London’s deputy mayor for transport Seb Dance has claimed that he was “punched in the face” by a cyclist he confronted for not waiting for a pedestrian at a floating bus stop.
The former Labour MEP, whose role focuses on delivering Sadiq Khan’s transport strategy and ensuring that 80 percent of journeys in London are walked, cycled, or made using public transport by 2041, made the claim during Thursday’s Mayor’s Question Time at City Hall.
In a video published by the Daily Telegraph, Dance can be seen describing the incident to a visually impaired campaigner who attended the public meeting to oppose the installation of floating bus stops in the capital, as the National Federation of the Blind wrote to mayor Sadiq Khan calling for “urgent action” to protect pedestrians from being hit by cyclists and e-scooter users on the contested infrastructure.
“I was cycling alongside a floating bus stop, and there was someone waiting to cross,” Dance says in the video.
“I stopped, and two of my fellow cyclists didn’t. I then caught up with them and remonstrated with them. And I was punched in the face for my efforts.”
After the campaigner raised the well-trodden issue of licence plates for cyclists, the Labour politician noted that, since the alleged attacker was riding a hire bike, he could be tracked and that the incident was reported to the police.
Dance’s claim was made at the same event where Sadiq Khan promised a review of the guidance and enforcement around the use of floating bus stops, after 164 campaign groups raised safety concerns for visually impaired pedestrians on the infrastructure – but failed to provide evidence of any incident.
Floating bus stops, where a cycle lane is sandwiched between a bus stop and the pavement, have been introduced in many parts of the country to protect cyclists from being stuck behind a stationary bus or having to pull out into moving traffic.
However, blind campaigners highlighted what they claim to be the threat posed to visually impaired people by cyclists during Mayor’s Question Time on Thursday, with Khan confirming that Transport for London (TfL) was already reviewing the safety conditions of the 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.
A petition, penned by the president of the National Federation of the Blind UK and signed by 164 campaign groups was sent to Khan earlier this week, calling for “urgent action” to protect pedestrians from being hit by cyclists, e-bike riders, or e-scooters users.
“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,” the letter argued.
However, the campaigners admitted that they were unaware of specific incidents of blind people coming to harm — but claimed that the potential danger of colliding with a cyclist had led many blind people to avoid using buses in the first place.
> Sunday Telegraph accused of using divisive rhetoric in “death trap” floating bus stops article
The letter came just days after the Sunday Telegraph controversially quoted a spokesperson for the National Federation of the Blind who labelled floating bus stops as “death traps” – despite not providing any evidence to back up that assertion.
“Our concerns, our evidence and our accessibility needs have been ignored, diminished and ridiculed for far too long over the inherently discriminatory floating bus stop design,” Sarah Gayton, the charity’s shared space co-ordinator, told the newspaper.
“We need a complete halt on any new ones being installed, getting the ones installed in lockdown taken out, and all the others removed. It beggars belief that they’re still putting them in. This research should be a massive wake-up call. It’s crazy.”
Will Norman, London’s walking and cycling commissioner, defended the infrastructure, saying: “Bus stop bypasses are a nationally recognised approach for avoiding the dangers of cyclists going around buses into oncoming traffic.
“TfL, like many cities across the country, have integrated this approach into our cycleway programme and we’ve seen a dramatic increase in [the] number of people cycling in the city. We are continually working to make all our infrastructure as safe as possible for all road users. All cyclists are required to stop for pedestrians at zebra crossings in accordance with the Highway Code.”
> “Like playing Russian roulette” – Blind people raise concerns about floating cycle lane bus stops
Nevertheless, the claim was picked up by Conservative London Assembly member Emma Best, who echoed the newspaper’s rhetoric on Thursday when she claimed the majority of cyclists refuse to stop for pedestrians, putting the safety of pensioners and young children at risk.
She asked the mayor if he would support an “awareness campaign” advising cyclists on how to behave on floating bus stops, leading Khan to reply that while TfL’s installation of the Dutch-style infrastructure was “completely consistent” with Department for Transport’s guidance, all cyclists also need to stop at zebra crossings in accordance with the Highway Code.
“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,” the Labour mayor told the public meeting.
“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.”
> Pedestrian safety fears raised over floating bus stops on new cycle lane in Bath
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 the infrastructure “an accident waiting to happen”.
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.”
The study also found that 99 percent of the cyclists who passed through the location did not have any interaction with pedestrians.





















54 thoughts on “London’s cycling chief says he was “punched in the face” by cyclist he confronted for not waiting for pedestrian at floating bus stop”
Disgusting
Disgusting
Assaulting someone for
Assaulting someone for remonstrating with you is unacceptable behaviour, criminal in fact, and deserving of condemnation and legal sanction. As a society in general, we are too willing to accept behaviour of this kind whether it be a cyclist, a driver or just some yob in the pub.
Anger issues on the road?
Anger issues on the road? Downgrade ’em. Drivers lose driving privileges, cyclists can walk.
Less punishment, more health and safety basics.
Anyone with such rage issues
Anyone with such rage issues should have their bicycle taken away and be forced to drive a car where their anger management problems will be considered perfectly normal behaviour.
I’m always suspicious of
I’m always suspicious of people describing events like this for political purposes. Was the assault reported to the police?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I very much share your suspicion, but:
Does imply that it was reported, but no report on the outcome; I very much suspect the Met would not have taken this any further unless there was video evidence.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Does imply that it was reported, but no report on the outcome; I very much suspect the Met would not have taken this any further unless there was video evidence.
Thanks, I missed that. I hope they find the suspect, but I wouldn’t want to rely on the Met.
hawkinspeter wrote:
True. I gather that the Met are very good at hunting down lone women, but their track record on street criminals isn’t so good…
I’d like to know more about
I’d like to know more about the preceding “confrontation” initiated by Seb Dance. There can be scant excuse for “punching someone in the face”, but in other news cyclists are relieved of their bicycles by hoodlums on bikes. A lot could depend on who is telling the story.
Sriracha wrote:
As it was a hire bike, that excuse shouldn’t work.
Yes, I see that, so the
Yes, I see that, so the example of having your bike snatched was not the best. Phone, laptop bag, etc? I was meaning, in general, being accosted and confronted whilst cycling may well provoke alarm.
That is not to excuse not stopping for pedestrians on a crossing. I’m just wary of the juxtaposition of the two events (errant cycling, punching in face). I suspect there was more to the chain of events which is being glossed over. Maybe.
cool. Now can someone please
cool. Now can someone please do something about the people controlling two tonnes of metal who routinely go through the zebra crossings when I’m trying to cross the road with my kids on the way to nursery. Maybe I should get a high vis buggy?
Does your local police force
Does your local police force accept video evidence from pedestrians?
If so, just film on your mobile as you approach the crossing. Anyone goes through as you’re crossing and they can look forward to a nice fine and some points.
My local force(West Yorkshire
My local force(West Yorkshire) are highly inconsistent. Sometimes it is all very routine, and you submit a video and are informed a few weeks later that action has been taken. Other times they don’t respond. And sometimes they blame the video submitter for doing something made-up and wrong. I guess it depends on which officer reviews the video
I’ve only submitted a few to
I’ve only submitted a few to Operation Snap, which covers all of Wales I believe, but they’ve been good so far. All have been ‘actioned’ but they don’t tell you anymore than that.
Have managed to get action taking against builders persistently parking on zebra crossings using pedestrian video so might be worth a shot?
That is awful behaviour by
That is awful behaviour by the person on the bike.
However, I can’t help thinking that there are lots of other situations where visually impaired folk have to navigate cycle paths (or roads, for that matter) and the exact same behaviour would be just as unacceptable in those situations.
The presence of the bus stop bypass feels like a bit of a red herring.
I suspect that, while the incident hasn’t been invented, there is a certain amount of opportunistic political point scoring going on.
(Disclaimer: I’m getting more cynical, with age)
Hands up how likes floating
Hands up who likes floating bus stops?
They are a crappy design, that creates a zone of conflict.
Less cyclists killed? (good thing),
More pedestrian/cyclists collisions, (bad thing)
Anyone know how many cyclists were killed by busses pulling into /out of bus stops with good bus lanes?
orangecannonim wrote:
Pretty sure the point of them is to reduce conflict. Bikes and buses don’t mix well. In the bus lane you may have a bus (and in the UK taxis) up your backside. They’re then possibly trying to pull round you. Or you’re making good progress drafting behind one, then it stops, and you have to stop also or pull out round it (looking over your shoulder). Then you’ve got conflict to right / behind AND left (the bus).
The road surface is often bad too – heavy vehicles starting and stopping.
Cyclist-pedestrian? Because “new” and “not many cycling ATM” you will find people stood in the cycle way waiting in the UK just now. Properly designed, once people are used to it? In most locations “conflict” is going to be rare – and simply involve one party adjusting their speed a bit.
I think these people are fine with them in NL. And also Denmark.
I think as all infra it’s less about numbers dying – cycling even in UK is very safe. More that it doesn’t feel safe or pleasant. I know some existing cyclists like bus lanes. Mostly because there’s more space and in the lane with general drivers can feel less safe. However the potential cyclists of tomorrow just aren’t going to feel happy there.
I don’t have numbers but these should be findable – this design is old in the UK, never mind in NL / Copenhagen etc. (Ranty Highwayman has a country design comparison).
well Im sure this one might
well Im sure this one might become a topic for next week https://twitter.com/laurencyclist/status/1639556191809404929?s=20
but thats why floating bus stops are better, what we dont seem to be getting to understand is why they work in other countries, yet seem so problematic in the UK
They’re definitely lower risk
They’re definitely lower risk for cyclists but some of that risk is transferred to pedestrians.
That risk transfer probably disproportionately impacts vulnerable groups so it’s unsurprising that some of those groups aren’t happy about it.
As to why it’s causing an issue in the UK? I’m not really sure, part of it is undoubtedly the ‘culture war’ which cycling infrastructure has unfortunately been dragged into.
Rich_cb wrote:
I wonder (genuinely) how much that is a genuine increased risk or how much it is perception? I do think cycling campaigners need to do more to reach out to disability groups and work with them (and have more helpful lines than simply “but cars” – true that that might be).
The data from London shows a
The data from London shows a higher relative risk of pedestrian KSI from cyclists than motorists at junctions (Caveats: heavily skewed towards SI for cyclists. Absolute risk still low due to low modal share) so anything that introduces more conflict between pedestrians and cyclists will likely translate to more injuries for pedestrians.
Whether vulnerable groups will be overrepresented in those injuries is hard(Impossible?) to measure accurately but I understand their trepidation.
Rich_cb wrote:
It seems the main problem is the trepidation. Which I can understand. Change rarely favours those at the bottom of the pile – which people with disabilities are when it comes to transport in general.
Someone mentioned that the RNIB is engaged with groups looking at this infra – particularly on the bus stop issue. Apparently there is a different small activist group for the blind who are “no way, no how” though. But as always it seems the main noise is “selective concern” from those not directly affected. Presumably for “keep the status quo” / “don’t like cycling” reasons.
There’s an – admittedly tiny – behaviour study that Sustrans / Cambridge CC did in 2015 (specifically around a couple of bus stop bypasses). Also found this from 2018 in Edinburgh.
There’s nothing to stop anyone digging through potential decades of data from several other countries where these are very common. (See examples of this infra from round the world, not just NL / Scandi…) Or even the few ones in the UK. Or even related situations where there is an access road rather than a bike bypass next the bus stop – there are lots of them! I think mattw mentioned some studies / data – perhaps they have more info?
Going forward in an ideal world I’d hope that the powers that be would look at better data especially more useful coding of crashes and KSIs. Sadly I’m not hugely surprised at the lack of curiosity in the UK. Especially around minority groups e.g. vulnerable road users in general and especially those with disabilities. Road safety is a particular blind-spot for us. Aspects of safety there which we’ve long-ago decided are unacceptable in other fields get a pass. Partly because “we’ve the safest roads” means we rest on our laurels – problem solved. There are other reasons why “messing with the roads” is not politically popular of course!
A lot of that risk comes from
A lot of that risk comes from the behaviour of what seems a large proportion of cyclists, at least in London, who feel they are above everyone else. Well done both them and those on here defending them and resorting to whataboutery to excuse the behaviour. All they are doing is feeding into the idea that cyclists ARE a danger and flout the law with a disregard for anyone else.
I tend to agree that we
I tend to agree that we shouldn’t excuse illegal or dangerous behaviour by cyclists but with the caveat that a dangerous cyclist still poses less of a risk overall than a dangerous driver.
In terms of absolute risk reduction it makes more sense to target dangerous motorists but if cyclists are given carte blanche to ignore traffic regulations then we’ll see a backlash against plans to increase cycling which will lead to reduced cycling and ultimately increase risk for everyone.
Rich_cb wrote:
Absolutely. I just find it irksome that so many seem to want to simply dismiss issues caused by some cyclists that do pose a danger to more vulnerable road users, resorting whataboutery regarding motorists. It does no one, not least cyclists any favours.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Yes, when the roads are like a battleground for cyclists, then it is no surprise that a larger percentage of those still cycling are warriors.
London is getting better and the number of more moderate people cycling are increasing.
wycombewheeler wrote:
And that excuses behaviour of cyclists on dedicated infrastructure shared with more vulnerable users how? Another fine example of whataboutery.
Suggest you come to Chiswick and see the behaviour of a large proportion of cyclist using cycleway C9 which has these crossings and dedicated traffic signals along the route for cyclists, both routinely ignored.
Genuine question – what is
Genuine question – what is “dedicated infrastructure shared with more vulnerable users”? Just these crossings at bus-stop bypasses? Or do you mean something more? In that case it’s only “dedicated” in the “not for motor vehicles” sense (which also still needs more enforcement).
EDIT – better link:
That’s more current UK-standard short-sighted shared use-efforts which just aren’t good enough. Here’s what we should be doing instead.
chrisonatrike wrote:
To anyone with an ounce of common sense it is obvious, to those who want to defend the frankly appalling behaviour of many cyclists using the infrastracture clearly not so much. Feel free to come to Chiswick and see what I mean.
The clue is in the name though, again taking Chiswick as an example. What do you think the “C” in C9 standards for? That’s right “Cycleway”. It is a route dedicated to cyclists, with traffic signals specifically for cyclists since they are the ones using it. It is in no way “shared use” so your first effort at window shopping random blogs to back you up fails. Your second one though highlights the situation well, as it shows numerous examples of dedicated infrastruture that runs in tandem with footpaths, with the inevitablilty that while not “shared” the two will need to interact at places as is the case with crossings on the UK/London ones and floating bus stops.
Just a question as to what
Just a question as to what “dedicated … shared” meant – the two are contradictory!
So it sounds like you’re more “what about bad cyclists?” than these bus stop bypasses specifically? (“frankly appalling behaviour of many cyclists” and “… the two will need to interact at places…”)
Several people here note issues in London. I wonder if this is “but Londoners”, or (more likely) because we’re in a transition – cycle infra and more cyclists is recent? But perhaps the same occured in NL in 70s / early 80s? There were certainly riots and serious disturbances as they struggled to tame cars a bit. It’s great now… Cold comfort if you’re feeling threatened by cyclists (or embarrassed to be one), true.
In the UK you can’t depend on “the clue is in the name”. Particularly not when they were “cycling superhypeways” and were a very mixed bag. I don’t live in London but you inspired me to have a look at least.
So not all finished yet and it seems and it’s the good / bad / ugly as usual. Some actual separate cycle path but lots of this is still on-road cycle lane, with intermittent or no protection and minimal separation from traffic. (Still a long way from NL quality. Hence the links. People don’t know what they don’t know. If it works, it works, wouldn’t you say?)
Back to bus stop bypasses. There are at least 3 different bus stop bypass arrangements. Some not so good e.g. where the zebra crossing is distant from the shelter I suspect many pedestrians will ignore it and cross more directly – so that needs improved. Having many variations is going to be confusing for everyone too.
I should add – same as with
Also same as with people in motor vehicles there does need to be enforcement and the knowledge that you can be caught.
Since the debate around policing motor scooters has had some time I think questions about e.g. stopping those on two wheels have been answered. And we have police bikes of various kinds already.
chrisonatrike wrote:
No, really it was pedantry on your part.
Not at all. I rely on the improved infrastructure through London for my commute. I can show you video comparing navigating Hammersmith roundabout last year to now by bike and it is a godsend what has been done. If I am against anything, it is against the type of cyclists who risk these improvements being rolled back by putting more vulnerable users at risk with their behaviour. The behaviour at these crossings and bus stops is one example.
[/quote]
Maybe so, with the number of cyclists in London even a small percentage cycling without care can present a problem. I don’t live “in” London and do not see as much of an issue local to me, but then there are not as many cyclists nor the level of infrastructure. Who knows?
It is a mixed bag but better than outside of London, take Kent for example where the solution is invariably to slap a shared use sign on a pavement, that genuinely creating a “shared” route.
People will always take a more direct route. But it shouldn’t be “confusing” not least to cyclists who should by all accounts from comments on road.cc be experts compared to drivers on the HC etc.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Fair enough, I would be interested in the “why?” as I think that’s important if you want to address the behaviour.
Agree. Visiting Lincolnshire a bit recently and reminding myself of some of the dubious “infra” (where there is any at all). Even Edinburgh is a real patchwork.
I just look at where this does work (mostly Scandinavian places and NL – I’ve been to NL a few times so have at least some brief personal test experience). There “shared use” in the UK sense is rarely the case. As demand for cycling increases this stuff becomes rarer and increasingly all modes have their own clearly-marked space.
People will – so you accommodate that in the design. I can see this is all very new – indeed unfinished – on CS9. Much better to work with human nature if possible. It shouldn’t be a new concept to designers as it’s applied all over road design. Humans are easily overloaded; keep designs as standard as possible and avoid safety issues. (One of my bugbears has been we have road standards but cycling design “guidance” – looks like it’s now required for new bids at least).
I like them.
I like them.
The only issue I see is that they, like every other cycle track, aren’t marked with tactile paving like other roads are.
The better ones will have a barrier between the bus stop and the track to stop people queuing/wandering into the track.
What did you expect in London
What did you expect in London?
Maybe you can suggest to your mate KHAN that instead of his current silly ideas he should setup a city wide task cycling force to enforce the highway code on cyclists & legal e-scooter riders. They should have powers to issue on the spot fines and confiscate illegal vehicles.
Fund your Tfl failure through fines to restore some safety back to our streets. NOT through dodgy emissions claims and green lighting council ludicrous neighbourhood zones.
Khan reduced the debt TfL had
Khan reduced the debt TfL had been saddled with by his predecessor, one Boris Johnson. Then came COVID 19 and suddenly ridership and income plummeted and one Boris Johnson was reluctant to help bail out TfL with a loan, funny that he?
DfT data shows that cyclists are no more likely to break traffic laws than drivers but that when drivers do, the risks are so much greater./ Look it up if you don’t believe me.
If you’re going to make political comments, it does help if you get your facts straight.
OldRidgeback wrote:
depends which risks you are talking about
risk of injury to third parties? higher with motor vehucles
risk of media outrage and mass hysterical clutching of pearls? higher for cyclists
OldRidgeback wrote:
Are you new to the internet? 😉
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
If you’re going to make political comments, it does help if you get your facts straight.
— ShutTheFrontDawes Are you new to the internet? 😉— OldRidgeback
Nope, just fed up of right wing lies.
How exactly did he
How exactly did he remonstrate with the cyclist, that, by his own description, doesn’t appear to have broken any law? (You only have to stop once a pedestrian is on the crossing, maybe Seb didn’t know that?)
We need a more detailed account and some way to confirm it, given that the story is being used for political purpose, before making judgements.
For a start, it doesn’t quite add-up. How did he get punched after the cyclist didn’t stop? Did the puncher turn around and come back after not stopping??
WOW
WOW
Also maybe read the article;
“I stopped, and two of my fellow cyclists didn’t. I then caught up with them and remonstrated with them. And I was punched in the face for my efforts.”
Adam Sutton wrote:
Thanks, I had missed that bit, still a bit blurry-eyed after the clocks going forwards seems to have only caught me up this morning.
I’m not sure chasing after someone to “remonstrate” with them for not doing anything wrong is the best idea. It does imply that Seb instigated this confrontation so we still need to know how he remonstrated before making any judgements.
Let me just get my popcorn
Let me just get my popcorn for these comments.
“Expecting people who cannot
“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,” the letter argued.
Seem to manage crossing roads containing speeding cars/buses/hgv’s etc, would have though crossing a cycle lane would be much easier and safer.
carlosdsanchez wrote:
Much of the messaging on this issue (particularly, unsurprisingly, from NFBUK, who seem more interested in campaigning to have cyclists banned from anywhere they might interact with blind people, i.e. virtually everywhere, than in finding workable solutions) has implied that floating bus stops involve passengers stepping directly from the bus into the cycle lane, something as far as I know that doesn’t happen anywhere. There is just as much time and space to stop and wait before crossing as there is on the roadside; I think the problem is that some people are feeling that cycle lanes have “stolen” pavement that used to be theirs: “Yes we could stop and wait until it’s safe but why should we, this used to be pavement.” One can have a certain amount of sympathy with such a view, certainly from visually impaired people; it must be frustrating if you’ve used a route for years and know it inside out to have to adapt to any new layout.
A possible solution that occurred to me at the weekend, seeing a wheelchair user press the blue disabled button on a London bus to alert the driver to deploy the wheelchair ramp: why not have the same for visually impaired people so that when the bus stops an audible warning is played from the bus, like the “Caution this vehicle is turning left” warning that lorries have, stating, “Cyclists, caution, a visually impaired person is crossing” or similar. The vast majority of people riding through crossings when they shouldn’t are, I believe, thoughtless rather than deliberately aggressive and I’m certain most would exercise proper caution when faced with such a warning.
Rendel Harris wrote:
This design you describe – I’d say far from the best one – certainly exists in Copenhagen. See this rather lengthy but worthwhile article with examples and photos. It’s referred to there as “Loading/unloading from/to cycle track” but I’ve heard different terms. Worth also looking at the “Additional note” at bottom which is a mini-response to the “controversy” about the idea of a bus-stop bypass where pedestrians have to cross a cycle path.
TBH I think this whole discussion is sort of a subset of the “cyclists are dangerous to people on foot!” concern. Because if there are cycle tracks pedestrians will need to cross them at some point.
Of course that also applies if we put the cyclists on the road… I think roads and motor vehicles get a pass because a) normal b) motor vehicles are (mostly) big and noisy – we don’t think we’ll not see them (and vice versa) and c) we’ve accepted formal crossings which require one party to stop and wait. So the “solution” is seen by many as “treat cycle paths like roads – maybe put in belishas and zebras – or perhaps full pedestrian crossings with lights”.
Tbf we have this godawful
Tbf we have this godawful example of one in Ipswich, so they do exist, no idea what the road planners were thinking , the lane ends right after the bus stop anyway.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zury7WZNnVyPEiuF8
Wow, that’s terrible and, as
Wow, that’s terrible and, as you say, pointless given the lack of provision either side. Is there any point in even having a properly designed one there given that it’s a one-way road so the main threat that cyclists are being protected from – having to pull round the bus into oncoming traffic – doesn’t even exist? I’ve not seen anything like that in London (yet).
Worst of all possible worlds.
Worst of all possible worlds.
What is it with Ipswich, that one on the “high street” opposing the flow filled me with fear.
Doesn’t surprise me that
Doesn’t surprise me that NFBUK are almost exclusively campaigning against cycling infra;
NFBUK is a tiny charity; They don’t have the resources to be much more than either a local volunteer charity or a single issue campaign group (Quick look on national register puts their size as a rounding error compared to RNIB or Guide Dogs Association.
While I have seen RNIB and Guide Dogs Association complain about floating bus stops and other cycling infra, they generally seem to either request specific fixes (e.g. proper tactile markings, sufficient space for pedestrians (shouldn’t have to cross live cycle lane to get on/off bus when it stops)) or specific locations where the balance is different (e.g. infra outside their headquarters (bank junction) or major eye hospital where there are a LOT more blind/partially sighted users). They can grasp the concept that no infra is perfect for all users, it is a trade off (and generally the trade off for floating bus stops is in favour of using them.)
My biggest concern about stuff like this is tiny groups being magnified by anti-cycling retoric from those with a financial interest (and by definition, car manufacturers advertising budgets mean the entire media has a financial interest in pushing cars) will bury legitimate issues – Have already heard cases of people arguing that infra is bad for blind because RNIB objected, ignoring that 90% of the ‘objection’ was a consultation response pointing out locations in the plans where tactile paving was incorrect (rotated, wrong type, or completely missing). Resulting in supporters of both groups arguing the toss about something that everyone should approve of (not having to re-lay half the paving because the plans were wrong…)
Not defending the perpetrator
Not defending the perpetrator but how did the victim conduct himself during the confrontation.
The concept of these floating
The concept of these floating bus stops confuses me. I have thankfully never experienced one as a pedestrian nor a cyclist.
The article says:
Floating bus stops, where a cycle lane is sandwiched between a bus stop and the pavement, have been introduced in many parts of the country to protect cyclists from being stuck behind a stationary bus or having to pull out into moving traffic.
I have been stuck behind many a stationary bus and I have had to pull out into moving traffic to get round it. If I don’t think its safe, I wait until it is/ the bus has moved on. (Coincidentally, the same logic I apply when I am driving my car…)
When I am cycling (I cycle to work every day), I need to remind myself that my bike is quieter than even my feet hitting the path when I run. I fully understand why pedestrians can be shocked by cyclists.
How did we go from that
How did we go from that headline to a discussion about the rights and wrongs of floating bus stops? Where’s the condemnation of the puncher? Why are people making excuses for the inexcusable?
Loved the stat that says that floating bus stops are safe because 99% of the time cyclists and pedestrians don’t conflict at the stop. That’s because 99% of the time there isn’t a bus there! What are the stats when a bus is there? Is it better or worse with a floating bus stop? That’s the stat we need.