Shared space is unpopular in the UK, except with the transport consultants that get paid to advocate and design them.
Some of the shared space advocates are prime example of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, e.g. repeatedly stating that Indian/etc roads are safe without too many signs - and continue their "misstatements" even after it is pointed out that in those countries the accident rate is >10 times higher than in the UK! Quite stunning.
If you want a thoughtful, peer-reviewed and financially disinterested assessment of shared spaces, start with "
Shared space: Research, policy and problems. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Transport, Moody, S. and Melia, S."
http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/17937/ That whole document is
well worth reading; the abstract gives a flavour:
Shared space is an approach to street design which minimises demarcations between vehicles and pedestrians. It has become particularly influential in the UK, where a comprehensive study of shared space schemes has informed recently published national guidance to local highway authorities. This article critically examines the claim made in the guidance that it is ‘evidence based’. Primary research reported in the article, examines one of the sites in the ‘official study’, in Ashford, Kent, in greater depth, using video observation and a street survey of pedestrians. The findings show that most pedestrians diverted away from their desire lines, gave way to vehicles in most cases and felt safer under the original road layout. This evidence, and the analysis of the ‘official study’, cast doubt on some aspects of the methodology and its interpretation in the national guidance. The authors conclude that some of the claims made on behalf of shared space have overstated the available evidence, and that caution is needed in implementing shared space schemes, particularly in environments of high traffic flows.The
emphasised bit is "academic fighting talk".
A few of the more notable points are:
surveyed 144 people – a useful but not excessive number (considerably more than the 30 used by the conslutants to "declare success"!)
91% of women felt anxious (58% of men) (p7)
72% are worried about sharing space in Elwick Square (p7)
64% would prefer traditional pavements and crossings (p7)80% felt safer before (p7)
people who used it the most were more likely to want changes (p7)
“I won't let him go [to school] on his own now” (p6)
“I know older people that don't come through here” (p6)
“I know quite a few people that like to avoid the area” (p7)
most pedestrians divert away from their “desire line” (p5). (cf the assertion that 100% of pedestrians moving along desire lines was based on a mere 30 observations! (p3)).
17%-24% of the pedestrians ran across the road (p6)
There are many many other such examples in the UK, including many where, once the novelty has worn off, inhabitants (not remote designers) want to change back to the original.
For the avoidance of doubt, my belief is that in some locations shared spaces can work, but that advocates "conveniently" forget the
necessary prerequisite conditions.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
