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
sooo... by 'big and ugly steet signs and things on poles'... does that mean theyl take away all the rediculous looking speed cams? :P
Report abuse
Great idea, if: Delivery vehicles only at night No taxis 20mph speed limit severe penalies for any road user (foot or wheel) comiting traffic offence
Report abuse
Its not the vehicle drivers I fear as a pedestrian but the cyclists and electric wheelchair users as they currently dont bother to stop at pedestrian lights and completely ignore all road signs perhaps they dont believe the highway code refers to them . So removing all current signs will just encourage cyclists to believe that no one else uses the highways apart from themselves.
Report abuse
A remarkably stupid idea that completely disregards the blind and partially sighted.
Report abuse
And so, older people and those with sight impairment will have to rely on their sixth sense to avoid the vans and delivery vehicles trying to find their way without signs. It's dangerous enough in most streets with A Boards and Cafe Furniture, signs, bollards and the like but adding vehicles and removing the tactile reference points for blind and partially sighted people is not going to make the streets better, safer or accessible. What happened to basic common sense and consideration for disabled and older people? Chris Hedges, CEO Open Sight (Working With Sight Loss)
Report abuse
It would not be wise to use this system in Hounslow, most of the drivers here seem to be maniacs, they see a bit of open road and whoom the foot goes down on the accelerator, pedestrians try to cross the roads at their peril. To use this system here would be slaughter on the roads.
Report abuse
Shared spaces is no substitute for pedestrian only areas - it relies on creating anxiety in the minds of drivers and the people on foot to be constantly aware of the danger in order to remain safe. The result is a recipe for being ill at ease instead of relaxed and is no way to create an enjoyable public open space which people can properly enjoy. As indicated in the report, shared space creates hazards for blind and deaf people, while also relying on high volumes of pedestrians to slow the traffic. It's a pity the idea of shared space hasn't been buried with its inventor.
Report abuse
The so called traffic enhancement in bideford is a waste of money , this scheme wouldnt work in Bideford ,as all the drivers can`t drive propperly . Ashford in kent have this brighton systerm and works very well.But i do say it would not work in bideford or north devon as the driving standerds are poor.
Report abuse
How would insurance claims get dealt with, I mean how would they prove who had right of way, who was responsible for the accident etc, the car or the pedestrian. Jackie
Report abuse
Boy racers can't read anyway.
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