Three different proposals for the Shared zone, or legislative somersaults

What is being addressed and why

The principle of the urban transportation concept of a shared space does not need to be introduced. Simplified, it is a solution for public spaces at a single level, with minimal use of traffic signs and regulations or traffic control, allowing everyone to move safely and naturally (by walking, cycling, riding a moped, driving a car, using public transportation, or otherwise). Users interact with each other intuitively, and both traffic and non-traffic (particularly recreational) activities are in harmony.

It is not necessary to look abroad for good examples. Spaces based on this principle are being created and function in our country as well. Very often, they are significant representative areas, usually within squares or streets, which can be found in most of our cities. In Prague, for example, we can mention Náměstí Republiky or Anděl, more recently the lower part of Wenceslas Square or the inner space of the Museum Oasis, and so on. The main complication in the preparation and discussion of modifications to these spaces is determining the suitable traffic regime from the current legislative options. Each has its partial advantages, but overcoming their limitations requires the goodwill of all parties involved: allowing all vehicles into a pedestrian zone is not ideal, intensive motorized traffic corridors are not suitable for children playing in residential areas, and simply reducing vehicle speed does not adequately balance non-motorized movement with vehicles, and so on.

In many cases, a partial amendment to the law would help designate a shared space area with a traffic regime that does not suffer from the aforementioned limitations. However, it is important to note that in many places, shared spaces function naturally, even though they may not strictly comply with the formalistic interpretation of existing legislation in some aspects. This includes not only parking areas in front of supermarkets but also raised intersection spaces in calm urban streets, pedestrian-free quiet roads, and more. In most cases, it is not desirable to install additional traffic signs. It is more appropriate to adjust the related general legal framework in such a way that natural human behavior (taking the shortest path, walking beside each other, in the center, etc.) is not in conflict with the existing legal provisions in these common and problem-free situations.

In previous years, various institutions, such as the Transport Research Centre, v.v.i., or the City of Prague, have addressed the topic of shared space in different ways, in connection with the preparation of their sustainable mobility plans. Guides for the correction and revision of relevant topics, such as cycling streets (or zones) or vehicle access to paths, have been developed and regularly updated. However, a broad expert discussion (ideally moderated by the Ministry of Transport) on the actual concept and the most suitable wording of the paragraphs for all the mentioned measures did not take place or was indefinitely postponed. Unfortunately, this led to the lack of a conceptual incorporation of the optimal form of the relevant legislative amendments into the government amendment of Act No. 361/2000 Coll., on Road Traffic, which could and should have been included from the beginning.

First, it is too early for a discussion, and seconds later it is too late.

The result is a growing pressure for change, which, among other things, led to the submission of a parliamentary amendment proposal in the form of an „addendum“ with another newly created sign with a special traffic regime. There is a certain parallel and repetition of the earlier problematic implementation of the „added through an addendum“ cycling zone. A positive aspect is the well-developed PR for the proposed changes. However, the actual wording of the paragraphs causes difficulties in orientation within the issue, even among the expert community, let alone ordinary users.

Let’s start with what is currently proposed in the legislative process and in what form. Then, we will summarize the preceding development and form of this version and what it means for any future direction.

The current proposed amendment or "addendum to the addendum" with a "search for ten differences"

The current parliamentary amendment proposal addresses the simple addition of a new traffic regime for shared zones to the current provisions of Act No. 361/2000 Coll., on Road Traffic (as amended by later regulations) or to the government’s proposed amendment to the act, which is currently being discussed in the Chamber of Deputies. Formally and substantively, it takes the path of least resistance, meaning it is introduced as a new addendum (§ 39b) to the previous addendum for cycling zones from 2016 (§ 39a), with only the necessary modifications to the current paragraphs (particularly § 39 and § 40). Substantively, the proposal does not address other interconnected matters that could and should have been addressed. Formally, it further complicates an already confusing patchwork of descriptions of traffic regimes instead of simplifying them as a whole. In specific cases, the question arises as to why certain provisions should apply only and specifically to shared spaces and not elsewhere, where users would logically expect them as well. The whole situation resembles a „search for ten differences“ that had to be invented to justify the creation of a new traffic regime. Let’s go through the specific amendments and the questions and problems that arise from them.

Ten questions regarding the current draft of the paragraph while searching for ten differences – first regarding the new § 39b itself (including its connection to the „old“ § 39), and then regarding § 39 as a whole and other paragraphs:

• The first question is why a shared zone must necessarily be an urban area, similar to a residential zone, and why, for example, pedestrian or cycling zones don’t have to be urban areas. In practice, shared zones usually involve built-up areas, but not exclusively. Why couldn’t a shared zone be located in public spaces outside continuous development, which are frequently visited by people (such as parking areas in recreational areas, parks, natural areas), where it would be highly suitable?
• The second question is why it is explicitly stated that it is intended for use by all road users. Isn’t a residential zone, for example, initially intended for all road users as well? At the same time, in some cases within a shared space, it is necessary to exclude certain road users through local regulations (especially vehicular traffic where the shared space is currently temporarily addressed, for example, by pedestrian zone regulations with public transport or residential zones combined with a ban on all motor vehicles).
• The third question is why the strict preference for tram traffic is only applied to this mode of transport. Will all pedestrian zones with permitted tram traffic be abolished and replaced by shared zones (even where regular vehicular traffic is not common)? Or will they be retained, and will, although in comparable environments, different rights and obligations apply? Should a tram always have priority in driving, while other road or rail public transport vehicles (bus, trolleybus) do not have priority in the same location and route? And should a tram have priority in driving even when it has to yield to another tram at an intersection (according to another general provision of the law or only in the case of local regulations governing right-of-way)?
• The fourth question is why § 54 is only related to shared zones and not to pedestrian and residential zones as well. Therefore, if I, as a pedestrian, have a pedestrian crossing or traffic light next to the boundary of a shared zone, the obligation to use it within a distance of up to 50 meters does not apply to me, and I can move freely there, while in a residential or pedestrian zone, I cannot and I have to use them?
• The fifth question is why the obligation for pedestrians to immediately yield space for the passage of vehicles with the right of way is only related to shared zones and not to pedestrian and residential zones as well. As a pedestrian, don’t I have the obligation to do the same in residential or pedestrian zones or anywhere else? If the absence of this obligation in the current wording of the law is seen as a problem, why is it explicitly mentioned only for one mode of transport, thereby de facto „suppressed“ for the others?
• The sixth question is why parking of motor vehicles is allowed only in designated parking areas. Formally, this is correct as it means using vertical traffic signs as opposed to mere horizontal markings or spatial delineation (e.g., materials, colors, etc.). This issue is often encountered in discussions about pedestrian and residential zones in the case of a strict interpretation by representatives of the relevant DOSS (bodies of state administration, editor’s note), and it could have been corrected and unified right away.
• The seventh question is why parking of bicycles and other non-motorized vehicles is allowed only in designated areas. Why should I, as a user, park a bicycle in designated areas only in shared zones, but not in pedestrian, residential, or cycling zones? Or does the general obligation for drivers to park only in marked parking areas apply to me in these zones, but not in shared zones?
• The eighth question is why the order of the measures‘ names in Section 39 heading is not adjusted for clarity according to the degree of shared space. Why isn’t the logical order of pedestrian, residential, shared, and cycling zones (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4) used? Instead, the illogical order of arranging the names chronologically based on individual amendments is maintained, which started incorrectly in 2015 (i.e., 2, 1, 4, 3)? At least this small change would help the average user to better orient themselves, if a comprehensive revision was not pursued.
• The ninth question is why Section 23 paragraph 1 is not adjusted and why, in this case as well, one of the errors of the current wording for the cycling zone is repeated, where different rights and obligations apply in case of ending the respective regime compared to ending another similar special regime. It is desirable to address similar situations uniformly. How is an average user supposed to remember that when exiting a path or pedestrian and residential zone, they should behave as if exiting a location outside the roadway, while this is not the case when exiting a shared zone, where different right-of-way rules apply, similar to an intersection? Moreover, after 7 years of the identical legal regulation’s validity in the case of the cycling zone, this error is the only one being corrected by an „internal sticker“ within the government’s own proposal. Thus, this „flawed baton“ is passed on to the shared zone, and it can be expected that its correction will be considered in the future. Until then, it means the obligation to address the connection points of the shared zone as intersections, including all (otherwise unnecessary) traffic signs and complications for the consideration of a simpler and more suitable construction solution for connecting the shared zone to another roadway.
• The tenth question is why the effort to achieve the same goal in a way that would be intuitively understood by the average user and to correct at least the biggest problems of their current legal regulation was abandoned. Why is the linear measure in the roadway considered a zone (which typically applies to the entire road profile or network)? Why does the initial form of the measure for sharing space between cyclists and motorists exclude motorists (when it is intended for cyclists)? Why can’t the mode of paths be used in many places where it would be most suitable (solely due to the impossibility of legalizing access for several vehicles)? Why can children only play in a residential zone where cars are present in the default situation (while in a pedestrian zone, which is car-free, they cannot)? And so on.

Undoubtedly, many more questions can be raised, and even better answers can be provided. However, considering the above, it is clear that the proposal was developed hastily and without broader open discussion. Let us therefore examine the reasons that led to this and how the proposal could have looked fundamentally different.

The original paragraph proposal as an unnecessary problematic addendum to an addendum

The original paragraph proposal was based on background material that the City of Prague (HMP) had externally commissioned and paid for in previous years. As part of this work, extensive and relatively high-quality research of legal and technical regulations for shared spaces abroad was first conducted. This was followed by the development of a conceptual proposal, which unfortunately did not undergo a broader professional and legislative debate, and despite early warnings, it failed to address interconnected related issues (such as repairing a cycling street and establishing rules for motor vehicle entry onto the cycle/pedestrian paths).

As a result, the output legislative proposal suggested attaching a similarly unsuitable addendum to the faulty paragraph addendum of the cycling zone from 2016. The recommended approach was to start by amending the law in the proposed form and then address the technical aspect of the matter. Thus, the order of actions was precisely the opposite of what would be necessary, i.e., abstracting the appropriate form of paragraph wording from the agreed-upon substantive principles and, after the approval of legislative changes, making any necessary corrections and approving technical documents.

The originally proposed wording of the „meeting zone“ consisted of copied and merged selected paragraphs from the residential and cycling zones into a new „appended“ paragraph. This is effectively in line with the more appealing name „meeting zone.“ However, in its tone and fundamental essence, it corresponds much more to the rejected scenario of a foreign model with a simple revision of the existing residential zone, rather than creating another new measure. At this point, it makes sense to only mention the most significant problems of the original proposal:

• Why should a new separate traffic regime be introduced if it would have almost identical rights and obligations, which allegedly cannot be applied to the existing traffic regime (residential zone)? Particularly problematic in this regard is children playing (e.g., on tram tracks or in lanes traversed by thousands of vehicles daily), and the benefits of excluding „built-up areas“ are negligible in this context.
• Why are the rights and obligations at the end of the zone not resolved consistently with other zones? Although it is addressed in a different part of the law, it is closely related to user understanding and proposals for solutions.
• Why is the amendment of the specific paragraph not designed to make related matters clear, without repetition or unclear nuances? While making a simple addendum may be more convenient, such an approach increasingly clutters and confuses the law, leading to partial illogical inconsistencies.

The well-prepared promotion of the proposal and the effort to expedite the inclusion of the new measure into the law were prioritized over the substantive quality of the proposal. In light of the current government proposal for an amendment to Act No. 361/2000 Coll., which is being discussed in the Chamber of Deputies, it was a logical endeavor to procedurally utilize the form of a parliamentary amendment proposal. This intention was presented to the subcommittee for transport on January 11, 2023, and the preparation of the amendment proposal was subsequently set in motion.

A futile attempt to systematically and clearly address several interconnected matters at once

Considering the strength of political will (from both MPs and the Minister of Transport) to promptly incorporate the adjustment of shared space into the law, there was only a few weeks available to prepare the substantive wording of the parliamentary amendment proposal, in order to leverage the ongoing discussion of the government’s proposed amendment to Act No. 361/2000 in the Chamber of Deputies. After years of postponing the necessary comprehensive expert discussion on the relevant paragraphs, the almost traditional situation arose where suddenly it is no longer too early (as it will eventually be „opened“ someday), but it is too late.

I have been in intensive communication with the majority of key stakeholders, attempting to address multiple problems at once and in a clear manner. The working versions of the conceptual wording of the paragraphs and justifications were prepared based on existing materials, developed in previous years through professional discussions (particularly within the working group at the Ministry of Transport [MoT] or technical editorial boards at the Road and Motorway Directorate [RMD]). Subsequently, I further refined them based on feedback from consultations, primarily with representatives of the Police of the Czech Republic (PCR), MoT, and the City of Prague (CoP). Below, I summarize the most essential aspects of the working proposal, which served as a basis for further discussion in formulating the legislative change proposal.

When addressing the related paragraph of Act No. 361/2000, all three interconnected topics, which are „like connected vessels“ and whose current legislative (non)solutions maintain a problematic and inappropriate state, were considered:

• Cycling Street – correcting the incorrect name, signage, and selected rights and obligations:
  The problems with the current form have been evident and known for years, and the basic requirements and materials for legislative correction have also been processed (unfortunately, the government’s proposed amendment only corrects one partial error).
• Entry of vehicles onto paths – allowing for justified situations and establishing related rights and obligations: The current form of the law does not allow for this or address it – in practice, it often results in replacing paths with less suitable regimes or the use of illegal DZ configurations, or the absence of rules when granting an exception.
• Shared Space – not weakening or duplicating the current residential zone regime with the new traffic regime, but clearly distinguishing it in terms of what needs to be set at the legislative level (including the possibility of not cluttering the space with additional signs in selected local operational and construction situations).

All calming regimes were supposed to be addressed together as a whole.

After examining and discussing several possible variations in substance and form, it became evident that it is more appropriate not to follow the path of adding a new attachment to an old attachment. In order for the general user, not just an expert after repeated reading and searching for differences, to understand these regimes and the related rights and obligations, it was recommended to revise the paragraph wording of all relevant regimes as follows:

• Arrange measures in the title of the paragraph and its paragraphs according to the degree of calming and sharing (pedestrian zone, residential zone, shared zone, and cycling street), rather than randomly based on the order of amendments.
• Consolidate and unify everything that is similar and identical, rather than repeating it identically or with partial nuances (where it is not even clear if it is intentional or just the result of layering amendments).
• Remove provisions that are redundant by their nature or duplicate other parts of the law.

Due to time constraints, the working materials were prepared very quickly. Only after a broader expert discussion and further corrections would it be possible to consider the final material as fully functional. Nevertheless, even in this working form, it addresses several problems better than the current or originally proposed wording of the amendment proposal. In any case, the materials were timely provided to all involved stakeholders for the preparation of a new legislative proposal and could be included in the parliamentary proposal in this or a similar form.

Conclusion and further development

Currently, it can be assumed that the parliamentary proposal for „shared zone“ in its current form will successfully pass the legislative process and be approved. The next step should be the inclusion of relevant signage in the implementing decree (the exact form of which remains a question).

It will be easier to establish shared spaces

Considering the ongoing preparation of technical conditions by the Ministry of Transport (MD) for traffic calming measures, it is likely that the final form of the legal regulation will be incorporated into these conditions even before their completion. Therefore, in the coming year (2024), both legislation and technical literature will encompass the concept of the shared zone.

The positive aspect of the whole matter is that despite all the mentioned problems, the revised wording of the paragraphs actually makes sense for the newly introduced traffic regime. Moreover, it will be possible to create shared spaces more easily in practice than before. The implemented outcome will be similar to existing structures, but the endless debates about which traffic regime to use, which often occur during project discussions, will be eliminated because each regime has its own partial „buts.“

Overall, the revised legislative framework provides a meaningful basis for the newly introduced traffic regime, and the practical implementation of shared spaces will be facilitated in many locations.

The negative aspect of this outcome is that the law has become slightly more confusing and less comprehensible, and in the future, an even greater scope of necessary changes will be required for its correction. Particularly disheartening is the fact that even after eight years, the „cyklistická zóna“ (cycling zone) will not be rectified to „cyklistická ulice“ (cycling street), which means that we will likely have one of the worst legal regulations in Europe. It would have been meaningful to finally start implementing this measure in a sensible manner in our country.

There is never enough time to do things properly, but there is always time to start over.

It is also saddening that in many places, due to the need to allow the entry of multiple vehicles, there will continue to be no road configuration that significantly enhances the safety of vulnerable road users. Similarly, there will be no clear and uniform rights and obligations for drivers in cases where an exemption is granted for vehicle entry onto any path.

In conclusion, it can be said that although one partial problem (the adjustments and construction of public spaces and roadways that are more accommodating for people) has been partially and somewhat overly resolved, other long-standing issues persist unnecessarily. The remedy for all of this has been pushed further away and complicated. One of my colleagues aptly noted that „there is never enough time to do things properly, but there is always time to start over.“ Let us hope that this development at least serves as a lesson for the future, and the ultimate outcome of further amendments to this legislation is somewhat more positive. It would benefit everything and everyone involved.