Milton Keynes-based delivery cyclist Steve Abraham has criticised the local council’s decision to install a growing number of barriers and bollards on the city’s cycleways and shared use routes, which the ultra-cycling legend says prevents the paths being used by delivery riders with large bike trailers – that were themselves supplied by the council.
Earlier this week Abraham, a cyclist known for his distance record attempts who works as an independent food delivery rider for companies such as Deliveroo and Uber Eats, posted on Strava a photo of a set of bollards at the exit of a canal crossing which – unless the rider attempts a tricky manoeuvre onto the adjacent grass – appear just wide enough for a cyclist on a standard bike to pass through.
And not at all wide enough, as Abraham noted on the ride sharing app, for cyclists on cargo bikes or towing large trailers stocked with food.

“Milton Keynes Council, in their infinite wisdom, have started putting up bollards that the trailers they supplied to us won’t fit through. Muppets,” the independent contractor posted on Strava.
Speaking to road.cc, Abraham says that, at the same time active travel charity Sustrans has begun to remove barriers along the National Cycle Network, “bollards and barriers are cropping up” throughout Milton Keynes in recent months, hindering the bikes he uses to deliver food as an independent contractor, an experience he spoke in detail about on a recent edition of this site’s podcast.
> “You’re just collateral” — Ultra-cycling legend Steve Abraham on Deliveroo and the gig economy
The ultra-distance cyclist, who uses the trailers once a week, says the new bollards on their “usual” canal crossing were flagged by a colleague last week, and that when he attempted to access a previously used crossing on a different route, he “found more new bollards”.
“The bikes we use are Tern GSDs and we tow Carla trailers which are the biggest trailers I have ever seen,” he says. “They were supplied by the council (who bought 21 e-cargo bikes for businesses and charities to rent at an extremely good rate). Milton Keynes Parks Trust also have a few of their bikes too.
“There were a few barriers in places before we got the cargo bikes and they’ve been there longer than I have (25 years), so I avoid them on any bike, but wouldn’t be able to get through them on my tandem, let alone our monster Tern set up.
“A more typical cargo bike without the trailer would get through those bollards, but it’s tight and especially tricky if there’s a gusty side wind.”
Steve says the new bollards, such as the ones he posted on Strava, have made it trickier for delivery riders to find efficient, accessible routes using the city’s redways, a traffic-free shared use network covering most of the city estates and stretching out to the area’s older towns, an example of active travel infrastructure that Abraham describes as “a bit of a local quirk that are good, bad, and misunderstood”.
“These new bollards are on canal bridges. There was already a barrier stopping us using one useful crossing. We now have lost three more options and have one left without a mile’s detour,” he says.
“There might have been one more crossing over the canal but I am not sure I would make it without a run up. It’s very steep and I would have to take a bend at speed to have a chance. Leisure riders often push their bikes over it because they get caught out in the wrong gear following directions from signs or phones. Shared use substandard paths aren’t for fast and efficient riding.
“Or we could just use the grid roads with 60 or 70mph speed limits. I’m sure that those drivers that complain about anyone ever cycling on the grid roads when we have these ‘wonderful cycleways all over the city’ will understand if they see us.”
> Steve Abraham back riding after driver knocks him off bike
Abraham also noted that he contacted the council to inform them of the areas where the bollards and barriers prevented the trailers from passing through, but that he never got a response.
“Overall, I would get rid of them all with a few possible exceptions,” he says. “They make crossing roads with oncoming pedestrians or cyclists also crossing a lot more awkward than necessary.
“They generally just make the redways that extra bit more awkward at best, or in the case of the bollards and barriers that some bikes can’t get through, they put a big limit on route options. And you also really need to know your way around because these things don’t show up on route planning apps like Google.”
He continued: “The barriers and bollards are an unhelpful waste of money that are one of the problems of the redways.
“They could be to slow people down where things are very badly designed. I find it ridiculous that we have grid roads that allow people to drive at the national speed limit and that’s seen as essential, but being able to cycle at speed on something that’s supposed to be specific for cycling is a problem.
“200 miles of cycleways that don’t meet minimum standards is a boast. The cul-de-sac I live in is built to a much better standard and I bet there are thousands of miles of those. A cycleway that’s about half the width of a typical residential road, with a good footpath on both sides and built to a similar standard with drainage would be the best cycleway in Britain.
“Instead, we get hazardous substandard paths. That probably makes me sound like a miserable old bugger and to be fair, I might even be one! So, I will say that Milton Keynes is great for me as a cyclist partly because of the redways.
“But that’s because cycling is fun by default and although it could be a hell of a lot better, all of the bulls*** and nonsense doesn’t ruin all of the fun, especially when you can escape criminal car drivers. And the redways are a better way of seeing the city than the soulless grid roads. Though I will usually use the grid roads to ride into and out of Milton Keynes.”
Milton Keynes City Council has been contacted for comment.
The issue of barriers and bollards hindering access to cycle routes for people with disabilities or non-standard cycles has proved a growing concern in recent years.
In December, we reported that Stockport Council had backtracked on its plans to introduce more barriers on cycling and walking routes, a decision welcomed by campaigners who said that the barriers would discriminate against disabled people who use non-standard cycles, wheelchairs, and mobility aids.
Stockport Council had originally voted to install chicanes, bollards, and barriers on some cycling routes to tackle anti-social behaviour, a measure Labour councillor Dean Fitzpatrick claimed at the time was about trying to “balance everything for the whole community”.
However, the plans were heavily criticised by active travel campaigners who argued that the proposed barriers did not “meet the legal access requirements” and would prevent disabled people from using the routes.
“The very basic bare minimum the council should be doing, they don’t reach that, which morally is pretty disgusting. There’s a minimum and the council is trying to worm their way out of it,” Harrie Larrington-Spencer, a researcher at the University of Salford who specialises in inclusive active travel, said in response to the policy.
“It’s not about balance. Disabled people have the right to access these spaces. You should be able to use the same walking and cycling routes that non-disabled people can use. You are limiting who can access these routes, which is terrible.”






















41 thoughts on ““Oh! Bollards!” Delivery cyclist says council’s new cycle route barriers are too narrow for cargo bike trailers… also supplied by the council”
This type of infrastructure
This type of infrastructure has very specific guidelines to ensure it remains accessible for wheelchair users etc. It isn’t clear from the article whether these bollards meet those specifications. If they do then the size of the trailers is the issue. If not then the bollards are the issue.
According to their website,
According to their website, Carla trailers are 970mm wide (https://www.carlacargo.de/site/assets/files/1087/2023-datasheet_carla_ecarla_en.pdf). LTN 1/20 suggests infrastructure is designed for cycles up to 1.2m wide. Therefore, it sounds most likely that the bollards are the problem.
I would also point out, as Abraham has, that adding any form of barriers to cycle paths generally makes the paths less attractive and less usable – which is why LTN 1/20 also advises “a general presumption against the use of access controls”. It’s not entirely clear what problem the council are trying to solve or why they felt installing these barriers was the appropriate solution.
OnYerBike wrote:
Concern that licenced, careful drivers might accidentally find themselves on the path? Or “youf on quad-bike” / joyriders in stolen vehicle getting in there?
General symptom of there being a budget for putting up bollards every once in a while, but policing things being done by a completely different organisation and there isn’t money for that.
I’m sure they’ve got great “vision zero” / “zero carbon” policy statements though!
Patrick9-32 wrote:
— Patrick9-32The ones working for the council?
Shock! Town literally
Shock! Town literally designed around the motor vehicle* from the ground up turns out still to be crap at providing for other modes many years on.
As Patrick9-32 says hopefully someone will check if they’re in line with the accessibility legislation and if not they can get in the bin (or the council gets sued).
* For those who say “but it was also designed with cycle infra – the redways!” yes, bonus point for you. However have a look at how convenient it is (long article but images and maps further down) – compared to “drive directly along wide straight roads to your destination at n + (n times 10% +2) mph (or above)!” (for example Google maps, switch between normal and “cycling” view etc.)
chrisonatrike wrote:
Sigh!
Yes, we have a great road infrastructure, we also have a shared use path infrastructure that should be the envy of most places. It may not be the most direct route however that misses the point. You get to see a completely different side to the city. I used to use it to commute to the station and it was a joy! Also a lot quicker than driving the same route during rush hour.
Don’t get me wrong – I’d love
Don’t get me wrong – I’d love to pay a visit and if I lived there I’m pretty sure I’d use the paths where suitable for my cycle journeys.
However while many people value quiet, pleasant routes and green spaces – for transport most people want to go “like the car goes”. They don’t want the “scenic route”. They want to go pretty directly between A and B. They don’t like not being able to see where they are / where they’re going. They don’t like being in places which don’t seem to have “escape routes” or are “isolated locations”. And they don’t enjoy sharing with another mode (when cycling OR walking) unless there are hardly any people using the other mode.
I have been told that despite me thinking they’re pretty good the former railway line paths in Edinburgh are just not used by some – especially women – because they’re often in cuttings and hidden from observation and there can be a few hundred metres between “access points”.
Contrast here. Obviously I’d like both – but without the direct network of routes cycling will remain “recreational”. (Milton Keynes of course has the other issue that it is just super-easy to drive, because it was so built…)
I’ve just reviewed my old
I’ve just reviewed my old commute route to the station – it’s less distance than the road using the Redways. In addition I get to cycle past Furzton Lake, The Bowl and Tear Drop Lakes, well away from any traffic.
That’s probably one of the
That’s probably one of the best redway routes in Milton Keynes. I used to shop in Morrisons Westcroft just to do the ride straight down to Furzton then through Teardrops to go home.
Sometimes the redways can give a very good shortcut compared to roads. I exploit them when I do Deliveroo. I can do a delivery from Pret or Subway by the train station to someone near the train station in Loughton in about a minute or two but by road it would be about a mile and a half plus a lot of faff.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I can see why some people would prefer not to use paths that appear hidden away and secluded. However I suspect that many of the complaints come from people who don’t cycle – people who don’t understand how little protection is offered by on road cycle lanes and cycleways/shared use paths which are adjacent to the main carriageway (i.e. there is no guarantee that vehicles will remain on the carriageway and no guarantee that cyclists will remain on shared use path or within the confines of a cycle lane) – in fact motorists tend to completely ignore cyclists in a cycle lane or on a cycleway or shared use path (which in many respects makes them more dangerous and less pleasant to use than just riding on the main carriageway).
jh2727 wrote:
Yes… we sometimes hear opinions about active travel given by people who frankly would never cycle on the roads as they are. They probably wouldn’t cycle even if there was a cycle lane. (As opposed to a properly separated cycle path). We know this – because in actual fact most people in the UK drive (or are a passenger) for most journeys! That is also because it’s just too easy to drive of course. Hence the lesson of Milton Keynes – or Stevenage – where it’s easy to drive, Brits drive.
However these are exactly the people which places where cycling is a mainstream mode of transport have indeed provided for. So we know that cycling infra has to be “safe” in a number of ways (actually safe, subjectively safe and socially safe) as well as being “attractive” e.g. convenient, direct, there’s a network of routes, people can cycle side-by-side socially etc.
As to “some people” – I don’t think just telling people it’s fine or making spaces where a substantial number of people don’t feel safe is a worthwhile endeavour. After all, the quick and the brave can already ride on the roads, or walk wherever they like at night – it’s a statistically safe country, the UK!
In Edinburgh these paths are shared use (UK, innit?) so lots of the complaints are from people who might walk on them in company, during the day. (I’d also like there to be separate spaces for pedestrians and cyclists, just like in NL / Scandinavia, but we’re not even at “3rd class active travel country” yet…)
I thought bollards were
I thought bollards were supposed to be friendly to cyclists?
Spacing looks wrong (&
Spacing looks wrong (& discriminatory therefore illegal).
There should be an easy run up and a 1.5m clearance between bollards. It’s all in LTN 1/20 if this is an official cycling route, or various places if it is a footpath (including some bits that are less than helpful).
You will find that the
You will find that the recommended distance for all bollards are a minimum of 900mm. This is because under disability laws this is the minimum width for wheelchair access it applies to building standards and all other access and street layouts in the UK.. Standard footpaths however are normally 1200mm wide and should be a unobstructed clear width.
I have a standard bakfeits cargo trike. The width of the frame is 850mm wide. Even in some places were I live I struggle on certain places because of bollards. Up untill recently I couldn’t even enter my local park. This is because the council are trying to stop motorbike and mopeds using the park as short cut.
.
This cargo bike should therefore be designed to go through 900mm and no more. If the bollards are to smaller width it is a inconvenience, but if this is the case. Take a thought for poor disabled people in wheelchairs instead.
If the cargo bike and trailor is over 900mm wide. “Hit the road jack”
At least they are yellow…
At least they are yellow…
There are a few routes on
There are a few routes on some of my regular trips that I have to detour if I am on the cargo bike – although the TERN will get through most and the picture in this report shows a TERN GSD that can fit through even with the trailer. (There is plenty of space to the left of the picture) But barriers are a nuisance. The barriers are installed by local authorities to keep out mopeds and motorbikes – but they also keep out many types of cargo bike. It’s a dilemma.
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:
Not in the picture I am seeing.
Not with a rig of this length.
Not without going totally into the grass.
No idea what you’re talking about…
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:
It really isn’t a dilema. Most of the motorbikes I see being ridden off road are no wider than a push bike – they are either homemade e-bikes, electric trials bikes or minimotos. Bollards that are less than 1.5m apart are no longer useful – there is no point trying to restrict anything narrower than a car.
Can I check?
Can I check?
1 – Are these installed on a designated cycleway?
2 – Does anyone knjow the actual spacing here? (Will twitter Steve)
Note also, the Transport Select Committee Enquiry on Accessible Transport Legal Obligations (such as not blocking networks of paths to people with a right to access them) is accepting submissions up until Monday. The MK Council jokers are a prime example.
Here: https://committees.parliament.uk/work/6805/accessible-transport-legal-obligations/
mattw wrote:
Not exactly – the Redways are shared use paths.
It’s an impressive trailer,
It’s an impressive trailer, full disk brakes, heavy, and an impressive load capacity.
https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/reviews/heavy-duty-three-wheeler-trailer/carla-cargo-trailer-3839
Mind you, at £4k, Adrian
Mind you, at £4k, Adrian Chiles would have to do another 4 days on OnlyFans in addition to the 4 for the bike itself.
They look awesome. Only had
They look awesome. Only had need of that volume-shifting or weight-carrying capacity a few times in my life – but then, it would have been useful.
Seen one outside the Edinburgh Cargo bike hub. They’ve a hire scheme but it’s not obvious you can rent the trailer. I am currently without my own cargo trailer though, so the next time I need to shift lots of stuff I might look again…
It is!
It is!
I was surpised how stable it is and how well it follows the bike around corners. I have stopped it going downhill at 30 mph with about 160kg in the trailer and it felt at least as stable as a bike, probaby because the long wheelbase. The Tern has 180mm rotor two piston hydraulic brakes too. Not sure I’d want to pay for one but it’s a lot more stable than my own little German cargo trailer.
could fit a bus through at
looks like you could drive a bus through at either side. are cargo bikes difficult to steer?
Wtf?
Wtf?
marmotte27 wrote:
ah the sarcasm filter must be switched on on your device.
however
Possibly. I did consider it
Possibly. I did consider it but because
The raised area around the railings that might have fouled the trailer wheel,
I would have had to come in wide to line the trailer up if that was possible because of the hedge, but maybe if I unhitched the trailer?
Wet grass isn’t good for traction, which you need to tow a trailer. Trailer plus load was about 100kg total so add me and the bike and you’re trying to propel about 200kg on a 20″ tyre on wet grass/mud. It might have been OK, I might have had to push.
Even if I did, after all the faff, would I get through the bollards on the other side?
And if so, I’ll need another route anyway because this just isn’t very practical if there’s a better option,
So I didn’t bother trying.
It’s not difficult to steer. The trailer follows the bike very well
Difficult for some trikes and
Serious reply. Difficult for some trikes and cargo trikes, also for some wheelchairs.
They just need to use nationally recommended spacings; it’s a stupid schoolboy error.
mattw wrote:
i wholeheartedly concur but to me with this example there looks to be room between the railings and outer bollards. i may be totally wrong due to the angle/distance distortion in which case i apologise for being obtuse, pardon the pun.
reclaim the streets citizens
max power wrote:
I think you are. If you’ve ever been to MK, you’ll know that there’s usually only two bollards, like here: https://goo.gl/maps/H496UTn2VbcEho9e7
They are generally placed where the redway is quite wide and crosses a road, to stop dozy drivers turning into it by mistake. They’re not usually used to keep vehicles out, as often you could easily drive a car around them.
I’m not sure why they’ve put a bollard in the centre here. A contractor mistake I would think. I’m not even sure why bollards would be required at this location either. I think it might be here: https://goo.gl/maps/gnooWK1cU1v2qLiy7
Which is not a place you would expect a car to be, even by mistake. Maybe it’s to keep the council grass/hedge/road maintenance vehicles from driving over the bridge that is probably not designed to take the weight of flat bed transit. Even if that were so, it’s one bollard more than required.
Yes. That’s where they are. I
Yes. That’s where they are but there are also sets of bollards just fitted on 2 other bridges. I went this way because bollards were put on my usual route but then saw that some were put here as well. I think you’d have a job getting a car around that helter skelter bend up to the bridge but I don’t know why anyone would even bother trying.
Steve Abraham wrote:
I have enough trouble getting a bicycle up those steep spiral ramps, never mind a car!
I’ve just checked and this is land owned by The Parks Trust, rather than the council directly. Perhaps they had some money left in the bollards pot and had to spend it before the end of the financial year?!
Whatever it is, it’s a complete waste of money as far as I can see, not to mention the inconvenience it’s causing.
I think it might have
I think it might have something to do with the long wheelbase cargo bike and huge trailer, all being rather heavy, making jinking left or right on a slope and bridge parapets a little more difficult than on a normal more standard bike.
Especially as these seem to be recently installed on what may have been an easy to navigate route before
No problem !
No problem !
I’m not that knowledgeable myself, but I’ve tried to take an interest in this one – as I think MK are probably making a genine policy mistake here.
You will find that the
You will find that the recommended distance for all bollards are a minimum of 900mm. This is because under disability laws this is the minimum width for wheelchair access it applies to building standards and all other access and street layouts in the UK.. Standard footpaths however are normally 1200mm wide and should be a unobstructed clear width.
I have a standard bakfeits cargo trike. The width of the frame is 850mm wide. Even in some places were I live I struggle on certain places because of bollards. Up untill recently I couldn’t even enter my local park. This is because the council are trying to stop motorbike and mopeds using the park as short cut.
.
This cargo bike should therefore be designed to go through 900mm and no more. If the bollards are to smaller width it is a inconvenience, but if this is the case. Take a thought for poor disabled people in wheelchairs instead.
That might be it. The trailer
That might be it. The trailer was only a few inches too wide for me to push through so I guessed that the spacing was about 90cm
Can I ask you for a cite on
Can I ask you for a cite on those 900mm and 1200mm numbers, please, Dave? Very geniune question – I’m trying to get to the bottom of this. It’s a devil of a subject. Are those perhaps old recommendations?
The standard Govt Doc AIUI is “Inclusive Mobility”, updated in Jan 2022, which specifies 2000mm footway /footpathwidth as expected, 1500mm as minimum acceptable, and “absolute minimum width” through a physical obstruction (eg tree / lamp post) as 1000mm for a max of 6m run. Section 4.2 of this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-mobility-making-transport-accessible-for-passengers-and-pedestrians
It also mentions a maximum spacing between bollards of 1200mm, which seems to come at least in part from the “Vehicle Security Barrier” (VSB) field of work. 2013 VSB guidance:(https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/650617/tal-2-13-bollards-pedestrian-movement.pdf)
Given that the standard “cycle design vehicle” is 1.2m wide (features for example in LTN 1/20), and LTN 1/20 references 1.5m as recommend bollard spacing, something needs to be updated. Disabled charities are arguing for the “wheelchair design vehicle” to follow the same dimension, as cycles are common mobility aids.
(This should apply to MK as the Redways paths are ped/bike shared).
For practicality, take a 1.2m vehicle width, add in 100mm each side for clearance, and half the width of a bollard, and you have a min spacing of 1.5m, with a gap of around 1.4m.
I’d welcome your further comments.
Incidentally, Kyngs Lynn’s
Incidentally, Kyngs Lynn’s Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan seem quite impressive with their plans to systematicallly remove anti-wheeling / cycling barriers:
https://norfolk.citizenspace.com/environment-transport-and-development/norfolklcwip/supporting_documents/Kings%20Lynn%20LCWIP%20Main%20Report%20February%202022%20.pdf
Walked over the bridge at
Walked over the bridge at lunchtime today and the council have made changes at both ends. The middle bollard has been moved back to make a triangle formation which does open up the gap a lot, but you would still be forced towards the grass or hedge to go around either side of it. This change has yet to be made to the two bridges further along the canal that have the same issue. The change to the one pictured was done since yesterday lunchtime so perhaps they will get around to it on the others…
Someone did ask about going around the sides of the outer bollards, but the way these bridges have been built the path on the outside is pretty bad. Apparently the foundations for the bridge don’t include the stairs on either side, and both of these have sunk. Where the stairs meet the path it is pretty damaged / broken up as the stairs have dropped a good 6-10 inches.
I think the changes might have been introduced after structural surveys were completed last summer. On the other two affected bridges nearby I have seen the landscape maintenance crew driving over the bridges, and they probably aren’t designed for that. Not sure you could get a vehicle around the ramp in the bridge shown though. It also might be a good idea to fix the removable bollards on the paths that allow maintenance vehicles through, as these are just unlocked or broken a lot of the time so anyone can use them.
That’s interesting if they’ve
That’s interesting if they’ve moved the middle bollard. I might have a look one day now that I know a little bit about LTN1/20 from this. I won’t try using it with the trailer unless I know it is OK. It’s not the crossing I would use if I could use them all either.