On-road cycle-lanes. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (mostly bad and ugly)

It seems that an American blogger has been sending traffic to this article as he thinks these photos demonstrate how even the best Dutch infrastructure lets cyclists down. In fact, this particular blog post shows rare examples of bad practice which we recommend is not emulated, along with photos of poor practice in other countries. It's one of several blog posts tagged "what not to do". For examples of good practice, see the blog posts tagged "what works". Good infrastructure is far more common in the Netherlands than the bad infrastructure shown here.

This was part of our walking route to school in Cambridge. The
van fills both the narrow cycle-lane and the narrow pavement.

On-road cycle-lanes have long been controversial. They're a type of infrastructure which raises many questions. For instance, do on-road lanes make cycling safer or do they keep cyclists in the gutter where they are least safe ? Are they more or less convenient for cyclists than fully segregated cycle-paths ? Is paint enough to make cyclists safe in the presence of much faster and heavier motorized vehicles ? Do cycle-lanes create adequate subjective safety that they lead to mass cycling ? Where cycle-lanes exist, can they be integrated into good traffic light and roundabout designs ? How should a cycle-lane lead into a segregated cycle-path, and visa-versa ?

The same problem in the Netherlands. Cycle-lanes are abused
by drivers everywhere. This cycle-lane is 1.9 m wide and the
pavement is very wide, but that doesn't prevent exactly the
same abuse of both the cycle-lane and pavement as seen in the
British example. Read about many problems at this location

Standards
Ten years ago, guidance in the Netherlands called for cycle-lane widths of 1.8 m to 2 m wide with an absolute minimum of 1.5 m permitted where space allowed no more. These suggestions were considered to be adequate only where there were relatively small flows of cyclists. With higher usage, the lanes were to be built wider. Segregated cycle-paths were considered to be preferable over cycle-lanes where speed limits were 50 km/h (30 mph) or higher and on main roads with 80 km/h (50 mph) roads, cycle-lanes were considered not to be adequate at all. If there was no other possibility on an 80 km/h road then any lanes built should be widened by one metre. That's an extra half a metre to allow for bicycles to safely overtake other bicycles and another half a metre to give more space between motor vehicles and cyclists. The same guidance suggested a minimum 0.75 m wide gap between parking bays and cycle-lanes in order to reduce the chance of "dooring".

Current advice in the Netherlands requires that on-road cycle-lanes should made of distinct red asphalt and be 2 to 2.5 m wide, with an absolutely minimum of 1.7 m. Such cycle-lanes must be red. All these are "concrete" absolutes. It is also now suggested that there should be a 0.5 m gap between cycle-lanes and car-lanes, the exact form of which is currently still under discussion.

On roads narrower than 5.8 m, a fietsstraat (bicycle road) is the preferred solution. Note that such an arrangement requires both a low speed limit (30 km/h - 18 mph) and for through motor traffic to be removed in order to be successful. Otherwise cars will dominate and the bicycle road becomes simply a normal road where cyclists do not have any real safety.

The Netherlands now has around 37000 km of cycle-path and just 5500 km of cycle-lanes. Bicycle Roads are even less common. It is clear that on-road cycle-lanes are deprecated in this country. They are not the preferred solution. There are far more new segregated cycle-paths than there are new on-road lanes.

Downhill cycle-lanes
Note that the Dutch guidelines refer to what is considered to be reasonable practice in this country, where maximum speeds of cyclists are determined mostly by how hard they push the pedals and not by how quickly they can descend a hill. Where there are hills, cycle-lanes heading up-hill should be as suggested above but those heading downhill should be wider. More space is required to keep control of a bicycle at higher speeds. Extra space is also required to make safe the overtaking of one cyclist by another at higher speeds. This is analogous to how Dutch guidelines suggest wider cycle-lanes are required in the presence of faster motor vehicles.

The Good
These are examples of where problems which could have occured with on-road cycle-lanes have been avoided by careful implementation. It's a short list and several of the examples below work well precisely because they exist in the absence of motor traffic.

This 2.1 m wide cycle-lane in Assen is along a 50 km/h street which has carries moderate amount of traffic. It's not an ideal situation but the width does allow people to ride side-by-side and it is rare that it feels unsafe here. This is one of the better examples of cycle-lanes. Note that there is a pinch point for cars by the signs to the left of the car, but due to careful design the cycle-lane does not lose width at the pinch-point and this is relatively safe. There is a buffer between the parked cars and the cycle-lane to avoid "dooring". The distinctive red asphalt (not paint) also makes it obvious which part of the road is for cyclists.

These "cycle-lanes" are 1.7 m wide on either side of a 2.7 m wide carriageway. But these are not really cycle-lanes and this is not an ordinary road. This is a bicycle road which cannot be used for through journeys by motor vehicle and on which cyclists have priority. The only reason why any motor vehicle is driven here is to access about half a dozen houses along this section of the bicycle road.

These cycle-lanes are only 1.5 m wide but this is again not a normal road. This is a nearly car free street in the city centre. The junction ahead was once the busiest in Assen, but now has very light motorized traffic because this not longer serves as a through route by motor vehicle. The street allows two-way use only by bicycle and that is what is made clear by the painted lanes.

In Groningen, this busy cycle-route goes over an older bridge which does not have adequate width for a segregated cycle-path. The cycle-lane splits from the road after the bridge and before a busy simultaneous green traffic light junction. Note that this is precisely the opposite of a "mixing zone" as has proven to be lethal elsewhere.

Cycle-lane becoming a cycle-path immediately before a roundabout so that the junction can be negotiated safely by bicycle. Again, this is the opposite of a mixing zone, removing cyclists from the road at the junction to increase safety.

The opposite side of the same road looks identical. A safe merge is provided from the cycle-path which leads from the roundabout onto the road. This is protected by a concrete kerb and because the cycle-lane is "extra" width. i.e. the painted lines separating the cycle-lane from the road line up optically with the side of the slightly narrower road used by drivers leaving the roundabout.

This cycle-lane through a 1950s residential area in Assen does not really function as a cycle-lane. This street works well by bicycle because the road is no longer used in the same way as it was originally designed. While some streets in this area are busier than others, this street is considerably more pleasant than it once was due to unravelling of motor vehicle routes from bicycle routes. This is no longer a useful through route by motor vehicle and bicycles dominate. The width of the cycle-lane is almost completely irrelevant. Children can ride home from school five-abreast in comparative safety.

This example from Groningen is not all good because the cycle-lane is actually too narrow for this 50 km/h street. However I've included it in this section because it provides an obvious illustration of how to design car parking adjacent to a cycle-lane so as to avoid the danger of "dooring". There is a buffer between the edge of the cycle-lane and the side of the cars. In this instance, the buffer is not so wide as an open car door, but even this slightly narrower buffer reduces the risk because an opened door cannot intrude over a very large proportion of the cycle-lane.

The bad
Sadly, most cycle-lanes come into the "bad" category. They're too narrow, they're not safe or they give an inadequate feeling of subjective safety to result in people wanting to cycle more. While the majority of these examples are in the Netherlands, bear in mind that these form less than ideal links within an overall infrastructure of very high quality. There are also very often alternative routes which are of better quality.

Several of these examples are in Groningen. Like all cities which have many students, this demographic group, who are relatively easy to attract to cycling for a variety of reasons and will cycle more given any particular conditions than other demographic groups, helps to mask the problems with infrastructure. There are also examples from Cambridge, where the same applies. If you're trying to grow cycling in a place which does not already have a high cycling modal share, the infrastructure that you build needs to be better than this. To attract people from all segments of society to cycle, you need very high quality over a very fine grid.

Narrow cycle-lane combined with pinch point in Groningen. That buses use this route makes it more unpleasant and more dangerous. The speed limit here is 50 km/h. This infrastructure reduces subjective safety of cycling. Where it is common, the more vulnerable members of society will not use by bicycle. This is very far from best practice in the Netherlands. Pinch points are usually designed out.

1.1 m wide cycle-lane in a 30 km/h zone in Assen. The cycle-lane is hopelessly inadequate in width. This couple riding side-by-side here do not both fit within the lane. This is a moderately busy road, though not on Sunday when this photo was taken. Like most of the bad examples from the Netherlands, this one is very easy to avoid when cycling. Much better infrastructure runs in parallel with this (a video shows how I usually go another way into the city). Note that there is one good feature. The parking bay does actually have a divider between the car and the cyclists. This should prevent "dooring" incidents.

A street in Groningen which has recently been reworked, but which has kept very narrow cycle-lanes despite 50 km/h speed limit and use by heavy vehicles. 1.2 m width is really not close to good enough for the 21st century. This unsafe lane leads to a low degree of subjective safety, which can cause people to stop cycling.

Looking left from the same point as where the yellow truck is in the photo above, the same inadequate cycle-lanes are invaded by almost every motorist who turns right here. There is absolutely no reason for this poor design. Everything left of this photo was built new in the last few years. There is no lack of space. At some points In the centre of this area, the pavements for pedestrians combine to nearly 30 m in width, yet cyclists were considered to be so unimportant that they rated nothing more than 1.2 m wide cycle lanes which are regularly invaded by motor vehicles.

1.5 m wide cycle-lane on a busy 50 km/h through road in Assen. This infrastructure dates from the 1980s when the old railway station was built. The junction that we are approaching is safe to use, but inconvenient and the narrow cycle-lane continues after the junction. The station is being rebuilt and in the near future this entire length of cycle-lane is to be replaced by a proper segregated cycle-path. The junction is to be completely redesigned. The busy through route by car will become a tunnel, removing the source of most danger.

Cambridge in the UK. A cycle lane measuring barely over a metre wide on a busy road with a 30 mph (50 km/h) speed limit. There was clearly never a good reason for the cycle-lane to have been so narrow because in a few metres, right as it goes over a bridge where there might have been the excuse of there not being enough space, this lane widens to accommodate buses. From this point onwards, cyclists are supposed to ride in a combined bus/bike lane. Bikes and buses should never be combined in one lane as they are fundamentally incompatible forms of transport. Bikes need to travel at a constant speed while buses must necessarily stop and start, with a higher peak speed but a similar average speed. The result of this combination is that bikes impede buses just as much as buses impede bikes. This leads to dangerous overtaking manoeuvres and conflict. There really should be a completely separate bus lane or bus road here, and proper bus stop bypasses.

Trumpington Road in Cambridge shows how not to construct a cycle-lane which passes parked cars. Parking is allowed on both sides of this busy road. The cycle-lane is narrow, badly surfaced and keeps cycles far too close to the "door zone". The volume of motorized traffic here is far too high for such a dangerous layout to remain.

The Ugly
As was explained at the beginning, while well engineered cycle-paths are beneficial to cyclists, on-road cycle-lanes are really only a last resort measure. They should not be common in new developments because there is almost always a better alternative. They should not be used where there are high volumes of motor vehicles or high speeds. Where they are used they must be wide and junction design must remove potential conflict points. One of the "good" above shows how a lane cane become segregated at a traffic light junction. Where cyclists join and leave on-road lanes there are always potential conflict points.

In the Netherlands there are now relatively few on-road lanes because better alternative designs are used. Existing cycle-lanes are being upgraded into cycle-paths. This is how it should be in other countries as well. Why implement the equivalent of 1980s Dutch or other inferior designs of infrastructure when you can instead copy more recent and successful designs ?

This section includes examples of where the Dutch have recently made bad choices, where other nations are making copying from less than good examples and making bad choices and of some common problems due to cycle-lanes.

Inexplicable bad design in Assen as part of a new development. There is plenty of room here for a proper bus stop bypass rather than encouraging bikes and buses to clash. Assen actually did better than this in the 1980s. Have the good ideas been forgotten by a new generation of planners ? The only redeeming part of this design is that it's appeared on a route which is not well used by bicycle. That's by design. This is where motor vehicles are sent to keep them out of the centre of the city. As I often point out, just because something can be found in the Netherlands, that doesn't mean it's best practice. Don't copy this.

London has been struggling with making its ambition for "cycling superhighways" truly "super" ever since the idea was first mooted. This illustration from 2010 shows how limited that city's ambition for cycling is. These cycle-lanes are extremely narrow. They're narrower than any real life example above. This is simply not good enough. London's progress has not been helped by campaigners actually asking for infrastructure like this. On-road lanes still feature in many of London's designs. They are still planning to build them too narrow and they're still appearing on roads with far higher traffic flows than any of the Dutch examples above. What's more, they're still being combined with poor quality junction designs such as Advanced Stop Lines, which appear even in brand new infrastructure.

Another example of an incredibly bad idea from London at a junction designed in 2013. The orange line shows what TfL think cyclists ought to do, while the red line shows what people in a hurry will actually do. This does not support either less confident or more confident cyclists well. Both are required to do something unreasonable and both are required to make a choice between safety or convenience. If someone is late for work, convenience is likely to win. A well designed traffic light junction would have been both safe and convenient for all modes.

In the past, Assen had other examples of bad design such as this: a cycle-lane in-between two car lanes. This type of design requires cyclists and drivers to swap or merge lanes at junctions and it was never safe. This junction was removed from Assen decades ago. Proven bad ideas like this should not be part of new designs for cycling infrastructure. Junctions with similar features continue to kill in those places where they are still implemented. Well informed planners should be aware of this danger and avoid it. However...

The dangerous situation that we got rid of in Assen decades ago is part of a new plan for Cambridge in the UK (in fact, they've actually already built junctions like this in this decade). This is just one of several criticisms that I have of these new plans.

Here it is again in the Christchurch New Zealand cycling design guidelines. Don't do this. Don't repeat mistakes. This is a dangerous design.

A similar idea as proposed for Ontario in Canada. Just one of the many problems with Ontario's new Bicycle Facilities Traffic Manual. Shared right turn zones (or "mxiing zones") like this have proven to be lethal.

Another collection of bad design ideas, this time from Southampton, providing a false choice between efficiency and safety because even the "safe" option to make a right turn is not really safe. Cyclists are encouraged to remain on the left to reach a turning box while drivers are encouraged to turn across them to make left turns. This design has proven to be lethal. The design also includes a bus stop which maximises conflict between bikes and buses. The implementation was actually worse than the design, but the design shows remarkable ignorance of best practice

Update: When I was working on writing this blog post to illustrate what not to do with regard to on-road cycle lanes, Sustrans in the UK were simultaneously working on the Sustrans handbook for cycle-friendly design which promotes many of the same bad designs as I warn against. I've included here three examples of how they actually recommend bad practice, but more bad ideas can be seen in my review of their handbook. This first example shows a cycle-lane in the centre of the street. As explained above, this particularly causes conflict between cyclists and left turning cars.

The second example shows Sustrans recommending the old-fashioned, inconvenient and proven to be lethal two stage turn design. They describe this as an "Innovative Cycle Facility". 

Cycle-lane widths recommended by Sustrans for new construction are very much narrower than are recommended in the Netherlands. As you'll read above, ten years ago the Dutch recommendation was already a width of 1.8-2 m with an absolutely minimum of 1.5 m. The new recommendations (detailed at the top of this blog post) require lanes to be somewhat wider in the Netherlands.

The route which children in Oostrum have to take to get to school. There have been crashes here between children on bikes and overtaking cars. This manoeovre is difficult to perform without error every time. Sustainably safe conditions require that people can make minor errors without resulting in injury. This is simply not adequate. It's an example of how fears that a cycle-lane can keep cyclists in the wrong position on the road to make a safe turn are realised, though the best solution is proper segregated infrastructure which makes it clear who should be where and when, not simply to delete the cycle-lane.

When there is snow, a cycle-lane is more difficult to clear effectively than an off-road cycle-path (see examples of effectively swept cycle-paths). What's more, the consequences of a cycle-lane not being properly swept are more serious than they are for a cycle-path. The dirty ice and snow from the road builds up at the edge of the cycle-lane near the parked cars. This can be slippery, it can hide obstacles (kerb, litter, stones, manhole covers) and it effectively narrows the cycle-lane from the outside towards the traffic side. Note how the bicycle symbol is no longer in the middle of this lane, which is 1.9 m wide in summer time but somewhat narrower in winter due to the conditions. In the event of a fall, the cyclist could end up under a vehicle being driven on the road. Similarly, road sweeping tends to accumulate debris at the side of the road. The cycle-lane is a good place to get a puncture.

The same bicycle road as featured in the second main photo from the top. The two postal workers wearing yellow and heading towards the camera show up very well in the snow. However, there are also two cyclists heading in the opposite direction who have nearly disappeared. We should not rely upon people wearing special clothes in order to show up in varying weather conditions. In any case, the same clothes do not work best in all conditions. This is a safe situation only because these "cycle lanes" are not really cycle-lanes at all. It's a bicycle road on which there are almost no motorized vehicles except those which belong to residents used for access. Segregation removes the danger associated with not being seen whatever the weather conditions.

Another example of a truck using a cycle-lane in Assen as a parking space. This is a universal problem with on-road lanes. Cyclists have to pull out to pass, which puts them in a dangerous position potentially having to merge with faster traffic. It also prevents the cyclist from making such an efficient journey as they would if they could travel uninterrupted by such obstructions.

Another example from Ontario's lacklustre design guidelines. This treatment of a road narrowing is very dangerous. The designer left out any means of keeping cyclists from being hit by motor vehicles as they attempt to move left into the main traffic lane. This creates the same dangerous situation as does the truck in the photo above, but it does so permanently and by deliberate design. This is an example of extraordinarily bad design. I added the red line to show the route of a bicycle and the blue triangle to represent a means of forcing motor vehicles to the left where cyclists are expected to join the lane. In the Netherlands we would expect there always to be such an alignment in order that this most obvious of conflicts would be avoided. Design guidelines which include such bad advice as this are simply not worth the paper they're printed on.

Cost is a very bad reason to build substandard infrastructure
It's only substandard infrastructure which really has a cost. If it's substandard then it won't be used and that means that there is a cost but no benefit. Really good cycling infrastructure has benefits beyond its cost.

Conclusion. Paint is never enough

Another inadequate idea which
consists only of paint. Sharrows
are even less useful than on-
road cycle-lanes.

On-road cycle-lanes are not the best way to keep cyclists safe. They are also rarely, if ever, the best way to improve convenience for cyclists. If on-road lanes are a preferred option in your part of the world then your planners are aiming for something rather lower than the best standard possible. Aiming for a lower standard of infrastructure means aiming for a cycling modal share which is lower than the highest possible given your demography and geography. You set a ceiling on what is possible by building inadequate infrastructure.

If your infrastructure is being designed to a lower standard than that of the Netherlands, why is this so ? Are your cyclists less valuable and less important than Dutch cyclists ? Do you want fewer people to cycle than would cycle in the Netherlands ?

In the worst examples, cycle-lanes can be very unsafe. Bad junction designs greatly exacerbate this problem. It can also be worsened by bad weather, bad lighting or inadequate maintenance.

There are very few on-road cycle-lanes which can truly be categorized as "good".

What's better ?
Rather than painting a stripe alongside a road and expecting this to result in safety for cyclists, there are proven better solutions:

1. Cycle-paths separate from the road are far more successful at keeping cyclists safe than paint on the road.
2. Unravelling of routes so that roads which cyclists use are not filled with motor vehicles leads to increased safety.

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.

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.