by Ann Frye
Head of Mobility and Inclusion Unit, UK Department of Transport
and
Chairman, Working Group on Access and Inclusion, European Conference of Ministers of Transport
Paper given at the EBU Mobility and Transport Conference held in Paris on 14-15 October 2002
It is often said that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. That is certainly the case when we talk about the transport and mobility needs of blind and partially sighted people. Unless every part of a journey - literally from door to door - is barrier-free and accessible, then the whole journey is impossible.
Jill has given a very vivid description of the problems she faces on a daily basis moving about the streets and pavements. I would like to pick up on some of those points and to explore the issues from a Government perspective. Although I am billed as talking for the UK Government, these issues are common to all of us across Europe and so my comments will, I believe, be equally relevant to any of the countries represented here today.
The problems that Jill has identified fall under a number of different headings in terms of who is responsible and what needs to be done to address the issue.
For example, much of the clutter and the hazards that people encounter on the pavement are the result of ignorance or carelessness on the part of others. One of the fundamental issues seems to me that neither the authorities responsible for the pavements, nor the rest of the population who use them, fully understand the impact which their behaviour, or lack of action, can cause to a blind person.
One key part of the solution, I believe, lies in training and awareness. We are working in the UK with all the professional institutions which train our civil, mechanical and highway engineers to try to ensure that a full and proper understanding of the needs of disabled people is an integral part of their training. At the same time we need education programmes in schools and youth clubs to ensure that young people too have a better understanding of the consequences of careless actions - like leaving bikes on the pavements.
Cycling generally is becoming a growing issue in all our countries. Policies to reduce car dependency and to promote sustainability mean that many Governments at national and local levels are positively encouraging cycling with the introduction of cycle lanes and other facilities. Where these facilities are designed into new developments, there is seldom a problem. The difficulty comes when cycle lanes are added to already limited road and pavement space and, very often, the choice is put to the cyclists and pedestrians together rather than the cyclists and motorists. Of course there are good road safety reasons for doing so - particularly to protect child cyclists. But pedestrians need protecting too. Frail elderly pedestrians and those with loss of vision or hearing are particularly at risk and may become too frightened to use the pavements for fear of being knocked over.
There are ways of allocating shared space between pedestrians and cyclists but there does need to be clear demarcation between the two - of a form that both cyclists and pedestrians recognise and respect. In the UK a tactile dividing strip and a distinctive tactile surface at the start and finish of the shared facility are the recommended practice. And of course education is important here too so that the highway engineer responsible does not regard these measures as an unnecessary extra expense.
Jill also highlights the need for consistency of approach at road crossings. Many countries have audible signals to indicate when it is safe to cross, some also have tactile paving to help a blind person to distinguish between the road and the pavement where the kerb has been removed to help wheelchair users. There is, however, no common pattern across Europe.
This is an area we have tried to address on a number of occasions through the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, so far without success. Most countries are reluctant to change their established practices. Perhaps the best we can aim for is consistency within countries so that blind people do not face the added challenge of confusing and potentially dangerous messages when they move around at home.
Certainly in the UK we have long established regulations to govern the use of audible signals and clear national guidance on the use of tactile surfaces. We believe that both should be used at all possible locations.
I would be interested to hear your views on whether you think there should be Europe-wide consistency in our approach to these issues.
Jill has also talked about car drivers and has highlighted two separate issues : first the growing number of cars parking on pavements and obstructing bus stops and road crossings. And I have to say that I think Parisian drivers probably take the European prize for inconsiderate parking ! Not that any of us has a proud record in this area. Again, what is needed is a combination of clear rules that are enforced and of education so that drivers understand the problems they are causing.
Enforcement is a particularly difficult issue in many places. In the UK, for example, resources for police and traffic authorities are often focussed in other areas leaving very little for this kind of work.
Jill is also concerned about training drivers to be more considerate to blind and partially sighted pedestrians at road crossings and about the need for regular eye testing for drivers. To take the latter point first, while no one would argue with the need for regular checks, I think it is also important to note that most accidents are caused by drivers who don't look rather than by those who don't see !
I am impressed that German drivers are trained in understanding the needs of blind and partially sighted pedestrians at crossings. In the UK we issue advice through our Highway Code and other information channelled to motorists but there is perhaps scope for some further initiatives here. Again I believe that if awareness starts in schools when young people are cyclists rather than drivers, the good habits learnt early will carry through to their driving behaviour.
Jill ended with a plea to Governments to give priority to pedestrians. We are already seeing a strong move in this direction across Europe with growing recognition that some of our towns and cities have become unpleasant, dirty and dangerous places for all of us. In the UK we call it the "liveability" agenda : re-creating public spaces where people come first rather than last.
To make this work you need to engage the understanding and commitment of a large number of people, from the planners and designers to shopkeepers and residents. You also, most importantly, need to engage disabled people, including those who are blind or partially sighted, from the earliest design stages through to the final detail of the scheme. Too often still, where there is consultation, it is an afterthought at a stage when making changes are expensive or impossible.
There are some very good examples in a number of countries where this policy is beginning to work well and where, as a result, people are beginning to enjoy their own streets and pavements for the first time. The fact that this is happening as part of the bigger political drive to reduce congestion and pollution can only benefit blind and partially sighted people. Increasingly what you have been asking for over the years is finally coming to the top of the political agenda because it is better for everyone.
I believe that there is a vitally important role for the EBU and for the national and local organisations representing blind and partially sighted people. You need to be at the heart of the process of awareness raising, advising and training. The best teachers are those who have first hand experience of the issues. I would urge you to take up that challenge and to work with all those who plan, build, manage or use our streets and pavements. We need to ensure that we don't perpetuate in another generation the mistakes that have led to the problems we have today.
Table of contents