Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

“More needs to be done”: Sadiq Khan to “raise awareness” among London cyclists for improving safety of floating bus stops

Blindness campaigners call for “urgent action” to protect pedestrians from collisions with cycles, although they're unaware of any specific incidents of blind people coming to harm...

Sadiq Khan has promised to conduct a review of ‘floating’ bus stops and assured that he’s committed to reducing danger on cycling lanes, after 164 campaign groups raised safety concerns for visually impaired pedestrians but failed to provide evidence of any incident.

Floating bus stops, where a cycle lane is sandwiched between a bus stop and a pavement, have been introduced in many parts of the country to protect cyclists from being stuck behind a stationary bus or having to pull into moving traffic. However, blind campaigners objected to such infrastructure on Mayor Question Time on Thursday, the Evening Standard reports.

Sadiq Khan confirmed that Transport for London (TfL) was already reviewing the safety of such bus stops. “I’m more than happy to throw at this what we can to make sure these bus stop bypasses are safer than they appear to be,” he said.

The president of National Federation of the Blind UK wrote a letter to the mayor with a petition signed by 164 campaign groups, calling for ‘urgent action’ to protect pedestrians from being hit by cycles, e-bikes or e-scooters.

“Expecting people who cannot see, who cannot move very fast or who are using mobility aids to step on and into a cycle lane with speeding cyclists and people using e-devices is simply not safe,” read the letter.

However, the campaigners admitted that they were unaware of specific incidents of blind people coming to harm — but said the concern about colliding with cyclists was such that many blind people were reluctant to use buses in the first place.

This is the second time this week that floating bus stops have fuelled discussion, after Sunday Telegraph’s divisive rhetoric labelled floating bus stops as ‘death traps’ — while similarly failing to provide any casualty figures in support of that assertion.

> Sunday Telegraph accused of using divisive rhetoric in “death trap” floating bus stops article

Emma Best, a Tory member of the London Assembly reiterated the newspaper’s rhetoric on Thursday as she claimed majority of cyclists refused to stop for pedestrians, citing the safety of pensioners and young children being at risk.

She asked the mayor if he would support an “awareness campaign” advising cyclists how to behave around floating bus stops, to which he replied that while TfL’s installation of floating bus stops was “completely consistent” with Department for Transport guidance, all cyclists also need to stop at zebra crossings in accordance with the Highway Code.

He continued: “Clearly, if it is the case that that is not happening, we need to not just raise awareness, we need to try and ensure there is enforcement as well.

“We need to make sure we keep cyclists safe from the risk of pulling out into traffic when a bus is [at] a bus stop, but also that pedestrians, particularly visually impaired ones, aren’t in danger because of cyclists not following the code. It’s really important they feel safe as well.

“What I am willing to do, and what I think we must do, is look into safety concerns raised by not just those who are visually impaired but others to make sure, in the quest to make cyclists safe, we don’t inadvertently, because a minority of cyclists aren’t following the rules, endanger others.”

Floating bus stops have already come under criticism in other cities by visually impaired people, with one campaigner from Glasgow suggesting it makes using the bus “like playing Russian roulette”, and another in Bath calling it “an accident waiting to happen”.

Hills Road separated cycle lane, Cambridge (copyright Simon MacMichael).jpeg

Hills Road separated cycle lane, Cambridge (copyright Simon MacMichael).jpeg, by Simon_MacMichael

However, Sustrans’ detailed analysis of potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists at two floating bus stops in Cambridge in 2016 showed that “all interactions” between road users at the location concerned reflected “safe, normal behaviour.”

> Floating bus stops improving safety of Cambridge cyclists suggests report

It also found that 99 per cent of the cyclists who passed through the location did not have any interaction with pedestrians.

The London mayor’s comments of “more needs to be done” come not long after Dame Joan Collins called on him to “do something” about dangerous cyclists before London is “ruined”.

Sadiq Khan said that he is open to working with the government to improve safety and raise awareness among cyclists, but declined a request to stop TfL installing more floating bus stops.

Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after graduating with a masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Wales, and also likes to writes about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.

Add new comment

35 comments

Avatar
BaselGooner | 11 months ago
0 likes

Living for over 15 years in and around Basel I encounter many of these. Mostly they are for tram stops. Some are between pavement and stop and some are between stop and tram tracks. Some have a traffic light system when a tram arrives at the stop with a red light - it is illegal to cycle through when tram is stopped, Most stops do not. Anyway I have not seen or heard of any incidents reported in local press and this is a city with far higher proportion of cyclists than any city in UK. Like a lot of Europe there is personal liabilty law so the bigger/more dangerous vehicle is expected to ensure safety of smaller/less safe one. So on the one hand cars have to ensure they are responsible towards bikes but similarly bikes have a duty of care towards pedestrians. Like avoiding tram tracks it's part of Swiss city cycling - not an issue.

Avatar
Awavey | 11 months ago
1 like

Telegraph are reporting the "cycling tsar/deputy mayor of london" was punched in the head by another cyclist who had ridden through one of these floating bus stop crossings whilst the "cycling tsar/deputy mayor of london" had stopped to let people cross. it was after catching up with the errant non stopping "cyclist" and remonstrating with him about the highway code that the assault then took place.

https://youtu.be/QgZ02t9nCQc

 

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 11 months ago
3 likes

Strangely, these campaigners don't seem so interested in teaching other everyday bus stop installations.

Here is my bus stop. Note the apparent road on the left, it's a shared use path from the local housing estate. On right is bus stop from Solihull, in the distance the one to Solihull.

The nearest crossing is at the roundabout - large, high speed exit (30mph is not unusual) limited visibility.

Next crossing point in the other direction towards Knowle probably represents a 1/2 mile detour. Large grassy bank stops informal crossing away from the junction.

Link here:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/xcBVntE6etczBqMS9

Avatar
mattw replied to IanMSpencer | 11 months ago
0 likes

No worries.

In NFBUK world shared paths will be banned, so that goes away and you are back in the road .

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to mattw | 11 months ago
1 like

They've already removed the shared use path - the dropped kerb and markings were removed after about 6 months on non-use.

It is fascinating that no cycling infrastructure is likely to be as dangerous to pedestrians as any road yet "but cyclists..."

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 11 months ago
1 like

Road safety issues concerning the blind you say...

https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/campaign-aims-to-stop-uk-motorists-driv...

"Driving Blind was launched on the back of Association of Optometrists figures which estimate that there are 3,000 casualties on UK roads every year where poor vision is a ‘key factor’."

Avatar
alchemilla | 11 months ago
0 likes

Have raised crossings been considered anywhere, and would that improve perceived safety by blind people? Cyclists would have to bump over a raised platform which might slow them down a tad, if this is a problem. It would certainly raise their awareness.

Avatar
mattw replied to alchemilla | 11 months ago
6 likes

Raised crossings have been in standards for many years, and are extensively covered in LTN 1/20.

One issue - similarly with crossing road humps on road carriageways - is that these features seem to typically be used immediately before a crossing, which to my mind is too late to make a difference to speed before the crossing is reached. The one in the piccie at the top looks unusually good to me in this respect, with the downside that pedestrians may be more likely to cross not-on-the-zebra and Guide Dogs / cane users may be mis-guided.

"Not enough warning" seems to be a constant problem. One of the ones I have noticed is (according to my calcs) the slow-them-down "20mph" signs on the new Fendon Road roundabout in Cambridge are so close to the Zebra crossing that an emergency stop from 20mph starting at the sign leaves the car sitting in the middle of the zebra. God knows what happens in the rain.

I think you are perhaps making the mistake of thinking that these particular alleged representatives of the 'visually impaired community' are rational or good-faith actors; they are not. Useful rational suggestions make no difference.

The demand is that everybody else's considerations (including other disabled groups) be subservient to all their demands - and in the world view there can be no compromise. If an extra 100 disabled people using cycles as a mobility aid get killed in traffic as a result of banning bus stop bypasses, that's just an acceptable price to pay.

Spurious campaigns, and unjustified claims, are a normal part of the shtick.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to mattw | 11 months ago
1 like
mattw wrote:

I think you are perhaps making the mistake of thinking that these particular alleged representatives of the 'visually impaired community' are rational or good-faith actors; they are not. Useful rational suggestions make no difference.

100% this. As I've noted elsewhere, NFBUK claim to be the "Voice of Blind People" when they have fewer than 3000 Twitter followers (there are 340,000+ registered blind/PS people in the UK). They seem to have a monomaniacal obsession with cycle lanes and LTNs, frequently sharing anti-cyclist/active travel material that has no relevance to blind people. 

Avatar
brooksby | 12 months ago
7 likes
Quote:

164 campaign groups raised safety concerns for visually impaired pedestrians but failed to provide evidence of any incident.

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 12 months ago
3 likes

Fundamentally a zebra crossing of a cycle track is the same as a zebra crossing of a road - or am I missing something?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to HarrogateSpa | 12 months ago
2 likes

See comments by e.g. mattw on the other thread about this.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to HarrogateSpa | 12 months ago
14 likes

I think the theory is that no cyclist has ever stopped for a red light or a pedestrian so it is impossible to get to the bus stop without being mown into a lifeless heap.

Interactions around busy bus stops are often fraught, queues don't perceive cycle lanes as out of bounds, rather just useful waiting space. But the reality is that many bus stops rarely have more than a handful of people alighting or boarding so the actual cyclist/passenger interactions are extremely small.

It is interesting how hard the anti-cycling lobbies work to highlight the pedestrian-cyclist relationship in the HWC and at the same time minimise the cyclist-car relationship - cyclists should bend over backwards for pedestrians who should not be obliged to consider cyclists at all, but if cyclists get mixed up with car shenanigans then that's down to the cyclist not taking enough care.

Avatar
ChrisA replied to HarrogateSpa | 11 months ago
0 likes

Most of these crossings are NOT Zebra crossings, zebra crossings have yellow beacons on stripey poles.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to ChrisA | 11 months ago
1 like

Someone posted the legislation on another thread.

The beacons etc are not required on cycle paths.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to ChrisA | 11 months ago
2 likes

EDIT - apologies rich_cb, posting at same time...
See the rules / law discussion on the other thread about this!

https://road.cc/content/news/sunday-telegraph-slammed-over-death-trap-ar...

Or go direct to the rules:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made

Avatar
ChrisA replied to chrisonabike | 11 months ago
1 like

Apologies; missed the bit about 'cycleways excluded', in the regulations.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to ChrisA | 11 months ago
1 like

I saw similar on Twitter, a large number of people think these are advisory. If a generally well-read group of people on the Internet (most of road.cc contributors give a good account off themselves) get confused, then there ain't a lot of hope that boy-racer cyclists* are going to be bothered by such things.

*I think we need a name for the 25-35 year old cyclists who think that road rules are for wimps.

Elsewhere, Manchester iirc, they are putting in paint only crossings at junctions to emphasise the priority in the 'new' HWC.

Firstly, designing safety systems that depend on people knowing the rules is problematic. Secondly, introducing non-standard, not complainant so not enforceable crossings creates the danger of suggesting where they don't exist there is no priority elsewhere - especially if they are widespread.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to IanMSpencer | 11 months ago
1 like

Interesting that where lots of people cycle it seems they try to limit having the kind of crossing which requires everyone to stop.  I suspect it "just works" for most crossings to be informal there.  For lots of reasons e.g. less far to cross, lower relative speeds, cycles are more manoeuverable, better mutual visibility and people often being familiar with using both modes.  However I don't have stats so - just like with motor vehicles - it may be a "tyranny of the majority".  Albeit it should be "harm minimization" compared to the motor vehicle case.

Avatar
Clem Fandango | 12 months ago
6 likes

Vulnerable road users concerned about their safety?  Sounds familiar enough.

Being familiar with "the man"'s process for dealing with this sort of thing, we should point out that the correct procedure is to wait for more than a few of their number to be killed & seriously injured, before swinging in to action years later - to whit, a media driven "culture war" blaming the blind for being idle tax dodging scroungers who don't pay for the infrastructure they use but go around holding everyone else up for fun.  The white stick clad hooligans.

Also - guide dogs should be forced to wear helmets and registered tabards, or something.

Avatar
mattw replied to Clem Fandango | 12 months ago
8 likes

Perhaps you haven't (tried to) engage with NFBUK. I have.

They take an extreme position - "Ban all Bus Stop Bypasses, and Rip Out the Ones that are in", and are unable to supply any evidence in support of it, nor come up with any proposals.

Nor are they able to explain why the hundreds of road traffic bypasses behind floating bus stops are not a problem, nor why they do not mention them in their rhetoric.

If you ask awkward questions mentioning this, first they will abuse you, then they will call you "ableist", then they will block you.

A group consisting of about 500 members, a part time admin officer, and a monomaniacal campaign team of about half-a-dozen, who are generally out of line with much larger groups representing visually impaired.

They need to be marginalised, then discounted.

Really such arguments are a backwater, and must not distract from keeping active travel moving forward. There is an argument around eg the need for LTN1/20 to be mandatory, and a similar doc for pedestrian and especially disabled access; but all campaign groups basically agree on those.

Avatar
Clem Fandango replied to mattw | 12 months ago
6 likes

Are they a sub-brach of the ABD?

Avatar
mattw replied to Clem Fandango | 12 months ago
6 likes

No idea . It's possible.

 

 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Clem Fandango | 12 months ago
3 likes

Association of Blind Drivers?

Avatar
perce replied to Clem Fandango | 12 months ago
3 likes

I concur.

Avatar
Rendel Harris | 12 months ago
7 likes

How about a button on the bus stop or signpost that could be pressed to illuminate a large sign "Warning, visually impaired/disabled pedestrians crossing"? In my experience most people, while they can be thoughtless, only require a little nudge/reminder to behave decently, worth a try at least?

Avatar
mattw replied to Rendel Harris | 12 months ago
3 likes
Rendel Harris wrote:

How about a button on the bus stop or signpost that could be pressed to illuminate a large sign "Warning, visually impaired/disabled pedestrians crossing"? In my experience most people, while they can be thoughtless, only require a little nudge/reminder to behave decently, worth a try at least?

I think one issue there will be cost.

We have already had Boroughs (especially Outer London Boroughs) installing Bus Boarders where they should be using bus stops with Bypasses, to save cash when it is outside of TFL control. Usual cheap Council problem. That one requires LTN 1/20 to be mandatory with the tiniest exceptions.

I've heard arguments for mini-security barriers to come down when the bus arrives. Problem there is that the idea of a bus stop bypass is that people can cross it at their leisure, rather than rush across in a pack when the bus arrives.

Avatar
marmotte27 | 12 months ago
3 likes

Fridges, oak wardrobes, weekly shops, grandmothers, the handicapped... get their regular outing care of the anti-cycling brigade.

Avatar
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP | 12 months ago
10 likes

The post by Hackney Cyclist nicely summarises the double standards in play.  

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP | 12 months ago
13 likes

Yes - although of course "blind people can't hear cyclists".  That is valid although those who bring this up don't offer anything constructive or explain why / how it works in other places.  Or how they're supposed to cope with much quieter electric vehicles...

I'm with Robert Wheetman on this - we should definitely look into the concerns of those most vulnerable about cycling infra or having more people cycling.  So working with the RNIB.  However we should be aware of the much larger group of those who just want to preserve the status quo making use of those with disabilities as one of their arguments - in bad faith.  AKA "selective concern".

Also worth noting that we've had these for years in various forms.  The Dutch and the Danish have had lots of them for decades.  (The Danish tend to have a version which isn't quite as good on the face of it - but seems to "work").  Once people have got beyond "new! change!" they appear to work for all.

Pages

Latest Comments