National Academies Press: OpenBook

Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses (2003)

Chapter: CHAPTER TWO - REAR-FACING POSITION: DESCRIPTION, DEPLOYMENT, AND RESEARCH IN EUROPE AND CANADA

« Previous: CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO - REAR-FACING POSITION: DESCRIPTION, DEPLOYMENT, AND RESEARCH IN EUROPE AND CANADA." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21951.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO - REAR-FACING POSITION: DESCRIPTION, DEPLOYMENT, AND RESEARCH IN EUROPE AND CANADA." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21951.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO - REAR-FACING POSITION: DESCRIPTION, DEPLOYMENT, AND RESEARCH IN EUROPE AND CANADA." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21951.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO - REAR-FACING POSITION: DESCRIPTION, DEPLOYMENT, AND RESEARCH IN EUROPE AND CANADA." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21951.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO - REAR-FACING POSITION: DESCRIPTION, DEPLOYMENT, AND RESEARCH IN EUROPE AND CANADA." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21951.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO - REAR-FACING POSITION: DESCRIPTION, DEPLOYMENT, AND RESEARCH IN EUROPE AND CANADA." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21951.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO - REAR-FACING POSITION: DESCRIPTION, DEPLOYMENT, AND RESEARCH IN EUROPE AND CANADA." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21951.
×
Page 22

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

7 CHAPTER TWO REAR-FACING POSITION: DESCRIPTION, DEPLOYMENT, AND RESEARCH IN EUROPE AND CANADA REAR-FACING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION As it has been deployed in European (Figure 1) and Cana- dian transit systems, the rear-facing position consists of a minimum rectangular clear floor space, typically 0.75 m (30 in.) in width and 1.3 m (52 in.) in length, with the long dimension along the longitudinal axis of the bus. A padded head and back panel facing the rear is located at the front end of the space, anchored to the bus floor or wall, or both. This panel is centered within the 0.75 m (30 in.) width and is narrow enough to allow the large wheels of a wheelchair to pass on each side, thus bringing the back of the wheel- chair passenger as close as possible to the padded backrest or headrest. The primary feature of this system, in which the passenger faces the rear of the bus, is to have the back panel, against which the passenger’s back rests, absorb the forces in a deceleration. Once on board the transit bus, the wheelchair passenger positions his or her wheelchair or scooter with the back as close as possible against the padded back or head panel, facing the rear of the bus. A pictogram in that location, plus explanatory text, should indicate that facing to the rear is provided. The brakes are then applied for manual wheel- chairs. In the case of power chairs and scooters, the power is turned off, which automatically applies the brakes. Ap- plication of the brakes will prevent movement of the mo- bility aid toward the rear during acceleration and on steep inclines uphill. To prevent tipping or movement of the wheel- chair/scooter into the aisle, a fixed-aisle stanchion, a fold- able armrest, or other means are used (Figures 1–3). There are generally no straps or hooks that must be attached to the mobility aid for securement, although some agencies have installed such mechanisms. There is a horizontal handrail along the bus wall below the windows for holding onto, which can be used by those passengers with good upper body strength (Figure 2). To enable the passenger to make a stop request, a sepa- rate call button is positioned within easy reach. It is oper- ated by pushing with the hand, elbow, or arm. The stop re- quest signal at the operator’s station, from this call button, should have a different audible sound than the stop request signal provided for the general public, thus alerting the op- erator that the wheelchair passenger wants to exit. Such an alert is important, because the operator needs to advise boarding passengers and apply the ramp first. FIGURE 1 Transport for London rear-facing position with back panel and aisle stanchion. FIGURE 2 BC Transit rear-facing position with handrail and separate stop request button (located on wall below handrail).

8 FIGURE 3 Rear-facing position with movable armrest (shown in up position). Instead of stanchion, there is a handrail on the wall and a separate stop request button (located below the handrail). Flip seats can be positioned in the wheelchair area as long as their dimensions do not interfere with the clear space required for the wheelchair (Figures 4–7). A sign in that area indicates that the seats must be vacated if a passenger in a wheelchair or scooter needs to occupy the space. FIGURE 5 Paris (RATP) rear-facing position with flip-down seat built into back panel. FIGURE 6 BC Transit rear-facing position with flip-down seats on bus wall and back panel. FIGURE 4 Montreal (Société de Transport de Montréal) rear- facing position adjacent to rear door, with stanchion to prevent tipping, designated priority markings on floor, and flip-up bench seating. Priority seats for seniors and other disabled passengers are preferably not designated in the wheelchair location, because doing so can lead to conflicts. chair access through the front door, or toward the middle section of the bus for those bus models accessible through the middle or rear door. The location of rear-facing positions varies depending on the bus design. They are typically located immediately behind the front wheel wells for bus models with wheel- chair access through the front door, or toward the middle section of the bus for bus models accessible through the middle or rear door. FIGURE 7 Ottawa (OC Transpo) rear-facing positions with stanchion and separate stop request button located under flip- up bench (in middle of bench underside).

9 REAR-FACING POSITION IN EUROPE—DEPLOYMENT AND RESEARCH Low-floor buses were introduced in Europe in the late 1980s with several objectives: to make access and egress for all passengers easier, faster, and safer to reduce dwell times, to decrease injuries to an aging passenger population from tripping or falling over steps, and to provide easier access for persons with strollers. Wheelchair accessibility was not the original motivation for deployment of low- floor buses (8,9). Originally, only the areas near the service doors were low floor; the rest of the bus could only be ac- cessed over steps or ramped floors. As bus technology im- proved, “low-floor throughout” has become common as well. To avoid seat loss, some bus models have positioned some rear-facing seats over the wheel wells, although they may require one or two steps to get in and out of them. FIGURE 9 Access over ramp at front door (Germany). Having improved the mobility for seniors and persons with mobility limitations by introducing low-floor buses, Europe turned its attention to the task of addressing the ac- cess for persons using wheelchairs. An answer was sought that would combine a place that would meet the needs of persons with strollers, with the needs of persons using wheelchairs. Across Europe, the use of urban buses by per- sons with strollers is greater than the use by persons in wheelchairs. The remaining task in providing accessible transporta- tion by bus was to answer the question of whether the safe transport of wheelchair passengers required special meas- ures in transit buses, and what would be necessary to se- cure or restrain wheelchair passengers. One specific aspect was the choice between forward and rear-facing options for positioning the wheelchair within the bus. Historically, the use of a designated “compartment” in Europe goes back to the 1930s. The subway system (S- Bahn and U-Bahn) in Berlin, Germany, introduced a “Mother and Child” section on each train, consisting of a large space with a central open area and seats along the walls facing the center. This arrangement accommodated several mothers with their strollers or those with young children and luggage. There were vertical stanchions in the center of the area, as well as near the seats, for the trav- eler(s) to hold onto. This design remains in use today. A total systems approach was pursued through a variety of research and demonstration efforts (10). In addition to improving bus design by reducing the height of the bus floor level and introducing the bus kneeling feature, efforts also explored improved stop design by raising curb height and reducing horizontal gaps through bus docking systems, both manual and electronic. Telescopic and flip ramps were developed for use either at the front or center door of the bus to overcome any remaining vertical and horizontal gaps (Figures 8 and 9). In addition, it should be noted that rear-facing seats have traditionally been used in the design of urban buses, trams, subway systems, and intercity trains in Europe. The notion of rear-facing seating does not therefore have an image problem in Europe. That is contrary to the situation in North America, where bus designs have traditionally been based on all forward-facing seating, although heavy- and light-rail cars frequently have half of their seats facing the rear. Findings from German Research on Wheelchair- Accessible Buses Research conducted from 1990 to 1992 by the German Ministry of Transport, in cooperation with transit systems, provided the basic insight into the accommodation of wheelchairs on buses. Two studies, one by Glaeser (1990) FIGURE 8 Access over ramp at center door (United Kingdom).

10 and one by Kasten (1991) were conducted that explored the specific issue of securement requirements on transit buses (11,12). Both of these studies were published by the Federal Highway Research Institute of the Federal Minis- try of Transportation in Germany (BASt) in Die Sicherung Von Rollstuhlfahren In Linienbussen Und Behinderten- transportwagen (The Securement of Wheelchair Passen- gers in Urban Transit Buses and in Motor Vehicles for the Disabled). The first study by BASt carried out deceleration tests with a manual and an electric wheelchair, each loaded with a dummy and placed unsecured on a moving test platform. The objective was to establish the acceleration and decel- eration forces that occur to bring a wheelchair passenger into an unsafe situation without using a securement system. These tests showed that unsecured manual wheelchairs will start slipping at 0.18 g to 0.21 g and start tipping at 0.37 g. Electric wheelchairs start slipping at 0.37 g and tipping at 0.43 g. To complement the first study, a second study involving tests was carried out by STUVA (Research Commission for Underground Traffic Installations) to analyze which accel- eration/deceleration forces are experienced by a manual and an electric wheelchair in a transit bus under normal city operating conditions. Two regular low-floor transit buses and one small bus were tested for a total of approxi- mately 300 km (190 mi) in the cities of Cologne and Wup- pertal and on rural and regional roads with a topography that included typical hills, curves, and descents. The buses, because of their modular design, had two places for wheel- chairs, always in the same location—at the midsection op- posite the entrance/exit door. The bus floor was of nonskid commercial material typically used in these buses. The wheelchairs were the same type as used in the BASt study, one manual wheelchair and one electric converted wheel- chair. A dummy of 75 kg (165 lb) was placed in the respec- tive wheelchairs. During the trips, tri-axial acceleration measurements were taken at the bus floor level and at the wheelchair seat height. The use of a dummy simulated an extreme condi- tion of a wheelchair passenger, one who cannot intention- ally shift body weight or hold onto a seat, stanchion, and so forth. The majority of the observed changes in the wheel- chair position during trips could be eliminated if the wheelchair passenger could hold onto something. Under normal operating conditions, accelerations of 2.4 m/s2 (0.24 g) in vertical, horizontal, and transversal direc- tions were occasionally exceeded by up to 5%. When curves were driven more forcefully, the rating was ex- ceeded by up to 11%. (It should be noted that the variations of 5% and 11% were caused by the measuring equipment and occurred for only 1/200 s. This had no impact on the movement of the wheelchair.) In most cases, the wheel- chairs remained in place. However, even under normal op- erating conditions, the wheelchairs placed facing sideways experienced turning of the front casters or sliding of the manual chair [up to 5 cm (2 in.)]. When an individual is facing backward and supported against the back panel, higher acceleration values—from abrupt braking to emergency braking—could be absorbed. The research found that it was important that the back panel be wide enough to support the full area of the wheel- chair back. It was also important that both rear wheels touch the seat bench or support to avoid submarining. In positions such as facing forwards, sideways, or to the rear but without support of a back panel, wheelchairs were found to slide severely or even tip under severe braking conditions. It was generally observed that the electric wheelchair was less affected by acceleration and deceleration forces than the manual wheelchair, because of its total weight and lower center of gravity. The ratings of deceleration meas- ured at wheelchair seat height are substantially smaller than the ones measured at the bus floor level, owing to the spring action of the air-filled wheelchair tires. The conclusions of these two studies indicated that it was possible to transport wheelchair passengers (although these studies did not evaluate scooters) in a transit bus safely without a securement or restraint system given the following circumstances: • There is a “confined space” with a back-support panel for a wheelchair passenger; • The wheelchair passenger is facing rearward, with the wheelchair back in contact with the back support; • The wheelchair brakes are firmly applied, if possible, on all wheels; • The driver exercises reasonable driving habits; and • The speed does not exceed city speed limits. As a result of this research, a number of German transit systems developed a “protected position” design for ac- commodating mobility aids on board standard transit buses. A review of German experience with the rear-facing position was carried out 5 years after its introduction and included the following observation: The concept of the space arrangement for wheelchairs as well as the decision to waive complicated restraint systems, for ex- ample in the form of a safety belt, is justified from daily ex- periences. There has not been any reported accident involving a wheelchair passenger in a low-floor bus since the first vehi- cles have been placed into operation. The very first types of low-floor buses had been equipped with a safety strap system, but it was used by a minority of wheelchair passengers only.

11 According to German Standard DIN 75 077, “Buses for disabled persons; definitions, requirements, tests,” a bulk- head or a restricted or confined space is required as a re- straint system that fulfills the safety requirements (13). European Perspectives on Accommodating Wheelchairs on Transit Buses In the United States, the evolution of accessibility legisla- tion has led to a situation in which different transit passen- gers are treated differently from a safety point of view. The ADA ensures a level of safety for wheelchair users that is greater than that offered for other passengers (e.g., stand- ees). In contrast, Europeans have a different perspective than the United States with respect to accessibility for wheelchair passengers; they believe that wheelchair pas- sengers should be treated in the same way, from a safety point of view, as are other passengers on the bus, including standees. For example, one of the lead researchers defined the wheelchair safety problem in 1993 in the following way: In order to solve the new problem of safety for wheelchair us- ers on regular bus routes, it is necessary to consider real trans- port conditions, i.e.: • Risks of accidents in urban areas are absolutely minimal and cases in which passengers suffer injury are rare. Acci- dents mostly involve pedestrians or cyclists and cause the bus driver to attempt to avoid them. • Not all passengers are seated in the bus and standing pas- sengers must maintain their balance by holding onto hand- rails and posts during the journey, particularly when start- ing (acceleration), braking (deceleration) and taking turns (transversal acceleration). • Transport time is usually so short (from 10 to 20 minutes) that it is difficult to envisage requesting passengers to use a safety device requiring a maneuver and a constraint (14). In a paper discussing the proposed Specifications for the Accessibility of All People to Urban Buses, the chairperson of the Working Group on Bus Accessibility of the National Advisory Committee for Transport of Disabled Persons in France stated that [T]he anchoring maneuver (for wheelchairs) requires that the bus driver leaves his place. Rational operating conditions make this procedure unacceptable, since it is most constrain- ing for the driver and, moreover, resented by the disabled peo- ple as they are not considered as “normal” passengers free to move about themselves. Lastly, it became clear to the working group that, since urban buses are designed to transport stand- ing passengers, the problem of wheelchair anchoring could be related to that of the balance and safety of standing passen- gers; other European countries such as Germany, for example, have expressed the same point of view (15). In the actual proposed specifications presented by that working group in 1991, the following statement is made with respect to wheelchair security: [I]n the absence of any reference material on the subject, it does not appear that wheelchair passengers have any more problems with stability than standing passengers. Therefore the question of anchoring the wheelchair is not raised (16). Similar perspectives are found across Europe. The basic rationale for the rear-facing position, from the European perspective, can therefore be summarized as follows: • To provide a person in a wheelchair with the same level of safety as afforded to all other seated passen- gers, under regular operation of a transit bus, includ- ing severe braking and cornering; • To provide the wheelchair passenger with the same degree of independence as had by all other bus pas- sengers; • To provide other passengers with large equipment, such as strollers, with a place to accommodate their requirements; and • To remove the need for intervention by the bus op- erator. COST 322 European Research Program The European CO-operation for Science and Techniques (COST) program was established in 1971 to coordinate fundamental, prenormative, precompetitive research or ac- tivities financed at national levels in the 25 European member countries. The COST 322 Action started work in 1993 and involved 10 participants. Its objectives were to examine the needs of public transportation so that it could help reduce the use of personal cars; provide accessible, ef- ficient, and reliable service for the population as a whole; and reduce the impact of traffic congestion and pollution (17,18). Under the COST program, tests were carried out in 1992 by researchers in France with the participation of the Lyon Transit System. An experimental setup was designed to identify transport conditions that were dangerous for a wheelchair user and to demonstrate safety solutions that would minimize constraints on mobility-constrained pas- sengers. The test scenario included the use of manual and elec- tric wheelchairs, using a 50th percentile dummy [75 kg (175 lb)] setup in a standard low-floor bus. The following forces were reproduced as a typical example of conditions that transit buses would experience: • Sharp acceleration up to 0.4 g, • Sharp deceleration from 0.4 to 1.0 g, and • Lateral acceleration (violent change of direction) of 0.2 to 0.3 g. Several wheelchair positions were selected:

12 TABLE 1 WHEELCHAIR SECUREMENT TEST RESULTS—COST 322 Results under Following Conditions Securement Type Facing Direction Braking Acceleration Cornering No securement, brakes only front bad satisfactory bad Four-strap system front good, if straps used good good Sideways with brakes — satisfactory satisfactory bad Sideways with front wall and strap — good satisfactory satisfactory Sideways with rear wall and strap — bad good bad 45˚ to rear rear satisfactory satisfactory bad Vertical panel/bulkhead rear satisfactory good bad Backrest and headrest rear good good bad Backrest, headrest, and aisle support rear good good good Notes: Evaluation criteria—good, wheelchair stays upright; satisfactory, wheelchair begins rocking, stress on dummy; bad, wheelchair tips, dummy falls. Sources: Dejeammes and Bonicel (17) and European Community CO-operation for Science and Techniques (COST) (18). • Facing front, • Facing sideways, • Facing 45˚ to the rear, and • Facing to the rear. A number of different securement scenarios and systems were used: • No securement, • Four tie-down straps, • Bulkhead, • Backrest and headrest (load-bearing device), and • Backrest and headrest with aisle support (armrest). Table 1 shows the test results. The tests indicated that a safe position for the wheel- chair passenger had been identified, namely a rear-facing position for the wheelchair, with the back against a load- bearing backrest and headrest, and an aisle-facing stan- chion or armrest. This arrangement would not require the wheelchair to be tied down by any other equipment. The results from the COST 322 project reconfirmed findings from the previous research by the German Minis- try of Transportation, conducted in 1991 and 1992. As a whole, this body of research illustrated the acceptable level of safety offered by the rear-facing position design under normal bus operating conditions and it has lead to subse- quent widespread adoption of this approach across Europe. An assessment in 1997 of progress to date concluded that: [U]rban bus services have been opened to people in wheel- chairs by the combination of the low-floor bus with a simple ramp at one door and permitting the carriage of a passenger in an unrestricted wheelchair. The wheelchair passengers travel facing backwards, backed against a bulkhead at the front of a space opposite the second door but with no wheelchair or pas- senger restraint. The ramp is helpful for many people who have walking difficulties, and the boarding time for wheel- chairs is not much longer than for other passengers. The driver does not need to leave his seat to attend to passengers in wheelchairs. Boarding times for passengers in wheelchairs are sufficiently short (usually well under one minute) for all these passengers to be carried in significant numbers without delay- ing the bus substantially (19, p. 56). REAR-FACING POSITION IN CANADA—DEPLOYMENT AND RESEARCH Providing mobility options to persons with disabilities has been a priority in Canadian cities since the early 1980s, re- sulting in the development of high-quality specialized tran- sit systems across Canada. These systems have provided demand-responsive, usually reservation-based, service to eligible persons with disabilities and seniors, with the use of vans and small buses. These services were supple- mented by taxi-based services. With respect to conven- tional transit, attention focused in the late 1980s first on improving access for seniors and frail ambulatory persons by improved features in bus design (e.g., high-contrast step edgings and improved lighting) and by introducing com- munity bus services (i.e., fixed-route service specifically targeted to primary travel patterns and destinations of sen- iors using small buses). As in Europe, accessibility for per- sons in wheelchairs was served through specialized transit and not by trying to make standard buses accessible using wheelchair lifts, as was the policy in the United States. The inherent disadvantages of this policy were compounded by the difficulty of operating hydraulic wheelchair lifts in a cold climate and the difficulty of ensuring access to bus stops during winter snowfall. Only mild-climate Vancouver introduced wheelchair accessible buses before 1992, al- though this technology was common in the United States. However, as in Europe, the advantages offered by the development of low-floor bus technology were quickly recognized and they drastically changed the accessibility debate. Low-floor buses were first introduced in 1992 by BC Transit in Victoria, followed closely by Kitchener, Cal- gary, and Edmonton. There was however considerable de- bate within the transit industry as to the best approach for

13 accommodating wheelchairs on standard transit buses. The desire to enhance accessibility for persons with disabilities is a societal concern in Canada, but it is not governed by formal legislative requirements and prescriptive regula- tions. As a result, various approaches were experimented with, and different transit systems developed and adopted a variety of approaches to wheelchair securement. In the early 1990s, all of these approaches were based on a for- ward-facing position. However, transit systems recognized that the dynamic forces occurring on large transit buses, with their larger mass, were substantially lower than those on vans or even small buses. As a result, most approaches adopted designs that were simpler than those prevalent in the United States, in the hope of reducing the burden caused by the securement system on the wheelchair pas- senger, the bus operator, and the transit system. At the time, the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) conducted, as part of its national cooperative Stra- tegic Transit Research Program (STRP), a study entitled Urban Transit Bus Accessibility Considerations (STRP Report 10), the results of which were published in 1995 (20). This study examined the various approaches being adopted by the pioneer Canadian transit systems deploying accessible low-floor buses. Three main types of forward facing systems were identified: • Four straps: two for the front, two for the rear; • Wheel rim lock combined with one rear retractable strap; and • Two rear straps with angled wheel stop for manual and power chairs, with one additional front strap for scooters. Furthermore, the study identified the preliminary Euro- pean research and emerging practice concerning the Euro- pean rear-facing position approach. The findings of this study were disseminated through presentations at CUTA conferences and discussions of CUTA’s Bus Design and Maintenance Committee. They also stimulated consider- able discussion and reflection within the industry. Transit systems, such as those in Montreal, Hamilton, and Ottawa, and BC Transit, which were introducing new and sometimes radically different bus models, took advan- tage of the opportunity to explore the potential adoption of the rear-facing position. Although initially skeptical, a few Canadian transit systems ran focus groups or pilot trials to get feedback from consumers. In addition, the rear-facing approach was studied and discussed by some provincial government agencies (Alberta, Quebec, and Ontario) that were seeking to encourage more widespread accessibility initiatives (21). As a result, several transit systems intro- duced the rear-facing system in the late 1990s. CUTA con- ducted a second study to identify pertinent research and document experience to date. This study, entitled Accom- modating Mobility-Aids on Canadian Low-Floor Buses Using the Rear Facing Position Design: Experience, Is- sues, and Requirements (STRP Report 13), was published in November 2000 (22). Currently, several major transit systems have adopted, or are adopting, the system for two major reasons: (1) it provides the passenger with independent and dignified ac- cess and (2) it provides the transit system with reduced dwell times and minimal involvement of the bus operator. Rear-facing systems are now implemented in 18-m (60-ft) ar- ticulated low-floor buses, 12-m (40-ft) low-floor buses, 12-m (40-ft) double-decker low-floor buses, and 10.6-m (35-ft) and 9-m (30-ft) low-floor buses, involving front or middle door access, depending on the bus model and transit system. In addition, under the auspices of the Canadian Stan- dards Association (CSA), the principle standards develop- ment organization in Canada, representatives of transit sys- tems, of the wheelchair user community, and of bus and component suppliers, have been involved in the develop- ment of the new Standard for Accessible Transit Buses (D435-02), which was published in August 2002 (23). The development of this standard is intended to provide guid- ance to the industry and encourage greater transit accessi- bility. The D435 standard specifically recognizes the rear- facing position as acceptable practice. This new standard is likely to encourage more deploy- ment of the rear-facing position in Canada, as a result of its impact on suppliers. In Canada there are three domestic manufacturers of low-floor buses, all three of which were interviewed by telephone. Until August 2002 there had been no standards in Canada specifying the forces that a rear-facing back or head panel must withstand. This lack of formal standards had made the bus manufacturers uneasy and unwilling to assume the liability inherent in the instal- lation of a rear-facing position on the bus. The situation has changed with the publication of the CSA D435-02 stan- dard. As a result, the three bus manufacturers are now in- stalling the rear-facing position as part of the manufactur- ing process. Consultations were also held with staff from a manufac- turer that supplies seats and related components to the manufacturers of standard transit buses. As with the Cana- dian bus manufacturers, the seat manufacturer had been concerned about liability issues with the rear-facing design. However, as a result of the demand placed on it by Cana- dian transit systems, this supplier now offers a back panel and installation frame, designed to the CSA standard speci- fication, which can be used in a rear-facing position and installed either by the bus original equipment manufacturer or a transit system. The supplier is also hopeful that the promulgation of the CSA standard will be useful in ad- dressing the remaining liability concerns.

Next: CHAPTER THREE - CURRENT PRACTICE: CANADIAN TRANSIT SYSTEMS, INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS, AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN NORTH AMERICA »
Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 50: Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses describes the international state of the practice with respect to use of the rear-facing position for accommodating “common wheelchairs” (as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act) on large transit buses (more than 30,000 lbs) and identifies pertinent issues related to its transferability to the U.S. context.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!