Earlier this week, floating bus stops — the controversial schemes which makes the bike lanes go around a bus stop, segregating cyclists from motor traffic — made headlines as London Mayor Sadiq Khan decided to go against his own party member’s request to order a halt to the ‘bus stop bypasses’.
The request was made amidst continued pleas from many disabled charities and activities, as well as pointing out the issues this design can cause to the older populace, as pedestrians are required to make their way through a mini-crossing to go over from the pavement to the footpath.
However, Sadiq Khan has now found himself an ally in Green Party’s leader in the London Assembly, Caroline Russell, who praised the incumbent mayor for his decision to not buckle under pressure from party members, but at the same time called for more thorough research, thought and discussion — and ultimately, implementation of improved infrastructure that serves the needs for both cyclists as well as the elderly and the disabled.
> Leaked documents suggest "low risk" of cyclist collisions at "floating bus stops", as blindness campaigners urge safety action on design
Russell wrote that she had meeting with Londoners to talk about street designs in particular bus stop bypasses, including a number of organisations such as Inclusion London, Wheels for Wellbeing, Action Vision Zero, Transport for All and Guide Dog Campaigners.
“Bus stop bypasses are relatively new to London’s streets. They are being installed to protect children and less confident people on bikes from traffic danger. Some have been squeezed in without enough space and designs vary from place to place,” the Islington Borough councillor said.
“I’ve heard that unfamiliar and inconsistent street designs are confusing and can lead to disabled people fearing making everyday journeys and that’s not okay.
“Some people riding bikes are inconsiderate and that needs tackling. And so are some drivers. Is poor behaviour, by some people cycling, a reason to make children ride round buses unprotected on main roads?
“TfL were right to collect evidence about the good safety record and low risk posed by bus stop bypasses. But that’s not the whole picture. If new street layouts cause anxiety to disabled, blind and vision-impaired people that needs urgent action too.
“TfL should be able to create inclusive streets where everyone can feel confident getting on and off buses independently at bus stop bypasses AND children and unconfident Londoners on bikes are protected from traffic”
“This needs:
- early engagement and co-design with disabled and vision-impaired Londoners
- consistent designs
- clear expectations about who gives way to whom
- clarity for people on bikes about the need to pause at a bus stop bypass to let people cross the bike lane
“It also means:
- agreeing the safety purpose of vision zero projects and
- extensive communication with all Londoners so everyone is clear about how bus stop bypasses work and the need to keep each other safe as we make our daily journeys.
She concluded her Twitter thread saying: “I’m glad to see the Mayor has not given up on bus stop bypasses. I hope TfL will work to keep all Londoners safe and show that it understands the impact of unfamiliar street designs on the journeys of older, disabled, blind and vision-impaired people.”
> Cyclists to be banned from Oxford Street as part of Sadiq Khan’s pedestrianisation plans, but could be allowed to cycle at night
The thread from Russell seems to have been well-received by many cyclists and cycling campaigners. London Cycling Campaign’s Head of Communications, Simon Munk, perhaps put it best: “Thoughtful, nuanced thread from an ace politician! We need more of this and not just on ‘floating’ bus stops.
“So, can floating bus stops be improved? Absolutely. Is it vital we listen to concerns/act? Yes. Does that mean ban/ moratorium/ veto/ end to inclusive cycling routes? No.”
Feel free to share your experiences with floating bus stops and what do you think about them in the comments…
Add new comment
25 comments
"Cyclists should not be allowed on the roads"
If cars (Motor vehicles) were invented tomorrow and it was known that they would cause about 30,000 KSIs per year they would definitely not be allowed on the roads. Fortunately we invented motornormativity shortly after the motor vehicle.
I think we've moved on a bit now and we should be saying that drivers cause 30,000 KSI's a year. Also I suspect an additional number of deaths can be attributed to pollution caused by cars being driven.
Having said that the fact that cars are potentially dangerous has been known since they were invented but the motoring lobby has persuaded successive governements that casualties are an acceptable price for the economic benefits of manufacturing and selling automobiles. Not to mention the perceived feeling of "freedom" they give to the driver. I doubt that if cars were invented tomorrow that anything would be different.
A link to an interesting read below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed:_The_Designed-In_Dange...
"I think we've moved on a bit now and we should be saying that drivers cause 30,000 KSI's a year. Also I suspect an additional number of deaths can be attributed to pollution caused by cars being driven.
Having said that the fact that cars are potentially dangerous has been known since they were invented but the motoring lobby has persuaded successive governements that casualties are an acceptable price for the economic benefits of manufacturing and selling automobiles. Not to mention the perceived feeling of "freedom" they give to the driver. I doubt that if cars were invented tomorrow that anything would be different."
You've pinched those arguments from the American Gun Lobby
That would be trying to push back against the depersonalising language of motornormativity I think ("car crashes into building"...).
Times have changed perhaps but I'm pretty sure that the presence of - or potential of - large sums of money is still warping reality, attracting people and bending - if not breaking - rules and laws. We're still all about "growth" apparently?
However the "PR" of the development of motoring is a sobering study. (Still ongoing - witness the VW emissions scandal, "plan for drivers"...). It shows more than the usual lies, distortions, political corruption or "state capture", disregard for environmental or human consequences etc.
Too many examples to list but the invention of jaywalking and the leaded petrol saga stand out.
Cyclists have the right to use the roads— they are public roads, not bus, car, or HGV roads.
"...we're not a perfect race..."
In fact, we're not a separate 'race' at all. We're not even a separate people. We ride bikes, we walk and, by and large, we drive motor vehicles too. Just like you, Abraham.
But statistically better.
And even if we do get it wrong on a bike, we don't weigh 10t with all the risking of others' lives that that entails.
Meanwhile, Abraham manages in one puff of steam from his ears to complain simultaneously that cyclists are going faster than 20mph and that 20mph limits are medieval.
To be fair, it was the cyclist who said "we're not a perfect race", not the bus driver othering us.
Lets not forget the bus driver who said cyclists have to stop just before a bus stop and look around...
https://youtu.be/SF4u42-lx84
Beer? Did he taste it? It might look like beer...
Those aren't kimonos. They're wearing hakama pants and keikogi tops.
Apparently speeding cyclists are the major problem in the Royal Parks, in London!
https://x.com/baoigheallain/status/1852267677948997717?s=46&t=qoU8Nofl6k...
Definitely the cyclist's fault - they fled the scene but left their bike there.
Bloody hell.
Always amazes me how hard some people must be trying to have "accidents".
From my observations, the standard of driving by bus drivers in London is getting worse and worse.
100% agree.
Indeed.
As seen here:
https://youtu.be/SF4u42-lx84
The operators may have found it harder to recruit and retain drivers in recent years though but - in the interests of balance, and in support of people who do a hard job for little money - I can't say I noticed the standard of bus driving in London deteriorating throughout the 2010s.
Bus driver : "I am professional motorist but I don't understand how to properly drive where there are cyclists. So I think we should ban the cyclists".
I think this rhetorical
What do you say wtjs ?!
Are they loading on the zig-zags, or driving with the tail-lift down?!
What do you say wtjs ?!
Of course it's rhetorical! OpSnap Lancs is the most efficient way yet devised of getting videos of driving offences into the bin, although they try it on with the gullible when they think the complainant isn't the type to follow it up- they claim to be taking action where their devious form of words includes 'doing nothing' under 'taking action'. No photo or video tonight - I'm cycle camping in the Lakes
Hope it's at least a 3 season bag.
It's warmer up here than it was on the Whitehaven to Sunderland C2C a month ago!
I'm glad to see some push back against the idea that floating bus stops are inherently bad, or that scrapping them would be without consequence.
But also pleased that there is to be an effort to consider the design, and to differentiate between the ones that have been badly installed and the better ones, and hopefully political will not just to ensure future ones are good, but existing ones are improved where required..
Indeed.
I think it's yet another case where knowledge is not the problem *, space is not the problem, money is not even the problem. Because this is "change" it's all about feelings. So "politics" and "messaging" and "feeling listened to" are vastly more important than any stats or facts.
* Although I'm sure there are plenty folks who could usefully view e.g. this article and video on the best floating bus stop infra (or this informed UK perspective) or even spend some time using this infra in NL...