Recurring concern

Unsafe shared cycle and pedestrian route design

First to latest report 16 Oct 2014 — 4 Nov 2024

Reports that mention this concern
4
Times this concern has been raised
5
Stated actions linked to this concern
4

What this concern includes

Includes design and layout deficiencies on shared cycle-and-pedestrian routes that create material collision or access risk, including routes crossing tactile paving used by pedestrians, narrow or poorly visible pinch-points, inadequate separation and missing route-specific protective measures.

What is not included
  • Excludes general cycle-lane provision, cyclist training or road-user behaviour where the shared cycle-and-pedestrian route design is not the unsafe condition.
  • Excludes ordinary pedestrian-crossing, road-junction or highway-maintenance concerns unless they directly create the shared-route conflict.
  • Excludes isolated collisions or route use without an identified continuing design or control deficiency.
  • Excludes cycle-only routes, pedestrian-only routes and hazards unrelated to interaction between cyclists and pedestrians.

Reports and published responses 4 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

  1. Oxfordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Polly Mary Margaret Friedhoff · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Polly Mary Margaret Friedhoff, aged 81, died at John Radcliffe Hospital on 2 December 2022 from injuries sustained after a collision with a pedal cyclist on the path beside the River Thames at Iffley Lock, Oxford. The principal concern was the safety of pedestrians using a narrow shared path that is frequently used by cyclists, including some travelling at significant speed, creating a risk of serious injury or death.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient path width for safe sharing by pedestrians and cyclists

    Wider context from the report

    “The concern relates to the safety of users, particularly pedestrians who appear to at greatest risk of injury as was the case with Mrs Friedhoff. Indeed, the speed of the cyclist was not excessive in this case but the injuries caused in the subsequent fall were serious. I understand this part of the path at the lock is popular with pedestrians and cyclists. It is a shared space, albeit strictly speaking it is a footpath and cyclists are not permitted to use it unless they have permission. In reality it is heavily used by cyclists for leisure and commuting and some cyclists travel at significant speed in close proximity to pedestrians. One of the main problems is that the path at the location of Mrs Friedhoff’s accident is only about 2 metres wide. A short distance before this the path is only 1.6 metres wide. I understand from ████████ that national guidance for such a path is 3.5 metres. Mrs Friedhoff’s sons are very familiar with the location and describe it as normal pavement width but with cyclists permitted to cycle on it, thereby creating an obvious accident risk. It is also noteworthy that the surface of the path has been upgraded in recent years which, in all probability, has encouraged its use by cyclists and enabled them to cycle faster. I appreciate that OCC, and perhaps the Environment Agency, have given considerable thought to the safety issue and have not found a clear solution. It is not for me to make recommendations but I do request a further review to see if there are any mitigating measures, not least with clear signage reminding users, particularly cyclists, of the need to take care and slow down around pedestrians. At inquest, there was some evidence and discussion in relation to the following; -A communications package, perhaps with a public consultation element. -Stronger enforcement ( I understand the Environment Agency do not permit cyclists to cycle through locks and there are signs about this but do so nevertheless). I appreciate it is difficult to enforce this and the focus may necessarily be on speed. -Gates or similar to slow cyclists. -Segregation lines but the narrow width of the path no doubt makes this problematic. -Reconfiguring so that the path is redirected through the small woods that are present at the location. This may afford the opportunity to have 2 separate paths at the location, one that is gated for pedestrians and one for cyclists. In short, given my concern that accidents may continue to occur that could result in death, OCC are asked to carry out a safety review in conjunction with the Environment Agency and other stakeholders where appropriate. ”

    Source location

    Polly Mary Margaret Friedhoff · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Undertake volunteer vegetation clearance around the Iffley Lock site.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “(2) Vegetation clearance – Whilst it is noted that the fatality took place in December when typically, overgrown trees/ vegetation may be less of a factor, both organisations appreciate that especially during summer months vegetation growth can restrict user space and visibility increasing the likelihood of conflict. Both the county council and”

    Source location

    Response from Oxfordshire County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 5 November 2024

    Open published response

  2. Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

    AI-generated summary

    Timothy Kevin ATKINS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Timothy Kevin ATKINS died on 2 June 2017 after a collision with another cyclist caused him to fall into the carriageway and sustain severe, unsurvivable head injuries. The collision occurred at a narrow, poorly visible pinch-point on a shared cycle/pedestrian pavement, and concern was raised about the lack of a safety barrier and the need to consider improving cyclist and pedestrian safety.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Hazardous narrow, poorly visible shared cycle/pedestrian pavement corner without a safety barrier

    Wider context from the report

    “The corner of the shared cycle/pedestrian pavement where the cyclists collided is a narrow pinch-point with poor visibility and no safety barrier. ”

    Source location

    Timothy Kevin ATKINS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Improve the Eastern Road cycle path by widening and straightening it, then realigning the kerb, central reservation and crossing point at Burfields Road.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In March 2017 work started on a project to improve transport routes on Portsmouth's Eastern Corridor. This consists of various individual schemes including one to widen and straighten the Eastern Road cycle path across the Burfields Road junction, which will improve safety and visibility.”

    Source location

    2017-0265-Response-by-Portsmouth-City-Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 December 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Obtain agreement from the adjacent caravan park operators to cut back the hedge alongside the cycle path.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Ahead of this work, agreement was obtained in September 2017, from the operators of the adjacent caravan park to cut back their hedge which runs along the length of the cycle path.”

    Source location

    2017-0265-Response-by-Portsmouth-City-Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 December 2017

    Open published response

  3. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Karen Clayton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 2 January 2015, Karen Clayton collided with a pedestrian while cycling in a designated cycle lane in Altrincham and sustained fatal head injuries. The concerns identified included inadequate segregation of pedestrians, cyclists and motor traffic, a confusing contra-flow cycle lane, unclear signage, and weak guidance on pedestrians using cycle paths.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Pedestrian crossing route through a cycle path created by road layout

    Wider context from the report

    “4. Because of the location of the Supermarket and the lay out of the road, there is an obvious crossing-place via the cycle path. Not to use this route by pedestrians intending to walk to the railway station would involve them in crossing the road twice.(Trafford) ”

    Source location

    Karen Clayton · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The current layout is not confusing, and pedestrians use the mandatory cycle lane knowingly to shorten their journeys.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following its introduction no recorded injury accidents had taken place on this link until the accident in question and there haven’t been any recorded accidents to date since. It is the Councils opinion that the current layout is not confusing and pedestrians who walk along the mandatory cycle lane do so knowingly to shorten their journey.”

    Source location

    2015-0388-Response-by-Trafford-Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 15 September 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Pedestrians travelling between the railway station and Tesco do not need to cross Moss Lane twice because controlled crossings are available at both ends.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There are controlled crossings on Moss Lane at the traffic signals junctions at either end of its one way section and the Council does not consider that pedestrians travelling between the railway station and the Tesco Supermarket have to cross the road twice to reach their destination.”

    Source location

    2015-0388-Response-by-Trafford-Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 15 September 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The Council considers the existing road layout, crossings and related arrangements adequate, so no improvements are required in this instance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The current layout of the section of Moss Lane between Manor Road and Stamford New Road was designed in accordance with the Department of Transport guidance, namely ‘Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/98 September 1998’ for Contraflow cycling and was constructed in November 2002. Physical segregation of cyclists and vehicular traffic was provided at the entry and exit from the one way street because there was sufficient room to do so and the route is lined and signed in accordance with this document. This layout also corresponds with ‘Transport for Greater Manchester’s current ‘Greater Manchester Cycling Design Guidance’ document. The Council does not concur that there is insufficient room for the three forms of traffic to be effectively segregated on this road.”

    Source location

    2015-0388-Response-by-Trafford-Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 15 September 2015

    Open published response

  4. South London

    AI-generated summary

    Roger William Maurice De Klerk · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 12 November 2013, Roger William Maurice De Klerk was cycling along Addiscombe Road when his bicycle wheels contacted tramlines, causing him to fall into the path of a bus. The bus collided with him and his bicycle. Concerns included the danger posed by tramlines to cyclists, confusing cycle-lane design and signage, and the intended route across tactile paving and pedestrian areas.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Cycle route passing over tactile paving areas

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) For cyclists who do go onto the pavement, the intended route goes over two tactile paving areas and involves contact with pedestrians crossing at the junction. ”

    Source location

    Roger William Maurice De Klerk · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Cycle route conflicting with pedestrians crossing at the junction

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) For cyclists who do go onto the pavement, the intended route goes over two tactile paving areas and involves contact with pedestrians crossing at the junction. ”

    Source location

    Roger William Maurice De Klerk · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct the junction safety review with TfL designers and obtain short- and long-term improvement options.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following the findings of your Coroner’s inquest, the council has agreed to carry out a detailed review of the junction of Addiscombe Road / Cherry Orchard Road with the aim of finding any improvements that will assist cyclist and improve road safety at this site. To this end, the council is requesting TfL’s design team (with expertise employed on TfL’s cycling better junction review and central London cycle Superhighway design) to carry out this review and provide the council with a range of workable options. These will include both short term options that can be implemented quickly, and more extensive improvement. We are entering into discussions with TfL regarding cycling Quietway funding with a view to making such more extensive improvement by 2016.”

    Source location

    2014-0448-Response-De-Klerk
    Page 1 · response
    Published 16 October 2014

    Open published response

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026