Whenever an innovation occurs there are a couple of things that the innovating authority needs to do in order to ensure adoption. First there needs to be some “market” for the innovation – i.e. a need of some sort – and secondly they need to put forward a convincing case to show that the innovation meets the need.
That all seems very obvious – and it is. If someone comes up with a new way to do “X” it will ‘sell’ if the current way is not ideal and the users are convinced that this new way is ‘better. For many things ‘better’ simply means faster, or cheaper, or easier, or even a combination of all those and others – basically an incremental change to the status quo.
I heard an interview on the radio yesterday with the new directors of the Leeds International Piano Competition. When asked if they were going to make changes the phrase that they used was that well worn cliche that any change would be “evolutionary not revolutionary” – by which they meant that they intended to “improve” things, but didn’t want to upset those who might take the view “if it ain’t broke – don’t fix it”.
There are – of course – instances where “evolutionary” is not appropriate – or, perhaps more correctly, where it is perceived as more “revolutionary” than it really is. The fact that we each view the world through our own lenses will inevitably mean that anything that clashes with our model of “how the world should be” will be seen as revolutionary – and – depending on our point of view on the particular situation that can be either a good thing or a bad thing.
The trigger for these thoughts at this time was an article (actually two very similar articles) in our local newspaper – both reporting on VERY negative reactions to some modifications that are being done to various roads in the town.
Some years back I used the following illustration in a presentation that I made.
This is an aerial view of the town of Oosterwolde in the Netherlands – the site of an experiment by Hans Monderman where the usual traffic controls and separators between cars, bicycles and pedestrians were removed to create a “shared space”. This happened in 1998 and the concept was covered in the newspapers and on tv several years later (e.g. in the Daily Telegraph in 2006)
It is worth bearing in mind a quote from someone taken from the end of the Daily Telegraph article. he said:
“Anybody who is new here doesn’t know what to do. They don’t know who has priority, the car, bike or pedestrian. It’s all confusing, but because of that everybody takes care,”
Now – I am a long way from being an expert on whether the concept really works, but the concept seems to have spread – albeit slowly – to other places. Two examples are here and here.
The two articles in the local paper were both reporting reactions to similar concepts being introduced locally. Now the quote above clearly (to me at least) shows that the benefits of the concept are – at least partially – derived from the fact that there is increased uncertainty in the minds of all the users. The mere fact that you don’t quite know what to do – or, more importantly, what other people are going to do – means that you pay much more attention to what is going on around you.
Yet – the reactions were all predictable – “you don’t know where the road ends and the pavement starts” – “there is no clear separation between pedestrians and cars” – they all illustrated that those “complaining” were approaching the use of the space with all the old rules still applying. Of course this is understandable. Of course you can argue that no one told them that the whole point of the change was to blur the distinction between road and pavement.
One of the “good points” about the British is the national ‘respect for the rules’ – its not universal of course, there are many who derive pleasure from flouting the rules – but the national psyche is to play it by the book – to get uptight when others do not – and to insist that all other nationalities are more likely to ‘cheat’ by bending or breaking the rules than the brits!!
This national stereotype is – of course – exaggerated, but at the same time – like all stereotypes – there is more than a grain of truth. What is being introduced here is what seems like a “free for all” – its like having a bus stop where the sign says that there is no queuing allowed. As a result everyone (well actually probably only a vocal minority) is up in arms about the how dangerous it is; about how people will abuse the freedom; about – well about the fact that this is something ‘unusual’ actually – something that they have never experienced before.
I have no idea how many other “shared spaces” there are around the UK (or around the world) now – but if they are still being adopted then there must be some benefits that have been identified (or is it just the pet project of someone who has got on the traffic planning committee?). However, only a minority of people will have experienced them – and an even smaller number will have any idea of why the concept is a useful one.
Apart from the obvious – i.e that they haven’t been ‘explained’ – they also (seemingly) don’t have rules. I say seemingly because the reality is that the rules will evolve – and yes, those new to it will not be aware of the rules. However, navigating a “shared space” is no more daunting than navigating a roundabout for someone who comes to the UK from a “roundabout-free” environment – or coping with a four way junction in the US is for a Brit.
Eventually the rules will be there – and increasingly they will be applied when you come across shared spaces everywhere – and if the rule set consists of
Rule 1. There is no Rule 2
…then that is fine – at least you know where you stand – or drive – or ride your bike 😉
There is, of course, another aspect to this – the role of the media! An in depth discussion about this would take far too much space (and there are bigger issues once that particular can of worms is opened) but it is worth reflecting on the “negativity” of the reporting. There is a ‘rebuttal’ at the end from the council explaining the reasoning behind the ‘shared space’ however it seems more than likely that the majority will read little more than the headline and the initial graphic – with its subheading of “DANGEROUS”. They may as well have put it in a large red font.
Of course the fears of the locals need to be reflected – but they should be put in context – perhaps coming after the explanation of the change rather than before. For many people, the media are important shapers of their viewpoints and the psychology of “how” things are said is almost more important than “what” is said.
Is it the responsibility of the media to “sell” these initiatives – of course not – BUT – the media must be used by those responsible to put across their messages – especially when that message is going to be a difficult one for people to grasp.
This sort of change is most definitely revolutionary rather than evolutionary – a whole new set of behaviours must be learned. That is not an easy thing for most people to do. It will be interesting to watch how long it is before the whole thing settles down and the shared space is properly in operation.