Utente:Ciclofi/sandbox/sharedspace: differenze tra le versioni
Contenuto cancellato Contenuto aggiunto
Riga 125:
Entscheidend für diese Betrachtung ist weiterhin das Wesen des [[Technokratie|technokratisierten]] Verkehrsumfeldes. Weil der motorisierte Verkehrsfluss vom Individuum selbst nicht kontrolliert werden kann, wird das Unsicherheitsgefühl verstärkt.<ref name="risk1" /> Ein gutes Beispiel ist das [[Überquerung|Überqueren]] einer Straße bei Grün. Diese Situation empfinden die meisten Menschen als sicherer gegenüber einer Straßenüberquerung ohne Ampel. Die Szenerie bleibt kontrollierbar, indem alle Beteiligten nach vorgegeben Regeln handeln müssen. In einer entregelten Situation ist das Geschehen nur bedingt kontrollierbar, vielmehr muss anderen Verkehrsteilnehmern Vertrauen entgegengebracht werden. Dabei ist das intuitive Verhalten in beiden Situationen ähnlich. Obwohl durch grünes Licht die Legitimation zum Überqueren der Straße erteilt wird, werden sich die meisten Menschen dennoch per Blick nach [[links und rechts]] absichern. Ebenso verhalten sich Personen, die eine Straße ohne Übergang queren müssen, nur dass hierbei die Geschwindigkeiten geringer sind und die [[Kraftfahrer]] durch Wegfall ihrer Vorrangstellung vorsichtiger fahren.
==Criticità==
There are certain reservations about the practicality of the shared space philosophy. In a report from the [[Associated Press]], it was commented that traditionalists in [[town planning]] departments say the schemes rob the motorists of vital information, and reported that a spokesman for [[Royal National Institute of Blind People]] criticised the removal of familiar features such as railings, kerbs, and barriers.<ref name="ap_20061121">{{cite news |title=In Europe, less is more when it comes to road signs |author=The Associated Press |publisher=International Herald Tribune |date=21 November 2006 |url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/21/europe/EU_GEN_Britain_Naked_Roads.php |accessdate=16 October 2008}}</ref>
''Shared surfaces'', which are generally used in shared space schemes, can cause concern for the blind and partially sighted who cannot visually negotiate their way with other road users, as the lack of separation implicit in these features has also removed their safe space.<ref>{{cite web |title=What's the Problem |author=Guide Dogs for the Blind Association |accessdate=4 December 2010 |url=http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/sharedstreets/index.php?id=204}}</ref> The UK's [[Guide Dogs for the Blind Association]]s "Say No to Shared Streets" campaign has the support of more than thirty other disability organisations.<ref>{{cite news |title='Shared street' problem for blind |date=20 May 2009 |publisher=BBC |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8058604.stm |accessdate=4 December 2010}}</ref> There have been similar concerns raised by other groups representing some of the more vulnerable members of society, including [[Leonard Cheshire Disability]], the [[Royal National Institute for Deaf People]], and [[Mencap]], who have noted problems when negotiating a route with motor vehicle users, leading them to challenge its fundamental premise.<ref>{{cite web |title=Shared Surfaces Campaign Report - "Stop shared surfaces, keep our pavements" |author=Guide Dogs for the Blind Association |accessdate=27 September 2008 |format=pdf |url=http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/uploads/media/Shared_Surfaces_Campaign_Report_01.pdf}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref>
In [[New Zealand]], concerns about such limitations of the shared space concept have led, in cooperation with disability organisations, to the introduction of vehicle- and obstruction-free corridors ("accessible zones") along the building lines (i.e., in the areas where footpaths would normally be located), to provide a safe route in the shared spaces being introduced.<ref name=ACCESS>{{cite web|title=Elliot Street - Accessibility|url=http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/projects/elliottdarby/designs.asp|publisher=[[Auckland City Council]]|accessdate=3 February 2011}}</ref>
The November 2007 issue of the Fietsersbond (Dutch Cyclists Union) newsletter criticises shared space schemes as encouraging the bullying of cyclists by motorists, giving examples of people who feel less safe as a result.{{Citation needed|date=February 2011}} The Dutch Fiets Beraad has also demonstrated some ambivalence over shared space schemes, describing some benefits but also some drawbacks for the less assertive cyclist.<ref>[http://www.fietsberaad.nl/views/voorbeeldenbank/detail_modal.cfm?lang=en§ion=voorbeeldenbank&mode=openModal&repository=Shared-space-intersection+De+Kaden Shared-space-intersection De Kaden]</ref> Fiets Beraad has noted that shared space has decreased car speeds but that "[p]art of the cyclists does not dare demand the right of way. They dismount and wait for the right of way to be clearly given. Then they walk or ride to the other side. A problem may be that halfway across cyclists are met by cars from the other direction having to be kind enough to yield informally. Due to low speeds and the defensive behaviour of these cyclists this crossing strategy need not be unsafe by itself, but it most certainly is not convenient."
Monderman has stated that these objections are more a matter of communication than design, stressing the importance of consulting such people during the design
stage.<ref>{{cite web
| title = Shared Space - the alternative approach to calming traffic
|author=Hamilton Baillie website
|accessdate=1 October 2008 | format = pdf
|url=http://www.hamilton-baillie.co.uk/_files/_publications/18-1.pdf
}}</ref>
=== Berücksichtigung der schwachen Verkehrsteilnehmer ===
| |||