Shared Space revisited. The hype continues but in reality it still doesn't work.

If you're unsure about what the term "Shared Space" means, please read the wikipedia article. Note that I disagree with much of that article. The video below shows a real Shared Space, demonstrating how real people interact in this space.

Shared Space has been over-sold around the world. Claims have been made of a reduction of danger which I showed earlier this week doesn't stand up to analysis when compared with better infrastructure designs. It is also often claimed that Shared Space creates a "place" where people feel safe, though many people see the reverse in practice.

This is Somewhat different from what the architect promised.

I first wrote about Shared Space in 2008, especially pointing out problems with the example in Haren. At that time I'd visited relatively few shared spaces but the reality was already quite obviously different from what is presented in pro-shared-space articles.

Since that time, I've visited many shared spaces in the Netherlands and seem common problems in them. When I visited London last year I took time to observe the Shared Space in Exhibition Road and this turned out to have much the same problems as do shared spaces in the Netherlands.

People never look happy when cycling
amongst large numbers of cars.

Yesterday I wrote about how a previous Shared Space in Assen which has had motor vehicles removed from it is now a much more pleasant place to be. You can see for yourself how after removal of motor vehicles from Ceresplein, that part of Assen has become more pleasant. People really do stand around and chat in that area. Today I'm writing about another area of Assen, Kerkplein, which has been made into a Shared Space. Here you see the exact opposite. Due to Shared Space and the resultant domination of motor vehicles in Kerkplein, no-one stands still in this area. No "place" has been created by making this "Shared Space". Everyone who you see here is in a hurry to get to somewhere else instead. I makes for a stark contrast with the Ceresplein. Note that the Ceresplein and Kerkplein videos were made on the same afternoon just minutes apart, one immediately after the other.

In 2008 I pointed out the problems which more vulnerable road users experience in Shared Space areas. I return again today to the theme of Subjective Safety. Unless people feel safe, they won't ride so often. The Netherlands is putting its predominant position as the leading cycling nation in jeopardy by implementing Shared Space.

In 2008 I referred to "a recent road layout change in Assen right next to a 'shared space' style junction". Last year this was made into a formal real shared space and it now looks like this:

The six minute long video shows how people behave on the Kerkplein. Note that while this is edited it didn't take long to collect the material - 20 minutes of raw footage was edited down to six. Similar incidents to those in this video can be seen to occur all day every day at this junction, and at other Shared Space junctions. Note that no-one is standing here enjoying this "place". A very stark contrast with video shot just a few minutes later on the same afternoon showing people doing exactly that on the car-free Ceresplein.

How the Kerkplein has changed
When we moved here in 2008 the Ceresplein was the only Shared Space area in Assen. Kerkplein was as in the photo below - a junction at which there are no rules other than "give way to the right". It's quite common for small and not very busy streets in residential areas to be combined by junctions with priority to the right, but less common for busy junctions. This was almost like a prototype of Shared Space thinking - no traffic signals, no painted lines on the road to show priority. Each participant in traffic had to decide who will take priority, how and why. These junctions are unpleasant to cycle across because you can't rely on motor vehicles coming from your left giving way to you as they are supposed to. Between 2007 and 2012, the Kerkplain was the site of 19 incidents:

The flags show collisions since 2007. There have been 19 reported collisions in total, four involving cyclists and one of which injured a pedestrian. Note that these figures refer to the time while it had this proto-shared-space layout and not to the layout which we have now. Note also that this single intersection was more dangerous than all nineteen roundabouts in Assen and all the simultaneous green traffic light junctions combined.

Before. Proper kerbs, pedestrian
crossings and central reservations

Due to the re-building this area no longer looks as it did in the aerial photo above.

The asphalt has gone, replaced by a tiled surface. The pedestrian crossings and central islands have been removed. A single large and expensive street lamp has been installed to replace normal street-lamps. The road has been narrowed and the pedestrian area on the Northern side outside the Jozefkerk has been widened.

The two junctions have been combined into a "Shared Space".

After. The Kerkplein Shared Space
in Assen during a 2013 study tour.

Unfortunately, not only did the changes made not address the biggest problem with the existing junction - that drivers of cars do not necessarily give way to lighter traffic from their right, but they made other things worse.

This junction has not been made more pleasant or more convenient to use. In my view, this area is now more confusing than before. One of the obvious symptoms of this added confusion is that the junction is more commonly abused by its users than it was before.

There wasn't a problem with people driving cars over the pavement (sidewalk) when that pavement was separated from the road by a kerb.

It wasn't so difficult for pedestrians to cross the road when there were pedestrian crossings.

The changes that have been made were the wrong changes. They have not addressed the existing problems. In fact, the junction is worse to use now than it was before. In particular, the experience of vulnerable road users has been made worse by the changes here. What's more, while the appearance has been improved, this has not become "a place" where people congregate. Because of the traffic this is an unpleasant location. No-one stays here for any longer than they have to. Contrast the video above with one shot in the car-free Ceresplein a few minutes later.

Why write about it now ?

By comparison, this junction in
Assen copes with more traffic and
has a higher speed limit. This
location has proper segregated
provision for cycling so the four
minor incidents here were merely
'fender benders', No cyclists or
pedestrians got hurt. Despite high
traffic levels, no-one feels scared
to cycle here. There are many
well designed roundabouts and
traffic light junctions in Assen.
If you're looking for inspiration
from the Netherlands, look to those
and not to Shared Space.

The work was completed some time ago and people have had enough of a chance to get used to the junction. There is not too much point in making observations immediately after change because of course people take more care when everything is completely unfamiliar and of course there will be many people unsure of what to do. However, enough time has now passed for the people of Assen to be used to this new Shared Space, and the problems remain.

Shared Space does not serve the vulnerable. Rather, it prioritises the powerful.

I've visited many shared space junctions in the Netherlands, in small villages, towns and cities. I've also observed shared space in London. At every single shared space junction that I have seen, motor vehicles come first.

"Pit Canaries" revisited
The result of building infrastructure which puts motor vehicles first is that an unpleasant environment is created for vulnerable road users. One of my very first blog posts was about how cyclists could be seen as the "pit canaries" of the roads. i.e. you can tell whether cycling is healthy in your area depending on who cycles and how. A mainly young adult male demographic and wearing helmets and reflective clothing is an indication of very low subjective safety. In the Netherlands, cyclists do not look like that, but is because of the conditions which cyclists face. Bad spots are rare. Shared Space remains rare.

This woman is crossing Kerkplein with
a child on his own bike. Does she look
happy surrounded by those cars ?

Older cyclists and people with disabilities can be seen as particularly sensitive "canaries". They will be the first to show obvious signs of discomfort and the first to stop cycling. The discomfort is precisely what you can see in the video.

This type of junction, which at the very least causes inconvenience but also scares people, is precisely the sort of thing to build more of if you wish to see cycling become the domain of the brave rather than something which is for everyone.

While many claims are made for Shared Space, no junctions designed as shared spaces are truly "shared". This junction design has failed to achieve any aim other than perhaps to "smooth the flow of traffic". You'll notice that motor vehicles flow very nicely, often not stopping even if they should have given way and often pushing their way past even if this means going very close to people crossing the road by foot or driving over the pavement. It is only by removing both the traffic and the threat of violence that comes with it that conditions result which make walking and cycling pleasant. Remove the "sharing" part of Shared Space and the problems go away.

Why haven't shared spaces led to a drop of cycling in the Netherlands

Kerkplein every day: Cyclists choose
the pavement because this junction is
frightening by bike. What will it take
to make them choose not to cycle ?

Given how unpleasant and stressful Shared Space is as a cyclist, I'm quite sure that it has not led to an increase in cycling. No-one seeks out Shared Spaces by bicycle. No-one ever says they prefer cycling in Shared Spaces vs. on segregated cycle-paths. Even some Dutch traffic planners who I have spoken to have pulled a face and declined to answer when I have directly questioned them as to whether they enjoy cycling through Shared Space.

The truth is that we don't know whether Shared Space has had a negative effect on cycling and it would be very difficult to tell if it has. In any case, as yet, we should expect any such effect to be small.

Another day, another Shared Space
in another town. Cyclist riding on
the pavement because that feels
safer than riding on the road. This
is a very clear signal that the
infrastructure is not good enough to
support mass cycling.

By one means or another, segregation of cyclists from motorized traffic is very nearly 100% in the Netherlands. Shared Space is still very rare so it makes up only a small part of anyone's journeys, and there are usually ample opportunities to take other routes. Also note that Dutch people almost all already cycle. While it is possible that some people might have given up due to dangerous junctions, I think it far more likely that people who are affected and scared adapt their behaviour to unpleasant junctions as seen in the video. i.e. they get off and walk or they cycle on the pavement.

Other nations have almost exactly the opposite situation. Where only the brave cycle, those same brave people are likely to cycle through shared space without finding it appreciably different to any other street. But in these cases while it may be difficult to observe a negative effect we should weigh up the possibility of something else having had a positive effect.

Shared Space is very unlikely to attract cautious people to take up cycling. On the other hand, proper cycle-paths, especially if installed at the required density, have a proven track record of attracting people to cycle.

Local politics

A local political party has complained several times about the dangerous situation at the Kerkplein shared space. They've compared the situation with the "Wild West", describing a situation where drivers go over the pavements and cyclists and pedestrians have to run for their lives.

This has been covered further in the local news and it was an issue in the recent local elections. Hopefully the situation at this junction will soon be improved.

For the architect it's seemingly all about that lamp-post

Myth: According to the architect, the Kerkplein is supposed to look like this - dominated by people walking and cycling. Contrast this view with the video above which shows how this really looks.

The unusually shaped lamp-post on the Kerkplein supposedly "emphasizes the urban renewal and the new identity of the square", "infuses equilibrium in the square, by forming a visual counterpart to the Josefkerk (church) that dominates the square. At the same time, the lamp allows the less dominant buildings opposite the church their own integrity" and was "designed in such as way that the movement of traffic participants across the square is accentuated: the lamp looks different from every angle and seems to move with the spectator."

What amazes me is that people are taken in so often by promises like this. The Kerkplein never looks as shown in the architects imagined images. In reality it looks exactly as shown in my photos and video:

Reality: The Kerkplein is dominated by cars. No-one spends time here on purpose - it's a place which you want to get away from

Reality: The unusually shaped lamp-post is one of very few places in Assen which suffers from fly-tipping. It also gets used to lean bicycles against. Does this "emphasize urban renewal" or somehow "allow the less dominant buildings opposite the church their own integrity" ? Of course not. It's also clearly not managed to "infuse equilibrium" either. Note that even this confident adult cyclist chooses to ride on the pavement and not on the road.

Update: Small note about another example
Poynton in the UK has been the subject of much hype and many claims of improved behaviour and safety. As with other claims about improved safety of Shared Space, which are often made before the real results are known, the claims about Poynton also do not seem to stand up to scrutiny.

In the five years between July 1, 2005 to July 1, 2010, before the Poynton scheme was introduced, there were nine accidents, one of which involved a pedestrian (i.e. 1.8 per year, 0.2 per year involving a pedestrian). Between March 31, 2012 and March 31, 2014, after the Poynton scheme was completed, there have been six accidents, four involving a pedestrian (i.e. 3 per year, 2 per year involving a pedestrian).

Much the same result has been recorded in Dutch shared spaces, e.g. Haren and Drachten and it is to be expected that the Kerkplein in Assen will also cause injuries.

Update January 2018
This junction is still in place and it's still causing chaos. The newspaper article on the right is a call to "tackle this unsafe situation" from one of the local political parties. Why now ? There's been another injury of a vulnerable person: Last week a woman with a disability who walks with a stroller was left with a serious injury. In October there was a another injury of a person with disabilities, this time depending on an electric buggy as shown in the video above, who ended up injured at the side of the road.

Dangerous incidents and crashes are reported on almost a daily basis.

Several things have been tried in attempts to ameliorate the danger, including more strict cutting of trees and installation of brighter streetlights, both in an attempt to improve visibility. i.e. to try to make sure that drivers of motorized vehicles notice the more vulnerable road users. Unfortunately, these attempts have not made a difference.

When this junction first came into use in 2013, complaints were quick to follow. Peoples' concerns were initially played down as something that would reduce over time as everyone got used to the new situation, but there has been no reduction over time.

Shared Space is not safe even for fit able-bodied people. For those with disabilities it is strikingly worse.

Update April 2022

At last there's some action ! The junction has been rebuilt with two pedestrian crossings (there were three with the previous design, none for the Shared Space design), which should at least make it easier for people to cross the road here:

Of course it's still an unpleasant place to be on a bicycle. That's not changed by the crossings. However we are also promised that cycle-lanes will be re-instated here and also along the route to the East, which hopefully will mean that we're no longer used as traffic calming devices.

Half way through writing this article, my friend Terry visited and made the suggestion of opening a Shared Space zoo. "Let the animals and public mix it up a bit". Should be an exciting experience. It might even be safe to walk backwards through such a zoo with your eyes closed, at least if you're selling the concept.

"Shared" no more. An Assen city centre street reclaimed for pedestrians and cyclists

When we moved to Assen, the Ceresplein had quite recently been converted into a de-facto Shared Space. This area accommodated pedestrians, cyclists and drivers mostly on the same surface and it looked like this:

June 2009 image from Google Maps.

The turn that the car is making in the image above was into a street which has been a cycle-path for some years now. However, there's more. Last year this area was changed again. The street is no longer a space where motor vehicles are allowed. In 2013, immediately after the works were finished, it looked like the photo below. It still does:

This photo has nearly the appearance of an architect's mock-up. But in this case it's a genuine photo, taken on 2013. Getting rid of the cars has really civilized this place.

Now from the opposite end. 2009:

Note how the cyclist has been pushed to the side in this view

2013:

The parked cars in the 2009 image have been replaced by buildings and cyclists use the centre part of the streeet without being concerned about cars.

Before 2013, the Ceresplein formed part of a through route which allowed skipping past a traffic light.

The Ceresplein is highlighted in Green. Drivers now have to use the yellow roads to avoid the centre rather than driving through the Ceresplein

This is a now a pedestrian area
which allows bikes in their marked
areas. Bicycles are ridden on the
part which looks like a road. Motor
vehicles are allowed only at specific
times for loading and unloading.
Note that loading times are quite
generous.

Ceresplein was never extremely busy with through traffic and as a result it was never really very dangerous. I suspect this is because there was only ever a small advantage to drivers of using this route rather than sticking to the main route. The only crash requiring hospitalization that I'm aware of came about due to a youngster unwisely jumping in front of a friend's car "as a joke". However, the number of cars passing through here was high enough to be annoying and to change the behaviour of cyclists and pedestrians. Rather than being somewhere where it was pleasant to hang about, most people were anxious to get to somewhere else instead. The current situation is undoubtedly more pleasant. It's better not to have to think about through motor traffic when walking or cycling in this area.

The change in use here has also improved other streets in the city centre. Removing through traffic in the Ceresplein has greatly reduced the use of the streets which once led through traffic to it. This has worked precisely because they now have to leave by the same route as they arrived so there is no longer a reason to come to those streets by car unless you need to. These other streets are now nearly car free and this makes them a lot more more pleasant by bicycle than they used to be.

Pedestrianized - with bicycles
The Ceresplein is now a pedestrianized zone which allows bicycles. This is quite common in the Netherlands (another example) and it works very well with careful design. Such a zone should not be planned as a main through route by bike any more than it should be a main through route by car, but in a space as wide as the Ceresplein this is less of an issue.

It's also important to note that the area for cyclists looks like its an area for cyclists. In fact, it looks like a road. This is a convention which both cyclists and pedestrians are used to. If this space had no clear demarcation of cyclist and pedestrian areas then there would be more conflict.

The video below shows the Ceresplein now. It's now a relaxing space. It's ideal for shoppers, and therefore also for shopkeepers. When cyclists can take their bikes right up to the shops and when they will stay longer because the environment is more pleasant, shopping is made easier:

Compare this film with another film shot the same afternoon of a Shared Space with through traffic a few metres away.

Note that to the best of my knowledge, the Ceresplein was never formally referred to as "Shared Space". However, it had all the characteristics of Shared Space. Unlike other city centre streets in Assen which are nearly car free, this street embraced them. Motor vehicles used this as a through route and was it functionally a shared space. If it quacks like Shared Space and walks like Shared Space then to all intents and purposes, that's what it is...

Because the Ceresplein was never that popular as a through route, it actually worked better than many declared Shared Spaces. However it's still far better now without the through traffic. Certainly far better than an actual shared space a few metres away.

Where the crashes are: Shared Spaces and other poor junction designs which don't protect cyclists lead to crashes and injuries

A useful website shows where all crashes have occurred on Dutch roads. I've used it below to demonstrate the relative safety of different roads and cycle-paths in this country.

Is Shared Space safe ?

The Laweiplein Shared Space "squareabout" in the small town of Drachten, highlighted in red, has been the subject of much hype. Many claims are made for a low accident rate here but the evidence does not support this. In fact, this single intersection is the second most dangerous location in Drachten for cyclists. From the map data you can see immediately how more cyclist crashes and injuries occur here than the conventional Dutch roundabout a few metres to the east. The Laweiplein is not only more dangerous than the nearby roundabout, but far more dangerous than the safest Dutch roundabout design as used in the larger city of Assen a few kilometres away. Assen has twenty-one roundabouts which between them cause fewer cyclist injuries than the Laweiplein "squareabout" causes all on its own. (Blue flags indicate crashes, yellow flags are where injuries occurred due to crashes.)

Drachten is a small town of under 45000 people. The Laweiplein, highlighted in red, has had 10 crashes reported between 2007 and 2012. That's a larger number of reported collisions than any other location close to the city centre. It's also higher than the number of reported crashes (7) on the busier but more conventional (conventional for the Netherlands. i.e. with segregated cycle-path) roundabout a few metres to the east. Also compare with a truly safe roundabout design in Assen a little further down this page.

Cyclists using the pavement to ride around the Laweiplein.
Pavement cycling is a symptom of inadequate subjective safety
at this junction, a problem common to many shared spaces.

The nature of the crashes at the Laweiplein are also interesting. While safe roundabout design results in cyclists and pedestrians being isolated from crashes between cars, the Laweiplein seeks to mix cyclists with motor vehicles. Even though many cyclists ride on the pavement rather than the road because they know the road isn't safe, the Laweiplein still managed to involve four cyclists in crashes and injure three of them. The more conventional roundabout which serves much of the same traffic a few metres to the east involved only one cyclist in a crash and that cyclist was not injured.

It would appear that the Laweiplein is more dangerous for vulnerable road users - a problem which has often been noted with Shared Space. The safety record of the Laweiplein clearly does not justify the hype from Shared Space enthusiasts and this design should not serve as an example for future developments. It would likely have been safer had this junction been given a more normal roundabout treatment.

Drachten crashes, injuries and deaths 2007-2012. Does this
really look like it's been reduced to "1 per year" ?

Many sources, Wikipedia included, include a claim that "yearly accidents were reduced to 1" in the centre of Drachten due to the introduction of Shared Space. This claim does not stand up to much investigation. Even the Laweiplein on its own has double the claimed accident rate for the entire city centre, and that's just one junction. Look at the rest of the city centre, part of which is shown right, and you see many more. The claim of there being just one accident per year simple does not stand up to any analysis at all.

The Laweiplein "squareabout" on its own is the site of more cyclist injuries than all 21 roundabouts and all the Simultaneous Green traffic light junctions in Assen combined. Far from adding to cyclist safety, he Laweiplein is the second most dangerous location in Dracthen for cyclists. This should not be regarded as a safe design.

Update 2018: Unfortunately, people continue to make the claim that the Laweiplein is safe and this results in other places trying to repeat that "success". The actual result is unsurprisingly that more junctions are built in a similar style which actually are quite unsafe. Another "Shared Space" roundabout built in 2017 has been named as the most unsafe roundabout in the Netherlands.

The Shared Space area of Haren is highlighted in red. The Shared Space layout road through Haren is where the largest concentration of crashes has occurred in this town between 2007 and 2012.

We visit this town on our study tours, cycling into the town on the relatively safe cycle-path which leads from the South East in this image and leaving on the relatively safe cycle-path to the North West. You can see quite clearly how the road both South and North of the Shared Space area has far fewer crashes than does the Shared Space itself.

A six year old blog post discusses some of the many problems in Haren and none of my objections from that time have changed.

Shared Space does not work well. The number of crashes which have occurred should speak for themselves. Claims have been made for enhanced safety in Haren just as in Drachten, but these are all in comparison with an earlier road layout with higher speed limits. It is probably that a more normal modern Dutch street layout would be safer than the current shared space. For example, the nearly car free streets in the centre of Assen (a have a much better safety record even though Assen's population is more than three times greater than Haren.

Also note the cluster of two blue and two yellow flags on top right of the image. These are residential roads which serve as a rat-run in Haren. They're over-used by speeding through traffic at rush hour times because drivers as well as cyclists seek to avoid the Shared Space and it was on these roads at rush-hour that I experienced the closest thing to real road rage that I've ever seen in the Netherlands.

Update: Shifting goal-posts - three more examples
No discussion of the shortcomings of Shared Space is ever complete without the sound of goal-posts being shifted. There are as many opinions about what Shared Space "really is" as there are advocates for it. Naturally, this blog post has resulted in the same attempts to paint any given examples as "not actually shared space" or as unusual "bad" examples.

I didn't pick the examples above because they were particularly bad, but merely because they've been discussed often. The wikipedia page claim about Drachten has come up many times and I've written about Haren before. Actually, neither of these two examples are particularly dangerous as Shared Spaces go.

Here are three extra examples showing the frequency of collisions at other shared spaces in the Netherlands, including those designed by Hans Monderman himself:

Quite near the Laweiplein in Dracthen is "De Kaden", another much lauded Shared Space. The Noordkade and Zuidkade run on either side of car parking and trees from left to right on this map. The junctions on this street, at either end and in the middle, have shared space designs and each junction has seen incidents. In total, there have been more than 40 incidents between 2007 and 2012. This is a worse record than the Laweiplein, illustrated above. At an average of eight per year, this short road, an example of Shared Space, has as many crashes each year as some Shared Space advocates claim was the total for the entire city centre before Shared Space supposedly reduced the total. And these are not just crashes without consequence: there have been four injuries to cyclists and two to pedestrians. The total number of incidents is similar to that for the most dangerous junction in the Netherlands, shown a little further down this page.

The main street through Muntendam, a village of only 4500 people, is a shared space. There's a line of incidents stretching the entire length of the shared space from top left to bottom right on the map.

Oosterwolde is a town of less than 10000 people. The shared space follows the red line on the map. Other streets in Oosterwolde also lack segregated infrastructure, particularly the west-east route at the bottom of the map. In my experience, it's not a very pleasant place to cycle.

There are many other examples. For instance, both the small villages of Onnen (population 430) and Boornbergum (less than 1500) have had fatalities within their shared spaces. However, I don't consider that we can find very much significance in such a small amount of data from villages like this. There is too much variation over time. The same applies, of course, for claims of a miraculous lack of incidents in other small villages.

I think it's sufficient to say that exaggerated claims of safety are made for shared space. Shared space should not be considered to be a magic bullet which removes danger. The one thing shown repeatedly to remove danger is slowing, restricting and removing motorized vehicles from where people walk and cycle. This applies especially to through traffic. Of course, when you take those vehicles away, the space is no longer shared. Read other blog posts about Shared Space, including video.

Not all dangerous roads and intersections in the Netherlands are Shared Space. Read on for other examples:

Roundabouts

Not all Dutch roundabouts are created equal. We visit this roundabout in Groningen on study tours as an example of something not to emulate. No fewer than 38 collisions have taken place here between 2007 and 2012, including several injuries to both cyclists and pedestrians.

The design of roundabout shown above is not one which we recommend. It doesn't work well in the Netherlands and given the relative lack of experience of non-Dutch drivers with this layout I'd expect it to work even less well in other nations. For that reason, we recommend instead taking note of the safest design of roundabout design used in Assen.

Genuinely safe design: At this example of the safest design of roundabout used in the Netherlands there were just four "fender benders" between cars. No injuries to anyone and no cyclists or pedestrians were involved at all.

This roundabout in Assen is exceptionally well designed and has proven to be safe. Cyclists are segregated properly from drivers on this roundabout and the design makes it easy for everyone to see what they should be doing.

Just four incidents occurred at this roundabout between 2007 and 2012. All of them involved only motor vehicles and there were no injuries. We will look closely at the features of this roundabout on this year's study tours.

Read more about safe roundabout design.

Simultaneous Green junctions
Where a roundabout is not the right solution, traffic light junctions may be required instead. The safest traffic light junction design uses Simultaneous Green lights for cyclists. Read more information at that link about this very safe design.

The most dangerous junction in the Netherlands

Another site that we visit on the study tours in order to see how and why it doesn't work well is this complex junction, a gyratory which is the most dangerous road junction in the whole of the Netherlands. 29 collisions have occured at one side of this gyratory and another 10 at the other. While there is segregated cycling infrastructure at this junction, it's not well designed.

Every user of this junction has too much to take in. Cyclists, pedestrians and drivers all make mistakes all the time. You can see this in a video. We use this junction to demonstrate what not to do.

What causes crashes ?

The line made up by blue and yellow flags on the left is the motorway. No cycling is allowed on the motorway and all these crashes were between motor vehicles. The line highlighted in red is the equivalent main North-South route by bicycle, a busy cycle-route here in Assen. This cycle-path supports riding at very high speeds and is well used by racing cyclists as well as by recreational riders and the occasional dog walker.

No reported crashes have occurred on the cycle-route between 2007 and 2012. Crashes occur predominantly where cars are. Unravelling of routes keeps cyclists from danger.

In another example, rural roads are also punctuated regularly by blue and yellow flags. Only one of the flags on this map shows a collision between a car and a bike all of the others are between cars or between cars and inanimate objects. For example, the blue flag at the bottom involved a tree "in collision with" a car.

Cycling takes place almost entirely on segregated cycle-paths in this area and these have a very good safety record in comparison with roads. This is most easily observed on the map from the cycle-route along the red line, a very peaceful and popular car free recreational cycle-path which is entirely separated from the road. On that route, where cars are excluded, there have been no collisions at all.

Conclusion

We demonstrate good practice on study tours
as well as showing what not to do

Just because something is "Dutch", that doesn't mean it's good. The Netherlands has many excellent examples, but you have to be very selective about what serves as a model.

Cyclists fare best where their interactions with motor vehicles are limited and controlled. They fare best where infrastructure ensures that minor mistakes do not result in injuries.

Anywhere that we rely upon everyone behaving perfectly but where we do not protect the most vulnerable, there will be injuries.

Good design takes human nature into account and removes the causes of danger from those who are most vulnerable.

More updates on Shared Space and danger
16 April 2014
The BBC recently reported on Blackett Street, a Shared Space in Newcastle in the UK. They say that there is an "area of concern is Blackett Street, where four accidents have taken place in two years". People world-wide need to start to take note of how dangerous Shared Space has proven to be.

December 2014
Poynton in the UK has been the subject of much hype and many claims of improved behaviour and safety. As with other claims about improved safety of Shared Space, which are often made before the real results are known, the claims about Poynton also do not seem to stand up to scrutiny.

In the five years between July 1, 2005 to July 1, 2010, before the Poynton scheme was introduced, there were nine accidents, one of which involved a pedestrian (i.e. 1.8 per year, 0.2 per year involving a pedestrian). Between March 31, 2012 and March 31, 2014, after the Poynton scheme was completed, there have been six accidents, four involving a pedestrian (i.e. 3 per year, 2 per year involving a pedestrian).

This data suggests that the accident rate in Poynton for all users after shared space was introduced is 67% higher than it was before. The accident rate for pedestrians is now 10x greater than before.

Shared Surfaces. A video showing the problems that blind people have with negotiating the Shared Space in Poynton. Note the incident with a frustrated pedestrian at 3:50.

Ashford
The Shared Space in Ashford, Kent (UK) opened in 2008. According to a local source, the heralded improvement in safety has not been seen. The exact same number of collisions and injuries occured in the four years after the shared space redesign of a street in that town as happened in the four years before. This may sound almost benign, but while there were no serious injuries in the four years leading up to 2008, there were two serious injuries in the four years after 2008. The numbers are small, but they point to the situation becoming worse in Ashford rather than better.

Who was Shared Space ever for ?
A document from 2007 claimed a dramatic improvement in safety on the Laweiplein in the first two years after it was converted to shared space, but as you can see from the figures at the top of this article, the claimed short term benefit does not appear to have continued in the longer term.

It's also interesting to read some of the text in the 2007 document. "Public perceptions of traffic safety have declined since 2000, with around 45% responding “poor” or “bad” to opinions on traffic safety compared to 3 0% in 2000. A significantly higher proportion of elderly people are negative about traffic safety now( 47% compared to 3 8% before)." It is also interesting to note that "Public perceptions of the ability of traffic to flow freely have changed dramatically from 2000 to 2005 . In 2000, 66 % rated congestion “bad”; by 200 this proportion had fallen to 5 %."

It has been my contention for many years now that the better flow of motorized traffic claimed for Shared Space is achieved at the expense of vulnerable road users. Both the convenience and safety of vulnerable road users are compromised by Shared Space. This is what I have observed in every Shared Space that I have visited. It can be observed quite dramatically in two of my videos, of a Shared Space junction in Assen and of Exhibition Road in London.

Where are the advocates ?
I've been writing about the problems with Shared Space since 2008. In the last six years there have been many hand-waving attempts to "prove" safety but no actual statistics have turned up.

What there have been are attempts to move the goal posts. This takes the form of claims that there's some better "shared space" which really works, either some other site than whichever one it was that I last wrote about, or perhaps some future design.

There have also been emotive suggestions that Shared Space is safe, even including "appeals to authority". For example, I was recently informed that Hans Monderman was a genius, that I should respect him for that reason and therefore not disagree. As it happens, I have a lot of respect for the man and I think it very unfortunate that he is no longer here to defend and, where necessary, perhaps improve upon his ideas. However that does not mean any of us should take his work as beyond criticism and we certainly should not assume that other peoples' interpretations of his ideas are beyond criticism.

Actual evidence in favour of the safety of Shared Space, especially for vulnerable road users, seems to be seriously lacking. Available statistics do not support  the proposition that this is a safe way to design streets.

June 2014 update. Steve Melia
Please read Steve Melia's webpage and article about how Shared Space guidance lacks "evidence-based policy".

He says "The key message for transport planners and urban designers concerned about sustainability and the pedestrian experience is that sharing space with traffic is no substitute for traffic removal". I concur. While Shared Space does not achieve these objectives, Nearly Car Free streets do.

Shared Space in Haren

Shared Space: Cyclists followed closely by a
taxi keen to overtake

Over the last few years there has been much buzz in the press outside this country about Shared Space. This is the idea that if you get rid of separation between different modes of transport that everyone will be forced to interact on a more human level and a reduction of accidents will result.

It shows a remarkable faith in human nature to expect this to happen, and I'm sure we'd all like it to be true. But is it true, or is this just a case of The Emperor's New Clothes ?

Shared Space - Does the cyclist fit in that gap ?

The idea started over here in the Netherlands with Hans Monderman, who achieved some fame with these ideas before his untimely death earlier this year. I am sure that his intentions were entirely good, but having lived with the results of this type of planning for a while now, I think it is time to cut through the hype that even Hans acknowledged surrounded his work.

Shared Space - pedestrians have to wait for
gaps in traffic before running across the road

There are quite a few Shared Space influenced areas near where we now live. These photos were taken in Haren, a suburb of Groningen about 25 km north of Assen.

The centre of Haren is very busy and cyclists really need to look out there. By Dutch standards, I find it not a very pleasant place to cycle. It's the only place that I've had to do an emergency stop in this country to avoid a crash and if the Shared Space part of the town was any more than a few hundred metres long, I think I'd take another route to completely avoid it.

Take a look at the photos that I took on the way through. There are cyclists being pursued by a taxi, another who has been overtaken as he pulled out to get around a parked car, a pedestrian at the side of the road who is having trouble getting a chance to cross, and, well, cars, cars and more cars. Some of them blocking the pavement. At least the speed limit is just 30 km/h, and Dutch drivers seem more aware of their responsibilities towards vulnerable road users than some of those elsewhere.

Shared Space - cars, cars, cars. It's not for bikes.

I am far from the only person to see Shared Space in this way.

If you watch this video about Haren you will see a comment by youtube user "dgoedkoop" which reads "Heel wijs om alleen op de winkeliers in te gaan, en niet op de weggebruikers. Want de fietsers zijn er zeker niet blij mee, dat de fietspaden zijn weggehaald!

Dat lijkt sowieso het grote nadeel van Shared Space, want in het filmpje uit Drachten kwam ook al naar voren dat er 'slechts' enkele ongelukken met fietsers waren gebeurd."

This translates as "It looks like what the shop-keepers wanted, not the road users. Cyclists certainly are not happy that the cycle paths have been removed. It looks like the great problem with Shared Space, as seen in the video from Drachten, is that 'just a few' crashes between cars and cyclists have been caused."

Shared Space - more cars, few bikes

That is far from the only criticism. The link above about "hype" includes a quote starting "Ik woon zelf in Haren..."

This translates as "I live in Haren where Mr Monderman has convinced the local government that his philosophy is best. Now, many residents of Haren find the situation has become less safe. It is true that more accidents have not resulted, but the subjective safety has got worse. People feel less safe in the new situation. I think that many more near-accidents occur."

"According to Monderman, pedestrians and drivers have to be friendlier and to look out for one another, and then zebra crossings and suchlike are not needed. It doesn't work in practice. At the insistence of many organisations (parents organisations, Fietsersbond (the cyclists union), several zebra crossings have been laid."

Cartoon in the Fietsersbond newsletter

In general, cyclists do not like it. Fietsersbond has objected a few times, including in an article in the November 2007 issue of their newsletter "Vogelvrije Fietser" (that's where the cartoon comes from).

This acknowledges that Monderman had become a hero outside the country, but also includes many negative comments from cyclists in the Netherlands.

There are comments from cyclists who are interviewed in which they say that they have to look out much more and that they don't like it. That it has lead to an atmosphere of "might is right" in which some cyclists come off worse, and that it makes people less happy to cycle.

It should be noted that while there are more Shared Space areas here than elsewhere, they are still comparatively rare in this country. There are around 100 areas designed in this way, mostly just single junctions in the centres of villages and small towns. Segregated cycle paths continue to join these places together, and in most cases the majority of the infrastructure is still designed on traditional, successful, Dutch lines with a high degree of segregation of cyclists. If you've heard of Dutch infrastructure increasing the number of cyclists, that is where to look as that is what 99% of the infrastructure looks like. The majority of the infrastructure is designed to avoid conflict in line with sustainable safety principles which have lead to an improvement in safety in the Netherlands.

Pavement cycling is very rare in the Netherlands because
cyclists have cycle-paths. However, cyclists feel unsafe in
Shared Space so they use the "pavement" parts of these areas
even though it's not allowed. Not good for pedestrians. 

To me, Shared Space is at its most successful in small villages of just a couple of hundred homes which already had little traffic and where there is really not much of a problem to start with. In bigger places, it can be quite unpleasant.

Pedestrian crossings had to be installed because it turned
out that drivers don't "share" with people crossing the road.
This crossing then had to be moved because it did not work
in the original location, close to other things which
drivers had to concentrate on. Note that the cyclist feels
the need to ride far to the right in "the door zone"

One of the reasons why the Dutch have had such success with controlling traffic is that they try things out. Shared space is but one of a series of brave experiments. I am sure that the better aspects of it will continue to appear in new infrastructure, but the less successful aspects will be left behind. I note that a recent road layout change in Assen right next to a "shared space" style junction from a few years ago did not expand on the shared space but represents a return to more traditional Dutch design with segregated cycle paths.

I am glad about this. It would be foolish to abandon the high level of subjective safety that has lead to such a high degree of cycling. It would take years to build enough cycle unfriendly infrastructure to really impact on the level of cycling, but once the decline started it would carry on for decades.

Normal Dutch cycle-path outside of the Shared
Space area of Haren

For me, cycling in places like this is the closest I come in this country to the conditions in cycle unfriendly towns of the UK where cycling is a fringe activity. I find I am happy to be out of it and back on the normal Dutch provision as shown here further along in Haren.

In my view, Shared Space is the one real mistake that has been made in the Netherlands. It's not liked by cyclists, and it really doesn't work well for cyclists.

Update 13th December 2008
I've found three more references to shared space in Haren:

This one includes a response from a Haren resident which says "Citizens club Haren for elderly and children is very much against the shared space in our village Haren. The results during last elections prove this by a unknown shift in elections results. So, beware! As father of two small kids and for my elderly parrent i'm just afraid because of many, many small unregistred accidents of people bumping into each other. We fully disagree with the public statement that we should let our kids run in front off cars to slow down traffic! Just mad and our web campaign won't stop."

This academic paper includes the following in its conclusion: "...there still are noticeable conflicts, and this leads to criticisms by engaged parties, both car drivers and ‘sojourners’. They do not feel safe. In fact pedestrians and bicyclists run more risk than car drivers. The mobility of children, people with handicaps and the elderly is limited; children are not allowed to freely walk around independently; the handicapped and the elderly feel themselves cornered and obliged to use the area as little as possible. They pay the toll."

This one (from the guide dog organisation in the UK) includes this section from people who live in shared space areas: "All of the participants reported greater difficulty using shared surface areas than areas where there is a pavement separated from the road. Several participants considered that most vehicle drivers reduced their speed in shared surface areas and that most vehicle drivers and cyclists were considerate of pedestrians using shared surfaces. However one participant commented that '9 out of 10 cars would stop for me. My difficulty is recognising the 10th'. Use of shared surface areas. All except one of the participants regularly used local shared surface areas alone, without a sighted companion, but found this difficult. One participant commented that: 'We have to use these areas or we will lose our independence'. One participant, older than the others, reported that he no longer used shared surface areas unless he was with a sighted companion."

Some newer blog posts show very much better alternatives to Shared Space.

May 2012 update

High school students surveying people
in the shared space. "Is it safe here ?"

We visit Haren regularly as part of our Study Tours. On the May 2012 tour, entirely by chance, we visited at the same time as a local school was doing a project in the Shared Space. Some students were noting how often drivers gave priority to cyclists when the cyclist had priority (this is a huge problem in shared space areas as drivers tend to assume priority through force). Other students were interviewing people. I filled in a questionnaire which had questions which included whether you felt safe in Haren in general, whether you felt safe in the Shared Space area, and whether you avoided visiting Haren because of the Shared Space.

There is only one reason why this work was being done specifically about Shared Space, and that is because it remains controversial and unpopular in the Netherlands, even though some "experts" still promote it.

It was quite clear from listening to the responses given by other people that it's not popular.

Hans Monderman: 'It's a nice place to be'

2013 update
Whenever it is pointed out that Shared Space doesn't work, someone is guaranteed to pop up and claim that whatever example is being pointed at isn't a proper "Shared Space". This is an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. An "attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion". It doesn't work with Shared Space because Hans Monderman himself is on record as saying that Haren's Shared Space is a good example. You can see this for yourself in a video of him talking about Haren.

Shared Space is one of a number of things which are misinterpreted from the Netherlands.  Please read another blog post which explains how while the Netherlands is still the leader in cycling, that doesn't mean that everything from that country is equally worth copying.

If "Shared Space" does not work, then what does work ?

Confident cyclists use all of a "nearly car free" street.
It is not "Shared Space" because cars are excluded.

"Shared Space" receives a lot of attention overseas despite having fallen out of favour in the Netherlands. It's not popular here and most town centres do not work on a "Shared Space" basis at all. They are not "shared".

"Nearly Car Free" or "Autoluwe" streets are very common in the Netherlands and very popular. To the uninitiated, such streets can look like "Shared Space" and it is common for these two concepts to be confused by overseas commentators. However, NCF is a concept which pre-dates the hype about "Shared Space", which remains popular, and which works precisely because the streets are not shared on an equal basis with cars. Read more about Nearly Car Free streets.

2014 Update. How safe is Haren really ? More to read

Haren's shared space is
highlighted in red. The
Blue and yellow flags
show collisions and injuries
between 2007 and 2012

There has been much speculation about whether Haren's shared space is safe. Shared Space advocates claim that there's been a reduction in collisions while those who dislike the Shared Space point out that incidents are common.

I now have figures. Between 2007 and 2012, there were 28 collisions and at least five injuries in the shared space are of Haren. As you'll see from the map on the right, the busy road leading to the shared space from the south east and away again towards the north west does not have the same rate of collisions or injuries as does the short shared space section. In about the same length of road outside the Shared Space there was just one collision and this resulted in no injuries. Read more about how the supposed safety of shared space has been exaggerated.

There are also now several other blog posts about shared space. One shows the considerably better environment which resulted from removing motorised traffic from a shared space while another demonstrates how shared space takes away the rights of the vulnerable. Both of those are illustrated with video.

All posts on this blog about Shared Space can be viewed by clicking here.

It is good that people should see for themselves what these schemes look like, and particularly cycle through them. We cycle right through Haren on our Cycling Study Tours. We also show you good examples of what works, including nearly car free streets.