Peter:
BawangMerah, that was very nice of you. In Tokyo, the height of the kerb for ramps is no more than 2cm. This is to indicate the end of the walkway to the blind. If the kerbs were made any higher, it would pose some difficuly for wheelchair users. Therefore this a good compromise for both.

Peter:
I must get a copy of that MS 1331:2003 - Code of Practice for Access for Disabled Persons Outside Buildings. Very interesting points that you brought up. Thank you again.

We did a report on Pedestrian-friendly Kuala Lumpur back then in 1999, and it was also sponsored by JICA. During the Interim Stage, DBKL decided to take out the title below ” Disabled Friendly Study”, hence it was watered down after that, meaning disabled-friendly is not the focus. I wonder what DBKL did with the report. I assume some of the findings were referred to, but since you highlighted the problems, I realised that the same problems are there.

That reminded me of the question that I posed to a DBKL engineer in a seminar. How come the pavement heights are not 6 inches (15cm) maximum but get to be even 8 inches to a foot at times? He said that is because of wanting the monsoon drain grilles to let the water away. He also said that when they lay the roads with tarmac, they need the extra inches so that when they top up, the pavement is still high enough.

Sorry but I think its all a load of bullshit. Firstly, rather than concentrate the monsoon drain grilles to be at a certain spot along the underside of the pavement, say after every 30 ft, why not have the whole pavement grilles at the side, so more holes are available for drainage, and also lower the height of the grilles. Secondly, why not scrape the old tarmac from the road first and then lay the new tarmac rather than do a patch up job layer upon layer, so that a certain height of tarmac is achieved everytime.

The reason why these issues are the basis for unaccessible curbs are simple. It’s a design and maintenance problem, and when they decide to go above 6 inches, the ramped curb if built will not have the correct gradient / slope to be usable.

So the problems that I highlighted here then suggests that it became impossible for them to implement the legislation which by the way never got gazetted at all - I think it was Malaysian Standards (forgot the number) for outside buildings and they replaced it with just a guideline (not detailed enough) with no tooth (not under an Act)… We only got MS 1884 which is for inside buildings.

Also many ministries are involved with different elements of the street environment, so that is one of the reasons for poor coordination and management. Min. of Transport - Highways Act, Pedestrian crossings and lights/warnings; Min. of Entrepeneur - Public Vehicle Licensing that determine bus-stops locations; DBKL (?) - Prime Minister’s Dept. / Fed. Territory Min.; Outside buildings area / LRT stations (?) - Min of Housing and Local Govt.; Min. of Public Works (?) - Pedestrian Bridges, Flyovers(?) ( I am actually assuming these functions to the ministries, need to confirm it though…)

Perhaps we should propose for a Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) like in the UK that is a “statutory body” established under the UK Transport Act 1985.
http://www.dptac.gov.uk

Peter:
Naziaty, you have said everything that needed to be said. Thank you. That was very enlightening.

p/s: a belated happy V day!

Peter:
There is no accessible public transport for wheelchair users here. Yes, we are looking in ways to convince the government that this is imporant to us.