The push for segregated cycling infrastructure has led to the widespread adoption of floating bus stops and hard-barrier cycle lanes across the UK. These designs are often promoted as solutions to encourage more cycling while ensuring cyclist safety. However, in practice, they introduce serious risks and unintended consequences that make roads more dangerous for all users—cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists alike.
The Birkenhead to Liscard scheme is the first part of the Liverpool City Region Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure project (LCWIP) proposed to be delivered in Wirral.
1. Floating Bus Stops: A Pedestrian Hazard
Floating bus stops are designed so that the cycle lane runs between the pavement and the bus stop island. This means that passengers must cross the cycle lane to board or alight from a bus. While the idea might seem logical on paper, in reality, it creates more conflicts than it resolves.
Pedestrian Confusion and Increased Collision Risks
Pedestrians, especially the elderly, visually impaired, or disabled, are often put in a vulnerable position when forced to cross a busy cycle lane. Many are unaccustomed to checking for fast-moving bicycles and e-scooters before stepping onto the road. This is particularly concerning given that:
Cyclists are often moving at 15-20mph.
E-bikes and e-scooters, which are increasingly common, can be even faster.
Unlike motor vehicles, bicycles are silent, meaning pedestrians have no audible warning.
This conflict is well-documented. In London, floating bus stops on busy routes have resulted in numerous near-misses and collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. Advocacy groups for visually impaired people, such as the RNIB, have repeatedly called for a rethink of these designs.
Cyclists Don’t Stop for Bus Passengers
Cyclists, unlike motorists, are not legally required to stop for bus passengers crossing their lanes. Many simply swerve around them, leading to unpredictable interactions. Unlike traditional bus stops where passengers step directly onto the pavement, floating bus stops force them into harm’s way.
Real-World Example: Bayswater Road, Wallasey
Objections raised during the consultation for the Bayswater Road cycle lane highlighted exactly this issue. One objector noted that "trying to perform these operations while cyclists are whizzing by at 30mph would not be safe." The response from Wirral Council suggested that road markings and signage would "improve awareness." But awareness is not a substitute for safety—especially when high-speed interactions between vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists are inevitable.
2. Hard-Barriers and Bollards: More Dangerous Than Open Roads
The second major issue with modern cycle lane design is the use of bollards, “orcas,” and other hard barriers to separate cyclists from traffic. While segregation may feel safer, it often introduces unintended hazards that make roads more dangerous.
A Barrier to Emergency Vehicles
One of the biggest concerns with hard segregation is that it prevents emergency vehicles from manoeuvring around traffic. Ambulances and fire engines rely on the ability to use the full road width in congested areas. Narrowing roads with rigid barriers means that an accident or breakdown can completely block an emergency route.
A Nightmare for Road Maintenance
Road sweepers and maintenance vehicles struggle to access cycle lanes protected by bollards and hard barriers. This leads to debris, broken glass, and leaves accumulating in the cycle lanes, making them unsafe for cyclists. The issue was explicitly raised in objections to the Bayswater Road scheme, with one objector stating:
"As well as preventing cars and vans, they also prevent the mechanised road sweepers. The only way to remove accumulated litter and debris, including broken glass, is with a manual sweep."
In New Ferry, a similar scheme saw cycle lanes quickly filled with rubbish because maintenance vehicles simply couldn’t access them.
Trip Hazards and Hidden Dangers
Hard barriers, particularly low-profile "orcas" or "armadillos," have been directly linked to accidents. In a London trial, over 55 pedestrians tripped on mini-orcas in just the first 24 hours after installation. The danger isn’t just to pedestrians—motorcyclists and cyclists themselves have crashed after hitting these obstacles, especially in wet or dark conditions.
Even the British Motorcyclists Federation has warned that:
"Inadvertent contact with these devices can quickly destabilise any two-wheeled vehicle with the potential to throw the rider into the path of other road users."
Where Do Vehicles Go When They Break Down?
Segregated cycle lanes take up road width, leaving little room for broken-down vehicles to pull over. This creates major issues, particularly on busy routes where traffic flow is crucial. An objector to the Bayswater Road scheme raised this exact issue, stating:
"There will be no easy access to the kerbside through the 3-metre gap between the bollards, which could result in the vehicle having to stop on the reduced width carriageway, thereby hindering the flow of traffic considerably."
3. The Real Issue: Badly Designed Cycle Infrastructure
While promoting cycling is a good thing, badly designed infrastructure creates more problems than it solves. Instead of floating bus stops and hard barriers, we need practical, balanced solutions that work for all road users.
Alternatives That Work
Shared Bus and Cycle Lanes: Instead of floating bus stops, cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam integrate bus and cycle lanes, with clear priority rules that allow buses to pull in safely.
Wider, Well-Marked Cycle Lanes Without Hard Barriers: Instead of using bollards, painted cycle lanes with clear markings allow flexibility for vehicles and emergency services while still providing a dedicated space for cyclists.
Separate Cycle Paths Away From Main Roads: Where possible, cycle routes should be placed on quieter streets or dedicated paths rather than forcing unnecessary conflicts on busy arterial roads.
Conclusion: A Dangerous Mistake That Needs Rethinking
Floating bus stops and segregated cycle lanes with hard barriers are not the solution to road safety. They introduce new dangers, create unnecessary conflict between road users, and make essential road functions—such as maintenance and emergency response—more difficult.
The answer to promoting cycling is not to force dangerous interactions between cyclists and pedestrians or to clutter roads with obstacles. Instead, councils should focus on common-sense solutions that genuinely improve safety for everyone—without making roads more dangerous in the process.
It’s time to stop blindly following bad design trends and start thinking practically about how we make cycling safe without making the roads worse for everyone else.
📢 Want to learn more about the future of cycling in Wirral?
Read our Future of Cycling On Wirral whitepaper at www.inkbyte.co.uk/cycling to explore better alternatives for road safety, infrastructure, and active travel planning.
Comments