In August, Liberal MP Peter Phelps issued a fierce roar in the New South Wales House of Lords, saying that the traffic lights were “Bolshevik threats.” He believes that traffic lights are in line with the state’s suppression of individual freedom.
Instead, he demanded that we need more roundabouts: “The roundabout represents freedom. The roundabout represents freedom.”
This quirky long story, while providing an interesting “filler” for news organizations, usually does not provide any valuable arguments and will soon disappear from memory. Of course, Road Minister Duncan Gay quickly took action to cancel any idea about the removal of traffic lights.
But maybe Phelps is doing something; he just didn’t think fundamentally.
Stripping sign
He can point out the concept of urban design and traffic engineering for “shared space” (or “naked streets”). This idea strips away almost all traditional street elements – such as signs, traffic lights, pedestrian barriers, road markings and curbs – to make these streets work better.
The informal sharing of streets has a long history, but there is a “rebirth” in this new method, rooted in the Dutch woolerf design principles that emerged in the 1970s.
On these streets, innovative paving, landscape and other urban design measures allow pedestrians, cyclists and children to share the road with slow-moving cars.
In the Anglo-American context, these views are increasingly being adopted as “shared spaces.” British urban designer Ben Hamilton-Baillie has been the most famous advocate.
Roads are safer and riskier
Why are you born again? Since the middle of the twentieth century, when planners, engineers, and governments began to work hard to cope with the dramatic increase in car usage, street design has long been thought of as a way to design potential conflicts between vehicles and other users.
Through traffic and law enforcement to control traffic flow, smooth traffic flow and safety can be achieved. We have built lane isolation, speed bumps, traffic lights, high speed cameras and more.
The late Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman was a pioneer in shared space design. He summed up the issues that emphasize isolation, control devices and regulation:
“A broad road with many signs is telling a story. It says, “Come on, don’t worry, you want to be fast, there is no need to pay attention to the environment around you. “This is a very dangerous message.
It seems paradoxical that the basic concept of shared space is that introducing risks can improve road safety. This “second generation” approach relies heavily on the field of behavioral psychology to better understand how the environmental context of the street affects behavior.
It aggregates all street users in a shared, largely undifferentiated space. It emphasizes the importance of speed, eye contact and interaction. It establishes the feeling of street sharing. The idea is to encourage people to be responsible for their actions, and there is a kind of “psychological traffic calm.”
Shared street in Europe
Around the world, especially in Europe (the European Commission sponsors shared space projects involving seven countries), there are hundreds of implementations based on these principles.
In Australia, very few. However, Bendigo City’s 2008 Australian Urban Design Awards can see more and more interest and acceptance, and its shared space program has made a significant contribution to this.
Existing research on these protocols has found that they are generally beneficial in the proper environment. They tend to have lower speeds and fewer accidents and injuries. There is also evidence of congestion and reduced emissions.
Other positive aspects include less physical and visual clutter and more aesthetically pleasing streets. These help to improve livability and improve social quality.
Sometimes we need those traffic lights
But there are some caveats – there is no way to deploy shared space anywhere. Even their most enthusiastic advocates, such as Hamilton Bailey and Mondman, acknowledge the need to control highways and roads.
In addition, there is a strong focus on the potential impact of shared space on more vulnerable street users. These are users such as children, the elderly and the disabled (especially blind and poorly sighted) who are less able to hire drivers in the required “negotiations”.
Some bicycle advocacy groups are concerned about subjective safety levels and the possibility of feeling unsafe can prevent people from riding bicycles. It is here that the debate about shared space is consistent with the equally intense discussion surrounding the benefits of the isolated loop path (or no). There is no easy answer to whether the shared space is “correct”. A formal theoretical framework and coherent research institutions around its value have just emerged, and its application must be relevant to the specific situation.
It is obvious that when they succeed, they help to balance the social and sporting roles of street conflicts. This balance provides pedestrians and cyclists with a more attractive and enjoyable street than they currently experience in our city.
https://theconversation.com/sharing-streets-is-the-answer-to-get-naked-2987