Walking pace

Inverclyde HSCP Advice Services - 25 October 2022 02:26 PM

Can anybody help?

The benchmark for walking speed is a document called “Research on Road Traffic (HMSO 1965) “

I always think people walked more quickly in the 60s than they do now; probably why productivity is in decline…

Here’s a chart of average walking speed by age - https://www.healthline.com/health/exercise-fitness/average-walking-speed#average-speed-by-age

If your client only does 40m per minute then that’s 0.67m/s - how old is your client - if they’re under 50 it looks like you definitely have an argument for twice as slow - but you have to think about repeatability too so even if they’re older they might not be able to do that pace as often as they need or safely

I don’t know if this helps - it’s an extract from a DLA form signed by a client in 2015 and the form is marked on the front DLA434 Adult 2015, it gives ‘normal’ pace as ‘more than 60m/min’, ‘slow’ as ‘40-60m/min’ and ‘very slow’ as ‘less than 40m/min’.
IMO there also falls to be considered the second part of this paragraph of this judgement - even if they started at 40m/min and this was less than half of ‘‘normal’ walking speed, do they actually slow down the more distance they cover (i.e. when they repeat the journey)?

“Indeed, this is perhaps an interesting illustration of how personal independence payment is a different benefit from its predecessor (disability living allowance) with different tests and how there will inevitably be some winners and some losers consequent upon the transition. A person able to walk a lengthy distance might not have been considered to be virtually unable to walk, a test relevant to disability living allowance, despite extreme slowness and dependent on other factors too, but such a person if sufficiently slow as to fail the speed standard set by regulation 4(4)(c) from the inception of walking would seem to qualify for the enhanced rate. Of course, the situation is likely to be more complex in the case of a person, and this would probably be quite common, who would walk initially at a reasonable pace but would slow down the more distance was covered and there might even be cases of persons who would start slowly and speed up though that is likely to be much rarer. This does, though, illustrate the importance of careful fact finding.” para 17.
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/caselaw/item/effect-of-pauses-and-halts-on-ability-to-move-around-when-applying-pip-mobi

Dan Manville - 25 October 2022 02:41 PM

Inverclyde HSCP Advice Services - 25 October 2022 02:26 PM

Can anybody help?

The benchmark for walking speed is a document called “Research on Road Traffic (HMSO 1965) “

I always think people walked more quickly in the 60s than they do now; probably why productivity is in decline…

I certainly walk more slowly now than I did in the 1960s

I’m worried now. Since giving up commuting in favour of hybrid working I take an hour out before work each day to walk. When I measure this I average 4.2 mph (sorry, I don’t do kilometres) and on a good day I can do 4.8. I;m now thinking there’s some kind of Olympic walky thing I ought to be entering as I am clearly getting faster as old age beckons.

For what its worth Mike 4.2 mph is equivalent to 6.72km per hour.  4.8mph is equivalent to 7.68 km per hour

Given that to score 12 points on PIP mob2, the distance is 20 metres, it would be convenient to translate km/hr into metres per minute, so your speed of 6.72 km/hr translates to a speed of 111.67metres per minute

You are clearly walking at a brisk pace!

I don’t see the relevance of the Tribunal’s remarks that there is no statutory basis for past DWP guidance because the speed at whch a person without a disability would normally walk is a question of fact not of law.

I did a PIP appeal for a 34 year old male about a year ago ( won the appeal) and I thought this extract from my submission for that appeal might be useful here:

“According to a meta-analysis of the scientific literature (R.W. Bohannon, A. Williams Andrews / Physiotherapy 97 (2011) 182–189) the average comfortable walking speed for a man of Mr S’s age is 143.3 cm/second (85.98 metres per minute).

It is arguable by analogy from CA/92/92 ( a case where the Commissioner considered the requirement in S72((1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act for a comparison with younger persons in normal physical and mental health ) that this ought to be the speed that a person without a physical or mental condition would normally walk, so in the present case a reasonable time period would correspond to walking speed set at 42.99 metres per minute”

(I attach a copy of Bohannon’s paper )

Just to take a step back from all of this.

The proposition that we seem to be starting from is that if the assessor saw the appellant walk a distance of X in an amount of time Y, then we can get our calculators out and weigh to a nicety which descriptor applies if only we had some reliable measure of what normal walking pace is. The FtT in this case is said to be in error because it did not accept one somewhat arbitrarily chosen estimate of normal walking pace which was once put forward in long withdrawn guidance relating to a defunct benefit.

I don’t think that the FtT was right to reject the DLA guidance on the basis that the particular estimate had no statutory basis, as much as it’s a question really of whether the entire exercise is really a permissible approach to take. Fairly obviously, what constitutes a normal walking speed is going to be a range which is going to differ depending on all manner of factors including the person’s age, height and level of fitness, but also their temperament and mood, whether they have somewhere they need to be, whether they are looking at their phone. etc. etc.

I am left idlily wondering what we would be saying if you were looking at an SOR which went the other way and said “the appellant was observed to walk X metres within an amount of time Y which is said in such and such paper to amount to a reasonable speed so they got no points”.

I wonder whether it might be more helpful to take a broader view as to whether overall the FtT made the necessary findings and gave sufficient reasons for its conclusions on mobility in the round.

I agree with Elliot that it may not be enough just to argue about ” normal” walking speed and that the Tribunal should be looking closely at the HCP’s findings

I had another case where the HCP had stated that the client “walked approximately 60 metres at normal pace without stopping and showed no signs of pain or breathlessnes”

The HCP also reported that the client was “average build”

This begged the question about what a normal pace was and for that matter what average build was, but it was also an opportunity to make more specific criticisims of the HCP report and draw attention to the inconsistencies in the report.

Whilst I agree with much of what Elliot says, I’m not sure that I agree with the conclusion (though it’s entirely possible I’ve misunderstood).

“Normal walking pace” absolutely has a statutory basis - in as much as paras. (2A)(d) and (4)(c) of reg. 4 say that you’re only to be considered to be able perform an activity if (inter alia) you can do so within a reasonable time period, and “reasonable” means taking no more than twice as long as the maximum a person without your disabilities would “normally” take.

Yes, a particular individual, of a specific age and who has no disabilities will nevertheless have a range of walking speeds that may be normal for them. Factor in other individuals of the same age and in the same state of health and there will be an even wider range of what might be normal. But the words (ordinary words, of everyday language) are there in the legislation and have to be applied. Unless they are to be robbed of any effect, or we’re happy with widely inconsistent outcomes, it seems to be there has to be an agreed understanding of what, as a benchmark, might constitute “normal”.

So, I think an argument along the lines of;

1. the HCP assessed the appellant being able to walk a distance of X in Y minutes. The reasons for that finding are given at page (....) of the papers.
2. those findings are also consistent with the appellant’s statements in his PIP2 claim form at pages (.....) of the papers and the report of his consultant at page (......).
3. the Secretary of State has adopted those findings in her decision, but has failed to properly apply them to the activity of moving around.
4. it is, of course, for the tribunal to make its own findings of fact as to the distance the appellant is able to walk and the length of time it might take him to cover that distance.
5. however, if it decides that the HCP’s assessment of these questions is accurate, we submit that the appellant meets the criteria in Activity 2 (c) of Part 3 of Sch. 1 to the PIP Regs and should be awarded 8 points for the activity of moving around as a result. This is because it is clear that on these figures it would take the appellant more than twice the time to accomplish this distance than a non-disabled person would normally take. In the DLA jurisdiction, EMPs were advised that normal walking pace was…..... Though PIP is a different scheme, the question of what might be a normal walking pace (and therefore, also of whether a claimant’s disabilities result in their taking more than twice the time to complete the activity of walking the distance set out in Activity 2 (c) than a non-disabled person would normally take) has not changed.

is an entirely legitimate one.

Of course, a tribunal would absolutely be within its rights to say something along the lines that guidance given to EMPs was only ever guidance and that as DLA and PIP are different statutory schemes, it does not apply to the latter. But I’d argue that isn’t enough - it also needs to either propose a different benchmark of what might be the time “normally” taken or make a robust finding that the HCP’s assessment and the appellant’s statements are inaccurate; that the time it would take him is, in fact, significantly less than “twice as long as the maximum period…......would normally take to complete the activity.”

Stainsby - 26 October 2022 06:16 PM

For what its worth Mike 4.2 mph is equivalent to 6.72km per hour.  4.8mph is equivalent to 7.68 km per hour

Given that to score 12 points on PIP mob2, the distance is 20 metres, it would be convenient to translate km/hr into metres per minute, so your speed of 6.72 km/hr translates to a speed of 111.67metres per minute

You are clearly walking at a brisk pace!

Thanks. My Runkeeper app tells me all that :) but it’s interesting to note that it’s near impossible for it to record accurately since Brexit as we have lost access to various satellites used for GPS. For stuff like Strava and Runkeeper the data is presented as being incredibly accurate but has been estimated to be between 10 and 30% out. I can subjectively see this each day when I walk from the same place and to the same place and yet the app records a different distance each day by up to 0.3km.

All this to say that, for me, measurement is a mugs game and not necessarily the correct approach at all. In this instance for example I would have simply disengaged with the HCP report on the basis it is no more than a snapshot subjectively obtained. I’m not sure it needs much more than that. A snapshot addresses nothing of reg. 4.  When tribunals try to engage on the minutiae of whether 60m is 50m or whether slow is really slow I’m not really interested. The point is that it’s a snapshot.

past caring - 27 October 2022 11:46 AM

Whilst I agree with much of what Elliot says, I’m not sure that I agree with the conclusion (though it’s entirely possible I’ve misunderstood).

I think my main point has been made more neatly by Mike:

Mike Hughes - 27 October 2022 11:51 AM

All this to say that, for me, measurement is a mugs game and not necessarily the correct approach at all. In this instance for example I would have simply disengaged with the HCP report on the basis it is no more than a snapshot subjectively obtained. I’m not sure it needs much more than that. A snapshot addresses nothing of reg. 4.  When tribunals try to engage on the minutiae of whether 60m is 50m or whether slow is really slow I’m not really interested. The point is that it’s a snapshot.

I am not sure that the Tribunal was really required to get into the weeds of determining whether the HCP’s observation of the appellant walking 40 metres in a minute did or did not constitute a walking pace which complied with reg 4(2A) as much as it was required to reach a series of findings and give reasons for a conclusion that, considering all of the evidence in the round, the appellant was able to complete the activity of moving around in an amount of time which was “no more than twice as long as the maximum period that a person without a physical or mental condition which limits that person’s ability to carry out the activity in question would normally take to complete that activity”.

The argument having been made, it should have been addressed but I don’t know that it is material if the Tribunal’s remaining findings are sufficient to justify it’s conclusion. Which I suppose is what I am suggesting may be the better place to direct attention.

Elliot Kent - 27 October 2022 12:12 PM

The argument having been made, it should have been addressed but I don’t know that it is material if the Tribunal’s remaining findings are sufficient to justify it’s conclusion. Which I suppose is what I am suggesting may be the better place to direct attention.

I think you and Mike and I are a lot closer on this than our posts suggest - it’s a difficulty partly as a result of us not having sight of the SOR, nor the totality of the evidence that was in front of the tribunal and also of the OP focussing on this one issue.

Absolutely, Mike is right - measurement is a mug’s game and the HCP report no more than a (very subjective) snapshot.  Certainly, I think it would be time for me to hang up my boots if I found myself reduced to arguing, “the HCP says my client would take A minutes to walk B distance, this is more than twice the time it would take for a healthy person to walk that distance - the DLA assessment guide says so - please allow the appeal.”

I suppose that I’m saying no more than it’s a valid point to make that (to put it another way) “Even on the Secretary of State’s own case, the appellant should score points for mobility activity (....); the SoS’s decision is that my client is, for the majority of the time, able to walk X distance in Y time - this is more than twice the time it would normally take an able bodied person to cover that distance.”

But if that’s the totality of your argument, yes, you do risk a tribunal doing the work that you should have done - and exploring issues and making robust findings of fact that result in it disallowing the appeal but for better reasons than the SoS had when refusing the claim. I was trying to get at that in my last paragraph, but perhaps it’s time to turn my attention to the work I should be doing and have been putting off….... :)