[sustran] 'Shared Space'

[Ian Perry]

In 1924, with a high accident rate amongst pedestrians, only 1% of Americans
rated “poor roads” as the ‘biggest’ cause of automobile accidents.  In1926,
a report on the accident problem in Connecticut put one accident in 150 down
to road design.  In fact, the eventual segregation of pedestrians and
vehicles resulted in drivers speeding up and more accidents – resulting in
the dividers between carriageways, with which we are now familiar.

In the US and Europe, despite segregation and education, humans still
“fail”…  Given the success of ‘shared space’ in Europe, are the accidents in
developing countries down to lack of segregation?  Is the death toll amongst
pedestrians acceptable where there is segregation?

Perhaps, the sections of road where pedestrians are segregated increase
driver expectations that all roads are, or should be, segregated.  Are there
clusters of accidents where drivers enter a non-segregated section, from a
segregated one (that allows higher speeds)?

Is the problem the “quick” addition of “advanced” vehicles to streets in the
developing world, combined with drivers who have been educated by American
movies to believe that “roads are for cars”?

Trucks, that move unpredictably, along with buses, account to 50-60% of
fatalities on Indian roads.  Light rail moves predictably and one cargo tram
can carry the load of three trucks and one tram can replace many private
cars.

The department for Transport (UK) has appraised existing ‘shared space’
schemes in Europe.  ‘Shared space’ makes life easier for many pedestrians
and turns a street into a more aesthetically pleasing “place”.   Schemes
appear to have increased the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists
(particularly in the UK) without adverse affects on safety.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/sharedspace/stage1/pdf/stage1.pdf



*“One of the conclusions is that the new approach can be applied for traffic
volumes of up to 6600 motor vehicles per 24 hours without causing a
noticeable difference in the number of accidents.  Objective  statistics
show  that  there  is  no  difference  in  road  safety  between  the new
planning approach and a traditional road layout. The study has shown,
however, that applying the new approach to volumes of 13,7000 vehicles per
24 hours will have an adverse effect on the number of accidents. There is a
grey area for traffic volumes of between 6600 and 13,700 vehicles per day.”*


Bradford on Avon is the latest of many UK towns and cities (following
Ashford, Newbury and Bristol) to announce a shared space scheme.
http://www.bradfordonavon.com/archives/873

Other UK councils still believe that traffic and pedestrians should not mix,
but when The London Road Safety Unit Research produced their report: ‘The
effect of newly installed Puffin crossings on collisions’,* *looking at
changes in collisions before and after implementation of 23 new stand-alone
Puffin crossings, despite collisions falling throughout London due to
congestion, they found:

 “*When grouped by previous crossing facility, there were reductions in
total and pedestrian collisions for nearly all site types. However, where
there had previously been no formal crossing, total collisions rose*.”

http://londonroadsafety.tfl.gov.uk/www/downloads/publications/Puffin-Collision-Report-Final.pdf



Ian Perry