A council’s decision to install “prohibitive, discriminatory” barriers on a steep ramp at the exit of a park – a move purely based on anecdotal evidence, it has been revealed – has forced families using cargo bikes or those with disabilities using mobility aids or non-standard cycles onto a busy road with no cycling infrastructure, campaigners have said.
In January, months after they were installed at the western exit of Wandsworth Park in southwest London, which forms part of the local cycling network, Wandsworth Borough Council agreed to remove one of the barriers to make the ramp more accessible.
However, all three barriers currently remain in place almost five months on, with members of the Wandsworth Cycling Campaign claiming that the council has ignored their emails about the progress of the works for months.
The barriers were installed in October 2024 in Wandsworth Park, situated on the banks of the River Thames and located halfway between Wandsworth and Putney, purportedly in response to claims that cyclists were “speeding” between the park’s exit and a private residential street.
The decision, which local cycling campaigners say was made without a consultation, came after residents of Blade Mews put up signs advising cyclists to “please dismount and push your bike” through the private street.
“But a lot of cyclists weren’t dismounting and it’s downhill into the park, so they were picking up speed,” Becky Philip, a member of the Wandsworth branch of the London Cycling Campaign who uses the park to commute by cargo bike, tells road.cc.
“And apparently there were quite a few complaints about cyclists going too fast, and people worrying about accidents being caused.
“Of course, the irony is that the Blade Mews residents drive their cars and park on the road. They don’t push their cars into their parking spaces, do they?”
However, a Freedom of Information request submitted by local cyclist Andrew MacMillan, and responded to by Wandsworth Borough Council on Monday, has revealed that no formal complaints or reports of injuries or collisions involving cyclists and pedestrians in the park were submitted to the council in 2024.
Instead, the FOI request reveals that the decision to install the barriers was passed purely on “anecdotal complaints via stakeholders”.
No formal consultation also took place before the barriers were installed, though the council claims it held site meetings with the Friends of Wandsworth Park group – though Philip says these were limited to just the group’s chair.
“We’re fully paid-up members of the Friends of Wandsworth Park, and there was no consultation at all with that body. Though there was with the chairperson, who was very much in favour of the barriers,” she tells road.cc.
Philip says that the new barriers have made exiting the park with her cargo bike impossible, forcing her to cycle with her children on nearby Putney Bridge Road, a busy stretch lined with parked cars.
“I can’t get through the barriers without help when my bike is empty. And when my children are with me, I can’t get through at all,” she tells road.cc.
“And of course, there’s not always somebody there who can help. It’s forced me onto Putney Bridge Road, which is a very busy road that has no cycling infrastructure at all. It has parked cars either side of the road.
“It’s a 20mph speed limit, but it’s a long straight road, so there’s a lot of speeding cars. And that’s now the road I have to cycle on with my children.
“I’m a very confident cyclist, I’ve been cycling in London for over a decade, and I’ve been cycling with my children on a cargo bike for five years. But not everyone is confident. And you’re forcing unconfident cyclists out onto the road, and not all bikes are super light. Even a bike with a child seat on the back is very difficult to manoeuvre up that ramp and around those barriers.
“And there’s not even a cycle lane on Putney Bridge Road, not even a line – never mind one that’s protected with wands. And that’s a road people are being forced on if they don’t want to struggle through the barriers.”
She continued: “Everyone I’ve spoken to hates them – and it’s not just cyclists, it’s pedestrians. You basically can’t get more than one or two people up at a time.
“It’ll be interesting to see what it’s like in the summer, and it’ll be interesting to see what the Blade Mews residents think when there’s a bunch of people queuing beside their cars because they can’t get down. Because you now can’t get out of the park quickly when there’s a lot of people there.”
The recent FOI request also revealed that the council failed to carry out an Equality Needs Impact Assessment before installing the barriers – which Philip believes is clear by their design, which she describes as “prohibitive for anyone in a wheelchair or adapted cycle”.
“A man who just had knee surgery said he found it really hard to make it down because he couldn’t twist his knee,” she says. “Mums with pushchairs – trying to get a pushchair around that kind of chicane uphill is tough.”
Philip says she immediately complained to the council last October about the barriers, eventually holding three on-site meetings with staff.
And at the end of January, the local authority confirmed that it would remove one of the external barriers, to make the gap slightly wider, and reduce the incline of the slop towards the exit, as part of what the cargo bike rider labels a “compromise” solution.
“The immediate response was: ‘we applaud you for cycling and using a cargo bike, and taking another car off the roads, and we’re sorry these barriers have stopped you from cycling’,” she says of the reaction to her initial complaint.
However, since that agreement in January, Philip says she’s been met with radio silence when requesting updates of the work’s progress.
“I have the council, and they haven’t replied to me at all – so I have no idea where we’re at with it. I’ve heard nothing. I’ve had no responses to my emails, at all,” she says.
Nevertheless, Philip insists she’s hopeful one of the barriers will be removed – “because I’ll keep emailing them until someone gets back to me!” – but isn’t confident that the work will be carried out imminently.
“A solution has been agreed, so I’m hoping they’re just going through the process of getting the engineers in, I don’t know. I do have hope it’s going to be done. But I don’t have hope it’s going to be done anytime soon,” she says.
“The whole point is we’re supposed to be encouraging active travel, and this really does go against that in every sense.”
With no concrete evidence to back up the local authority’s decision, the cycling campaigner believes the barriers were installed thanks to a “skewed” perception of the dangers of cyclists around pedestrians.
“A lot of pedestrians end up complaining about cyclists. Whereas cyclists don’t tend to complain too much,” she notes. “I’ve been knocked off my bike before, been cut up by drivers, and I didn’t tell anyone from the council or anything like that.
“But because it’s more localised for pedestrians – they’re walking around the park and this happened – they’re more likely to complain.
“So, I think the council get a skewed idea of people’s views towards cyclists. And they’ve listened to those people without fully appreciating the impact it’s going to have on everyone else.”
road.cc contacted Wandsworth Borough Council last week for comment but is yet to receive a response.
21 thoughts on ““Drivers don’t have to push their cars”: Park barriers designed to stop “speeding” cyclists are forcing families onto busy road with no bike lane, cycling campaigners say”
How about they do something
How about they do something about the fact I can’t push my children around on the pavements because so many of them are blocked by dickheads whose only concern is their precious car not get damaged by another car. The fact I can’t travel around conveniently on foot because we have so few pedestrian crossings and lights that actually prioritise pedestrians over cars.
Everything is designed for cars and against people who want to use different modes of transport or have to due to disability. Its everywhere. The only reason most people don’t realise is because they literally never leave their car unless they absolutely have to. They don’t walk or cycle unless its leaving their car parked as close to their destination as possible and walking as little as humanly possible.
For anyone looking to
For anyone looking to challenge this on grounds of discrimination:
Age discrimination:
100% of people under the age of 17 cannot legally use a car, but they can ride in a pram, pushchair, bike trailer, cargo bike, or on a bike.
There are greater numbers of older people who cannot drive legally because they cannot hold a driver’s licence because of health issues, but they can ride a bike (mobility device) or use a mobility scooter.
Race discrimination:
There is a greater proportion of ethnic minority people who have no access to a car, but can ride a bike, cargo bike etc.
Discrimination on the grounds of disability:
Of course, difficult access for mobility scooters, wheelchairs etc.
I look forward to seeing the Equality Act 2010 being used far more to open up safe routes for all regardless of protected characteristic or not.
the late, great, Richard
the late, great, Richard Bennett aka Heavy Metal Handcyclist aka crippledcyclist, would have absolutely sorted this out via a single, well-worded message to the council about their legal obligations regarding accessibility.
Look at the hashtag #bashthebarriers for information on how to do this.
Ahh yes.
Ahh yes.
The FOI requests that were basically a polite warning that if the council didn’t have a correct impact assessment or remove the barrier right now then he was going to visit the area and get ‘stuck’ so that he could sue them for discrimination knowing they had almost no defence…
What a dude. Example:
What a dude. Example:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/new_heritage_and_ecology_trail_b
He was a fabulous campaigner
He was a fabulous campaigner and as far as I could tell from interactions on here and on social media a top bloke as well. There should be at least a plaque or preferably a statue of him at the location of one of his victories, or even better some MPs should campaign for “Richard’s Law” to lay down firm rules ensuring that this sort of rubbish infrastructure never gets built, rather than getting built and then having to be challenged at enormous expense and inconvenience to the taxpayers and the disabled people it excludes.
Rendel Harris wrote:
There’s always too much of this. Where we all end up being at least inconvenienced, some people are totally goosed, after much grinding of teeth the taxpayer has to pick up unnecessary legal fees and finally perhaps pay for the job a second time.
How would it change though? Presumably one or more of “importance”, money or expertise needs increased? However those are all finite and generally what we allocate is taken from elsewhere. Apart from government money – which means more tax and/or borrowing.
Of course the long period under the last hue of government was all about “efficiencies” (which apparently meant “sack some staff and skimp on stuff that won’t break in the next few months”), and our new-style council members have already promised they’ll fix stuff like this AND it will all get much cheaper at the same time…
I’m sure some of this happens everywhere – but is the UK worse in some domains due to the particular structure of our bureaucracies? For example the way responsibility is actually fed back into / between organisations and how people are actually held to account within them (something like is touched on here).
I believe Chris Boardman at ATE has mentioned looking at some things like that. (Well – at least things like trying to get some tweaks to the internal metrics which – without directly stating it – essentially mean that changes which don’t favour driving get down-voted).
Nothing that judicious angle
Nothing that judicious angle grinding couldn’t sort out.
AidanR wrote:
I go through those barriers about once a month or so and every time I wish I had a battery powered AG with me!
Pipe cutter would be more
Pipe cutter would be more subtle, but would leave little stubs…
That’s if you want a police
That’s if you want a police record and prosecution for criminal damage to public property. Hardly a good solution
Circles wrote:
Gosh, thank you for that sensible and sober input, I now realise the error of my ways. I had better go back to the drawing board and completely rethink my entirely serious comment.
AidanR wrote:
Yes!! That’s what we need to do!
Imagine it they tried to
Imagine it they tried to install an LTN without a coNsULtAysHuN……
“…..in response to claims
“…..in response to claims that cyclists were “speeding” between the park’s exit and a private residential street.”
A private residential street? I’m guessing really important people live there, who wouldn’t be seen dead on a bike or public transport: or perhaps a few councillors live there?
“…….the decision to install the barriers was passed purely on “anecdotal complaints via stakeholders”.
The council spent thousands of pounds on something with no evidence? Really? A few heads should roll. And the “stakeholders” didn’t actually include the people who use the path: that’s some new definition of stakeholders.
Five months on and nothing’s happened: time to organise a demonstration and get publicity, possibly involving an angle grinder.
eburtthebike wrote:
The easement across the Blade Mews development was part of a S106 agreement made during planning of the private development. It allowed access through the gates to the park on foot only. The problem is that the council did not insist on cyclist access, so the signs which mention wheeling bikes are correctly installed but due unfortunately to a historical error by Wandsworth Borough Council. Much the same as when they granted the heliport a licence in perpetuity which now would require an act of parliament presumably to revoke, albeit a bit less significant. In reality I think the wheeling can only possibly apply at the gate itself because as others have pointed out, there is no such restriction on other such vehicles. You don’t routinely see residents pushing their cars up to Deodar Road. Institutionally anti-cyclist.
Ex-Tory Councillor Rosemary Torrington lives just up Deodar Road near to Putney Bridge Road.
It seems to have been funded by the self-styled “Friends of Wandsworth Park”, although they are clearly no friends of cyclists. They must have gained permission to do works in the park from the Council however, so in this way it was sanctioned by WBC who didn’t seem to care whether there was adequate consultation with users of the park. Institutionally anti-cyclist.
Yes, “Friends of Wandsworth
Yes, “Friends of Wandsworth Park”, as with 99% of “Friends of parks”, are nothing but hate groups formed by posh people who want to decide who uses “their” parks and how. Most unelected. The Wandsworth Common lot are worse!
I used that route for years, and I could never understand why there were “cyclists dismount” signs where cars were allowed in. That tells you everything you meed to know about the “stakeholders”.
Direct action, me thinks.
There is a short shared path
There is a short shared path on Barnes Common from the station and a small road at a level crossing. A few years ago, I was cycling on the path and I came across a group of youngsters clearing some bushes at the side of the path. I said to the person in charge that the path should be made wider, as it’s a shared path, but I was told that cycling is not allowed on the path. I told her, yes, it is, there is a post in the ground near the station showing that it was a shared path. A few weeks later, when I was on the path, I noticed the post had been removed – I knew that was going to happen, so I took a photo of it as evidence that the path is shared.
Ryan Mallon wrote:
I’ve submitted more Police reports of bad driving directed towards me on PBR than any other road in London, and includes bus drivers. It is a stretch of road that seems to bring out the worst in drivers, but then Wandsworth seems to have more than its fair share of such roads, and bad drivers.
Putney Bridge Road also has one of those useless cycle paths that goes nowhere. Institutionally anti-cyclist.
Pub bike wrote:
I thought the example near me where the outside edge line directs you into a kerb was bad.
But apparently someone needed to beat that by directing riders straight into a grey pedestrian barrier fence (and at least my example was on cycling infra that is otherwise useful…). How the council hasn’t been sued by someone crashing in the rain at night after following the reflective road markings I don’t know…
You were lucky to get any
You were lucky to get any response at all from your local council. My efforts to do so have proved they like to make themselves as inaccessible as possible, and they care little for local people or democracy. We need a wholesale reform of public access to our local government, but that’s probably not going to happen.