Local authorities around the UK have been going ahead with shared space schemes - where demarcations between cars, pedestrians and other road users are often reduced or removed - despite a lack of evidence of their benefits, as outlined in our report released today.
Read Occasional Paper 28 and Research Findings No. 33
Hearsay, unwarranted assumptions and a vague faith in human nature appear to be informing decisions, while people who may be disadvantaged by the schemes – particularly those with sight loss - are not consulted in time to have much influence.
“There is no clear evidence about how shared space schemes will work or what effect they will have on people’s behaviour,” said Professor Rob Imrie, of King’s College London, who led the research. “Yet local authorities assume their benefits, and schemes have been going ahead with the concerns of people with sight loss barely heard.”
The study interviewed policy officers and others, in ten local authorities and followed three case studies in London boroughs. It looked at why local authorities adopt the schemes and whether evidence from sight loss groups is used to inform the process.
Generally, the study found that:
There was insufficient evidence to back up claims for the benefits of shared space:
- Policy officers had an unwarranted, uncritical view of shared space.When interviewed, most quoted second-hand evidence from Dutch schemes, citing Dutch rhetoric about driver behaviour as a ‘matter of fact’.
- Some based their views on a vague faith in human nature. “If you don’t tell people what to do you would expect people to behave like sensible human beings...,” said one, on the idea of removing road signs.
- Local authorities' decisions were not driven by evidence but mainly by the belief that shared space schemes would bring economic regeneration to town centres.
There was a “believability gap” among access officers and people with sight loss:
- Local authorities made unwarranted assumptions about falling accident statistics and used these to justify schemes. For people with sight loss, this only increased feelings of vulnerability and risk.The statistics did not necessarily mean that the environment was safer. It could be that some of “the most vulnerable are now avoiding the area.”
Public consultation usually took place after the decision to implement the schemes had been taken.
- Generally there was little or no involvement of people with sight loss, or other disabilities, before the decision was made.
- Some authorities admitted they were too hasty in pursuing schemes. “With the benefit of hindsight we would have physically tested proposed provisions with visually impaired people before installing the scheme,” said the leader of one shared space development.
- The organisation Guide Dogs has been a major force in raising awareness and commenting on specific schemes and has managed to achieve some changes.However, these have generally been small changes to design details rather than the broad scope or principles of a scheme.
“Imagine walking through an area full of cars when you can’t see where they are or negotiate with drivers through eye contact,” said Dr. Angela McCullagh, Research and Development Director. “Traditional street design is vital for navigation for anyone with impaired sight, yet local authorities have been going ahead with shared space schemes before they even know if they can work for people with sight loss.”
The report urges local authorities to act on the needs of people with sight loss and to involve the public earlier and throughout the design and implementation of the schemes. It calls for local authorities to be given more detailed guidance on how to develop and implement the schemes and, in particular, for robust research which could properly test claims and assumptions. This could help to ease the “believability gap” that is so unsettling for people with all disabilities.
Guide Dogs welcomes the study: “This study confirms that the failure to consult early with blind and partially sighted and other disabled people and take on board their requirements affects their confidence to use our streets and public spaces. Early consultation and robust research are essential if they are not to be excluded from our towns and cities,” said Carol Thomas, Access and Inclusion Manager, Guide Dogs.
