When I was at Wadham they had to knock a hole in the 17th-century MCR to provide disabled access. It was done as unobtrusively as possible, of course - but living people before history.

I think one can overdo changes to the built environment: whilst (obviously) they are often important, I think there are two general problems with that approach.

(i) most importantly, the ‘light in the gutter’ problem: there are many things that will affect urban safety in Radcliffe Square area, some more than others. We should not fall in to the trap of behaving as if the easiest ways of attempting to improve a situation are the same as the most effective. If I’ve dropped my keys in the gutter and it’s dark, moving twenty yards along to be under the streetlight will not make it easier to find them since they’re not there, and a=although changing a very restricted road surface would improve safety, it may not (a) improve it very much, (b) improve it in a very cost-effective way, or (c) improve it at a low cost in terms of other aspects of its amenity.

(ii) there are also many other reasons for being concerned about urban environments other than safety, although safety is obviously very important. The pebbles make Radcliffe Square special and beautiful, and that’s one of the reasons why people come to visit it. Personally I tend to the view that lighting is more important that surfaces, and after all, there are proper roads and pavements all the way around and across Radcliffe Square for people who do have concerns (perfectly legitimately) about doing their ankle in, who if they wish can quite easily avoid the pebbles.

Tim.

I admit they’re pretty awful, but at least they’re free!