1 / 20

Walking and Stopping over Tactile Paving

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. 17.5% neighbourhoods have poorly laid tactile paving

lenka
Download Presentation

Walking and Stopping over Tactile Paving

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. UK reports on Tactile Paving Loo-Morrey, 2005. Tactile Paving Review. • 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…’ • 5% wrong type • 12% wrong colour IDGO, 2010. Tactile paving design, siting and laying.

  3. Layout 1 ~30m2 Edge? ? ?

  4. Layout 2 ? ?

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

  6. PAMELa Pedestrian Accessibility and Movement Environment Laboratory

  7. Surfaces

  8. Participants

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

  10. 0 400mm 400mm 400 800 1200 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 1:24 800mm 1:24 800mm 1:24 Results Long Cane n Fail Guide dog None

  11. 0 400mm 400mm 400 800 1200 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 1:24 800mm 1:24 800mm 1:24 Results Long Cane n Fail 40% 35% 3% 23% 40 26% 21% 15% 2% 61 48% 2% 0% 56 23% 27% 41% 5% 56 14% 34% 5% Guide dog 29% 13% 46% 13% 0% 24 0% 29% 58% 13% 0% 24 6% 38% 56% 0% 0% 16 None 8% 69% 15% 8% 13 8% 23% 54% 15% 0% 13 19 5% 53% 0% 26% 16% 54% 26 0% 0% 38% 8%

  12. 0 400mm 400mm 400 800 1200 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 1:24 800mm 1:24 800mm 1:24 Results Long Cane n Fail 40% 35% 3% 23% 40 26% 21% 15% 2% 61 48% 2% 0% 56 23% 27% 41% 5% 56 14% 34% 5% Guide dog 29% 13% 46% 13% 0% 24 0% 29% 58% 13% 0% 24 6% 38% 56% 0% 0% 16 None 8% 69% 15% 8% 13 8% 23% 54% 15% 0% 13 19 5% 53% 0% 26% 16% 54% 26 0% 0% 38% 8%

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

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

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

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

  17. 0 400mm 400 800 1200 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 800mm 1:24 800mm 1:24 Results Long Cane n Fail 40% 35% 3% 23% 40 26% 21% 15% 2% 61 48% 2% 0% 56 23% 27% 41% 5% 56 14% 34% 5% Guide dog 29% 13% 46% 13% 0% 24 0% 29% 58% 13% 0% 24 6% 38% 56% 0% 0% 16 1000 87% Ståhl et al. 2010 9% 56 98% Sueda et al. 2000 GD 95% 0% 40 Peck & Bentzen, 1987 0% 56 95% LC

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

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

  20. Dhanyavad

More Related