A cyclist has raised concerns over a network of restrictive gates and barriers across a London borough’s parks and cycle routes, warning that outdated infrastructure is blocking access for many and undermining efforts to encourage active travel.
Greg, who shared the videos on Instagram, has been documenting Bexley’s barriers — filming problematic locations and mapping their positions using the national CycleStreets tool.
One of the most striking examples he’s highlighted is a gate on Robin Hood Lane, which forms part of the official London Cycle Network, with navigating the barrier requiring a rider to dismount and physically lift their bike over the obstruction.
“For many people, especially those with limited mobility, older residents, or anyone carrying shopping or riding with children, this simply isn’t possible,” Greg told News Shopper.
“The only way for me to do it is to lift my bike over my head. I don’t think anyone would be willing to do that — certainly not repeatedly.”
According to Greg, the barriers often make it impossible to pass through with larger or adapted bikes, including trikes, bikes fitted with panniers, baskets or child seats, or handcycles used by disabled riders. Some gates, he noted, are so narrow that even mobility scooters or wheelchairs can’t get through.
“These gates are not stopping regular e-bikes or scooters anyway,” he said. “The infrastructure was meant to help, but it’s ended up being anti-bike infrastructure rather than anything productive.”
“They’re just in the way for people who want to use the parks and quiet paths.”
While many of the gates were originally installed to deter antisocial use by motorcyclists, he argued they now function as a barrier to legitimate park users, particularly cyclists and those with mobility needs.
He added that some of the infrastructure could even contravene the Equality Act 2010, specifically Section 20, which requires reasonable accessibility for public services and spaces.
In one of the videos of him trying to navigate the gate with his bike, loaded with pannier bags, the caption reads: “Full body workout at local parks and cycle routes in Bexley, London!
“All jokes aside, would your mum be able to do it? Would your granddad be able to do it? Would a disabled person on an adapted bike be able to do it?”
Greg’s documentation of these accessibility barriers has already covered a large portion of the borough. Using the CycleStreets mapping tool, he has marked many locations in red to signal critical access issues. His aim, he says, isn’t to criticise for the sake of it—but to push for practical improvements where they’re most needed.
“Where the route creates a logical shortcut for people, and it’s part of the official cycle network, gates like these actively stop people from using it,” he said.
“Just small things like removing unnecessary barriers would have a massive benefit for everyone — for disabled people, for parents cycling with children, and for anyone who just wants to use the park without having to battle the infrastructure.”
Greg also pointed that neighbouring boroughs, such as Greenwich, serve as examples where more thoughtful design has been implemented to develop cycling infrastructure, which feels “more inclusive and well-maintained”. He added: “There’s a general attitude over there that’s much more considerate.”
While authorities often tend to claim that these gates are installed to deter motorbike and quad bike users, a Sustrans Project Officer told road.cc in 2024 that the “benefit of removing barriers far outweighs anti-social motorbike behaviour”, criticising the “fear-mongering” of claims that there will be increased motorbike usage due to the removal of barriers.
“What we tend to see is that removing them [the gates] doesn’t result in an increase in motorbike behaviour,” he said. “If anything, what we’re seeing is more people accessing the path. And because there’s more people using it, it’s not so attractive to people on motorbikes anymore. So we’re not seeing any real evidence to say it’s leading to increased motorbike use. If anything, it’s reducing that.”
“They’re not preventing the motorbike use where it is prevailing, but what they are doing is preventing people who have adapted bikes, mobility aids, prams and other legitimate uses from accessing what is rightfully a community path, designed for people to go out and enjoy their local area and have an active lifestyle,” he said.
Despite results indicating otherwise, we have covered multiple instances of key cycling routes being blocked by similar “anti-bike” gates and coming under fire from cyclists.
In 2023, a Worcester cyclist was left “astonished” at the sight of kissing gates on a shared-use path for pedestrians and cyclists, obstructions he described as “utter shambles and not at all inclusive” and designed “by people who’ve never used a bicycle”.
In the same year, a 61-year-old disabled cyclist in Newcastle sent a legal letter to the city’s council to challenge the lawfulness of barriers on a National Cycle Route, which prevent him from accessing the path on his recumbent.
Six months later, Alastair Fulcher ended up winning the battle, with the council agreeing to an out-of-court settlement to modify the popular path, telling road.cc: “It’s a fact that the UK’s cycling infrastructure is awful compared to the continent. Certainly, around Newcastle, barriers such as this one are common. I have focused on this barrier because it is on NCN Route 72, the supposed premier route from sea to sea. I can’t imagine what continental visitors think of this cycleway.
“Various arguments in favour of barriers to control illegal motorcycle use don’t stand up to scrutiny, indeed, a recent article on the Sustrans website points to the opposite being the case.”
In February last year, Bolton Council also admitted that no equality impact assessment was carried out before the installation of barriers, once again, aimed at preventing anti-social behaviour.
The council argued that their installation was a necessary reaction to criminality and people using the route to evade the police, also adding that it believed it had still acted in accordance with design guidance.
33 thoughts on ““The only way is to lift my bike over my head”: Cyclist slams “anti-bike” gates creating “low cycling neighbourhoods” instead of low traffic neighbourhoods”
“It’s a fact that the UK’s
“It’s a fact that the UK’s cycling infrastructure is awful compared to the continent.”
Not true!
It’s much worse than that.
I’m starting to think those
I’m starting to think those on the continent aren’t even chuckling at us any more but are jeering and whistling…
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2025/04/16/cycling-from-town-to-city-in-10-minutes/
I counted one traffic light, zero close passes – in fact only one motorised overtake (scooter)…
There are two things to
There are two things to consider. First is, do you want to prevent illegal use of other contraptions? If yes, then cary on with these sorts of gates . Next is do you want to do the above at the expense of a a minority of legitimate users? If yes, carry on. Usually you cannot have it both ways. Don’t bother replying with the exceptions. Pointless . Realistically some people may lose out . Sorry , sad but that’s life. We cannot make everything accessible to all. Remember, most of these poor quality cycle routes are urban and so don’t even apply to many people. We can’t have it all ways. If you spend money on one thing, you don’t have it for another.
mattsccm wrote:
Is this “perfect the enemy of the good” here? Is it that “anything might impact someone” – ergo we’ll give up and deliberately block a percentage of people. “One size fits nobody solution”: everyone is at least slightly inconvenienced and some much more so?
Or is the focus not really so much “users of the path” but “must stop those motorbikers”? For which ultimately you need the police / community engagement anyway – why not start there?
Should those with certain disabilities have to apply for a permit – and then perhaps local authorities will consider making places accessible (“where there is demand”)?
Don’t understand this part? Surely urban routes are exactly the ones proportionally most used? And who was calling for “everything [to be] accessible for all”? Nobody’s demanding that we make holes through buildings for better access, demolish mountains or pave the sea. It’s just where we’ve made a way for people to go we should consider not blocking it so it’s completely unusable for some (and generally a nuisance).
Well yes. That is “motoring” though…
mattsccm wrote:
Not really. You can also usefully consider it around a different axis:
– What / who is this space for? If for people not in motor vehicles – is it only for some of them * or most of them? There are a significant minority of people with some disability, and that fraction gets much larger as you start to consider others who might need accomodation / consideration e.g. the old and frail / very young.
If this was a rock climb, or a cave, I’d be perfectly happy with saying “it’s accessible to those who can…” But these are paths – in fact often routes for people walking / wheeling / cycling…
– How best to serve that purpose? Clearly making it inaccessible to some doesn’t do that. So – to what extent are people illegally motorbiking actually impacting things? What is the most effective way to reduce / remove that impact on those actually wanting to use the path?
There’s likely more than one way to do it. And barriers do not always stop the nuisance even in that specific place. (And won’t stop it in general!) But they may completely block it for some, and make it far less appealing to others.
* Perhaps only the fit, and/or the brave – like roads …?
chrisonabike wrote:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2025/04/16/cycling-from-town-to-city-in-10-minutes/
I counted one traffic light, zero close passes – in fact only one motorised overtake (scooter)…— chrisonabike
Not only jeering and whistling but also commenting how can a country be so fucking stupid!
This is all about culture and those entitled attitudes and entrenched positions we have in UK society. We always want to blame or decry others that do not conform with our values. In these comments alone there are many references to people being excluded because they do this or that, those things being something that upsets “my” sense of entitlement
Cycling in the Uk is a crazy bizarre thing that only a few nutters with little sense of how “that impacts massively and negatively upon how I travel as a motorised road user” do.
The video shows everything that we should aspire to and things that can be changed but are not because fundamentally cycling is a minority, outlier activity and “should not take resource from or impinge upon my really, really important need”.
Observations:
The UK will not change because we do not cycle from a young age and we have no concept or understanding how it all “just works” we are too concerned it will impact upon me rather than it will benefit all.
Unfortunately it is part of our national pysche.
Having decried “but we’re not
Having decried “but we’re not Dutch – it’s the culture!” for some time … I do think ultimately there are some things which explain why it *was* the Dutch that did this most thoroughly. It’s complex though – this summary is just the surface!
Some of those differences also make it hard to “import” things. We can bring in e.g. infra * but ultimately that is supported by laws, planning and engineering professions and their norms and standards, local government structures and feedback loops, and ultimately politics and the “culture”.
Facets of a “culture” can change and sometimes quickly (see e.g. Seville for perhaps the most striking example). However for something to be “normal” it is going to be pretty self-reinforcing! And the longer the UK keeps to “driving is default” – no matter how much we say other things are important as well – the harder it is to change. The practice of mass motoring re-engineers the environment, culture and even our “tools of thought”.
* Well … sometimes; mostly it’s still cargo-cult “Dutch-style” because “not invented here!” Or the infra is OK but it still “doesn’t really work” because e.g. we ignore the rules about motor traffic speeds and limits for it to work, or it isn’t part of a network, or drivers have never seen or used it before (and don’t get the practice because it’s basically a “one-off”) etc. And ultimately where it’s easy to drive, we will drive.
Your notes made me think of
Your notes made me think of this article:
https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2017/10/12/what-nobody-told-me-1/
People understand the importance of momentum in cycling – slowing is OK but it’s important to avoid cyclists coming to a stop.
TBF the Dutch would be expected to get hydraulic engineering right (check this cycle route, or this one…). They’re even part of the reason the Fens is drier these days…
I’m sure Dutch folks are also keen to get places and look out for number one. However … perhaps having everyone at a similar level of vulnerability (at least sometimes) perhaps helps with empathy?
The other thing is “everyone has their space”. That saves a LOT of hassles. And that’s not just through separate infra (but having separate pedestrian and cycle space where there will be many of either is important). There’s more thought given to separate networks for separate modes and keeping the major routes distinct.
TBF I doubt most Dutch folks necessarily understand how different things are there, or why things work the way they do. Point is – they don’t need to!
Cyclists! We need allies!
Cyclists! We need allies! Ask your wheelchair-using friends and mobility scooter-using neighbours to come with you on a trip to the barriers – then ask that they put in accessibility / discrimination complaints.
I believe that’s got a much better chance of producing action than “moaning cyclists” have.
(Might be worth reaching out to local charities / Wheels for Wellbeing etc. also. If it’s on a NCN route perhaps Sustrans also – they’ve admitted that the network is seriously lacking in this respect).
I’ve read it doesn’t always work without some legwork and continued pressure of course. Some local authorities appear not to be moved until the fines start coming in.
See a report of success in York.
Try joining Wheels for
Try joining Wheels for Wellbeings DCAN, Disabled Cycling Activist Network, for example, where some of us scheme. There is no requirement to be mobility impaired – Allies and Fellow Travellers are most welcome. And lots of success stories in this war of attrition.
98% of the issues are the same for mobility aid users and cyclists.
https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/our-campaigns/dcan-the-disabled-cycling-activist-network/
Its dependant on the area, in
Its dependant on the area, in thamesmead/belvedere in london its rife for mopeds flying down the thames path etc, you see these barriers on a field where horses are ive used them on my normal bike and not really hard to used you can stand up on the back wheel rest against the gate then swing the other one open while holding it with your foot so it doesnt slam shut, a bit awkward but they are needed in certain areas, i even saw a dirtbike on the road no plate etc police drove right past being that they know the thames path does not have these so its easy for him to dissapear
But are you a wheelchair user
But are you a wheelchair user? Or a mobility scooter user? Or a trike user?
And what does blocking access to the path for some actually do? In some cases they don’t even stop motorbike users getting into the space as they just open holes in fences / get in elsewhere?
Does blocking access to the path for some make any difference to the general nuisance from motorbike use (maybe they just tear it up elsewhere)? How much nuisance do the bikers actually cause, relative to some people simply not being able to use the path?
The above are not rhetorical questions. Perhaps police simply won’t / can’t make enough difference – “no resource”? Perhaps there have been injuries / deaths / people are so scared of bikers they don’t use the path? Maybe the local authority feel that saying “sod the disabled” (and going to court if anyone brings a case) is the lesser of all evils?
OTOH unpleasant people without motorbikes can also cause others to stop using the path. So ultimately all these *are* policing issues – or even “societal” ones. With the latter often being very hard and time-consuming to address.
Personally I’d rather deal
Personally I’d rather deal with some torn up grass than know I forced the disabled to stay at home for the sake of a pristine park..
Mmmm – No. “But whatabout X Y
Mmmm – No. “But whatabout X Y or Z” is just a distraction and an excuse to hide unlawful action.
It is a matter of law that highways cannot be obstructed to lawful users to “manage” a criminal problem. Criminality – eg ASBO motorbikes – are an enforcement matter for the police.
That has correctly been the case for a long time (since eg blocking wheelchair users entirely from their right of access is not a “reasonable adjustment”, obviously), and we have case law from the Supreme Court that says so. Concerning a Public Right of Way:
Garland vs Salaman 2021:
41 Mr Salaman’s second point was that in practice motorcycles use the route, notwithstanding that they are not entitled to do so, and that they are a menace to pedestrians. I have considerable sympathy with this complaint but the motorcycles are not lawfully there and their presence raises an issue of law enforcement. It is difficult to see how denying bicycles the right to use the route would stop motorcycles, unless the argument is that if bicycles are forbidden to use the track, there is less chance that motorcycles will do so. Even if that is true, however, it cannot possibly be justified to prevent bicycles from taking advantage of what would otherwise be a lawful use of the track in order to inhibit the unlawful use by motorcycles.
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=%2Few%2Fcases%2FEWCA%2FCiv%2F2021%2F1098.html&query=(CO%2F3695%2F2019
The issue is getting rid of the 250k or so unlawful barriers public money has been wasted installing over the last 60 years, and ensuring culture change in Highways Authorities and appropriate policing.
What we need is a legally
What we need is a legally disabled cyclist who is willing to travel the country and launch objections to the illegally discriminating blockages. Maybe turn it into some kind of GoFundMe where people donate money for them to visit and object to particular examples.
hawkinspeter wrote:
This is where the late Heavymetalhandcyclist is much missed, I remember he used to tell people to challenge the local council over such infrastructure and say that if they wouldn’t back down he was happy to visit, be videoed being unable to get through the barriers and launch legal action against the council for breaching the Equality Act.
I know I enjoyed reading
I know I enjoyed reading responses to FOI requests he filed.
Wondering what the equalities officer who obviously got handed the request said to whomever installed the barrier without their involvement creating a load of work for them to fix it (organising and explaining to management why either a contractor needs to be employed or taken off other work RIGHT NOW because the liabilities could be £5k per incident – if the handcyclist filing the FOI is using it as part of commute that could be 2 incidents/work day (out and back). Or £50k/week!)
A disabled pedestrian is just
A disabled pedestrian is just as good, and requirements for mobility aids are very similar to eg adapted cycles.
I think the comment “designed
I think the comment “designed by people who have never used a bicycle” is very appropriate. It is depressing reading about issues such as these gates. And what about the numerous town centre cycle lanes that are too narrow to use safely, or paths that require cyclists to dismount every hundred metres and walk?
Such schemes are mainly box – ticking gestures and if anything serve to discourage active travel.
Problem is they are not
Problem is they are not really designed. Some person just picks a standard design without actually thinking/ designing or experience of the real world. Thankfully, the days of box ticking are dying out, with the formation of ATE etc, but there has indeed been too much of that in the past and its a legacy we still live with.
When I lived in Brum around
When I lived in Brum around the turn of the millennium, and took to enjoying riding out down the many canals, a lot of the canals in the city had key activated gates to provide access for less abled users. Not perfect, layers of bureaucracy, inconvenience, probably expensive, subject to vandalism, and not really intended for those without “standard” bicycles. But it was their “solution”. Don’t know if the still have them, or if they worked?
Scotland is clear by and
Scotland is clear by and large of anti-wheelchair barriers on canal towpaths.
England, where it is run by the CRA, is not. They compromise on occasions. The best way to clear them out is to prove that it is a Public Right of Way, and apply the Highways Act I have decribed elsewhere.
I work from the viewpoint of a disabled or elderly pedestrian using a mobility aid.
They need bus-gate technology
They need bus-gate technology. If this is too expensive the, then it calls into question the magnitude of the problem they are trying to solve.
karlssberg wrote:
What kind of bus-gate are you thinking of? The type that simply captures the number plate isn’t going to be of any use for catching unlicensed off-road motorbikes.
No, but it would stop all
No, but it would stop all those bloody buses driving up there.
Oh, wait…
How do you go about getting
How do you go about getting barriers removed / altered?
These are near me and very difficult to get through with a normal bike – the distance between them isn’t much more than the width of my handlebars. I think they’ve been put in to slow down cyclists rather than to block motorbikes.
Ah yes – the “but if a kid
Ah yes – the “but if a kid cycled out into the road…”
Of course the issue is having a cycle path that simply dumps cyclists out onto said “fast road”.
(And nice to see they’ve got tactiles out: that absolutely “fixes it” for those with visual impairments! Well, perhaps legally…)
I’d suggest to address that
I’d suggest to address that one under S137 of the Highways Act 1980, as a wilful unlawful obstruction on a Public Highway. There is a defined process which avoids a need to threaten legal action at the start. *
A public highway includes pavements and verges.
Unlike disability law, anyone can do the process – you don’t hgave to be discriminated against personally. Though also arguing from the viewpoint of a wheelchair user (‘my friend / mum / neighbour’ etc) may be useful.
Usually complain first via the normal process, with a deadline, and details as to the problem. You fill in a form and serve it on the Chief Exec of the Local Highways Authority.
Here is the explainer for the process. This is written around public footpaths etc, but it seems to me it applies. The same law is used by the police to remove vehicles on pavements etc.
https://www.oss.org.uk/need-to-know-more/information-hub/rights-of-way-requiring-the-highway-authority-to-act-on-obstructed-paths-section-130a-of-the-highways-act-1980/
There is a fair bit of relevant case law.
I’d also add that there is a
I’d also add that there are many hives of activists on these in many places, and stories of success.
Try joining Wheels for Wellbeings DCAN, Disabled Cycling Activist Network, for example, where some of us scheme. There is no requirement to be mobility impaired – Allies and Fellow Travellers are most welcome.
https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/our-campaigns/dcan-the-disabled-cycling-activist-network/
I had several of these near
I had several of these near me. Triple fences on the footpath leading into the estate. I wrote to councillors at every level and to council officers explaining that they were actually barriers to anyone with a pram, a bike or in a pushchair. Letters had no effect but when I spotted an old chap in a very small mobility buggy (The sort that will fit in a car boot) I asked if I could video him and use it. He agreed and as I expected his son had to lift the back of the buggy to get him round. I sent the video off to those I has previously written to. A few short weeks later the barriers were removed
Chapeau!
Chapeau!
Yes – Councils responld when
Yes – Councils responld when it is an identified local person with a vote.
Credit where it’s due. We
Credit where it’s due. We can all have a go at rightously buggering something up, but if you want to really make it FUBAR, you’d best get a Council involved. Our local one have installed a “kissing gate” with no way round through which one can get nothing beyond a child’s scooter through, even on the back wheel, AT THE START OF A CYCLE ROUTE. I encontered a chap who it turned out was 76, with an eMTB, who had no hope whatsoever of lifting his bike over. He informed me he was doing a bit of a quest to ride all the official routes in 2 counties, and that this kind of “stupid shit” is absolutely rife. Sums Britain up really.