Talk:Shared space

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Merge in of Living street 2 Merge in of assertions 3 "Road traffic legislation and its implications" removed for discussion 4 The concept 5 outdated link(s)

[edit] Merge in of Living street

"Naked streets" provide journalists with an eye-catching headline, but it is actually a poor description of shared space. Shared space involves much more than the removal of signs, signals, barriers and markings (important though such steps are). Successful shared space schemes involve developing a change in the "mental map" of streets and public spaces (see David Engwicht "Mental Speed Bumps"), and dressing streets with a strong contextual response to context and human activities. "Living Streets" are essential to developing public space and strong and confident communities, and both contribute to, and are helped by, shared space design concepts. "Home Zones" can be helpful, but tend to be limited to individual or sets of residential streets. They have also, like the woonerf in The Netherlands, become part of the regulated highway language. Shared space is intrinsically about moving streets and public spaces outside the regulatory framework. Ben Hamilton-Baillie

We would need to concur that living street is actually a shared space scheme. The essential element of shared space is that all types of users of the public space have equal priority and there are no signs or rules dictating how interactions occur. The living street article has a slight anti-car tone, exemplified by this extract "...the needs of car drivers are secondary to the needs of users of the street as a whole", and by the implication that speed limits are necessary to allow cars access to the space. -De Facto 11:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is little if anything to formally distinguish living streets, home zones, naked streets and shared space. All share the same fundamental approach, after all. All are, as far as I can tell, subject to speed limits (for obvious reasons), but rely primarily on a design which makes driving above those speeds unlikely anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Shared space is based upon the philosophy of designing public space in such a way as to allow unregulated human social interactions to dictate behaviour. To prescribe a speed limit is to doubt that the philosophy will work. If the scheme is designed well speed will naturally be limited, but by consent, not by order. -De Facto 11:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the difference between the concept and the implementation: the implementations at present are partial, inspired by the concept. Kensington High Street still has some signage, for example, due to legal requirements on traffic islands (apparently). Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If something is required by law, such as a specific sign, or a specific limit, then, assuming the law cannot be bypassed, the item will have to be present. That is not to say that the item is an integral part of the scheme, or that the scheme would not work without the item. Different legislation will, naturally, apply in different jurisdictions. The article may, of course, mention these imlementation details - and describe them as such, but it shouldn't undermine the principle that they are not dictated by the shared space philosophy, and thus are superfluous. -De Facto 13:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong object to merge There is a fundamental difference between the concepts of "naked streets" and "home zones" and the two concepts should not be conflated. The home zone/woonerfen concept is a specific legal status where the duties/priorities of the road users are clearly defined. The declaration of a home zone/woonerf does not ipso facto require the application of any of the "naked street" design philosophies. (Although clearly in their purist form such designs are applied, particularly for custom designed schemes ). --Sf 14:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I've just reread the living street article and there is a strong argument that the home zone/woonerf parts should be split out into thier own article(s) --Sf 14:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong merge - Even if there is a conceptual difference there is so much content overlap that a common article is demanded at present. Citations desperately needed too! Cutler 00:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge in of assertions

To ensure that the article grows in a sustainable and controlled fashion I think we need to ensure that imported assertions are supported by correctly cited sources (see WP:CITE). -De Facto 11:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Road traffic legislation and its implications" removed for discussion

Due to lack of attributions readers can only assume that this section, copied below, contravenes the Wikipedia:No original research policy, so I have moved it here for discussion.

If it isn't OR please restore it with attribution for:

• Whose work is the idea "One of the potential pitfalls for observers trying to interpret the operation of naked-streets type schemes..." taken from.
• Can you quote the part of the reference you cite (Better protection for pedestrians, cyclists and passengers, Press Release of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, 24/11/97) which leads to the assertion "...in contrast to most English speaking countries, some Northern European countries, including the Netherlands, have defined liability legislation" - in relation to shared space schemes.
• Who arrived at the "analysis or synthesis" that you describe concerning motorists' legal liability and its connection with shared space schemes.
• Whose work suggested that Dutch or German motorists may be more cautious than British or Irish motorists.

One of the potential pitfalls for observers trying to interpret the operation of naked-streets type schemes is that legal assumptions which apply in one environment do not apply elsewhere.  For instance, in contrast to most English speaking countries, some Northern European countries, including the Netherlands, have defined liability legislation<ref>Better protection for pedestrians, cyclists and passengers, Press Release of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, 24/11/97</ref>.  Thus there is a legal assumption that motorists are automatically considered liable in law for any injuries that occur if they collide with cyclists or pedestrians.  This may hold regardless of any fault on the part of the other road user and may significantly affect the behaviour of motorists when they encounter vulnerable road users.
In addition, in countries like the Netherlands and Germany traffic operates on a default assumption of "yield to the right"<ref name="spiegel"/>.  Thus where there are no other road signs or markings, cars entering from side-roads may have priority over cars on the main through-road.  This contrasts with traffic law in countries like the UK, Ireland or the US where a default principle of "first come-first served" is applied.  This may result Dutch or German motorists being inherently more cautious than British or Irish motorists might be in an equivalent situation.

-- de Facto (talk). 21:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

--Napoleon--Sf 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• The WP:No original research policy is very clear. Arguments or analyses of existing facts must be attributed to a verifiable source. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal points of view, or constructs on data. You need to cite whose work you are referring to when you add information. -- de Facto (talk). 10:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed again, a poorly "copied and pasted" reincarnation of the same text. The policy "WP:No original research" specifies that you need to demonstrate that the theories you present are from reputable published sources, and they are not your own theories, even if they are based on published facts. -- de Facto (talk). 14:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply 5/02/2007 I think you are missing a few salient points.

1) This is an article in the English wikipedia - It's target audience is thus primarily inhabitants of English speaking countries eg UK, Ireland, Australia various Commonwealth countries, the US etc

2) It is an article about a measure that primarily originates in and is applied in continental European countries most particularly the Netherlands and Germany.

3) It is a fact that the road traffic and motorist liability legislation of these countries differs in a fundamental manner from that of the countries occupied by the target audience. These differences are recognised by international treaty and are widely recognised by persons with even a passing knowledge of the topic. It is self-evident that the differences are most relevant to situations which are the topic of this article = streets that have no road signs or road markings. These legal differences are the topic of numerous guides for the English speaking visitor to Northern Europe.

4) If it is your contention that these facts have no bearing on how the target reader should interpret the topic of this article then the primary burden of proof lies with you and not with the person pointing out the existence of these facts.

• That is to say if you wish to suppress knowledge of these facts in relation to this topic then the obligation lies with you to produce the analyses and publications which support this position.

5) As someone who apparently has little knowledge of the field, perhaps you should ponder to what extent the pre-existing Dutch/German legal environment has made such schemes possible? Eg in the Netherlands and Germany it is entirely possible for the designer to concieve of such a scheme and then apply it - safe in knowledge that the necessary legal framework exists. This again is self-evident to anyone with a rudimentry knowledge of the legislative environment - it requires no "analysis".

--Sf 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• If the points you are making are from published sources then cite them. If they are not then they contravene the WP:No original research policy and are not permissible. Let me answer each of your points in turn.

1) How is the fact that this in an English article relevent to the subject matter? Two of the world's leading proponents of the shared space philosophy are from English speaking countries. Successful schemes exist in the U.S. and the UK. Can you cite the research that suggests that this article content s not suitable for English speakers.

2) The measure may have originated in the Netherlands, but its principles, rooted in psychology, apply equally in all places where conventional regulatation based road safety methodologies have proved to be ineffective.

3) Whose research suggests that it is motorist liability laws, not the changed emphasis from regulation to psychology that is providing the perceived advantages of this philosophy? The evidence of the U.S. and UK schemes suggests it works equally well in those countries - do you have published sources which claim otherwise?

4) My contention is not whether these legal differences have a bearing, but whether the notion that they may have a bearing is from published sources, or from "original research". Wikipedia policy is clear. If you want to add controversial claims you need to provide the sources which make those claims. See WP:NOR. You need to cite reputable sources for the claims you are making - that way they will become a valuable addition to the article.

5) The pre-existing Dutch or German legal frameworks have no bearing on the schemes in the U.S. or the UK. What point are you trying to make?

Please do not reinsert the paragraph without appropriate published support. -- de Facto (talk). 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch automatic liabilty legislation

This originates in a 1992 High Court finding that motorists were 50% liable for damages in the event of collisions with vulnerable road users, irrespective of whether the other party was at fault. Dutch law was changed to make motorists totally liable in the event of collisions between bicycles and cars in 1997-1998. (I think there recent moves to pull this back a bit) Getting English language sources for this (without citing my own work ;-) ) will probably take a few days. --Sf 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that shared space schemes in the Netherlands pre-date that legislation I do not think it is at all relevant to the article - unless you can cite a published article linking it. -- de Facto (talk). 10:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime here is a French example (it's self explanatory)

France: Loi Badinter

Article L. 122-1 du Code de la Route

Outre les dispositions du code des assurances, les règles relatives à l'indemnisation des victimes d'accidents de la circulation sont fixées par les articles 1er à 6 de la loi n° 85-677 du 5 juillet 1985 ci-après reproduits :

« Art. 1er. Les dispositions du présent chapitre s'appliquent, même lorsqu'elles sont transportées en vertu d'un contrat, aux victimes d'un accident de la circulation dans lequel est impliqué un véhicule terrestre à moteur ainsi que ses remorques ou semi-remorques, à l'exception des chemins de fer et des tramways circulant sur des voies qui leur sont propres. »

« Art. 2. Les victimes, y compris les conducteurs, ne peuvent se voir opposer la force majeure ou le fait d'un tiers par le conducteur ou le gardien d'un véhicule mentionné à l'article 1er. »

« Art. 3. Les victimes, hormis les conducteurs de véhicules terrestres à moteur, sont indemnisées des dommages résultant des atteintes à leur personne qu'elles ont subis, sans que puisse leur être opposée leur propre faute à l'exception de leur faute inexcusable si elle a été la cause exclusive de l'accident.

Les victimes désignées à l'alinéa précédent, lorsqu'elles sont âgées de moins de seize ans ou de plus de soixante-dix ans, ou lorsque, quel que soit leur âge, elles sont titulaires, au moment de l'accident, d'un titre leur reconnaissant un taux d'incapacité permanente ou d'invalidité au moins égal à 80 %, sont, dans tous les cas, indemnisées des dommages résultant des atteintes à leur personne qu'elles ont subis.

Toutefois, dans les cas visés aux deux alinéas précédents, la victime n'est pas indemnisée par l'auteur de l'accident des dommages résultant des atteintes à sa personne lorsqu'elle a volontairement recherché le dommage qu'elle a subi. »

« Art. 4. La faute commise par le conducteur du véhicule terrestre à moteur a pour effet de limiter ou d'exclure l'indemnisation des dommages qu'il a subis.»

« Art. 5. La faute commise par la victime a pour effet de limiter ou d'exclure l'indemnisation des dommages aux biens qu'elle a subis. Toutefois, les fournitures et appareils délivrés sur prescription médicale donnent lieu à indemnisation selon les règles applicables à la réparation des atteintes à la personne.

Lorsque le conducteur d'un véhicule terrestre n'en est pas le propriétaire, la faute de ce conducteur peut être opposée au propriétaire pour l'indemnisation des dommages causés à son véhicule. Le propriétaire dispose d'un recours contre le conducteur. »

« Art. 6. Le préjudice subi par un tiers du fait des dommages causés à la victime directe d'un accident de la circulation est réparé en tenant compte des limitations ou exclusions applicables à l'indemnisation de ces dommages. »

--Sf 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Do the French have shared space schemes? Even if they do, what is the relevance of what you give above to the fact that successful schemes exist outside of France, and indeed outside of Europe. -- de Facto (talk). 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply 06/02/2007 Again you are missing the point. If the shared space scheme involves public roads then burden of proof rests on you to show that the applicable road traffic legislation can not affect how the scheme operates. I haven't made any reference to schemes outside Europe so what is your point? All schemes regardless of location will operate within their own specific contexts which must, if relevant and not readily obvious, be pointed out to the uninformed reader. Any subsequent analysis is then for the reader to make.

--Sf 13:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not missing the point, I think you are. The 'burden of proof' is on the editor that adds the controversial or contested material (see WP:CITE "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." ). I am not building or recommending a shared space schemes - I am writing about them. There are schemes mentioned in the article which work, in the U.S. and in the UK - in what way has the absence of Dutch (or French) traffic law affected them? So what point are you trying to make exactly? And what work are you referencing? -- de Facto (talk). 13:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The concept

This whole "Shared Space" concept is so outrageous I don't even believe any of this is real, and to you who may be reading this, don't believe it either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.145.62 (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A quote about the concept from an Asheville Citizen-Times article[1] follows --Wiley (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It really shouldn’t surprise anyone: We see this atomistic spirit of cooperation create order and safety out of chaos and danger – spontaneously and immediately – whenever power outages knock out traffic signals at complicated U.S. intersections. It’s no accident traffic usually flows more efficiently than when the traffic lights are working.

[edit] outdated link(s)

"United Kingdom New Road, Brighton - shared space scheme. New Road, Brighton - shared space scheme.

In Brighton, the City Council has recently transformed the whole of New Road, adjacent to the Royal Pavilion, into a fully shared space, with no delineation of the carriageway except for subtle changes in materials. The route for vehicles along New Road is only suggested through the location of street furniture, such as public seating and street lights. The re-opening of the street has led to a 93% reduction in motor vehicle trips (12,000 fewer per day) and lower speeds (to around 10 MPH), alongside an increase in cyclist and pedestrian usage (93% and 162%, respectively). [7] [8]

In Seven Dials, London (photographs) the road surface has been re-laid to remove the distinction between the roadway and the footway and kerbs have been lowered to encourage people to wander across the street.[9] A scheme implemented in London's Kensington High Street, dubbed naked streets in the press—reflecting the fact that the road has been cleared of markings, signage and pedestrian barriers, has yielded significant and sustained reductions in injuries to pedestrians. It is reported that, based on two years of 'before and after' monitoring, casualties fell from 71 in the period before the street was remodelled to 40 afterwards - a drop of 43.7%.[10]

Another proposed scheme in London is the redevelopment of Exhibition Road which is home to a number of world-class institutions. The local authority say they want the area to be a comfortable and attractive place in which to live, work and visit. They plan to use shared space principles to integrate vehicle and foot traffic, whilst preserving the road’s important function as a vital transport link serving people from the whole surrounding area.[11] There have also been trials in Ipswich, with shared space being a key feature of the design of the new Ravenswood community being built on the site of the former Ipswich Airport[12]." That link (photographs) in the second alinea links to a website which doesn't exist anymore. Pieter pietersen (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)