The Dutch cycle campaigning organisation, Fietserbond, is one of the more vocal critics of Shared Space. They say it leads to cyclists being bullied by motorists, a return of “might is right” to the roads, and a reluctance of people to cycle as a result. I can see why, as cycling through busy shared space areas can feel quite similar to cycling on the roads in the UK, while cycling elsewhere in the Netherlands tends to be quite free of such concerns.

We’ve a few areas of shared space near here. How comfortable it is varies a lot between different places. The busier parts are not necessarily very pleasant places to be. People avoid them when cycling. That includes Haren, which is on my cycle route to Groningen and which I pass through often.

The youtube video about Haren that your slides refer to has a comment from a Dutch youtube user, dgoedkoop, who says (roughly translated) that “the new arrangement suits the shop-keepers but not the road users. Cyclists are definitely not happy that the cycle paths have gone.”

I can see why he would say this. Where the cycle path ends at the southern end of the Shared Space section of Haren I am ejected into a stream of traffic and have to slow down and steer around parked vehicles, find myself playing “chicken” with oncoming traffic which is overtaking parked vehicles on the other side etc. Going through there is a temporary reminder of what it’s like when cars dominate, and it’s always a relief to get back onto the cycle path at the far end.

I now understand why Fietsersbond are concerned about Shared Space reducing cycling, and also why they describe these schemes as “an architect’s dream” rather than good road design.

Villages with little traffic, on the other hand, do tend to look very good with these changes, and the lack of traffic means that they seem to work well enough. Mind you, villages tended to be a bit like that anyway.

Shared Space was an interesting idea, but it largely seems to be a fad which has passed. Certainly newer developments built since we moved to the Netherlands would seem to have returned to a less “shared” arrangement.

I find your work interesting and challenging – and it has changed my view of my own behaviour – but here’s a couple of points which I’ve wanted to put to you for a while, and this seems as good a time as any. (Apologies for length)

It seems to me that any attempt to reverse the counterproductive aspects of ‘health and safety culture’ is doomed to failure. The intellectual case (infinitely complicated chains of causality mean that unpredictable accidents will always happen, risk compensation behaviour is an inevitable consequence of the way our minds work and so on) is convincing (if understood correctly,which I notice not everyone does), but only in the abstract. In the real world, the push towards trying to eliminate any danger is quite irresistable. It’s all very well to say “ok we’ll accept a *certain amount* of apparent danger” but at what point do your safety interventions become worthless? How do you know when to stop?

Any normal person is going to say “well that tragic accident which just occurred could have been easily avoided – it would be unthinkable not to make the obvious small change which would avoid a repetition”. The accident might have been freakish and unforeseen, but if there is a seemingly easy and cheap “fix”, then no responsibly-minded person would fail to make that fix. I certainly would make it – and so would you, I bet. There is no logical point at which you can say your environment has “just the right amount of apparent danger” (especially as the “right” amount differs between people). When do you stop?

And in fact, when do you start? This is a more subtle point. The world is not entirely composed of professional thinkers such as yourself, and more amateur ones such as myself. There are folks who like to run businesses and make a profit and some good safety interventions cost money. Now you really can’t be suggesting that, for example, the construction industry be entirely unregulated? Or perhaps you do think this. There are people who would make extreme arguments of this sort - and you did admit in a previous post that the Competitive Enterprise Institute likes your work enough to send you an xmas card …

You certainly don’t have “blood on your hands” but perhaps your work does give comfort to the already-powerful? This point (rather more forcefully) was made to me when I mentioned shared space and psychological traffic calming in a cycling email list and it did give me considerable pause, so I’d be interested to hear what you might say.

It’s made the road more dangerous and less convenient. Government in action.