Floating bus stops under review amid safety concerns
Campaigners have welcomed the Government's decision to order an immediate suspension of bus stops where pedestrians board and disembark directly from or to a cycle lane.
The schemes, known as 'shared use bus stop boarders', have been widely criticised for forcing pedestrians to 'run the gauntlet' of cyclists on bike lanes.
Now, new design guidance will be drawn up which must fully consider how disabled people can use buses without risking injury from cyclists.
Last year, The Telegraph revealed how academics found guide dogs avoided floating bus stops because they encountered cyclists travelling at speed on bike lanes. A University College London (UCL) professor even described such stops as 'conflict zones' between pedestrians and cyclists.
El Briggs, head of policy, public affairs and campaigns at Guide Dogs, which commissioned the UCL study, said: 'Our research has shown the significant fear, anxiety and distress caused by bus stop boarders for disabled people.
'We are glad the Government has listened to our concerns. Our research shows bus stop boarders are confusing, difficult to detect, and can create frightening near-misses with cyclists. No one should have to risk stepping into harm's way just to board or leave a bus.'
Simon Lightwood, the local transport minister, announced the 'pause' on the 'particularly problematic' bus stops in a statement to MPs last week.
He said bus stops should be 'accessible to all', adding that he was also aware of MPs' concerns 'about the behaviour of some cyclists' at zebra crossings where many fail to stop.
However, disability campaigners believe the other more common type of floating bus stop – so-called 'bus stop bypasses' where passengers use a zebra crossing over a cycle lane to reach a bus stop island – should also be halted.
Sarah Gayton, of the National Federation of the Blind UK, said: 'All types of floating bus stops are not safe or accessible for blind people, as well as all bus passengers.
'Guidance will not resolve this design flaw. The only solution is for the bus to pull up to the pavement curb where passengers can board and alight without crossing any cycle lane.
'We want cyclists to be safe, but not at the expense of the most vulnerable people; pedestrians, but particularly blind and disabled pedestrians.'
Last year, Transport for London (TfL) was forced to apologise after an official safety report into 164 of these bus stops failed to disclose the extent of pedestrians injured at such locations.
TfL's report concluded the risk to pedestrians was 'very low' and wrongly claimed only four people were injured – two seriously – between 2020 and 2022 at floating bus stops with the island.
However, The Telegraph revealed there were in fact six collisions – three serious – during that period, prompting TfL to apologise.
Analysis also showed that on average only one in 10 cyclists stop for pedestrians at zebra crossings, despite those on foot being classified as the most vulnerable road users in the Highway Code.
Referring to the suspension of bus stop boarders, a Department for Transport spokesman said: 'The safety and accessibility of our roads and pavements is an absolute priority.
'That's why the Government will ask all local authorities in England to halt the implementation of floating bus stops until new statutory guidance is created.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Boris Johnson fails to understand his role in the rise of Reform UK
SIR – Boris Johnson argues that his former colleagues in the Conservative Party should ignore Nigel Farage and Reform UK (report, July 5). Mr Johnson appears to be unaware that the rise of Reform is almost entirely his fault. He squandered a massive parliamentary majority by ignoring the wishes of the Conservative electorate: opening our borders to mass low-skilled migration; allowing damaging wokery to subvert women's rights; pursuing economically illiterate net zero policies; and failing to keep reasonable control of the behaviour of his Downing Street staff during Covid. In its growing support for Reform, the public is signalling that it has had enough of tone-deaf politicians who wilfully ignore the wishes of voters and break promises in their manifestos. The fact that Mr Johnson is unable to see this only confirms the diagnosis. Will Curtis Raydon, Suffolk SIR – Boris Johnson has failed to grasp the most rudimentary principle of politics, which is that the first duty of any government is to secure the borders. Nigel Farage and his party take this obligation seriously, while Mr Johnson, along with other Tory prime ministers in recent years, singularly failed in this crucial area, with disastrous consequences. Will Forrow Dawlish , Devonshire SIR – It's a bit rich for Boris Johnson to tell us to ignore Nigel Farage. Mr Johnson's 'green industrial revolution' included the banning of sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030, a massive expansion in the number of wind turbines, and unrealistic targets to cut emissions. His green obsession has left us with the most expensive energy of all the developed nations, deindustrialisation, and impoverishment of the UK population. N H Bailey Stockport, Cheshire SIR – Boris Johnson appears ignorant of the thousands of voters who have switched to Reform UK because of Tory arrogance and incompetence. One hopes that Kemi Badenoch has a proper grasp of recent Conservative failings, and will ignore both him and those who, incredibly, believe that bringing Mr Johnson back to repeat past mistakes might somehow lead to a different outcome next time. Stephen Kemp Leicester SIR – For the first time ever, I agree with Boris Johnson. Nigel Farage is a serial political failure, rejected by voters on many occasions. As a member of the European parliament, he failed to support British farmers and fishermen. Like his hero Donald Trump, Mr Farage lives for publicity, making ridiculous promises and fooling the gullible. Without constant attention, he would fade away. A Lloyd Liverpool
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Parents who lose pregnancy before 24 weeks to be entitled to bereavement leave
Parents will be entitled to bereavement leave if they lose a pregnancy before 24 weeks, under new plans to be unveiled by the Government. Ministers are set to amend the Employment Rights Bill so that people will be entitled to protected time off in the event of a pregnancy loss, regardless of the stage at which it happens. Angela Rayner has said that the change will give 'people time away from work to grieve'. Under current rules, parents are entitled to up to two weeks of bereavement leave if a child dies before they turn 18, or they experience a stillbirth after 24 weeks of pregnancy. Amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, will see the right to 'at least one week's leave' expanded to people who lose a pregnancy before 24 weeks. The exact length of the leave will be specified in later legislation after a consultation. The Bill already makes provision to expand bereavement leave, giving employees protected time off to grieve the loss of a loved one. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has said that the amendments will offer 'dignity and respect'. 'For many families, including mine, that have been affected by pregnancy loss, the decision around returning to work or taking sick leave to grieve properly can make an already painful experience even more difficult,' he said. 'Grief doesn't follow a timetable, and expanding rights to leave for pregnancy loss will ensure every family gets the time they need to heal without worrying about their job.' Deputy Prime Minister Ms Rayner similarly said that 'no-one who is going through the heartbreak of pregnancy loss should have to go back to work before they are ready'. 'I am proud that this Government is introducing a day-one right to protected time off work after experiencing pregnancy loss, giving people time away from work to grieve and spend time with their families,' she said. Vicki Robinson, chief executive of the Miscarriage Association, welcomed the announcement, saying it was 'a hugely important step that acknowledges the often very significant impact of pre-24-week loss, not only for those experiencing the physical loss, but for their partners too'. It comes after ministers announced they would review the system of parental leave, declaring that the current system is 'not working' for families. Mr Reynolds said the Government will investigate the whole system for supporting new parents to take time off work when they have a baby, including maternity leave, paternity leave and shared arrangements.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Don't assume that junking juries will speed up justice
Proposals will be unveiled this week that could mean crimes now decided by juries are heard instead by a judge with two magistrates in a radical change to a centuries-old cornerstone of our justice system. No one would deny the present crisis in criminal justice. Delays are at record levels: nearly 80,000 cases are waiting to be heard and, without reform, the backlog is predicted to reach 100,000 by 2029. In December, Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, appointed Sir Brian Leveson, a highly experienced former Court of Appeal judge, to propose measures for reform. He was specifically tasked with exploring the idea of a new intermediate court between magistrates and the Crown Court, consisting of a district judge sitting with two magistrates. • Priest, 83, is arrested in Palestine Action protest in London This new court could lead to jury trial being scrapped for thousands of middle-ranking offences. At present defendants are allowed the choice of being tried by a judge and jury or by magistrates for such crimes as theft, common assault with a racial or religious aggravation, dangerous driving, some offences of criminal damage and drug possession. Defendants in fraud cases could also lose the right to jury trial. With certain offences, Leveson is expected to give defendants the right to ask for a judge-only trial. And if there is strong public disapproval of a crime, some may do just that. But many would surely prefer to wait and chance their arm with a jury and the higher prospect of acquittal. Meanwhile, lower-level offenders, whose crimes carry perhaps up to two years in jail, would lose the choice of jury trial altogether. • The judge who sentences criminals with a synthetic voice Is the state of the system now so dire that eroding the right to trial by one's peers is justified? Many believe it is when weighed against the injustice of serious crimes going unpunished through lengthy delay. But judges are already privately voicing concerns. A new court will cost money and training and need more district judges, magistrates and criminal lawyers who are prepared to do this doubtless lesser-remunerated work. Juries give no reasons for their verdicts; jury room deliberations are sacrosanct. Non-jury courts, however, will have to do so. There may be endless appeals, fresh delays and costs, defeating the whole object. Instead of jettisoning centuries-old rights, the existing system could be better funded to provide more judge-time and sittings. After all, the chronic lack of this, exacerbated by Covid, is what has led to the present crisis. Either way, more funding will be needed. But if the sacred cow of jury trial is to be sacrificed to expediency, the cull must be worth it. Frances Gibb is a former Times legal editor and host of The Lord Chancellors: Where Politics meets Justice podcast
