Have just seen an EMP report for a client - Dr says client has walking problems due to in-turning feet, and arthritis in lower back. EMP says client can walk 200 yards to local shop, 200 yards back again, with two rests, (where he sits), at a slow walking speed and would take 10 to 15 minutes to do so.

I calculate that to something in the region of 45 minutes to walk a mile - compared with the average walking speed of a fit person of four miles an hour.

Would we consider that to be so slow as to be able to say that the client should be considered virtually unable to walk? I think so, but I'd be interested in any other views............

I always thought the average walking speed was 3 miles an hour. Is this another sign of our couch potato society?

I suppose one question might be has the person walked the distance without it giving rise to severe discomfort. Taking into account the nature of the breaks - how long etc. is it reasonable to see them as one 'walk'.

The time thing is obviously something to argue.

CM/145/1988
.”..Assuming it took the claimant 5 minutes to walk 90 yards, it would take him more than 1 ½ hours to walk a mile – about 4 ½ times as long as a normal person, assuming of course the claimant could Keep pace. In my view this is so slow as to be arguablyparamount to virtually unable to walk”

CDLA 5214 2001

“….. The question is one of fact: taking into account all the factors including speed, can the appellant “make progress on foot without severe discomfort”. It is certainly arguable that moving at a speed of 100 yards in ten minutes (which equates to 30 feet a minute or putting one foot in front of the other without a forward space between them every two seconds) is not “making progress” in any meaningful sense. But it is a matter of fact, not law, to be judged against the statutory test in regulation 12(1)(a) of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) regulations.”

That's the way that I've been reading those and a couple of other CD's - there is also Comm Rowland who raised the question of what happens when a claimant has walked a certain distance - what would be the recovery period - could the claimant repeat the exercise again after a relatively short rest, or would thay have to rest for an hour or more, the difference being highly relevant.
I think it was in the same CD that Comm Rowland also said that too much emphasis was being placed on distance, whilst the other equally important issues of speed, manner of walking etc were being ignored. He also said that estimates of distance and time made by clients were extremely unreliable in many cases, resulting in misleading information being given to EMP's and DM's.
In this instance, this seems to be your average EMP report, where in one breath he says the client has increasing walking difficulties, and then in the next breath he puts in figures for distance and time which he appears to have just arrived at on the spur of the moment.

PS - I should imagine the average walking speed in glasgow late on a saturday night is somewhat less than 3 miles per hr.......well, in a straight line anyway.

In addition to the decision mentioned by Euan CDLA/717/98 and CDLA/11266/95 also address the issue of 'slow' walking speed. I think it is important to obtain some, more helpful, evidence to contrast with that of the EMP. Otherwise you are left arguing 'the EMP says this and that is slow enough'. As I'm sure you are aware Mike, Commissioners view such decisions as essentially 'jury' questions and not a matter of law, and so are unlikely to overturn a DAT solely on these grounds.

If a DAT is presented with other evidence as to slow walking speed then they have to explain why they preferred one piece over the other.

version 1d of the EMP update training (8.1.03) gives the following

100m/min= brisk
90 m/min=average
60 m/min=slow
30 m/min=very slow

They add "a walking speed of less than 30m/min is medically unlikely unless the person is suffering from very severe disability indeed"

They give no sources for these figures/opinions

Thanks for all the replies - All of this only goes to highlight the minefield that Mobility can be. Short of going out with the client armed with a tape measure, there's no accurate way of assessing his/her walking ability and speed etc. Whichever source you go to, whether it be the client, an EMP or the GP, at the end of the day it almost always still ends up as being a guestimate.

Going on Chris's EMP update figures, my client seems to be between very slow and slow, a point the DM seems to have overlooked: I always try and convert these speeds to MPH, which the Tribunal seem to understand more easily.....

Have actually gone out with client to assess walking ability - this was because client had expressive dysphasia (sp?) following the stroke which thus not only affected his walking ability but affected his ability to describe his walking ability.

This being the only walking test I've had to do I was intrigued to see how tribunal would handle it - bearing in mind this was a man who walked so slowly across a pedestrian crossing (pelican? puffin?) that the lights had changed, cars were revving their engines and I felt like a lollipop lady holding up the traffic.

Mobility refused - but a swift knock back to another tribunal by the commissioner and the colleague who took the next appeal for client (I had moved on) was offered high mob as soon as he walked through the door.

I guess this also raises the issue where the rep is giving evidence on behalf of the client....

Chris

How can I/we get to see 'version 1d of the EMP update training (8.1.03)'?

Is it on the net, will Medical Services/ Disability & Carers Service provide copies in request or are we denied access?

I also wonder if TAS has something similar, for use in training tribunal members, that we could see. It might prove a fasinating and useful insight.

Regarding walking speeds & tribunals - I was once shown a sheet by the chair of the tribunal (also had different speeds for different ages) - it possibly came from the Bench Book - I have a copy somewhere if you send me your fax No.

I tend to work on 4.4 KMPH as normal (in town) walking speed this was based on figures from a U.S. study of movement speeds at traffic lights (can send you a copy if I can find it). Seems to fit in with Cmmr Heggs' estimate.

The issue I would like to find an answer to is what a resonable gradient to walk up would be when assessing the test. It seems to be a settled matter (in law though not ness. in the DWP) that the test envisages some level of incline or decline but what is a "normal" incline?

Mike R

Find below the The Appeals Service Training Material. If anyone wants the EMP training material mentioned above then post a fax number


FACT SHEET 2 – SPEED OF PEDESTRIANS

Anecdotally it is said that a policeman on the beat, strolling along, walks at 2.5 mph (1.12 metres per second) and a soldier, quick marching, quick marches at 5 mph (2.24 metres per second).

Research on Road Traffic (HMSO 1965) found average walking speed of adult pedestrians on level ground was about 3.4 mph (1.52 metres per second) and the age and sex influence walking speed.


AGE SEX WALKING SPEED

mph metres per sec

Under 55 M 3.7 1.65

Over 55 M 3.4 1.52

Under 50 F 3.1 1.39

Over 50 F 2.9 1.30

Woman with small child 1.6 0.72

Children over 6 and 2.5 1.12
under 10

Adolescents 4.0 1.79







Walking speeds found by the Road Research Laboratory equate to the following times which will be taken to cover 100 metres:

Male under 55 at 1.65 metres per second – 1 min 0.6 secs.

Male over 55 at 1.52 metres per second – 1 min 5.8 secs.

Female under 50 at 1.39 metres per second – 1 min 11.9 secs.

Female over 50 at 1.3 metres per second – 1 min 16.9 secs.

Female with small child at 0.72 metres per second – 2 min 18.9 sec



All the above are averages. It is, however, possible to extrapolate all sorts of other information with the use of a calculator and put into perspective what is often said in evidence by appellants.

For example, if an over 55 year old were claiming to take 10 minutes to cover 100 metres, it would equate to 0.166 metres per second – i.e. about one ninth of the normal average speed for such a person. If it was said that the 10 minutes included a 2 minute rest, the speed would be 0.208 metres per second which would equate to about one seventh of the normal speed for an over 55 year old man. This information enables careful questioning to establish the appellant’s perception of their speed of walking and means that questions as to time taken to cover a particular distance can yield valuable information.



The following table shows the distance each of the categories would walk without stopping in 5 or 10 minutes:

5 minutes 10min


Male under 55 495 metres 990

Male over 55 456 metres 912

Female under 50 417 metres 834

Female over 50 390 metres 780
END OF FACT SHEET

Shawn
You will have noted that some of my tables which were o.k when they
were on my screen have been slightly rearranged when posted. Is there
a way this can be avoided.

Whilst all the foregoing is extremely helpful, what we are constantly coming across is these vague EMP reports which do not answer the questions asked, and actually present a vague clinical "opinion" as opposed to a "fact".

The latest one says in part 5(2) the client:
5 (a) Can walk 200 metres with one to two stops
5 (b) Slowly
5 (c) in 5 mins
5 (d) has 1 -2 halts in 100 metres
5 (e) Limps
is unsteady, balance is impaired

In part 11, under other comments, the EMP has said
"I think with stops he is more mobile than stated - probably can walk 200 - 300 metres".

This from an EMP who only saw the client walk about 10 ft across his lounge. Being in mind this is a renewal claim, the DM has quite happily used the EMP report to reduce High rate MOB to nil.

chris - re your tables having gone wonky ... no easy way i'm afraid - unless using html to force the spaces ... alternatively if you had it in a word doc or similar you could email it to us and we could upload it and publish a link? - shawn

Chris, could you fax us a copy too?
Welfare Rights Unit, Cardiff Council
FAX: 029 201358
Carol

chris - if you'd like we could look at publishing the doc here for people to download ... if you could either email an electronic copy or (if not too large ) send a paper copy in the post? - cheers - shawn

Chris,

Can I have a copy of the EMP training update thingy please. My Fax Number is 0161 7366594.

Thanks

Chris
Could I also have a copy

Fax No: 01773 728262
OR E-mail
bill.alexander@derbyshire.gov.uk

ta
bill

Chris,

Could you fax me a copy of version 1d of the EMP update (8.1.03) My fax number is 01902 555149. Many thanks.

Chris

I would also appreciate a copy. Many thanks!

Fax - 0151-934-3040
E-Mail - paul.neville@social-services.sefton.gov.uk

Paul