An impossible dream?

Changed attitudes, not just designs, are essential if better-shared streets are to become a reality

My title this month references the best-known song from the 1965 musical ‘Man of La Mancha’. My favourite version is by Matt Munro, though it’s been covered by almost everyone, including Elvis, Andy Williams, the comedian Tim Vine (on Celebrity Fame Academy!) and a Honda advert. Sung by the character Don Quixote, it’s subtitled ‘The Quest’ and is about striving for a noble, but probably unreachable, goal. I wonder if ‘Shared Space’ is one of these.

It’s not that we’re unable to design streets that are better-shared: there are some excellent examples. It’s not that we can’t agree a definition of ‘Shared Space’: we’ve been designing great streets for years before this term entered the lexicon. It is that – I fear – we’re just not that keen on sharing.

Not long ago, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association foolishly urged people to ‘Say No to Shared Streets’ – forgetting that if a street isn’t shared it isn’t a street! But the problem seems to go much deeper than a stupid campaign slogan.

Increasingly, I hear and read about ‘motorists’, ‘cyclists’ and other user groups being at odds with one another. There’s the political nonsense about the frankly never-was ‘war on the motorist’ which, thanks to Phil Hammond’s arguments in favour of an 80mph speed limit, has become an all-too-real war on common sense. There are media outbursts against ‘cyclists’, of which one of the most ridiculous was a recent tweet by a leading English sportsman that simply said ‘I hate cyclists!!!!! #getacar’ (and, no, he isn’t a Premier League footballer). There are ‘cyclists’ – and yesterday even a respected transport journalist – proclaiming that, if there isn’t a ‘war on the motorist’, then there jolly well should be. And then there are the everyday murmurs of discontent from those behind wheels about ‘bloody pedestrians’, uttered minutes before the drivers park and become ‘bloody pedestrians’ themselves – and just as likely now to complain about ‘bloody drivers’.

It’s sad how readily we define people by mode. A study for Road Safety Scotland, for example, labelled young people as ‘pre-drivers’. I’m pretty sure the tweeting sportsman has been a ‘cyclist’ at some point in his life. Huge numbers of people who are ‘cyclists’ at some times are ‘motorists’ at others. And of course almost all of us are ‘pedestrians’ lots of the time. So when we feel tempted to rail against ‘idiot cyclists’ or ‘idiot motorists’ – or perhaps (just for a change) ‘idiot bus passengers’ – it would be far more helpful if we would all adopt the following two-step process. Firstly: take the advice of the wise man who urged us to remove the plank in our own eye before seeking to remove the speck in another’s. Secondly: if we’re still convinced the other person is at fault, see him/her as just a plain ‘idiot’. The mode of travel is almost certainly not the problem: let’s face it, many people simply are or can be rude/selfish/stupid/insert-your-derogatory-term-here.

The thing is, whether we want to go on long hiking tours with them or not, the people we share our streets with cannot just be wished away. We may want all streets to be designed and managed on our own terms, but it’s never going to (and shouldn’t) happen. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek change – very far from it – but it does mean we need to have our eyes on an achievable prize rather than just resorting to name-calling and making ourselves feel better by asserting a moral or (as has been the recent case in respect of some ‘motorists’) economic superiority.

The most dissonant line from ‘Impossible Dream’ is where the Don sings about being ‘Better far than you are’. The longer that people try to improve streets through a process of conflict with users perceived to be ‘worse than I am’, the longer we’ll wait for beneficial change. I should perhaps make plain that I am not at all opposed to direct action – such as the ongoing events in London aimed at achieving a more people-friendly design at Blackfriars Bridge – and neither do I believe that all transport choices are morally neutral. But since I want to see better-shared streets actually delivered, not just dreamed about, I’m very keen that we should vigorously pursue ‘the art of the possible’ rather than pick fights that are as unwise as they are unwinnable. We’re best off raising the bar in stages, rather than setting it unreachably high from the outset.

All of which (just about) brings me to the very-soon-to-be-published Department for Transport Local Transport Note 1/11 on Shared Space. At the not-quite-launch conference yesterday, the authors said that the LTN will define ‘Shared Space’ as a design approach intended to improve conditions for pedestrians by reducing the dominance of motor vehicles. Although the LTN will also embody an emphasis on inclusive design and encouraging diversity in streets, I wonder if readers will find it too easy to take away the impression that Shared Space is predominantly about making streets better for ‘pedestrians’. As always with streets, it’s just not as simple as that.

Streets are, by definition, about a great deal more than the movement of motor vehicles; and that ‘great deal more’ mustn’t be confined just to the pedestrian environment. More equitable sharing might mean reducing traffic speeds and/or volumes; it might mean separate cycle tracks; it might mean new bus lanes; it might mean pedestrianisation; it might mean a complex mix of many changes. But, whatever any given street needs, it’s less likely to get it if one user group simply trades insults with another.

How can you understand different perspectives better and work out how the streets you care for can be better shared? Well, you could do worse than attend (or follow on Twitter) the monthly Street Talks organised by the Movement for Liveable London. I’d also strongly advise you to put the next LTT Better Streets Conference in your diary now: Tuesday 29th November. See you there?