In the second in our series on driving schemes, we look at roads where pedestrians have vehicles share the same space. Could it work in your town?
What's the big idea?
Shared Space is a concept pioneered by the Dutch traffic management expert Hans Monderman (now deceased). Monderman's idea was that the excess of visual stimuli that drivers have to contend with was hindering, not helping, safe driving. Without all the signage telling you what to do where, drivers have to read the road ahead and become more responsive.
Shared Space was first trialled in the Dutch village of Makkingen in 1998. A larger scheme was installed in the town of Drachten in 2003. Traffic lights and signage were removed. A major junction, which once had lights on each exit, and pedestrian crossings over each branch, was cleared of all its markings. And pavements were lowered to the same level as the road surface. Drivers entering the junction must negotiate with one another, and pedestrians, in order to clear the junction.
Surprisingly the scheme has been an almost unqualified success. Drachten now has a better traffic flow, and accidents have fallen from eight per year to a statistical zero.
The success of the Drachten scheme has led to similar developments elsewhere in the world, including Australia and Germany.
In Britain the first small-scale Shared Space scheme opened in Brighton in 2007. New Road is a popular entertainment destination lined with bars and theatres, opposite the city's historic Royal Pavilion.
Brighton and Hove City Council resurfaced the entire street (pavement and roadway) with block paving, so that pedestrians and vehicles were on the same level. Only a slight gradation of stone, and the position of street furniture, gives a visual clue as to where pavement ends and street begins.
The Brighton scheme has resulted in significantly lower volumes of motorised traffic (93 per cent down), travelling at lower speeds - an average 10 mph - and a corresponding rise in cycle traffic (a 93 per cent increase). Pedestrian traffic has increased by 162 per cent.
Similar schemes have also been introduced in central London (Kensington High Street and Seven Dials, Covent Garden) and a more comprehensive scheme is being built in Ravenswood near Ipswich.
Arguments for
Better traffic flow. The removal of traffic lights allows traffic to flow more freely. That means less pollution and shorter journey times. It also saves councils money on the maintenance of expensive traffic control systems.
Reduced accidents. When cars approach junctions, they do so at lower speeds. Drivers, disorientated by the lack of signage, have to concentrate more carefully on the roads. Better concentration equals better safety.
Aesthetics. City centres have become cluttered with ugly signs, red routes, yellow lines, pedestrian crossings and traffic light pillars. Shared Space removes most of these unnecessary visual distractions, allowing for pleasant landscaping. In Drachten, for instance, the roundabout has been replaced with decorative fountains.
Not nannying. Drivers are sick and tired of taxes, regulations and signs telling them what to do. Shared Space is an antidote to the nanny state approach to driving. It recognises drivers' intelligence and allows them, not the traffic lights, to make the decision of when to enter the junction.
Arguments against
Stealth pedestrianisation. Brighton cabbies will tell you that increased pedestrian use on New Road is nothing to do with the Shared Space concept. They argue that most private drivers don't realise that they can drive down the road, because it looks so much like a pedestrian zone. Certainly taxis and commercial vehicles greatly outnumber private cars.
Disabled pedestrians. Groups campaigning on behalf of the deaf, blind and other pedestrians with disabilities have criticised shared space schemes. Assistance dogs are trained to recognise raised kerbs and barriers. Pelican crossings are easily identifiable to blind people because of bumps in the paved surface. Removing these visual and tactile aids are a step backwards in provision for people with disabilities.
Idiots. Shared Space schemes rely on the intelligence and goodwill of the law-abiding majority. But there is no compensating for idiots. There is a small percentage of drivers who view the absence of signage as an invitation to drive as recklessly as they like.
Increased familiarity. Critics argue that Shared Space schemes only work because of their novelty. Drivers used to familiar signage are caught unawares and have to use their wits. But if Shared Space schemes became the norm, drivers would get used to them and pay less attention.
Related links
Smart idea? Have your say...
Is Shared Space common sense, or a recipe for disaster? Would you feel safe crossing the road in Drachten? As a driver, have you encountered Shared Space schemes? Share your thoughts with us below.
More motoring schemes and ideas
One evening about five year ago due to a power cut all the trafic lights in Dover went out .Things ran a.lot smother then so it shows that schemes like that do work as drivers concentate more. Gordon
Report abuse
We have this in Ashford, Kent, works well keeps everyone on their toes!
Report abuse
Why does every scheme on earth try to slow motorists down? We buy cars and motorcycles for that matter to get from place to place quickly. That's what vehicles are for. O.K. if I sound like a petrol head, I am. How about the green issue. Well most modern motor vehicles have a most economic (Best Miles per Gallon) cruising speed at about 50 Miles per hour. If your engine is not happily pulling top gear you are wasting fuel. So there goes the green argument. Any breaking also waists fuel. Other things that waste fuel are stopping for chicanes and going over humps. If we are going to do the motorist justice then we need clear roads where we can get up and go. Pedestrians and petrol head or not that includes me need space where they can get on with there business without having to avoid vehicles. So segregation must be the answer. Oh and cyclists. Cyclists fall into two categories one sensible road users who really need their own roads so they can get up and go without having to avoid potentially dangerous vehicles and stupid pedestrians. and two, idiots (mainly kids) who don't even know there are rules on the road. The ride on any part of the road or pavement, on the road it's normally the wrong side, they never carry lights even on unlit roads on moon less nights. Basically they need locking up before some poor sole is blamed for running them over. So let's have three quick safe and separate systems and nut house for the few who can't use them. David Bull.Why does every scheme on earth try to slow motorists down? We buy cars and motorcycles for that matter to get from place to place quickly. That's what vehicles are for. O.K. if I sound like a petrol head, I am. How about the green issue. Well most modern motor vehicles have a most economic (Best Miles per Gallon) cruising speed at about 50 Miles per hour. If your engine is not happily pulling top gear you are wasting fuel. So there goes the green argument. Any breaking also waists fuel. Other things that waste fuel are stopping for chicanes and going over humps. If we are going to do the motorist justice then we need clear roads where we can get up and go. Pedestrians and petrol head or not that includes me need space where they can get on with there business without having to avoid vehicles. So segregation must be the answer. Oh and cyclists. Cyclists fall into two categories one sensible road users who really need their own roads so they can get up and go without having to avoid potentially dangerous vehicles and stupid pedestrians. and two, idiots (mainly kids) who don't even know there are rules on the road. The ride on any part of the road or pavement, on the road it's normally the wrong side, they never carry lights even on unlit roads on moon less nights. Basically they need locking up before some poor sole is blamed for running them over. So let's have three quick safe and separate systems and nut house for the few who can't use them. David Bull.
Report abuse
Sounds great, but these schemes are very expensive, with major expenditure on paving. Brighton does not really have a lot of money to spend on a scheme like this, even though this one looks very nice, and enhances the frontage of the Theatre Royal and the Pavilion Gardens. When our Brighton street desperately needed resurfacing - it is not in the tourist centre - they chewed up the existing road finish and mixed it with a bit of new tarmac. This 'recycling' was due to 'lack of funds'. According to today's Sunday Telegraph, Brighton's elderly inhabitants pay the second highest feesin the country if they receive home care services (£420 a week for three hours a day if they have savings of more than £23,000). In Scotland in in two London Boroughs there is no charge. Priorities?
Report abuse
This is a timely story - As I was out in Brighton lastnight, as a pedestrian, and happened into New Road on my way back to the station (for the last train home at 11.37pm - a better train service for this city would be a better way of reducing traffic - though I'm sure the hotel and taxi industries of Brighton would prefer it left as it is). I was walking up the the pedestrian appearing road only to be faced by a taxi hurtling towards me - I was unsure which way to step to get out of his way - he was dominant and obviously aggrivated by my presence in his path, as he didn't slow down until he was right in front of me. I'm afraid that although i agree with the idea of removing the nanny atititude, there are some that will not see the need to proceed with caution when using these 'shared spaces'. The most powerful user will dominate the niche and that may lead to fatalities. It has obviously become a quick route for those that know they can drive in it and that appears to be mainly taxis.
Report abuse
Jesus, that idea will never work in the UK, it will be like driving in India or somewhere...
Report abuse
Come on! And what did Hans Monderman die of, traffic related?
Report abuse
this couldnt work in my town as people drive like maniacs !
Report abuse
Hi leec2002, I take it you have never been a pedestrian then in your entire life. What an awful world we would live in if you had your way. Too many cars in too small a country, thats the main problem pal, get real eh !
Report abuse
I think such concepts are pioneered in developed countries like UK but have evolved and are a reality in develoing nations like India and Bangladesh
Report abuse
Comment on this article
Please login to post a comment. Log In
Not already a Yahoo! User? Sign up to get a free Yahoo! Account