The devastating effect of Shared Space on the blind.

Shared Space represents a return of "might is right" to roads which could instead have been transformed to favour cycling and walking.

I've long been opposed to Shared Space because of its effect on all vulnerable road users. In 2008 I quoted the UK Guide Dog's association who said that "All of the participants reported greater difficulty" in Shared Space areas. The video below, produced in the UK, further shows the effect of Shared Space on blind people:


In the past I've visited many Shared Spaces in the Netherlands and well as in the UK. This includes Exhibition Road in London and the Shared Spaces in Southend-on-Sea.

Another UK example mentioned in the video is Poynton. Many claims were made for the safety of the new arrangement in Poynton before and just after its conversion to Shared Space, but now that a few years have passed we can see that the new layout in Poynton has proven to be ten times more dangerous for pedestrians in the period after conversion to Shared Space when compared with the period before.

Shared Space in Assen. Able-bodied cyclists don't like it either.
Note also how well "place-making" worked out. It's become
one of very few places in Assen with a fly-tipping problem.

Not just a problem in Britain
One participant in the video makes a point that it is British planners who don't understand Shared Space. There's a suggestion in the video that it somehow works better in the Netherlands but this is not really so. In reality, Shared Space doesn't work well in the Netherlands either and we see exactly the same problems in this country as are seen in the UK. Vulnerable road users are disenfranchised by Shared Space in just the same in the Netherlands as in the UK.

Hans Monderman's own pet schemes are not excluded from this criticism (see previous posts about Haren and Drachten).

Real statistics
Advocates of Shared Space continue to make claims of safety without any supporting statistics. Earlier this year, I revealed how the claims of safety are not backed up by Dutch road traffic crash statistics, which actually show quite bad safety records for many Shared Spaces compared with their surrounding area.

Counter the hype
Shared Space is a hype. This was acknowledged even by Hans Monderman during his lifetime. I would like think that had he remained alive, Hans could have countered some of the myths which grew up around his idea and slowed down its adoption. Sadly he is no longer here to do that.

Shared Space has become a deception which everyone needs to counter. It's not good for blind people or those with difficulty in moving, not good for people who are aged, not good for pedestrians and not good for cyclists. It's not even particularly great for car drivers who feel pushed into making strange manoeuvres.

People with disabilities can benefit from cycling infrastructure
While Shared Space creates problems for people with disabilities, good road and cycle path design can make conditions better for people with disabilities. Campaigners for cycling and for disabled rights should be allies. Read more about this subject.

City centre streets. Perfect for children on their own bicycles, if the city is truly planned for cycling. Cargo bikes shouldn't be required.

Something which people who visit Assen often notice is the lack of cargo-bikes. Somehow an expectation has grown up that cargo bikes are the way of transporting children by bicycle. Actually, children have their own legs and really should be able to use them to transport themselves as soon as they have the ability to ride a bicycle. This of course is only possible if the infrastructure is very very good, and over most of this city that is indeed the case. It wasn't always like this, but motor vehicles were removed from the centre several years ago and that left behind conditions where everyone is safe.

The photos below were taken within ten minutes a little after three o'clock on an afternoon a couple of weeks ago:

All ages and abilities served by one type of infrastructure. The youngest daughter in this family rides on the front of Mum's bike while her slightly older sister rides her own bike. They're heading directly towards the city centre. Directly towards the same streets as shown in the following photos. It's not unusual to see children this young cycling to the city centre. A comprehensive grid of very high quality infrastructure makes this possible.

The city centre streets are used by bicycle by people of all ages. The woman in the centre has more experience, but lots of experience isn't required to be safe here. The youngsters on the right are already able to make their way through the city without an adult to accompany them.

Of course some children are accompanied by parents. These two are heading towards a large square in the middle of the city which was once a car-park.

The youngest child sits on Dad's bike while her older sister rides her own bike.

Mother and son.

Young teenagers have complete independence. This group rode through together. Presumably the lessons for the day had ended. The light grey concrete on the left of the cyclists is textured to help blind people find their way. Paving like this is laid throughout the city centre.

Another mother and son. The mother's bike has a fold down child-seat on the back, which is possibly used sometimes for a younger sibling.

They're all moving in the same direction, but they're not all looking in the same direction. Cycling is very social in the city centre. People are always looking out for their friends and family. A lot of smiles, a lot of waves.

More youngsters riding home from school together. The city centre streets make a good route to many locations.

Teenagers attending secondary school (age 12 upwards) are likely to have further to travel. 

Eating while cycling and riding no hands. These are comparatively safe things to do when there are no cars on city centre streets.

Mum indicates a right turn. The children also will turn up onto the forgiving sloped kerb .

Teens again, riding sociably side by side.

Very young children ride on the back of their parents' bikes. But those who cycle on their own bike are often also very young.

Where have the cars gone ?

Red dots show the locations which feature in the photos
Traffic lights are no longer needed because through
traffic has been removed. The car park no longer exists.
There are now zebra crossings to make it easier for
pedestrians to cross the "road" for bikes.

The photos above show very typical views of the centre of Assen in 2014. Many other Dutch cities look similar. However, it wasn't always like this.

In the 1970s, the number of children being killed on the roads reached a peak. Cycling was in decline in the Netherlands at that time.

Assen, like other cities, was full of motor vehicles. Cars, buses and trucks dominated the city centre streets. Cyclists who remained on these streets were under pressure. The situation was much like that of many cities now. There was "no space for cycling infrastructure" and car parks were full.

If Assen had continued on the path which the city was on, it's unlikely that people would cycle so much in the city as they do now.

Pedestrian zone.
Cycling allowed
on given routes.
Note generous
delivery times.

The problems in the centre of the city were turned around by a second revolution which returned old streets which pre-date motor vehicles to people rather than allowing the problems due to allowing motor vehicles to dominate them to grow.

The city centre area is now a large pedestrian zone. What looks like a road in all the photos above (except the first one) is actually a stripe through the pedestrian zone on which cycling is permitted. This is a design which works very well because it is familiar. "Road" for bikes, "pavement" for pedestrians result in no clashes between cyclists and pedestrians within this pedestrianized area. Signage at each entrance to the pedestrian zone points out this status.

Cycling and walking are the most popular means of transport for shoppers in Assen and these are the modes which are best catered for in the city centre.

Of course it's not just the city centre which has cycling infrastructure. An extensive and fine-grained grid of high quality infrastructure stretches across the entire city so that no-one has to cycle in conditions which are not subjectively safe. This is the only way of making cycling accessible to everyone.

When our children were young we still
lived in the UK. The streets were not
safe enough for them to ride their own
bikes so we used this Ken Rogers trike
with child seats. It worked well, but
we wouldn't have needed it in Assen.

What about parents ?
In many places, people who didn't bother with a car before they had children find that they need one once they have children. Of course it is in many ways better if people switch to using cargo bikes to carry their children rather than using a car, however the experience of the children themselves is not so different if they're transported by a parent with a bicycle rather than being transported by a parent with a car.

A high percentage of parents using cargo bikes to transport their children is better than having the same parents driving cars, but while a growing number of cargo bikes might indicate a growing confidence amongst parents it should be seen as a step in the right direction but not as an end in itself.

There are quite a lot of cargo bikes in
Assen. They're used for many other
reasons than to transport children.

Why not cargo bikes ?
So long as they're used for carrying cargo, there's nothing wrong with cargo-bikes at all. There's also nothing wrong with them for carrying small children.

It is only when cargo bikes are seen as a solution for carrying children who are old enough to ride their own bikes (i.e. 4+) that this indicates a problem. The problem is not with the bikes or their riders but with the environment for cycling.

If parents don't think that the local cycling infrastructure is sufficiently safe for their children to have control over their own movement then this indicates that the infrastructure is sub-standard. Children should have conditions safe enough that they can have control over their own movement and not have to rely upon their parents for lifts, either by bike or by car.

Mother of three in Groningen

Where the cycling infrastructure is very good, cargo bikes are relatively rare and mostly used for carrying cargo. It's better for parents and for children if children can be given the freedom to control their own movement.

I'm not criticizing anyone for using a cargo bike to transport their children. People who do this in difficult environments should be applauded for making a positive choice which is not always rewarded by society. We made a similar choice when we lived in the UK and our children were small. We first used a tricycle and later moved on to trailerbikes (also uncommon in the Netherlands for the same reason). It was not always easy to do this because other parents could be quite critical and drivers were sometimes quite aggressive around our children.

It's not always so good as this in the Netherlands
Cities across the Netherlands vary in how easy it is for everyone to ride bicycles. For instance:

• Amsterdam has the lowest rate of cycling to school of any city in the Netherlands, closely followed by Den Haag and Rotterdam.
• Groningen has a marvellous centre, but hostile cycling conditions can be found a short distance north from the centre.
• Assen is also not perfect. In particular, a new dangerous junction south of the city centre makes access difficult for vulnerable people and recently there have been several design mistakes made in new infrastructure.

The Netherlands is still far and away the most successful country on earth at encouraging people to cycle, and at encouraging people to let their children cycle. Assen is a stand-out city even within the Netherlands. But I always warn that you should never assume that this country always gets everything right.

A truly high cycling modal share requires that everyone should be able to cycle everywhere. That is what true mass cycling is all about.

Is that a shared use path ? Do Dutch cycle paths cause conflict with pedestrians ?

One of the most common misconceptions about the Netherlands is that where cycle-paths through the countryside which don't have an obvious path for pedestrians alongside, they are mistaken for "shared use paths". Actually, the Netherlands doesn't build shared use paths and the cycle-path network makes for fewer conflicts with pedestrians, not more. Read on for an explanation:

Urban areas
Anywhere that walking is commonplace, the Netherlands builds specific infrastructure for pedestrians. You'll find this alongside cycling infrastructure through most urban areas, and the walking infrastructure is generally wide and of good quality.

Conflict between cyclists and pedestrians is avoided because both cyclists and pedestrians have high quality infrastructure of their own.

At this location next to a school, there is both a four metre wide cycle-path and a 2.5 m wide walking path. An appreciable number of pedestrians are anticipated in this location. Cars cannot be driven parallel with these paths.

There are also very obvious walking paths separate from cycle-facilities in the city centre. Motor vehicles are allowed to access this area only for loading and unloading at set times.

Though it's not heavily used by foot, this secondary quality cycle path (3.2 m wide) connecting suburbs to the city has a 2.5 m walking path alongside it. The road alongside has a 50 km/h (30 mph) speed limit.

Rural areas

In rural areas where distances are longer, for instance between villages or on routes connecting villages to cities, you wouldn't expect to see a separate walking path. This is because few people would choose to make journeys of several kilometres in length by walking. It simply takes too long for practical journeys.

But the cycle-path along which this racing cyclist is riding in the countryside has no separate pedestrian facility. The sign shows this to be a cycle-path shared with low speed mopeds (this is normal between towns but they're banned in towns), not a shared use cycle/pedestrian path. The road alongside has an 80 km/h (50 mph) speed limit.

On small rural roads in the Netherlands there may be neither separate cycling infrastructure nor separate walking infrastructure. But in these areas it can usually be expected that traffic levels are very low. Driving routes are unravelled from cycling routes in the countryside as well as in towns.

In a recreational area, unsurfaced paths like this may be used by both cyclists and pedestrians. However, most people cycle to events like this. Such paths are not used as through routes by bike and there's no motor vehicle access except for maintenance.

A comparison with the UK
In other countries, the situation is actually very similar with regard to pedestrian paths. It is normal that they exist in urban locations but that they may not exist in rural locations. For example, these two pictures are from the UK:

Just as in the Netherlands, Britain provides a pedestrian path in an urban area. There are no real cycling facilities alongside this 30 mph (50 km/h) road. In this example it is permitted to ride a bicycle on the pavement (sidewalk) but that is not convenient for cycling and promotes conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. Grotere kaart weergeven

Just as in the Netherlands, Britain does not provide a pedestrian path in a rural area where there will be few pedestrians. Unlike the Netherlands, Britain does not provide a path for cyclists either even though the speed limit on this road is 60 mph (100 km/h) Grotere kaart weergeven

Even many of the small country roads in the UK which cyclists and pedestrians both seek out to avoid the heavier traffic still have 60 mph (100 km/h ) speed limits.

It's the same idea, but a different implementation
The idea with regard to pedestrians is the same in both countries. Pedestrians are provided for only where there are expected to be appreciable numbers of pedestrians.

Special textured paving is used to
indicate safe routes for blind pedestrians

While decisions about whether to built pedestrian infrastructure are similar in the UK and the Netherlands, cyclists are catered for far more favourably in the Netherlands than in the UK. This pays dividends for pedestrians as well. People who like to walk long distances are better provided for in the Netherlands than in the UK because instead of walking on roads with high speed traffic, they may use cycle-paths between towns to make their journeys by foot. This is far safer than walking on the road.

Cycle paths in the Netherlands are required by law to be
accessible by people with wheelchairs and adapted bikes

Within town where there will be an appreciable number of both cyclists and pedestrians, both parties are better off in the Netherlands than they are in the UK because cyclists and pedestrians are each provided with their own separate infrastructure and conflicts between them are minimised.

These benefits are not only for the able-bodied but also for people with disabilities, though of course in the Netherlands many people with disabilities choose to cycle because that option is so much more attractive given safe conditions.

More information
See also how nearly car free town centres have improved conditions for pedestrians and how pedestrianized shopping centres in the Netherlands permit cycling, but are not through routes by bike.

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.