The myth of shared zones: Rethinking Urban Design for Inclusive Public Spaces

Shared zones are meant to support more inclusive streets. But the idea that we can simply remove boundaries between pedestrians and cars and expect people to “negotiate” doesn’t always hold up in practice.

Where the idea came from

The concept of shared space traces back to Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman. His work in the late 20th century challenged the idea that more signs and stricter rules automatically led to safer streets. In his view, fewer controls made people more attentive, encouraging cooperation through eye contact, social cues, and mutual awareness.

And in some parts of Europe, that approach works—because it’s underpinned by stronger pedestrian and cycling cultures, lower vehicle speeds, and a shared understanding of street use.

Why shared zones in Australia struggle

In Australia, those foundations aren’t as strong. We don’t have the same cultural behaviours around yielding, the same cycling volumes, or the same acceptance of shared negotiation in the streets. Most people rely on visual boundaries to understand who belongs where. And without those boundaries, things fall apart.

There’s also a fundamental difference in how the idea is applied. In Australia, instead of reshaping the landscape, we tend to just install a sign and expect everyone to know how to behave. That doesn’t work. Most people would not even know what the sign mean, let alone expecting it to signal a behavioural shift with a symbol alone. The environment has to show people what to do.

To make it worse, shared zones across Australia use inconsistent speed limits. Some say 5 km/h, others 10, 15 or even 20. But the moment you put a number on a sign, drivers treat it as permission—not a prompt to negotiate. One of the core principles behind shared space is that users self-regulate through observation, interaction, and shared awareness. A maximum speed creates the illusion of safety while removing the incentive to look out for others.

The result? People feel unsafe. Drivers push through. Pedestrians hesitate. And the space becomes a site of uncertainty instead of shared use.

Design is only part of the story

Shared zones might look good on paper as a principle, but it’s all in the implementation. Real success depends on creating an environment that actively guides behaviour—and that takes more than a #StupidSign or simple, surface-level design.

For shared zones to work, people need to recognise the intent and respond accordingly. That means clear visual signals, public education, and a culture of courtesy. Without those things, a “shared zone” is just an unmarked street with no rules.

Design for how people behave, not how we wish they would

At Humanics Collective, we study real behaviour. We watch how people cross roads, when they hesitate, and how they respond to physical and social cues. In practice, shared zones only work when they reflect how people already act—or clearly guide them toward a new behaviour.

If they don’t, they confuse and frustrate. And they make things worse for the very people they’re meant to support.

If it’s meant to be shared, make it feel shared

That means more than clever paving. It means slowing vehicles right down. Creating an environment where all users naturally engage with one another, negotiate movement, and stay alert. And making sure what feels ‘shared’ to a planner also feels safe to a person holding a toddler’s hand.

If we’re serious about designing inclusive spaces, we need to build for the people who hesitate—not just the ones who power through.