Talk:Shared space

message: There have been at least two fatalities in UK and Channel Islands shared space schemes where the schemes have been cited as at least partially responsible: a partially-sighted pensioner in Coventry, https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/family-coventry-oap-killed-shared-3029617 - doubly significant due to the criticism of shared spaces as failing the visually-impaired community, and a toddler in Jersey https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-41147602, where the design of the shared space was criticised in a report by Alexandra Luck, a Chartered Engineer and road safety expert working on behalf of the Jersey police https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/07/13/clinton-pringle-crash-road-report-publication-must-wait/ The report can be found here: https://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=3760. Clearly this goes over and beyond criticism and should probably form a new section to ensure NPOV in a largely favourable article.
82.11.66.40 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatalities 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Furthermore, appellations like 'living streets,' and 'home zones' seem POV in favour of the concept. 'Shared...' is almost as bad, and altho 'naked...' could be seen to cut both ways, it misaligns the concept with other, unrelated progressive movements. See 'POV' section, below.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge in of [[Living street]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge in of assertions 

message: 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)
replies: text: A quote about the concept from an Asheville Citizen-Times article follows --Wiley (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The phenomenon described above could well be attributable to the poor timing settings of traffic lights - they typically keep both pedestrians and drivers waiting an unreasonable length of time, especially in bad weather.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

text:  "atomistic spirit of cooperation"?! Wow, that's a phrase one doesn't expect to find. It gives me a warm glow. —Tamfang (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody expects to find nuclear reactions on the Talk page of Shared spaces! :D --86.31.105.33 (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The concept 

message: "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)
thread_title:  outdated link(s) 

message: See: User:Seeplain/draft bio and its talk page.
Any opinions are welcome. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Cassini 

message: This is incorrect. Ben Hamilton-Baillie did not coined the term.
The Shared Street concept was introduced as early as the the 1980s
see the work of Donald Appleyard form 1981 (Livable  Streets) and various publications by Hass-Klau Carmen (e.g. Civilized Streets)
For history of the shared street idea and the woonerf concept see: Eran Ben-Joseph "Changing the Residential Street Scene: Adapting the shared Street (Woonerf) Concept to The Suburban Environment" JAPA V6N4
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockney (talk • contribs) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see any reference to the term "shared space" in that document. The concept might be introduced there, but I can find nothing to dispute the claim that the term originates with Hamilton-Baillie, as referenced in the paper cited at that paragraph. "Shared streets", according to Ben-Joseph, are another name for Woonerfs, and while this might be seen as the predecessor to shared spaces it would have to be worked into a later section. However there was a misleading implication that the whole concept originated with the H-B, which I've now edited to correctly attribute Monderman. The lede section was a bit of a mess and I confess I've run out of time to properly research it, but I think it makes more sense now than it did. --mikaultalk 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term 'shared space' was coined by Ben Hamilton-Baillie in 2003.[2] 

message: Most of the article and the Talk page seem biased towards the concept of shared spaces, and the notion (or assumption) that it is a progressive concept. This fails to recognise the long-standing, multi-organisational campaign in Britain against the whole concept of shared streets on the grounds of protecting the vulnerable. To quote from its campaign literature, "In shared surface areas, street users, both pedestrians and motorists, are expected to acknowledge each other and to negotiate priority and movement through ‘eye contact’. This raises obvious implications for blind, partially sighted and deafblind people."--86.31.105.33 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section that covers the concerns that you mention.  If you think that it doesn't adequately cover those concerns why not try to improve it.  Remember that reliable secondary sources add weight to information. -- de Facto (talk). 10:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have made an initial gesture towards what you suggest, but encountered technical difficulties using references, both in the insert and in an article for submission entitled Say 'no' to shared streets campaign.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Ah - have made some progress sorting it out, now (too late for the Say 'no' to shared streets campaign submission, tho), altho the advice pages don't tell you whether to put a comma between numerical ref., indicators(?). By the way, de Facto, I disagree with your Talk comment of four years ago, when you said that the bit quoted was 'anti-car' - it looks neutral to me.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already had a bit about the GDBA's concerns, so I moved your bit there and adapted it slightly to reflect what the BBC report says. -- de Facto (talk). 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Is there any legal prohibition of walking on the roads ? Motorways in the UK, yes. I believe Germans may only cross at designated crossings. Otherwise, I suspect all UK roads are 'shared' by default. Could designated 'shared spaces' erode our pedestrian rights ? Perhaps the article should address this ?--195.137.93.171 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roads are shared by default ? 

message: Thanks to Burgring and IP 85.255.234.36, who at this diff agree on removing the reference "Perspectives on Poynton. As Easy As Riding A Bike. June 16, 2014. Accessed 9 March 2015. https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/poynton/", used for the comment "One commentator points out that the ongoing high volume of motor traffic in this location means that there is very little ‘mingling’ in the carriageway by pedestrians, and very few people dare to use it on a bicycle."  
Now, the article has a large subsection on various specific implementations of shared space, and for this purpose we use quite a lot of non-academic / blog / unchecked single reporter sources, see many of the refs from 21 on. I tend to support their use, for the specific claims in question, but many of them appear to be significantly less reliable than the source above. There is, I suggest, an argument for removing the lot, condensing the By country section on the basis of the few sources that would be universally accepted as reliable for pretty much all purposes. And there's an argument for using all the appropriate (as I suggest) sources. I hope for consensus on one or the other. But I suggest there isn't a good argument for removing one single specific source here. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If it isn't from a so-called "reliable publications" (like mainstream quality media and professional bodies with editorial oversight) or from a notable and recognised subject expert, then the source (though not necessarily the content if it is likely to be true and can be verified elsewhere) should probably be deleted. Stukeley (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy wp:blogs is very clear that blogs cannot considered as wp:reliable sources and must not be given as supporting citations. This article suffers already from partisan writing and wp:soapboxing. For thst reason, the article needs to comply with the highest standards of evidence basing. I strongly support removing any material that is based on such flimsy evidence.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. At this diff I have removed what seem to me the less reliable sources, including a Shared Space reference and a Daily Telegraph reference that don't check out. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't agree with all those removals, especially the ones relating to Ben Hamilton-Baillie, an acknowledged expert in Shared Space, so I have restored them pending further discussion. Stukeley (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

text: P.S. I fixed the broken DT link. Stukeley (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's very useful. 
OK, let's take these one at a time. Perhaps we could start with BH-B's comments. He's certainly a prominent advocate of shared space and has actually designed and built some. In Wikipedia terms, he has a strong commercial interest in shared space and a strong point of view. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that of course, but it does mean that, here, we do need to evaluate him carefully as a source. Now, I'd regard him as absolutely reliable when it comes to, say, the facts of what's been built in Poynton. And he's fairly definitive for what claims are made for Shared Space. But when it comes to a balanced assessment of the outcomes of certain street changes, I would locate his comments as less reliable (for our purposes) than a blog. They are claims made by one side in a disagreement and they are not supported by the available academic work, nor by other interest groups. We may choose to present them as claims, in which case we should include other points of view, or we may choose to omit them. Personally I'd (generally) omit them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Shared space. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090920095921/http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz:80/council/projects/elliottdarby/default.asp to http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/projects/elliottdarby/default.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091120020857/http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz:80/council/projects/cbdproject/sharedspace.asp to http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/projects/cbdproject/sharedspace.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090920095921/http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz:80/council/projects/elliottdarby/default.asp to http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/projects/elliottdarby/default.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Shared space. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.eukn.org/dsresource?objectid=146375
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101118062223/http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/projects/elliottdarby/designs.asp to http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/projects/elliottdarby/designs.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/projects/elliottdarby/default.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110326044109/http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/news/council/201007/18/a06.asp to http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/news/council/201007/18/a06.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409170447/http://www.shared-space.org/files/18445/nieuwsbriefSS.06.6.pdf to http://www.shared-space.org/files/18445/nieuwsbriefSS.06.6.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified