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
This same @#$% scheme is in operation in Ashford Kent, in a part that used to be the old ring road, why they got rid of the old ring road i shall never know. It now takes twice as long to get through Ashford than it used to due to there being a set of traffic lights every 100 yards. The ring road used to be one way , then some bright spark decided to make it two way , then after spending loads of our money doing that, they then thought " i have a @#$% idea" we shall just waste some more money and mess the whole town up again. IT'S AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN, unless there hasn't already been one, GET RID OF IT. just another waste of OUR taxpaying money.
Report abuse
ridiclious idea,DANGEROUS,especially for young children,some half witted drivers can't drive can't even drive with warning signs about and have no concerns about who they hurt,what happens when there is an accident when a pedestrian is killed does the driver get away with it,remember there are no signs warning of pedestrians or speed limit signs.It's a stupid idea but i am sure some idiot goverment official will think it's a good one,and thousands of pounds spent looking into the possibility.
Report abuse
we have it in ashford and its a disaster i have to say. Bad idea
Report abuse
What a bloody stupid,dangerous idea !!!!!!!!!
Report abuse
I think in pedestrian dominated areas this is a good idea, as traffic tends to flow slower through these sorts of areas anyway. And as a driver myself, I do pay more attention when there is no signage and I have to make my own decisions. The Nannying has all become a bit too 'jobsworth', it's a case of when is enough enough? Case in point the dot matrix signs over the motorways. Do I really need to be told not to drink and drive on my journey down the M6? Or that I should be wearing a seatbelt? Or the best one yet - check your oil. Oh ok, I'll just pull over on the hard shoulder then.......
Report abuse
i went to ashford the other day to one of those 'shared spaces' and it leathal. There is no priotry on the roundbouts mean accidents are bound to happen. If you've got an old car (over 20 yrs old) and a person walks out in front of you, you will not be able to stop in time. Its lethal to the bind as they don't know what is road/[pavement.
Report abuse
The comments are mainly strong comment on traffic management in general, and some well-founded such as concerns for the partially sighted, but very little objective comment on the schemes mentioned in the article. It is tempting to conclude that most comments are therefore ill-informed and not necessarily useful to the debate. In my experience the major objection to proposals to introduce such schemes comes from traders who see the perceived reduced access by customers' vehicles and the removal of parking spaces outside their premises as terminally damaging their businesses. The opposite view is that increasing the visual attractiveness of an area and making it more attractive to pedestrians (it's they, not their cars, that enter shops and spend money) will increase footfall and trade. It would be valuable to learn of Brighton's experience in this context. I will ask them.
Report abuse
I have no experience of this system in Holland, Brighton or anywhere else, which probably puts me in the same category as most of the people commenting. But why the assumption that Dutch drivers are different from us? They have their share of reckless drivers and blind pedestrians (and seemingly blind motorists and reckless pedestrians) and if their experience is that it can work for heavens sake give it a try. As with any idea it won't be appropriate everywhere but each site on its merits. And learn from the Dutch how to help disabled people. The number of signs is partially a different problem; the sheer number of signs on our roads has surely exceeded the capacity of many drivers to read them and concentrate on the increasingly busy road conditions. e.g. what's the point of signs asking us to drive carefully? are we really going to drive differently because of them?
Report abuse
I`ve come across similiar schemes in U.K. and E.U.,Oxford had one and Tib St. market in Manchester was another. Funnily enough I found them relaxing and enjoyed driving down them, it`s slow driving, but people speak to you and each other,it`s interesting. I do agree with `originalspikky`, cyclists are something else, perhaps they should pay ` tax and insurance `, like in a lot of other countries, make them more accountable and even safer, ignorant doodees.
Report abuse
The removal of traffic lights to allow traffic to move more freely is a recipe for disaster, with so many impatient lunatic drivers taking chances at junctions in over populated Britain.
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