The introduction of shared surfaces was intended to make streets more pedestrian friendly and lower traffic speeds. However, they also pose serious risks to the safety of disabled people. Jill Whiteand Carol Thomasdiscuss the dilemma

Our streets are changing with the hope that pedestrians will take more control. Distinction between areas for pedestrians and traffic is becoming blurred. The advantages seem clear – categorising roads through design, rather than signage and regulation, implicitly makes drivers adapt their behaviour. Street layout complexity encourages lower speeds, as negotiation and interpretation is necessary. It is asserted that compelling drivers to process additional visual information, through the employment of shared surface street layouts, significantly reduces speed with an associated reduction in road deaths. At 20mph, impact fatalities are around five per cent, at 30mph around 45 per cent and at 40mph there is an 85 per cent death rate.¹

So what could possibly be wrong with this approach to designing streets?

Pedestrian-friendly streets and lower traffic speeds benefit us all. Concern, however, has arisen where such schemes involve pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles sharing the same surface. For blind and partially sighted people, finding their way around town centres safely and confidently depends on ‘cues’ – like kerbs, audible pedestrian crossings and tactile paving – that let them know where they are. If these cues are removed, blind and partially sighted people can easily become disorientated and find themselves in potentially perilous situations. Shared surfaces require users to negotiate movement by making eye contact, with obvious implications.

Risks to safety

The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (GDfB) carried out research to find out about the impact of shared surface areas. The research report, published in September 2006, shows that blind and partially sighted people are reporting serious risks to their safety, with parts of some towns having become ‘no-go’ areas.²

The GDfB research also looked at the impact of these developments on other groups of disabled people and the report shows that there is also concern among people with physical disabilities, as well as those with other sensory impairments and learning disabilities. For instance, deaf and hard of hearing people may be unable to hear vehicles approaching, and need to focus on companions rather than their environment to be able to communicate; wheelchair users have difficulty making eye contact with bus drivers and ambulant disabled people feel vulnerable in the path of traffic. Consequently a wide range of other disability organisations have joined the GDfB campaign and a joint statement has now been agreed, highlighting the concerns of people with a wide range of disabilities.

Local authorities have a duty to promote disability equality and to meet their obligations under Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 2005 in relation to their highway functions. The creation of areas in town centres where the safety of disabled people is at risk, and where many now feel too afraid to go, is not, in the view of Guide Dogs, in keeping with the DDA. In response to a recent question in parliament, the Government advised that the forthcoming Manual for Streetswill acknowledge GDfB research (and that of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee which looked at similar issues in connection with home zones) and will not be advocating widespread introduction of shared surfaces.

In the light of this research, what can designers do to make streets work for everyone? Although we need to maintain local distinctiveness, it is vital to adopt a standard set of approaches nationally to assist blind and partially sighted people to negotiate public spaces. Many implemented designs lack the key orientating mechanisms of kerbs and tactile paving, and retro-fitting mitigating measures is the only option for these. These two mechanisms are the only methods whose efficacy has been researched and proven. However, they are somewhat limited options from a design viewpoint and kerbs delineate space completely.

The object of shared space is to mix foot and motor traffic –the very mingling of these two groups dynamically changes street activity and user behaviour. But if sections of the community are effectively excluded from certain areas, how can this approach be judged a success?

Creative solutions required

The answer must surely be to find creative design solutions which can be applied nationally, through better links and collaborative research with suppliers of surface products and treatments. For example, how can we create the feel of a kerb for a blind or partially sighted person, without sending unwelcome signals to motorists or creating a trip hazard? If you have found local solutions to such problems, share them! GDfB is looking for examples of different approaches which can be formally researched and assessed, so help shape policy and design research by letting us know what you have found useful.

Proponents of the shared space concept have not yet given detailed design advice which sets out how the shared space concept can be implemented in an inclusive way. GDfB plans to plug this gap and to establish appropriate design approaches. The next stage of its research programme aims to develop and test potential street designs that meet the needs of blind and partially sighted people and people with other disabilities, as well as embracing the aims of the shared space concept. GDfB is working with international urban designers Bjarne Winterberg (Rambøll Nyvig) and Lars Gemzøe (Gehl architects) to develop a series of streetscape designs that will be tested by disabled people in 2007.

Effective engagement

In the meantime, where it is proposed to use a different form of separation between the footway and the carriageway (or shared area) other than the recognised kerb or tactile paving, local authorities should be prepared to carry out research before implementation to demonstrate clearly that their design solutions are suitable and effective. Local authorities should consult and engage effectively with local disabled people at all stages of street design proposals and GDfB has issued a briefing note for local groups to help them to engage effectively. Devon County Council’s urban design team has certainly found this approach helpful –a recent exercise saw them donning special goggles to experience first hand the issues of negotiating the street from the perspective of a partially sighted person.

While there has undoubtedly been a commendable attempt to improve the standard of street design and to improve pedestrian safety, we now need to build on this by embracing a fully inclusive approach to the design process –and by being creative in the use of consultation with national and local representatives of a wide range of potential street user groups. Designers also need to be aware of the available guidance and recommendations and to share and publicise local approaches and solutions to problems. Only then can we hope to create spaces which can be used with equal ease by every userand which make a positive contribution not only to street appearance, but to the sharing of public areas by all users.

References

1. Sustainable Communities Group, source Ashton and Mackay, 1979

2. Shared Surface Street Design: Report of focus groups, GDfB. Visit: www.guidedogs.org.uk/sharedsurfacesM “GDfB is working with international urban designers Bjarne Winterberg and Lars Gemzøe to develop a series of streetscape designs that will be tested by disabled people in 2007”