1 of 19

Response to Hampshire County Council’s�Staggered Barrier Consultation. Jan-2022

This is a response to an email from Steve Willoughby, in HCC’s Road User Audit Team at HCC:

As part of Hampshire county council’s commitment to encouraging more active travel, I am carrying out a project to review the use of staggered barriers on walking and cycling routes, as well as the use of cyclist dismount signs, end of route signs and cycle prohibition orders. In some cases these features are not enabling an inclusive walking and cycling environment that is accessible to all. They can restrict access for some types of cycles, including adapted cycles for people with disabilities.
I would be grateful if you could share your thoughts and experiences of these features and send me any examples of locations where you feel these have caused issues for cyclists, with photographs if possible.

The brief is to consider the following:

Develop a position statement on use of “no cycling”, “cyclist dismount” and “end of route” signs, and use of staggered barriers and other barriers on walking and cycling routes, to avoid use unless absolutely essential on safety grounds.
Consider how these measures impact on Cycling Level of Services, Junction Assessment Tool, and Healthy Street Check for designers.
Consider how these measures impact on our Public Sector Equalities Duty.
Create Technical Guidance for our new position.
Consider how this approach could apply to developments.

Jan-2022, by Wilf Forrow, a cycle and active travel campaigner with :

Portsmouth CTC (portsmouthctc.org.uk), Havant-based member group of Cycling UK
Cycle Havant, a cycle campaign group for Havant
Cycle Hayling, for a cycle-friendly Hayling Island
Green Travel Hampshire

2 of 19

Barriers to cycling!

3 of 19

Summary

We support and welcome these efforts to remove all barriers to active travel, for cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled, whether physical or psychological barriers, of which there are many. Current cyclists are only the more confident few% of the population for whom those barriers aren’t sufficient deterrence, or who bypass them.

But the people who won’t be responding are the 60-70% of the population who don’t cycle currently, but say they would if it was safer and easier, plus the huge disabled population who are often trapped by lack of easy mobility. And they, and the planet, would be healthier if they did. So we are trying to speak up for them too.

Physical barriers to prevent cars from cycle paths are justified, but if done badly, they can also prevent legitimate access. But almost all barriers to prevent motorcycles only really stop everyone else, including disabled buggies, double pushchairs, trikes, cargo bikes, bike trailers, etc. Anti-social motorbike users are usually young and fit, and able to bypass such barriers with ease. The best deterrent to anti-social behaviour is to encourage regular social traffic.

Without consistent guidelines, users can start on a path and get trapped by barriers at the far end without a way to get off. And some barriers are positively dangerous, such as central bollards which are difficult to see or avoid, and are accident black spots.

Psychological barriers include signage which is incomplete, misleading or a deterrent, such as “no cycling”, “cyclist dismount” and “end of route” signs. Frankly, many or most cyclists now ignore such signs when it’s safe to do so, which brings the law (and cyclists) into disrepute. But less confident cyclists are just put off. For example, what are cyclists supposed to do at “end of route”? Ring for a taxi that can carry bikes? Push their bike home? Commit suicide? :-(

National and county level guidance is essential if we are not to fail the Equalities Act, our Public Sector Equality Duty, and our national goals to promote healthy active travel.

These guidelines should also be incorporated into local planning conditions for all new developments.

4 of 19

National guidance is very clear

LTN 1/20, while not yet applicable everywhere, has some great guidance which should be adopted in full, including for infrastructure which is not yet LTN 1/20 compliant :

Basic principle 16) says �Access control measures, such as chicane barriers and dismount signs, should not be used.�They reduce the usability of a route for everyone, and may exclude people riding nonstandard cycles and cargo bikes. They reduce the capacity of a route as well as the directness and comfort. Schemes should not be designed in such a way that access controls, obstructions and barriers are even necessary; pedestrians and cyclists should be kept separate with clear, delineated routes as outlined in the principles above.
Section 5 covers the concept of the ‘design cycle vehicle’ for minimal dimensions for widths, lengths and corner radii to ensure that routes are accessible to all.
Swept path calculations allow for the reduced turning circles of some cargo bikes and special needs buggies.

Sustrans are now actively working to remove all barriers from the NCN (National Cycle Network).

Just a few examples of physical barriers in the Havant area (Photos below) :

Staggered barriers (chicanes)

Havant, Park Lane bridleway crossing the A3(M).
Hayling Island, Selsmore Avenue: Entrance to brand new cycle path with chicane on upward gravelly slope.

‘K’ barriers

Hayling Island, Higworth Lane: Brand new East-West cycle path, barrier inherited but was promised to be removed.

Narrow gaps or single posts which stop wider bikes such as “Cycling Without Age” trishaws, trikes & cargo bikes:

Hayling Park: Eastern end cycle entrance.
Hayling Island, Sea Front (several): Recent cycle path along front and through car parks.
Farlington Marsh, NCN22: Dangerous central bollards (see accidents).

5 of 19

Accident hazards

Barriers and bollards are a common cause of accidents, often because they’re not seen until too late, or they’re too easy to clip with a pedal. This is particularly bad in the dark or low light, or for visually handicapped users.

Examples around Havant:

Farlington Marsh, NCN22, short bridge over stream: small central ‘safety’ bollards are hidden from following cyclists, and have caused several hospitalisations, including one involving 6 broken ribs.
Emsworth, Washington Rd: central ‘safety’ bollards on cycle path under railway bridge are very difficult to see in poor light, and have caused several injuries.

Examples further afield:

Scotland, NCN7: 16 cyclists riding �1100 miles each from Lands End to �John O’Groats. Just ONE injury:�someone clipped the small central �‘safety’ bollard on a short, narrow, �wooden bridge on a shared path.��Sustrans have now removed it.

6 of 19

Barriers combined with other hazards

Barriers are made far worse for less able riders when combined with one or more other hazards such as

Upward slopes
Sharp turns
Rough, uneven or slippery surfaces

Negotiating a narrow gap with a tight turn is challenging for many riders. Simultaneously climbing a slope adds to the challenge, especially as less able riders often forget to change down to a low gear. Often the only way to get up a slope is to ‘take a run at it’, which is often impossible or too scary in those conditions. And it’s especially challenging for cargo bikes or bike trailers, or carrying a child or shopping, or riders who can’t easily dismount.

This same issue also affects wheelchairs, disabled buggies and disabled trishaws such as “Cycling Without Age”..

Examples (Photos below):

Hayling Island, Selsmore Avenue: brand new cycle path with entrance chicane on upward gravelly slope.
Hayling Billy Trail, northern entrance: narrow entrance on turn with upward gravelly slope.
Hayling Billy Trail, southern entrance: narrow entrance via narrow pavement and awkward dropped kerb.

7 of 19

Psychological barriers and signage issues

Cyclist dismount signs are strongly discouraged in LTN 1/20 :�

LTN 1/20 Basic principle 16: Access control measures, such as [...] dismount signs, should not be used.
LTN 1/20 13.4.1 The CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign to TSRGD diagram 966 should not normally be used.
Regular cyclists hate these, and rarely obey them, except where it’s obvious for safety (in which case, what’s the point of the sign?).
Dismounting may not even be a practical option, eg for the disabled, hand cyclists or recumbent bikes.

End of route signs:

LTN 1/20 13.4.3 The END OF ROUTE sign to TSRGD diagram 965, and the END marking to TSRGD diagram 1058, are not mandatory, and should be used sparingly.
LTN 1/20 Level of Service says that cyclists should not be ‘abandoned’, but should be given positive instructions on how the route continues, where necessary, such as “CYCLISTS REJOIN CARRIAGEWAY”.

These guidelines seem valid even for infrastructure that is not LTN 1/20 compliant (and perhaps may never be).

8 of 19

Comments from other Portsmouth CTC members

Barry King-Smith

A few comments on cycling signage and barriers. What are the objectives of staggered barriers. Possibly to stop large vehicles, cars. From entering. Maybe to slow cyclists down. Or because they are there. For the first a mid track post would do. For slowing cyclists should be unnecessary. Third, no comment. As regards signage. Most are unnecessary, ignored, or totally irrelevant. The only one, end of route may be significant. But what then? Back onto the road and hope everyone has read the new highway code! Which actually makes no difference to our rights. Hope this helps a bit. Barry

Pop Ginger:

Staggered barriers are a menace as they are used to stop Motor cycles ( which it fails to do) and makes it virtually impossible to use them if you are 90 like me or have a tricycle. The only time they should be used is to stop people rushing into the road at the end of a cycle track.
No Cycling signs are usually ignored by me as they are applied to underpasses where I could not hit my head on the ceiling if I tried. End of route signs are unnecessary as it is usually obvious and only clutters up the pavements with posts. I have yet to obey a dismount sign as I would not be able to remount as there are no signs that I have seen so I would have to stop cycling totally and that will never happen. S.K. Ginger.

Roger Paddey:

They are a major problem for me on my recumbent. We have several in the Fareham area which neither my disabled son, nor I, can get through on our recumbents, so we have to detour either on busy roads, or footpaths.

Heather Mulgrew:

My experience with staggered barriers are that they are impossible to negotiate with fully laden panniers. �Therefore would be impossible for trikes, cargo bikes and trailers.

9 of 19

Comments from other Portsmouth CTC members

Mike Skiffins - the two barriers that most irritate me :

Havant, Eastern Ave bridge to Third Ave: �See photo, to right, and barriers below right.�Entry from E Ave, (the opposite way to the cyclist) by the Grit bin is particularly tight as to get from the road, across the footpath means approaching it at right angles, then doubling back round the damaged barrier and end up starting the “hill” from a dead stop. �When the bushes are overgrown it is worse, of course.�
Havant, Park Lane bridleway bridge over A3(M).�See photo below.

10 of 19

Comments from other Portsmouth CTC members

Phil Beed:

In my view Cyclist Dismount signs are often used inappropriately making disrupting cycle routes and making them impractical. This is exacerbated by the public not understanding that a white on blue sign is advisory, as opposed to an instruction.
Three places in particular where they are mis-used:

1. Bath Lane Fareham, the underpass linking Cams recreation ground to Fareham High Street

2. Gosport Rd, Fareham, the A32 Underpass near the Quay Street roundabout.

3. Newtown C of E Primary School. These are staggered gates with cyclist dismount signs which are put across the cycle track at when pupils are arriving at and leaving school. I believe they were installed some years ago following an incident or near miss with a child and a cyclists. I don't dispute there use when children are entering and exiting school, but I use the track regularly and find the gates are being put into place 30-40 minutes before the end of the school day when there are no children about and cycling past the school can be done quite safely.

With regard to No Cycling signs; there is a no cycling sign which stops cyclists crossing Anns Hill Cemetery, from Wilmot Lane to Southcroft Road. This makes no sense when the cemetery has two roads from Anns Hill which cars regularly drive along.

11 of 19

Petersfield area

Gethin Morgan-Owen:

see separate letter “Barriers in PField_v1_22-01-2022-1.docx”
Example photo to right

Mike Lynch:

There is a shared use path in Petersfield, known as the Taro Trail and Riverside walk which leads from the town centre area to the leisure centre. There is a section with 4 sets of staggered barriers, one at each road junction. Each set presents an obstacle to cycles. In my own experience the barriers are very difficult to get past if you are riding a bike with two panniers laden with shopping, for this reason I tend to take the road route when making utility trips by bike into the town centre.
Annotated map on next slide. Photos available if required.

1 of 19

2 of 19

3 of 19

4 of 19

5 of 19

6 of 19

7 of 19

8 of 19

9 of 19

10 of 19

11 of 19

12 of 19

13 of 19

14 of 19

15 of 19

16 of 19

17 of 19

18 of 19

19 of 19