Cycle Accessibility: Barriers to Progress

The Inconvenient Truth About Cycle Path Barriers

In the United Kingdom, the ongoing debate surrounding the accessibility of walking, wheeling, and cycling routes has brought a critical issue to the forefront: the ubiquitous presence of physical barriers. While often implemented with the intention of deterring motorised vehicles, these barriers frequently create unintended obstacles for legitimate users, particularly those with disabilities or using mobility aids. This article delves into the complexities of this issue, examining the purpose, impact, and potential solutions for ensuring inclusive active travel infrastructure across the UK.

Barriers: A Double-Edged Sword

For years, footways and off-road paths, including those on the National Cycle Network, have been fitted with various access control measures. The primary aim has been to prevent cars and motorcycles from encroaching on spaces designated for active travel. However, the effectiveness of these barriers is often questionable. Motorbikes can be manoeuvred over, through, or under them, and perimeter fencing can be vandalised. Moreover, securing large, open areas with multiple entry points is an impractical endeavour. The core problem lies not in the intent, but in the unintended consequences.

Excluding Legitimate Users

A significant concern is that many access barriers render paths inaccessible for a wide range of legitimate users. This includes individuals using mobility scooters, wheelchairs, adaptive cycles, pushchairs, and even those with cargo bikes. The Equality Act 2010 places a statutory duty on public sector authorities to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty. This necessitates making reasonable adjustments to the built environment to ensure infrastructure is accessible to all. By installing discriminatory barriers, local authorities risk contravening this vital legislation.

The Wider Impact on Society

Beyond the direct impact on disabled individuals, these barriers can discourage people from engaging in physical activity, accessing green spaces, and utilising routes for essential services and amenities. While concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime are often cited as justifications for their installation, the reality can be counterproductive. Barriers can inadvertently create secluded spots for loitering and anti-social behaviour. Furthermore, they force users to slow down, stop, and sometimes dismount, increasing the risk of theft or harassment and diminishing the overall sense of safety and security.

Financial and Practical Considerations

The financial implications of access control barriers are also considerable. They are expensive to design, install, and maintain, and they consume valuable space that could otherwise be dedicated to creating wider, more accessible paths. This cost, coupled with their limited effectiveness against determined misuse, raises questions about their overall value and necessity.

The Case for Inclusive Design: Sustrans's Stance

Sustrans, a leading sustainable transport charity, advocates for a fundamental shift in approach. Their position is clear: walking, wheeling, and cycling routes should always be fully accessible to everyone. They strongly believe that physical barriers and restrictive access controls should be avoided, especially when they discriminate against disabled people and those with protected characteristics. Barriers should never impede rightful access or passage.

Sustrans urges the removal or redesign of restrictive access controls, including those found on the National Cycle Network, to ensure compliance with the latest government design guidance, such as LTN 1/20 or equivalent national accessibility standards. This guidance explicitly states that such measures should not be used. The charity is aware that new barriers continue to be installed and stresses the imperative for national funding bodies to ensure that funding is never allocated to access controls that are not fully inclusive and adequately inspected.

The organisation also posits that the illegal use of walking and cycling paths by motorbikes, quad bikes, and other motorised vehicles should be treated as a criminal matter and referred to the police for appropriate action.

Examples of Good Practice: Redesigning for Access

The challenge of preventing unauthorised vehicle access while maintaining accessibility for all users is not insurmountable. An example of a successful redesign can be seen on National Route 15 at the entrance to the Grantham Canal. Here, the entrance to the path has been modified to comply with the government’s LTN 1/20 guidance. This redesign allows legitimate users, including those with mobility aids, to access the path freely while effectively preventing unauthorised vehicles from entering.

Shared Use Facilities: A Compromise?

The concept of shared use facilities, where pedestrians and cyclists utilise the same off-carriageway routes, presents another facet of active travel infrastructure design. However, the prevailing view, as outlined in Cycle Infrastructure Design (LTN 1/20), is that separating cycles and pedestrians is a cornerstone of good design. Shared use facilities are generally not favoured by either user group, particularly during peak times, due to the potential for conflict and collisions.

Where shared use cannot be avoided, and user numbers are low, well-designed facilities may be appropriate. LTN 1/20 recommends specific minimum widths: a minimum of 3 metres for shared use routes carrying up to 300 pedestrians per hour, and a minimum of 4.5 metres when carrying up to 300 cyclists per hour. Crucially, early engagement with all user groups, especially disabled people, pedestrians, and cyclists, is vital when considering shared use facilities. It is important to distinguish shared use from 'shared space,' which is open to motor traffic without defined areas for different users.

Key Takeaways and Future Directions

The evidence strongly suggests a need to re-evaluate the current approach to access control on active travel routes. The focus must shift towards creating truly inclusive environments that cater to the needs of all users, regardless of their mobility. This involves:

• Prioritising accessibility: All walking, wheeling, and cycling routes should be designed with universal access as a primary goal.
• Removing discriminatory barriers: Existing barriers that impede access for disabled individuals and others must be removed or redesigned.
• Adhering to design guidance: Compliance with national standards like LTN 1/20 is essential.
• Challenging ineffective solutions: The continued installation of barriers that are easily bypassed and create exclusion should be halted.
• Focusing on enforcement: Unauthorised vehicle use should be addressed through targeted policing and enforcement, not through exclusionary infrastructure.
• Investing in inclusive design: Funding should be directed towards creating well-designed, accessible routes that benefit everyone.

The journey towards fully accessible active travel infrastructure in the UK is ongoing. By embracing inclusive design principles and challenging outdated practices, we can ensure that our networks of paths are welcoming and usable for every member of society, promoting health, well-being, and sustainable transport for all.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can a cycle be used as a mobility aid?

A1: Yes, adaptive cycles and certain types of cycles, such as recumbent cycles or cycles with additional stability features, can be used as mobility aids by individuals who may find conventional cycling challenging or impossible. This further emphasises the need for accessible routes.

Q2: Should walking and cycling routes be fully accessible?

A2: Absolutely. The consensus among accessibility advocates and governing bodies is that walking, wheeling, and cycling routes should be fully accessible to all legitimate users, including those with disabilities, parents with pushchairs, and individuals using mobility aids.

Q3: What is the purpose of barriers on cycle paths?

A3: Barriers are typically installed to prevent unauthorised access by motorised vehicles, such as cars and motorcycles, thereby aiming to improve safety and user experience for pedestrians and cyclists.

Q4: What are the negative impacts of barriers on cycle paths?

A4: Barriers can prevent access for individuals using mobility scooters, wheelchairs, adaptive cycles, and pushchairs. They can also create opportunities for anti-social behaviour, increase the risk of harassment, and are often ineffective against determined vehicle users.

Q5: What is the UK government's guidance on access controls for active travel?

A5: Current government design guidance, such as LTN 1/20, explicitly states that restrictive access control measures should not be used and that routes should be designed to be fully inclusive.

Q6: What are shared use facilities?

A6: Shared use facilities are off-carriageway routes used by both pedestrians and cyclists. However, separating these user groups is generally preferred for safety and to reduce conflict.

Q7: What are the recommended dimensions for shared use routes?

A7: LTN 1/20 recommends a minimum width of 3 metres for shared use routes carrying up to 300 pedestrians per hour, and a minimum of 4.5 metres when carrying up to 300 cyclists per hour.

Q8: What should happen if motorised vehicles use cycle paths illegally?

A8: The illegal use of paths by motorised vehicles should be treated as a criminal matter and reported to the police for enforcement.

If you want to read more articles similar to Cycle Accessibility: Barriers to Progress, you can visit the Transport category.