Shared Space Debate

[Barks]

In every other area of our lives ‘near misses’ are given close attention, especially in cases involving industrial machinery, aircraft and boats. Not those involving cars though - is it simply political in that our representatives are fearful of waging a ‘war on the motorist’?

[Vorpal]

Shared space seems to mean something different in a car centric road culture than it does in a people first road culture.

[mjr]

The concept of shared spaces was probably touted by me as a "possible" answer to narrow terraced rows where cars are routinely parked on the pavements because "there's no alternative". [...] The question is what do you do in the above case? My point was that if the pavement is already driven and parked on and therefore useless as a pavement then you may as well do away with it and make that section of road shared space because currently they don't work for either cars or pedestrians.

Using "shared space" in that situation seems like a perversion of the concept and a complete failure of government, a total surrender to motoring supremacists and their park-anywhere attitude. Ideally, make the terraced streets controlled resident-only parking zones and provide visitor/unregistered car parks on the edge of the zone. As a minimum, site mobile CCTV at random points at peak times and fine every single motorist who drives onto a pavement, whether to park or to avoid queueing.

[mjr]

I believe the RNIB

I would be rather cautious of supporting the RNIB. If I recall correctly, they opposed even simple filtering-out of through motor traffic from the street past their London HQ by closing it with bollards at one end because it would make it more expensive for their high-ups to take taxis to/from the front door.

I get the impression that RNIB are deeply conservative and generally oppose any changes to streets that will disrupt the coping tactics of any blind users whatsoever, even if the finished street should be better or safer for blind users by having far fewer motorists and more tactile guides.

[mjr]

In every other area of our lives ‘near misses’ are given close attention, especially in cases involving industrial machinery, aircraft and boats. Not those involving cars though - is it simply political in that our representatives are fearful of waging a ‘war on the motorist’?

Partly, plus they're in hock to various motoring lobby interests in many and complicated ways, from the construction industry building roads, through the road hauliers moving goods, to assurances given to car makers.

Would it be good for CUK and other organisations to start asking for politicians to end "the war on cycling"? The pathetic £1.90 per person per year recently announced by Boris seems akin to trying to starve cycling out, compared to the £10 rising to £20 recommended by Get Britain Cycling 7 years ago.

[Vorpal]

RNIB campaign against against shared space. They believe that removal of kerbs, pedestrians crossings, etc. are detrimental to blind and partially sighted people.

[mattheus]

RNIB campaign against against shared space. They believe that removal of kerbs, pedestrians crossings, etc. are detrimental to blind and partially sighted people.

Yes, I read this when RNIB were first mentioned. Of course they have a right to their view, and should be listened to, given their vulnerability:

but how far does their Veto go? Plenty of sighted people are dying on our roads - do they get a say?

[Pete Owens]

So would you care to meet me at Poynton and demonstrate your belief in the superiority of conventional high speed highway design for the blind by crossing the A523 to the north of the shared space treatment wearing a blindfold? (see the discussion upthread)

[mjr]

RNIB campaign against against shared space. They believe that removal of kerbs, pedestrians crossings, etc. are detrimental to blind and partially sighted people.

But RNIB campaign against protected cycleways too. They believe that cyclists and zebra crossings are detrimental to blind and partially sighted people, complaining in their consultation response about "cyclists jumping red lights", "ringing their bells angrily" and engaging in "low level anti social behaviour". Rather incredibly, they say "they have experienced more problems with cyclists than motorised vehicles" (probably ignoring that blind walkers killed by motorists don't talk as much) and they ignore that walkers (even blind ones) have priority at side road crossings, preferring to ask for standard-height kerbs to keep them corralled instead of stronger enforcement of that priority.

In short, there seems to be no approach to improving street design which RNIB actually supports! If you support RNIB, you are supporting the current crap motor-centric design, not even the minor improvements in lane width and designs that Pete Owens prefers.

[[XAP]Bob]

The RNIB have an issue, which is a serious issue, that what you really need when you can't see (and I was somewhat in that boat for quite a while in the last couple of years) is that the spaces you navigate should be consistent, so that you can predict when there will be a protected crossing, and that you'll be able to use it in the same way you use any other crossing.

That makes it difficult to support local schemes which change the default behaviour.

It's much harder for the visually impaired than it is for those with either hearing or mobility issues.

And all those lovely sloping surfaces you want - I can't negotiate them on foot, they are one reason I use a wheelchair whilst out and about... I am not alone in having a serious balance disorder.
Of course the moment I am in the chair I *need* those sloping surfaces.

[Richard Fairhurst]

I'd assumed that shared space in Poynton must have fewer cars. 20000 cars a day and shared space is plain ridiculous. No wonder there's so much opposition to this from walking and cycling advocates. That volume of cars and shared space has never and will never be a safe environment for walking and cycling.

Yes. This is the key. Shared space can and does work fine in thousands of locations across Europe with little motor traffic. Many French village centres are effectively shared space. It's a valuable principle in villages and small towns with low car speeds and plenty of pedestrians/cyclists.

But when you try it in an area with high motor traffic levels - Poynton, or Exhibition Road, or Kimbrose Way in Gloucester - it isn't to any real extent "shared". Sure, you can put 100 Everton supporters in the Kop - but if you also have 12,000 Liverpool fans in the same stand, it's not going to be a pleasant experience for them. The mistake British traffic engineers keep making is applying this low-traffic design to high-traffic situations and thinking that it will magically gain the characteristics of a low-traffic location.

[Vorpal]

There are several aspects to the debate about blind and partially sighted folks using shared space. The first is that the UK has generally done a pretty crappy job of implementing shared space. It has sometimes been used in areas where it isn't really appropriate, and is used by some developers as an excuse not to provide pavements or parking. As implement in the UK, shared space is generally less accessible for blind and partially sighted folks.

From that perspective, I understand why they campaign against it. It's rather like the CTC's history of being opposed to segregated cycle infrastructure. The main experience with it was with crap designs.

Shared space implemented correctly should be helpful to blind, and especially partially sighted folks, for whom kerbs are no kindness. However, other environmental queues are needed and seldom provided.

Like with other infrastructure concepts, the Netherlands has design guides for making shared space accessible. Like http://www.eccolo.nl/shared-space/english/#/home/

[Pete Owens]

Do the Dutch or Danes go for shared spaces over segregation?

Shared space is a Dutch concept.

It started with Woonerf designs (literally translated as "living yard", but what we would term home zones) in residential areas. They had pioneered traffic calming applying humps and so on to slow down traffic on conventional streets so the next logical step was do design the street as in intrinsically slow pedestrian space - This sort of thing: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1404199,5.0488265,3a,75y,170.69h,85.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI7vHrAZFF5NxOtmBcQmktQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656. These are now very wide spread.

At the time there were all the same objections as in this thread, but they saw that it worked so the objectors moved their argument - they accepted that it worked but insisted that it was only possible in quiet residential streets with virtually no traffic.

Then they started applying it to busier situations in villages - for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaLhbbtmlE
Again the objecters insisted that all the signs and markings were essential, but the saw that it worked so the objectors shifted their argument again - they accepted that it worked but insisted that it was only possible in quiet villages with very little traffic.

Then they moved on to busier town squares such as Drachten:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.1733891,6.6027532,3a,75y,142.43h,67.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxAYj-u3qO-YvTDNbabGuXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It was then that the idea started to attract international attention.

[Pete Owens]

Yes. This is the key. Shared space can and does work fine in thousands of locations across Europe with little motor traffic.

Although in each every case objecters will have insisted that shared space couldn't work with any traffic at all. Until of course the scheme was implemented - seen to work so they moved on from no traffic - to little traffic.

Many French village centres are effectively shared space. It's a valuable principle in villages and small towns with low car speeds and plenty of pedestrians/cyclists.

And gradually with busier levels of traffic.
"OK it worked with a back street - it cant possibly work for a village"
"OK it worked for a village - but it can't possibly work for a small town"

But when you try it in an area with high motor traffic levels

ie
"OK it worked for small towns - but it can't possibly work on a busy A road"
Which is of course what many of were arguing a decade ago when the idea was proposed for

Poynton

but the thing is it has worked.

Take a look at this thread from the local Poynton forum - when a resident of Bradford on Avon was asking for local experience of the scheme.
http://www.poyntonforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=2745
You will see several example of residents who were worried about the scheme, but changed their minds when they saw the reality. Possibly not all as effusive as:
"Without a doubt the best thing that happened to poynton since I've lived here."
but an overwhelming positive response.

[mjr]

The RNIB have an issue, which is a serious issue, that what you really need when you can't see (and I was somewhat in that boat for quite a while in the last couple of years) is that the spaces you navigate should be consistent, so that you can predict when there will be a protected crossing, and that you'll be able to use it in the same way you use any other crossing.

That makes it difficult to support local schemes which change the default behaviour.

Does consistency have to mean being stuck with 1980s people-hostile road layouts forevermore, as RNIB seem to say? For example, could it be possible to have some standardised marker for the transition from 1980s to modern layout?

And all those lovely sloping surfaces you want

Who wants sloping surfaces?