27% 34% 48% 41% 3% 21% 23% 14% 15% 2% 5% Fail 23% 2% 0% 5% 13% 29% 38% 46% 58% 56% 13% 0% 0% 24 24 16 9% 56 400 35% 800 1200 n 40 61 56 56 Guide dog 800 mm 1: 24 29% 0% 6% 1000 Ståhl et al. 2010 87%

Results Long Cane 400 mm 800 mm 1: 24 0 40% 26% 27% 34% 48% 41% 3% 21% 23% 14% 15% 2% 5% Fail 23% 2% 0% 5% 13% 29% 38% 46% 58% 56% 13% 0% 0% 24 24 16 9% 56 400 35% 800 1200 n 40 61 56 56 Guide dog 800 mm 1: 24 29% 0% 6% 1000 87% Ståhl et al. 2010 Sueda et al. 2000 98%

Results Long Cane 400 mm 800 mm 1: 24 0 40% 26% 27% 34% 48% 41% 3% 21% 23% 14% 15% 2% 5% Fail 23% 2% 0% 5% 13% 29% 38% 46% 58% 56% 13% 0% 0% 24 24 16 87% 9% 56 95% 0% 0% 40 56 400 35% 800 1200 n 40 61 56 56 Guide dog 800 mm 1: 24 29% 0% 6% 1000 Ståhl et al. 2010 98% Sueda et al. 2000 Peck & Bentzen, 1987 GD LC 95%

Results Summary • 400 mm is not reliably detectable • 800 mm is detectable • But stopping distance can be > 800 mm • 400 < detectable < 800?

Discussion • Tactile paving guidelines exist • Inappropriate use examples • Confusing results even following guidelines • Should guidelines be revised? • On what additional evidence?

Dhanyavad