Pedestrian Pathway Characteristics and Their Implications on Wheelchair Users

Abstract

Individuals who use wheelchairs (WCs) frequently navigate over pathways with obstacles (e.g., bumps or curb descents) or terrain that is extremely rough. Surface characteristics such as roughness can have an effect on comfort and variables associated with bodily injury. Understanding these relationships can be helpful to ensure safe and comfortable access to all public and private pathways. This article reviews existing research related to the topics of surface roughness effects on WC user's bodies, surface roughness measurement techniques, and design guidelines and exposure limits that attempt to ensure pathways are safe and passable. These findings are discussed along with opportunities to improve them. Using a broad literature search, it was found that several measurement and analysis techniques exist to characterize surface roughness related to automobile roadways, but they have not been systematically applied to WC use over pedestrian pathways. The roughness measurement approach that appears most relevant and adaptable for sidewalks are rolling profilers. Commercially available devices could be recalibrated or adapted to measure pedestrian pathways. IRI and ride-quality analysis techniques appear most relevant and could also be adapted. Any analysis technique that uses profiles of surfaces should focus on frequencies and wavelengths that are most applicable to WC riders.

Illuminance required to detect a pavement obstacle of critical size

“…63 US guidance suggests a maximum obstacle height of 12.5 mm (0.5 inches), this referring to a purposeful item such as a kerb rather than a defective surface. 62 Further data are desirable.…”

“…63 US guidance suggests a maximum obstacle height of 12.5 mm (0.5 inches), this referring to a purposeful item such as a kerb rather than a defective surface. 62 Further data are desirable. This paper has focussed on the illuminance that might be optimum for pedestrians to detect pavement obstacles, horizontal illuminance being the main parameter of lighting that is defined in guidance for subsidiary roads, 13,17 similar to discussion of obstacle detection using vehicle forward lighting.…”

“…In addition to the need to negotiate obstacles, rough surfaces may also lead to muscular strain for manually propelled wheelchairs and to discomfort through whole-body vibrations. 61,62 One US study investigated safe routes for disabled people but did not describe the nature of potential hazards. 63 US guidance suggests a maximum obstacle height of 12.5 mm (0.5 inches), this referring to a purposeful item such as a kerb rather than a defective surface.…”

Test Bench for Analysis of Harmful Vibrations Induced to Wheelchair Users

“…The vertical vibration noted V.V. is generally induced by the quality of the tires and the road conditions (Pearlman et al, 2013). The lateral vibration noted L.V.…”

“…The directive lays down the exposure action to 0.5m/s² and the exposure limit value to 1.15m/s² (European Commission Directive, 2002). These limits have been set to indicate the level of vibration that results in productivity loss of workers and it seems to be analogous to wheelchair users by reducing their activity levels (Pearlman et al, 2013). Whole-body vibrations (WBV), acting via the buttocks, the back and the feet of a sitting person may cause chronic spinal cord injuries (Johanning, 2011).…”