The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.
There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).
Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.
Debaser wrote:Erm...the clue is in the name...shared space. There is no footway, there is no carriageway.
You can give it any name you like, but unless specifically designated, it is an offence to cycle on the pavement. The law does't recognise shared spaces.
My daughter made a sage comment whe she noticed that there were more cyclists on the pavement than on the road. She pointed out that usually means the cyclists are afraid of being on the road.
Debaser wrote:
That's why some suggest we create refuges on either side of shared spaces - using bollards or benches or other street furniture - which provide secure areas for the blind, partially sighted and mobility impaired to walk in complete safety.
False, pure and simple. Blind people walk along roads (with a dog or with a long cane) by following the kerb. No kerb means they can't tell where they are. Full stop.
Judging by your complete lack of understanding of blind people, you must be a shared space apologist. Unfortunately such denial seems to be traditional for such apologists. There really is no excuse for ignorance any longer: there is more than enough written documentation about how blind people use roads and pavements. Just ask any organisation representing the blind, e.g. RNIB. Googling works very well.
Here's what Poynton means to blind peoplehttps://vimeo.com/118137432 It isn't funny, except for the unscripted bit in the background at 3:50
Debaser wrote:
That's why some suggest we create refuges on either side of shared spaces - using bollards or benches or other street furniture - which provide secure areas for the blind, partially sighted and mobility impaired to walk in complete safety.
False, pure and simple. Blind people walk along roads (with a dog or with a long cane) by following the kerb. No kerb means they can't tell where they are. Full stop.
Judging by your complete lack of understanding of blind people, you must be a shared space apologist. Unfortunately such denial seems to be traditional for such apologists. There really is no excuse for ignorance any longer: there is more than enough written documentation about how blind people use roads and pavements. Just ask any organisation representing the blind, e.g. RNIB. Googling works very well.
Here's what Poynton means to blind peoplehttps://vimeo.com/118137432 It isn't funny, except for the unscripted bit in the background at 3:50
I had a look at the RNIB's website, and they seem more interested in campaigning completely against the idea of shared spaces rather than trying to engage and consider how they may be made more useable by blind people, which I think would be more productive.
scynthius726 wrote:The somewhat watered-down "shared space" in Blackpool does have a slight kerb (about half an inch) for this reason. Is the one in Poynton like this?
I drove along the prom in Blackpool on Friday, while looking for somewhere to stop. Signs at the start - "No parking except in marked bays." Except I couldn't tell what was a marked bay and what wasn't! There were scattered cars stopped at the side, or in some cases way off the traffic flow, but I simply was not able to tell where it was actually permissible to park! Ended up in a proper car park (£2.50 minimum!!) Maybe regulars, or those not in heavy traffic and able to spend time examining the roadsubtle variations in paving, would get it, but for a first time visitor it was a Big Fail in usability.
boing_uk wrote:And yet the accident rate has fallen dramatically since it went in.
That's not justification. It could be that people who would use it are actively avoiding it because it's so bad.
Everything I've seen of Poynton looks horrific. It underlines everything which is wrong with planning for pedestrians and cyclists in the UK. Even worse that it's being held up as a triumph. Disaster is closer to the mark.
Still open minded to these schemes, I'm conscious however that the initial collision drop doesn't necessarily translate to a long term reduction, so the longer term collision rates will be interesting once locals have settled into using the new layout and confidence has increased - which could reduce the level of care being taken now.
Haydn1971 wrote:Still open minded to these schemes, I'm conscious however that the initial collision drop doesn't necessarily translate to a long term reduction, so the longer term collision rates will be interesting once locals have settled into using the new layout and confidence has increased - which could reduce the level of care being taken now.
Poynton will be bypassed in three years' time anyway.
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
These shared spaces don't work for blind people so they should be phased out IMO.
In the case of Poynton, the twin mini roundabout aspect of the new layout is actually very good - the old traffic lights were horrible.
I don't see why it had to be 'shared space' with the lethal absence of kerbs, legal greyness and badly laid paving stones.
Some zebra crossings (not too close to the mini-roundabouts) with old fashioned tarmac and kerbs would surely be cheaper to install and maintain than the poncy paving stones, probably imported from somewhere expensive.
As for a bypass in 3 years time, that'll soon be upon us but the village will be in a sorry state after three more winters.
PeterA5145 wrote:
Poynton will be bypassed in three years' time anyway.
Peter does that three years mean the completion of the A555 scheme that has just kicked off or will there be a north south bypass of the A523 by then?
Haydn1971 wrote:Still open minded to these schemes, I'm conscious however that the initial collision drop doesn't necessarily translate to a long term reduction, so the longer term collision rates will be interesting once locals have settled into using the new layout and confidence has increased - which could reduce the level of care being taken now.
chris486 wrote:These shared spaces don't work for blind people so they should be phased out IMO.
Hows that then? I am assuming that pedestrian zones are equally as daunting for the blind, so I guess these should be phased out as well.
Nope. Guess again.
It's the business with the kerb, as descibed above by others who probably know more than I do. As I understand it, blind people use kerbs as a benchmark and guide dogs are trained likewise- shared spaces confuse blind people and their dogs.
There are no kerbs in pedestrian zones either, yet I dont see blind people and their dogs stuck or wandering aimlessly.
The issue here is training of both blind people and the dogs, not a matter of bad design of the underlying concept. Shared space needs to be implemented carefully, but that is not to say that it is fundamentally dangerous, particularly for sight impaired. Poor implementation, of any type of engineerring scheme, can make it fundamentally dangerous however.
Poynton, excellent. Blackpool Prom is now less so, due to kneejerk changes which have actually made it less safe than it was and diluted the effect somewhat.
Debaser wrote:
That's why some suggest we create refuges on either side of shared spaces - using bollards or benches or other street furniture - which provide secure areas for the blind, partially sighted and mobility impaired to walk in complete safety.
False, pure and simple. Blind people walk along roads (with a dog or with a long cane) by following the kerb. No kerb means they can't tell where they are. Full stop.
Judging by your complete lack of understanding of blind people, you must be a shared space apologist. Unfortunately such denial seems to be traditional for such apologists.
On the contrary, if you read this and other threads you'd see I am on the more sceptical side of the argument - the (unsolved) problems blind and partially sighted peds in particular face in these featureless schemes being their major downfall. That "some suggest we create refuges on either side of shared spaces - using bollards or benches or other street furniture - which provide secure areas for the blind, partially sighted and mobility impaired to walk in complete safety" was me pointing out that if such 'refuges' are needed on a shared space scheme it shows that scheme to be intrinsically flawed.
boing_uk wrote:And yet the accident rate has fallen dramatically since it went in.
Has it really?
Crashmap shows 10 slight injury accidents in 2012 and 2013 on stretches of road covered by the scheme - the most recent publicly available since the scheme opened. Between 2005 and 2008 - 4 years, there were 13.
It doesn't really sound like a "dramatic reduction".
Bryn666 wrote:
Presumably a double set of signals with high approach speeds and zero facilities for cyclists was preferable than the current low speed arrangement?
It doesn't have to be one or the other. Shared spaces are bad for cars as they create uncertainty. They are bad for cyclists as they get bullied out of the way by cars. They are bad for pedestrians as they get bullied out of the way by cars and by cyclists.
They are bad for traffic flow and bad for everyone who uses them.
They do have pretty block paving, so there's that.
And to reiterate, falling collisions is not necessarily a good result. e.g. There's not many cycling accidents on the A19 in Teesside, does that mean the A19 is an excellent cycling road? No, just the opposite!
This article details the scheme. Basically it's broadly neutral for motorists, positive for pedestrians but bad for cycling. You have to either take to the footway or take primary on the road, neither of which is a good solution.
You would think these days that you can't design a new road layout and 'forget' bicycle users.
