Local authorities around the UK have been going ahead with shared space schemes (1) - where demarcations between cars, pedestrians and other road users are often reduced or removed - despite a lack of evidence of their benefits, says a new report released today by Thomas Pocklington Trust (2).Hearsay, unwarranted assumptions and a vague faith in human nature appear to beinforming 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, “Shared space and sight loss: policies and practices in English local authorities” (3), 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 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 andcommenting 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, Thomas Pocklington Trust.“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 Pocklington 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.
Guide Dogs will present their requirements for inclusive streets at the 2nd National Sharing the Street Conference:Sharing the Street – Where are we going?To be held in Derby on 3rd March.(See http://www.ptrc-training.co.uk/event.php?id=199
Editor’s Notes:
1.Shared space, a traffic engineering concept, is becoming popular throughout Britain and is often implemented through a shared surface street where demarcation between pedestrians and vehicles is removed or reduced.With everyone sharing the same space and no user having priority over another, the popular belief is that drivers will change their behaviour, slow down and be more considerate of pedestrians.
2.Thomas Pocklington Trust is a charity which aims to improve the quality of life of people with sight loss.It is a leading provider of housing, care and support services for people with sight loss in the UK, and is a major research and development body.
3.“Shared space and sight loss: policies and practices in English local authorities”, Thomas Pocklington Trust Occasional Paper No. 28 is available at www.pocklington-trust.org.uk from 3rd March.The study, carried out by Professor Rob Imrie and Marion Kumar, Department of Geography, King’s College London, comprised detailed interviews with policy officers in ten local authorities in and around London, access officers and people with sight loss. Full case studies took place in three of the areas – Bromley, Brentwood, and Brighton.Interviews with central government and relevant national organisations made a total of 32 face-to-face interviews.
4.Information on Guide Dogs work on shared space and shared surface streets can be found at www.guidedogs.org.uk/sharedstreets
5.Guide Dogs has published, on behalf of the Vision Impairment Sector, 'Inclusive Streets: Design Principles for Blind and Partially Sighted People' endorsed by The Access Association andEquality Human Rights Commission.
