Access Controls on cycle routes – Putting up barriers to active travel

Despite having over 1900 kilometers of highway within the Kirklees metropolitan council area, safe on-highway cycling infrastructure totals less than 1 km, and further construction has seen little progress. 

The lack of safe on highways routes makes access to Kirklees’ extensive network of greenways all the more important for cycling, wheeling, and walking. Despite this, many access points to the greenway and towpath network are guarded by both historic and new access barriers that appear to be designed for an overly narrow and outdated perception of a ‘standard’ bicycle. Although often installed with the good intention of improving safety or preventing access by motor vehicles, this design inherently excludes a wide variety of cycles and mobility aids now in common use. These physical obstructions are a common source of frustration for people who cycle—and for many, they make active travel impossible altogether.

Where on one hand active travel institutions are removing access barriers to allow a greater number of people to travel by active modes, Kirklees Council and Transpennine Rail Upgrade are ignoring best practice and guidelines in still installing these draconian measures. 

Why Are Barriers Installed?

Barriers are typically introduced with good intentions. Local authorities may install them to:

– Prevent unauthorised vehicle access (particularly motorbikes or mopeds),
– Reduce cycling speeds at conflict points,
– Discourage anti-social behaviour,
– Protect more vulnerable path users like walkers or horse riders.

However, these barriers often do more harm than good, particularly when implemented without fully considering their impact on accessibility. In many cases, they can be easily bypassed by those determined enough, ultimately depriving everyone of the benefits that more cycling journeys can bring.

Who Gets Excluded?

Despite their intention to keep out motorbikes, many barriers are surprisingly ineffective at doing so. Determined riders often find ways around, lifting bikes over, bypassing via adjacent land, or even modifying barriers themselves. What’s more, many modern electric motorbikes—such as Sur-Rons—are no wider than standard bicycles and can easily slip through, undermining the very purpose of the barriers while continuing to exclude legitimate users on non-standard cycles.

A-Frame barriers on the Wilton Greenway that require standard bicycles to be lifted and twisted to gain access

While some non-disabled cyclists may find barriers an inconvenience, they can be a total block to others. People riding adapted cycles, trikes, tandems, handcycles, or towing trailers or child seats often find themselves completely unable to pass through. For disabled cyclists, parents with young children, or older riders, these obstructions are not just annoying—they’re discriminatory.

What Do the Guidelines Say?

Thankfully, there is now clear guidance that acknowledges this issue. The Department for Transport’s Local Transport Note 1/20 (LTN 1/20), published in July 2020, provides detailed guidance for designing inclusive cycling infrastructure. It makes a strong policy case for removing barriers that hinder access for disabled cyclists and those using non-standard cycles, stating:

“Access controls that require the cyclist to dismount or cannot accommodate the cycle design vehicle are not inclusive and should not be used.”
— LTN 1/20, 8.3.2

If some form of access control is absolutely necessary to deter motor vehicles, the guidance is clear that it must not prevent legitimate use by people on all types of cycles. To help infrastructure designers plan for this, LTN 1/20 introduces the concept of a ‘cycle design vehicle’, representing larger cycles like tricycles, handcycles, and cargo bikes. This vehicle is 2.8 metres long, requires a minimum turning circle of 4 metre external radius, and can be up to 1.2 metres wide.

Where bollards are used, they should be spaced not less than 1.5 metres apart, in order to allow the design vehicle to pass through without difficulty:

“Where bollards are placed in cycle tracks a clear width of 1.5m is required for access by the full range of cycles”
— LTN 1/20, 13.2.2

Anything narrower may effectively block access for many legitimate users, and risk falling foul of the Equality Act 2010 by excluding disabled people and others using adapted cycles.

Wheels for Wellbeing—and Local Action in Kirklees

Nationally, organisations like Wheels for Wellbeing have been instrumental in raising awareness about the barriers disabled people face when cycling. Their Guide to Inclusive Cycling makes it clear that physical obstructions on cycle routes frequently breach the Equality Act 2010, effectively excluding people who use adaptive cycles, mobility aids, or even larger family bikes. Their research shows that 85% of disabled cyclists face problems with access barriers—turning what should be an inclusive, active travel network into a series of dead ends.

Here in Kirklees, that national message is backed up by the practical work of local charities such as Experience Community and Streetbikes. Experience Community supports disabled people to access the countryside using adaptive cycles and has worked with landowners and councils to identify and remove inaccessible infrastructure across Yorkshire. Streetbikes, meanwhile, runs regular inclusive cycling sessions in the region, offering access to a wide range of adapted bikes and working with participants to identify and overcome barriers to everyday cycling. Both organisations demonstrate the transformative impact of inclusive design—and the urgent need to remove obstacles that continue to exclude many from our cycle network.

SUSTRANS and the “Paths for Everyone” Project

Sustrans, custodians of much of the National Cycle Network (NCN), have acknowledged the role barriers have played in excluding users. As part of their “Paths for Everyone” initiative, they have committed to making the network accessible to all by 2040.One of the first steps has been reviewing and removing thousands of physical barriers. Their Barriers Review, published in 2020, identified that of over 16,000 barriers on the NCN, a majority were non-compliant with LTN 1/20. Sustrans now works with local partners and landowners to replace them with alternatives—such as bollards spaced widely enough to allow inclusive access, or surveillance and community engagement schemes to address anti-social behaviour without resorting to exclusion. Starting from 2020, Sustrans have removed or redesigned over 1000 barriers, and are now improving around 400 barriers per annum.

Access to the Spen Ringway at Thornleigh Drive Where chicane barriers have been removed. A locked gate provides access for maintenance vehicles.

Local Progress and Persistent Challenges in Kirklees

In Kirklees, Sustrans has been actively removing barriers along both the Spen Ringway and Spen Valley Greenway, while also widening access points and addressing other obstacles to improve inclusivity. Similarly, the Canal & River Trust (CRT) is undertaking works this summer to remove A-frame and chicane barriers as part of their programme to widen and resurface the Huddersfield Narrow and Broad Canal towpaths.

Restrictive barriers on the Huddersfield Narrow Canal will be removed as part of surfacing works

However, not all recent developments align with inclusive design principles. Kirklees Council has installed bollards with 1.2-metre spacing on the Primrose Lane surfacing project, funded by the Active Travel Fund and leading to the Spen Valley Greenway. This spacing appears to draw from TAL 2/13, a 2013 advisory note focused on hostile vehicle mitigation in pedestrianised environments—an entirely different context to inclusive active travel routes—rather than adhering to the more recent guidance provided by Local Transport Note 1/20.

Even more concerning is the attitude of some local authorities towards the issue. When engaging with Kirklees Council on the matter of inaccessible bollards, officers questioned whether disabled people were even attempting to cycle through these barriers. The council asked for evidence that disabled cyclists were trying to use the routes, effectively demanding that disabled people ‘prove’ their existence and need for accessible infrastructure, despite being prevented from accessing these routes in the first place. This approach not only demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Equality Act 2010, but also reinforces the harmful notion that infrastructure should be designed for the ‘average’ user. In fact, the Equality Act places an anticipatory duty on public bodies: they must make public spaces as accessible as reasonably possible without being asked and without waiting for a disabled person to experience discrimination. Waiting for complaints from Disabled people and excluding by default is not only poor policy—it is unlawful discrimination. That reality is all the more frustrating when we know that these measures are already ineffective.

Another example of poor accessibility is the recently reopened underpass at Deighton Station, provided by the Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU) as an alternative route during the prolonged closure of the Birkby Bradley Greenway for TRU works. Regrettably, this underpass includes a tight, restrictive chicane barrier, rendering it inaccessible to many users, particularly those with adapted cycles or mobility aids.

Barriers recently re-installed at Peace Pit Lane, Deighton

These instances highlight the ongoing need for local authorities and infrastructure projects to prioritise inclusive design, ensuring that all users can safely and comfortably access active travel routes.

Time for a Rethink

Barriers on cycle paths create more problems than they solve. In a climate and public health crisis, the need for inclusive, accessible infrastructure has never been more urgent. Local authorities, landowners, and active travel planners must align with the national guidelines and remove unnecessary physical obstructions from our paths.

To quote LTN 1/20 again:

“Design should begin with the principle that all potential cyclists and their machines should be catered for in all cycle infrastructure design.”

 — LTN 1/20, 1.4.1

The message is clear. If we want to create a truly inclusive network for cycling and wheeling, we need to tear down the physical and metaphorical barriers that prevent people from choosing active travel.

If you support the work we do, please consider joining our mailing list to keep up to date with our latest blog posts and newsletters. We regularly post about opportunities to get involved in active travel campaigning across Kirklees, and we really need your support to give Kirklees cyclists a voice.

kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet