Shared space and cyclists
Karin Broer , Fietsverkeer nr. 192008
Regulate as little as possible, in order to get traffic participants to think for themselves and communicate. That is, in a nutshell, the essence of Shared Space. The Monderman design philosophy creates a lot of waves in the world of traffic. Isn’t this achieved at the expense of weaker traffic participants?
Download file. Click to open link (opens in new window):
What exactly do Shared Space designs look like for cyclists? We went looking for busy locations and ended up at the three well-known examples of Shared Space in Drachten and Haren, viz.:
- Laweiplein in Drachten
- intersection De Drift/Kaden in Drachten
- Rijksstraatweg, Haren
Conclusion: these three examples demonstrate that the Shared Space theory often sounds more radical than its practical implementation. There are no completely unregulated traffic situations, even though the intersection De Kaden comes close.
The most striking feature in all these designs is a considerable cutback in the jungle of traffic signs. All designs also result in a beautiful public space. Their character has changed from traffic-oriented to a more relaxed, leisurely approach. Even though cars are still highly prominent at these intensities.
What conclusions can be drawn about cyclists? In all three situations cyclists have complained about subjective feelings of danger. In the Shared Space ideology it is always emphasised that a certain degree of confusion, of subjective danger, contributes to safety. People are more attentive. In this view we should rejoice in the complaints about cyclists’ subjective danger. Methorst feels this proposition to be ludicrous. Scientist Letty Aarts of SWOV feels that attentiveness as a result of subjective feelings of danger is only effective at low speeds. At higher speeds people react simply too late.
In part these opinions of cyclists can often be heard whenever bike paths are removed or a bicycle street is constructed. In those cases the speed of car traffic and the relation between numbers of cars and cyclists are always crucial. Car speeds do not appear to be a major issue in all three designs. In that sense the Shared Space designs are nice alternatives to the standard speed bump range.
The designs in Haren and at Laweiplein turned out well for cyclists, in our opinion. The freedom of action for cyclists is optimal. Although somewhat inconsistent with the Shared Space principles additional measures have been taken here to reinforce the position of cyclists (right of way for cyclists at the Lawei roundabout) or to limit the drawbacks of motor vehicles (railings to prevent illegal parking in Haren). Too many cyclists come off worst at De Kaden because they let themselves be intimidated by car traffic. They seek the safety of the pedestrian crossings that the designers have, with some reluctance, constructed.
2008
Drachten, Drift/De Kaden, shared-space-intersection. The intersection Drift and De Kaden is an example of shared space in the purest sense. Despite a quite high traffic volume hardly any measures have been taken to regulate traffic.
2008
Drachten, Laweiplein, shared-space roundabout. Laweiplein is one of the best-known examples of shared space at a busy intersection. By regulating as little as possible, traffic participants would be encouraged to assume more responsibility for their own behaviour. Laweiplein has drawn national and international attention from traffic engineers and others.
Karin Broer , Fietsverkeer nr. 19
2008
Regulate as little as possible, in order to get traffic participants to think for themselves and communicate. That is, in a nutshell, the essence of Shared Space. The Monderman design philosophy creates a lot of waves in the world of traffic. Isn’t this achieved at the expense of weaker traffic participants?
2008
Haren, Rijksstraatweg, mixed profile. In the nineteen eighties Rijksstraatweg was used as an experimental project for traffic safety. National authorities provided the funds to construct separate bike paths. Currently Rijksstraatweg is renowned as an exemplary shared-space project. The bike paths have been demolished.
2008
Local authorities in Smallingerland intend to establish a Shared Space Institute in Drachten, in co-operation with the province of Friesland. This institute would assemble all knowledge on and experience with this type of traffic solution. Drachten has already put the principles of Shared Space into practice on various locations within the town.
2008
Shared Space defines a set of integrated ideas about people, movement and public space. In this evaluation some of the pilot projects are reviewed.
Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Gerlach, Drs. Rob Methorst, Dipl.-Ing. Dirk Boenke, cand.-Ing. Jens Leven
2008
A contribution to make a popular design philosophy more objective
Municipality of Emmen (NL), Province of Fryslân (NL), Municipality of Haren (NL), Municipality of Bohmte (G), Suffolk County Council (UK), Municipality of Middelfart (DK), City of Ostend (B) , Interreg IIIB project Shared Space
2008
Shared Space is a simple phrase. It was coined at the outset of the Interreg-project, providing both a title and a broader vocabulary with which to address a complex set of issues arising across the European Union. Largely as a result of the project, the phrase is now widely used and recognized around the world. In common with all language, the meaning of the term ‘Shared Space’ is evolving as experience is gained and knowledge expands.
Post a comment
Only registered users may post a reaction. Please enter your e-mail address to verify your registration
* required