“Mobility Of Visually Impaired People The nature of visual impairment There are approximately 1 million blind and partially sighted adults in the United Kingdom. Approximately 5% of these people have no sight at all. The remainder have varying degrees of residual sight which may enable them to function visually to different degrees. The nature of visual loss varies considerably between individuals. The overall picture is a complex one, but generally the result of different eye conditions will lead to the following types of impairment: • a limited field of vision - being unable to see to the sides or up and down; • some loss of central vision - limiting the ability to see fine detail; • acute shortsightedness - seeing the world as a continuous blur; • uncontrollable oscillations of the eyeball - leading to an inability to see objects clearly; and • night blindness - a sensitivity to light and a tendency to be dazzled by glare.”
“It also the case that whatever mobility aid is being used, a kerb upstand is an essential indicator of the edge of the footway. However, in recognition of the needs of other pedestrians, it is accepted that it is necessary to have level or ramped crossing points in certain locations. In such locations, tactile paving compensates for the absence of a kerb.”
“Key Design principles There are certain key design principles which, when applied, make it easier and safer for visually impaired pedestrians to move around. Layouts of all pedestrian areas should be simple, logical and consistent. This will enable people to memorise environments that they use regularly and predict and interpret environments that they are encountering for the first time. Contrasts in colour and tone should be used to accentuate the presence of certain key features. This will enable many people to use their residual vision to obtain information. …”
“The use of tactile information When moving around the pedestrian environment, visually impaired people will actively seek and make use of tactile information underfoot, particularly detectable contrasts in surface texture. The ability to detect contrasts in texture underfoot varies from one individual to another. For example, older visually impaired people and people who have lost their sight through certain medical conditions, such as diabetes, may well have reduced sensitivity in their feet. It is therefore important that textures warning of potential hazards, for example a road crossing or a staircase, are rigorous enough to be detectable by most people but without constituting a trip hazard or causing extreme discomfort. … Using These Guidelines Tactile paving surfaces can be used to convey important information to visually impaired pedestrians about their environment, for example, hazard warning, directional guidance, or the presence of an amenity. Research has determined that visually impaired people can reliably detect, distinguish and remember a limited number of different tactile paving surfaces and the distinct meanings assigned to them. The use of blister paving as a warning device at controlled and uncontrolled pedestrian crossing points is now well established. In this document, guidance is given on the use of a number of additional types of tactile surface to give warning of potential hazards and for amenity purposes to give guidance and information. Recognising that the needs of people with physical and sensory disabilities could create potential conflicts, the research which led to the development of the tactile paving surfaces involved not only the target group, i.e. visually impaired people, but also others with a wide range of other disabilities including wheelchair users and people with walking difficulties. Each type of tactile paving surface should be exclusively reserved for its intended use and consistently installed in accordance with these guidelines. Visually impaired people are becoming increasingly mobile, both within their local area and more widely, and it is, therefore, very important that conflicting and confusing information is not conveyed. The successful use of tactile paving also depends on visually impaired pedestrians understanding the different meanings assigned to the paving and being made aware of the presence of such facilities in their area. (emphasis added) …”
“Where local authorities consider implementing policies which deviate from the advice given in this document, they are strongly recommended to consult the Mobility Unit of the Department for Transport or the Joint Mobility Unit run by the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (see Contacts section) before proceeding. Where local site conditions are such that the guidance contained in this document cannot be implemented, further advice should be sought.”
“The purpose of the blister surface is to provide a warning to visually impaired people who would otherwise, in the absence of a kerb upstand <25mm high, find it difficult to differentiate between where the footway ends and the carriageway begins. The surface is therefore an essential safety feature for this group of road users at pedestrian crossing points, where the footway is flush with the carriageway to enable wheelchair users to cross unimpeded.”
“The Disabled Persons Act 1981 requires highway authorities to 'have regard to the needs of disabled persons when considering the desirability of providing ramps at appropriate places between the carriageways and footways'. It is recognised that the absence of an upstand is essential for people using wheelchairs but is potentially hazardous to visually impaired pedestrians who rely on a kerb upstand as a warning that they have reached the edge of the footway. Typically, a kerb upstand is absent when a ramp has been provided between the carriageway and footway as at a crossing; when traffic calming measures have resulted in the level of the carriageway being raised to that of the footway, as at flat top road humps; or when streets have been partially pedestrianised and footways and carriageways are only differentiated by the use of different colours and/or materials. … A detectable kerb upstand prevents visually impaired people from unknowingly stepping off the footway into the carriageway. If there is no kerb upstand, some other readily identifiable indicator must be used. The tactile surface has been developed in order to provide warning and guidance for visually impaired people where there is no kerb upstand. In the case of controlled crossings the tactile surface layout also acts as a guide to lead visually impaired people to the crossing point. Alternative approaches to the installation of a tactile surface were suggested, most notably the concept of creating a lower height kerb with a small upstand which would both allow access for wheelchair users and provide a warning for visually impaired people. This idea was not accepted because no optimum upstand could be identified which could meet effectively the needs of both groups of people. The use of the blister surface at uncontrolled crossings was introduced in the 1990s to resolve the problems experienced by visually impaired pedestrians at flush dropped kerbs away from controlled crossings. The existing profile was developed following a research programme commissioned by the Department for Transport. In the course of further research, which investigated 20 different tactile profiles using volunteers with many different types of disability as well as non-disabled people, it was found that the original surface could be modified so as to be less uncomfortable, particularly to people with arthritis, whilst remaining detectable to visually impaired people. This modification involved flattening the top of the original rounded blister profile.”
“The profile of the blister surface comprises rows of flat-topped 'blisters', 5mm (±0.5mm) high (Figure 2 ). The blister surface can be made of any material suitable for footway pavements. It is most commonly supplied in 400mm sq concrete slabs or smaller block paviors. Recognising that the needs of people with physical and sensory disabilities could create potential conflicts, the research which led to the development of the tactile surface involved not only the target group, i.e. visually impaired people, but also others with a wide range of other disabilities including wheelchair users and people with walking difficulties. The original blister surface which comprised rows of rigorous, rounded blisters around 6mm high was modified several years ago to make it less uncomfortable. The original blister surface should no longer be used. The blister surface takes account of the needs of the widest range of disabled people, including the many visually impaired people who have lost their sight as a result of diabetes - a condition which also often reduces sensitivity in feet and hands. Because of this, the surface must be fairly rigorous. The layouts set out in this document, therefore, aim to reduce any discomfort which may be caused to people with painful conditions such as arthritis by minimising the amount of tactile surface used and by providing clear pathways around it wherever possible. Above all, it should be remembered that the blister surface is provided as an essential warning to visually impaired people. The use of certain colours in the surface is recommended as many partially sighted people have sufficient residual vision to detect strong contrasts in colour and tone. Installing the surface in a colour and tone which contrasts with the surrounding footway will provide a visual indication of the limits of the footway. At controlled crossings only the surface should be red to indicate to partially sighted people that the crossing is controlled. Where the surrounding footway or carriageway material is also red then it will be necessary to provide a contrasting border, a minimum of 150mm wide, around the tactile surface. At uncontrolled crossings the surface should be buff or such a colour (other than red) as provides a contrast with the surrounding surface. Some relaxation of the guidance regarding colour may be acceptable in conservation areas and these are discussed in more detail in 1.5.6.”
“The blister tactile surface should be installed in the absence of an upstand at both controlled and uncontrolled crossing points: • where the footway has been dropped flush with the carriageway; or • where the carriageway has been raised to the level of the footway. The surface was originally limited in its use to controlled crossings - pelicans, zebras and traffic signals with pedestrian phases. With the development of new types of controlled crossing, the tactile surface is also for use at puffin and toucan crossings. In 1991, following extensive discussion and consultation, the use of the surfaces was also extended to include uncontrolled crossing points. The tactile surface illustrated in Figure 2 is, therefore, Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces recommended for use at both controlled and uncontrolled crossing points where the footway is flush with the carriageway. At controlled crossings, the surface is also used to lead visually impaired pedestrians to the crossing point. It was the consensus opinion of those consulted that the same surface, albeit in different colours and layouts, should be used for both controlled and uncontrolled crossing points. There were three main reasons cited: • the surface would be serving a similar function for each type of crossing; • it would be cost effective; and • it would reserve for other guidance and warning messages the limited number of alternative surfaces which have been shown to be detectable by visually impaired people. Local authorities are strongly advised to adopt this broader application of the blister surface. Before installing a crossing, it is essential that local authorities: • Understand the mobility needs of visually impaired people. Consultation with local groups can play an important part in this process. ... • Recognise that schemes which result in carriageways and adjacent footways at the same level, as in partially pedestrianised areas, can be hazardous to visually impaired people. Providing the blister surface along the whole length is expensive and will be confusing. Only at designated crossing points - controlled and uncontrolled - should the kerb be dropped or the carriageway raised to be flush with the footway. At these locations the blister surface should be provided in the appropriate colour and layout.”
“The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 requires the replacement of blister surface when it is removed or disturbed in the course of opening the footway by the party disturbing the surface. It is essential that any reinstatement of the surface conforms with the advice in this document.”
“The red blister surface should be used at controlled crossings only. This will further assist partially sighted people to distinguish the presence of a controlled crossing point. It may also be of benefit to sighted pedestrians and may emphasise the presence of a crossing to vehicle drivers.”
“Where the dropped kerb at the controlled crossing is in the direct line of travel, e.g. at crossing points on junctions, the tactile surface should be laid to a depth of 1200mm [that is, 3 slabs deep]. At all other controlled crossings a depth of 800mm should be provided.”
“8.1The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (as amended) places a duty on all public authorities to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. The duty has two elements: (i) the general duty which requires the Council to eliminate discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity between disabled persons and other persons; and the need to take steps to take account of disabled person’s disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons and (ii) the specific duty which requires us to prepare and publish our disability equality scheme (DES); and publish an annual report stating how we have implemented it. 8.2 The Council adopted its DES in 2006. This will be subsumed into the Council’s single equality scheme under the newEqualities Act 2010 (due to come into force in October 2010). The use of tactile paving does get a mention in the Council’s current disability equality scheme which contains two directly relevant actions; (a) increase the number of dropped kerbs with tactile paving warning installed and (b) develop our Inclusive Highways Design Guide. The pilot proposed was designed to establish the potential impact of the change from this approach before implementing any change in policy and the Council’s published disability scheme.”
“5. What is the overall impact of the Project Positive Impact The reduction in tactile paving improves mobility for those residents with a physical impairment or wheelchair users. The reduction in tactile paving makes it easier for anyone pushing a pram or push chair to cross the road. The simplified approach to tactile paving helps visually impaired residents to distinguish between controlled and uncontrolled crossings. Negative Impact Blind and partially signed visitors could be confused by the non-standard tactile paving layouts used in Newham. Not providing tails means that blind people have to walk closer to the kerb in order to locate a safe crossing point.”
“To assist visually impaired residents to locate pedestrian crossings. To help visually impaired residents maintain independent lifestyles. To comply with theHighways Act 1980 . To resolve a conflict between the Design Guide and planning policy [this “conflict” has not been explained in these proceedings].”
“11. Since the introduction of version 2 of the Design Guide in July 2010 the Council has spent approximately£30m of the Highways, Transport & Parking Capital Programme on highway improvement and renewal, including the installation of simplified tactile paving. There is no provision (either capital or revenue) to finance reinstatement of tactile paving in accordance with the national guidelines. In addition the Council would want to avoid a change in version 2 of the Design Guide regarding tactile paving because that would introduce an inconsistency in the provision of tactile paving which is the very antithesis of what the Council has been trying to achieve.”
“97. “Due regard” is the “regard that is appropriate in all the circumstances”
“20. If, then, the Code is issued under section 118(1), what is its legal effect in relation to those to whom it is addressed? The trust insists that it is guidance. That is what section 118 requires. The Code itself states in its introduction: "The Act does not impose a legal duty to comply with the Code but as it is a statutory document, failure to follow it could be referred to in evidence in legal proceedings." It describes itself as guidance. There is a categorical difference between guidance and instruction. In calling (paragraph 19.17) for hospitals to have clear written guidelines on the use of seclusion, the Code acknowledges that hospitals are not bound simply to reproduce the terms of the Code. The Secretary of State has a power to give binding directions to hospital authorities (see section 17 of the 1977 Act, in any of its recent amended forms) but that was not the power he was exercising when he issued the Code. No express obligation was placed on hospitals to follow the guidance, an omission which contrasts with other provisions, discussed in the authorities, where such an obligation is found. In response, Mr Munjaz lays emphasis on the consultation which must (and certainly did) precede the drawing up of the Code, on the parliamentary sanction which it received, on the issue of the Code by the Secretary of State as the public officer responsible for the National Health Service and on the high importance of protecting detained mental patients, a vulnerable and defenceless sector of society, from any risk of abuse. These considerations, it is said, show that the Code was intended to be very much more than advice which hospital authorities might choose to follow or not to follow. 21. It is in my view plain that the Code does not have the binding effect which a statutory provision or a statutory instrument would have. It is what it purports to be, guidance and not instruction. But the matters relied on by Mr Munjaz show that the guidance should be given great weight. It is not instruction, but it is much more than mere advice which an addressee is free to follow or not as it chooses. It is guidance which any hospital should consider with great care, and from which it should depart only if it has cogent reasons for doing so. Where, which is not this case, the guidance addresses a matter covered by section 118(2), any departure would call for even stronger reasons. In reviewing any challenge to a departure from the Code, the court should scrutinise the reasons given by the hospital for departure with the intensity which the importance and sensitivity of the subject matter requires.”