To start with, I wanted to create a visual graph comparing the measurements within the room compared to average dimensions of manual and electronic wheelchairs. The dimensions I obtained are from Accessible Public Realm: Updating Guidance and Further Research (Barham, Greenshields and Mitchell, 2020) which is a research report conducted by TRL Limited for the Department of transport. The purpose of this research project was to see how if the average dimensions have changed since their last research report which was conducted in 2002, to ensure public transport is still accessible. The data collection for the dimensions was collected in 2019 at mobility aid events around the UK.
The report also informs that “the recommendation of the ISO Standard for wheelchairs (ISO 7193) that there should be an additional allowance of at least 50mm, preferably 100mm,
should be allowed on each side of the wheelchair for the user’s hands and elbows.” (Barham, Greenshields and Mitchell, 2020, 14) This has not been included in the measurements in the chart.
There are varying widths for mobility aids such as rolled walkers and I found no study that reviewed average dimensions. I cross referenced several that I found for sale and the average size I found are similar to the following image and so I will use this data from Mobility Smart (2023) in my graph.
I decided to do graphs focusing on the wheelchair widths and spaces within the room. As this stood out to me during my observation intervention as potentials barriers.
Door Entry.
I spent quite some time looking for building regulations for minimum door widths in public spaces. There are recommended widths, however these measurements vary with different sources and there does not appear to be a legal minimum requirement. Rapid Ramp, a company that specialises in accessibility ramps for public building and private dwellings suggest a minimum internal door for new builds should be 800mm to be considered wheelchair accessible.
The door width to EB 822, 823, and 824 are all 822 so they meet the recommended minimum requirements for a new build. However, if you add the additional 200mm allowance for arms and elbows to the manual wheelchair widths as suggested by Barham, Greenshields, and Mitchell (2020: 14) this could be a barrier.
Path between occupied sewing machines and chairs.
The next clear barrier that I noticed was the space between the sewing machines and chairs. This looked very narrow and even more so when I asked my colleagues to occupy the machines to imitate a working classroom. The graph does show that the space is not wide enough to accommodate either a manual wheelchair or electronic.
Path between occupied pattern cutting tables and stall.
The third observation I made in regards to pathways was between the pattern cutting tables and stalls. Again my colleagues occupied two stalls back to back and I measured the space in between to see if there was enough space for wheelchair users to pass through. This again was very narrow and the graph clearly indicates that this is also not wheelchair accessible.
Conclusion of quantitative data
Although the entry into the room is compliant with the recommended minimum dimensions to be accessible, it is clear that there may be difficulties for wheelchair users to gain access to the room. A person who uses a manual wheelchair may require assistance as the additional allowance for arms and elbows may restrict them from independently gaining access. Once in the room, wheelchair users and those using mobility rollers would not be able to get access to all areas of the room due to the narrow pathways between the furniture in the room and this would have a profound impact on the students ability to complete technical workshops. Machines and irons would not be accessible to the student in the room’s current set up.
These barriers are ones that we can resolve. Re-organising the room, removing some of the machines to make more space is something that we can achieve. However, with the student numbers increasing, and are target student number doubling for September 2024, less machines and tables may have an impact. The current room capacity for EB 823 is 30. We currently have 14 lockstitch machines, 2 overlocker machines and 2 irons. Removing equipment will increase the student to equipment ratio and this could have a detrimental effect to their experience.
References
Barham, P. Greenshields, S. Mitchell, J. Average dimensions (2020) Barham, P. Greenshields, S. Mitchell, J. (2020) CLIENT PROJECT REPORT CPR2714 Accessible Public Realm: Updating
Guidance and Further Research Technical Annex 2: A review of the dimensions of wheeled mobility aids (RQ2) Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e4d412986650c10e4580eb5/accessible-public-realm-annex-2-review-of-the-dimensions-of-wheeled-mobility-aids.pdf Accessed 25th November 2023.
Rapid Ramp (2023) Table 2 minimum effective clear widths of doors. Rapid Ramp door widths. Available at https://www.rapidramp.co.uk/product-news/the-correct-wheelchair-door-width [Accessed] 25th November 2023.
Mobility Smart (2023) The forearm rollator walker Available at https://www.mobilitysmart.co.uk/the-forearm-rollator-walker.html [Accessed] 25th November 2023.
Masters, S (2023) Door Width in EB 823 graph.
Masters, S (2023) Path between occupied machines and chairs graph.
Masters, (2023) Width between occupied tables and stalls graph.