During the recent work on the Durham School wall, part of the road was coned off and pedestrians were able to walk safely past the repair work while the traffic was managed with temporary lights. To facilitate access by wheelchair and for people with buggies and other wheeled walking equipment, bright yellow ramps were placed to allow people to transition between the footway and the carriageway safely.
This is standard practice, and it is good to see that the Highways officers cater for those with special mobility needs during temporary work. Unfortunately, what is also standard practice in County Durham, is placing temporary road signs on the footway without any consideration as to whether these prevent those who need the ramps from accessing them! In this case there were three signs, and the clearance between the sign and the edge of the pavement was about 40cm, far too narrow for a wheelchair.
You would have thought that Durham County Council should specify a minimum footway width to be maintained, and if necessary the road sign should be placed in the carriageway instead. Perhaps some of these signs were not strictly essential to warn motorists? Is there a rule that says that temporary signs must not be in the carriageway, to avoid the risk of collision with cars? How does that weigh up against any rules about minimum pavement widths? In terms of risk management, surely making pedestrians step out into the road to avoid the temporary signs is worse?
If these problems are insurmountable, the least the council could do would be to place warning signs at the appropriate junctions saying “pavement closed to wheelchair users”? Someone could have come all the way from the top of Crossgate before discovering that the route was essentially impossible for them to access.
Councils are obliged to carry out Equality Impact Assessments when taking decisions and setting policies. The policy on signage for temporary road works looks like it could do with a review.
Leave a Reply