Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrismealy | Hacker News Reader

Shared space doesn't really work except for places with very little traffic, and there only if the streets are small enough to make driving difficult and unpleasant. The Dutch model of providing safe, separated spaces for cycling and walking is a proven success.

View on HN

The 'shared space' concept is actually Dutch in origin (traffic engineer Hans Monderman), and is still used here in a lot of places. The concept seems to work rather well in villages where a primary thoroughfare (essentially two grades below a highway) passes through the village centre. The lack of a well-defined kerb makes motorists adjust their behaviour in a good way.

That said, shared spaces are overused in the Netherlands as well; especially in busy places that have plenty of pedestrians and an ongoing bicycle route. In my experience (as a cyclist and pedestrian) removing the lines and kerbs doesn't make cyclists adjust their speed and pedestrians more aware of their surroundings; it creates an arena where the strongest contender wins.

There is a disturbing trend in Dutch urban planning where demarcations and clear traffic rules are being eschewed in favour of laissez-faire shared spaces where you are mostly on your own as a participant in traffic, and where acting like an ass-hole is the most effective and safe strategy.

The Dutch don't actually provide reasonably separated spaces in Amsterdam beyond the major wide roads. On the older streets (i.e., the ones you want to stroll along), it's basically mayhem with pedestrians in danger much of the time.

Copenhagen is much more "thorough" in this regard, but that's just because they have far fewer old streets. The fully separated, individual curbs between car, bicycle, and pedestrian works really well. It's just not "affordable" on old streets.

Don't look at Amsterdam's city centre as a representative example of traffic in our country. The number of tourists combined with a total disregard for traffic rules on the part of the natives makes for a rather uncivilized mix.

I don't know how true this is, but I find that Dutch and Belgian drivers seem to have much less regard for traffic laws than the Germans and UK drivers. Things like not cutting corners and indicating at roundabouts.

One big difference I notice is the amount of space that is between cars. Germans and UK drivers leave much bigger time gap than Belgians / Dutch.

I spent 10 years driving in the UK and now 7 years driving in Belgium and occasionally across to Germany / Holland

Do you mean pedestrians in danger from cars or bicycles?

I guess that cars can't go as fast on the older smaller streets.

It depends on your definition of 'very little traffic', the Poynton Plan reckons on about 900 vehicles per hour [0].

> Park Lane also carries significant traffic flows (some 10,500 vehicles per 12-hour day), much of which is local traffic, and cannot be diverted via ot her existing routes

[0]: http://www.hamilton-baillie.co.uk/_files/_projects/100-2.pdf

Yeah I can't imagine this helping in a highly congested area like a big city with lots of vehicles. Seems like a recipe for gridlock.

Happens in St Petersburg Russia a lot. While there are road signs and markers, the only acknowledged rule of the road most of the time is "we go this direction on this side", and even that isnt always carefully followed.

Sometimes it's great and inow traffic times the flow is fine. Other times every intersection is an adventure to get through as cars pile into the middle hoping to get through. Lot of horns beeping and lots of swearing. Even worse if the traffic lights go out.

Maybe this works in certain conditions, but too many cars on the road just seems to cause chaos without something enforcing order.

(Many of the traffic jams are further complicated by Russian insurance policies when it comes to accidents in that you may compromise your version of the story if you move your vehicles before the police arrive. This means that an inconvenient accident in an intersection can stop traffic for a long ways until the police decide to arrive and write a report. )

A highly congested city is already suffering from a serious problem with detrimental consequences to pedestrians and cyclists. Making cycle lanes available just helps reduce those problems. You will still have congestion whatever you do. But having less capacity for cars could help deter people from making journeys that cause such a nuisance.

>deter people from making journeys that cause such a nuisance.

Connectivity and interaction is the whole reason we have cities. Urban planning that seeks to prevent trips ("transportation demand management") defeats the purpose of living near other humans. Why have cities at all, if you are going to design them to be isolating?

When it's easier and faster to navigate 50 miles between farms than 5 miles between urban neighborhoods, the city has thoroughly and catastrophically failed. I'm not surprised that this happens accidentally. But the idea we should deliberately make cities hostile to their residents' desires to get around just seems crazy.

OP’s point was that there are ways to get around besides driving a car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com