Concerns have intensified over the safety and accessibility of urban cycling infrastructure for visually impaired pedestrians, particularly in relation to so-called “floating” bus stops first implemented in London in 2013 and subsequently adopted in other UK cities including Manchester and Leeds. These bus stops position cycle lanes between the sidewalk and the bus boarding area, allowing cyclists to pass buses without entering traffic lanes. However, this design relies heavily on cyclists yielding at designated pedestrian crossings marked by black and white stripes but lacking traditional safety features like Belisha beacons.

Advocates for blind and partially sighted individuals argue that adherence to these crossings by cyclists is inconsistent, creating dangerous situations for pedestrians boarding or alighting buses. A widely circulated video from the National Federation of the Blind of the UK illustrates cyclists passing at speed without stopping, forcing vulnerable individuals—including the elderly, frail, and visually impaired—to navigate swiftly and nervously across cycle lanes. Some pedestrians have been knocked over, and cyclists that do stop risk rear-end collisions from fellow riders who fail to halt.

The issue highlights a broader tension between the needs of different urban commuters. Erik Matthies, policy lead for the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), said the introduction of floating bus stops occurred with little consideration for those with sight loss, leaving blind individuals feeling marginalized in transport planning. One RNIB member described having to ask out loud for assistance when boarding buses, a practice described as disempowering and humiliating. This situation contributes to a reluctance among the visually impaired to venture outdoors independently, effectively restricting their mobility.

At the same time, public frustration over cycling-related pedestrian injuries is growing. Last year, 234 pedestrians were killed or seriously injured by cyclists in the UK, representing a 71% increase since 2016. While motor vehicles remain the greater overall risk on roads, some cities have taken strong measures against irresponsible cycling. For example, the mayor of Como, Alessandro Rapinese, who was injured in a cycling incident in July, has banned all two-wheeled vehicles from the city center starting this month.

Experts recommend a multifaceted approach to address these challenges. Calls have increased for tighter regulation of electric bikes—particularly heavy, fast models that currently operate without tax, insurance, or licensing—alongside stronger enforcement of existing traffic laws. Will Norman, London’s walking and cycling commissioner, has criticized a minority of cyclists whose dangerous conduct harms public safety and damages the reputation of all cyclists. London’s City police have taken a proactive stance, conducting spot checks and imposing fines or educational meetings between offenders and blind pedestrians.

The growth of dockless e-bike schemes, now numbering around 50,000 in London alone, adds complexity. Operators benefit commercially from public space yet face criticism for insufficiently managing safety and clutter. While some have started offering insurance and improved parking infrastructure, advocates urge these companies to leverage data analytics to identify and discipline reckless riders.

Internationally, better-managed schemes provide examples. Saint-Malo in Brittany, France, features well-organized e-bike systems with clear parking solutions, serving as potential models for UK cities.

The UK government has responded cautiously, pausing the rollout of new floating bus stops and preparing for citywide regulation of dockless e-bikes to replace fragmented local policies. Stakeholders emphasize the importance of including the perspectives of disabled users in future transport planning to ensure urban mobility innovations do not come at the expense of vulnerable populations.