Dear all,
Recently I contacted my local council regarding that awful tactile
paving that goes in at junctions (and other places), supposedly to
make clear which side of a path cyclists and pedestrians are supposed
to go. I pointed out that in my experience it is better to cycle
across the transverse strips (like a cattle grid: supposed to be the
pedestrian side), and push a pushchair along the longitudinal strips
(supposed to be the cycle side).
I asked what the standards are, and who specified them. I also asked
who would be responsible if I were to have an injury as a result of an
accident on the tiles (you know, when the front wheel "kicks" as a
result of being caught by the longitudinal strips).
I thought you might like to see the reply.
=============
Thank you for your recent email dated 27th July regarding the use of
tactile paving along segregated footpaths / cycle tracks.
In this instance XXXXX Council follows "Guidance on the use of tactile
paving surfaces" published by the Department for Transport. (The
document can be downloaded from the Dft website). The Dft describes
the 'rail/fence system' as tramline and ladder, which is probably why
you had no joy searching on the internet.
Advice in the Dft document was compiled after a full consultation
process with interested groups, such as the Royal National Institute
for the Blind. As the title states, the document only offers
"Guidance" however deviation from the stated principles would require
consultation from the Dft and the Guide Dogs for the Blind
Association.
To answer your main question of how the 'tramline-ladder 'standard was
derived, the document states "This arrangement was chosen because it
was felt the rumble effect created by the transverse pattern would
deter cyclists from entering on the pedestrian side". This isn't
explored in any greater depth.
The various patterns on tactile paving slabs were designed to create
an under-foot signature to visually impaired pedestrians, without
creating a tripping hazard. These policies have been employed all over
the country for at least two decades and are well known to some 1
million visually impaired or blind people. Deviation from this
guidance would therefore be confusing and potentially dangerous to the
visually impaired, pedestrians and cyclists.
The height of raised bars on the tactile paving slabs, which form the
'tramlines' are 5mm (+/-0.5mm). These were designed with both cyclists
and pedestrians in mind such that the risk of a tripping or slipping
hazard is negligible. The slabs also comply with British and European
Standards, so in answer to your second question, any compensation
claim related to the ridges on the tactile paving slabs being solely
responsible for an accidental injury to a cyclist, i think would be
difficult to prove and substantiate? In such a case, the law suit
would be between the individual and the Department for Transport, on
the basis the Council followed their guidelines. I must make clear
that i am no expert on civil law, i am simply expressing my
professional view as a Civil Engineer.
==================
Has anyone ever tried taking to court a case for switching the sides
of the rumble strips?
On the routes having these things I use with any regularity (not
many), I always use the transverse side unless there is someone else
on it at the time, switching to the cycle side either side. The vast
majority of pedestrians and wheelchair users I see use the cycle side
thoughout. I have never seen a blind person on one of these paths
(not that I decry them the use), although given the areas concerned it
would probably be unwise anyway.
Is it worth mounting a campaign to change things?
PhilD
--
<><