Talk:Shared space

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mino109.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jgrigull21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalities[edit]

There have been at least two fatalities in UK and Channel Islands shared space schemes where the schemes have been cited as at least partially responsible: a partially-sighted pensioner in Coventry, https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/family-coventry-oap-killed-shared-3029617 - doubly significant due to the criticism of shared spaces as failing the visually-impaired community, and a toddler in Jersey https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-41147602, where the design of the shared space was criticised in a report by Alexandra Luck, a Chartered Engineer and road safety expert working on behalf of the Jersey police https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/07/13/clinton-pringle-crash-road-report-publication-must-wait/ The report can be found here: https://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=3760. Clearly this goes over and beyond criticism and should probably form a new section to ensure NPOV in a largely favourable article. 82.11.66.40 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in of Living street[edit]

"Naked streets" provide journalists with an eye-catching headline, but it is actually a poor description of shared space. Shared space involves much more than the removal of signs, signals, barriers and markings (important though such steps are). Successful shared space schemes involve developing a change in the "mental map" of streets and public spaces (see David Engwicht "Mental Speed Bumps"), and dressing streets with a strong contextual response to context and human activities. "Living Streets" are essential to developing public space and strong and confident communities, and both contribute to, and are helped by, shared space design concepts. "Home Zones" can be helpful, but tend to be limited to individual or sets of residential streets. They have also, like the woonerf in The Netherlands, become part of the regulated highway language. Shared space is intrinsically about moving streets and public spaces outside the regulatory framework. Ben Hamilton-Baillie

We would need to concur that living street is actually a shared space scheme. The essential element of shared space is that all types of users of the public space have equal priority and there are no signs or rules dictating how interactions occur. The living street article has a slight anti-car tone, exemplified by this extract "...the needs of car drivers are secondary to the needs of users of the street as a whole", and by the implication that speed limits are necessary to allow cars access to the space. -De Facto 11:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see there is little if anything to formally distinguish living streets, home zones, naked streets and shared space. All share the same fundamental approach, after all. All are, as far as I can tell, subject to speed limits (for obvious reasons), but rely primarily on a design which makes driving above those speeds unlikely anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shared space is based upon the philosophy of designing public space in such a way as to allow unregulated human social interactions to dictate behaviour. To prescribe a speed limit is to doubt that the philosophy will work. If the scheme is designed well speed will naturally be limited, but by consent, not by order. -De Facto 11:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the difference between the concept and the implementation: the implementations at present are partial, inspired by the concept. Kensington High Street still has some signage, for example, due to legal requirements on traffic islands (apparently). Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If something is required by law, such as a specific sign, or a specific limit, then, assuming the law cannot be bypassed, the item will have to be present. That is not to say that the item is an integral part of the scheme, or that the scheme would not work without the item. Different legislation will, naturally, apply in different jurisdictions. The article may, of course, mention these imlementation details - and describe them as such, but it shouldn't undermine the principle that they are not dictated by the shared space philosophy, and thus are superfluous. -De Facto 13:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong object to merge There is a fundamental difference between the concepts of "naked streets" and "home zones" and the two concepts should not be conflated. The home zone/woonerfen concept is a specific legal status where the duties/priorities of the road users are clearly defined. The declaration of a home zone/woonerf does not ipso facto require the application of any of the "naked street" design philosophies. (Although clearly in their purist form such designs are applied, particularly for custom designed schemes ). --Sf 14:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, appellations like 'living streets,' and 'home zones' seem POV in favour of the concept. 'Shared...' is almost as bad, and altho 'naked...' could be seen to cut both ways, it misaligns the concept with other, unrelated progressive movements. See 'POV' section, below.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've just reread the living street article and there is a strong argument that the home zone/woonerf parts should be split out into thier own article(s) --Sf 14:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge - Even if there is a conceptual difference there is so much content overlap that a common article is demanded at present. Citations desperately needed too! Cutler 00:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in of assertions[edit]

To ensure that the article grows in a sustainable and controlled fashion I think we need to ensure that imported assertions are supported by correctly cited sources (see WP:CITE). -De Facto 11:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Road traffic legislation and its implications" removed for discussion[edit]

Due to lack of attributions readers can only assume that this section, copied below, contravenes the Wikipedia:No original research policy, so I have moved it here for discussion.

If it isn't OR please restore it with attribution for:

  • Whose work is the idea "One of the potential pitfalls for observers trying to interpret the operation of naked-streets type schemes..." taken from.
  • Can you quote the part of the reference you cite (Better protection for pedestrians, cyclists and passengers, Press Release of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, 24/11/97) which leads to the assertion "...in contrast to most English speaking countries, some Northern European countries, including the Netherlands, have defined liability legislation" - in relation to shared space schemes.
  • Who arrived at the "analysis or synthesis" that you describe concerning motorists' legal liability and its connection with shared space schemes.
  • Whose work it was that suggested that Dutch or German motorists may be more cautious than British or Irish motorists.

One of the potential pitfalls for observers trying to interpret the operation of naked-streets type schemes is that legal assumptions which apply in one environment do not apply elsewhere. For instance, in contrast to most English speaking countries, some Northern European countries, including the Netherlands, have defined liability legislation[1].

Thus there is a legal assumption that motorists are automatically considered liable in law for any injuries that occur if they collide with cyclists or pedestrians. This may hold regardless of any fault on the part of the other road user and may significantly affect the behaviour of motorists when they encounter vulnerable road users.

In addition, in countries like the Netherlands and Germany traffic operates on a default assumption of "yield to the right"[2]. Thus where there are no other road signs or markings, cars entering from side-roads may have priority over cars on the main through-road. This contrasts with traffic law in countries like the UK, Ireland or the US where a default principle of "first come-first served" is applied. This may result Dutch or German motorists being inherently more cautious than British or Irish motorists might be in an equivalent situation.

-- de Facto (talk). 21:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Napoleon--Sf 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The WP:No original research policy is very clear. Arguments or analyses of existing facts must be attributed to a verifiable source. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal points of view, or constructs on data. You need to cite whose work you are referring to when you add information. -- de Facto (talk). 10:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again, a poorly "copied and pasted" reincarnation of the same text. The policy "WP:No original research" specifies that you need to demonstrate that the theories you present are from reputable published sources, and they are not your own theories, even if they are based on published facts. -- de Facto (talk). 14:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 5/02/2007 I think you are missing a few salient points.

1) This is an article in the English wikipedia - It's target audience is thus primarily inhabitants of English speaking countries eg UK, Ireland, Australia various Commonwealth countries, the US etc

2) It is an article about a measure that primarily originates in and is applied in continental European countries most particularly the Netherlands and Germany.

3) It is a fact that the road traffic and motorist liability legislation of these countries differs in a fundamental manner from that of the countries occupied by the target audience. These differences are recognised by international treaty and are widely recognised by persons with even a passing knowledge of the topic. It is self-evident that the differences are most relevant to situations which are the topic of this article = streets that have no road signs or road markings. These legal differences are the topic of numerous guides for the English speaking visitor to Northern Europe.

4) If it is your contention that these facts have no bearing on how the target reader should interpret the topic of this article then the primary burden of proof lies with you and not with the person pointing out the existence of these facts.

  • That is to say if you wish to suppress knowledge of these facts in relation to this topic then the obligation lies with you to produce the analyses and publications which support this position.

5) As someone who apparently has little knowledge of the field, perhaps you should ponder to what extent the pre-existing Dutch/German legal environment has made such schemes possible? Eg in the Netherlands and Germany it is entirely possible for the designer to concieve of such a scheme and then apply it - safe in knowledge that the necessary legal framework exists. This again is self-evident to anyone with a rudimentry knowledge of the legislative environment - it requires no "analysis".

--Sf 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the points you are making are from published sources then cite them. If they are not then they contravene the WP:No original research policy and are not permissible. Let me answer each of your points in turn.
1) How is the fact that this in an English article relevent to the subject matter? Two of the world's leading proponents of the shared space philosophy are from English speaking countries. Successful schemes exist in the U.S. and the UK. Can you cite the research that suggests that this article content s not suitable for English speakers.
2) The measure may have originated in the Netherlands, but its principles, rooted in psychology, apply equally in all places where conventional regulatation based road safety methodologies have proved to be ineffective.
3) Whose research suggests that it is motorist liability laws, not the changed emphasis from regulation to psychology that is providing the perceived advantages of this philosophy? The evidence of the U.S. and UK schemes suggests it works equally well in those countries - do you have published sources which claim otherwise?
4) My contention is not whether these legal differences have a bearing, but whether the notion that they may have a bearing is from published sources, or from "original research". Wikipedia policy is clear. If you want to add controversial claims you need to provide the sources which make those claims. See WP:NOR. You need to cite reputable sources for the claims you are making - that way they will become a valuable addition to the article.
5) The pre-existing Dutch or German legal frameworks have no bearing on the schemes in the U.S. or the UK. What point are you trying to make?
Please do not reinsert the paragraph without appropriate published support. -- de Facto (talk). 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch automatic liabilty legislation

This originates in a 1992 High Court finding that motorists were 50% liable for damages in the event of collisions with vulnerable road users, irrespective of whether the other party was at fault. Dutch law was changed to make motorists totally liable in the event of collisions between bicycles and cars in 1997-1998. (I think there recent moves to pull this back a bit) Getting English language sources for this (without citing my own work ;-) ) will probably take a few days. --Sf 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that shared space schemes in the Netherlands pre-date that legislation I do not think it is at all relevant to the article - unless you can cite a published article linking it. -- de Facto (talk). 10:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In the meantime here is a French example (it's self explanatory)


France: Loi Badinter

Article L. 122-1 du Code de la Route

Outre les dispositions du code des assurances, les règles relatives à l'indemnisation des victimes d'accidents de la circulation sont fixées par les articles 1er à 6 de la loi n° 85-677 du 5 juillet 1985 ci-après reproduits :

« Art. 1er. Les dispositions du présent chapitre s'appliquent, même lorsqu'elles sont transportées en vertu d'un contrat, aux victimes d'un accident de la circulation dans lequel est impliqué un véhicule terrestre à moteur ainsi que ses remorques ou semi-remorques, à l'exception des chemins de fer et des tramways circulant sur des voies qui leur sont propres. »

« Art. 2. Les victimes, y compris les conducteurs, ne peuvent se voir opposer la force majeure ou le fait d'un tiers par le conducteur ou le gardien d'un véhicule mentionné à l'article 1er. »

« Art. 3. Les victimes, hormis les conducteurs de véhicules terrestres à moteur, sont indemnisées des dommages résultant des atteintes à leur personne qu'elles ont subis, sans que puisse leur être opposée leur propre faute à l'exception de leur faute inexcusable si elle a été la cause exclusive de l'accident.

Les victimes désignées à l'alinéa précédent, lorsqu'elles sont âgées de moins de seize ans ou de plus de soixante-dix ans, ou lorsque, quel que soit leur âge, elles sont titulaires, au moment de l'accident, d'un titre leur reconnaissant un taux d'incapacité permanente ou d'invalidité au moins égal à 80 %, sont, dans tous les cas, indemnisées des dommages résultant des atteintes à leur personne qu'elles ont subis.

Toutefois, dans les cas visés aux deux alinéas précédents, la victime n'est pas indemnisée par l'auteur de l'accident des dommages résultant des atteintes à sa personne lorsqu'elle a volontairement recherché le dommage qu'elle a subi. »

« Art. 4. La faute commise par le conducteur du véhicule terrestre à moteur a pour effet de limiter ou d'exclure l'indemnisation des dommages qu'il a subis.»

« Art. 5. La faute commise par la victime a pour effet de limiter ou d'exclure l'indemnisation des dommages aux biens qu'elle a subis. Toutefois, les fournitures et appareils délivrés sur prescription médicale donnent lieu à indemnisation selon les règles applicables à la réparation des atteintes à la personne.

Lorsque le conducteur d'un véhicule terrestre n'en est pas le propriétaire, la faute de ce conducteur peut être opposée au propriétaire pour l'indemnisation des dommages causés à son véhicule. Le propriétaire dispose d'un recours contre le conducteur. »

« Art. 6. Le préjudice subi par un tiers du fait des dommages causés à la victime directe d'un accident de la circulation est réparé en tenant compte des limitations ou exclusions applicables à l'indemnisation de ces dommages. »

--Sf 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the French have shared space schemes? Even if they do, what is the relevance of what you give above to the fact that successful schemes exist outside of France, and indeed outside of Europe. -- de Facto (talk). 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply 06/02/2007 Again you are missing the point. If the shared space scheme involves public roads then burden of proof rests on you to show that the applicable road traffic legislation can not affect how the scheme operates. I haven't made any reference to schemes outside Europe so what is your point? All schemes regardless of location will operate within their own specific contexts which must, if relevant and not readily obvious, be pointed out to the uninformed reader. Any subsequent analysis is then for the reader to make.

--Sf 13:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not missing the point, I think you are. The 'burden of proof' is on the editor that adds the controversial or contested material (see WP:CITE "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." ). I am not building or recommending a shared space schemes - I am writing about them. There are schemes mentioned in the article which work, in the U.S. and in the UK - in what way has the absence of Dutch (or French) traffic law affected them? So what point are you trying to make exactly? And what work are you referencing? -- de Facto (talk). 13:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 'Better protection for pedestrians, cyclists and passengers', Press Release of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, 24/11/97
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference spiegel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

The concept[edit]

This whole "Shared Space" concept is so outrageous I don't even believe any of this is real, and to you who may be reading this, don't believe it either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.145.62 (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quote about the concept from an Asheville Citizen-Times article[1] follows --Wiley (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really shouldn’t surprise anyone: We see this atomistic spirit of cooperation create order and safety out of chaos and danger – spontaneously and immediately – whenever power outages knock out traffic signals at complicated U.S. intersections. It’s no accident traffic usually flows more efficiently than when the traffic lights are working.

The phenomenon described above could well be attributable to the poor timing settings of traffic lights - they typically keep both pedestrians and drivers waiting an unreasonable length of time, especially in bad weather.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"atomistic spirit of cooperation"?! Wow, that's a phrase one doesn't expect to find. It gives me a warm glow. —Tamfang (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody expects to find nuclear reactions on the Talk page of Shared spaces! :D --86.31.105.33 (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

outdated link(s)[edit]

"United Kingdom New Road, Brighton - shared space scheme. New Road, Brighton - shared space scheme.

In Brighton, the City Council has recently transformed the whole of New Road, adjacent to the Royal Pavilion, into a fully shared space, with no delineation of the carriageway except for subtle changes in materials. The route for vehicles along New Road is only suggested through the location of street furniture, such as public seating and street lights. The re-opening of the street has led to a 93% reduction in motor vehicle trips (12,000 fewer per day) and lower speeds (to around 10 MPH), alongside an increase in cyclist and pedestrian usage (93% and 162%, respectively). [7] [8]

In Seven Dials, London (photographs) the road surface has been re-laid to remove the distinction between the roadway and the footway and kerbs have been lowered to encourage people to wander across the street.[9] A scheme implemented in London's Kensington High Street, dubbed naked streets in the press—reflecting the fact that the road has been cleared of markings, signage and pedestrian barriers, has yielded significant and sustained reductions in injuries to pedestrians. It is reported that, based on two years of 'before and after' monitoring, casualties fell from 71 in the period before the street was remodelled to 40 afterwards - a drop of 43.7%.[10]

Another proposed scheme in London is the redevelopment of Exhibition Road which is home to a number of world-class institutions. The local authority say they want the area to be a comfortable and attractive place in which to live, work and visit. They plan to use shared space principles to integrate vehicle and foot traffic, whilst preserving the road’s important function as a vital transport link serving people from the whole surrounding area.[11] There have also been trials in Ipswich, with shared space being a key feature of the design of the new Ravenswood community being built on the site of the former Ipswich Airport[12]." That link (photographs) in the second alinea links to a website which doesn't exist anymore. Pieter pietersen (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Cassini[edit]

See: User:Seeplain/draft bio and its talk page.

Any opinions are welcome. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'shared space' was coined by Ben Hamilton-Baillie in 2003.[2][edit]

This is incorrect. Ben Hamilton-Baillie did not coined the term. The Shared Street concept was introduced as early as the the 1980s see the work of Donald Appleyard form 1981 (Livable Streets) and various publications by Hass-Klau Carmen (e.g. Civilized Streets) For history of the shared street idea and the woonerf concept see: Eran Ben-Joseph "Changing the Residential Street Scene: Adapting the shared Street (Woonerf) Concept to The Suburban Environment" JAPA V6N4 [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockney (talk • contribs) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reference to the term "shared space" in that document. The concept might be introduced there, but I can find nothing to dispute the claim that the term originates with Hamilton-Baillie, as referenced in the paper cited at that paragraph. "Shared streets", according to Ben-Joseph, are another name for Woonerfs, and while this might be seen as the predecessor to shared spaces it would have to be worked into a later section. However there was a misleading implication that the whole concept originated with the H-B, which I've now edited to correctly attribute Monderman. The lede section was a bit of a mess and I confess I've run out of time to properly research it, but I think it makes more sense now than it did. --mikaultalk 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Most of the article and the Talk page seem biased towards the concept of shared spaces, and the notion (or assumption) that it is a progressive concept. This fails to recognise the long-standing, multi-organisational campaign in Britain against the whole concept of shared streets on the grounds of protecting the vulnerable. To quote from its campaign literature, "In shared surface areas, street users, both pedestrians and motorists, are expected to acknowledge each other and to negotiate priority and movement through ‘eye contact’. This raises obvious implications for blind, partially sighted and deafblind people."--86.31.105.33 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section that covers the concerns that you mention. If you think that it doesn't adequately cover those concerns why not try to improve it. Remember that reliable secondary sources add weight to information. -- de Facto (talk). 10:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have made an initial gesture towards what you suggest, but encountered technical difficulties using references, both in the insert and in an article for submission entitled Say 'no' to shared streets campaign.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - have made some progress sorting it out, now (too late for the Say 'no' to shared streets campaign submission, tho), altho the advice pages don't tell you whether to put a comma between numerical ref., indicators(?). By the way, de Facto, I disagree with your Talk comment of four years ago, when you said that the bit quoted was 'anti-car' - it looks neutral to me.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article already had a bit about the GDBA's concerns, so I moved your bit there and adapted it slightly to reflect what the BBC report says. -- de Facto (talk). 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There still seems to be a range of POV issues and an absence of hard facts on the schemes implemented so far. Non-neutral and unbalanced expressions in the piece like "award-winning scheme" and "Following the success of the Ashford scheme ..." don't help. In that example, no figures were available when the subsequent decisions were taken. Well done dF for finding some sources for recent accident rates, it would also be helpful if they can be matched with historical figures & trends for Ashford and the area as a whole. There are outstanding issues around measuring access - has it maintained, deterred or displaced visits by different road and (less able) pavement users? Anecdotes suggest that traffic flow is completely messed up, are visitor numbers the same? And has the best use of money been studied? - could more road safety benefits have been achieved for less than £13m? We need to mention the existence of these other dimensions, even if they have not (yet) been measured (or the figures are kept hidden). Ephebi (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a section citing a David Hembrow as it is clearly a case of original research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. 158.223.166.65 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roads are shared by default ?[edit]

Is there any legal prohibition of walking on the roads ? Motorways in the UK, yes. I believe Germans may only cross at designated crossings. Otherwise, I suspect all UK roads are 'shared' by default. Could designated 'shared spaces' erode our pedestrian rights ? Perhaps the article should address this ?--195.137.93.171 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability[edit]

Thanks to Burgring and IP 85.255.234.36, who at this diff agree on removing the reference "Perspectives on Poynton. As Easy As Riding A Bike. June 16, 2014. Accessed 9 March 2015. https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/poynton/", used for the comment "One commentator points out that the ongoing high volume of motor traffic in this location means that there is very little ‘mingling’ in the carriageway by pedestrians, and very few people dare to use it on a bicycle."

Now, the article has a large subsection on various specific implementations of shared space, and for this purpose we use quite a lot of non-academic / blog / unchecked single reporter sources, see many of the refs from 21 on. I tend to support their use, for the specific claims in question, but many of them appear to be significantly less reliable than the source above. There is, I suggest, an argument for removing the lot, condensing the By country section on the basis of the few sources that would be universally accepted as reliable for pretty much all purposes. And there's an argument for using all the appropriate (as I suggest) sources. I hope for consensus on one or the other. But I suggest there isn't a good argument for removing one single specific source here. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't from a so-called "reliable publications" (like mainstream quality media and professional bodies with editorial oversight) or from a notable and recognised subject expert, then the source (though not necessarily the content if it is likely to be true and can be verified elsewhere) should probably be deleted. Stukeley (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Policy wp:blogs is very clear that blogs cannot considered as wp:reliable sources and must not be given as supporting citations. This article suffers already from partisan writing and wp:soapboxing. For thst reason, the article needs to comply with the highest standards of evidence basing. I strongly support removing any material that is based on such flimsy evidence.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. At this diff I have removed what seem to me the less reliable sources, including a Shared Space reference and a Daily Telegraph reference that don't check out. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't agree with all those removals, especially the ones relating to Ben Hamilton-Baillie, an acknowledged expert in Shared Space, so I have restored them pending further discussion. Stukeley (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I fixed the broken DT link. Stukeley (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's very useful.

OK, let's take these one at a time. Perhaps we could start with BH-B's comments. He's certainly a prominent advocate of shared space and has actually designed and built some. In Wikipedia terms, he has a strong commercial interest in shared space and a strong point of view. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that of course, but it does mean that, here, we do need to evaluate him carefully as a source. Now, I'd regard him as absolutely reliable when it comes to, say, the facts of what's been built in Poynton. And he's fairly definitive for what claims are made for Shared Space. But when it comes to a balanced assessment of the outcomes of certain street changes, I would locate his comments as less reliable (for our purposes) than a blog. They are claims made by one side in a disagreement and they are not supported by the available academic work, nor by other interest groups. We may choose to present them as claims, in which case we should include other points of view, or we may choose to omit them. Personally I'd (generally) omit them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps add, it's not so much a disagreement, mostly it's different groups talking past each other, both with merit in what they say. It does make NPOV difficult to achieve, but I'm sure we'll get there. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shared space. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead[edit]

According to the article, The goal of shared space is to improve the road safety and vibrancy of roads.... According to WP:LEAD, The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.. For these reasons I added a summary of the aforementioned important point about Shared Space to the lead. However, this was rapidly reverted by Richard Keatinge. I think the lead should reflect the stated purpose of the philosophy, and so something similar to my addition should be reinstated. What do others think? -- de Facto (talk). 21:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the justification. Where is the citation for the claim that "for some commentators, the mere act of sharing seems to be the main purpose"? Even if there exist some number of people who espouse this odd line of thinking, it's clear that it is a fringe kind of shared space philosophy, if that. This minority view could be mentioned down in the body of the article perhaps, if sources are presented. As far as the main idea behind this concept, "Shared space is an urban design approach which seeks to improve road safety and utility by minimising the segregation of pedestrians and vehicles" is more or less accurate. Reverting it wasn't appropriate.

If one wanted to fine tune the wording, that is what the WP:BRD cycle is for. Bold-revert-discuss does not include simply reverting. Although, either version of the lead is good enough for now, a better use of everyone's time would be to use the citations already in the article to clear the {{citation needed}} tags in the first section. And the disproportionate size and bombastic tone of the criticism section make this almost an attack page. Every Wikipedia article about a non-traditional proposal doesn't need to say that traditionalists object. Per WP:CLAIM, the repeated use of claimed, noted suggested, demonstrated, etc. are all telltales of a tendentious editor. It's good to cover the back-and-forth of public discussion, but you don't find in say Star Wars, a long section that goes on and on and on about how science fiction movies suck. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The trimmed first paragraph of the lede does include "Hans Monderman and others have suggested that, by creating a greater sense of uncertainty and making it unclear who has priority, drivers will reduce their speed, in turn reducing the dominance of vehicles, reducing road casualty rates, and improving safety for other road users." Which seems quite clear, and attributes values to a named individual. I don't see that repetition is needed, and without incontestable evidence we should not attribute a set of values to an idea.
I'm trying to remember the last interview with a leading proponent, on I think the Poynton scheme which has been severely criticized by Lord Holmes among others, which made it very clear that for some major proponents sharing is the aim, safety and utility are side issues.
The Criticism section is a moderate account of the serious concerns of authoritative organizations and individuals. The visually-impaired organizations seem to feel that any sharing is more or less unacceptable. The cyclists, pedestrians, and academics say sharing is OK but only where motors are already few, slow, and cautious. I'm not aware of any citable comments by traditional highways engineers. (Jeremy Clarkson complaining that "millions will die" is not I think useful here.)
Indeed, providing appropriate citations would be a better use of time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shared space. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shared_space&oldid=1209740327"