Physical barriers, such as kerbs and bollards, are most effective in making streets appealing to pedestrians and cyclists, new research shows.
Experts from the Centre of Transport and Society, based at the University of the West of England, conducted their research through both extensive interviews with road planning professionals and policy makers, and focus groups of street users. Particular attention was paid to street users with disabilities and parents with young children.

Their results, published in the Transportation Research journal, found that street users were strongly in favour of physical separation between both cyclists and vehicle drivers, and cyclists and pedestrians. The opinion was shared regardless of the attitude held by street users towards the purpose and planning of street infrastructure.
For example, street users who wanted road design to prioritise the physical transportation of people as efficiently as possible were in favour of physical separation between the different modes of street users. So too were road users who wanted streets to be ‘places’ to stop and visit, with adequate seating for pedestrians, and traffic-calming methods that you would expect to find in a low-traffic, liveable neighbourhood.
Physical separation between the different types of road users was described as being particularly importance. “When walking and rolling, some people feel intimidated in streets where space must be shared with cyclists or motor vehicles,” the researchers wrote.
“As well as consensus across the viewpoints, more than half of participants overall agree that if physical separation between cyclists and motorised traffic, and between pedestrians and cyclists were present, they would be able to choose to use that street or route.”
The study also found that integrated pedestrian routes with cars and bicycles caused visually impaired street users to feel “intimidated” sharing the space and often needed support to safely walk down the street.
The other initiatives broadly supported by the focus groups included low traffic speeds, smoother surfaces and more direct walking and cycling routes that are at least as or more direct than routes made in a car.
> Reducing speed limits to 20mph protects cyclists and doesn’t delay traffic, new research finds
Whether a street is considered as a journey tool or a destination itself impacts its perception among street users. But the support for greater separation between different road users does not match with the views of policy makers and professionals. The participants from this study included the police, a local highways authority, the Department for Transport and an MP who is a member of both the Transport Select Committee and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cycling and Walking.
The researchers found that these professionals “tended to focus narrowly on the area closest to their profession, particularly regulation and/or design. The implication is that professionals are not thinking about the design, regulation and resulting behaviours within streets as holistically as they should be doing.”
But despite the shortcomings in the overall design of road architecture, the paper also reported that, for those surveyed in the focus group, “bad behaviour plays the most important role in creating streets that are hostile, except for people who use a mobility device, for whom inaccessible design is the biggest barrier.” There was also a lack of agreement among participants over the role regulation should play in determining the layout of roads and streets.

The study was conducted in and around Bristol, a city which earlier this year was rated among the best cities in Europe for cycling with children thanks to its early adoption of 20mph speed limits. However, the city has also been criticised for the “invisibility” of several bike lanes and the lack of segregation of its cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. Bristol Council responded to criticism in May by announcing it would paint several cycle lanes red.
Previous studies from the United States have shown that so-called ‘protected’ or ‘buffered’ bicycle lanes are “significantly associated with larger increases in ridership than higher-stress facilities such as standard bicycle lanes and shared-lane markings.”
In 2021, the Department for Transport wrote to local authorities in England saying it would only provide funding for segregated bicycle infrastructure and would not support applications for funding made only to paint cycle lanes.




-1024x680.jpg)

















18 thoughts on “Physical separation between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists key to safer streets, research shows”
While we should all welcome
While we should all welcome this research and should applaud any evidence based policies which follow it is rather like relying on a weather man to tell that it’s raining rather than just looking outside for yourself
Indeed. And unfortunately we
Indeed. And unfortunately we know that “evidence-based policies” require a choice to look at this particular set of evidence!
Guessing that is because politics is at least as much about dealing with people’s feelings and beliefs, however much based in ignorance, misconception or poor prioritisation (screw the future, we want our easy driving, cheap fuel and free parking right now)
And of course the effects of large sums of money – which tend to not just warp reality but leave it fundamentally bent (thanks Douglas Adams again!)
In other research: wooded
In other research: wooded locations key to locating ursine defecation.
As a cyclist who lived in
As a cyclist who lived in multiple countries with very different infrastructures, I am quite against the idea of developping infrastructure first, mentality second.
Yes, separate bike lanes in the Netherlands are safe from traffic (until you hit a garage exit, a junction, etc…) but once you are in the countryside where there is no bike path, you experience very unsafe driving behaviours like close passes and right priority denials. The mentality is that “infrastructure is very developped, you don’t belong on the roads where there is no infrastructure”. Same mentality in France, even though there is much less okay-quality bike paths there.
In Switzerland, lots of bike lanes are built or painted, but as long as there is no rule for safe distance passing, we just keep being overtaken by crappy drivers with 10cm distance. On the opposite, Germany has the distance rules of 1.5m distance in urban areas and 2 m outside of urban areas. I don’t know how that goes down in populated areas like Berlin or Hamburg but it’s clearly very safe to ride in areas with no infrastructure but a good mentality like the Black Forrest, the Eiffel region, close to Trier (barely any cycling infrastructure outside the city), etc..
Hmm… I suspect it’s more
Hmm… I suspect it’s more interconnected. If we can reach it there’s a virtuous circle where infra helps more people cycle sometimes, which means more understanding / consideration for those cycling (might be my family, my employer…), more demands for more / better cycle provision etc.
In reality infra simply doesn’t appear at all without a considerable political pressure.
(Albeit when this was originally infra for *motoring* * the pressure was largely coming from the motor industry and some very wealthy folks who wanted the latest thing, the motor vehicle).
And while people often say “in region x we have no problems with drivers” I am suspicious. Are there “better people” there, or some other factors? That maybe as simple as “just not many people driving” or most don’t drive very far. Or perhaps the type of road infra is actually different?
Humans are human – and to a first approximation all suffer from impatience and make mistakes…
Also – though I’ve certainly not cycled extensively in NL, and there are humans there also (eg. not terribly sympathetic drivers) you’ll find what would in the UK be regarded as an incredible standard of cycle provision very widely there, even in the countryside.
On occasion i have found myself in what seems to be a bad location, but that may be through not being a local – eg. I missed the obvious safe and convenient route!
No, it’s not perfect there, but good enough.
And in fact the UK largely has zero infra in the countryside (sometimes not even pedestrian infra you could cycle on). And that certainly doesn’t make drivers better in my experience…
Bike lanes are poor infra – as you note drivers will pass uncomfortably close regardless of rules. They still have some in NL but I believe increasingly upgrade that to separate cycle paths… and you mention petrol station exits – as I recall I cycled on at least one path that went behind them so zero interaction with cars. So again the issue is more “not quite good enough infra isn’t good”. Simply cycling on the road past such an entry is no better!
* Which came *after* the early pressure from cyclists for better roads…
To summarise – without
To summarise – without making it so far more people sometimes cycle, how are you going to change the “mentality”? And without changing the mentality “somehow” (with no infra changes) how are you going to persuade all those people not to drive that journey, but cycle it instead (when they are quite aware of the “mentality” of other drivers)?
While infra is undoubtedly a
While infra is undoubtedly a significant factor, there are other, more cultural/legislative ones.
Having cycled in France on roads without infra, I have found the effort of drivers to pass safely is more noticeable as a trend. I think they have had a cultural shift, affected by various influences. Others tend to dismiss the 1.5m passing law (as opposed to the hotly and irrationally contested “guidance” here), including presumed liability, but I think that contributes to the cultural awareness. I think there is a shift here, too, in spite of the poorly communicated changes in the Highway Code and the failure to underpin some measures in legislation.
I’m aware my experience is anecdotal, but it is generally a rural experience – where flippancy towards the law in the absence of visible enforcement might be anticipated to lessen the degree of safety I generally feel when cycling with family.
In France isn’t it also the
In France isn’t it also the case that in (some parts of) the countryside cycling is a respected *sport* (possibly only as long as you’re practicing it at a socially approved time eg. le week-end)? So therefore that shapes attitudes in the same way as eg. in hunting-and-horsing parts those on an equine might get much more consideration than eg. in my local suburbs?
It is complex, because humans, I agree. I think it’s certainly a lot more complex than some other suggestions aired here in the past.
Examples: “simple, just ban cars” (great, how?). “Drivers need to drive better” (agreed, how?). “Legislate it better” (we already have plenty of laws – and people ignore them). Even “police it better” (again, how does that come about? I suspect it may be more expensive than people think. Also that doesn’t actually make cycling any more convenient or help all those who just won’t cycle among lots of motor traffic).
Yes. All that.
Yes. All that.
I think there is an absence of street design guidance for all contexts in this country. Rural pass-through villages in France are frequently calmed, as they often are in NL and elsewhere, even if cycle infra isn’t always present. We are seeing that in Wales (and guess what happens to the safety stats!) and some English places, but it feels like they are treated as a woke incumbrance here… I don’t frequent le road.cc or other French SM to know what the chatter on the ‘street’ is.
I think one can look at any urban/suburban street in the UK and see a place that is ‘designed’ to be hostile to non-motorists. I have experience of LHAs that do not get the message (although there are usually valiant officers within trying to swim against the tide).
It feels as though, just as the Highway Code is treated by gammon motorists as guidance they can choose to ignore if it’s inconvenient, so LTN circulars are guidance, if it’s not too much trouble.
Of course it is too much trouble, in a fiscal envioronment where anything that can be cost-engineered out will be. Still less the idea that a street scene might be retro-engineered to be radically different, and new housing comes with road layouts… in fact they are usually led by road layouts at outline stage… that utterly favour motor vehicles.
We have an optional approach to the whole thing, with too many opt-outs for TrickyThink options that don’t fit the developers’/LHAs’ cookie cutters and for which LPAs have little clout to resist bad applications.
GMBasix wrote:
Indeed – what we end up doing (with “good intentions” like safety, or not holding up vital services, or reducing pollution) is excluding those not in vehicles.
Then as places become less pleasant, we add more people, and more people can afford vehicles (or drive more relative to the past) the cycle reinforces itself.
In fact motorists find it gets worse for them because of other motorists. So are even less supportive of non-motoring space (with the exception of “drive to the pedestrianised town centre / park / beach”… )
GMBasix wrote:
I think one of the broad themes in UK government culture big and small (and law to some extent?) is pride in having detailed (sometimes almost petty) rules … but this being “moderated” in practice by ample exceptions or more often just allowing people to ignore them / mark their own homework.
There are of course positives to this (compared with other cultural ways), but on the negative it may simply penalise the honest with extra admin, while the shameless don’t trouble themselves, and those responsible for whatever chunk of the system this is can shut down complaints with “but we have lots of rules”…
How the police (and DVLA…) avoid dealing with reports of road crime or theft they don’t want to bother with is a good example!
GMBasix wrote:
laroute.cc, n’est-ce pas?
parole vraie
parole vraie
no shit
no shit
I’m not in London very often,
I’m not in London very often, but when I am I use the Santander Bikes; £3.50 for 24hrs of unlimited 60min unlocks. Bargain, and I use my phone as a Satnav to stay on quiet roads and bike routes. Cycling around eg Kensington, Holland Park, Paddington (yes, wealthy areas and public transport aplenty) I was astounded how many roads were blocked to through traffic (bollards, one-way); beyond that you’ve got the cycle routes (London: rampant red light running and Lime bike anarchy; that’s another story!). Great for quiet cycling on a 3-speed town bike. Bit of a no-brainer if you’re encouraging cycling, walking etc. At home (Bath) the Lib Dem council have blocked off some rat-runs, installed some bollarded cycle lanes and put bollards around the pedestrianised parts of the city centre. Nothing really compared to London. The online howling is just unbelievable; there were even (intelligent?) professional people prepared to sit in front of the council and make a case against (whilst barely containing their anger; “Lib Dums and their cycling buddy weirdos”). Kind of hope the majority are in favour, but then when I hear the vocal (minority, I hope) opposition, I’m not so sure.
I can relate to your feeling
I can relate to your feeling at the end there – thinking that Edinburgh was reasonably cycling-positive only to listen to a council meeting (on infra brought in with Covid) where a parent objected to making her street with her child’s school a no-through road and business people saying “any reduction in parking and we’ll see you in court”.
That was an eye-opener. Albeit there were some supporting changes also.
I know what you mean too. At
I know what you mean too. At the moment my estsate is a circa 900m cul-de sac to a primary school with a little more houses (circa 300m) beyond it to what is currently a road closure with a secondary school immediately beyond it. People are crying out on the local Farceboke page and talking to councils about having it open (as when the primary school drop off means they have to queue leaving the estate). In doing so that’ll create a direct busy road past both schools and the beautifully quiet cul-de-sac (except school drop off times) will be subject to traffic allof the time; compounded by more folk being enduced to drive. But most folk cant see that !
PS its a long time since I lived in Edinburgh, but I can remember the council taking the positive steps to close off the ends of George St (late 90s or early 0ties) only to have to reopen it within a week after all the NIMBY, etc complaints!
Council are in general pretty
Council are in general pretty good, with a few stubborn stick-in-the-mud types. But (a) money * and (b) very loud voices against motor traffic changes ** and (c) it takes some understanding to see what might hamstring something that otherwise “looks Dutch” (eg. not limiting motor traffic volumes, which may in turn require considering the network and limiting motor vehicle through traffic, which can mean a bigger project with much more opposition).
So (leaving aside conspiracy theories…) it’s hard for them not to say “fine, we’ll compromise” in just the places that will severely limit the potential of a scheme to deliver change.
* TBF some blunders like much of the tram costs and the injuries associated with said tramline are on them…
** Or “wasting” any money on other kinds of transport or street improvements (that could literally be poured into holes in the ground fixing potholes instead…)