David Mentiply takes a look at shared streets and is not pleased with what he finds.

Exhibition Road, the ‘cultural heartland of London’ that attracts 11 million visitors a year, is now without pavements. All ‘kerbs, barriers and street clutter’ have been removed as part of the Mayor’s programme to ‘revitalise public space across the Capital’.

The new ‘streamlined streetscape’ of Exhibition Road provides ‘visual and tactile lines’ to distinguish pedestrian areas from those used by vehicles. This ‘shared space’ stretches from South Kensington Station all the way up to Hyde Park.

That’s right – drivers, cyclists and pedestrians now compete, sorry, ‘share’, for ‘space’ along this half-mile Victorian thoroughfare. The Mayor’s vision of creating ‘beautifully designed oases throughout the capital’s urban jungle’ fails to recognise the difficulties that many pedestrians already face.

By getting rid of kerbs and set pedestrian crossings, many people with physical, sensory and learning disabilities will suffer. Charities such as Guide Dogs, RNIB, Action on Hearing Loss, Arthritis Care, and Mencap have all expressed concerns about the ‘shared streets’ concept. It is particularly disappointing given that Exhibition Road is home to places such as the Science Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Natural History Museum, the Royal Albert Hall and Imperial College London. These are precisely the sorts of institutions whereby access should be easy and safe for everyone.

Boris Johnson will open Exhibition Road with a formal ceremony in February. Let’s hope it’s the last of its kind.

Picture from here

 

11 Comments

  1. The current traffic control system presides over an annual casualty toll of 28,500 – why would anyone NOT want to devise something better? Shared space often comes with shared surfaces, but it need not; indeed sloping rubberised kerbs could be the best of all worlds. Apart from that, my only reservation is that proponents think streetscape redesign is enough on its own. In my view, a change in the rules of the road, and a change in culture from priority to equality are at least as important.

  2. dave says:

    You equate opposition to the ‘shared space’ concept with not wanting to create something better? Not at all. I just don’t think it is better. In fact, for many people with disabilities it’s infinitely worse.

  3. To a degree I suppose I do equate opposition to shared space as acceptance of the mean-spirited, anti-social, intolerant, intrinsically dangerous system by which we currently have to live and die. Shared space has the makings of something infinitely better. But as stated, to fulfil its true life-enhancing potential, it needs combining with a wider programme of reform.

  4. dave says:

    I don’t think you’ll win the argument by using such language. Try telling my sister, who has been on Exhibition Road with her Guide Dog, that ‘shared space’ is the future. We hope not!

  5. The latest safety audit from Westminster City Council shows that 44% of personal injury accidents occur at traffic lights. People think lights guarantee safety. Far from it.The current system puts the onus on children to beware motorists when it could and should be the other way round. I also advocate legal reform to make motorists automatically liable for “accidents” with vulnerable road-users unless they can prove a reckless act. It amounts to pedestrian priority, but it’s equality we want – equal rights and responsibilities, taking it more or less in turns, as in all other walks of life.

  6. dave says:

    Have you considered how this would work for people without sight? How would they, as you encourage, ‘take it in turns’ with drivers if they cannot see them.

    This is what Guide Dogs think of ‘shared spaces’. http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/news/2010/shared-surface-streets-perceived-as-no-go-areas-by-blind-and-partially-sighted-people-says-new-national-survey/

    Many,many other disability charities have also expressed real concern and opposition to the idea. What do you say to them?

  7. I have always taken into account the experience of blind road-users – see video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcz-Y8lqOg which includes clips from my 2008 Newsnight report. Make roads fit for blind people and children, and you make them fit for everyone. Currently they are fit for no-one.

  8. Once you start thinking outside the box marked “priority”, you start to see things differently. I had discussions with the GDA and a blind user group in Bristol. Initially sceptical, they were beginning to see the light (but we had only one meeting).

  9. Jim Jepps says:

    I’m much more in favour of shared space than Dave is and I’m keen for us to find way of rebalancing our cities and communities so they are no longer dominated by the car.

    However, I do think if those with sight problems are reporting problems we need to look at how the concept can be improved.

    Partly I’d just like to see us create more pedestrianised space which would eradicate the problem. Partly I think there are places like Lowestoft (!) who have some shared streets who use interesting tessellation on the pavements that guide the blind and no one else really notices with 20 mph limits and clear markings that pedestrians have priorities over vehicles.

    We have an interview with Dave’s sister in the pipeline which I’m looking forward to reading and we’ll keep exploring this issue with voices on both sides because we genuinely need to improve the way we “do” our streets.

  10. More pedestrian space, yes! But pedestrianisation schemes, no. Given intelligent use of space, and rebalancing (as you say, Jim) of the social and movement functions of the space, all road-users could merge in a merry mix. I’m in favour of integration. My worst experience of cycling in London (apart from Hyde Park Corner and crossing Park Lane at the Dorchester) are those segregated cycle lanes on Tavistock Place. Remove priority and traffic lights, and you remove the “need” for speed, enabling everyone to do what is natural and intrinsically safe: approach carefully and take it more or less in turns.

  11. It’s in reality a great and helpful piece of information. I’m satisfied that you
    simply shared this useful information with us.

    Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.

Leave a Comment