UK
Background/Context
The findings below are summary only. They are based on interviews with:
- 50 people in Leeds
- 33 people in Glasgow
(Approx 85% of these participants identified as disabled. Others identified as older people or as parents with young children).
Key Barriers/Problems Relating to Infrastructure
These included the following:
Positioning
The positioning of street furniture and other obstructions – eg bike racks; posts; signs; advertising boards; benches and seats; trees; ornamental flower beds; and cafe furniture. The latter became particularly problematic during COVID and has continued to be more of a problem than previously. For wheelchair users, it restricts the width of through-routes, sometimes making it impossible to pass. For visually-impaired people, it can be incredibly disorientating unless the area is enclosed by a barrier which goes down to ground-level and can be detected by long canes – otherwise it is easy to get tangled in the seating area and difficult to find a way out. More generally, our participants reported that all these types of pavement feature were quite often positioned badly, so as to unnecessarily create obstructions (eg for wheelchair-users or parents pushing buggies); dangers (eg for visually impaired people); or confusion (eg for people with cognitive impairments, for whom it made way-finding more complex).
Disrepair:
Many of the participants spoke of difficulties and dangers caused by pavements that were uneven or damaged – particularly in areas outside city centres. As well as pavements, disrepair often meant that dropped kerbs were difficult or impossible to use.
Vegetation:
Overhanging and encroaching bushes. This was a particular problem for visually impaired people when they were at head-height, and for wheelchair-users when they made the pavements very narrow or cluttered up.
Construction work:
The disruptive and obstructive impact of construction work was identified by many participants. Not only was there disruption and obstruction, particularly for disabled pedestrians, during the work itself – but streets in which construction had taken place were sometimes left damaged and uneven and less accessible than they had been previously.
Kerbs:
There was concern about four particular issues relating to kerbs. First, they were often too narrow, particularly for wheelchair-users. Second, dropped kerbs were sometimes missing, blocked (eg by parking) or unusable because of disrepair. Third, they were sometimes too low to be easily detectable by people using long canes or guide dogs – making it too easy to walk into vehicle spaces without realising. Fourth, and related to the third point, there was concern from people with visual impairments in particular, about the removal of kerbs to create flat surfaces, sometimes but not always as part of ‘shared space’ schemes. Kerbs provide an important orientation device for people with visual impairments, and provide a valuable indicator of the boundary between pedestrian space and vehicle space.
Tactile Markings:
Closely linked with concern about the removal of kerbs for people with visual impairments was frustration at the lack of useful (and sometimes the over-abundance of confusing) tactile markings – eg to indicate the boundary between pedestrian and vehicle space, but also the location of pedestrian crossings, steps etc. Although there were examples of good practice, provision was patchy and inconsistent – which was itself confusing.
Road crossings:
A number of frustrations were expressed about these. A common one was that there was insufficient time to cross. Another was that signals to indicate when it was safe to cross were sometimes positioned awkwardly for people (particularly with visual impairments) to see. Another (in Glasgow particularly) was that the revolving cones under crossing boxes were often not working – or that there were no pedestrian-controls at busy, awkward junctions. Another was that it bollards and other pieces of street furniture were often positioned near to crossing boxes in places that made it very awkward for people using wheelchairs or guide dogs to reach the button.
Cycle lanes:
The infrastructure associated with cycle lanes was mentioned by some participants as problematic. Several spoke of the danger of accidentally ending up walking in a cycle lane – because it was poorly distinguished from the pedestrian space by colour, without definite tactile boundaries. Other people, with mobility impairments, spoke of the difficulty of getting out of a cycle lane when they accidentally found themselves in one, because of their raised edges.
Particularly problematic were cycle lanes that had to be crossed to reach bus stops – the floating bus-stop infrastructure. These were present in Glasgow but not Leeds at the time of our research. People with visual impairments in particular spoke of the risks and danger associated with having to access and alight from buses from and on to cycle lanes.
Key Barriers/Problems Relating to Interaction with Other Road-Users
Shared Space:
A key concern (particularly in Glasgow) was navigating ‘shared space’ areas – areas in which kerbs and crossings had been removed and pedestrians were expected to move around with cars and bikes. The idea is that other road users become more considerate when pedestrians are having to mix with them in less defined and specific ways. There was concern from many of our participants, however, about the lack of consideration of many drivers and cyclists in such spaces. Participants referred to instances of cyclists and drivers moving very fast and, in essence, dominating the space and making it extremely dangerous or uncomfortable for pedestrians – particularly disabled pedestrians – to use such spaces.
Vehicles, bikes and e-scooters in pedestrian areas:
There was concern about the fact that bikes and scooters particularly would often travel (sometimes at speed) on pavements or in pedestrianised or shared space areas.
Quiet vehicles:
Concern was expressed by several participants about not being able to hear electric vehicles – particularly challenging for people with visual impairments.
Cyclists and scooters not stopping:
Another common concern was that cyclists and e-scooters would quite often not stop or wait for disabled pedestrians, even at pedestrian crossing points.
Parked vehicles and bikes:
These were a problem in that they often blocked footpaths, crossing points and dropped kerbs. Bikes and scooters also presented a trip hazard, particularly for people with visual impairments, if poorly parked. This was especially the case when objects on vehicles stuck out into the pavement, including at head-height.
Bins:
A common concern was the positioning of bins on pavements – they often made it impossible or dangerous for wheelchair-users (or parents with buggies) to squeeze past, and sometimes presented a danger to blind people. Bin day was dreaded by many of our participants, who avoided going out on those days if at all possible.
E-charging cables:
Another point made by one or two participants was the danger and obstruction presented by such cables – sometimes running across pavements from a house to a car.
Kenya
Background/Context
The findings below are summary only. They are based on interviews with:
- 19 disabled people in Mombasa;
- 24 disabled people in Nairobi; and
- approximately 20 stakeholders across the country (lawyers, policy/planners, and activist/campaigners.
Key Barriers/Problems Relating to Infrastructure
Absence of footpaths:
Reference was often made to the fact there was no separate, protected space for pedestrians, forcing people to walk in the road with vehicles. This led to stress, feeling ‘disturbed’, and a constant risk and awareness of a potential injury because of being hit either by a natural flow of traffic or by motorcycles and smaller vehicles that try to avoid traffic jams by driving at the edge of the road on the pavement. Indeed, a few participants have sustained serious injuries as a result of being hit by vehicles driving on or close to the pavement.
High footpaths and lack of dropped kerbs:
We heard a lot about poor connectivity between the road and the pavement. The dominant message was that there is not enough dropped kerbs even in areas with newly renovated or laid pavement. Participants told us that while the surface of new cabro pavements is usually smooth and thus more accessible and safe, such pavements are often very high. People using wheelchairs told us of how they have to jump off the pavement in their wheelchairs risking damaging it or they have to ask for others’ help to move from the pavement to the road and vice versa.
Poor condition of footpaths:
Footpaths were often described as being rough and uneven, with gaps between cabros. This sometimes seemed to be how the footpath had been laid in the first place, but reference was also made to places where they were crumbling or in disrepair. Several participants said they had bad falls or had damaged their wheelchairs.
Potholes, manholes and open ditches:
Many footpaths and roads had uncovered holes or ditches. Some of the participants mentioned that a contributing factor was theft – that people stole the metal coverings originally put over these holes. Uncovered holes and ditches created a risk of falling and being injured or damaging belongings. Several people, particularly blind people, mentioned serious falls they’d had into such holes, and many referred to very serious injuries they knew others had sustained in this way. Uncovered holes caused stress and anxiety to our disabled participants and contributed significantly to a reluctance to travel independently where and when they wanted.
Poor drainage:
We were told that some streets, particularly after rain and particularly in poorer residential areas, had streams of sewage. The streets get flooded, and the dirty water is all over the streets making it difficult to move around. People using mobility aids spoke of it being particularly difficult for them to avoid these types of water. As a result, their wheelchair wheels, canes or walking sticks would get covered in sewage, causing concern about hygiene and infection.
Crossing infrastructure:
Our participants reported a shortage of pedestrian-controlled crossing points, equipped with accessibility features such as tactile paving, rotating cones or audio signals aimed at assisting pedestrians to safely cross the street. They also said that the time allocated for crossing the road was a concern.
Key Barriers/Problems Relating to Interactions with Other Road-Users
Crowded and cluttered footpaths:
Many of our participants spoke of difficulties they experienced because footpaths were cluttered – often with hawkers’ carts, market stalls or bags of produce, and people milling around with a view to buying. Zebra crossings were another type of place often mentioned where crowds gathered. Not only did jostling crowds and cluttered footpaths reduce space for navigating through, but it also often made our participants feel at risk of being knocked over or pushed over or onto the road and into danger. Our participants also pointed out that this sort of congestion also increased the risk of being pick-pocketed – and the sense that this risk was higher for disabled and older people and women.
Driver (including boda boda) behaviour:
There was a general sense that drivers were impatient, did not comply with regulations (eg stopping at zebra crossings) and lacked awareness of disability (eg the significance of symbols such as white canes). They were often in a rush, and there were frequent mentions of drivers riding on footpaths in order to get around blockages and traffic jams. Our participants also often had to wait for very long times to cross the road – partly because they knew it took them longer to cross than it would a non-disabled person.
Attitudes of other road-users to disability:
As well as a lack of awareness, some participants mentioned negative attitudes of others. Sometimes it was openly expressed pity or curiosity, but sometimes it was blatant hostility. There was a sense that the majority of other pedestrians, particularly in crowds, could be thoughtless and their need to get to where they were going quickly swept aside all consideration for people who might not be able to move as fast as them. There were also many mentions of people who were incredibly helpful and positive.
Netherlands
Background/Context
The findings below are summary only. They are based on interviews with:
- 19 people in Utrecht – 14 of whom were disabled and 5 non-disabled parents of small children;
- 23 people in Almere – 22 of whom were disabled and 1 a non-disabled parent; and
- approximately 25 stakeholders (lawyers, policy/planners, and activist/campaigners.
Key Barriers/Problems Relating to Infrastructure
These included the following:
The positioning of street furniture and other obstructions:
For example bike racks; posts; signs; advertising boards; benches and seats; trees; ornamental flower beds; interactive electronic toys and other machines. Often these were placed so as to make it difficult or impossible for wheelchair-users to pass, or for parents pushing buggies – and so as to be in the path of people with vision impairments, presenting a danger for them.
Disrepair and subsidence:
This was a particular problem in Almere, where there was an ongoing subsidence problem. It meant that streets often became cambered or out of alignment – so that a footpath was too high to step onto or sometimes to step down to off the road. This subsidence also often caused other types of damage and disrepair. More significant types of disrepair generally took longer for municipalities to address than less significant problems – which were often dealt with within weeks of being reported.
Vegetation:
Overhanging and encroaching bushes.
Absence of safety features:
A number of participants spoke of unguarded drops, including off bridges. Such a feature had caused one of the parents we interviewed to move home, in order to move away from what she regarded as an extremely dangerous bridge for her three young children.
Construction work:
The disruptive and obstructive impact of construction work was identified by many participants. Not only was there disruption and obstruction, particularly for disabled pedestrians, during the work itself – but streets in which construction had taken place were sometimes left damaged and uneven and less accessible than they had previously been.
Kerbs:
There was concern about two particular issues relating to kerbs. First, there were not enough dropped kerbs, or the dropped kerbs that were there were damaged and unusable. This made navigating difficult for wheelchair-users and people with mobility impairments. Second, there was concern from people with visual impairments in particular about the removal of kerbs to create flat surfaces, sometimes but not always as part of ‘shared space’ schemes. Kerbs provided an important orientation device for people with visual impairments and provided a valuable indicator of the boundary between pedestrian space and vehicle space.
Tactile Markings:
Closely linked with concern about the removal of kerbs for people with visual impairments was frustration at the lack of useful tactile markings – eg to indicate the boundary between pedestrian and vehicle space, but also the location of pedestrian crossings, steps etc. Although there were examples of good practice, provision was patchy and inconsistent – which was itself confusing. One of our participants had been successful in persuading their municipality to install tactile marking in an open area which was otherwise impossible for blind people to negotiate.
Road crossings:
A number of frustrations were expressed about these. One was that there was quite often no clear straight passage across the road. There would, for example, be an island in the middle with posts or other obstructions (including bike stands) blocking the obvious route and making it too narrow or difficult for wheelchair-users and parents with buggies. Such obstructions were also sometimes to be found on one or other side of the road, making the footpath very difficult to negotiate at these critical points.
Another concern, very prominent for people with visual impairments, was that rattle tickers were being removed altogether or turned off during rush hour. Reasons for this included ensuring a free flow of traffic and reducing noise for people living near the crossings.
Key Barriers/Problems Relating to Interaction with Other Road-Users
Shared Space:
Perhaps the main concern was the introduction of ‘shared space’ areas – areas in which kerbs and crossings had been removed and pedestrians were expected to move around with cars and bikes. The idea is that other road users become more considerate when pedestrians are having to mix with them in less defined and specific ways. There was concern from many of our participants, however, about the lack of consideration of many drivers and cyclists in such spaces. Participants referred to instances of cyclists and drivers moving very fast and, in essence, dominating the space and making it extremely dangerous or uncomfortable for pedestrians – particularly disabled pedestrians – to use such spaces. Some of the stakeholders spoke highly of the value of such schemes but such positive views were much less common than were criticisms and concerns.
Parked vehicles and bikes:
These were a problem in that they often blocked footpaths, crossing points, and dropped kerbs. Bikes also presented a trip hazard, particularly for people with visual impairments, if poorly parked.
Moving vehicles and bikes:
There was concern about the speed and lack of awareness of many (but by no means all) drivers and cyclists. There seemed to be a particular lack of awareness about the fact that holding out a white cane indicated that a blind person needed to cross the road – this was often ignored.
India
Background/Context
The findings below are summary only. They are based on interviews with:
- 43 disabled people in Delhi;
- 37 disabled people in Pune; and
- approximately 30 stakeholders across the country (lawyers, policy/planners, and activist/campaigners.
Key Barriers/Problems Relating to Infrastructure
Absence of footpaths:
Reference was often made to the fact there was no separate, protected space for pedestrians, forcing people to walk in the road with vehicles. This led to stress, feeling ‘disturbed’, and a constant risk and awareness of a potential injury because of being hit.
High footpaths and lack of dropped kerbs:
We heard a lot about footpaths being so high, they were impossible for people with mobility impairments to climb on and off – and there were very few dropped kerbs (particularly outside city centres).
Poor condition of footpaths:
Footpaths were often described as being rough and uneven, with big gaps between paving stones. This sometimes seemed to be how the footpath had been laid in the first place, but reference was also made to places where they were in disrepair or had been damaged – particularly by construction work.
Potholes, manholes and open ditches:
Many footpaths and roads had uncovered holes or ditches. Some of the participants mentioned that a contributing factor was theft – that people stole the metal coverings originally put over these holes. Uncovered holes and ditches created a risk of falling and being injured or damaging belongings. Several people, particularly blind people, mentioned serious falls they’d had into such holes, and many referred to very serious injuries they knew others had sustained in this way. Uncovered holes caused stress and anxiety to our disabled participants and contributed significantly to a reluctance to travel independently where and when they wanted.
Poor drainage:
Several of our participants spoke of poor drainage and the flooding of streets, particularly after rain. In some places, there was sewage in the streets and the smell itself was a problem for some of our participants. Dirty water made it difficult to move around, particularly for people using mobility aids – who spoke of it being particularly difficult for them to avoid these types of water. As a result, their wheelchair wheels, canes or walking sticks would get covered in sewage, causing concern about hygiene and infection.
Road-Crossing infrastructure:
Our participants reported a shortage of pedestrian-controlled crossing points, and very few were equipped with accessibility features such as tactile paving, rotating cones or even audio signals. They also said that the time allocated for crossing the road was a concern.
Obstructions on Footpaths:
Participants spoke of a range of fixed obstructions, including posts, trees and construction materials – sometimes abandoned and therefor long-term.
Live electrical wires:
A few participants spoke of places on footpaths where the protective boxing around electrical pylons or wiring had been removed, creating significant risk to anybody who accidentally walked into it – a particular risk for people with visual impairments.
Lack of resting places:
Some of our participants, particularly those with energy-limiting or breathing conditions, drew attention to the lack of places to sit and rest on footpaths – including on steep hills.
Key Barriers/Problems Relating to Interactions with Other Road Users
Cars and other heavy vehicles, bikes, scooters, rickshaws etc:
A recurring theme was the speed and proximity of moving cars and other types of vehicle. This was a particular concern for people trying to cross roads – especially when the signal finished. But there were many stories of near collisions and problems caused by vehicles driving on footpaths. One of our blind participants told us of several incidents in which the long cane she was using to find her way was broken by passing vehicles, leaving her stranded without a mobility device.
Parked vehicles, bikes, rickshaws etc:
Problems were also caused by where cars were parked. There were lots of accounts of footpaths being made unpassable by parked cars. And, for wheelchair-users, routes too often became inaccessible because cars and other vehicles were parked across dropped kerbs, or ramps to get on and off the footpath.
Driver and cyclist behaviour:
There was a general sense that drivers and riders were impatient, did not comply with regulations (eg stopping at crossings) and lacked awareness of disability (eg the significance of symbols such as white canes). They were often in a rush, and there were frequent mentions of drivers riding on footpaths in order to get around blockages and traffic jams. Our participants also often had to wait for very long times to cross the road – partly because they knew it took them longer to cross than it would a non-disabled person.
Crowded and cluttered footpaths:
Many of our participants spoke of difficulties they experienced because footpaths were crowded and cluttered – often with hawkers’ carts, market stalls or bags of produce, and people milling around with a view to buying. Crossings were another type of place often mentioned where crowds gathered. Reference was also made to added difficulties caused by the noise and crowds associated with festivals or celebrations. Not only did jostling crowds and cluttered footpaths reduce space for navigating through, but it also often made our participants feel at risk of being knocked over or pushed over or onto the road or hurt in other ways.
Animals:
A surprising number of our participants referred to the difficulties and stress caused by the presence of untended animals in the streets. Most commonly mentioned were dogs – and there was a real fear amongst many disabled pedestrians of being bitten by them. This was particularly the case for people with visual impairments, who were worried about accidentally treading on a dog, and people with physical impairments, who were worried about not being able to get out of the way fast enough. This latter fear was also associated with cows in the street. Apart from the dangers of direct interaction with such animals, participants also mentioned the difficulties associated with navigating streets in which there was a significant amount of animal dung and dirt.
Construction work:
This was mentioned as problematic by very many of our participants. They highlighted the problems caused by lack of notice that such work was about to happen – thus discovering that routes known to them to be accessible were no longer available because of obstructions caused by the construction work. They also highlighted the dangers caused by the lack of protection around holes and other hazards associated with the construction work.
USA
Background/Context
The findings below are summary only. They are based on interviews with:
- 6 participants in Syracuse, including 3 who identified as having a disability and one who identified as an older person.
- 9 pedestrian participants in Atlanta, including 4 who identified as disabled and 4 who identified parents of disabled children.
- Approximately 22 stakeholders from across the US (lawyers, policy/planners, and activist/campaigners).
Key Barriers/Problems Relating to Infrastructure
Lack of sidewalk provision and poor maintenance:
The absence of sidewalks was highlighted by pedestrian participants in both cities. Where sidewalks did exist, there was concern in both cities that the sidewalks were too narrow – making them difficult to use, especially for wheelchair users. Disrepair and lack of maintenance was an issue raised in both cities – eg uneven or broken pavements, which created trip hazards. But there were interesting particularities – eg in Atlanta, participants noted that the trees contributed to sidewalk damage, whereas in Syracuse, snow and cold weather was a particular problem.
Absence of safety features:
This is something that was reported more so in Atlanta – where there were some significant unguarded drops, ie between the sidewalk and a ravine, making these areas dangerous for parents guiding their children with vision impairments.
Construction work:
The absence of adequate safety measures also cropped up in the context of construction work. But construction work posed other problems too, including blocking off routes unexpectedly, lack of clearly marked accessible routes around construction work, leaving materials behind that create trip hazards or not finishing the work off to a standard that makes it useable for disabled people.
Sidewalk obstructions:
This was an issue in both cities – and includes the positioning of bike racks, a-boards, café furniture, lampposts, charging cables, trees and vegetation, and abandoned e-scooters.
The design and functionality of pedestrian crossings:
In Atlanta, several participants with visual impairments found the positioning of some crossings confusing, particularly at intersections. They also drew attention to the fact that many of them did not have audible signals and that, where they did, it was sometimes bird-song that was difficult to distinguish from real bird-song. Another problem for such participants was the width of roads and the difficulty of crossing to the other side in a straight line – especially where there was a lot of noise or where the person concerned did not have particularly good hearing. In Syracuse, several participants commented on the distance between crossings on busy roads, which discouraged them from walking.
Kerbs and tactile markings:
These were another issue in both cities. Participants with visual impairments commented on the difficulties caused by absent, confusing or indistinct tactile markings. Participants with mobility impairments drew attention to the lack of dropped kerbs (or curb cuts) and failures to position or maintain them appropriately – ie not aligned with the crossing – with the result that many became unusable. In Syracuse, one participant noted that the snow cleared by the street ploughs often blocked the kerb cut; in Atlanta, one participant commented that some kerb cuts are too steep.
Key Barriers/Problems Relating to Interactions with Other Road-Users
Cars and other heavy vehicles:
Three main types of barrier or problem emerged in relation to interactions with cars, vans, trucks etc. First, in situations where there was no separate sidewalk, and pedestrians had to walk or wheel on the road. Second, where cars and similar vehicles were parked thoughtlessly – for instance, over kerb-cuts, thereby obstructing entry or exit to the sidewalk for wheelchair-users; or with things protruding over the sidewalk, such as mirrors, trailers or whatever is being carried by vehicles (such as ladders). Third, when pedestrians were trying to cross the path of vehicles, including at designated pedestrian crossings. US pedestrians particularly, spoke of the entitled attitude of car drivers and expressed concern about their reluctance to slow down or stop. What came up during the feedback event, but less so in the interviews, is that it is difficult for pedestrians with visual impairments to detect electric or hybrid vehicles because of how quiet they are.
Bikes and scooters:
Similar problems arose in connection with bikes and scooters. First, pedestrians having to share space with cyclists, scooter riders etc. In Atlanta, not only was this a problem when there was no sidewalk, but it was mentioned that scooter riders were also going onto the sidewalks. Interestingly, scooters were commented on more often in the US than bikes (but bikes were commented on much more often in other countries – ie the UK and the Netherlands). Second, participants in both cities had encountered problems caused by the parking or discarding of bikes and scooters so as to block passage along sidewalks or cause trip hazards.
People:
Interactions with people were more complicated. While there was some positive mention of interactions with car drivers and cyclists as well as negative, such positive mentions were much more common as regards other pedestrians. But there were problems too – e.g. moving with or between other pedestrians could sometimes be problematic – particularly where other pedestrians were on their phones or had poor awareness of disability or negative attitudes to disabled people.